The Case for Bombing Iran

But listen to what Bernard Lewis, the greatest authority of our time on the Islamic world, has to say in this context on the subject of deterrence:

MAD, mutual assured destruction, [was effective] right through the cold war. Both sides had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them, because both sides knew the other would retaliate in kind. This will not work with a religious fanatic [like Ahmadinejad]. For him, mutual assured destruction is not a ... Full Story »

Posted by Dale Penn
Tags Help
Subjects: World, U.S., Politics
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Dale Penn - May 21, 2007 - 9:16 AM PDT
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Fabrice Florin - May 21, 2007 - 12:56 PM PDT

Reviews

Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Mike LaBonte
3.5
by Mike LaBonte - Oct. 1, 2008

Repeats the "wipe Israel off the map" falsehood. Provides some support for opinions, but does so using facts without evidence. Covers several angles regarding Iran.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Chris Finnie
1.2
by Chris Finnie - Oct. 1, 2008

The only reason to read this rant is to get a glimpse into a delusional mind. Personally, I've already heard these "arguments." They got us into the mess in Iraq. Podhoretz substitutes demonization for logic and fear-mongering for facts. And I read a much more reputable article on NewsTrust that laid waste to the mistranslated claim that Iran wants to "wipe Israel off the map." Neocons have been able to stampede uninformed Americans with this kind of trash for years. The shrill tone of this piece tells me that even they know those days are over.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Pamela de Maigret
1.2
by Pamela de Maigret - Oct. 1, 2008

This story is an unfortunate piece of Neo-Con propaganda and a tired reiteration of Bernard Lewis' Clash of Civilizations theory. The hysterical alarmism in which the immediate future is couched -- World War IV, Islamofascism, Totalitarian disease, Nuclear War -- is used as an excuse to exhort the United States to attack Iran. Podhoretz, like most of the Neo-Cons, is Jewish and he sees the nuclear program in Iran as a threat to Israel's nuclear hegemony in the Middle East. He unsuccessfully tries to conflate U.S. and Israeli interests and gives this alamrist screed a psudo-historical context by referencing 1938 Germany, Munich, appeasement, Nazism, etc. He then likens Ahmadinejad to Hitler, and uses the widely quoted ... More »

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Dale Penn
3.9
by Dale Penn - Oct. 1, 2008

Here's an article to challenge NewsTrust reviewers' ability to check their personal biases at the door. I found this to be a provocative and well crafted article. Agree with him or not, the author clearly expresses his concerns for Israel and the world with what he sees as the reincarnation of the evils of the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in the form of a nuclear Iran and Ahmadinejad. May provide the most coherent explanation of the neo-conservative thinking on Iran I've read.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Ben Ross
5.0
by Ben Ross - Oct. 1, 2008

Podhoretz at least got the date of the toppling of the twin towers correct, the rest of this rant is the work of unsubstantiated paranoia. Why, tell me why a truly independent investigation was not conducted on the attacks of 9/11. Many countries have and want nukes, just like the US has...what about a solution of eliminating all nukes. this dude loves war and has expressed little restraint in advocating violence, i wouldn't want him for dog catcher let alone as a diplomat.

See Full Review » (2 answers)
Fran Meaney
4.6
by Fran Meaney - Oct. 1, 2008

To be sure, it's an opinion piece, but it does present the situation as it is. Wishful thinkers on one side and those who have justifiable fear on the other. That the writer comes down on the side of justfiable fear makes sense to me. I am all in favor of wishing away problems. I have tried it for years and for some reason it has never worked.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Greg Kopczynski
1.0
by Greg Kopczynski - Oct. 1, 2008

This is pure neocon trash. $1 trillion, thousands of American lives, tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives later, the author tries to write off this abysmal war as merely a front in a larger World War. Clue for Norm: the World doesn't want America creating a global conflict out of this failed debacle. But even worse, the article makes clear that the author doesn't even understand the American psyche, much less the Iranian one. The only people who will benefit from our bombing of Iran are the terrorists. It would be yet another present from our clueless president to that mass murderer bin Ladin and his followers. Favorite (as in pathetic) quote: "Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has ... More »

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Russell Grissom
1.0
by Russell Grissom - Oct. 1, 2008

This article is a short history of why Dubya has made the USA the laughing stock of the civilzed world. My biggest fear about this diatribe is that there are actually people who subscribe to these beliefs and semi-facts (out and out lies). As an American living overseas, I know by experience just how little people think of the current American government administration. Unfortunately, all of us Americans are getting lumped into this cesspool of anger and frustration. May I ask (much ot the consternation of many, I am sure) why Isreal is so sacrosanct as a nation? Why does it have the right to steal land from people and then be defended for it terrorist activities? Is this because the countries that assisted Isreal in becoming ... More »

See Full Review » (6 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

2.7

Average
from 11 reviews (50% confidence)
Quality
2.7
Facts
2.8
Fairness
2.4
Information
2.5
Sourcing
2.6
Style
4.2
Accuracy
3.0
Balance
2.2
Context
2.8
Popularity
2.7
Recommendation
2.6
# Reviews
5.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help