Wednesday Iran Talking Points

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 25th, 2010:

Washington Times: In an editorial, the hawkish daily chronicles what it calls, “Iran’s emergence as a regional hegemon,” based on its slowly advancing nuclear program and its unveiling of a new line of unmanned aircraft. The editorial cites the Israeli Foreign Ministry in saying that the developments are “totally unacceptable” and wonders if the term means as much to President Obama. Coyly attributing two recent mysterious events to Israeli subversion, the Times takes comfort that “perhaps ‘unacceptable’ means something after all.”

Foreign Policy: On FP’s “Shadow Government” blog, the Foreign Policy Initiative’s Jamie Fly admits that the new Iranian reactor at Bushehr “fails to meet the hype,” but nonetheless reveals a failure in U.S.-Iran policy. He says, “a serious exploration of new options, including the military option, is thus in order if the United States remains unwilling to accept a nuclear Iran.” Fly also disapprovingly notes Russia’s complicity in the reactor’s start-up, and raises questions about Iran’s nuclear time line. On the latter point, Fly wonders “how close Iran should be allowed to get to a nuclear capability before military action is taken.”

Commentary: On the “Contentions” blog, prolific über-hawk Jennifer Rubin riffs on a Bret Stephens Wall Street Journal column asserting that the United States didn’t act soon enough to remove Saddam Hussein in Iraq. She extends the logic of Stephens’ “Twenty Years War” with Iraq to the “the Thirty-One Years War that Iran has waged against the United States and the West,” urging Obama “to finally engage the enemy, thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and commit ourselves to regime change.” She concludes with a note that recalls the measures taken against Iraq by Bill Clinton, which laid the groundwork for Bush’s war there: “But perhaps, if Israel buys the world sufficient time (yes, we are down to whether the Jewish state will pick up the slack for the sleeping superpower), the next president will.”

Huffington Post: Conservative pundit Tony Blankley lists differences between “1938ers” — those who believe it’s always 1938 and Hitler always lurks around the corner — and the Obama administration’s policies. “So the question today is not whether to appease Iran or not — but whether Iran is appeasable. And if not appeasable, whether its threat can be defeated with acceptable costs,” writes Blankley. He concludes that Obama’s strategy is based on “wishful thinking, at best,” and that, “the grim assessment of the 1938ers seems sadly more realistic.”

Author: Ali Gharib

Visit for the latest news analysis and commentary from Ali Gharib and Inter Press News Service's Washington bureau chief Jim Lobe.

6 thoughts on “Wednesday Iran Talking Points”

  1. “Blankley” is the perfect adverb for his mental condition. He calls any possible Iranian retaliation for a US attack “terroristic.” What the hell would we call the US attack since it would be preventive, not defensive?

    Go through the list the Blankman files for the “1938ers.” It’s a pack of lies, distortions, and unsupported conjecture. Yet he calls opponents’ criticisms as mostly wishful thinking. So let me pose this quite serious question: When and how did ignorant morons and knaves come to dominate the news and opinion media? Can it be that the American public is equally moronic and thus favors those who cater to it?

    For the love of God, read Cal Thomas’s recent column on the latest round of talks between Israel and the Palestinians if you want a serious dollop of uninformed imbecility and bias passing as logical thinking. That he’s one of America’s most popular columnists seems to support the notion that stupid is as stupid does.

    1. Ditto on the Idiot Blankley. Mr Fly at Foreign Policy is more slickly mendacious, admitting that the Bushehr brouhaha was nothing more than a tempest-in-a-teapot, but without admitting that conventional light water reactors like Bushehr are useless for producing weapons, and somehow forgetting to mention that Iran's whole nuclear power program is under IAEA safeguards. He instead hints of vague and dark threats. Different levels of propaganda to influence different levels of opinion. Neocons are expert at this.

  2. Secondly, the variation in the chemical compounds used to manufacture books also implies that it's an aroma that will differ from e book to book. It's probably that the majority of ‘new e-book smell' may be put down to three essential sources: the paper itself (and the chemical substances utilized in its manufacture), the inks used to print the book, and the adhesives used within the book-binding process.

Comments are closed.