| GREG-STRANGE.COM |
"If you haven't found something strange during the
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
day, it hasn't been much of a day." -- John A. Wheeler
PROVIDING SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTARY ON THE
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
PEOPLE, POLITICS, EVENTS AND ABSURDITIES OF
OUR TIME. SERVED UP WITH ACERBIC WIT, YOU
SHOULD FIND IT QUITE SATISFYING.
Who Wants A Nuclear Iran?
Looks like hearty congratulations are in order for the new
Iranian president-elect, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If alcohol
were legal in Iran, there would no doubt have been champagne
toasts all around to celebrate his “election” and the ushering in
of . . . well, the next leg of the same old stultifying repression
and bellicosity that has kept intact the country’s status as
outlaw regime and economic basket case. Which, come to
think of it, kind of puts a damper on the celebratory spirit of
average Iranians who have to live under such rule.
But anyway, alcohol is not legal, nor is much of anything else
that doesn’t pass muster with Islamic fundamentalism. And
Ahmadinejad isn’t likely to be in the vanguard of any
revolutionary changes along the lines of allowing more
freedoms. After all, Ahmadinejad’s biggest claim to fame is the
segregating of elevators for men and women in municipal
buildings in Tehran during his ultra-conservative tenure there
as mayor. Progressive, he ain’t.
In addition, several of the 66 Americans who were originally
taken hostage in 1979 by Iranian revolutionaries are convinced
after seeing Ahmadinejad’s picture in the news that he was one
of their captors. Having endured the confinement and the
humiliation of the 444-day “crisis” that cooked Jimmy Carter’s
goose, they aren’t particularly amused by Iran’s electoral
process.
Iran vehemently denies the charge and even U.S.
government officials have their doubts. Whatever the truth
may be, he is the reality that we now have to deal with, though
it hardly matters since it’s the mad mullahs who are really
running the show in Iran.
Before the Iranian election it was quite a hoot to see
mainstream American media outfits like the New York Times,
Washington Post and others describe Ahmadinejad’s opponent,
the Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, as far and away
the preferable choice due to his being a “moderate,” a
“pragmatist” and a “liberal.” Yeah, he’s just a prince of a fellow
to hear them tell it.
But you have to wonder if a guy who segregates elevators is
really worse than the guy, Rafsanjani, who said the following:
“When the Islamic world acquires atomic weapons, the
strategy of the West will hit a dead end -- since the use of a
single atomic bomb has the power to destroy Israel completely,
while an Israeli counterstrike can only cause partial damage to
the Islamic world.”
The media must have let that statement slip through the
cracks of their otherwise crack reportage because it’s hard to
read that statement and still refer to Rafsanjani as a moderate
or as the guy who “has appeared more willing to negotiate [with
the West] on the nuclear program.” On the contrary, the Iran
Press Service described him as the first “prominent leader of
the Islamic Republic” to openly suggest “the use of a nuclear
weapon against the Jewish State.” Hey, at least the Iranian
media got it right.
So, the guy who segregates elevators or the guy who
advocates the atomic destruction of Israel: which one is
preferable? It’s a silly question, really, since it’s pretty safe to
assume that everyone in a position of serious power in Iran is
on board with Rafsanjani’s atomic reverie. And in fact, as soon
as Ahmadinejad got the word that he had won the election, he
promised to accelerate Iran’s nuclear program.
When Iran does go nuclear -- and it appears to be a matter
of when, not if -- the Middle East will obviously become a far
more dangerous place. The madcap mullahs and addlebrained
ayatollahs who run the country that is the world’s number one
state sponsor of terrorism want to believe that nukes will make
them safer. The idea is that nobody is going to attack a country
that possesses nuclear weapons because the consequences
would be too devastating.
But smart Iranians know better than to derive any comfort
from that line of reasoning as long as people like Rafsanjani
contemplate nuking Israel and blather about the Israeli
counterstrike only doing “partial damage to the Islamic
world.” Sure, Algiers, Rabat, Palembang and Surabaya will
come out unscathed, but you can bet your sweet Quran that the
only thing left of Iran’s major cities after a nuclear attack on
Israel would be smoldering radioactive holes in the ground.
Other people with cause for concern would be the
Palestinians since they happen to live in territories that are
contiguous to the tiny country of Israel. Unless Iran creates an
extremely sophisticated nuke whose effects can stop at the
Israeli border, Palestinians definitely wouldn’t be dancing in
the streets like they did on 9/11. It would be a real shame for
them to be blasted into the ether along with their hated Jewish
enemies since the Islamic world’s main justification for its
abject hatred of Israel is what they consider the unlawful
displacement of the Palestinians. Even for those who survived,
what good is the right of return to a Palestine that’s going to be
a glow-in-the-dark wasteland for thousands of years?
The idea that Iran could nuke Israel, right the supposed
wrong done to the Palestinians and survive to tell about it is a
towering, monumental idiocy that defies all human
rationality. But such are the thought processes of those who
wield power in Iran.
It is widely known that Iranians are sick and tired of living
in a repressive, economic basket case of a regime that is
irrationally obsessed with hatred of the West and the
destruction of Israel, and which offers its people nothing other
than Islamic madness and continued backwardness. For
several years there have been significant and persistent
demonstrations against the regime and in favor of democratic
reforms. Iran is considered by many to be ripe for a democratic
revolution to overturn the Islamic one that has brought them
nothing but grief.
Pray that it be soon, before Iran goes nuclear and
potentially sows the seeds of its own destruction, as well as that
of Israel and possibly others in the region. It is desirable, of
course, that the Islamic Republic be relegated to the dust bin of
history, but preferably without a nuclear holocaust.
Looks like hearty congratulations are in order for the new
Iranian president-elect, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. If alcohol
were legal in Iran, there would no doubt have been champagne
toasts all around to celebrate his “election” and the ushering in
of . . . well, the next leg of the same old stultifying repression
and bellicosity that has kept intact the country’s status as
outlaw regime and economic basket case. Which, come to
think of it, kind of puts a damper on the celebratory spirit of
average Iranians who have to live under such rule.
But anyway, alcohol is not legal, nor is much of anything else
that doesn’t pass muster with Islamic fundamentalism. And
Ahmadinejad isn’t likely to be in the vanguard of any
revolutionary changes along the lines of allowing more
freedoms. After all, Ahmadinejad’s biggest claim to fame is the
segregating of elevators for men and women in municipal
buildings in Tehran during his ultra-conservative tenure there
as mayor. Progressive, he ain’t.
In addition, several of the 66 Americans who were originally
taken hostage in 1979 by Iranian revolutionaries are convinced
after seeing Ahmadinejad’s picture in the news that he was one
of their captors. Having endured the confinement and the
humiliation of the 444-day “crisis” that cooked Jimmy Carter’s
goose, they aren’t particularly amused by Iran’s electoral
process.
Iran vehemently denies the charge and even U.S.
government officials have their doubts. Whatever the truth
may be, he is the reality that we now have to deal with, though
it hardly matters since it’s the mad mullahs who are really
running the show in Iran.
Before the Iranian election it was quite a hoot to see
mainstream American media outfits like the New York Times,
Washington Post and others describe Ahmadinejad’s opponent,
the Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, as far and away
the preferable choice due to his being a “moderate,” a
“pragmatist” and a “liberal.” Yeah, he’s just a prince of a fellow
to hear them tell it.
But you have to wonder if a guy who segregates elevators is
really worse than the guy, Rafsanjani, who said the following:
“When the Islamic world acquires atomic weapons, the
strategy of the West will hit a dead end -- since the use of a
single atomic bomb has the power to destroy Israel completely,
while an Israeli counterstrike can only cause partial damage to
the Islamic world.”
The media must have let that statement slip through the
cracks of their otherwise crack reportage because it’s hard to
read that statement and still refer to Rafsanjani as a moderate
or as the guy who “has appeared more willing to negotiate [with
the West] on the nuclear program.” On the contrary, the Iran
Press Service described him as the first “prominent leader of
the Islamic Republic” to openly suggest “the use of a nuclear
weapon against the Jewish State.” Hey, at least the Iranian
media got it right.
So, the guy who segregates elevators or the guy who
advocates the atomic destruction of Israel: which one is
preferable? It’s a silly question, really, since it’s pretty safe to
assume that everyone in a position of serious power in Iran is
on board with Rafsanjani’s atomic reverie. And in fact, as soon
as Ahmadinejad got the word that he had won the election, he
promised to accelerate Iran’s nuclear program.
When Iran does go nuclear -- and it appears to be a matter
of when, not if -- the Middle East will obviously become a far
more dangerous place. The madcap mullahs and addlebrained
ayatollahs who run the country that is the world’s number one
state sponsor of terrorism want to believe that nukes will make
them safer. The idea is that nobody is going to attack a country
that possesses nuclear weapons because the consequences
would be too devastating.
But smart Iranians know better than to derive any comfort
from that line of reasoning as long as people like Rafsanjani
contemplate nuking Israel and blather about the Israeli
counterstrike only doing “partial damage to the Islamic
world.” Sure, Algiers, Rabat, Palembang and Surabaya will
come out unscathed, but you can bet your sweet Quran that the
only thing left of Iran’s major cities after a nuclear attack on
Israel would be smoldering radioactive holes in the ground.
Other people with cause for concern would be the
Palestinians since they happen to live in territories that are
contiguous to the tiny country of Israel. Unless Iran creates an
extremely sophisticated nuke whose effects can stop at the
Israeli border, Palestinians definitely wouldn’t be dancing in
the streets like they did on 9/11. It would be a real shame for
them to be blasted into the ether along with their hated Jewish
enemies since the Islamic world’s main justification for its
abject hatred of Israel is what they consider the unlawful
displacement of the Palestinians. Even for those who survived,
what good is the right of return to a Palestine that’s going to be
a glow-in-the-dark wasteland for thousands of years?
The idea that Iran could nuke Israel, right the supposed
wrong done to the Palestinians and survive to tell about it is a
towering, monumental idiocy that defies all human
rationality. But such are the thought processes of those who
wield power in Iran.
It is widely known that Iranians are sick and tired of living
in a repressive, economic basket case of a regime that is
irrationally obsessed with hatred of the West and the
destruction of Israel, and which offers its people nothing other
than Islamic madness and continued backwardness. For
several years there have been significant and persistent
demonstrations against the regime and in favor of democratic
reforms. Iran is considered by many to be ripe for a democratic
revolution to overturn the Islamic one that has brought them
nothing but grief.
Pray that it be soon, before Iran goes nuclear and
potentially sows the seeds of its own destruction, as well as that
of Israel and possibly others in the region. It is desirable, of
course, that the Islamic Republic be relegated to the dust bin of
history, but preferably without a nuclear holocaust.