Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« The 'Anti-Profiling' Agenda And Its Dangerous Effects On Our Security | Main | The War In Iraq And The Traitors In Our Midst »

January 13, 2007

U.S. And Iran Are At War' - Iraq Only Current Battlefront In Larger War Against Islamic Totalitarianism

Topics: Iran

Iranian nuclear threat.jpg

Our take home message here is that we are already at war with Iran, and that Iraq just happens to be the current battlefront in a larger (and global) war against Islamic totalitarianism / Islamic fascism.
Iranian ex-pat blogger Hosssein Derakhshan was Hugh Hewitt's guest on the first hour of his radio program yesterday. The "liberal" Iranian gave answers that, according to Hugh, unsettled a lot of listeners. For example:
HH: And so, and you would rebuke the United States if the United States struck back in self defense against that intermeddling by Iranians in Iraq?

Hosssein Derakhshan: Absolutely. It's a war between Iran and the U.S. that's happening actually in Iraq before it comes to Iran.

Hugh Hewitt: So you believe that the United States and Iran are already at war?

Hosssein Derakhshan: I think they are, and actually, this is not only in Iraq. They're already at war in many other fronts.

Hugh Hewitt: What other fronts?

Hosssein Derakhshan: Including the Lebanon, which was basically between Israel and Hezbollah, but in reality, it was between Iran and the U.S. It was a proxy war.

If this is in fact a "liberal" Iranian being interviewed, and if his opinions are shared by a majority of Iranians, then we've got big problems in Iran that are way beyond the talking stage. And let there be no confusion in your mind about what's going on in Iraq - Iran's support for militias--on both sides of the fighting in Iraq--is part of a larger strategy to undermine Western Societies and Western power that includes the pursuit of nuclear weapons, the training and export of terrorists, and the fomenting of religious violence all around the world.

Be sure to read all of the interview (more excerpts here) and let there be no more doubt in your mind - the U.S. and Iran are at war, and have been since 1979. The only difference between the years gone by and now is that it's become a lot hotter and if we don't stop Iran now - it is likely to go nuclear.

As David Strom noted at, Americans do not really have the power to choose war or peace with Islamic fascism (some would argue that a better term is Islamic Totalitarianism); the war has been declared and is going on as we speak. Choosing to leave Iraq will only change where the war is fought, not whether there will be fighting:

[...] Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been very clear about his desires and intentions regarding this larger world conflict. There is, in fact, no ambiguity at all about his desire to wipe Israel off the map of the Middle East, and few serious people would doubt his willingness to use nuclear weapons to do so when the opportunity arises. Iran's pursuit of advanced missile technology adds a new dimension to the threat--both Europe and eventually the United States will have to deal with a genuine nuclear threat from Iran, either using these weapons as bombs or as EMP devices.

And Ahmadinejad's antipathy to the West is not, on its own terms, irrational. The Islamic fascist view of the ideal society is in fact incompatible with the existence of Western Liberal democracies. As long as the BBC, Sky TV, and Hollywood keep pumping out news and entertainment that tempts young and impressionable Muslims down the path to hell, Iran's leaders (and all those dedicated to a robust religiously ruled Islamic State, including Al Qaeda) will dedicate themselves to destroying liberal societies.

... If the West chooses to abandon the fight in Iraq, not only will that country fall to our Islamic Fascist enemies, but we will be freeing up the enormous resources they are expending to defeat us there. Resources that can be turned against us here at home or in Europe. And instead of having US forces stationed on the border of Iran and Syria, ready to menace them if necessary, we will have reduced our military threat to them without reducing the cultural threat they need to eliminate. It would be a huge victory for them in their war against us.

Ryan Mauro sums it up the consequences of our withdrawal from Iraq in his piece at Global Politician, however his point is juxtapositional with our escalating war with Iran:
Advocates of a withdrawal think it will end the war, but it will not. The disastrous security situation in Iraq will lead to a terrorist sanctuary that the United States will then have to confront. Our uniformed men and women who came home the first time will have to enter again under much harsher and costlier conditions.
Read much more on the consequences of withdrawal from Iraq here, and give serious consideration to the fact that our primary enemy in Iraq is Iran, and should we fail in Iraq, Iran - the #1 sponsor of terrorism and home to several Al-Qaeda leaders, will grow in power and become the leader of the region. As Mauro points out in his piece, It will become easier for Iran's government, who denies the holocaust has ever happened and has repeatedly cited the destruction of Israel and the United States as its goal, to obtain nuclear weapons. The West will find its options to deter isolate and affect Iran's behavior very limited.

Very limited, indeed - and a deadly consequence for the West.

Posted by Richard at January 13, 2007 8:18 AM

Articles Related to Iran: