Jewish State? What Jewish State?
Today's krazy Khomeinist news (with crunchy delicious totalitarian phraseology at no extra charge), from the Tehran Times:
TEHRAN - Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has said that Palestine is indivisible and the entire territory belongs to Muslims.
The Leader made the remarks during an address to thousands of well-wishers who gathered at the mausoleum of the late Imam Khomeini, the Founder of the Islamic Republic, to commemorate the 22nd anniversary of his death on Saturday.
“American solutions to the Palestine issue will not bear any fruit, and the solution to this issue is what the Islamic Republic of Iran proposed a few years ago, according to which the regime that will rule over all of Palestine will be elected through a referendum held by the people of this country,” the Leader stated.
“After the Palestinian nation’s elected government is established in all parts of this state, the people of Palestine will decide about the Zionists who have come to this country from outside,” he added.
Elsewhere in his remarks, the Leader commented on developments in the Arab countries which have been experiencing pro-democracy uprisings.
The people power mass movements in the Middle East and North Africa are Islamic, anti-U.S., anti-Zionist, and democratic in nature and that is their common characteristic, he stated.
“Wherever the Islamic Republic of Iran observes a movement with these characteristics, it will sympathize with it. But if we see that the provocation of the United States and the Zionists is at work, we will not sympathize with it because we are certain that the Great Satan and its allies will not do anything in favor of nations,” the Leader observed...
The Leader is a huge pain in the buttski.
We--the U. S. that is--could easily have settled the Iranian mullocracy's hash soon after we took control of Iraq, with a little clandestine work to support the organic, large-scale opposition that had already developed there. In fact, I actually naively believed that the overthrow of the mullocracy and its Syrian client was the ultimate, if covert, strategic aim of the Iraq invasion . . . silly me. (Oh well, even so bright and expert a Middle-East geopolitician as Michael Ledeen came to the same mistaken conclusion, so I am in good company. I well remember his many plaintive appeals of "Faster, please," to the Bush administration.)
ReplyDeleteInstead, we allowed Iran and its Syrian stooge-state to become bases of operations for terrorists and insurgents against our troops and our Iraqi client government. Apparently, non-intervention in Syria and Iran--at the behest of the British, who have large commercial interests in the Great Shia Theocracy--was the price the Bush administration had to pay for British participation in the "Coalition of the Willing."
The Obama administration, of course, would not be sorry to see the mullahs prevail, as the real enemy, from their point of view, are the evil honkies, both within the U. S. and in its imperial outposts (most notably Israel). I fear that no effective action will be brought to bear against Iran at this late date, unless Netanyahu has something up his sleeve. If not . . . well, I've depressed myself enough already.