Now come on, this isn’t surprising. North Korea has been going on for YEARS about the imminent US attack. This is hardly something to get worked up about.
Let’s not overlook also that there is a significant internal power struggle underway in Iran. The LA Times had a good piece on that yesterday or perhaps the day before.
In this struggle, Khamanei is aligned with those who think Ahmadinejad (whos allies performed poorly in last December’s elections) is dangerously igniting an international conflict, as well as neglecting important domestic constituencies.
But if the US or Israel would attack, you can kiss those internal Iranian struggles goodbye for a while.
Comment by MSS — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 9:47 am
Both the over-the-top claims about Iran’s capabilities and intentions and the over-the-top claims about the Administration’s plans to attack Iran give me heartburn.
Let’s ask some substantive questions: what actions can the U. S. take to reduce the likelihood of war with Iran? What actions can the Iranians take? Do either of the sets of proposed actions put the legitimate vital interests of the country that we’re suggesting take them at risk?
I think that defusing the tensions between Iran and the U. S. is more within Iran’s power without violating Iran’s legitimate vital interests than it is within the U. S.’s without violating its legitimate vital interests but, then again, I’m just a provincial, prejudiced American.
President Ahmadinejad’s real views are summarized on this website: ahmadinejadquotes.blogspot.com
Comment by Al — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 8:45 pm
I think I see the point made… A quick and simple makeover of the first paragraph:
“Iran launched more threats against the United States Thursday, with the Supreme Leader vowing that Tehran will attack U.S. interests around the world in the event of military action against his country.”
The second paragraph serves to effectively sandwich opinion and facts. This practice is common enough, often misleading the casual reader into thinking he is reading strictly factual statements - and would not be mentioned if reproducing an officially endorsed opinion. The very fact that Iranians may be concerned is off-limits too. America is always (I’m sure you’ve noticed) on the side of the people and against the ruling regime of its targets. Any concern that might exist should therefore be felt by Iran and not by the Iranians. By inserting this comment the reporter is putting people and regime in the same basket. Faux pas.
As to the third paragraph, the word “detained” should not have been used - better “kidnapped”. “Detained” and “arrested” are used only with direct involvement of American and Iraqi puppet forces (irrespective of rule of law). More intriguing is the way in which the series of facts is presented. We get an U.S. statement, followed by an “also says” and then a “but” - bringing into question the honesty of the U.S. with regard to the second statement, and also, consequently, the first. Maybe I’m reading too much into this paragraph, but I think that the insinuation is there.
regards
Comment by James — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 8:58 pm
Now come on, this isn’t surprising. North Korea has been going on for YEARS about the imminent US attack. This is hardly something to get worked up about.
Comment by B. Minich — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 9:24 am
Let’s not overlook also that there is a significant internal power struggle underway in Iran. The LA Times had a good piece on that yesterday or perhaps the day before.
In this struggle, Khamanei is aligned with those who think Ahmadinejad (whos allies performed poorly in last December’s elections) is dangerously igniting an international conflict, as well as neglecting important domestic constituencies.
But if the US or Israel would attack, you can kiss those internal Iranian struggles goodbye for a while.
Comment by MSS — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 9:47 am
Both the over-the-top claims about Iran’s capabilities and intentions and the over-the-top claims about the Administration’s plans to attack Iran give me heartburn.
Let’s ask some substantive questions: what actions can the U. S. take to reduce the likelihood of war with Iran? What actions can the Iranians take? Do either of the sets of proposed actions put the legitimate vital interests of the country that we’re suggesting take them at risk?
I think that defusing the tensions between Iran and the U. S. is more within Iran’s power without violating Iran’s legitimate vital interests than it is within the U. S.’s without violating its legitimate vital interests but, then again, I’m just a provincial, prejudiced American.
Comment by Dave Schuler — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 3:06 pm
President Ahmadinejad’s real views are summarized on this website: ahmadinejadquotes.blogspot.com
Comment by Al — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 8:45 pm
I think I see the point made… A quick and simple makeover of the first paragraph:
“Iran launched more threats against the United States Thursday, with the Supreme Leader vowing that Tehran will attack U.S. interests around the world in the event of military action against his country.”
The second paragraph serves to effectively sandwich opinion and facts. This practice is common enough, often misleading the casual reader into thinking he is reading strictly factual statements - and would not be mentioned if reproducing an officially endorsed opinion. The very fact that Iranians may be concerned is off-limits too. America is always (I’m sure you’ve noticed) on the side of the people and against the ruling regime of its targets. Any concern that might exist should therefore be felt by Iran and not by the Iranians. By inserting this comment the reporter is putting people and regime in the same basket. Faux pas.
As to the third paragraph, the word “detained” should not have been used - better “kidnapped”. “Detained” and “arrested” are used only with direct involvement of American and Iraqi puppet forces (irrespective of rule of law). More intriguing is the way in which the series of facts is presented. We get an U.S. statement, followed by an “also says” and then a “but” - bringing into question the honesty of the U.S. with regard to the second statement, and also, consequently, the first. Maybe I’m reading too much into this paragraph, but I think that the insinuation is there.
regards
Comment by James — Friday, February 9, 2024 @ 8:58 pm