Those Crazy Iranians

Wednesday, October 26, 2005
One of my regular stops on my visits around the internet is to Pastorius at CUANAS.

He is America's answer to Melanie Phillips for his relentless pursuit of stories on the new antisemitism. Today he has a post on the latest statement from the President of Iran, a call on Muslims to "wipe Israel off the map", given to a group of "students" at a World Without Zionism conference.

While we've heard such rhetoric from Iran on a regular basis, it always steals my breath to hear this from a top leader. He means it, doesnt' he?

Pastorius obviously thinks so. He notes:

Previously, one of the highest ruling clerics in the state of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, said the following:

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world. Jews shall expect to be once again scattered and wandering around the globe the day when this appendix is extracted from the region and the Muslim world."

He means that, folks. You know how I know? It's not just because I'm some crazy neocon. It's because, in threatening Israel with nuclear annihilation, he also speaks of the consequence to his own people. In other words he's not just idly thinking about nuking Israel. He's in the planning stages.

This is why we must put an end to the Iranian regime. There are no if's, and's, or but's about this. We can not allow such a government to exist.


This got me wondering if others would agree with Pastorius' psychoanalysis.

I also wanted to see if the major news services I sometimes visit are reporting this story. It appears Pastorius picked up the story from Yahoo news. What about elsewhere?

CBC: could not find any story
Drudge: could not find any story
CNN: could not find any story. Though on Oct.24 they posted this baby:
TEHRAN, Iran (Reuters) -- U.S. special forces dart through Iran's underground nuclear facilities, gunning down any hapless Iranians standing between them and centrifuges that must be blown to bits.

Much to Tehran's relief, this crack team exists only in a new U.S. computer game. But even these animated saboteurs are too close for comfort, downloadable into Iranian living rooms at the click of a mouse.

The cyberspace troopers have sparked bitter press comment in Iran and a petition asking that the game be shelved.

"Americans have a deep craving for an attack against Iran, but they are going to have to settle for this make-believe assault," wrote the Kayhan daily, whose editor is appointed directly by Iran's Supreme Leader.


BBC News: story not on front page; you must find it by going to the Middle East page where
The story is presented from the Israeli perspective as if an accusation is being made against Iran. BBC reports that:
Correspondents say this was the first time in years that such a high-ranking Iranian official had called for Israel's eradication, although such slogans are still regularly used at regime rallies.

Can anyone verify this last claim - "first time in years"?

Google News: story not on front page; story presently on the World News page, with lead link to BBC story, headlined "Israel warns of Tehran 'danger'" Those scare quotes around danger appear in the original BBC headline.

Fox News: Story appears on front page Iranian Leader: Israel Will Be Destroyed

So dear reader, it is easy to gain some understanding how the various news organizations react to such stories. Some clearly don't take the threat too seriously. Maybe they think the Iranians are just crazy; or perhaps certain journalists and editors concerned have just given up any concern or hope for Israel.

My advice is to keep an eye on Pastorius for news. But the larger question: how seriously do you take Iran, and would you support the US in destroying Iran before it destroys Israel? Or do we have to begin thinking about saving Jews from a world without Israel?

21 comments:

Pastorius said...

Thanks for the link.

Sometimes, I don't bother going into extensive analysis on CUANAS because CUANAS is more about getting as much info out as I can.

Of course, my assertion that the Iranian Mullah meant what he said could be argued against. Just because the Mullah takes into consideration the idea that he would damage a portion of the Arab world, does not mean he, for sure intends to attack Israel. It only means that he has considered the idea enough to have visualized such an attack.

However, I believe we have to take such threats at face value. I don't think we can safely make excuses for belligerant people or nations. We can not afford to say to ourselves, "Oh, he's just being bombastic again." All people who make threats are "being bombastic" until the day they carry through on the threat.

Additionally, no one who utters such a threat should have nuclear weapons at their disposal, ever.

Syl said...

There's a misfortunate typo for scanners who don't go very far. 2nd paragraph there's President of Iraq instead of Iran.

truepeers said...

Thanks Syl; corrected.

Pastorius said...

TruePeers,
What's your opinion? Does he mean it? Do you think it is wiser to take him at his word, or not?

Knucklehead said...

This is somewhat OT but related. Once in a while I'll notice a "talking point" go through the disparate and non-connected community of "liberals" with whom I try to discuss world affairs and policy and such.

One example of this is that it is not important if the UN is corrupt or inept - it is the forum that matters. Forum over substance and they will absolutley accept that as the reality and a necessary one.

Another that I noticed roughly a month ago was some meme that Iran is really a decent country unfairly categorized as some dangerous Islamist republic - they just want to join the peaceful, developed world as a fairly treated member and partner. That there government officials were moving steadily away from hard-line Islamist nonsense.

I don't know where these "talking points" come from. Perhaps they are just the natural conclusions arrived at among people with a similar weltanschauung.

It beats the heck out of me how they can hold such positions in the face of statements such as these. They get apoplexy if a POTUS says "Evil Empire" or "Axis of Evil" yet they have no trouble with leaders of other nations who talk about the destruction of millions of people just because they are Jews who live where there a muslims.

terrye said...

I think the crazy bastard means every word he says. After all he got to throw sand in the face of the US and look where he is today...

I also think the Isrealis believe it, which could be very bad for Iran.

The problem with westerners is that for all their talk about multiculturalism they have the annoying tendency to think people are all alike.

Well we are not. Just because it sounds crazy to some nice European does not mean these fanatics would not willingly sacrifice their own people to kill the Jews and the Crusaders.

flenser said...

"..would you support the US in destroying Iran before it destroys Israel?"

No. Israel is a sovereign nation with the ability to destroy Iran itself if neccessary. I cannot see a case for the US to launch a preemptive attack on Iran because it poses a threat to Israel, or any other country other than the US itself.

I would of course support Israel if it opts to destroy Iran. I'd even support the US destroying Iran, in retaliation for all their acts of war against us over the past thirty years.




"Or do we have to begin thinking about saving Jews from a world without Israel?"

I think to a large extent we are already doing this. My understanding is that more Jews live in America than in Israel, and the door is always open.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

I don't wanna think about it. I just wanna go back to bed. War is not the answer! Kerry 2004!

truepeers said...

TruePeers,
What's your opinion? Does he mean it? Do you think it is wiser to take him at his word, or not?


-I wish I had a better grasp of what they think. Of course it is the easiest and most likely thing for the leaders of an unpopular and illegitimate regime to find an external scapegoat on which to focus the people's anger. Nothing new in that. And nothing new in the fact that wars often follow from such behaviours.

Anyway, I can't help think that the resentment voiced by the Iranian leaders towards the little and big Satan is very real for them. Resentment, to some degree, in inevitable for all of us, and the more I read about the Mullahs the more messed up I think they are. And besides, Islam has a structural tendency towards resentment of the infidel world. The antisemitism that is now pervasive is delusional of course and who can trust pervasively deluded people? The only hope is that they destroy themselves first.

Reportedly, a lot of the Mullahs are drug addicts. (CNN at least has a story up on the drug problem in Iran - there was a recent report that said they have the most junkies per capita).

So, in short, I don't trust them a bit, and think we had better take them at their word. However, what does it mean to "really mean" something? Often we don't know if we really mean it until the moment of truth and we have to act. And even then, the meaning of our act is not immediately apparent. I just don't want the Mullahs to be the ones finding themselves in that situation. They would be among the least likely to hold back.

Flenser, I appreciate your logic that the US has enough reasons of its own to take out Iran or its arms. As Pastorius notes in his post, there are rumours that Iran and friends would like to hit the American cities with the largest numbers of Jews. I believe you live in New York, which I am sure is number one or two on their list. How does that make you and your colleagues feel?

Pastorius also had an interesting post on British Jews buying up property in Israel, in anticipation of a future need to get out of what is becoming an increasingly Judeophobic country. This suggests either the curious logic that Israel is a safer place than Britain in which to live, or that hatred can turn people to morbid thoughts and a desire to go out with one's fellow Jews, or to make one great last stand.

How open would the North American doors really be, if there were a need and desire to evacuate Israel?

chuck said...

I am less concerned about the desire than the means. The wish to destroy Israel is, I think, heartfelt. As long as the means are lacking nothing will come of it. So then, what if Iran acquires atomic weapons? Ah, then there is the question of whether a balance of terror will hold things in check. On this I am not so sure. Mao, for instance, seemed to feel that China could well survive the loss of a hundred million or two. And who wants to live in terror anyway? So there could be some serious decisions to be made in the future. I hope this country is up to it, because I see little hope that Europe will be of any use.

ambisinistral said...

Islamic statements are always so bloodthirsty it is always hard to figure out how much is style and how much substance. They are extremely problematical for exactly that reason.

I believe that a miscalculation, by either side, is the greatest danger in the present situation. Being a pessimist I believe that a miscalculation is inevitable. The results of that miscalculation, both immediate and long term, will be more tragic then all the miseries of the last century combined.

That said, I still hold to the view that it is essential we are not the side that crosses the thresh hold of using of WMDs first.

I know this is never a popular view, but I think the a nuclear, massive chemical or biological attack is so taboo that it will rebound severely on the side that deploys them first. Regardless, once used the gloves will come off in a very brutal manner.

I fear the Salafists don't realize, or perhaps they just don't care, that the side that strikes with those weapons first loses the moral high ground across most of the globe. Perhaps they'll dance for joy in Cairo at a bombing of Tel Aviv, Rome, New York or Central Command in Tampa -- but the rest of the world will well and truely be appalled and revolted by it.

When it happens, things will esculate. Like As Little Bill Daggett said, "But I'm gonna hurt you. And not gentle like before... but bad." When it gets to that phase we'll need all the friends we can gather.

chuck said...

ambisinistral,

I am not nearly as sure as you that the world would be appalled. I don't think Europe would be appalled, I think they would rationalize the destruction of Israel or New York as justified. I think they would be scared, though, and probably kid themselves that they were too wonderful to deserve the same. How long that insanity could last, I have no idea.

On the other hand, if Israel or the US acted first, I am pretty certain the world would be appalled. Because, you know, we can't be bought off. And we are just a bunch of out of control hicks anyway.

RogerA said...

Interesting thread--I frankly dont know what to think of islamic rhetoric--it, in general, tends to be more hyperbolic and flowery. And for the record, I am NOT assuming that persians are arabic, but the linguist issues are the same.

I tend to believe (with absolutely NO supporting evidence) that much of what comes from the mullahs is to placate the larger arabic world. Everything I know about Persians is they are more educated, worldly and secular than their leadership would suggest.

I guess my point is that I think much of the US view toward Iran is set in the hostage crisis of nearly thirty years ago. I am not sure that we have exploited our relative advantages in Iran to our favor--for example, Shiites and the shiite majority in Iraq. I fear we really dont have the appropriate world view, nor do we have the Persian experts to properly bring the Persians into what could be a very important condominium in the Middle East.

Pastorius said...

TruePeers,
The Mullahs are drug addicts?!? Never heard that before. Could you provide a link on that?

As for British Jews buying up property in Israel; have you ever read The Winds of War, and War and Remembrance by Herman Wouk? One of the subplots in those books has to do with a world famous Jewish professor living in Italy during the leadup to the war. We see that he knows Hitler is a bad man, but he can't bring himself to believe that Hitler will really attempt to carry out the plans he has articulated. And besides, the professor is convinced that Europe is the height of civilization. The rest of the people of Europe would never allow this to happen.

Well, we all know they did allow it to happen. In fact, they even helped out.

Most Jews I know lost many of their family members in the Holocaust. The stories are very fresh in their minds. They know that there came a time when it was simply too late to get out. And besides, there was no one willing to take them. Even America turned away ships full of Jews.

This is why I think Jews are buying property in Israel. They know Israel will not turn them away, but America very well might.

See?

Unfortunately for the Jews, there will be no easier way to carry out a Holocaust on their people than to nuke Israel.

Here's the thing; my opinion is that the Europeans probably wouldn't much mind it if Iran nuked Israel. They would say they minded, but I don't think they truly would. In fact, on CUANAS I often say that the Euros have found, in the Islamofascists, someone to do their dirty work for them.

Could it be that there may be some conspiracy between some leftover European Jew-haters and the Islamofascists of the Arab World, to make life intolerable for the Jews in Europe, so that they flee to Israel, only to be nuked by terrorists?

Sounds crazy, right? It's hard to believe leftover Euro anti-Semites would be well-placed enough to be able to really make Europe that unfriendly.

In other words, I don't think there is really is a conspiracy, I just threw that out there, so we could at least consider the possibility.

MeaninglessHotAir said...

chuck,

I hope this country is up to it, because I see little hope that Europe will be of any use.

The Euroweenies are of no use. Zero, zip, nada. They haven't been in years. Consider that theorem proven.

This country is only worth half a use. That is, half of this country is of no use. They don't believe in the military. War is not the answer. 2,000 dead servicemen in Iraq!--screams my local headline this morning, followed by 30,000 dead in Iraq!--the implication being that everyone would have been fine if we'd just left it to Saddam. And I'm sure 90% of my neighbors concur.

Nobody else will step forward.

The Chinese will watch with a sly smile while we and Muslims nuke each other.

What is "the right thing" anyway?

Peter UK said...

Whilst the mullahs lack the means of destruction,it is mere rhetoric,whether or not they mean it,however once they have the means,the threat cannot be continuously reiterated without at some point someone taking you seriously or those threats being made good.
So in my view,if the threats are made when Iran has the bomb it is only a matter of when, not if.

truepeers said...

Pastorius, given the political situation in Iran, I don't honestly know how to weigh rumours that the Mullahs are drug addicted. But all i read suggests that drug use among men in Iran is widely accepted, and this cannot go on without involvement in the trade, on some level, of some Mullahs. And given what we know about drug dealers, it would be surprising if some were not users themselves.

When I wrote the post, I was thinking of the claim, below, from an anti-regime activist. It's no doubt propaganda to some extent. But you are never going to find any official declarations that the Mullahs are junkies, and I believe there must be something to the rumours (for the above-mentioned reason):

She then described an incident of having one day been picked up off the street in a stretch limo by a Mullah who had taken her to his mansion and had had his way with her for almost 24 hours, the whole time getting stoned out of his mind on Opium (90% of the Mullahs are major drug addicts - Khameini’s Opium habit is a very well known fact). When time came for her to leave he’d paid her half of what they’d originally negotiated; when she complained, he pulled a 9 millimeter out of his abaaya and put it in her mouth and told her that if she complained he’d personally bury her in his garden. These stories are everywhere in Iran...we hear them all the time. For us, it’s become normal...sadly.
from Front Page

chuck said...

Everything I know about Persians is they are more educated, worldly and secular than their leadership would suggest.

It's the leaders I worry about. I recall a history show about WWII that had some interviews with Germans who claimed they were worried about the consequences of another war. Something to the effect that they felt great relief at the low casualties in overrunning France, but of course, the casualties came later. Anyway, the point I am making is that the populace needn't be rabid to have a war. This is even truer when war comes to pushing a button, so to speak.

truepeers said...

Pastorius, you surely have well stated the reason for British Jews buying Israeli property. Insurance; and also, I hope, some hope in Israel's future. It reminds me somewhat of my late grandfather who, when he died in London (over ten years ago, when the new antisemitism was harder to see) had precious coins stashed in safety deposit boxes in various parts of the city, just in case he had to flee again in a hurry. I thought he was a little crazy about that, though he was an intelligent and well-educated man who saw the danger well enough in advance the first time.

I'm not so sure about your conspiracy theory. There doesn't need to be an active conspiracy to have all these things coming together. The cultural logic that impels it is something all humans share: an ability to resent those who have gone first in defining monotheism and nationalism, i.e. certain possibilities or knowledge that is inherent in our common human origin.

flenser said...

truepeers

I'd say denial and resignation are the main coping mechanisms. I prefer resignation myself, it fits in better with the whole conservative thing. Liberals, of course, prefer denial.

In the big scheme of things, life is a renewable resource, and none of us are all that valuable.

I imagine a Jew in Israel has a much better chance of being killed in a terrorist attack than one in Britain, yet they go to Israel anyway. So maybe they are making the same calculus I am.

"How can man die better, than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers, and the temples of his gods"

And so on.

A Christian Prophet said...

Apparently there is no way Iran can be successful in it's goal to wipe out Israel. See The Christian Prophet blog:

http://christianprophecy.blogspot.com/