Stalin, Mao And … Ahmadinejad?

Where is it written that Iran MUST fire a missle with a warehead????
A few well placed devices could be strategically set off and Tel Aviv would be gone, yet the West Bank and Gaza would probably be spared.

The results of years of diplomacy with Iran are zero. According to the President of Iran (Ahmadinejad), that country will never abandon or modify its nuclear program. He insists that no amount of diplomacy will affect a change in Iran.

How true it is that how little we know about the country call Iran? Perhaps not much because we have given up on that country about 30 years ago as the article so eloquently describes. It is that hysteria or hyperbola what ever you might want to call about the whole thing of Iran's Nuclear activity. If it can comply with the IAEA or the Internatioanal Atomic Energy and does not violate the pricipal or protocol of the use of nuclear energy, give them that opportunity to do that. If iran does not comply and use the Nuclear issue into military use than we can take tough statnce against it.

Mr. Fareed is right that a country who's economy is about the size of Finland and it's economy is 68% less than that of the United States, it's defence budget is 110% less than us and how can we even eqate Iran to be powerful entity in the world?
We know that it can be a destabilizing force in the region but whatever reason it is we must look to diplomatic posture employed in working out the differences with iran. Perhaps, we could pursue them not to produce enrich uranium for the production of Nuclear meterial by the diplomatic means not confrontation.

If we could do that, may be there will be some turn around with the situation in iraq. I am not implying that we have to give up our ideals in doing so. See, it is not possible that Iran is capable of inflicting a wider war like as mentioned by the president of the United States. How are they calculating these assumption is beyond imagination. I guess, it is the same posture thatt they had taken with the war in Iraq and it wouldn't surprise us that they are capable of fearing the public with rhetoric. Again, lets apply that sort leadership that can help bridge the gap of trust and work for a peaceful resolution in that region.

It is simple, really. The administration is talking about Iran so they don't have to talk about Iraq. They talked about Iraq so they didn't have to talk about bin Laden. Politics at the expense of our brave soldiers.

Enter Your Comment

If Iran is so powerless and ineffective, why not just disable the nuclear facilities at Natanz? The precedents set by Osirak and the recent action against Syrian nuclear facilities suggest that is a relatively painless option. It would probably result in fewer deaths than Iran is responsible for in Iraq. Only a truly reckless country would risk a war over such and action.

Is Iran intent on developing a nuclear weapon? Yes. Will it use it itself? No. Will it pass it on to a suicidal terrorist proxy? A very good chance. Will this terrorist detonate the device? Who knows? Could the terrorist hold a city or nation to ransom? Yes. In a nutshell can we trust Iran and its proxies if it possesses nuclear capability? No. So what do we do? You tell me. Zakaria is using this very serious international issue as a means of attacking conservatives. This is a narrow minded and dangerous mind set. Iran with nuclear weapons is a threat regardless of the size of its economy or conventional military capability relative to the US.

How interesting that the anti-neocons would rather allow mass incineration of Iran after a nuclear strike than a modest preventive measure that would be lethal only to a few Revolutionary Guards. If they are serious, than they contemplate a mass holocaust of innocents. If they are not serious, then they contemplate the incineration of the world's remaining Jews - plus a few million innocent Palestinian Arabs (so much for the rationality of the Iranian leadership). This is the kind of thinking that lead to World War II, when scores of millions were killed, rather than a re-occupation of the Ruhr and meaningful sanctions against Italy in 1936.

Neocons are choosing the war till the end, till the last Muslim on middle east and prepare the attack to Iran. But here Bush is playing to stake everything. Because there will be no way back from Iran. To pull troops out of there will not be possible as Iran in revenge will cut oil supply from that region at all, so America will stay almost without import oil, and Iran probably will hit Israel. If US will step into Iran (US have to step there, because in a case of air strike Iran will cross the border and will engage with US troops in Iraq) they just have to win.

But neocons do not understand that instead of one Iraq even if they will destroy Iranian army they will get one more Iraq but much more furious. And where they will get money to keep one more Iraq is unknown. Because the market of war, which came instead of market of internet technology, is eating money fast. Fortunately US owns currency typing machine, so world is full of dollars, foreign debt is growing fast, in fact Bush gave America to hock-shop to Chinese, and soon this foreign debt will cross the point of no return, when America will not be able to pay off no matter what, and than the crisis worse than great depression will happen.

Neocons probably thinking that, what the hell, if we will fail, we will write off the economic crisis to the war. So by means of that neocons first time put the life of America on card, hoping to win. Go for it, guys. The whole world will be watching you breaking neck.

Neocons are choosing the war till the end, till the last Muslim on middle east and prepare the attack to Iran. But here Bush is playing to stake everything. Because there will be no way back from Iran. To pull troops out of there will not be possible as Iran in revenge will cut oil supply from that region at all, so America will stay almost without import oil, and Iran probably will hit Israel. If US will step into Iran (US have to step there, because in a case of air strike Iran will cross the border and will engage with US troops in Iraq) they just have to win.

But neocons do not understand that instead of one Iraq even if they will destroy Iranian army they will get one more Iraq but much more furious. And where they will get money to keep one more Iraq is unknown. Because the market of war, which came instead of market of internet technology, is eating money fast. Fortunately US owns currency typing machine, so world is full of dollars, foreign debt is growing fast, in fact Bush gave America to hock-shop to Chinese, and soon this foreign debt will cross the point of no return, when America will not be able to pay off no matter what, and than the crisis worse than great depression will happen.

Neocons probably thinking that, what the hell, if we will fail, we will write off the economic crisis to the war. So by means of that neocons first time put the life of America on card, hoping to win. Go for it, guys. The whole world will be watching you breaking neck.

It is interesting to read so many people posing as Iranians and telling the world how dangerous IRI is.
The leaders of IRI are not stupid and not suicidal, only a person with no knowledge of the Iranian leadership would claim such a nonsense. they know Israel has over 100 and maybe 200 nuclear missiles. the moment they send their missiles, the majority of them will be shot down by Israeli Arrows and they will retaliate and wipe off Tehran from the map of the earth. IRI knows it, but people like Mr. Kara here do not want to admit t his.

Answer to so called "Iranian" Kara,
It is interesting to read so many people posing as Iranians and telling the world how dangerous IRI is.
The leaders of IRI are not stupid and not suicidal, only a person with no knowledge of the Iranian leadership would claim such a nonsense. they know Israel has over 100 and maybe 200 nuclear missiles.
They know that

I don't think the real (international) problem is how Iran is being ruled, the problem is how other countries see this government: as a menace or as a possibility, as an enemy or as an ally. And, as usual, everything is relative: what dictator was worst? what danger is biggest? which genocide was the most important? what people is angriest?what country breaks most often human rights? who do I have to fight against? Another "preventive war"... for God's sake... I really hope it doesn't happen.

Sound reasoning and judgment in media coverage of Iran ... "how refreshing". The pattern of fear-based rhetoric used to prepare the American people for war on Iraq is now being repeated with Iran. The Bush administration wants to open its third war front . China and Russia must be delighted that the worlds great super power is on a self-destructive rampage; sacrificing its economy, its democracy, its moral standing in the world and the blood of its young. Unless newspapers, TV, radio and other western governments take a critical stand ... we will see the same result ... a US invasion of Iran. Come on all people of influence, for the sake of a better world, reject this rhetoric of fear and move into the light of reason. There are better ways to solve our problems than air strikes.

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.

So refreshing to hear a voice of reason in these insane times...but unfortunately, i don't think anybody can stop the chain of events which threaten to end in worldwide catastrophe...the world seems bent on self-destruction and if that is what it wants, who can stop it? nuclear bombs do not discriminate: whether you are Muslim or Jew, Christian, materialist, war monger or pacifist, it will destroy...My praise for Zakaria's analysis...too bad this is a world in which sober, sane discussion no longer has a place...i recommend that everyone who is aware at all of world events, start putting your spiritual affairs in order...while there is still time...

Hitler, Mussolini and ...Bush

Always thought provoking. I like the concept discussed by J. Alter of divestment and hope you and others will push it along.
thx