Ahmadinejad's South American Caracstanby Robert Maginnis
Posted: 05/06/2008Iran has recruited Venezuela's Hugo Chavez to its Islamic revolution. Tehran is working with Chavez to militarize that country, grow terrorist groups, Islamitize indigenous tribes, develop a nuclear program, spread corruption, and do whatever possible to hurt the US.
"I feel I have met a brother and trench mate after meeting Chavez. We do not have any limitation in cooperation," Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, explained. The rogue brothers have become a dangerous odd couple.
Chavez's politics are a radical populism modeled after Cuban Fidel Castro's communism. Chavez wants to "liberate" Latin America as his 19th century hero Simon Bolivar dreamt. In contrast, Ahmedinejad is a radically conservative Islamic leader who has a theistic vision of controlling the world. Together, they share a deep hatred for the US which defines their relationship. MORE
Yes, there are security risks associated with Iran and their obvious interference in Lebanon as well as South and Central American politics; however, is it worth the risk to inflame the entire Middle-East with an attack on Iran? Now that Iran has strong ties with Russia and China, which were relatively inconsequential when Bush took office and have been facilitated by his Iraq War and Peak OIL, we have to look to the international and economic nightmare that would unfold if we engaged in an unprovoked attack against Iran. Where there are other Liberals and Progressives that downplay the danger that Iran poses, I have studied long and hard to understand the events that drive Middle-East politics, and I differ with many and do acknowledge there are serious risks associated with Iran, however, the election is right around the corner, and rather than refusing to understand that Iran does pose a genuine security risk, at least we should all agree that if there is a real risk emanating from Iran, the last people on earth we want responding to it is the Bush administration!
Rather than solving the issues through diplomacy and negotiations, the GOP believes that gun-barrel diplomacy is somehow the only way to handle the world's problems. In an age where the American public is suffering from the weight of the War in Iraq and constant increases in food and oil prices, another serious conflict in the Middle-East will likely destroy what's left of our fragile economy, landing the general population of the US firmly in third-world status - and in this new age of peak oil and skyrocketing food prices, our economy may not recover except for the very wealthy and those with solid ties to America's war machine.
There are dangers in the world and many of them have been heightened by US aggression and imperialism. We do need to address the security concerns posed by Iran, the deteriorating situation in Pakistan, and the radicalizing of South and Central America by forces opposed to the Bush administration - but not down the barrel of a gun! Sanctions and international diplomacy have been the underpinning of some of our most successful achievements, and to even think of allowing Bush and his cronies to address any of these issues until after the elections when we have a solid Democratic presence in the House, Senate, and in the Presidency would not only be foolhardy, but could destroy what little is left our democracy, civil liberties, and the American way of life.
William Cormier
