The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

A Further Perspective

There Is Nothing Rational About Iran’s Regime

By on 3.13.12 @ 6:08AM

When Tehran — which wants to wipe Israel off the map — is considered “rational,” who’s left to be irrational?

Last month, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told CNN’s Fareed Zakaria that he does not believe the Iranian regime has decided to pursue a nuclear weapons program, and that it would not be “prudent” for Israel to consider a military strike against Iran. General Dempsey went on to state, “We are of the opinion that the Iranian regime is a rational actor.” For his part, in a subsequent video to viewers, Zakaria indicated that he “very much” agreed:

A rational actor is not a reasonable actor, is not somebody who has the same goals or values as we have. What one means by rational actor in international affairs or economics or any time the word is used, is somebody who is concerned about their survival, their prosperity or strength, and is making calculations on the basis of that — that is, calculating costs and benefits. And we all assume Iran is a rational actor. Even the most hawkish people in this debate, because they assume that the pressure will make a difference. How could it make a difference? Well, because Iran is watching the costs, calculating them, and presumably will recognize that the costs outweigh the benefits.

Meir Dagan, the former head of Israel’s Mossad, concurs. In an interview with Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes, Dagan characterized Iran as having “a very rational regime” and said he considers Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be “rational,” though perhaps “not exactly our rational.” Dagan also opposes an Israeli strike, and he echoes Zakaria in his rationale:

No doubt that the Iranian regime is maybe not exactly rational based on what I call Western-thinking, but no doubt they are considering all the implications of their actions.

Despite the public testimony of these respected military, academic, and intelligence figures, I simply am not convinced that the Iranian regime is a rational actor. General Dempsey bases his opinion on the notion that Iran has not yet decided whether it will develop nuclear weapons. Such an assessment is, at best, wishful thinking and, at worst, willful blindness.

Meanwhile, Zakaria believes Iran is engaged in a cost-benefit analysis and “presumably will recognize that the costs outweigh the benefits,” which would lead it to give up its pursuit of nuclear weapons. But that is an awfully big presumption. Frankly, it is difficult to imagine a scenario under which the present Iranian regime would voluntarily abandon this program unless, of course, it made such a pledge, only to break it by enriching uranium under the nose of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even assuming Iranian leaders were to do an about-face, would it be wise to trust their word any more than that of the North Koreans, who have been lying to us for nearly two decades about the state of their nuclear program? Does Zakaria believe North Korea is a rational actor? Under his definition, as long as the North Korean regime is concerned with its survival, prosperity, and strength; as long as it is making calculations on that basis, then it is rational actor. But if Iran and North Korea are rational, then who is irrational?

Zakaria recounted what an Iranian official told him about five years ago. This unnamed official said it would be perfectly rational for Iran to pursue a nuclear weapons, because its neighbors have nukes, because the U.S. had 100,000 troops in Iraq and 100,000 in Afghanistan, and because President George W. Bush was calling for the regime’s downfall:

“Now if you were in our position, wouldn’t that make you nervous, and wouldn’t you want to buy some kind of insurance?”

So that doesn’t sound like the talk of mad, Messianic regime, but rather one that’s looking at costs, benefits and calculating.

Five years later, President Bush has long since left office. President Obama has expressed no desire for regime change in Tehran. The last U.S. troops left Iraq in December, and one-third of all American troops will leave Afghanistan by the end of this year. Yet despite these changes on the ground, Iran’s leaders still openly speak of wiping Israel off the face of the earth. This leaves pure, unadulterated hatred as the only possible motivation for Iran’s disposition toward Israel. Just as Adolf Hitler viewed Jews as a cancer to be expunged, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has called Israel “a cancerous tumor.” As Lee C. Shapiro, regional director of the American Jewish Committee in Cleveland, notes:

Some say that this danger is wildly exaggerated, since Iran would never begin a nuclear war that would lead to its own devastation by Israeli retaliation. Yet it is worth recalling that Nazi Germany transferred sorely needed men and resources from the front lines in order to speed up the killing of Jews, suggesting that ideologically driven regimes may act even against their own national interests in pursuit of their diabolical ideals.

Now Zakaria might argue there is a difference between a rational and a reasonable actor. But considering that it is not far-fetched to believe Iran is prepared to deploy a nuclear weapon against the only country in the world with a Jewish majority, that logical hair is too thin to split. Trying, you could even say, would be downright irrational.

About the Author

Aaron Goldstein writes from Boston, Massachusetts.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (55) |

Timothy L. Pennell| 3.13.12 @ 7:24AM

Zakaria is a POS. He hates Israel. Hates the Jews. Hates this Country.

Perhaps a he needs to read the Book of Esther?
Perhaps he should re-listen to the words of the Little Tyrant, with the Robert Hall Back to School outfits? Perhaps he should be Re-assigned to Israel. Preferably in the areas that are Repeatedly hit with Rocket Fire, from Iran's TERROR CELLS? Perhaps he could put his kids, in one of these Schools?

This is ISRAEL. Jerusalem is The City of DAVID, not Mohamed. The BIBLE mentions Jerusalem over 500 times. The Koran doesn't mention it at all. Although, their texts do reveal that, Mohamed, himself, describes Jerusalem as a City belonging to "The people of the BOOK".

It seems that, just as our Muslim willfully IGNORES the writings of our Founding Fathers, and their Constitution? The Middle Eastern Muslims see only what they wish to see, in their Founding Documents.

Jack in Wi.| 3.13.12 @ 8:27AM

More warmongering nonsense. All our 16 combined intelligence agencies in the NIE reports of 2007 and 2011 say Iran is not now pursuing a nuclear weapon. Our Joint Chiefs of Staff and numerous retired military people in this country in this country don't want to attack Iran. It is no threat to the USA or even to Israel, if Israel does not attack them first. Aaron here is just trying to dispell the appearence of Meir Dagin on 60 minutes this last Sunday. Dagin, the recently retired Mossad head called an attack on Iran the stupidist idea possible. Of course he is again joined by other memebers of the retired Israeli intelligence and military community. Among these people are fromer Shin Bet head Yucal Diskin and Mossad head Effriam Halevey.

The first NIE report of 2007 was issued in a revolt by our intelligence communities against the insane lies and warmongering by Cheney and the neocons in the Iraq war. They wanted to make themselves perfectly clear that they would not allow their reports to be cherry picked like was done in the Iraq war. There are many patriots in both the intelligence communities and military communities that want nothing to do with any more wars for Israeli expansionism.

Now in regards to the supposed quote about wiping Israel of the map. That was diliberate mistranslation of the Farsi. The correct quote should read that the Zionist entity will vanish from the face of the earth. It much similar to Reagan's quote about ccommunism vanishing from the face of the earth. In other words a nasty and faild ideaology will vanish. In no case was it made that all Jews were to be exterminated. In fact 25000 Jews live peacefully in Iran. They are one of the oldest Jewish communities in the world. They are well respected and often well off. They are free to leave at anytime for Israel or anywhere else. They have refused to do so and have 25 active synagogues and a number of Hebrew Schools.

It is time to do what Nixon did with China. Send an ambassador and start trading and interacting with Iran in peaceful way. The Iranians have offered to do this on several occasions. In 2003 they offered a complete setttlement . Powell, Rice and Armitage wanted to start immediate negotiations. They were blocked by the neocons and cheney who got to Bush first.

KyMouse| 3.13.12 @ 9:58AM

At www.powerlineblog.com see the item entitled "A Refuge Under Siege."

Irish filmmaker Nicky Larkin, a member of the anti-Israel Left in his country, applied for and received a grant to make a film that would expose the ruthlessness of the Israelis against Gaza.

What he found when he went there changed his mind, and he has had the courage to speak out about it.

The film is called "Forty Shades of Grey." Powerline has a trailer (3:45).

Check it out.

Al Adab| 3.13.12 @ 11:35AM

Gaza could have become the Hong Kong or Monte Carlo of the Eastern Med. Sadly the population and their rulers chose instead to become an agressive presence wasting energy and resources attacking Israel instead of providing for themselves. A great historical opportunity missed to the detriment of us all.

Jack in Wi. | 3.13.12 @ 11:45AM

How can they become the hong Kong of the Middle East when the Israeli's won't allow them to control their own borders of seacoast? Gaza is a big open air concentration camp and the whole world knows it. I am so sick of the lies put out by the hasbarets here. Read some foreign papers including the Israeli press and get educated.

GW| 3.13.12 @ 12:14PM

Right, the joos are the blame. We get it.

Zombie Reagan| 3.13.12 @ 12:46PM

"I simply am not convinced that the Iranian regime is a rational actor." And nothing ever will convince you. We get it. Let me fetch my gun then so I can go die in Iran cause you "ain't convince."

Zombie Reagan| 3.13.12 @ 12:46PM

"I simply am not convinced that the Iranian regime is a rational actor." And nothing ever will convince you. We get it. Let me fetch my gun then so I can go die in Iran cause you "ain't convince."

Al Adab| 3.13.12 @ 1:06PM

You must have missed it Jack.

Israel pulled out and granted sovereignty to Gaza. The voters there elected Hamas so instead of development they voted for war. A missed opportunity indeed.

Jack in Wi.| 3.13.12 @ 4:48PM

Hamas was pushed by the mossad as an religious alternative to the secular PLO amd FATAH. How did that work out? They also pushed Hizaballah in Lebanon as anther way to divide and conquer. Gaza is a walled consentration camp where the inmates are treated worse then the Jews in Germany were up until 1938. Now the Israeli's are trying to steal the large natural gas deposits off the Gaza coast. Why the hell is America in anyway involved with Israel? It has always been an albatross around our neck.

RCV| 3.13.12 @ 8:55PM

Gaza is and always has been such a hellhole that Egypt refused to take it back and wanted nothing to do with it when it owned it from 1948 to 1967.

B-737| 3.13.12 @ 10:05PM

"Gaza is a walled consentration [sic] camp where the inmates are treated worse then the Jews in Germany were up until 1938. Now the Israeli's [sic] are trying to steal the large natural gas deposits off the Gaza coast. Why the hell is America in anyway [sic] involved with Israel? It has always been an albatross around our neck."

If you actually believe that crap, you ought to have your head examined. And don't tell me to "read some foreign newspapers and get educated." I've been watching the Middle East closely since before the Six Day War in 1967.

Judging from the mangled facts and English in your posts, you're the one who is badly in need of education.

Jack in Wi.| 3.14.12 @ 12:07AM

Of course Gaza is a walled cocentration camp. You are the denier. Juist like those who deny the holcaust. As for my typing, well it gets worse the angrier I get. I sure am mad by the butchery of Israel and the lies of it's supporters.

Zombie Reagan| 3.13.12 @ 12:01PM

Good old Tel Aviv Aaron at it again. I guess Stalin was rational? Kim Jong Il, the Pakistani ISI were rational? Actually, they were crazy as loons and even they knew better than to drop a nuke on their enemies. Nice try though, but we ain't going to war for Israel.

GW| 3.13.12 @ 12:23PM

Then let Israel go to war for itself. Every president going back to Carter has been pressuring the Israelis to show restraint in the face of existential threat. Instead we have liberals like Obama and Clinton (and Bush and Bush) who trumpet meaningless and temporary "peace negotiations" the US orchestrates.

Israel can take out Iran's capabilities by itself, so let's let them.

Zombie Reagan| 3.13.12 @ 5:08PM

I will happily support an attack on Iran if Congress votes to declare War, if we raise everyone's taxes to pay for it, and if Tel Aviv Aaron volunteers to go in first with his Chuck Norris bathrobe on.

Alan Brooks | 3.13.12 @ 8:24PM

Shah Reza Pahlavi was a 'Western' (Western-influenced) version of Stalin:

utterly brutal,
ruhlessly modernizing,
vain as a...
Peacock.

RCV| 3.13.12 @ 8:57PM

Fareed Zakaria is one of the most thoughtful and insightful observers of middle eastern geopolitics, neither antiAmerican nor antiSemitic.

jdaly| 3.13.12 @ 7:55AM

So, according to Zakaria, Iran was a "rational actor" in seeking nukes when Bush was president but now with Obama they should want to abandon them. I will tell you who is not a rational actor and that would be Zakaria.

Mike W| 3.13.12 @ 8:19AM

Somehow the former head of the Mossad and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are ignorant boobs while some no-name blogger on a second rate website is an expert on Iranian rationality. Up is down. Night is day.

B-737| 3.13.12 @ 10:19PM

You're going to just love the BIG war that's coming up in the near future.

Like the big one that began in 1939, it will be largely the result of years of wishful thinking, self-deception and the willful suspension of disbelief on the part of the political elites, at home and abroad.

Dagan might just be right about more time being available to stop the Iranians, but he's also absolutely convinced that they have a covert weapons program going on and equally convinced that it must be stopped. The only question is how and when.

Teaghan| 3.13.12 @ 8:21AM

Mark Stein reported yesterday that a Scottish scientist has developed a drug that can help eliminate racism. I think Zakaria is on the "I will love obama no matter what he does" pill.

John786| 3.13.12 @ 8:50AM

A very one sided article. Zionist propaganda. Iran is threat to no one. On any measure it is Israel/US irrationality which has held the world to ransom in recent times. Time for real dialogue so that we can all move on to deal with the real issues such as poverty. Zionism needs to be saved from itself.

numbatdog| 3.13.12 @ 9:08AM

Dear John, If Iran is no threat as you claim, why do they keep promising to destroy Israel or to be exact "excise the cancer from the Middle East"
Are you saying they are lying? Or were misquoted?
Should we not give them the dignity of taking them at their word when they promise to wipe out an entire country or just accept they are harmless congenital liars?

Al Adab| 3.13.12 @ 11:47AM

As humans we need to deal with the world as we find it. If it is rational to expect Iran to act in its own best interests, then their pronouncements regarding their future actions make no sense. Iran faces a demographic collapse about 2050 so from their perspective it may be rational to attempt to establish (or re-establish Persian) their hegemony over the region while the opportunity presents.

We can debate whether Iran in fact seeks nuclear weapons but it seems likely that the facilities they have are for that purpose. What they might do with such a weapon is unknown although caution would suggest we listen to their public expressions.

Israel on the other hand, is quit capable of using their weapons againstr Cairo, Damascus, Teheran and other cities should they be attack in kind of faced with defeat and loss of their nationhood. This was a threat in 1973 when the Israel nuclear force ostensibly was on alert. In combination this is not a stable situation and needs to be dealt with by all concern with both circumspection and reality.

TrueBlue | 3.13.12 @ 7:10PM

The only problem is that if Iran was to get nukes and launch them it'd only take a few to wipe Israel off the map, and most of the Palestinians (but that's okay, they'd be martyrs for the cause).

Israel realizes this, it's odd that so many other people don't. Heck, all Iran really needs to do is get a large enough collection of chemical weapons to do serious damage to Israel. The reason they don't is because there would be enough of Israel left to cause serious harm right back, not an issue if they use nukes.

B-737| 3.13.12 @ 10:26PM

"Iran is a threat to no one."

Try telling that to the families of the 241 Marine peacekeepers who were murdered at Iran's direction in Beirut in October 1983.

Try telling it to the families of the U.S. Air Force personnel who were murdered in Saudi Arabia by Iranian terrorists in 1996 (Khobar Towers).

Iran is the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism and has been on the State Department's list if terror-sponsoring states for more than 30 years, through Democrat and Republican administrations alike.

No threat to anyone? Sober up and get a clue.

Dr. X| 3.13.12 @ 9:10AM

Waaaaaaaait a minute. There's so much in this article that needs further evaluation.

First, Zakaria is a fool (and an ugly bastard besides). I have no idea why anyone listens to him. HOWEVER, his definition of "rationality" IS correct in the field of international politics. "Rationality" simply means an actor has goals he seeks to achieve and applies a cost-benefit analysis.

Now, there's a couple of problems with Iranian goals. First, if they are motivated by religion, it might be "rational" for them to incur great losses and destruction as long as they achieve eternal reward.

Second, much more likely and a problem not even mentioned here, has nothing whatsoever to do with the Jews or Israel and everything to do with global and regional hegemony: they could embargo Gulf oil, artificially drive up the global price of oil and threaten Arab and Sunni neighbors through nuclear blackmail without ever detonating a nuclear weapon. This would be very much in their "rational interest" and they will almost CERTAINLY do it.

So even if they do NOT nuke Israel (they PROBABLY wouldn't but you never know), they could still guarantee $300-400 per barrel oil and cripple the economy of the Great Satan and achieve their goals this way.

(Of course, Obama WANTS this, as it would make us all drive electric cars...)

Paul| 3.13.12 @ 9:43AM

It seems to me that in the context of the Persians being at war with us it is in their interest to pursue nuclear weapons whether they irrationally detonate one or rationally use them for blackmail. I would think neither scenerio is in our interest.

GW| 3.13.12 @ 11:34AM

Exactly! This is the crucial point. It is in the interests of the United States to seek a world without a nuclear Iran--regardless of their level of rationality.

cicero| 3.13.12 @ 11:19AM

If driving up the price of oil is the prime motivation for the Iranians, the simple remedy to their plan would be to make that more difficult. As we are finding out day after day, the world is awash in oil. If the U.S. would simply drill and exploit its own resources, and facilitate the same process around the world, the price of a barrel of oil would plummet. The last talk I heard from an oil executive - Royal Dutch Shell, I believe - was that they could do very well, thank you, with oil at the $40.00 level. Such rational pricing would put the mullahs out of the war business, and require all of the middle eastern regimes to enter the modern world. This would also allow us the luxury of letting the Arab worrld stew in their own juices and relieve us of the necessity of trying to bring nation building to a high art.

Dr. X| 3.13.12 @ 12:07PM

Driving up the price of oil is not the prime motivation of the Iranians. Crippling the Great Satan and establishing Persian and Shia hegemony is. Oil prices are merely the most effective MEANS to that end. Nuclear blackmail would enable them to do it. I don't know why everybody ignores this obvious fact, especially in light of the Arab Embargo of 1973. It's not as if it hasn't been done before.

I actually doubt they'd nuke Israel outright. They might, of course, but they know they would incur retaliation. Instead they could ratchet up the pressure on Israel and support groups like Hezbollah who could make life there intolerable. One aspect of nuclear weaponry is that it could make it safer for Iran to engage in conventional war and proxy war against Israel -- just like Korea and Vietnam, where the actual use of nuclear weapons was off the table, thus allowing parity with conventional forces.

Zombie Reagan| 3.13.12 @ 12:09PM

Those who insist on portraying Iran’s regime as insane and suicidal are very slippery in the way they use the word rational. According to them, a rational regime would never be antagonistic or threaten other states as Iran has been, and from there they leap to the conclusion that a state that is antagonistic is therefore willing to invite its own destruction. They make this leap even when all the evidence points to a regime intent on preserving itself. Somehow we’re supposed to believe that the Iranian government is the only one on the planet that is unwilling to preserve itself and incapable of knowing what its self-interest is.
U.S. and Israeli media regularly discuss how and when to start an unprovoked war against Iran to punish it for its “crime” of enriching uranium. The American and Israeli governments leave the door open to starting that war. Despite the significant costs such a war would impose on the U.S., Israel, the region, and world, it is not the governments contemplating how to start this war that are considered to be acting irrationally. Instead, it is still the Iranian leadership that is viewed as unhinged and dangerous. Daniel Larison

GW| 3.13.12 @ 12:13PM

"And we all assume Iran is a rational actor. Even the most hawkish people in this debate, because they assume that the pressure will make a difference."

Not this hawk. I've never believed "sanctions" would work unless they would restrict Iran's ability to sell oil. But that would require trusting China and Russia to uphold their agreements with us and Europe--which would be irrational on our part. With oil's demand being what it is, I don't see how the US stops Iranian oil short of actually blocking the ports of exit using force.

The only thing that will deter Iran is the threat of the leaders losing their lives or power--or perhaps the fact that the current leadership is no longer in power. No one in Washington--and especially no one at the Pentagon--has the will or strategy to make this happen. It would require precision and an exit plan--including a way to institute a leader sympathetic to American interests of mutual peace, cooperation, and the respect of the sovereignty of other nations (i.e. Israel). As Iraq and Afghanistan have showed, our current political and military leadership is outright incompetent in these regards--which has led to a backlash against interventionism which often goes too far (i.e. Ron Paul).

Anti-war irrationality undergirds Zakaria's views about American strength and ability to act in its interests. Like our forefathers who won independence and liberty from the British, land and resources through manifest destiny, and became a superpower after defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan; we can accomplish strategic objectives with the right leadership and will. Where is our Washington?

Al Adab| 3.13.12 @ 1:36PM

Sanctions have never worked in all of history. Ask Napoleon. All they ever do is create desperation and desperate people take desperate actions.

Zombie Reagan| 3.13.12 @ 12:31PM

"I abominate and detest the idea of a government, where there is a standing army." George Mason

Zombie Reagan| 3.13.12 @ 12:31PM

"I abominate and detest the idea of a government, where there is a standing army." George Mason

Col. Dave Lapan| 3.13.12 @ 2:54PM

It is not the case that General Dempsey believes Iran is a "rational actor" based on "his opinion on the notion that Iran has not yet decided whether it will develop nuclear weapons." See this clip from his testimony before the Senate Budget Committee (Feb. 28, 2012):
http://ayotte.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=470

Louis Jenkins| 3.13.12 @ 3:02PM

Rational? The last time I heard that comment I questioned it.

Jim| 3.13.12 @ 3:19PM

Iran's starting a war with Israel doesn't mean they intend to win it. They would be the martyrs and the rest of the Muslim world would finish the war.

Zombie Reagan| 3.13.12 @ 5:03PM

Idiot. Who starts a war to lose? Maybe losers like you.

TrueBlue | 3.13.12 @ 7:16PM

Ones who believe the next great messiah of their religion will appear to the world during an apocalypse perhaps? Ones who believe that if they die for the cause of spreading their religion's power they will be rewarded in the afterlife?

Why worry about this short life of flesh when you're guarenteed eternal satisfaction?

cicero| 3.13.12 @ 4:00PM

Once Iran can get one nuclear bomb through the Isrealis' defenses, the game is over. At that point, all of the surrounding Arab countries will join in, and Isreal will be wiped out. While Isreal has proven that it can defend itself in a conventional war, trying to do so after having absorbed a nuclear attack would prove impossible. That is why it cannot allow the Iranians the opportunity to get anf operational bomb that can be delivered. Under no circumstances can Isreal allow itself the luxury of assuming anyone would come to its aid in anything like the time necessary to avoid extermination.

Mark in LA| 3.13.12 @ 8:05PM

What game is over? I don't care about Israel and I don't want any US soldiers killed to keep the game from being over. I am sick of the Israel tail wagging our politicians into stupid actions.

Zombie Reagan| 3.13.12 @ 5:17PM

You just admitted North Korea was rational because they haven't used their nukes. What about China? They were rational I guess when they killed millions of their own people? You are nuts Goldstein. You want to kill Iranians, move to Israel. Maybe you'll get lucky and get your chance.

Kingofthenet| 3.13.12 @ 7:19PM

The Iranian Govt. NEVER has called for wiping Israel off the map, it was a mistranslation of wiping them from the pages of history and was in a different context. Fact is Iran(If they want) ARE going to have a bomb and an Israeli attack will stop NOTHING, in fact it will give them an excuse to kick out the IAEA, rally the people around the flag and accelerate weapons development. Time to stop them cold was at least six years ago, in that time they have mastered the fuel cycle and enrichment, ALL anyone can do now is destroy equipment, not knowledge and expertise.

Mark in LA| 3.13.12 @ 8:08PM

Well you are almost right. There was never a time to stop them, unless you were willing to kill millions of Iranians based on potential lies or risk the lives of tens of thousands of US servicemen.

But the rest you are right about, the technology is old and Iran has uranium deposits. Nobody can stop them from building a bomb.

Mark in LA| 3.13.12 @ 8:10PM

There is nothing rational about 95% of the Jews in the US when it comes to Iran - shouldn't we kill them too?

sirbourbon| 3.13.12 @ 8:46PM

US soldiers peeing on dead nationals and a US soldier doing a remake of Columbine type shooting spree and the crazies are all in Iran?

The real crazies are those that set the this insane foreign policy.

However mad the US soldier is, the president is more crazy and crazier are the puppet masters.

In the meantime the religious right buys into the theories of the mad TV preachers who love all this craziness of war!

By comparison that soldier that pulled the trigger and murdered those kids and unarmed Afghani adults is more sane than the policy makers and their stooge in the White House.

Kingofthenet| 3.13.12 @ 9:21PM

Israel really has to decide if war is right to stop the POTENTIAL of Iran developing a weapon, or is it better to stop them ACTUALLY doing it. Yes there IS a difference, i believe Iran is just acquiring the means to doing a bomb, but has no plans to doing it unless pushed.They are more than happy if the world KNOWS they can build a bomb anytime they want, no need to actually do so and provoke the worlds ire.

Leveut| 3.13.12 @ 10:23PM

Really. And how is it you feel you know that to be true?

Leveut| 3.13.12 @ 10:26PM

And Aaron Goldstein "who writes from Boston Massachusetts" has written a column of idiotic nonsense, divorced from reality and analysis. Thus says Leveut, "who writes from a city other than Boston Massachusetts."

POST American| 3.14.12 @ 1:07AM

---Putting aside the 'PRE---dicked--Abel'
breakdowns of our capstone media viz a viz
Iran---

AS things seem to ramp up in the Mid East
time to look into the 'MAY--SIN--Re' behind it.

The 'Ordo ob K--OZ' trip.

NOTICE, after the largely engineered,
psychopathically 'debt friendly' World Wars
-----the emergence of the divided zones
hitherto unkown, eve in 'HIS--Story'.

----Orange Free state

--------Ulster

------------Berlin

-----------------Greater Germany

---------------------Cyprus

--------------------------Vietnam

-------------------------------KOREA

Nice little sleeping conflict circuits
at the ready for activation ----at the
right time.

AGAIN --unheard of natural human history.

Undisputably the creation of GEO-political
EUGENICS.

NOW, take another look at the Albert Pike
(POPE of 'MAY--SIN--Re') and fellow 'MAY-SIN'
Giusseppi Mazzini (btw -Mazzini means 'MASON')

There in the 1800's calling for 3 world wars
to 'destroy ALLLLL that was' and to bring
in the 'perfected' SIS----stem we NOW see
unfolding.

The LAST World War to be a
'War AGAINST the World' in which the
3 troublesome monotheisms, with their
obstructive concerns with 'moral--'IT'--he'
would be disgraced --discredited and
finally DESTROYED.

---The 'NEW' religion, designed by the capstone,
to suit the EUGENICS age-enda needs of
the 'eel--eat' would be brought in.

It's already on show at the Rockefeller sponsored
'Lucis Trust' at the UN.

'Loose IS' -------as in 'Loose---IF---OR'.

AS in LUCIFER.

---AGAIN kiddies!

-------KEEP a followin' them thar EUGENISTS!

-------------KEEP A GOIN'

-----------------China wampum n' the latest PORN

---------------------JUST KEEP ON GOIN'

OPRAH LOVES YA'!

UMMMMMMMHMMM

More Articles by Aaron Goldstein

More Articles From A Further Perspective

The Loss of Trust

June 18, 2013 | Thomas Sowell

When Did Matty Tell Hatty?

June 17, 2013 | Frank Schell

Liberalism Is Bankrupt

June 14, 2013 | Marta H. Mossburg

Endless War’s Pin-Up Girl

June 13, 2013 | Christopher Orlet

The Role of the Federal Government

June 12, 2013 | Lisa Fabrizio

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/03/13/there-is-nothing-rational-abou

ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Headlines

Green Flags, Yellow Flags, and Black Flags

John Tabin

Barack’s Brave New World Blarney

George Neumayr

There’s Something About Cambridge

Daniel J. Flynn

Obama’s Unaffordable Act

Peter Ferrara

Celebrating Our Lady of Paris

Joseph A. Harriss

Charter Schooling? Why Not Charter Housing?

Wayne Woodman

Cash for Organs?

Eric Boehm

Back in the Fray

Kyle Peterson|97 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation

Jeffrey Lord | 6:20AM

Let Pitchers Throw Complete Games

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

Thoughts on New U.S.-Taliban Peace Talks

Aaron Goldstein | 6.18.13

Thank You, Bobby Jindal

Matt Purple | 6.18.13

Buzzfeed Faces $3.6 Million Lawsuit for Copyright Infringement

Kaylin Bugos | 6.18.13

Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder

Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13

Pro-Life is Smart Politics

Rich Lizardo | 6.18.13

Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.