Source: Intellectual Discourse
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Courtesy Of CampaignIran
Israeli threats to "destroy the Iranian nation" in a retaliatory strike should Iran attack Israel seems perfectly acceptable to the US State Department. However, its spokesman, Sean McCormack, is voicing his strong condemnations against the Iranian officials when they respond in kind. How hypocritical is that?
The following is quoted from an article that appeared recently in the Israeli paper, Haaretz, which unlike its counterpart, Jerusalem Post, tends to reflect a more even handed account of the international news; it at least shows a glimpse of the other side's position!
"In a new round in the war of words between Jerusalem and Tehran, the Iranian army's deputy chief threatened Tuesday to respond to any military attack from Israel by 'eliminating' it.
The U.S. State Department said on Tuesday that the comments showed the international community was right to sanction Iran.
It is 'more unbelievable rhetoric out of the leadership of the Iranian government about attacking a fellow member of the United Nations,'
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. 'Any civilized person finds that disturbing.'
Iran's Deputy Chief of Staff Mohammed Rada Ashtiani was quoted earlier by the semi-official Iranian news agency Mehr as saying: 'If Israel wants to take any action against the Islamic Republic, we will eliminate Israel from the scene of the universe... Our answer to any military attack against Iran will be strong.'
Ashtiani was speaking at a press conference to mark 'Army Day,' which will take place on April 17. He was referring to recent drills carried out by the Israel Defense Forces and the civilian population.
'As the President [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad] has said, we have the motivation to defend the borders of our country," he added.
According to the officer, the Iranian armed forces are in a situation which does not allow to mount an attack on Iran via land.
The Iranian officer's comments came after Minister of National Infrastructures Benjamin Ben-Eliezer last week warned Iran that 'an Iranian attack on Israel will lead to a harsh response by Israel that will cause the destruction of the Iranian nation.'
In turn, Tehran blasted Ben-Eliezer's comments as 'scandalous' and 'insulting' in a complaint to the United Nations."
Isn't that interesting?
Israeli threats to "destroy the Iranian nation" in a retaliatory strike should Iran attack Israel seems perfectly acceptable to the US State Department. However, its spokesman, Sean McCormack, is voicing his strong condemnations against the Iranian officials when they respond in kind.
How hypocritical is that?
It should also be noted that the Israeli regime has been quite blatantly threatening a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear industries for many years now. One reason the Israelis have not carried out these threats as yet is the fear of some retaliatory response by Iran and its regional allies, as it doesn't take much to cause significant damage to Israel due to its small size and population concentrations. The other reason, possibly wishful thinking in my part, has been some backstage bargaining and arm-twisting by the US State Department to keep that unpredictable pit bull from getting America involved in yet another catastrophic quagmire in the oil rich Middle East.
Of course, we seem to be worried about the Iranians because Iran is a "rogue" country. Let's see what "rogue" means: A rogue state is one that carries out its own agenda without giving a damn about the international law or other states' welfare and interests. A rogue state violates accepted international norms, attacks, invades or occupies other peoples' territories, and considers itself above the universal codes and standards that other nations are held to. Well, hellllllo!
Now, who's calling the kettle black?
How hypocritical is that?
When the Iranians announced their successful launching of some weather satellite a year or so ago, the Israelis raised alarms that this satellite might be able to spy on the Israeli territories and regarded that as an aggressive move by Iran. Of course the older as well as the more recent Israeli satellites, openly and officially launched to spy over the Iranian territories, are not supposed to be regarded as hostile moves against Iran!
How hypocritical is that?
A recent article in Washington Post has exposed yet another behind the scenes deal between the United States, in the person of the President himself, and the former Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, in 2005.
While on the surface America is striving to broker a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians, George Bush has given the green light to the Israelis to expand their illegal settlement in the occupied West Bank.
How hypocritical is that?
The globally condemned and clearly unjustified destruction and occupation of Iraq, now the subject of criticism by the Democratic presidential candidates, was aimed at and expected to bring Iran closer to capitulation or, at the very least, a regime change suitable to the so-perceived interests of the United States. The war on Iraq, as well as the designs for Iran (and Syria), were anything but serving America's best interests; the only interests they were designed to serve were those of the regional parasite, Israel.
So, there we are, our enormous air, land and sea forces, the most formidable military machine in the world, surrounding on all sides a country we have been blatantly threatening with war, with our current and future leaders muscle flexing against it to gain favor among their constituents; and we are expecting for the Iranians to crawl on their knees and beg for mercy!
When they, instead, try to exert their influence among their sympathizers and co-religionists inside their war-torn neighboring land, their interference is somehow viewed as illogical or hard to understand: in other words, how dare they resist or oppose our mission in their neighborhood, or attempt to keep us from overthrowing their regime or devastating their socioeconomic infrastructure? One might wonder what we would do if Russia or China took over Mexico and amassed their air, land and sea forces at our southern borders, openly threatening to do some unpleasant things to our nation. Would we sit still or crawl on our knees and beg for mercy? I wouldn't!
So, what does our Secretary of Defense, Gates, mean when he "blames Iran for the killing of US troops in Iraq"? Isn't it true that what he is rightly or wrongly blaming the Iranians for doing is exactly what we would do in their position, i.e., providing support for their sympathizers in order to protect their own security and self-interests?
How hypocritical is that?
Then we hear the presidential hopeful, Hillary Clinton, respond to a rather diabolically concocted question on network television, by proclaiming that as the President of the United States, "if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel", "we would be able to totally obliterate them."
That's fine; Israel is a highly "influential" friend and ally and we have obligated ourselves to rise to its defense, or else! But why ask such a hypothetical, utterly dumb and inflammatory question in the first place? And why volunteer to respond in such monstrous terms out of hand? "Obliterating" an entire nation, perhaps 75 million people, Mrs. Clinton? You must really need those special votes real bad!
The question that begs to be asked, and never is, should be, What would this presidential candidate or the other two "patriots", Obama and McCain, do if Israel were to launch a nuclear attack on Iran? Remember, this is not nearly as hypothetical a question; unlike Iran, Israel has both the means and the determination to do exactly that if or when it could get away with it. Would any of our honorable presidential candidates dare to even denounce such a proposition, let alone threaten to "obliterate" the aggressor? I don't think so.
How hypocritical is that?
Perhaps one could wonder what would happen if Israel's Dimona nuclear sites were attacked, the same way Israel attacked Syria's site by invading the air space of a sovereign nation and a member of the United Nations, in clear violation of international law. Israel did that out of mere suspicion that the Syrian nuclear plant might produce nuclear fuel that could be used someday for weapons development. The Israeli nuclear industries have already produced quite an arsenal of nuclear bombs. Shouldn't the neighboring countries be alarmed by the Jewish State's capabilities to strike at will and with total impunity anytime the Israelis perceive a threat or find any development "suspicious", when their track record indicates that they would?
Then, why didn't those regional Arab states embark on a dangerous arms race and rush to acquire their own nuclear weapons when the Israeli nuclear capabilities were so well-known by all? How come we are so concerned that the "suspected" Iranian nuclear programs might lead to a dangerous nuclear arms proliferation among the otherwise peaceful Arab countries?
How hypocritical is that?
And finally, a recent internet movie, Fitnah, by a Dutch film maker attempts to draw parallels between certain rather ambiguous Ghor'anic verses and terrorist acts by Moslem extremists. Although practically every Islamic society has denounced the film as an assault on Islam, the Dutch government has refused to criticize this production and no attempt has been made to ban its showing in the enlightened Europe.
To show how the material from any holy scripture can be taken out of context and misused for public deception, a Saudi businessman has recently produced a similar internet film. Here, he has sited numerous unambiguous Biblical Chapters and Verses, where the believers in the "Religion of Peace" were granted the right and indeed ordered to commit merciless genocide against the entire populations, men, women and children alike, and to plunder their possessions.
This production, however, was condemned as inappropriate by the same "enlightened" cultures that champion the right of free speech. Although it can still be viewed on the internet, no one knows how much longer that will last.
How hypocritical is that?
Note:
Kam Zarrabi is the author of In Zarathushtra's Shadow and Necessary Illusion. He is available to conduct lectures and seminars on international affairs, particularly in relation to Iran, with focus on US/Iran issues, at formal and informal gatherings or academic centers anywhere in the country. To make the necessary arrangements, please contact him at kzarrabi@aol.com More information about Mr. Zarrabi and his work is available at: http://www.intellectualdiscourse.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment