And here is a recent video from PROTEST IN TEHRAN, which symbolizes the TENSION between Iran currently and the Arab world:

http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=693

The fact is that Bush will do anything to make history and Hillary Clinton will do anything to become a president!
Lets hope the not so bright voter in USA does not vote for yet another nutcase!

The fact is that Bush will do anything to make history and Hillary Clinton will do anything to become a president!
Lets hope the not so bright voters in USA does not vote for yet another nutcase!

The fact is that Bush will do anything to make history and Hillary Clinton will do anything to become a president!
Lets hope the not so bright voter in USA does not vote for yet another nutcase!

"...Iran is the new strategic threat." With all due respect, this type of statement still surprises me. Iran has always been the threat and our military-intelligence community knows this. The one thing notably missing from media coverage of our Middle Eastern machinations has been a nice big map showing our footprint in Afghanistan and our footprint in Iraq. Guess what's right between them? That's right...Iran. Anyone ever read a basic book on military strategy? Ever hear of a pincers movement? Astute strategists seldom take any single action hoping for a single outcome. Our operations in the Middle East are multivariate in nature, but fundamentally Iran-centric -- and have been at least since the Soviet failure in Afghanistan. Oil is an element, 911 is an element, leveraging China/Russia and India/Pakistan dynamics is an element, but the heart of our "war on terror" these past seven years has always been Iran. Ever since the Carter Administration capitulated to Islamic fundamentalism in 1979 and let the Shah of Iran fall and Khomeini come to power, Iran has been the political center of this threat. To understand US grand strategy in the region, all you have to do is look at an actual map sometime. Arkin and company should print THAT on the front page.

The US gave Saddam the chemical weapons to kill Iranians. I wonder why they don't like us.

MONICA (TECHNICALLY) KISSED HILLARY

mrs clinton is seeking to get more votes in her compaign by louding such statements would not americans ask themselves who is more threat for the world peace iran who is willing to act on npt rules or characters devoting themselves for zionists and their dreams the result would be reverse for mrs clinton as it had been to mr. george w bush in afghanistan and iraq cases.

Bill Clinton gets impeached for getting an innocent BJ while the Bush gets away with murdering millions of innocent people for $$$.

The rest of the world will make us pay for this.

As typical the vile cancer of a woman Hillary Clinton can't contain her desire to act like a warmonger but market herself as a peace candidate. Has ever a more dishonest and vile person ever run for office in the United States, Dick Cheney included. Hillary claims that she is anti-war, but yet she voted for this war, every subsequent spending bill, the patriot act, wiretapping of US citizens (without warrants), and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment against Iran. For all of her socalled "change" credentials and peace qualifications all of her votes in the senate on foreign policy might as well have been cast by Dick Cheney the last three years. Even dumb, dumb warmonger Mccain never threatened to "obliterate" a 5,000 year old nation. Wow Hillary threaten to vaporize old woman and newborn babies, what won't you do to get elected? And now her ridiculous and vile mega-billion dollar tax transfer of our public funds into the pockets of big oil companies that don't need the money. I know lets tax the oil companies less, and rely on them to give all us little guys our fair share of the rebate. This woman makes me want to vomit.

Mark my words if this country elects Mccain or Clinton we will cease to be a first rate power, because these Israelophiles will bleed us dry fighting wars for oil and Israel with our tax money. Obama is the only one who cares about this country more than he cares for Israeli lobbyists and Oil lobbyists.

I think Iran don't need atomic bomb because they have more powerful economic weapons to use against USA. Really what was the use of the great atomic arsenal of superpowers in cold war .The economy is the main battle field which Iran has great power on that .with oil price about 120 dollar what can they do against Iran . If Iran announce that because of technical problems is unable to export oil for a month or two what will happen to USA .

I think Iran don't need atomic bomb because they have more powerful economic weapons to use against USA. Really what was the use of the great atomic arsenal of superpowers in cold war .The economy is the main battle field which Iran has great power on that .with oil price about 120 dollar what can they do against Iran . If Iran announce that because of technical problems is unable to export oil for a month or two what will happen to USA .

I think Iran don't need atomic bomb because they have more powerful economic weapons to use against USA. Really what was the use of the great atomic arsenal of superpowers in cold war .The economy is the main battle field which Iran has great power on that .with oil price about 120 dollar what can they do against Iran . If Iran announce that because of technical problems is unable to export oil for a month or two what will happen to USA .

...just don't buy oil from iran..
this is quicker said than done.
Someone will always buy , tyhe market value now is 122 per barrel

"It is radical, anti-American, anti-Israel, terrorist-supporting, nuclear-armed and provocative."

If it wasn't for the gravity of this issue I would have addressed the author by something more lighthearted than "idiot". Anyway

Point 1-Radical? What is your yardstick for that? Number of executions or decapitating black men at the back of the truck. Oops, I confused them with Texas.

Point 2-Terrorist-supporting? Who is terrorist? Why do you think Israel is as low in world's public opinion? The US is at the top of the list of states sponsoring terrorism.

Point 3-Nuclear-armed? Should I even dare guess where you pulled this one out of?

Point 4-Provocative? Yah. Their invasion of Iraq against all international laws was really provocative.

WARNING: More of us understand you, your language and culture, than you would learn about us in 100 years.

Don't mess with The Great Nation of Iran.

I truly believe that the American people do not realise the real reason for the Iraq war and the current war threat against Iran. It's not the nukes, it's not the terrorism and it's not the oil. It's all about the protection and propping up of the greatest con-job in recent history, the US Petrodollar Scam.

Back in 1971, the USA printed and spent far more paper money than it could cover by gold. When the French demanded redemption of its dollar holdings in gold, The USA discovered that it could not honour the debt, thus committing an act of bankruptcy. So the USA went to the Saudis and cut a deal - we'll keep you in power, no mater what you do, as long as OPEC denominate all sales of oil in US dollars. The deal was done.

From that point, every nation that needed to buy oil had to firstly hold US dollars, which meant that they exchanged their goods and services for dollars, which the Americans just printed. The Americans boiught their oil literally for free by printing those dollars and using inflation to reduce their value. The ultimate free lunch for the Americans at the expense of the rest of the world.

However, the scam began to unravel when Saddam Hussein started selling Iraq's oil directly for Euro, abrogating the cosy arrangement the Americans had with OPEC. Thus Saddam had to be stopped. How? He could not be persuaded, so the USA concocted up a pretext to wage war and invade Iraq and the first thing the Americans did was to revert sales of oil back to dollars. The currency crisis was averted for the moment.

But Hugo Chavez also started selling Venezuelan oil for currencies other than dollars, so there were a number of attempts on his life and "regime change", traceable right back to the CIA. The petrodollar cat was out of the bag.

Iran, watching all of this, decided to kick The Great Satan in the goolies and do the same thing - sell oil for every currency EXCEPT US dollars. All of a sudden, despite intrusive IAEA inspections and compliance with the NPT and the inalienable right to enrich uranium, Iran became the next big threat.

Sure, Iran was a threat to the USA, but not because of anything nuclear. What Iran was doing was compounding the economic destruction of the USA by becoming another member of the oil producers club that were bypassing NYMEX and IPE and selling oil for Euro, Yen and other currencies.

The problem for the USA is that those dollars fund not only the American lifestyle and the free lunch at the expense of the rest of the world, but they fund the US military, which is used to force the American will onto nations that threaten the USA economically, such as Iran.

So the shell game is coming to an end for the Americans. As the nations of the world find that they can buy oil for their own currencies instead of holding paper US dollars, more OPEC nations will abandon the dollar. The worst thing for the Americans is that eventually, they will also have to buy their oil with Euro or Rubles instead of just printing paper money to get it.

That will be the end of the American Empire, the end of funding for the US military and the destruction of the US economy. This is why Iran is so dangerous and has to be stopped. It's nothing to do with nukes, just as it was nothing to do with WMD in Iraq.

Actually the biggest WMD threat to the USA is the economic weapon. The great scam is coming to an end and there's not a lot that the USA can do about it, except start another world war. And can't you see that coming?

War with Iran is not plausible without exhaustive diplomatic effort. A nuclear Iran would be a threat to all its neighbors, so it wouldn't and hasn't been hard getting Europe's attention. The UN is always another matter but even the Chineese (in the long run)don't want a nuclear Iran.

As far as back channel communication, its a certainty that is going on in earnest. Bismark said it best; "a nation doesn't have friends it has interests". Its easy to look at the United States and say what a bad, selfish, country we are but that would be overly simplistic. Yeah we've played a shell game in the middle east and as the "Rev" so pointed out we've switched sides when it suited us...

But you know what folks, that's the game.

Remember that little conflict called World War II? Anyone remember a guy named Joseph Stalin? Remember the famous picture at the Potsdam conference with Roosevelt (the father of modern American Liberalism) sitting next to Churchill and "Uncle Joe". You think Roosevelt and Stalin shared intimate moments together when no one was looking? It served our interests as a nation to side with Stalin, despite his obvious evil. Five years later we were in the midst of the cold war against...you guessed it, Stalin.

Yes we dropped the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I honestly don't understand the modern liberal view of this event but here goes...

If you really want to understand our decision to drop the bomb, pick up a book on the battle of Okinawa. It might make it a little clearer. Had we invaded Japan (Option 1) conservative estimates put the casualty toll at over a million. Estimates on the higher end put casualties at over 10 million (us and them in total). Had we continued fire bombing until Japan capitulated (option 2), again the estimated death total would have easily surpased 1 million (just them). So yes as the Rev pointed out it actually was the humane thing to do, considering the alternatives. 200,000 is less than a million.

We live in a world where sometimes good people, or in this case good countries have to do evil things. That's life...

War with Iran is not an envitable. Iran wants its place at the table and will use the "nuke card" to gain diplomatic leverage. They also have some serious economic problems that have caused unrest amongst its younger generation. So they have issues and they know if they play thier cards right they can gain. That said; they also know that the American public doesn't want another long war. They also know that such a war if it came would be a disaster for them. So via back channels both sides will continue to negotiate, while publicly talking tough to please the domestic hawks (on both sides). If America goes to war it won't be wihtout overwhelimng international support (a la Bush the elder and James Baker). Remember its alot easier for the Iranins to nuke Paris than it is Los Angeles. Don't think for s second the world community is ignorant of that fact.

It is very simple to prevent them ,just don't buy oil from them.
It is better than bombing us

Posted by: | May 8, 2008 1:53 PM

If you are truly Iranian, there are impersonaters who show up on this blog from time to time, it is my understanding that Saddam and Chemical Ali used chemical WMDs against Iranian and Kurdish fighters, and not the other way around.

I am Iranian
Iran didn't use chemical weapons in war with Iraq because didn't have them.
These regime(iran mullahs)are not moslem.
They use Islam as a weapon against Iranian people and world.Of course they want nuclear weapon.They said in school to us that USA have nuclear weapon so we should have it.
But they unfortunately didn't said that USA have democracy so we should have it.
It is very simple to prevent them ,just don't buy oil from them.
It is better than bombing us

Virgin olive oil, fresh herbs....
Dimitry,

Soul brotha's do not consume olive oil, fresh herbs... and other foods that are good for us, we ingest high carbs with a lot of good old American fat, hbp and all !

This USA, Iran and Iraq shell game by the United States is really something to behold isn't it? The real problem here is that the USA has been an instigator, and the nation that has been taking advantage of the situation in the entire ME region for about 75 years now.

And too boot, we have constantly switched sides, Israel being the exception, in terms of pitting ME nations against each other --

When Ronnie Reagan (also of Contra subterfuge, leveraged buyouts, taking care of the rich and misleading the American people and the world fame) was alive and misrepresenting the truth like GB43 does now, Saddam attacked the Kurds who were confederate with Iran, and used Chemical WMDs against them.

Iran protested at the U.N. and tried to get something done about Iraq's use of chemical WMDs on the Kurds and Iranian fighters, however, Ronnie Reagan ran interference for Saddam and prevented a resolution from passing at the UN that would have addressed the issue of Saddam's chemical WMDs.

Did that make RR an accessory to murder? Oh the hypocrisy! Why did he do it? He wanted Iraq to defeat Iran by any means necessary. And as Ronnie said before, government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem - particularly the kind of governments that have been run by Ronnie and GB!

The two of them were and are tje problem!
Can you say deceit, cover-up, green-mail, Ollie North hiding in the basement of the White House, murdering of students at the People's Park in UC Berkeley and KSU? Did I leave off S. Carolina and Jackson State Universities? Natural born killers!

The USA under its customary leadership is totally against working through a legitimate international organization that has been tasked to deal with international problems among the nations of the world.

Oddly enough, when the Iran-Iraq war ended, the United States forces attacked Saddam's forces in Desert Storm; and then 13 years later the USA goes back again, invades and occupies Iraq and has Saddam put to sleep.

And of late the Republicans want to do what Saddam failed to do, and polish off Iran. GB is hoping that Iran will give him an excuse to invade or to bomb Iran. He probably will once the election is over anyway. He will come up with something like they talked about my mama!

Who knows perhaps Saddam wanted to save lives when he employed WMDs and used them against the Kurdish-Iranian coalition, in the same manner that the USA saved lives during WWII, when the USA murdered over 200,000 Japanese citizens with WMDs!

With respect to America's venal and unjust foreign policy and foreign policy apparatus, we have an enigma wrapped up in a crooked American-style conundrum!

Hopefully, a new President, whomever she might turn out to be will think again about America's prolonged, inane and insane foreign policy - it needs a serious overall!

Okay liz, a little rough at the end(needs ambiguity) but right on with the rest.
Nuke-ular Bunker Busters is how they were billed I believe.

""Calculated ambiguity" persisted as American policy all during the 1990s and probably persists to this day,"

Probably? Every time GW speaks, he oozes ambiguity. Rumsfeld was the master of saying alot to say nothing... I'm sure he was coaching Georgie boy:

http://www.slate.com/id/2081042/

==collards, turnips, mustards, kale..., with fat mixed in with the greens of course==

Virgin olive oil, fresh herbs, organic molasses, balsamic vinegar, wood-smoked bacon and vidalia onions. That makes for good greens.

==You say that the candidates think that Iran is radical, anti-American, anti-Israel, terrorist-supporting, nuclear-armed and provocative. Sure Iran is radical and anti-Israel, but nuclear armed? What kind of fantasy world to these people occupy? After years of intrusife IAEA monitoring, there's no evidence that Iran is even diverting nuclear technology to the military and it certainly does not possess nuclear arms==

That's right. But the pundits and policy makers rarely, if ever, make that distinction. If you listen to them casually, like most Americans do, their unverified and highly dubious opinion that Iran "is seeking to acquire nuclear arms" is nearly indstinguishable from a verifyable fact that Iran "has acquired" nuclear arms, or is aboout to in the very near future. This is exactly the same, and very simple public opinion manipulation technique that was used to convince most Americans that Saddam "desire" was equivalent to "mushroom clouds over our cities". If you repeat it often enough, an an echo-chamber of "friendly minded" journalists, press pundits and ex-military "experts" is created, then consent for war is fairly rapidly manufactured.

It should be very alarming to all thinking people that the powers that be has started the propaganda campaign for Iran war in earnest and it is already yielding fruit.

Good thing you worked for Green Peace...such a wonderful Thanksgiving loving people

May 7, 2008

I resemble that comment for black Americans always enjoy a healthy serving of greens at Thanksgiving, collards, turnips, mustards, kale..., with fat mixed in with the greens of course..., and hot sauce and cornbread! Hmm baby!

Conservaites Republicans simply imbibe on the raw fat of lies, misrepresentation, illogic, duplicity, pork-barrel spending, earmarks, waste, phantasms & wars that America cannot afford to pay for!

Why won't they simply show us the whole deck of cards? We need to know the names of the other nations who are on the American, future hit list!

If Americans were privy to the entire last, it would factor into their decisions, who they should and should not vote for in the upcoming election!

I suspect, not neccessarily in this order, that there are roughly 7 to 10 names on that secret list of nations:

Iran
Pakistan
Syria
China
Russia (if they don't continue to cooperate)

The DPRK (We're not through with the DPRK)
Nicaragua
Cuba
Vatican City, if it won't comport to the American way of doing things!

I understand that American Catholic Bishops have pressured the Vatican already 'to be more liberal', given the significant monetary contributions that Americans make to the Vatican. Oxymoron? Be more liberal?

If we are as bad as we are now in our mistreatment of other people and nations of the world, one can only imagine what will happen as America continues to imitate Cheney in being more secularized!

Nothing against secularists, however, America's religious pretense has prevented it from destroying more lives than it would have.

George Bush, born again? From what? Which reminds me, did these folks every git rid of the neutron bomb, really?

Regarding Desert Storm, we didnt drop the threat in public, but we told him off line to keep it conventional OR ELSE, he got the message.

Also, even during the Cold War we never renounced the first use of nuclear weapons, even though the Soviets did.

You say that the candidates think that Iran is radical, anti-American, anti-Israel, terrorist-supporting, nuclear-armed and provocative. Sure Iran is radical and anti-Israel, but nuclear armed? What kind of fantasy world to these people occupy? After years of intrusife IAEA monitoring, there's no evidence that Iran is even diverting nuclear technology to the military and it certainly does not possess nuclear arms. As for supporting terrorists, these candidates are the pot calling the kettle black. With a long history of overthrowing elected governments, illegally invading nations and making war on the basis of deliberate lies, supporting terrorist groups such as the Contras and now Jundullah and a litany of other crimes, the biggest terrorist nation on the planet by far is the USA. Iran pales into insignificance in the terrorism stakes when compared to the USA.

Let me get this straight Mr. Arkin. You are asking Hillary NOT to be two-faced now - with the impending Dem choice for a presidential candidate is in the the not-so-distant future? I think you have asked the impossible of Hillary, or have vastly overestimated her. Or is it a underestimation? I don't think it really matters, she has - with the help of hubby 'Billy boy' - paid off the superdelligates to cinch the nomination. The rest is merely a floor show for those who identify with show tunes...

If you were asking Hillary to say that Iran isn't dangerous, then she will loose votes because even the most die-hard pseudo-libs may say that there is no threat - but deep in their hearts they cannot say Iran isn't a threat. Fess up now, all those who wish to tow this stupid line forward still - ALL the candidates know better. If you don't like any of the main candidates that hold this view - there is still Ron Paul...

Why didn't Clinton's advisers see this as a big dea? Because we all agree that we have the right to nuke others because we're White and they're Brown.

So of course it would have been a big deal had Ahmadinejad threatened to "obliterate" the US, but not if we threaten to obliterate them. We have that right and privilege, jsut like we have the right to thumb our noses at international law by attacking and invaind Iraq, building more nukes in violation of the NPT, torturing people etc.

One set of rules for us, another set for the rest.

That's all.

Iran didn't use chemical weapons against Saddam during the Iran-IRaq war, even though it was legally entitled to respond in kind, out of their religious aversion to WMDs.

Bush has explicitly said that using nukes against Iran -- even on a first-strike basis -- is an "option on the table".
Why are we threatening non-nuclear armed states with nuclear first strikes, in violation of our promises known as the Negative Security Assurance? Even China has ruled out using nukes on a first strike basis and here we are, threatening to "pre-emptively" nuke people who don't have any nuclear weapons let alone threaten to use them against us.

Who is the real threat against whom?

And why are we supposed to defend Israel at all? They stole their nuclear bombs from us! Why should we have to finish off whatever mess they start?

How come libs can fault away the consensus view on potential war but you wacko libs can get away with using cosensus scientific proof for global warming...oh that's right libs can get away with what ever they want for the moment...not the truth....Good thing you worked for Green Peace...such a wonderful Thanksgiving loving people

good thing you clarified that everyone is at fault. Otherwise, someone might have accused you of not supporting Clinton.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.