Stalin, Mao And … Ahmadinejad?

Perhaps the muslim author has a bias?

As an American, I want to say that I'm not fooled by neoconservative and media rhetoric about the dangers of Iran. I think this is another dangerous flight of fantasy that the overgrown boy in our Oval Office is undertaking, living out childish fantasies of saving the world from evil, and in reality murdering thousands upon thousands of people while never taking responsibility for his own actions. It's fueled by American hysteria, paranoia, and ignorance and promoted by an Israeli lobby who are ignoring their own moderate population as badly as we are ignoring ours.

Invading Iran would be a brutal act of warfare by the U.S. and probably completely collapse much of our economy to boot. It would be a moral, economic, and strategic mistake of unprecedented proportions. As a patriotic American, I urge my people back into sanity and away from this dangerous rhetoric.

to Syderijed:
You and other Israel firsters conveniently hide the fact that your spoilt little Israel has more than 200 nukes and more weapons of mass destruction than any country in ME. All paid for by US tax-dollar money. Disloyal Israeli firster Jews should be bombed first and hanged in Times Square. Your kind of unpatriotic Americans are the ones taking US to war with all in MidEast for you dreams of Greater Israel. Israel is the biggest terrorist in the world.

Mr. Zakaria's article is cleverly deceptive, to say the least. Reading it, I momentarily forgot the big picture regarding Ahmadinejad. Zakaria creates the illusion that any threat Ahmadinejad poses to anyone is nothing compared to, say, the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. He depicts the idea of Iran bringing about World War III as absurd. But is it? Zakaria fails to take a few important things into account. No, Iran does not have the strength of a superpower like the Soviet Union. But if a country like Pakistan can develop nuclear capabilities, why not Iran? And no, Iran may not have any Middle Eastern allies beyond Syria. But Ahmadinejad is in bed with forces outside the Arab world, like Russia. And as long as Zakaria is invoking North Korea, let's not forget the $10 million missile deal that Saddam Hussein had with Kim Jong Il shortly before we went in and broke up the party. Is it really a stretch to fear the Axis of Evil coming full circle via a similar missile deal between North Korea and Iran, especially considering the fact that this deal was being negotiated in Syria with the knowledge of the Assad government? And perhaps most prominently, Zakaria completely ignores the very real danger that Ahmadinejad poses to Israel, a very important ally of ours in the Middle East. Indeed, many of Ahmadinejad's comments regarding Israel and Jews are more than a little reminiscent of Hitler. And if, as Hans Blix admits, Iran is capable of developing long-range missiles (able to hit Europe and the U.S.) by 2015 (which, unfortunately for Zakaria's argument, falls within Ahmadinejad's two-term limit), who's to say how early Iran will have a missile that only needs to reach Israel? Does Iran really need to attack US to incur a military response from us? Finally, Zakaria makes a terrible mistake in saying that "we're on a path to irreversible confrontation with a country we know almost nothing about." First of all, we know all that we need to know about Iran, namely that it is under the control of a president who has both the means and the motive to launch a disastrous attack on either the United States or Israel in the near future (and who, despite what Zakaria claims, is not a harmless figurehead, and can be granted military control by the Supreme Leader). And more importantly, there is no imminent conflict. As nearly everyone from Bush to Giuliani has stated, military action against Iran is merely an option, albeit a very serious one. Although Zakaria depicts otherwise, American conservatives would like nothing more than a peaceful and diplomatic solution with Iran. But with the U.N.'s failure to take any determined steps in that direction, and Ahmadenijad showing no signs of ending his quest for nuclear weaponry, launching a pre-emptive strike on Iran is becoming a more prominent possibility, and a viable one at that.

I think we shold go after i ran now ,i am tired of these weenie cowards that think iran is the greatest
country.in the world.

im my opinion the monetary system should turn out from USD to EURO.Or U.S People should limit Bush authority in financial system if the world war III wants to be avoided .If we expand the topic with an example ??f a mad person armed with heavy weapons he can harm himself as well as others.U.S government has an oppurtunity to expand the money stock in the world which can finance its demand.Bush armed himself with this weapon but he dont know how his policsy will effect the economy in the future.Greenspan pointed this problem couple of days ago.U.S citizens pay taxes and Bush spread this money to the world without any knowledge for bringing democracy to the other side of the world but he is not able to finance this war with taxes he finance this war by boosting money stock.Other words we should compare Bush and H??ttler.One of killed millions of Jewish another is still killing millions of muslim. The world war III can be prevented by changing the monetary system or resignation of Bush.

Mr. Zakaria is absolutely correct. Whatever we might think about their leadership, Iran poses no threat to us. Bush claimed Iran wanted to destroy Israel and thus there would be World War III, but in reality Ahamadinejad referred to Israel as an illegitimate state which would "vanish from the page of time". Please see "WIPED OFF THE MAP" - The Rumor of the Century by Mr. Arash Norouzi for thorough proof of this claim: www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century

Where is it written that Iran MUST fire a missle into Israel?
Why not use a smaller device delivered into Tel Aviv and avoid the ARrow Missle defense.
They would still get a retaliation...but they would have leveled Tel Aviv.
I wish it were as easy as Fareed implies.
Fareed must also realize,...FEAR is real. You can't merely tell someone their fears are unfounded. We can't expect Israel or others to relinquish their fears, just because there is some analysis that finds Iran unable to attack. FEAR is real to those who feel it.

Dear friend. I am an Iranian. My question is whose side are you on? I do ot favor American hegemony or US-Iran war. But low military budget or GDP do not prevent Iran from hitting israel. I ASSURE you of the fact that if the Islamic clerical dictatorship in iran gets its hands on a nuke on friday, they will certainly hit Isarael with it on Saturday. they dont care about their low military budget. their approach is not realistic or scientific. Their approach is mythological and ideological. ideology cannot be understood in factual terms. That is what you have ignored in your analysis. yes, Ahmadinejad is a pupet but who pulls the strings? THIS IS THE QUESTION. Those who pull his strings are exactly those who support Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. So it does not matter who is the president. If these things did not happen during Khattami's presidency it was not because of the reforms. It was becasue it was not the right time. After Khattami, Khamenei and his counsellors needed a reckless blockhead to be stupid enough to neglect what the world wants. I am telling you. Iranians do not want "peaceful" nuclear energy. They need developing economy and political freedom.

In my view, we should nike Iran off the map, a la Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If anyone objects, we should nuke them, too. This includes Beijing and Moscow. As for retaliation from Moscpw or Beijing, consider that we now how have a population of 300,000,000. Our population during World War II was 160,000,000. This means we could afford to lose half of our population and still emerge as mighty a nation as we were at the end of WWII.

While we're at it, we should bring WWII to a proper close by nuking Berlin and Tokyo as well.