At Large
Persian Ego Rules
The driving force in Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
While there is great speculation on whether or not Iran will achieve the ability to create deliverable nuclear weapons in various time frames, the reality is that Iran’s leaders are wallowing in the attention they receive as key players in global affairs. They don’t care about what is said, just so they remain the center of world interest.
Persian national ego is as much a driving force in Iran’s foreign and defense policy as is the leadership’s desire to politically and economically dominate the Middle East. These ambitions are symbiotic. The irony in this is that it is exactly what the late Mohammed Reza Shah Pahlevi also had as his goals. In fact, it was under his regime that the construction of Iran’s first nuclear power plant was begun at Bushire — in spite of being on a seismic fault line!
The essential underpinning of Iran’s foreign and defense policy is a prideful belief that the country’s ancient imperial heritage justifies its existence as the dominant power in the Middle East. This egocentric concept is buttressed by a belief in dissimulation as a religiously justifiable methodology in its strategic operations.
What then further flows from the nearly mystical manner of making political choices? To begin with, one must remind oneself that behind the protective cover of Persian Shia pragmatism is acceptance of the principle of taqiyah. It’s a simple yet overarching guide, well known but too often overlooked: Dissimulation to protect the faith and the defenders of the faith is not merely an accepted practice, but can be essential to the furtherance of the faith. (One of the citations most often referred to is Quran- III, 28)
When the anti-Ahmadinejad riots began after June’s disputed elections, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had an excellent chance to toss the questionably re-elected president to the wolves — an old Persian custom. Instead Khamenei steadfastly supported this aggressive and opinionated onetime Tehran mayor. It seemed like such a poor political choice when the crowds would have eagerly adored the Islamic leadership for the righteous removal of Ahmadinejad.
The answer lies in the essential character of Ahmadinejad and how that is perceived by the Supreme Leader. Iran’s bumptious little president believes totally in the divine right of Persian leadership. Muhammed Ahmadinejad is completely loyal to Shia Islam and the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This loyalty and the fealty that flows from it is the ultimate test of usefulness for the Supreme Leader. It wasn’t even a close call in choosing to support the outspoken president over his far more sophisticated competitors
Underlying Tehran’s need to have Iran nuclear armed is the continuing egotistical — some say paranoiac — belief that the world outside of Persia wants to take it over. The theme that Russia desires warm water access has been played for years. The evolution of a global petroleum-based economy has been used as an argument to support claims that Western industrialized nations want Iran for its oil and gas. One way or another, Iran has been seen by its leadership as the jewel that attracts.
At the same time as it carries this sense of self-importance, Iran is bedeviled by concomitant inadequacy. The country has vast oil and gas reserves but has to import gasoline. Shia Islam has a history of extraordinary religious scholarship, yet 25% of Iran, its greatest exponent, is illiterate. While advanced jets are serviced everyday at Iranian airfields, the basic mode of transportation in the countryside is horse or donkey-drawn.
The nations with which Iran deals know full well the principles by which Iran is guided. Actually Tehran has been quite straightforward, contrary to the guidance of taqiyah. Iran’s leadership openly has announced its belief that Israel is an evil state that must be removed from the map. Exactly how and when is the only thing still left in the shadows. Holding this threat over the head of the Jewish state and the United States satisfies quite well the ego of Persia. And that’s what really counts for Tehran.
Iran’s operational plans incorporate not only lying about the country’s nuclear weapon development, but it is on this basic dissimulation that the defense system of the Islamic Republic of Iran is built. There is, therefore, no logical reason to accept anything that Tehran says, officially or unofficially. In consequence Western defense planning for dealing with Iran must accept the fact that Iran sooner or later will arm itself with nuclear weapons. The Persian ego demands it!
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (74) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/09/persian-ego-rules
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Peace in Our Times
- A Nation on the Edge
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 8:28AM
"Iran's operational plans incorporate not only lying about the country's nuclear weapon development"
Iran has stated that it is not developing nuclear weapons. The United States intelligence services and the IAEA agree that they are telling the truth. To what lies do you refer?
Bram| 10.9.09 @ 8:44AM
Well damn, if Barak Obama and Mohamed ElBaradei say it, it must be true. What's the worst that could happen?
Maybe those generous Iranians are dedicating themselves to the research of peaceful uses of nuclear power for the good of all mankind. We owe them thanks and praise.
S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 9:03AM
I'm sorry - who says Iran is developing nuclear weapons? What evidence are you basing your belief on?
S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 9:05AM
Also, it is not "Barack Obama" that says it - it is the consensus of the United States intelligence services, as well as of the inspectors sent to evaluate Iran's nuclear program.
fundamentalist| 10.9.09 @ 1:58PM
The IAEA stated this week that Iran has the designs and the capability to build a bomb. Why the designs and capability if no intention? And if Iran is so honest, why the constant attempts to hide what they're doing from the IAEA? The Iranians have done nothing but lie from day one, only admitting their lies when caught red handed. Why so much trust in what they say?
S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 2:16PM
"The IAEA stated this week that Iran has the designs and the capability to build a bomb. Why the designs and capability if no intention?"
Sorry - capability does not prove intent. Because they had gained the capability does not mean they are currently operating a weapons program.
"And if Iran is so honest, why the constant attempts to hide what they're doing from the IAEA?"
I would imagine they keep such things secret due to the constant threats made by the US and Israel. Although I will say it would certainly be in the interest of the Iranian people to acquire a nuclear deterrent to such belligerent aggressor nations. The U.S. should pull out of the area and let Iran and Israel defend themselves as they see fit, IMO.
"The Iranians have done nothing but lie from day one, only admitting their lies when caught red handed."
Really. This latest reactor they're working on - they brought info of it to the IAEA, no? By whom were they caught "red handed"? Please provide a source or link. That allegation is now accepted as gospel but there is no proof of it at all.
madeleine7| 10.10.09 @ 4:07PM
To S.L. Toddard - "F--- off back to "Islamic Wonderland," you troll !!!! You are not worth arguing with ...!
fundamentalist| 10.9.09 @ 2:01PM
"The United States intelligence services and the IAEA agree that they are telling the truth. "
Neither is accurate. US intelligence said Iran gave up plans for the bomb in 2003 when the US invaded Iraw. They said nothing about whether Iran had restarted plans. The IAEA has never commented on Iran's intentions, but has insisted that much of the evidence they have is not consistent with a peaceful nuclear program.
S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 2:17PM
"Neither is accurate"
Proof, please.
Alan Brooks| 10.9.09 @ 7:47PM
Iranians are taking a leaf from N. Korea's book in shaking down concessions from us.
They win no matter what.
Ah, politics; so sweet, so Byzantine.
Christopher Holland| 10.11.09 @ 10:56PM
Wow, there is a giant endorsement for you - the US intelligence network and IAEA! When was the last time they made a big mistake? Ok, ok, justkiddinya - what I really should have said is 'when was the last time they got it right?'
Ken (Old Texican)| 10.9.09 @ 10:14AM
Toddard Just wants an argument. Ignore him.
The real question is whether or not Israel believes Iran is reaching for nukes for bombs.
Israel works very hard to infiltrate with Mosad, and over the years have been very successful.
@. Israel could lose a major part of her airforce bombing Iran, or worse, launch nukes pre-emptively bringing down the wrath of the world on her. If they bomb or nuke, you can bet your britches they have done their homework.
See, nobody knows if Israel has nukes or not. Hmmm, nobody knows how many we have. Anyone here gone out and counted them?
So, Toddard sits in the corner shooting three pointers into the punch-bowl, singing "naya naya naya".
Silly.
S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 10:41AM
"Toddard Just wants an argument."
Not at all. Iran has stated that it is not developing nuclear weapons. The United States intelligence services and the IAEA agree that they are telling the truth. I don't think there *is* an argument.
Al Adab| 10.9.09 @ 12:23PM
Morning Ken,
Christopher Holland| 10.11.09 @ 11:18PM
If the choice in Israel is between losing half the air force and losing the whole damn country, then you don't need to be a rocket scientist to work out the answer. And if they do attack, what surrender monkey is going to go to the UN and complain about those horrible meanies who just used nuclear weapons to destroy the people who threatened to wipe them off the face of the earth.? The time for pissy little UN resolutions will have well and truely passed and I hope it never comes back.
SI VIS PACEM | 10.12.09 @ 10:49PM
Ken: Michael Ledeen's Accomplice to Evil is released Tuesday. (I don't trust Toddard's acumen on this topic. Any topic.)
Carpenter| 10.9.09 @ 12:00PM
Without wishing to be unkind to SLT, anyone who has eyes to see or ears to hear understands that Iran wishes to possess nuclear weapons, further that they have a (frequently expressed) desire to eliminate the state of Israel, possibly in the hope of sparking off an Armageddon and bringing on the return of the mythical "12th Imam". Have all the confidence you want in the utterances of the IAEA and the politicized NEA assessments, SLT, but allow the rest of us our scepticism. In the long run, it may be Israel that saves the world from this clear and present danger while our administration and it's apologists posture as Neville Chamberlain.
S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 12:15PM
“anyone who has eyes to see or ears to hear understands that Iran wishes to possess nuclear weapons”
Of course. It eminently rational for a country that is threatened so often to desire a deterrent to attacks from such belligerent and reckless aggressor nations as the U.S. and Israel. Nevertheless, Iran has stated that it is not developing nuclear weapons. The United States intelligence services and the IAEA agree that they are telling the truth. Unless you have evidence otherwise I don’t see how you have a leg to stand on.
“In the long run, it may be Israel that saves the world from this clear and present danger”
How is a country that possesses no nuclear weapons and about which all available evidence points to them abandoning the pursuance of them a “clear and present danger”? Don’t you mean “hypothetical future danger”?
John II| 10.9.09 @ 1:21PM
Toddard, you're beginning to sound merely crankish, not simply bull-headed--or did I miss something?
Has there been a new NIE report on Iran's nuclear intentions published since the discredited one that came out in 2007? I mean, even the IAEA expressed skepticism about THAT report?
And Israeli intelligence (which you may perhaps agree enjoys rather a more reliable track record than that of American intelligence--perhaps because, for the Israelis there's a tad more obviously at stake) I say Israeli intelligence flatly contradicted the embarrassing NIE.
And if there HAS been a more recent NIE on this matter, where does your faith in THAT one come from? The redoubtable Bill Casey once referred to the substance and expression alike of all the NIE's that crossed his desk as "total crap." There was some reform of the process under his direction, but as soon as he was gone, the crap started up again, as dreary and unreliable as ever.
Toddard, I am sorry to say this, but I believe you are guilty of selective skepticism, which is almost as bad as selective indignation. A rereading of Aristotle's treatise On the Soul would make all this clearer to you.
Oh why do I waste my time sharing my hard-earned knowledge with political nincompoops? Sometimes I think I will just go mad. (Groucho Marx quoting Greta Garbo, 1929)
S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 1:46PM
I swear - I had a feeling you'd show up today. Go to the Hawaii piece, you should be able to make mincemeat of the Empire business of mine. It's a bit of a mess, not very solid at all.
And everyone is selectively skeptical to a degree, aren't they. In the end, I have seen no proof that Iran has an active nuclear weapons program, the inspectors sent to determine whether they have one say they do not, and the United States intelligence services agree. What proof do you have that they are wrong? What proof of a nuclear weapons program is there, and why do you believe the IAEA, the CIA and the DIA are concealing it? As for the Israelis - they have been claiming that Iran is close to having the bomb for decades.
Really it comes down to proof. I have not seen any. The inspectors sent have determined there is no program, and it is the consensus of our intelligence agencies. What is the proof to the contrary?
John II| 10.9.09 @ 2:26PM
Well, you may be confusing "proof" with "demonstration." I believe that's the order of certainty you're demanding. But--heck, I can't even demonstrate that Iran exists, much less their nuke program. All I can offer to do is to send you a gentle reminder when seismic measurements have demonstrated an underground nuclear test in Iran, if Iran exists. It is a certainty on the order of purely logical deduction that the United States under its present leadership and its devolving culture isn't going to do a damn thing about any of it.
That said, Toddard, my daddy used to tell us never to wrestle with a tar baby. So: you're right, I'm wrong, and I'm outa here.
S.L. Toddard| 10.9.09 @ 3:41PM
Alrighty. Have a good night.
Margie| 10.9.09 @ 10:03PM
"It eminently rational for a country that is threatened so often to desire a deterrent to attacks from such belligerent and reckless aggressor nations as the U.S. and Israel."
If that's how you feel Toddard, you might want to inqire within Ahmayinedad's "admin." for a position, I hear they're hiring America haters.
Al Adab| 10.9.09 @ 12:28PM
Opps,
To continue, the words thermobaric or 82nd airborne might have a part of this discussion. The United States, now that Al Naqis has the Nobel Peace Prize, should not rely on its allies to act when it is perfectly capable of doing so on its- and the world's- behalf. There are many options and many ways to skin a cat. We better pick one and act now. Bush's failure to do so may be our collective fate.
DaveS| 10.9.09 @ 10:22PM
To S. L. Toddard: 1) one, as President, could tell Israel this: butt out. You'd be pleased, but on the flip side I'd tell Iran 2) we'll assume any action against Israel was initiated by Iran. Then the survivors will own the whole area between Pakistan and the Mediterranean. And they won't be the so-called Israeli-threatened ones. Your presumptions on the aims of the Iranian thugs can't be proved. And don't quote the IAEA: el Baradei has always acted to prevent action against Iran - not to deny it a nuclear weapons capability.
S.L. Toddard| 10.10.09 @ 10:09AM
I don't know why Israel doesn't just issue a press release stating that they have implemented a retaliatory-strike system whereby if Israel is ever struck by a nuclear weapon, Israel will rain nukes down on Mecca, Medina and Tehran, on the Masjid al-Harām mosque, on the Masjid-an-Nabawi mosque, etc. Inform the muslim world that if Israel is ever the victim of a nuclear strike, both Sunni and Shia muslims will lose all of their holiest sites forever, that their holiest cities will be vaporized and un-inhabitable for ten thousand years.
J. Lizzio| 10.10.09 @ 1:11PM
Now there's a solution. Not sure how the Muslims living in Israel would feel about it, but MAD with a religious bent might be the perfect deterrent.
John II| 10.10.09 @ 2:49PM
There I was, outa here, trying to enjoy my collection of Laurel and Hardy movies, and THIS happens. But I have to admit, Toddard, you sure know how to pull my chain. You know, it's been said that there are two forms of intellectual bondage, only one of which is slavish adherence to a party line (such as "non-interventionism," if that's the best coinage we can come up with to label your own obsession, Toddard). The other form of bondage is obsessive refutation. That's my form, and I ought to sue you for practicing slavery. In fact, I intend to take this matter up with my attorney as soon as he gets out of law school. Where was I?
Oh yes, application of the MAD strategy to Israel and the Middle East. Apparently Lizzio below isn't familiar with your previous suggestion, on another thread, that Israel should expel all its Arab citizens and seal off its borders totally from the rest of the universe.
Yet both suggestions--MAD and total insulation--are of a kind, Toddard, and if you are even half serious with the opener "I don't know why," allow me to proffer a tentative answer.
Israel doesn't and wouldn't pursue either of those bonehead policies because Israel herself is an island of rationality and moral reflection and due process in a desert sea of vicious cultural imbecility. A rereading of, say, the Book of Wisdom in the Hebrew Scriptures and any of the great projects of rabbinical Judaism would make all this clearer to you.
And now back to "Beau Hunks," one of Laurel and Hardy's greatest four-reelers. My Abbott and Costello collection has run dry, which is just as well. Among the great comic teams of 20th-century cinema, Laurel and Hardy were surely the best. I think the reason has something to do with the fact that L&H never broke up as a team. Unlike all the others, Stan and Ollie were each funny in his own way, and thus complemented one another perfectly, so that to view one of their films is to be rib-tickled continuously rather than amused intermittently by brilliant flashes in the pan, so to speak.
For a better understanding of international relations, Toddard, I heartily recommend a steady viewing of the 90+ films of Laurel and Hardy--i.e., those made before the expiration of their contract with Hal Roach Studios; the 20th-Century Fox films of the 1940s were not up to the same standards, since the boys had less control over the scripts.
Richard Baker| 10.10.09 @ 5:19AM
We can thank the Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter for the present state of affairs in "Persia." The idiot drives the Shah out and is glad that Khomeini and his thugs took over. This kind of "Peace" makes the prize as prestigious as winning the crown as Rutabaga Queen at a State Fair. Many thanks to the Man from Plains.
John II| 10.10.09 @ 5:28PM
This thread seems to have cooled down sufficiently for me to turn the discussion back to the theme of Mr. Wittman's original piece. His reference to the "aggressive and opinionated" Ahmadinejad put me in mind of the experience I had over a period of two years teaching foreign students at a large state university.
It was back in the early 1970s, before the Carter-era Iranian revolution and, as well, before academia itself was taken over by the mullahs of political correctitude.
In my (English) department we were teaching basic writing skills to quite a large contingent of Iranian students, among others from several other parts of the world. Inevitably, among themselves in conversation, the teachers gossiped about the students, and we got into the habit of classifying (the punishable offense today would be called "stereotyping"--and conversation in academia has become much more guarded and less honest and interesting than it was in those days) . . . of broadly classifying the foreign students by predictable cultural traits.
We came to expect, for example, the Japanese kids to be extremely reliable and industrious but not particularly original or witty. We all loved the Israeli students because they were smart and well mannered and easy to teach. We were fond of West African students because they tended to be frank and gregarious and insightful. And so forth.
Then there were the Iranian students, particularly the male Iranian students, of whom we would get as many as 40 or 50 each semester. They were all sons of very well-to-do parents, which may have been part of the problem, universally speaking, and my own impression was that many of them would have been better off as liberal arts majors and perhaps weren't personally suited to the techie disciplines their parents insisted they pursue.
In any event, the Iranian kids were, by and large, the most troublesome. I recall one teacher looking over her preliminary roster and bemoaning the fact that she was stuck with five or six "Iranian prima donnas." I didn't have as much trouble with the Iranian kids, probably because of my being male, but I understood what she meant: they tended to be a handful. And the referent of the term "male ego" acquired grandiose proportions for me during the two years I was teaching those Persian kids.
Just a few thoughts in support of Mr. Wittman's important cultural perspective on what we're all going to be forced eventually to deal with as the Obama folks blunder cluelessly into their smug attempts to sweet-talk the Persians.
Dixie Pixie| 10.10.09 @ 6:17PM
I really hate to throw a pack of lit firecrackers into the S.L.Toddard cotillion. Okay, not really but I have always wanted to ask this question.
Suppose the Iranian government formally announces the existence of Iranian nuclear capability on Monday.
Iranian Prime Minister Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announces the destruction of Israel is formal goal of the Iranian government on Tuesday.
On Wednesday, Haifa, Netanya and Tel Aviv are vaporized by nuclear weapons fired from Iran.
It is now Thursday morning and the question is “ Under what Defense Treaty is the USA obligated to respond” ?
Anyone care to take a crack at the questions ?
Just what are our defense obligations to Israel ?
Will Obama uphold them ????
John II| 10.10.09 @ 7:44PM
Hey Dixie. Well, we won't have to respond because there won't be any Iran left to respond to, which will leave Obama off the hook. We WILL have to listen to another of his smarmy speeches, though, and that consequence is gruesome enough.
Toddard will demand proof that Israel and Iran no longer exist, dismissing the irradiation of half the Middle East as "irrelevant" and "ad hominem." I shall respond to him in my usual witty fashion. And by then, I should be more than half-way through my Laurel and Hardy collection.
But not much more. I think there's some likelihood that we won't need to wait too long to find out.
Dixie Pixie| 10.10.09 @ 9:48PM
To: John II
Nice try, but no cookie for you.
Unless there is a secret protocol to the Oslo Accords there is no defense treaty between Israel and the USA. Israel nuclear strategy is one of nuclear ambiguity. In short, Israel may be bluffing. The Iranians may put that bluff to the test.
What then????
In the Iran-Iraq War the Iranians and Iraqis traded missile shots at each other in the “War of the Cities”. Has anyone considered what a new “Nuclear War of the Cities” would be like. What would the USA do then.
John II| 10.11.09 @ 12:08AM
Dixie: Right--there's no formal treaty--but, trust me, the Israelis don't bluff. They don't have the margin of error required for bluffing. But don't pull a Toddard on me and demand proof.
Here's the rub: the Iranian mullacracy doesn't give a sweet damn about Iran per se or about national survival. They are what self-styled enlightened Western rationalists would call suicidal, but what Islamic fanatics have other words for. Israel's not bluffing, but it doesn't matter to the mullahs whether she is or isn't.
I prefer snickerdoodles, but a chocolate chip with ground oatmeal and will do. Thank you for sharing.
John II| 10.11.09 @ 12:12AM
Correction: I meant to say "with ground oatmeal and walnuts." I left out the nuts, except perhaps generally in my reply. We shall see what we shall see.
S.L. Toddard| 10.11.09 @ 9:17AM
"They are what self-styled enlightened Western rationalists would call suicidal"
On what do you base that claim?
John II| 10.11.09 @ 10:53AM
On 45 years of working with (or at least beside) self-styled enlightened Western rationalists. You may recall that the American intelligence services on which you place your faith (even when the NIE's are dated and discredited) did not anticipate the Iranian Revolution of 1979, much less its character. The religious thing just doesn't register on their radar, so to speak. They don't do that kind of stuff at places like the Georgetown school of foreign service.
But the term "suicidal" isn't mine. I actually heard it used by some self-styled enlightened Western rationalists of my acquaintance where I work. I didn't notice it so much at the time because I was too busy being flabbergasted that they were actually expressing some vague concern about and even disapproval of Iran's current posture on the world stage.
Perhaps it's because Bush is no longer president, and it's dawning on them that their kindred spirits are back in the driver's seat. I mean, that was the kind of speculation running through my head when the term "suicidal" wasn't registering with its deeper implications. Then too, perhaps Ahmadinejad will be invited to speak at Columbia again, and everything will be okay.
You know, Toddard, I actually hope that you're right about this one. In fact, I can recall no issue ever which I more fervently hoped myself to be wrong about. But I really am conservative, you see, which means I have a nose for merde, a deep sense of human imbecility, and a very low crap tolerance--honed by years and years and years in the rarefied atmosphere of academe.
I'm very afraid that I'm right. We shall see what we shall see.
Dixie Pixie| 10.11.09 @ 4:06PM
To: John II
The Pentagon has answered my questions by announcing “Operation Juniper Cobra 2009”. The war games will concentrate on missile defense integrating US early warning systems with the Israel Arrow, US THAAD, Patriot and Aegis missile defense systems.
“DEFENSE TREATY, WE DON'T NEED NO STINKING DEFENSE TREATY"
Movie “ Treasure of the Serra Negev” Date TBA
John II| 10.11.09 @ 10:23PM
Thanks for the update, Dixie. The only real hope, I think, is that the Iranian delivery systems will remain operationally half-assed indefinitely when measured against Western defense systems--the steady improvement of which, however, is now in jeopardy under the ministrations of the posturing Nobel Peace Laureate we're presently stuck with for President.
Excellent adaptation of the great Alphonso Bedoya line. My compliments.
Christopher Holland| 10.11.09 @ 11:31PM
If the Iranians want to call Israel's bluff and Israel takes them seriously and attacks, then they have nobody to blame but themselves. There is an iron rule in poker that you do not bluff - either you have the cards or you don't, in which case you fold. The Israelis know that the price of failure is national extinction, they can not fold and I personally am convinced that if they have to go, they will take the bastards with them and go out with their boots on. John Wayne stuff but they have no other choice. They certainly can' t rely on a limp wrist like Obama to carry their bags for them. Obama is making a war more and more likely every time he displays his weakness and his willingness to delay and procrastinate.
Gerald Stephens| 10.10.09 @ 7:41PM
All you folks are missing the point. Mr. Obama, now in possession of the Nobel Peace Prize, and equiped as he is with an ego far superior to that of Ahmadinejad, one can reasonably anticipate that when sufficiently annoyed by Ahmad's hubris Mr. Obama will pull the trigger or appoint Rev. Wright as a czar to smite the bastard with a full throat-ed, "GOD DAMN"
And I think the Prez should also give some attention to S. L. Toddard. He appears to be in need of something.
Margie| 10.10.09 @ 9:57PM
When Toddard says he's a conservative, you will thereby begin to learn that it is yet another new brand. Like the Devil disguises himself as an angel of light, so does his brand of conservatism try to masquerade itself as the real thing.
But then, I probably didn't have to tell you that, did I?
Eddie| 10.12.09 @ 8:29AM
Gerald, you are a riot! Well said.
Seriously, I believe within 12 to 18 months, after all the saber rattling is over, the threats from numerous countries to retaliate against others, etc, etc., you will find Iran's facilities in ruins, their little weirdo Prez in hiding and tensions higher in the Arab world than ever before. Throw in the fact that Obama, The Messiah, will be hiding under a rock somewhere and it's going to be an interesting world to watch.
Also, Margie...Conservatives wouldn't let Toddard within a mile of themselves. One must maintain some image of civility you know.
SI VIS PACEM | 10.12.09 @ 10:57PM
Eddie: Iran is for the most part NOT part of the "Arab" world, but your point still stands. FYI Michael Ledeen's Accomplice to Evil is released Tuesday.
70-620 | 11.22.09 @ 10:58PM
Microsoft is a leading provider of advanced technology solutions to organizations worldwide. It is one of the companies in the forefront offering certification programs. Microsoft has introduced a wide range of certification exam for entry level to experienced professionals and for domains ranging from networking, system administration, database management to programming, web development and other advanced technologies. The Microsoft certification exam ensure whether or not information technology professionals have the necessary skills to successfully implement business solutions using Microsoft Technology. Certifications designed by Microsoft take a very important place when people apply for a job in the IT area.Achieve these certifications the proposer should pass the related exam like 70-270,70-620
ghdmanufactoryoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 4:37AM
fghh
ghdmanufactoryoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 4:37AM
ghg
sunglass | 4.4.10 @ 4:45AM
sgfh
sunglass | 4.4.10 @ 4:45AM
fhf
paulsmithoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 5:05AM
hdh
paulsmithoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 5:05AM
dhg
burberryoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 5:08AM
hggh
burberryoutlet | 4.4.10 @ 5:08AM
fghg
www.sunglass-mall.com | 4.5.10 @ 9:21PM
You won't have to worry about having your sunglass merchandise to gather dust on its display racks waiting for the summer season to commence www.sunglass-mall.com
tinnitus miracle | 10.31.11 @ 1:02PM
The Western Societies and Politicians are apathetic on any type of contraversy with the Islamic Nations. They are aware of their intent just as they are aware of the fragile economy within their own country. Most of the civilian society doesn’t want to know or believe that these are true and will close their mind to such thoughts. People basically want to live for today and worry about tomorrow when it comes. Part of this is the complex lifestyles we all have today and another is the refusal by the MSM to tell the public what is really going on throughout the world.