November 30, 2006

Again, We Are At War With Iran

Like it, or not.

U.S. officials say they have found smoking-gun evidence of Iranian support for terrorists in Iraq: brand-new weapons fresh from Iranian factories. According to a senior defense official, coalition forces have recently seized Iranian-made weapons and munitions that bear manufacturing dates in 2006.

This suggests, say the sources, that the material is going directly from Iranian factories to Shia militias, rather than taking a roundabout path through the black market. "There is no way this could be done without (Iranian) government approval," says a senior official.

What say you now, James Baker?

Posted by Confederate Yankee at November 30, 2006 04:44 PM | TrackBack

Could these be the same officials that leaked the negative al-Maliki memo?

News flash: Unnamed sources can have agendas.

This doesn't prove we are at war with Iran. Did you ever stop to think that Iran might be reacting to America's call for regime change in the country? So might have considered that "us" declaring "war" with them.

If so, it seems to make sense that they would be fighting a proxy war in Iraq.

Oh yeah, if they are doing this, it seems the fact that we've refused to speak to them would only encourage it: if you can't negoiate, it seems you only have one option left-- fight.

So I don't really get at all how this counters James Baker or the presumed Iraq Study Group's findings?

Posted by: Keith at November 30, 2006 05:18 PM

If we could evade all of the previous evidence, we can evade this too.

I just hope we'll get around to admitting we understand the truth before Iran finishes its nuclear bomb.

Posted by: Bearster at November 30, 2006 05:30 PM


When we start chanting "Death to Iran" at church every Sunday like the Mullahs have been chanting "Death to America" every Friday since 1979, I might see reasoning in your post. So too when we take their diplomats hostage. We have been in a state of war with Iran for a long time, only we have been the ones acting with restraint and indifference.

Can I ask a personal question: Do you do business with people who tell you they hate you to your face and then accept what they say they will do (for your benefit)at face value? If you answer affirmatively, if he cheats you, are you surprised at his guile?

We should not "talk" to fomentors of hate and discord who pretend to be lovers of peace. To do so legitimizes brutes.

Posted by: wjo at November 30, 2006 05:45 PM

Well said, wjo.

Posted by: brando at November 30, 2006 06:33 PM

I'm with Keith -- any country that executes gays, must by definition, be reasonable and amenable to "negotiation".

Preach it Keith, preach it.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 30, 2006 07:07 PM

Gosh-- you guys do a really good job of engaging my basic argument.


Did America engage with Joseph Stalin, over Soviet leaders and Commnunist Red China, both states that had killed millions of their citizens?


Did our nation doing that mean America approved of everything these regimes do (or myself for that matter)?


Two other comments:

1) I really loved the Iranian history WJO. You should really add the Shah of Iran. You remember, that guy we funded who butchered his people and because of which an Islamic revolution happened in the first place.

Oh wait, I forgot-- everything America does is right, and trying to understand where your opponents--however horrible or not--come from is wrong.

It's amazing with a mindset like that our foreign policy could be in trouble today.

2) So what's your alternative? America is already losing Iraq. And because of that America under President Bush has made Iran more powerful, not less.

And oh yeah, if we attack them we can kiss our economic mobility away.

Clearly you all are right, we shouldn't talk to them at all. It has worked so well, and we totally have other options than negotiation.

But I'll give you all the benefit of the doubt and ask you this: what should we do with Iran instead, and is capable of success?

Posted by: Keith at November 30, 2006 07:46 PM

Gee, I can't possibly imagine why Iran would be seeking revenge against the Iraqi Sunnis. It's not like Saddam invaded them or something.

Oh, wait.

Posted by: scarshapedstar at November 30, 2006 07:51 PM

I give you one piece of advice: Do not incite the American people to war. We in Canada know a lot about the US, and how they think, and how they live, much more than the average person in Bam, Iran, or Tyre, Lebanon, knows. You think that you can use hate as a weapon to build an attack against he US, but you know not what you do. The US has over 300 million people, and they are all soldiers. The US built its country by its own hands, and from the beginning, they all accepted that freedom, liberty, and democracy were not negotiable. If by some miracle, an invasion force of Iranians attempted a landing on US soil, every man, woman and child would be there to meet them. They would not relent until it was finished. On United Airlines Flight 93, a random assortment of 40 civilian Americans was suddenly called to arms in a miniature Middle Eastern war. The ex-policewoman air hostess, the environmentalist, the marketing executive, moved against the Islamists as one, and collectively said, "We are not afraid". Americans did not become timorous, or afraid after 9/11, instead they "got busy on yo’ ass". After 9/11, America did not back down, and they will not back down, because the attack incited individual Americans against every Islamist, and every person who supports Islamists, or gives comfort to them. Americans are not the same as the Russians in Afghanistan, or the French in Algeria. To defeat the US, you will have to kill every one of them, and you do not know how to do that.

You clearly do not understand how rich Americans are, how many resources they have at their disposal, how intelligent, perseverant, and creative they are. Their wealth is enormous, with massive amounts of built structure: large houses, soaring office towers, highways, schools, universities, hospitals, and military bases everywhere, spanning a continent. Honestly, if you had even an inkling of what you are up against, you would cease your pointless reverse crusade immediately.

Within the last century, Americans have become extremely interested in war. They think about it, talk about it, plan for, it and rehearse it constantly. They spend huge amounts on their military every year, building installations and weapons, many types of which you have never even heard about. Tens of millions of Americans have served, do serve, and will serve in their military. We Canadians sometimes stand back and look at the Americans bemused, because one seldom even sees any of the Canadian military presence in Canada, whereas the US National Guard units stationed near Buffalo, New York, alone, have sufficient resources at their disposal to kill every Muslim on earth. Of course the Americans are right to prepare for war, because there is always another one coming, and they know that they will probably be the main target. The US even declared a "War on Poverty" in the 1960's, but thankfully they relented before they began bombing the slums.

People who do not understand democracies constantly underestimate them. Hitler and Stalin certainly underestimated democracies. Many of those living in non-democracies think that in the current situation in the US, with huge internal dissent, Democrats shouting misgivings about Iraq, and Republicans pontificating about treachery, and the enemy within, it may seem that the factions will cancel each other out, or with more Democrat influence, the whole tide of war will change. Instead, the US is exposing its power to the world, by thinking out loud, disagreeing publicly, and nit-picking endlessly over details in floods of political television programs. The election is over, and, the war on terror will go on, as all previous US wars have done, irrespective of the party in power. To understand US policy, look carefully at what is not said, because that is where they have reached implicit consensus. Neither side is talking about ending the war on terror -- instead they are bickering about the best way to kill Islamists.

For the Middle East, the scale of this war is enormous, which is clearly evident in the reportage of Al Jazeera, which mainly features events related to the war on terror. In contrast, this war has had no real effect on the US whatsoever. It is completely trivial. The US media talks about the war a lot, but Americans are always very interested in war in general, and there are no interesting sex scandals going on at the moment. If JonBenet Ramsay's murderer were to be found, CNN would focus completely on that, and behave for weeks as if the war on terror did not exist. So far, the war on terror has cost the US roughly 6,000 lives since 9/11, while over that same period, approximately 2,000,000 Americans have died from smoking. In the World War II epoch, spanning 1933-1945, about 70,000,000 people were killed, but only about 500,000 of them were Americans, and the US became stronger because of that war. Islamists hope to obtain nuclear weapons (in fact there really are no other weapons of mass destruction). With some luck, and perseverance, Islamists may be able to detonate a nuclear bomb in Times Square, New York, and kill 1,000,000 people, but that is 0.3% of the US population. The remaining 99.7% of the US population would then do to the Islamists what the US did to Japan. Later, in the years that followed such an event, some Americans would regret having turned several Middle Eastern countries into blowing ash, but there would be a reluctant final consensus that after the Times Square bombing, it had to be done, and they would be right.

In the meantime, the US grows stronger each day. Their economy is doing extremely well, providing levels of health and prosperity that even Ali Baba could not have dreamt about. Coca Cola is finally getting to challenge Pepsi in Afghanistan. As a bonus, the US military gets to interrupt its constant war games to practice and train in a real war in Iraq. These are almost perfect training circumstances, with lots of troop rotations, a very low casualty rate, a real but evanescent enemy, and a kill ratio of much higher than 10 to 1. It is a general's dream, and it's an excellent theatre to test, develop, and refine weapons and tactics, in preparation for Iran, when that battle becomes necessary.

The most powerful method the US has of defeating the Islamists is already in play, and it will ultimately succeed. We Canadians, as the constant neighbours and interlocutors of the Americans, know their secrets. Only 5% of Americans have passports, and their biggest single foreign travel destination is Canada. The Americans’ secret method is that they do not hate very well. They’re terrible at it. They don't teach their children to hate, they constantly forget who their enemies are, and they forgive adversaries, usually before the last bullet has landed. Islamists, and so many people in the Middle East, cling to hate as an addiction, passing it on to their children, cherishing it inside themselves, using it as the centerpiece of their lives. Hate, quite simply, like other addictions, is a waste of time and energy. Americans can't concentrate very long on hate. They lose interest, or forget what the fighting was all about, or follow up their wars with reconstruction plans for their vanquished enemies. From time to time, they get mad at "Krauts", or "Japs", or "Commies", but the next thing you know, the epithets are gone from the language, and things are back to normal, with Americans welcoming their former enemies into their country as immigrants, and marrying them, if possible.

Therefore, my advice to Islamists is to just give up fighting the US and forget about it. Your hate will not even be reciprocated, and you will probably still be welcomed as immigrants during the conflict. In the meantime, remember it's not the Americans fault that your son wants to play with X-Box, or your daughter wants to wear Prada. If you don’t like Coca-Cola, don’t buy it. By flaunting your hate, you expose your jealousy, and humiliate yourselves. At the end of the war on terror, those who hate will be no better off than they were, while the US, by not hating, will be ever brighter, as "the shining city on the hill".

Posted by: DemocracyRules at November 30, 2006 07:53 PM


Would you like to talk to them about how we can drive Israel into the sea? Or would you rather talk to them about how the Holocaust was a fabrication.

Maybe you would like to talk to them about exporting terrorism around the world and how we might be able to get in on that game a little. It might be fun to know how to blow up schoolbuses filled with schoolchildren.

Just what would be on your agenda to talk with them about?

Because on their agenda is the extermination of the Jewish people from the face of the earth, the conversion of the world to Islam and forcing us to repent for not accepting their world view on homosexuals, free speech, freedom of religion, or...basically any other freedoms that you currently enjoy here.

What happens when talks fail...again...Keith? Should we sit around with them, toast marshmallows and sing Kumbaya?

If they don't want to listen, can't have a real good conversation. You may be afraid to ever stand up to a bully...and there's no shame in being scared. But don't you think we ought to at least FEIGN some strength of character before we kneel before them and beg them to like us?

Posted by: cfbleachers at November 30, 2006 08:08 PM

This might actually mean something, if we hadn't sold numerous weapons of death to countless despotic regimes around the world, over the years.

It's hard to get upset, if this is actually true, when Iran engages in the same behavior that we consider acceptable for ourselves.

Posted by: AkaDad at November 30, 2006 08:21 PM

There is no doubt Iran is an enemy of the United States. Talking to them or not talking to them is really not very important. They are the ones pulling the strings of the Mehdi Militia and the defacto power in Iraq. They control events in Iraq now. Iraq is lost. We are not going to salvage anything close to victory from this debacle. It's not pretty but we created this mess and now we will have to live with it's consequences. We need to think beyond the next phase. Iran will be the most powerful nation in the region. The Saudis have are way ahead of us on this front. They see the coming wave of Shia domination and they don't like what they see which is why they summoned Dick Cheney for a chit chat last week. They fear an all out Shia vs Sunni war. Unfortunately for us, the Saudis may talk about fighting but they aren't prepared to confront Iran militarily. They will do what they always do. Hunker down, protect their borders, export some mischief and beg the US to prevent them from being decapitated. Iran wins, we lose. Thanks George...

Posted by: nynick at November 30, 2006 09:27 PM

Nice comment, DR...

And thank you for your kind words. It's good to know that there are Canadians who feel this way and don't hate us all. Again, thank you for your well thought and worded comments.

It was appreciated.

Posted by: WB at December 1, 2006 01:13 AM

Did America engage with Joseph Stalin...

We made thousands of atomic weapons and flew them rather close to the Soviet borders on B-36's and B-52's, for decades 7x24x365.

We sent the Nautilus under the polar ice cap as a technology demonstration. We overflew them with U2 and SR-71's with relative impunity.

Yea, we engaged. From a position of strength. Something today's democrats really don't understand at all (as is obvious from your statements)

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 1, 2006 04:36 AM

When we helped Iran or any country in the past, it was because our Govt at the time weighed the options of which one was better (Yes, better for us and our way of life). When they took control, how they used their power was up to them, a lot of people decried 'Puppet Regimes', but if they lasted, the only lasted a short time before they were left to their own devices. If they choose to use their new power wisely for the betterment of the world in general, they prospered. (Japan, Germany, South Korea etc...). If they chose to become that which the overthrew or worse, It's on them. We had a hand in helping them out of a bad situation to begin with, if they blew it, we can just help the next generation give it a go.

All countries practice forign policy to many extremes. One of the things in our oath to the country when swearing in was to practice 'Freedom and Democracy around the World'. I still believe that, people should be free from fear that their own govt would gas them, have their people rape and torture them, murder them.

Before the Moonbats go off, Diplomacy should always be tried first, but when it doesn't work, we had better be prepared for what comes next not just in words, but actions.

Posted by: Retired Navy at December 1, 2006 07:13 AM

"This might actually mean something, if we hadn't"

If you are a person with an open mind, an open heart and are not one of those who try to figure out a way to besmirch your own country at the slightest provocation....think about this opening clause for a moment...because you are going to hear it over and over and over and over again.

"Well...we MIGHT consider how bad the enemies of (America, Israel, the whole world)...if ONLY...America hadn't/didn't/wasn't....(fill in the blank)"

"Well, I might think that gangraping a busload of Boy Scouts was a bad thing,.... if the leaders of the Boy Scouts hadn't littered by the campfire"

"Well, I might think that shooting down nuns in a church in cold blood was a bad thing...if only the Pope hadn't referenced a Byzantine philosopher"

"Well, I might not trash my own country each and every day of my life...if I was living in one where doing so might get a bullet put in my brain and my family was made to pay for the bullet the state had to expend to silence me"

"sold numerous weapons of death"

Think about this..."sold numerous weapons of death", by this viewpoint ANY country that sells "numerous weapons of death"...or, I suppose...builds, purchases or USES any...would ALSO be unworthy of taking a position against an Iranian leader who advocates genocide of a people based solely on their race, creed or religion.

Solid...very solid argument.

"to countless despotic regimes around the world, over the years."

Over the year...does this include the Ottoman Empire? Holy Roman Empire. Napoleon? Alexander the Great?

Understand, are completely unable to take a moral position against a genocidal maniac...if "over the years"....your country has been involved in "weapons of death".

Otherwise, ANY moral position on the subject is...well...simply not one worth examining.

"It's hard to get upset, if this is actually true,"

I know...that darn genocide is hard to get upset about. I mean, murdering innocents, blowing up schoolbuses, sending trained murderers out to kill other innocent's just so darn hard to get's much EASIER to get upset at AMERICA...because, it's so chic to slam/trash/beshit your own feels oh, so...I don't know....trendy....yay!

"when Iran engages in the same behavior that we consider acceptable for ourselves."

Um....just when did America say it had the intention of eradicating the Jews? Or force-converting all infidels to Islam? Or hijack planes, schoolbuses, nuns and priests...and summarily execute the innocent civilians on them.

This is beyond moral equivalency...a weak and blissfully ignorant viewpoint to begin's a copout for those who wish to curry favor and cuddle up to our enemies du jour.

Learn it well, will see it daily from the Timeshare Americans who pretend to be our countrymen.

Posted by: cfbleachers at December 1, 2006 11:10 AM


When does the staute of limitations run out on condemning America for its relationship with the Shah? Sheesh. The man and his regime are dead. How do we deal with the messianic brutes who replaced him?

As for the lessons in diplomacy, it is a cynics' game best encapsulated by Palmerston's dicta that:"Nations do not have permanent friends; they do have permanent interests." Hence our alliance with Stalin in WWII and our rapprochemont with China in the Cold War.

It is a neverending cause of mirth to me that the idealism of American diplomacy for the last several years, aimed at correcting the failings of the cynical "stability" politics of the Realists, is advocated as being simplistic and naive by those who traditionally vociferously advocate standing with those seeking liberty and condemn America for coddling those who do not. Irony, indeed. But Bush can't both be stupid and correct, can he?

War, at its heart, is an issue of dominance: whose will is greater. What signal is sent in that regard by our "engaging" the brutes of Iran? What does it say to those who oppose this hateful regime in Iran?

I'm afraid it says: you may aid those who kill and maim our soldiers with impunity, kidnap our diplomats, advocate our destruction and we are so weak-kneed we will reward your brazen acts of war. To Iranians it says: bedeck your chains with flowers and call it liberty, for we now aid your oppressors.

Tell me how I am wrong in this analysis.

Posted by: wjo at December 1, 2006 12:29 PM

How do we deal with the messianic brutes who replaced him?

The dreaded Mk 1 block 4 "comfy chairs" have been cracked out of storage and B52's are being generated to deploy them right now as we speak.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at December 1, 2006 04:55 PM