Saturday, February 24, 2007

The Threat of Empty Threats

An unusual perspective from inside Iran...from that country's Persian-language Ayande-Nou newspaper, we see an editorial expressing grave concern about the aggressive path Iran's leadership is taking, and the possible consequences:

Given the present circumstances, wisdom and expediency require taking steps in a more reasonable and well-thought-out manner. We should neither exaggerate our abilities nor belittle those of the enemy. As a famous proverb says, "there is no small enemy." Over recent months the trend of developments has been noteworthy.

....our officials said that the issue would not be put on the Security Council agenda; but then it was. In the third phase, our officials said that the U.N. would be unable to pass a resolution headlined "5+1=0;" and yet such a resolution was passed [5+1 is in reference to the sponsors of the Security Council resolution].

Rather than trying to wisely diminish the threat, reduce hostilities and increase our small number of allies, we chose an easier way: to sloganeer and withstand the consequences. And finally, they [Iranian officials] described the resolution as a piece of mere trash paper.

But in our country, the overwhelming message of Iranian politics is that there's no need to worry. Some people say that no one can do a damned thing and that in a nuclear confrontation, America will suffer a defeat.

Interestingly, while all attempts have been made to prove that Iran's nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only, our security and military officials talk of nuclear war and Iran's victory in such a war.

Just like Don Quixote
, we continue to appear optimistic and disseminate information based on this vision, trying in vain to keep the morale of the people high. But it's clear that if we fail to inspect the chess board precisely; if we lack a clear understanding of the existing atmosphere; if we entertain optimism destined to lead to crisis and misunderstanding, then we will lose the game.

A well thought-out and logical analysis - of course, if the Democrats had their way, a binding resolution would pass outlawing any measures of force against Iran, and the concerns listed above would cease to be an issue, and Iran could go happily along its way, building nukes and whistling down the road to their long-dreamed of Holocaust sequel. All the while stringing along fools like Bill Richardson (linked above), who claim we need to address Iran by "speaking credibly from a position of strength", while damning the very strength he claims we need to succeed (a Mitt Romney-type flip, but since Richardson is a Democrat, the media just waves his stupidity through).

And yet, unlike Nazi Germany, there seems to be very little public support among the Persian population for the planned Juden-free World Domination that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems like the tension in Iran is bubbling right below the surface....

UPDATE: Here's an example of the empty boasting that our editorial writer above speaks of:

"We do not see America in a position to impose another crisis on its tax payers inside America by starting another war in the region," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told reporters.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran has prepared itself for any possibility, but insists on constructive cooperation, Mottaki said.

You insist? Well, we'll see....and whose threat is emptier, Mottaki's or Richardson's?

UPDATE II: Richardson, in the Washington Post Op-ed linked above, makes the following false claim:

No nation has ever been forced to renounce nuclear weapons, but many have chosen to do so.

Well, one could say that the Germans were pretty knee-deep in nuclear weapon design/manufacture in the latter days of WWII; and only the carpet-bombing of the German nation prevented a Nazi Nuke. One could also say that while Libya gave up their nuclear weapons program peacefully a few years back, it was only after Gaddafi saw Afghanistan and Iraq overrun by American troops did the lessons that Ronald Reagan taught him in the early '80's resurface.

But why let troublesome things like facts get in the way of a faulty arguement? And who is the media to correct a Democrat, anyway?

UPDATE III: Credit where it is due, always - editorial from Iran via Watching America, an invaluable site for assessing the foreign media's role in anti-Americanism.

No comments: