Want War? Then Continue Ignoring Iran

Earlier this month, Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in a live television broadcast rallied his people to destroy Israel. He called Israel a ‘’cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut,” and promised Iranian support of any regime or enterprise that attempts to destroy the Jewish state.

Each of these events actually happened.

Each provides a glimpse into Iran’s true character and ambition.

Each is a harbinger of a greater, more deadly, confrontation.

Each was ignored, marginalized or flatly rejected by many in the West as mere bluster.

But not all have been so ignorant. “The single biggest danger in the Middle East today is not the risk of a six-day Israeli war against Iran,” wrote Harvard historian Niall Ferguson recently. “It is the risk that Western wishful nonthinking allows the mullahs of Tehran to get their hands on nuclear weapons. Because I am in no doubt that they would take full advantage of such a lethal lever.”

Historian Benny Morris agrees. He warned in the Los Angeles Times Tuesday that “if the Iranian nuclear project is not halted … there will be, by miscalculation, Iranian assault or Israeli preemption, a nuclear war in the Middle East.”

These men grasp the reality of what we’re witnessing in the Middle East. They’re not rejecting Iran’s actions as mere bluster. They’re looking at Iran, at its uncompromising drive for nuclear weapons, at its enthusiastic sponsoring of Islamist terrorism, at its constant effort to undermine Western interests, at its promise to utterly annihilate the Jewish state, and simply believing what their eyes and ears are telling them.

Full article: Want War? Then Continue Ignoring Iran (The Trumpet)

2 responses to “Want War? Then Continue Ignoring Iran

  1. Wow, sounds familiiar doesn’t it? Keep banging the war drum.

    There is no evidence whatsoever that if Iran DID acquire a nuclear weapon that they would EVER use it. Niall Ferguson is no expert on this subject, and he is just regurgitating the chatter of his Harvard cronies. There are constant threats to attack Iran on a daily basis. A string of nuclear scientists have been murdered. The US is actively training and funding known terrorist network in Iran, known as the MEK. The US embargo has crippled the Iranian economy, and they have destroyed the value of their currency.

    There is a reason North Korea and other crazy nuclear countries don’t use their nuclear weapons; because it’s mutually assured destruction, and Iran knows that they would instantly be obliterated. Furthermore, nuclear weapons are against Islamic law.

    I am not defending the Iranian regime, they are dictators and their power is illigetimate, but leave the fear monguering about Iran to Fox News and CNN.

    • For one, it’s acknowledged that there is no way of predicting a future event with 100% accuracy that hasn’t transpired. Yet, it is possible to see certain outcomes based upon a trend.

      Moreover, ask yourself whether or not you’d ignore a man in your presence with a known violent criminal record threatening to harm you. Would you rather discount the criminal record, ignore the man as he approaches you and have harm inflicted upon you after he has made his move? What do you believe the outcome will likely be should you choose to ignore? Analogy being said, that’s the general point of the article. Fact is, Iran has a record, therefore the record/trend of threats should not be discounted — continued threats throughout time from Iran that you also have not acknowledged.

      Two, history has shown embargoes against third-world economies are useless as there is no bottom for them. Iran will simply sell their oil to someone else. The world is not short on customers who need it. Aside from the establishment, and those around their protective umbrella, the average downtrodden citizen for the most part is unlikely to be paralyzed in their daily routine.

      Three, the concept of MAD is thrown out the window when a fanatical regime doesn’t value human life and its own citizenry. Such is the case here. The possession of nuclear weapons might be against Islamic law, but that isn’t necessarily stopping Iran, is it? If the regime is willing to go out of its way to ignore its own religious law, what does that say in itself about the intention? There’s a contradiction here.

      Lastly, pointing out an emerging threat, mentioning the consequences of complacency and making the case that something must be done doesn’t necessarily constitute “fear mongering”. “Fear mongering” is a commonly overblown, abused and overused blanket term/label intended to deflect a point, not disprove a point, in itself.

      This site does not propagate “fear mongering”. Please read the “About” section and also again refer to point one in this comment. You also might want to take this up with the original author of the article.