Posts Tagged ‘Iran’

A suicide bomber killed 31 people today, including five or six senior members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. Among the remaining dead were other Guard members, or local tribal leaders, and several dozen others were wounded. The story can be found here and here. Besides the Iranian leadership getting a small dose of their own medicine, what was really interesting is that Reuters quoted the Fars News Agency as blaming the bombing on terrorists backed by “the Great Satan America and its ally Britain,” even though a local Sunni group called Jundollah (God’s soldiers), claimed responsibility. According to Fars, a spokesman for Iran’s armed forces claimed Obama is backing the Jundollah in an effort to cause instability in the region.

Not in the distant future, we [Iran] will take revenge…

Of course, our State Department denies any involvement and condemned the attack.

Reports of alleged U.S. involvement are completely false.

Is this what Vice President Biden was talking about when he said the world would test Obama?  Probably not.  It will however damage the talks in Vienna due to begin tomorrow.  We know this because we can  use what we know of Iran’s leadership (i.e. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is flippin’ crazy) to come up with an educated guess of their intentions.  While I would not doubt Ahmadinejad is capable of hiring a bomber to kill his own people in a publicity stunt, and you must admit – the timing is perfect, whether he did or not is irrelevant.  He will use this to his advantage in two ways.  One, it will give him a reason to delay, cancel, or otherwise disrupt the talks being held to reign in Iran’s nuclear arms program.  Claiming one of the nations at the table just killed some of your crew will put a damper on negotiations.  Oh, to be a fly on the wall.  Two, he will also use this to foster additional hatred against the West, and America in particular.  This will make it easier to drum up popular support for an all out war against us, should Obama do what is necessary to eliminate the threat posed by a nuclear armed Iran.

Since Iran’s army is a bit lower class than Saddam’s army, the fight – if you could call it that – would be over quickly, even with Obama’s ridiculous changes to our rules of engagement.  But Ahmadinejad doesn’t need to engage us directly.  He could easily use this as a recruiting tool to find hundreds, if not thousands, of suicide bombers to send against our interests in the Middle East, or against us directly back home.  I picture something like every Iranian driven cab in New York City blowing up simultaneously during rush hour…which would be almost all of them.

Any country crazy enough to lie to their population about the origins of a terrorist attack, to drive them into a frenzy against the most powerful country in the world either deserves the smackdown we would give them, or has an ace up their sleeve.  I trust Ahmadinejad about as far as I can throw a pregnant camel, but at least we can be sure of one thing: Obama had nothing to do with this bombing.  How do I know that?  If he had a suicide bomber at his disposal, and had the balls to use him, I think his target would be something much more prescient…like the Fox News Building.


Read Full Post »

You just can’t make this stuff up. As I discussed on the show this week — in words that may as well have come from Ayatollah Khomenei himself — Obama refused to “meddle” in the Iranian elections. By meddling, I don’t mean dispatching CIA operatives do sabotage the process, I mean commenting on the protests by the Iranian people against the process — which couldn’t be further from democratic. The French president even spoke out against the elections! It’s a sad day when the French are fighting the pirates and condemning tyrannical regimes while our president sits on his hands.

From the Telegraph (via Jihad Watch):

Barack Obama, the US president, is refusing to “meddle” in the disputed Iranian elections, despite mass protests over the result which returned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power….

President Obama said: “It’s important to understand that, although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised.”

Actually, Obama is correct — all “candidates” were selected in a process that excluded any opposition. But the protests may be as much pro-democracy (like Lebanon’s March 14 Alliance) as they are pro-Mousavi.

“Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighbourhood and has been pursuing nuclear weapons,” he told CNBC television.

He said he hoped Iran’s leaders responded to outrage over an election that pro-reform activists say was stolen by Ahmadinejad, not with violence but by respecting the right to peaceful expression.

“Am I optimistic that that will happen? You know – I take a wait-and-see approach. Either way, it’s important for the United States to engage in the tough diplomacy around those permanent security concerns that we have – nuclear weapons, funding of terrorism,” he said….

“It is not productive, given the history of US-Iranian relations to be seen as meddling – the US president, meddling in Iranian elections,” Mr Obama said….

So how does Iran respond? An olive branch? Perhaps rethink wiping out the nation of Israel and put an end to killing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The Associated Press reports (via Jihad Watch):

The Iranian government accused the United States on Wednesday of meddling in the deepening crisis. State media blamed Washington for “intolerable” interference.

We can’t win for losing when it comes to this new approach with Iran. We might as well have meddled, because the result would be the same. Whenever Iran, Hezbollah, or basically any other Islamic supremacist group doesn’t get their way — it is our fault. And as I said yesterday, conducting our foreign policy as the mullahs in Iran wish us to “violates page one, chapter one, verse one of counterterrorism: never appease, validate, or legitimize a terrorist.” Is our president paying attention?

[Originally posted at Unto the Breach]

Read Full Post »