Don’t get me wrong: I think that Mahmoud puts the “mad” in “Ahmadinejad”, but

[W]ell, I can’t blame him for refusing to give up “a single iota of [Iran’s] nuclear rights”, despite the threat of further sanctions against Persia.

While stating that the Iranian nation “will not give up a single iota of its nuclear rights,” he also said any participation in international talks on the nuclear issue would be aimed at reinforcing those rights.

[ . . . ]

Iran’s claims that it only wants nuclear technology for the production of energy have failed to quell Western suspicions that it is seeking a pathway to an atomic bomb.

Now, I admit, I doubt the long-term benefits of nuclear energy; how-ever, regardless of what surreptitious roles Iran has played in supporting “rogue” nations, that the West so relentlessly questions the sincerity of the nation’s persistent vow, excerpted above, bothers me. The rationale where-upon European nations and America defend their expectation of forging peace in this pandemonium-stricken part of the world with-out ever stringing any sort of carrot to the stick lies with-out the range of my comprehension. Further-more, what lesser right has Iran to develop such technology — for energy purposes or, even, as part of more worrisome machinations — than those countries already possessed of nuclear capability? Strange enough, the noxious egalitarianisms that influence societies of the West — in Europe, especially, but, also, in North America — extend only as far as (supra-)national borders, but not, it seems, into the realm of world politics. (Almost induces one into a longing for Realpolitik!)

Crazy as he be, Ahmadinejad still serves as the president of a sovereign nation-state, and leads the Islamic republic as he deems appropriate; more-over, I remain convinced that, were it not for incessant bullying and inflammatory Western (read “American”) rhetoric, as well as a pernicious-to-all (including Israeli citizens!), one-sided Middle East policy espoused by the West (specifically, of course, the Neo-con States of America), little risk of an Iranian out-burst would exist. That President Bush, et alia, remain blissfully un-aware (or appreciate the fact — and seek world holocaust –) that only should we continue with this asinine, puerile behavior, would Iran, seriously, consider un-leashing direct military might toward Jerusalem absolutely baffles me. Not-with-standing what-ever reciprocated rhetoric the Iranian chief executive proffers to the world, any-one of sensible mind ought to recognize that, were he to engage his nation in battle with Israel, he would elicit such an uproarious rejoinder from myriad Western nations that Iran may no longer exist, at least as we conceive of it, there-after. That Ahmadinejad would lead his nation, and him-self, into such a dire predicament strikes me as being highly dubious, even risible. Ha.

Update: Real Clear Politics has run a piece by Bob Feferman, originally electronically published by The American Thinker, an organ, where-with I lack familiarity, that seems, rather clearly, to espouse a neo-conservative ideology. In “Time for the World to Stand Against Iran”, Feferman remarks, “An indifferent world may soon force Israel to defend its right to exist with a preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities. That’s why the world must finally take a stand and impose tough sanctions against Iran for its pursuit of nuclear weapons.” He argues

As each day passes, it becomes more obvious that Iran’s real intention is to develop nuclear weapons. Why does Iran need nuclear weapons? Iranian leaders have given us the answer- they seek the destruction of Israel- yet the world has chosen to ignore it.

Note that, at no point, have I, expressly, dis-counted the possibility of this. How-ever, I have conveyed skepticism. Feferman’s feeble assessment, here, relies on little evidence, save, it seems, his political science back-ground, that he visits Israel (He offers no indication as to what, particularly relevant to his attempting to make this case, he does whilst abroad.), and that Persia consistently spurns the West’s demands. This, to me, seems perfectly to instantiate the points, made by Andrew Keen, here.

Update, Part II: I think this is reasonable on the part of Iran:

UNITED NATIONS, Aug. 5 — The Iranian government said Tuesday that it is ready to respond to an incentives package that the United States and five other world powers have offered in exchange for suspension of its uranium-enrichment program. But Iran insisted that the big powers “simultaneously” provide a more detailed explanation of the offer, a formula that may lead to drawn-out talks.

Also, having reflected upon what I believe was inexcusable murder of Japanese civilians sixty-three years ago, I have, as you may noticed above, scratched out the comment that I made that one might infer as my condoning Iranian development of nuclear weapons. Even so, I oppose, wholly, challenges to Persian sovereignty, as well as the one-sided policy espoused by the West respecting the Middle East.

One Response

  1. […] I’ve discussed before, “the West” (lovely white-washed replacement for “Christendom”, eh?), […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: