This is one of the problems of framing the present conflict as a "war on terror." Anyone can commit "terrorism." But it is only jihadists, not Zionists or anyone else, who are committing violence in countries around the globe in the name of their totalitarian and expansionist ideology. From CNN, with thanks to Ted Robertson:
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- President Bush has no authority to accuse Iran of sponsoring terrorism while the U.S. supports "Zionist terrorists" and runs military prisons that use "torture," Tehran's Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Sunday.Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi's comments responded to last week's State of the Union address by Bush, when he said: "Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve."
Asefi shot back accusations toward Washington, referring to Israel, alleged prisoner abuse at a U.S.-run prison in Iraq and treatment of detainees held as enemy combatants at the U.S. base in Cuba.
"The United States is supporting a Zionist terrorist group, but in order to combat terrorism, the United States must start within itself," Asefi said. "The issues of the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons is a shame for the United States which will not be wiped out anytime soon."
Islam is the only globally historical entity to NOT clean up it's own act over time. Gee, every Islamic country on the face of the earth is plagued with violence of it's own initiative.
"Spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi's comments responded to last week's State of the Union address by Bush, when he said: "Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror -- pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve."
I too take issue with Bush's statement that Iran is the world's primary state sponsor of terror - the hatred and takfir spewing Kingdom of Saudi Arabia appears to have earned that distinction.
What strikes me interesting is how the Iranian rhetoric is basically adopted from American rhetoric. They have identified basic features of the conflict between America and its allies and the Jihad (or the Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam if you please) and turned our own analysis on us.
Thus, they are fighting a defensive war. The Israelis are perpetrating terrorism. America is guilty of human-rights abuses because of a scandal involving several soldiers and harboring dangerous and crazed murderers picked up on the battlefield at Guantanamo Bay.
You've got to hand it to Zarqawi -- at least he has some original rhetoric and doesn't borrow ours to supplement arguments against us. Zarqawi says, "We are against democracy."
Iran pursues nukes, threatens to use them once acquired, is involved in war against our troops in Iraq, is involved in war against our allies; and then they borrow the rhetoric of the Leftwing to justify their position. This will ultimately continue to sharpen the philosophical lines and expose the distinctions in systems of thought. The question for every individual, "Which way of thinking will you support?"
Note -- the first sentence of that last paragraph should read as follows:
"Iran pursues nukes, threatens to use them once acquired, is involved in war against our troops in Iraq, is involved in war against our allies; and then they borrow the rhetoric of both the Administration and the Leftwing to justify their position."
For nearly a month, President Bush’s second Inauguration speech had the media asking, “who’s next in the White House’s sights?” His State of the Union speech elucidated things considerably, identifying Iran and Syria as the main threats to peace in 2005. Naturally, they strenuously deny that they engage in accumulating WMDs, supporting international terrorism and oppressing their people, as accused. - The extent of their pathological DECEIT is legendary.
Somewhat disappointingly, Bush omitted North Korea and, in a pleasant surprise, proposed that US “allies” Saudi Arabia and Egypt lift their game without delay. There are, of course, several further candidates, eminently fit for the Pentagon’s attentions if they don’t greatly improve their ways (specially, in their cases, in the vital dimension of human rights); the Secretary of State, Condaleeza Rice, nominated many of these - explicitly - during her Congressional hearings: Cuba, Burma, Sudan, Belarus, Zimbabwe, plus North Korea - a nuclear renegade, to boot.
Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Libya, and more, are as deserving of change for the better as are any of those above - unfortunately, due to prevailing circumstances in the mistitled “War on Terror”, their public naming by the Administration’s not “politically” apt... at this juncture, anyway.
North Korea and Iran are the remaining two-thirds of the “Axis of Evil”, and further - with Cuba - they’re the oldest items - by many decades - on America’s “unfinished business” list. But the big reason that Iran, particularly, constitutes the top contemporary target is that, at this point, it’s a growing menace to what peace and security abides on the planet today - and what could shape in the future - because of its OPENLY DECLARED bellicosity in general, demonstrated by its backing of an array of terrorist groups and its feverish pursuit of the A-Bomb.
Infamously, Syria’s hosted terrorists itself for decades and for about 25 years has been a close accomplice of Iran: to initially prise it from Tehran’s orbit - and to remove Syria’s own satellite, Lebanon - would deprive Iran of a measure of premium tactical space, much to America’s benefit, as would the concomitant smashing of the terror-centres in Syria and Lebanon.
North Korea now possesses a modest brace of nukes and Iran verges upon doing so as well - if it doesn’t have a handful already. For years, each of them’s fielded fleets of medium/intermediate missile delivery-vehicles and both are now developing ICBMs. The logical priority, therefore, becomes to check this proliferation - WHILE THERE’S THE CHANCE. (The White House’s elected to go for Iran first, presumably since it sponsors terrorism - allegedly including el-Qaeda, inter alia - in tandem with its clandestine nuclear arms ventures.)
Indisputably, Pakistan’s extensive atomic weapons industry (with its multiple, shadowy links to the Saudis and, reputedly, to Egypt and, at the least, Algeria, the UAE and Malaysia) will also have to be addressed pretty soon. But it’d be totally absurd to wait till Pakistan, et al, (optimally) become amenable to such “intrusions on their sovereignty”, prior to tackling this grave and pressing problem, there and elsewhere. Put at its crudest, Iran and North Korea, specifically, ought to be neutralized - if necessary, militarily - BEFORE they’re equipped to riposte to US nuclear sanctions with a shower of their own atomic warheads.
The vital caveat to be confronted here, though, must be that in formulating the US’ approaches towards them, it’s supremely worth it being aware that, accompanying whatever nukes this pair are quietly packing nowadays, for ages, North Korea and Iran (plus Egypt, Cuba, Sudan, Syria, Pakistan and the rest) have concocted gargantuan quantities of OFFENSIVELY-APPLICABLE, CHEMICAL & BIOLOGICAL warfare-agents. In addition, they’ve been busily building up the semi-ballistic rocketry to fire them off - today, at American, allied or associated targets in the Mideast &/or the Pacific, tomorrow, at anyplace on Earth.
Mr Bush’s idea of unilateral, geostrategic pre-emption - here, the timely aborting of the nuclear-armaments ambitions of a dangerous refractory - is definitely something of which Iran, and North Korea, ought to be very seriously mindful, drastically altering their policies, forthwith. However, going by their records, at best the odds on them doing so are abysmally POOR.
Despite the gullible enthusiasm of the grovelling EU diplomacy vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic’s steady nuclearization and China’s and South Korea’s re the North’s, it’s extremely likely that the NEXT 12 TO 30 MONTHS will be the maximum “window” preceding Tehran and Pyongyang, individually, from then onward, wielding a minimal, rudimentary - but nonetheless workable - thermonuclear force (and accordingly, being left free to enhance and expand it thereafter).
The key question during this period could well boil down to: which of the other nuclear powers, Russia, China, France, Britain, Israel, India or Pakistan - as stridently as some of them, no doubt, will squawk - would launch their rockets at the US, on the behalf of Iran or North Korea, should American projectiles, possibly, nukes among them, fall upon - in a comprehensive, surgical, “first strike” pattern - and demolish the WMD plants belonging to either of these cruel, arch-regressive malefactors (or else even onto the dastardly duo’s atom-sites, together)?
Answering this one question satisfactorily - “NONE” - (and coping adequately with its complex of weighty repercussions) could, in the near to medium term, govern the new millennium’s uncompromising play of Machtspolitik, as it unfolds, determining its degree of ghastliness.
There’s strong impetus for extra urgency in fixing this problem: the US faces the dire risk of RUNNING OUT OF TIME. If it doesn’t take advantage of pre-emption while it’s available, then once Iran and North Korea, undisturbed, have stockpiled on the sly what they deem to be “a secure quantity” of payloads, mounted aboard ICBMs (attaining an “atomic war-fighting ability”) - within one to, at most, five years - a plausible method of bringing them under proper control, i.e. functional pre-emption (nuclear or conventional), will be shut off, permanently.
How America’ll finally be obligated to deal with these two recalcitrants after that, is bound to be greatly different to the incoherence and indecision, which, alas, has continued to encumber it. Overnight, the US’ choices’ll turn more limited, a lot more difficult, more perilous and probably immensely, intensely damaging - all round - than if basic pre-emption’d been practised WHEN IT COULD’VE BEEN, ultimately sparing millions of lives and saving massive resources.
How many people have bit into the edification that the cold war is over?.....not me.....no way
When we go into iran i hope they pick up obl first.