Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:36 AM ET, 12/27/2010

The unchecked Iranian menace

By Jennifer Rubin

Stephen Hayes, writing on the Weekly Standard website, points to a report that in Afghanistan coalition forces "arrested a member of Iran's notorious Qods Force who was simultaneously serving as a Taliban commander." Stephen observes:

For years we've known about the increasingly lethal support Iran has been providing the Taliban's various insurgents in Afghanistan. (See here, here, here, here, and here.) And yet senior Obama administration officials have either downplayed the seriousness of Iran's support or ignored it altogether, despite a never-ending series of reports from the U.S. military that such coordination is happening.

This is significant for several reasons. First, the notion that economic sanctions affect Iran's international behavior is once again proven wrong. Iranian citizens may be pinched by sanctions, but the regime continues to support terrorism, attack U.S. troops and pursue its nuclear program. Second, our lack of retaliation both for American deaths in Iraq as well as Afghanistan signals to the Iranians that they can challenge American power with impunity. Rightly or wrongly, the regime concludes that there is no penalty to be paid for killing Americans and our allies. And third, this reaffirms that the president's decision to commit to success in Afghanistan is essential, not only in securing Afghanistan, but in checking the power and influence of Iran. Should we leave Afghanistan to the ravages of Islamic radicals, the people of Afghanistan assigned to a hellish existence? Terrorists will reclaim a sanctuary, and Iran will have achieved another victory.

Like it or not, the administration must devote the full extent of our resources to make certain none of those occur. For if we fail to do so, the threats to the region and to America's security will only multiply.

By Jennifer Rubin  | December 27, 2010; 9:36 AM ET
Categories:  Iran, foreign policy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Friday question answered
Next: Things the chattering class got wrong


"Should we leave Afghanistan to the ravages of Islamic radicals, the people of Afghanistan assigned to a hellish existence? Terrorists will reclaim a sanctuary, and Iran will have achieved another victory."

So now another nation has been added to the weight of American shoulders. Even though the people of Afghanistan have always lived a "hellish existence", we are somehow responsible. Even though they are tribal Muslims who's alliance with our troops is tenuous and based on cash, we are responsible. Even though this is the longest war in our nation's history, we should carry it on for another 4 or 6 or 8 more years, preferably until we can involve Pakistan in a civil war, and bring troops in there too.

Even though Afghanistan is not a nation at all in any real sense, but simply a geographic place, abanadoned by history, we should ignore the facts and pretend that Karzai has a functioning government similar to our pretense that Taiwan governed China in the 1950's.

The great thing about having a "Rubinesque" view of life is that it's not based on history, or in facts, so that it can never be proven wrong. It's always about the catastrophe waiting to befall you, just out of reach of the present day world.

Posted by: 54465446 | December 27, 2010 10:03 AM | Report abuse

(See here, here, here, here, and here.)

Jen, you seem to be loosing your sense of direction.

Posted by: nvjma | December 27, 2010 10:04 AM | Report abuse

In Ms. Rubin's world there's always a menace, always a threat. Amazing way to look at life.

I read this post basically as saying Ms. Rubin won't be happy unless every death is avenged. I am baffled, to put it mildly.

I guess that eventually leads to peace because we'll all be dead.

Posted by: MsJS | December 27, 2010 10:11 AM | Report abuse

One must inquire as to the source of Ms. Rubin's Iranophobia. The Washington Post is losing credibility by publishing her constant anti-Iran invectives. It is like a sickness. Does she have anything else to talk about? I wonder how much she is getting paid by Mossad for this continuous stream of warmongering articles against Iran.

Posted by: quinterius | December 27, 2010 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I see that many of those commenting on this column are convinced that the terrorist state Iran, it's nuclear weapons program, and it's financing and arming of Islamic terrorist groups throughout the world is of no consequence whatsover. In a very real sense they reflect the feelings and actions of the Obama administration, that there really are no rogue states and there are no Islamic terrorist threats anywhere, it's all either the fevered figment of an overactive neo Con imagination or the product of a viral form of Islamophobia.
In fact for many of those who wish to deny the Iranian/Islamist threat, just like the Obama adminstration, they believe that the real global terrorist threat emanates only from the United States. Or Israel.

Posted by: Beniyyar | December 27, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

McCain nailed it for Rubin,because all she ever needs to say re:Iran is three words:
"Bomb,Bomb Iran"

Posted by: rcaruth | December 27, 2010 12:05 PM | Report abuse

benniyar wrote:

" . . . it's all either the fevered figment of an overactive neo Con imagination or the product of a viral form of Islamophobia."

Regarding Iran specifically, it's the CREATION of overactive neo cons.

However, I am ok with going to war with Iran, (and by extension sending 50,000 or more troops BACK to Iraq to go against the Shiites that would once again rise against us there as a result).

This is, provided that YOU and your children are on the first troop plane arriving there, closely followed by others such as Dick and Liz Cheney, Doug Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Paul Bremer, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, George Will, Bill Kristol, the entire on air cast at Fox News, John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, and our own dear Jennifer, all of whom are happy to send others to their deaths while never wearing the uniform themselves, serving as armchair warriors and desktop generals!

If you like what the Israelis do, then emulate their model and go serve in our armed forces with your children as nearly all of their citizens do.

Posted by: 54465446 | December 27, 2010 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: 54465446

Oh how unfair of you to bring that up cries the far Right ignoring the fact that Chickenhawkism is the official ideology of rhe NeoCons.
PS,I was drafted by the US Govt. to serve in the US Army in 1967,I stayed in until 1970,so I may be chickens--t,but am not chickenhawk.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 27, 2010 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps not many remember the Marine's assault on Haditha in 2005. I remember it because 14 marines from my region were killed when an IED blew their multi-ton AAV on its side. 10,000 of us from the region attended a funeral service for these fine men, and it was the first we started hearing of EFP's. It became quite clear shortly thereafter that these EFP's were being imported into Iraq from Iran.

It was also clear that many of the true s-heads that we were fighting in Iraq were travelling via Syria, an Iranian client state on their way to produce mayhem in Iraq.

I was disappointed in Bush when he failed to confront Iran's war on us directly. I understand that the left's tender sensibilities might be offended by "escalation". After all I was politically aware during the Viet Nam war and I saw how the left successfully hamstrung America and thus created a defeat for us. I understood the dynamic, but I didn't agree with Bush's choice. The behavior of the Iranians resulted in dead Americans in Iraq, now we see the same dynamic in A stan.

And the left, as illustrated above, continues to chant its deeply stupid mantra.

But the situation is far worse now. Obama has made several very public ovetures to the mullahs who have done the Iranian equivalent of thumbing their noses at him. But he's also released know Iranian agents held in Iraq as a means of bargaining with these evil men.

Iran, I believe, knows the measure of Obama. They know that he's not Bush and that the chances of him ordering some response that would devastate the regime is just about zero.

Once again, we see the results of weakness. the left absolutely loves a weak America, as illustrated by the comments above (yet again). I pray daily that Obama is unseated in the upcoming elections. I wonder if my country can stand a second term of fecklessness and ineffectiveness.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 27, 2010 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Skipper,here is what you are blind to:
"Perhaps not many remember the Marine's assault on Haditha in 2005. I remember it because 14 marines from my region were killed when an IED blew their multi-ton AAV on its side."
It would have been far better for those men to have died here in the US fighting the invasion from Iraq,than dying over there to prevent the Invasion from Iraq,
the same with Vietnam,where my friends died,it would have been better for them to die defending our soil against a Vietnamesse invasion than dying over there to prevent the Communist takeover of the planet. The fact that the Invasion of the US by Iraq or Vietnam is an unlikely event means that perhaps all these fine men,your friends and mine,might be enjoying their lives today in an unconquered USA.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 27, 2010 12:42 PM | Report abuse

To Beniyyar: You seem to know absolutely nothing about Iran. Iran is not a terrorist state. In fact, the biggest terrorist states in the world are the US and Israel. Congress allocated $400 million during the Bush presidency for subversive activities in Iran. We now see the results of this with the CIA sponsorship of the Jundullah terrorists.

Then you talk about Iran's "nuclear weapons program." What nuclear weapons program? Even Obama, Clinton and Gates no longer claim that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. So, if you have some secret intelligence about it, please educate us.

Then, like a truly ignorant American you talk about "Islamic terrorists," as if all Muslims are the same. There is a world of difference between Al Qaeda on one side and Iranians. In fact Al Qaeda is a mortal enemy of Iran. Iran itself is victim of terrorism as much as any country, most of it sponsored by the US and Israel. Also, the Saudi Wahhabis think that the Iranian Shiites are infidels that deserve death. So, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Iran has not attacked another country for over 300 years (longer than the US has existed). On the other hand, Israel and the US attack and bomb any country that they want and assassinate people all over the world. So, get real, please.

Posted by: quinterius | December 27, 2010 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: quinterius

And you forgot to mention that the hilarious policy of ambiguity has fooled everyone,because no one knows that Israel is the 6th largest nuclear armory on the planet,yet somehow that can't take care of their own defense,being the 5th most powerful military power on the planet. LOL
Nobody will like this,but here's what Israel should do. Germany killed 6000000 Jews,without reprisal from Israel. And Israel is all in a dither about Islamists who have only killed a handful of Jews compared to Germany. So let's balance the books,and Nuclear attack Germany to the count of 6000000,and then call it a day,the books will be balanced.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 27, 2010 1:07 PM | Report abuse

and then there is this:
It would have been far better for those men to have died here in the US fighting the invasion from Iraq,than dying over there to prevent the Invasion from Iraq,
the same with Vietnam,where my friends died,it would have been better for them to die defending our soil against a Vietnamesse invasion than dying over there to prevent the Communist takeover of the planet. The fact that the Invasion of the US by Iraq or Vietnam is an unlikely event means that perhaps all these fine men,your friends and mine,might be enjoying their lives today in an unconquered USA.

Let me offer a simple analysis of this: It is, in the opinion of the rcaruth to allow a threat to blossom to the full before taking any action against it. We should hunker down here on our native soil and wait until some other power grows in strength enough to believe that an invasion of our country would be successful.

Gosh, we've seen this movie before. It was called WW2. rcaruth is just channelling the tormented ghost of Neville Chamberlain. America should prostrate herself before any potential enemy, it seems, because all that matters to rcaruth is the next ten minutes of "peace".

I'll file that under "look how wrong you can be."

As I said, the left continues to repeat its deeply stupid mantra. Thanks for spinning that prayerwheel leftward once again rcaruth.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 27, 2010 1:16 PM | Report abuse

the response to beniyyar from quinterius would be hilarious if the subject matter weren't so serious.

Rank denial is an ugly thing quint and you're mired in it. Of that there is little doubt.

Perhaps the funniest of quint's responses is the observation that IRan hasn't invaded anyone in 300 year. So what? Even if that were true it is no relevance to the problem America faces. I remember attending a city planning board meeting wherein the owner of an old theatre protested its closing. It was safe, said the owner, because it hadn't collapsed in all these years. The board members could hardly stifle their laughter. Same with your statement. Just too funny.

and the sage analysis of Iran VS Al Q is just a manifestation of what Chemical Dependency counselors call "intellectual denial". A tightly woven web of suppositions that all results in "hey, there is no problem". What absolute nonsense. It is proven wrong by this very paper. but hey, I'll give you another source, the UK Telegraph:
"A member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard has been captured supplying weapons to the Taliban in Afghanistan for attacks on British and American troops."

so let's follow this shall we? The Quds member was captured while giving aid to the Taliban who once welcomed Al Q into A stan, when they ruled it.

So much for that deeply stupid piece of denial.

As I said, if the stakes weren't so high then quint's response would be side splitting. Instead we need to be aware that this kind of ignorance is driving the anti victory left once again.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 27, 2010 1:26 PM | Report abuse

Skipper:It was called WW2.

And how many of those 450000 Americans died on American soil,or how many of the 175000 in WW1,or 50000 in Korea/Vietnam,or 10000 in Iraq,getting monotonous isn't it?
And how many would have died on our shores if we hadn't sacrificed those 800000?

Posted by: rcaruth | December 27, 2010 1:28 PM | Report abuse

you questions are pointless. Did I correctly state your position? I believe I did.

And would Japan have attacked us at Pearl Harbor if they thought they would LOSE? That's my point. In your world,America cannot respond until is likely too late.

Just too funny for words.

I am heartily glad that your opinions have zero influence on American foreign policy.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 27, 2010 1:34 PM | Report abuse

I am heartily glad that your opinions have zero influence on American foreign policy.

So am I,but,unfortunately,our economic situation is playng havac with our foreign policy aspirations,borrowing money to finance long standing warfare is unsustaneable therfore our foreign policy is unsustaneable, Money talks and your brand of BS is going for a walk.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 27, 2010 1:45 PM | Report abuse

in response to this:
So am I,but,unfortunately,our economic situation is playng havac with our foreign policy aspirations,borrowing money to finance long standing warfare is unsustaneable therfore our foreign policy is unsustaneable, Money talks and your brand of BS is going for a walk.


Let me be sure I'm getting this right. YOu are saying that our economy is underperforming and therefore we cannot afford to defend ourselves. I see.

So no doubt you disagreed with FDR's actions after December 7. After all our economy was underperforming before the attack and we simply could not afford an expensive foreign adventure like WW2.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 27, 2010 2:24 PM | Report abuse

FDR was half right,he was right to go all out after Japan,he was wrong to weigh us down in Europe despite the fact that Germany declared war on us,they weren't in a position to do much about that. We should have handled Japan as one front,and then when that was settled,assess the European theatre to see what needed to be done. Doing it that way,we had the potential to save 300000 American lives,(I know that's a trifle compared to saving all of America from the long arm of the 3RD Reich,that was itching to fight a 3RD front across the Ocean in addition to fighting Britain and USSR.)

And the Economy is not underperforming,it is collapsing,so don't take Obama's narrative on the economy with any seriousness,Great Depression 2 started in July 2007,and is building steam as we speak.

Posted by: rcaruth | December 27, 2010 2:45 PM | Report abuse


Your post is unclear. Were you yourself a Marine?

If so, then surely you understand that the introduction of American ground forces into Iran, would not only require another hundred thousand plus soldiers, but tens of thousands more for Iraq too so as to suppress the expected uprising from the Shiite majority there. As no less than Mubarak has pointed out, Shiites are far more loyal to Iran, than to any state they may reside in.

If not ground forces, then what are your plans for Iran?

Posted by: 54465446 | December 27, 2010 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Mr Number person I find my comment to be quite clear. The Iranians are at war with us and we've relied on denial for a response since the carter days.

In essence we've given them no reason to doubt themselves thus far. The can meddle to their heart's content without fear of reprisal from the west. As an example, look at how the Brittish "Marines" were misused.

I don't see a reason to introduce ground troops in Iran at all. Why would we? But there are targets in both Iran and Syria that if struck would diminish Iran's mischief making capacity. The Quds and basij both run training camps that are well know and easily reached by our air forces.

My bigger problem with Bush and now Obama is the disingenuousness of their behavior. Bush should have spoken of Iran's war with us much more loudly. As I said, this was a disappointment.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 27, 2010 3:10 PM | Report abuse


Ah yes, I see that I was mistaken after re-reading your post.

I'm sure that your air strikes would be effective in their missions, but you and Jennifer I believe vastly underestimate the reaction in Iraq. I think that both Bush and Obama had that constantly in the back of their minds. You can't simply strike Iran without them calling out all the dogs they have in Iraq against us. It would almost certainly be the end of the coalition democratic government of Iraq that Jennifer was praising only last week.

Jennifer is particularly myopic in foreign policy, encouraging democracy in the Arab world is not weighed against who the voters would actually elect, etc.

It is a peculiarly American phenomenon that we view all our foreign policy decisions in isolation, hence our war with Iraq was never measured against the assistance it would give Iran. The plan to open GITMO, was never coupled with a thought of how to close it, on and on.

Posted by: 54465446 | December 27, 2010 3:38 PM | Report abuse

Your response is pure speculation. and as such it is filled with your own pre concieved notions of what will come to pass based on what you believe.

I do not believe for a second (or even an NY second) that our war in Iraq "helped" Iran. that, again, is speculation based on preconcieved notions.

quite the opposite is true IMHO. I believe that the America presence in Iraq and A stan has changed the landscape considerably. That is why I'm disappointed in Bush and now Obama.

Just so that you don't simply turn my point about pre conceived notions around on me, let me share my belief.

It is said that in military matters the amateurs talk about strategy and tactics while the pros talk about logistics. Were there to be a kinetic conflict between America and Iran, it would be fought in Iran. Now refer to a map of the region. We're in Iraq, A stan, the persian gulf and the arab sea. We have significant important assets pre deployed as it were. during the height of our efforts in Iraq we had a large number of battle hardened troops within minutes of Iran's soil.

so Iran can diddle at this with impunity and I find that offensive. But I also believe that they recognize an upper limit to their evil doing.

Also we must remember that the US military demolished in a matter of days a fighting force that had battled the Iranians to a standstill for almost a decade. I have to believe that while the mullahs may proclaim that Allah will side with them and therefore they will win, I also believe that the Iranian military leaders have a much different view of the reality on the ground.

further, all this meddling comes at a price to the Iranian regime and its relationship to its neighbors. Keeping the masses under their thumbs while engaging in nefarious deeds all over the planet cannot be possible forever.

the popular liberal view is that Saddam Hussein was a buffer for us, and for a time perhaps he was. But the price of that buffer was simply too high. Now we are there ourselves and that changes the landscape considerably.

While not a perfect analogy (few are such) look at S. Korea's reaction to the N's bad behavior. A firm stance, coupled with a decent military and suddenly things change.

We could have destroyed much of what Iran used against us. Further we could have used the quds guys we captured as ransom. Instead we downplayed Iran's involvment and kicked the can down the road about their evil intentions.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 27, 2010 4:07 PM | Report abuse

skip wrote:

"I do not believe for a second (or even an NY second) that our war in Iraq "helped" Iran. that, again, is speculation based on preconcieved notions"

The you don't know the history of how we invaded, or who gave us much of the info about the WMD's that were there. I would cite quote after quote from people in a position of responsibility at the time. but you would just put a label on it and dismiss it without refuting it.

I don't think I ever stated that Iran could in any way beat us militarily. If you have that from me, let me know. The fly in the ointment is just what I posted above. Yes we could defeat them militarily relatively easily AND six to eight years later would find us still in Iran with a hundred to two hundred thousand troops trying to establish a democratic government that can control the nation. It's always the myopic let's react militarily, but what happnes on the day AFTER we win.

At leat in Iraq we had the natural divisions between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to exploit. We would not have that avialble to us in Iran.

Saddam Hussein was not a "buffer" as you state he was the natural born enemy of Iran, as his Sunni ancestors have been for a 1000 years before he was born.

As I also posted, which you ignored, Iran controls the key to coalition government in Iraq. If they want to topple it for their own purposes, THAT war begins again too!

Posted by: 54465446 | December 27, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Those seeking to educate skipsailing to the error of his thinking waste their time. One might as well argue with a tree stump. People like skip and Jennifer Rubin still take it as gospel truth Bush's claim that Saddam Hussein had unmanned aerial vehicles circling off the coast of America in preparation for nuking the U.S. They willfully swallow warmonger garbage from Republican Neocons no matter the absurdity.

The stupidity and gullibility of some people is extraordinary. Iran, like Iraq, can't even get spare parts for its 1960s vintage passenger jets. It has no air force, no navy, and an army that couldn't take on the Rhode Island National Guard, yet those people claim America's very survival is threatened by a massive Iranian military machine.

Neocon brainwashing works well with the black helicopter set. Unfortunately, some believers are in positions of war making authority. Wolfowitz, Feith, Perle, and their ilk may be retired but their Jim Jones disciples march on.

Posted by: Lazarus40 | December 27, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how much "control" of the Iraqi government Iran has. I've seen little lately on that topic so feel free to share your sources.

The WMD has virtually no bearing on our discussion. We are there. Now what? It is that simple. Fulminating on the choices made then will only help if this provides unique answers. But I don't think so. I think this is just garden variety Bush bashing and I just don't see the value in that.

Again, I just don't see a reason to do much of anything for the Iranians once the current regime is thrown down. They've demonstrated a unique capacity for self government during my life time. They fooled themselves into thinking that the mullahs were a better bunch than the shah. that didn't work out at all. Let's see what they chose next.

And I didn't say that America should somehow unilateraly destroy the current regime. I am bemoaning the fact that we could have dealt a blow to Iran's logistics capacity and chose not to. I'm thinking small here. Make them pay for the manufacture of EFP's and such. interdict the smuggling and execute any Iranian military personnel apprehended in Iraq. Kill them and send thier bodies back in several small boxes. Tongue in cheek a bit but evil doers understand this kind of symbolism.

Many casual observers of Iraq rely heavily on the mythical sunni, shi ite, Kurd split. But as a practical matter I doubt that it is nearly as big a deal as some folks seem to believe.

For example, during the Assault on Fallujah there was a hudna. The insurgents were holed up in the central city and we control the periphery. This was during the Saleh experiment. Mookie Al Sadr, as shia as one can get, sent forces, weapons and supplies to the insurgents who were allegedly sunni. What mattered to these guys was that all were opposed to us.

And if anyone "exploited" the difference it was Zark himself. The shrine bombing was designed to foment civil unrest and it worked. The bottom line is that the muslims care far less about anything sacred and far more about killing and mayhem. UnPC, I know, but it is what it is.

I think that clinton, Bush and Obama are doing a disservice to the American people. We should be seriously discussing the fact that Iran is killing our soldiers with impunity. Instead our leaders chose to be mute. It was unhelpful during the Bush years and even less helpful now.

Posted by: skipsailing28 | December 27, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse


Though we disagree on everything I enjoy the fact that we can have an intelligent conversation. I only brought up the WMD's because you and I were speculating about the war in Iraq helping Iran. Here is a very short analysis about that subject:

"The United States is struggling over the question of how U.S. intelligence was so deeply mistaken about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. One of the points that is consistently brought up is that much of the intelligence flowed through the Iraqi National Council, an opposition group led by Ahmad Chalabi. It is now well known that Chalabi’s sources were not ideal. What is less well known is the close, long-term relationship that Chalabi, a favorite of Washington’s, had with Iran. Chalabi, an Iraqi Shiite, was and remains in constant contact with Tehran. We have assumed he was a channel between Washington and Tehran. Given the erroneous intelligence he gave the United States, his relationship with Iran requires careful examination.

What is certain is that Chalabi spent a great deal of time in Iran before and after Sept. 11, and before and after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. For example, in March 2001, Chalabi traveled to Tehran to meet with senior leaders. He set up an office for the INC in the capital that was to be paid for with U.S. aid — and that required a special waiver from Washington because of U.S. sanctions. At a press briefing on March 19, 2001, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher was specifically asked whether Chalabi’s trip to Iran bothered the United States. Boucher did not answer the question, but it is clear that Washington knew about Chalabi’s contacts with Iran and was not bothered by them.

Chalabi’s relationship with Iran proved useful to the United States in the run-up to the war. For example, Chalabi arranged for a U.S.-financed transmitter to be installed on Iranian territory, broadcasting into Iraq. In August 2002, Chalabi met with senior Iranian officials in Tehran, then flew to Washington for separate consultations. According to the INC, Chalabi spoke to U.S. officials in Washington from Tehran while he was meeting not only with Iranian officials, but also with Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the country’s main Shiite opposition group. Again in December 2002, as the war heated up, Chalabi flew to Tehran and, according to IRNA (quoting Radio Free Iraq, which was based in Prague and run by the United States) said, “The secretary of Iraq’s National Congress, Ahmad Chalabi, is mediating between Iran and America.” During that meeting, Chalabi was quoted as saying, “Our alliance with Iran is not temporary.” Again in January 2003, before a planned meeting of Iraqi opposition leaders in London, Chalabi visited Tehran to meet with al-Hakim."

Forgive the length.

Posted by: 54465446 | December 27, 2010 4:59 PM | Report abuse

To skipsailing28: You are simply deranged. You don't make sense at all. Your analogies are a joke. You compare a country with a 3,000 history to an old movie theater? You have nothing factual to refute what I said. So, go live in your dreamworld as much as you want. You are beyond help.

Posted by: quinterius | December 27, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

i find quinterius to either be blind or a liar. israel defends. they have been attacked by every surrounding country in its brief existence. you must be one who loves to hate.

Posted by: bruce30 | December 28, 2010 6:03 PM | Report abuse

I had a neighbor who was an Iranian Hostage after the Embassay was overrun. His comment on being rescued due to the defeat of Jimmy Carter in that election was to the effect that the only way he would return to Iran was in a B-52. What part of this Islamofascist Regime don't we get after 40 years. Turn them into an nuclear waste dump is the best solution.

Posted by: ssmorehouse | December 29, 2010 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Provides for the right of countries to engage in military action in self-defense, including collective self-defense (i.e. under an alliance) FOR IRAN TO FIGHT FOR ITS RIGHTS AND FREEDOM, LIBERTY. IRAN IS A LAND OF THE BRAVES.
History shows, Iran has never caused any war via propaganda lies in the news like US and Israel, so Iran is not a threat, Israel and Us are the threatS to world peace.

WikiLeaks – A fabricated conspiracy of propaganda lies to isolate Iran from other Muslim nations for US's benefits on behalf of unbreakable bond Israel.

Posted by: clownsandliars1 | December 31, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

OK..lets see US invades IRAQ and Afghanistan and constantly threatens Iran. What would you expect....of course they will help insurgents so that you will be bogged down and dont bother them.

Does it really takes a genius to figure this. Problem is US has more than its handful in Af-Pak and Iraq that it will be a very very longtime to even look at Iran. So Iran figured this and calling the US bluff.

I think it is safe to say no one can think beyond the next day in the way way over paid and over hyped US military. Thats why Pissant generals in Pakistan and dumsars clerics in Iran are making a fool out of the US.

Posted by: reddy531 | January 1, 2011 3:57 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company