McCain on Iran: Bush all over again
An alarmist John McCain is using Iran as a political weapon against Barack Obama -- even as he misjudges our Middle East adversary. Full Story »
Posted by Ara GregorianAn alarmist John McCain is using Iran as a political weapon against Barack Obama -- even as he misjudges our Middle East adversary. Full Story »
Posted by Ara GregorianSuperb overview of actual position Iran takes toward Israel and related issues in the Middle East, highlighting astounding foolishness of John McCain's posture toward this very important country. Iran wants an end to the occupation of the West Bank and the Golan Heights. Iran would accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders, if the Palestinians agreed to this resolution of the Israel/Palestine problem. Iran presents no threat to the US or even to Israel, apart from continuing to try to help the victims of Israeli aggression.
A relatively good story about Iran featuring John McCain's position. The article speaks about Iran in regard to several issues. I would feel a little better about this story if it included some discussion of inside politics in Iran
Reasoned and supported arguments why McCain's policies on Iran seem to be exactly like Bush's, and why those policies demonstrate a lack of understanding of the situation.
Excellent piece by an informed source. The right-wing case against Iran has been ginned up by the Israel-first lobby, the group that Colin Powell called "the JINSA crowd." They are worried that Iran has an underground nuclear program that Israel could not take out, as it did the Iraqi reactor in 1981. One of the requirements for that case is to misquote Ahmadinejad's statements about Israel, to imply that Iran was going to do the annihilating. Farsi speakers note that the comments are usually in the passive voice...Israel will disappear from the map. Not the same as saying "We will wipe...etc." The anti-Iran lobby also suggests that Iran's hostility is totally unprovoked, as if the U.S. didn't overthrow Mossadeq's government, ... More »
Other than an example of confused primordial journalism, I find little of value in this article. The author is repeatedly self contradicted, proposes preposterous notions (like a well intentioned, nuclear armed Iranian Ayatollah) with temerity, and replays left-wing accusations as fact. Liberal lickspittles will giggle and righties will be outraged. Where does that get us? Propaganda should be printed under a clearly marked designation.