Yes, Larry, like many of us, has a problem with how Iran does business. Larry's solution, however, is blunter than most:
LARRY KLAYMAN: TIME TO NUKE IRAN
Uh, come again?
The Islamic Republic of Iran is and has always been the major problem and danger in the Middle East and internationally."Always" is a really interesting choice of words, Larry, given that the Islamic Republic of Iran isn't even 35 years old. Just as a reference point, Israel had fought four of its five wars before Islamic Iran ever existed. It must have been comforting to know that all those other wars were just practice.
Iran will within months acquire atomic weapons that can be delivered through missiles, as well as planes and ships, and has threatened – in the face of increased sanctions – not only to annihilate Israel and attack us too, but also to set ablaze the Strait of Hormuz, which is the gateway to oil shipments from Middle Eastern producers throughout the world. This would cripple the world’s economy and send us into an irreparable depression. Iran’s threat is a declaration of war, and we must now respond in kind with massive force!I don't disagree that Iran's leadership trends towards the nutsy side and that I'd rather they not get nuclear weapons (or frankly any weapon improvements, thanks), but I'm a little unclear about what's suddenly changed that makes Larry think that the time for an Iranian D-Day has suddenly come.
The immediate need to destroy the Islamic regime once and for all is heightened by what is going on in neighboring Iraq...Iraq is now becoming “greater Iran.” Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, even by the admission of the liberal New York Times, “is moving to consolidate authority, create a one-party Shiite dominated state” and in effect throw his lot in with his Shiite brothers in Tehran – the neo-Nazi mullahs who not only threaten and are thus far succeeding with world conquest in the name of Allah, but also torture, maim and murder their own people to hold on to total power. So now Iran and Iraq will essentially be one big terrorist state – with tremendous wealth, thanks to their huge oil resources and revenues – bent on successfully waging Islamic revolution not just in the Middle East, but worldwide.Larry, you're giving Iraq's Shiite leaders way too much credit here. If Iraq is eventually going to become Iran Jr., it's going to take a lot of internal infighting to get there. In the meantime, this is really just a bunch of hysterics. Also, I'm pretty sure the theological/political goals of Shiism are much more focused on fighting with Sunnis as opposed to waging global Islamic revolution against heretics. This makes sense, given that Shiites only number 10-15% of the global Muslim population. As the underdog, most observers think that a politically dominant pan-regional Shiia movement would be much more likely to try to flex their muscles and settle old scores with various Sunni regimes than go after us Satans of Various Size. Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying I want any radical Muslims to have the bomb, but when you talk about global Jihad, generally speaking, you're talking about Sunnis, not Shiia. Get your facts straight before you start building your Ahmadinejad bunker.
The radical mullahs in Tehran are a scourge that must be destroyed. To allow them to exist one minute more would be tantamount to reliving the mistakes that led to the rise of Adolf Hitler, World War II and the Holocaust.Hey, remember that time you kept saying you were Israeli when you weren't? Yeah well, all this Godwin rhetoric is making you look even dumber than that.
Importantly, an increasing number of Iranian-Americans now understand that war with Iran will entail significant civilian casualties in their native country. And, while many Iranian-Americans still have loved ones there, they are increasingly willing to accept the consequences of all-out war with the Islamic regime... This is the most evil regime since the Third Reich, and it must be expunged now before it is too late.Full stop Captain Crazy-Pants: exactly how many Iranian ex-pats support dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran? Did you ask any of them? Did they know this is what they were agreeing to? Saying, "We really need to remove the mullahs from power," or "Ahmadinejad has got to go," is not quite equivalent to your ever-so-precise, "Nuke 'em all!" proposal. Seriously, Larry, how were you not embarrassed to submit this to your editor with your name on it?
It is indeed sad that it has come to this. If Presidents Clinton, Bush and now Obama had had any foresight, a nuclear attack on Iran could have long since been averted. Much like taking out a small lump in a cancerous female breast, the operation could have been simple and done with. Now a total radical double mastectomy is required.I love how when you can't decide which atrocious comparison to make, you go with both. Classy.
Obama and Hillary Clinton are traitors, and they are probably bribed to the hilt by Iran, but that does not relieve the rest of us from demanding action! We cannot allow for the rise of another Hitler-type regime at this time in world history.Really, bribed by Iran? How high are you, Larry? Honestly, I don't feel comfortable with you even being in the same state as a nuclear weapon, much less dictating what our military policy should be with them.
There are enough problems that confront us, and we must NOW take drastic measures to remove these vile and evil Islamic terrorists from the face of the earth, if for no other reason than to allow us to deal with other matters and get on with business.Remember folks, according to Larry the best way to deal with a problem is to nuke it. It's the same approach I take with teaching: if a kid doesn't understand something, I run him over with my car. Hey, if Larry ever gets tired of being an op-ed hack, I think he should try being a marriage counselor. Something tells me he'd be great at it.