« I'll jump on the Sarah Palin bandwagon. | Main | Sorry About The Hiccup »

Iran So Far Away

Ah, the Boston Globe. If you ever need to remind yourself how clueless the establishment mainstream liberal media can be, they never disappoint.

To wit, today's column by H. D. S. Greenway, entitled "Obsessing about Iran."

Reading the column, I find myself wondering just why people insist on seeing Iran as a threat to peace and stability, as a danger to the world's economy, as an irrational actor in an extremely sensitive region.

Could it be because they've spent literally decades supporting and waging terrorism around the world? Nah.

Could it be because they have a lengthy history of lashing out at anyone who they think might not side with them? Including mining international waters in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz? Not, that, either.

Could it be that, despite Mr. Greenway's assurances, they are actually as close as six months from possessing a nuclear weapon? Silly me.

Could it be that there are literally dozens of ways Iran could cause huge mischief and wreak havoc, should they so choose? I doubt it.

The plain, unvarnished, simple truth is that Greenway's argument -- along with many of those who howl about "Bush's eeeeevil plan to attack innocent Iran" are basing their beliefs on a single, flawed presumption -- that the rulers of Iran can be counted on to act in a rational, reasonable manner. That they will be governed first and foremost by their own self-interest.

There simply isn't any evidence to support that.

So the only responsible thing to do, as I see it, is to recognize that they are not rational -- if not downright batshit crazy -- and deal with them from that basis. The first thing to do is to minimize the harm they can cause should they try to lash out, and that means keeping them from getting nukes.

And that must be done in an absolutely verifiable manner. They have proven, time and again, that they can not be trusted to keep their word. Any resolution needs to be permanent and not based on simply their promise -- even if they pinkie-swear.

A huge amount of the world's oil flows through the Straits of Hormuz, and Iran could impair -- if not shut down -- passage through that. Iran has already shown that it can -- and will -- throw shocks through the oil market by causing a little trouble in those waters. If they chose to do so for real, the entire world would be hurting -- and the price of oil, already at record highs, would skyrocket.

So sorry, Mr. Greenway, if I don't take your reassurances that Iran isn't a major threat to world peace. Not only do you have literally years and years of being wrong, but simple common sense and even a casual acquainance with recent Middle East history says otherwise.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/30278.

Comments (14)

"A small country far away a... (Below threshold)
glenn:

"A small country far away about which little is known" Neville Chamberlin describing Czechoslovakia in 1938, right before the Czech President was told by Britain and France that signed treaty obligations would not be honored.

Liberals love to place fact... (Below threshold)
hermie:

Liberals love to place facts into the 'memory hole' when they don't serve their immediate political interests.

Iran HAS been a threat to world peace. Remember the Iraq-Iran war which threatened to spill over to the rest of the region?

Iran IS a threat to world peace. Does Greenway forget Iran's financing of terrorism; especially to Hamas in their attacks against Israel? Iran HAS financed and supplied those 'insurgents' who have taken US and Iraqi lives since Saddam was defeated.

Greenway and other liberals NEED to find a way to elect Obama and dismissing the fact that Iran is and has been a danger to peace, is their little way of saying that Obama will be more 'diplomatic' with Iran..

'Diplomatic'. Like Carter was in the 70's and Chamberlain was in the 30's.

unrelated to the article<br... (Below threshold)
flasher:

unrelated to the article
you remember your prediction about hamas few days ago. well:

"today 3 qasams were launched from gaza"

"A small country far awa... (Below threshold)
Clay:

"A small country far away about which little is known"

Good quote, glenn. As relevant today. Chamberlain's quote is more sobering when one considers two other quotes:

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." ~George Santayana

"What experience and history teach is this -- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles." ~George Wilhelm Hegel

Not a problem. The Hussein ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Not a problem. The Hussein O'Dumbo liberals will put another embassy in Iran and the employee's will become guest for 444 days or more if Iran wants to break it's own record. Heard talk of it yesterday, liberal are incapable of learning.

I'm sorry, you heard discus... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

I'm sorry, you heard discussions about Iranians kidnapping Americans in an embassy that doesn't presently exist?

For a secret agent, you come across a bit thick from time to time.

Unfortunately, Iran has rea... (Below threshold)
Joel:

Unfortunately, Iran has reasons for fearing the US. During WWII, Iran was invaded and occupied by the Soviets, British and Americans to keep the oil flowing. During the occupation they forced the abdication of the reigning shah (Reza Shah) for his son, whom they thought would be more easily swayed to "westernize". They were right--Mohammed Reza Pahlavi did just that. Among other things, he was the first Muslim leader to recognize Israel and he maintained a steady supply of oil to the West.

It was the US, along with Great Britain, that led a coup in 1953 to overthrow the Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh. He was an Iranian nationalist who wanted to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the main source of British clout in the region and a primary source of the Shah's wealth. The replacement PM, an Iranian general named Fazlollah Zahedi, maintained the status quo and the influence of both the Shah and Britain.

Although the Pahlavi aligned his country toward the West, he became increasingly autocratic in his rule. He also sought to modernize his country, usually at the expense of the Islamic clergy. He allowed the arrest of political prisoners and in 1975 abolished all political parties but his own. After his overthrow in 1979, it was feared that the US would continue to support him and eventually allow him to reclaim his throne. After the US admitted him for medical treatment, Ayatollah Khomeini ordered the storming of the US embassy in response.

Someone mentioned the Iran-Iraq war. That eight-year war was started when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980, and the Iraqis were supplied with US weapons and funding. Today, they see their traditional rival Iraq occupied by US troops and building up an increasingly effective armed force supplied by superior US arms and trained by experienced US personnel.

With all that said, I agree with Jay Tea that the rulers of Iran are not rational. I think they have a similar mindset to Stalin, who was already paranoid even before the Germans broke their non-aggression pact and marched almost to the gates of Moscow in 1941. Given the last 70 years, they'd be foolish not to have a jaded eye toward the US even before you bring the fundamentalist Islamic viewpoint. I'd imagine that the average Iranian has been brought up with the notion that America is constantly meddling in Iran's affairs, not for the good of Iran but for the good of America.

I think that's the main reason that we have not escalated the conflict that Iran apparently is so anxious to have. In this scenario we're appealing to the rational Iranians by showing restraint (which is covered by Middle Eastern media but not Western news agencies) while forcing the crazies into more and more desperate measures to hold on to their power. Bush is playing another game of high-stakes poker, betting that the rational Iranians make their play prior to his successor's inauguration. If that's the case, I sincerely hope that Obama's diplomatic overtures to the mullahcracy don't dishearten the rational Iranians and undermine Bush's bet.

Does the H.D.S. stand for H... (Below threshold)

Does the H.D.S. stand for Howling Dumb Shit?

Example:

The United States struggles to blame every wrong in Iraq on the mysterious, hidden hand of Iran.

"Every wrong"? Nice hyperbolic and unfounded generality.

For the record, Iranian-made weapons are killing our men and women. And their Qod operatives have been caught in Iraq by us.

Iran's nuclear laboratories are buried deep, and no one knows exactly where they are.

See there are things called "bunker buster" bombs...

We would also reinforce the widespread belief that we are the forever enemies of all Islam, Shi'ite and Sunni.

This operates under the false assumption that we are enemies of Islam now. Beyond dumb.

Nor is it believed that a strike on Iran would do anything more than set bomb making back a year or two.....My guess is that Iran will go back to making a nuclear weapon.

Wait, I'm confused. Does he or does he not agree with the NIE report on Iran from several months ago? According to the report, the secret nuke program allegedly stopped 4 years ago. And who is exactly is it that's saying a strike would only set back their nuke program 1 or 2 years? If they stopped it 4 years ago, a strike (not that I'm advocating one) would certainly set it back much further than a year or two. And gee, where did he get his expertise on bomb damage assessment? My guess is it's pulled straight out of his rear orifice.

And Bush retains his messianic streak.

Apparently there's something wrong with hoping or believing in Christ as the messiah.

What. A. Clown.

I'm sorry, you heard dis... (Below threshold)

I'm sorry, you heard discussions about Iranians kidnapping Americans in an embassy that doesn't presently exist?

You of all people should recognize hyperbole when you see it, hyperbolist! LOL

Greenway thinks the Iranian... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Greenway thinks the Iranian mullahs are "rational". Guess that explains their use of children to sweep the minefields clear using their own bodies during the Iran-Iraq war. Yeah, that was "rational".

"Could it be that, despi... (Below threshold)
MyPetGloat:

"Could it be that, despite Mr. Greenway's assurances, they are actually as close as six months from possessing a nuclear weapon? Silly me.

So ElBaradei's word is suddenly gospel at Wizbang?
Mohammad al Baradei in Bed with Iran

Months away?
El Baradei: Iran only months away from a bomb
(published in 2005)

Iran bomb is 10 years away, says ElBaradei
(2007)

Looks like a "casual acquainance with" reality "says otherwise".

Why is it up to me to point... (Below threshold)

Why is it up to me to point out the Flock Of Seagulls reference in the title?!

During the Iran-Iraq war the kids were eventually given cheap rugs to roll themselves in so when they blew up they didn't fly all over. I read that President Asshat personally oversaw giving the children their plastic keys to heaven.

MAD applied to the USSR because they loved their children too. This logic is moot in the middle east, where parents dress their infants in suicide bomber costumes for laffs. These people are the 9th century Borg.

Which Borg was stupid enoug... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Which Borg was stupid enough to believe in Heaven? Do not say Locutus or I will be angry.

LOCUTUS !!!!!!! (scamper sc... (Below threshold)

LOCUTUS !!!!!!! (scamper scamper scamper)




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy