Iranian student leader: Bomb Iran

posted at 10:37 pm on January 20, 2007 by Allahpundit

Or, just hook him up with some iPhones. Either way.

Fakhr-Avar believes the revolution can be accomplished within ten months to a year. He does not ask for much from the Americans: “What we really need is the tools,” he says. “Cell phones, computers, cameras, publication ability. This is the funding we need for our (revolutionary) activities, to coordinate within Iran and outside.”…

This is the opportune moment for us to have the population realize that the regime has taken them to neverland basically, they’re heading to annihilation, destruction. People are growing more informed. Khatami never said ‘we must wipe Israel off the face of the earth‘ – while he had that in mind, he never stated it. Now the Iranians know it.

He’s not fond of our friend Mahdi, either.

Ahmadinejad is stupid. We’ve known him for the past 6-7 years from the political arena in Iran. When he was the mayor Tehran his plans were so stupid that people laughed at him. One of them was to pave the roadway that the 12th imam traveled on. He took all the intersections and removed the traffic signals so everyone can go where they want. A few months later they decided it was stupid and put them all back. It cost something like 2 billion dollars.

The Telegraph has the latest in the media’s sudden preoccupation with what a miserable failure Ahmadinejad’s presidency has been. Honest interest in an important story or agenda journalism designed to downplay the Iranian threat before Bush does something crazy? Whichever it is, the regime’s facing an economic crisis that’s going to get even more dire in a few weeks.

Ahmadinejad is planning to introduce petrol rationing at the start of the new Iranian year, in late March. Motorists will be allowed just 100 litres per car, per month, at the existing price of 800 rials (4p), but anything above that will be charged at 5000 rials (27p) a litre. Petrol pumps have had to be changed, at huge expense, to read the new petrol cards which will be used to enforce the rationing, but which few people have yet received.

The fuel price rises are the result of the president’s attempt to cut dependency on foreign imports. Although Iran is OPEC’s second largest producer of oil, it is forced to import 40 per cent of its refined petroleum needs because its own refining facilities were devastated during the war with Iraq.

Businessmen interviewed by The Sunday Telegraph in Tehran, last week, were already wincing at the knock-on effects of the price rise. “This will multiply all other costs, such as taxi fares, transportation and food, because it is a chain reaction,” one warned.

One Middle East expert told Reuters that Iran, for all its terrorist menace, is a paper tiger.

Middle East expert Kenneth Katzman argued “Iran’s ascendancy is not only manageable but reversible” if one understands the Islamic republic’s many vulnerabilities.

Tehran’s leaders have convinced many experts Iran is a great nation verging on “superpower” status, but the country is “very weak … (and) meets almost no known criteria to be considered a great nation,” said Katzman of the Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service.

The economy is mismanaged and “quite primitive,” exporting almost nothing except oil, he said.

Also, Iran’s oil production capacity is fast declining and in terms of conventional military power, “Iran is a virtual non-entity,” Katzman added.

The administration, therefore, should not go out of its way to accommodate Iran because the country is in no position to hurt the United States, and at some point “it might be useful to call that bluff,” he said.

Exit question: Who said this about Bush?

“I don’t think he understands the world… I don’t think he’s particularly curious about the world. I don’t think he reads like he says he does.”

He added, “Every time he’s read something he tells you about it, I think.”

Hint: It’s not Ahmadinejad. He wouldn’t be that insulting.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Question: If the current regime is removed by these “revolutionaries”, what will they replace it with?

.

GT on January 20, 2007 at 10:42 PM

When I said Iran would fold under economic pressure I was ridiculed by the hawks. What say you now? Shall we nuke ’em before its too late?

Theworldisnotenough on January 20, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Question: If the current regime is removed by these “revolutionaries”, what will they replace it with?

GT on January 20, 2007 at 10:42 PM

W

Troy Rasmussen on January 20, 2007 at 10:52 PM

Question: If the current regime is removed by these “revolutionaries”, what will they replace it with?

GT on January 20, 2007 at 10:42 PM

WHO CARES?! ANOTHER WAR MEANS MORE MONEY FOR US!!!! YEAHHH!

Troy Rasmussen on January 20, 2007 at 10:53 PM

Question: If the current regime is removed by these “revolutionaries”, what will they replace it with?

Safe money is on the current regime changing calming its tone enough to get foreign investors into the country to rebuild the infrastructure (they are distancing themselves from Mahdi, polarizing him, making him the scapegoat). What those mullahs really want is to stay in power; they are shrewd enough to know that if they drive Iran off the cliff financially they will be cast from power rather rudely. Honestly that is the best case scenario for the West. Should they merely change the rhetoric they remain a lurking threat once they get their oil infrastructure in place. I believe at that point they will start to develop nukes again.

Theworldisnotenough on January 20, 2007 at 10:55 PM

Theworldisnotenough on January 20, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Perhaps we should remove the threat of military action against Iran? I’m sure they would come around to our way of thinking then.

csdeven on January 20, 2007 at 10:56 PM

Perhaps we should remove the threat of military action against Iran? I’m sure they would come around to our way of thinking then.

csdeven on January 20, 2007 at 10:56 PM

Surely you can’t be serious.

steveegg on January 20, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Surely you can’t be serious.

steveegg on January 20, 2007 at 10:59 PM

No, that was an attempt at sarcasim.

And don’t call me Shirley.

haha I always wanted to say that!

csdeven on January 20, 2007 at 11:05 PM

Theworldisnotenough,

That still doesn’t answer the question. If the students were to successfully overthrow the government, what would they replace it with?

.

GT on January 20, 2007 at 11:06 PM

That still doesn’t answer the question. If the students were to successfully overthrow the government, what would they replace it with?

No impact, no idea. I do not know squat about the oppositions leadership. *shurg* I’d guess the loudest student perhaps, or “moderate” sheiks that represent more local interests.

Theworldisnotenough on January 20, 2007 at 11:10 PM

“The administration, therefore, should not go out of its way to accommodate Iran because the country is in no position to hurt the United States”

IMO, shaped charges are hurting the USA at this very moment. Perhaps he should define his version of ‘hurt’?

Kevin M on January 20, 2007 at 11:13 PM

Perhaps we should remove the threat of military action against Iran? I’m sure they would come around to our way of thinking then.

csdeven on January 20, 2007 at 10:56 PM

My point is that economic pressure is a sound strategy. Did I say remove the threat? The hawks were calling for strikes on Iran as the only solution. That is shortsided and false. Two carrier groups in the gulf makes our point just fine. They have no real military, we could destroy their facilities with the flip of a switch. The question is do we need to do that? The answer is no. I advocate strikes to prevent Iran from having nukes I just believe that should Iran pursue nukes any further it will bankrupt the country and initiate regime change. And honestly I prefer that option for reasons stated above.

Theworldisnotenough on January 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM

No impact, no idea. I do not know squat about the oppositions leadership. *shurg* I’d guess the loudest student perhaps, or “moderate” sheiks that represent more local interests.

Theworldisnotenough on January 20, 2007 at 11:10 PM

That’s my point. We’d all love to see the present government fall flat and face its own 1979. But before the US or any other country provides aid to the students, I’d like to know that we’re not simply helping to replace one tyranny with another.

.

GT on January 20, 2007 at 11:26 PM

Two of the most ridiculous labels…influential democrat and intelligent democrat…….

ritethinker on January 20, 2007 at 11:27 PM

Theworldisnotenough on January 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM

OK, I see your point. Thanks for clarifing.

csdeven on January 20, 2007 at 11:30 PM

GT, that would be nice, but impossible. That is simply not the way the world works. Remember the lesson of Castro. He had us believing up until the day he went on the Jack Parr show that we could work with him and we see how that turned out……

It’s like anything else in life, you roll the dice based on your instincts and all available info……..

ritethinker on January 20, 2007 at 11:31 PM

That still doesn’t answer the question. If the students were to successfully overthrow the government, what would they replace it with?

There’s some talk of a constitutional monarchy with Reza Pahlavi as the new Shah. His daughters were born in the US, and therefore are citizens here. I think he likes us.

The Monster on January 20, 2007 at 11:37 PM

Has anyone considered that this could be disinformation designed to lull America into complacency about Ahmadinejad?

We should keep up the pressure, contemplate strikes if need be, and develop a dialogue with the (if any) dissident element to see exactly what would replace Ahmadinejad. As we can see, our experience in Iraq was not exactly stellar – I don’t think that we want to repeat that.

Emmett J. on January 20, 2007 at 11:41 PM

ritethinker on January 20, 2007 at 11:31 PM

I don’t think its impossible. The difference between then and now is that I hope we’ve paid a little more attention to history’s lessons a’la Castro.

.

GT on January 20, 2007 at 11:43 PM

I was in college in 79′ when the embassy hostage / Khomeini revolution happened. Pardon me if I’m skeptical about Iranian students achieving anything positive. (Yes, I’ve read Christopher Hitchens.) I recall hearing the same thing about Iraq post gulf war I. The more I read and try to get a handle on the mess we’re in, the less optimistic I get. I’m not discounting the posted info top of page. I remember when Iran was a cold war ally. It would be great if they dumped the moolas. We are due to catch a break. Then again so are the Cleveland Browns and it ain’t gonna happen.

Buck Turgidson on January 21, 2007 at 12:02 AM

We crushed the Soviet Union financially. Maybe we could tinker with oil enough to destroy Iran.

Trouble is, it would only degenerate into a collection of Muslim Warlords running city-states. This part of the world needs Jesus SOOOOOO bad. They can’t even think in a straight line in the middle east.

Mojave Mark on January 21, 2007 at 12:03 AM

GT on January 20, 2007 at 11:43 PM

I would hope we have learned lessons, but on viewing the events in Iraq it seems as if we are just clueless sometimes.

Knowing that there are think tanks out there, I find myself secretly hoping that the Bush admin utilized these think tanks before making policy and the events are fleshing out pretty much as planned, but they cannot be honest with the american people about it because we just wouldn’t understand the strategy behind it.

Yeah, I know…dream on.

csdeven on January 21, 2007 at 12:04 AM

csdeven on January 21, 2007 at 12:04 AM

I agree. The US leadership of both parties do appear to be clueless at times, one more than the other.

My fear is that we’ll jump at the chance to help the “students” only to get slapped in the face again. The source of that fear is Islam. I don’t care if its moderate Muslims or even professing liberal muslims (if there is such a thing). That faith has such a strangle-hold on all of them that no matter what we do, we’ll end up on the losing end.

As for Iraq, I believe that the decision to invade was the correct one. But that has more to do with Iraq’s violations of the cease-fire and its willful disregard of the agreements it made.

.

GT on January 21, 2007 at 12:15 AM

Speaking of regime change, If the democrats bring back the unconstitutional “fairness doctrine” to silence political free speech, we no longer live in a free country. ( Sorry for the OT, but foreign governments are not the only problem we face.)

Buck Turgidson on January 21, 2007 at 12:16 AM

As for Iraq, I believe that the decision to invade was the correct one. But that has more to do with Iraq’s violations of the cease-fire and its willful disregard of the agreements it made.

GT on January 21, 2007 at 12:15 AM

I too believe it was the right decision. I even take it a step further….I don’t care if we invaded Iraq, for the sole purpose of drawing terrorists and their resources to us rather than leave them to use those resources against US soil. To me it is very clear that attacking a Suuni stronghold in Saddam’s Iraq would draw other Sunni radicals to fight us there, and I don’t see how the Bush admin didn’t see that too. It seems like a good strategy, but not one US citizens would agree with.

csdeven on January 21, 2007 at 12:23 AM

R. James Woolsey:

We should abandon the approaches of Radio Farda and the Farsi Service of VOA and return to the approach that served us so well in the Cold War. Ion Pacepa, the most senior Soviet Bloc intelligence officer to defect during the Cold War (when he was Acting Director of Romanian Intelligence) recently wrote that two missiles brought down the Soviet Union: Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty. Our current broadcasting does not inform Iranians about what is happening in Iran, as RFE and RL did about matters in the Bloc. Privately-financed Farsi broadcasts from the US follow the RFE-RL model to some extent, but exist on a shoestring. Instead we sponsor radio that principally broadcasts music and brief world news, and television that, I suppose seeking a bizarre version of balance, sometimes utilizes correspondents with remarkable views: one VOA correspondent, on another network, last year characterized the arrest in the UK of 21 individuals accused of plotting to blow up transatlantic airliners with liquid explosives as “a conspiracy against Islam” by the US and alleged that the US and the UK fabricated the plot to deflect attention from “Hezbollah victories”. (Richard Benkin in Asian Tribune Aug. 12, 2006, vol. 6 no. 41.)

ganeshpuri89 on January 21, 2007 at 12:24 AM

Perhaps we should remove the threat of military action against Iran? I’m sure they would come around to our way of thinking then.

csdeven on January 20, 2007 at 10:56 PM

My point is that economic pressure is a sound strategy. Did I say remove the threat? The hawks were calling for strikes on Iran as the only solution. That is shortsided and false. Two carrier groups in the gulf makes our point just fine. They have no real military, we could destroy their facilities with the flip of a switch. The question is do we need to do that? The answer is no. I advocate strikes to prevent Iran from having nukes I just believe that should Iran pursue nukes any further it will bankrupt the country and initiate regime change. And honestly I prefer that option for reasons stated above.

Theworldisnotenough on January 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM

Right. Economic pressure. Like the pressure exerted by the last 28 yrs of sanctions on Iran by the US. Like the sanctions just approved by the EU and Russia and China to restrict travel for… Iranian diplomats. You mean that kind of economic pressure? Like it hasn’t been tried by the US without success and blocked by the EU, Russia and China with similar success at overthrowing the Iranian mullahs. What do you propose? Sanp our fingers and drop a lead weight on every money transaction involving Iran?

“Should Iran pursue nukes any further it will bankrupt the country”. Well bankrupting the country didn’t seem to stop Saddam, the Soviet Union, and is not stopping Iran from pursuit of those nukes. And we all see how that bankruptcy of infrastructure just irritated the Hell out of the Iraqis, causing them to rise up against Saddam and throw him out, no? Perhaps you underestimate the stupidity of the regime to follow a course of bankruptcy despite the effects of nuclear research on their economy? Just snap your fingers again, click your heels together, Dorothy? Pure Fricking Magic will save us.

As for the “hawks” in the administration pursuing only military options, what the Hell do you call the last 2 years pursuit in the UN. Jacks? Bridge? Stratego? Diplomacy has already been at work against Iran intensely for the last 3-4 yrs, and less intensely since 1979. Just how long will you give that to work, especially since you say you are fine with bombing Iran to stop nuke production, just not invading the place. After all bombing isn’t really like declaring war on some one. The Palestinians do it all the time and it never bothers the Israelis!

Methinks your logic is a bit unsettled.

Subsunk

Subsunk on January 21, 2007 at 12:58 AM

Exit question: Who said this about Bush?…

Hint: It’s not Ahmadinejad. He wouldn’t be that insulting.

No, no, it’s not the ugly and ignorant Ahmi.

It’s the intelligent, erudite, beautiful, charming, well-bred, and well-read Senator John D. Rockefeller.

Entelechy on January 21, 2007 at 2:46 AM

Imagine Hillary/any Democrat are the president of Iran The United States.

You awake to discover that a US Islamist nuclear-powered aircraft carrier is heading in your their direction, as is a new anti-missile defence system to protect your ours neighbours from the missiles you plan to point at them.

Mz. Pelose?, Mrs. Clinton? Want a Lolly-Pop Ms. Frank?

(Crickets chriping)

(Timer ticking)

BOOM!

PinkyBigglesworth on January 21, 2007 at 6:50 AM

TheWorld, some of us “hawks” have been saying for years that the U.S. might be able to ‘flip’ Iran without firing a shot … or maybe just a few :-)

Subsunk … nice work.

Tony737 on January 21, 2007 at 9:10 AM

Theworldisnotenough on January 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM

After reading subsunk’s response to your comments about economic pressures on Iran, I did some checking and it seems that we have been increasing that pressure on Iran for many years, with a huge increase during the Clinton years. They are working somewhat, but, like always, the Europeans are hamstringing our efforts. So, it looks like a military strike against Irans nuke sites is the only response that wefigure all this out! can effect the Europeans cannot weaken.

So, I agree that economic santions need to stay in effect, but a military strike may be the next step in bringing them into compliance. Perhaps a military strike against their nuke sites and then an easing of sanctions if they respond favorable?

Man, I’m glad I don’t have to be responsible for making those decisions.

csdeven on January 21, 2007 at 9:45 AM

correction…

So, it looks like a military strike against Irans nuke sites is the only response that we can effect that the Europeans cannot weaken.

csdeven on January 21, 2007 at 10:05 AM

Middle East expert Kenneth Katzman argued “Iran’s ascendancy is not only manageable but reversible” if one understands the Islamic republic’s many vulnerabilities.
Tehran’s leaders have convinced many experts Iran is a great nation verging on “superpower” status, but the country is “very weak … (and) meets almost no known criteria to be considered a great nation,” said Katzman of the Library of Congress’ Congressional Research Service.
The economy is mismanaged and “quite primitive,” exporting

It is not surprising Al-Reuters is reporting that Iran is actually weak, not strong, so that when we attack Iran they can make it look like Iran was never a threat.

Dems work this way: Throughout the 1990s complain that Iraq is a huge threat and that Republicans didn’t “finish the job.” When Republicans finish the job, screech that it was based on lies and that North Korea and Iran were actually the gigantic threats. When we do something about Iran, pretend that they were not threats at all.

If we attack Iran and overthrow their government, liberals lose a key ally, Islamic Iran, which is why they do not want us to attack it at any cost.

januarius on January 21, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Somewhat off topic…..maybe I was sleepwalking again but what ever became of the story last week of the explosion in the Iranian desert? They claimed UFO at the time if I recall?

On topic……DAISY CUTTER the whole place…then fill up every single cargo aircraft we have with our trash and make a giant land fill out of the whole country. Delivery every Monday and Thursday.

Limerick on January 21, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Reminds me of the former Soviet Union, except they had far more natural resources than Iran.

Taking a threatening posture against your enemy while spending the bulk of your budget on the military (nuke development in Iran’s case) will eventually put a strangle hold on the economy and piss-off the peasants to the point where they rise up in defiance of the government that completely ignored their minimal needs.

How ironic that the Russians have greatly assisted in Iran’s nuclear ambitions and are currently selling them millions of dollars of military defense weaponry.

Russia’s recouping funds from their excessive military spending in years past, and in the process they’re leading Iran down the same path that led to the downfall of their motherland

fogw on January 21, 2007 at 12:10 PM

GT, you missed the point. The Iranians could be telling us anything. We know what we have in their leadership right now, and it is unacceptable. There is no way to know for sure that what takes it’s place won’t be more of the same. But, that doesn’t mean you don’t take out the garbage because there may be more garbage to take it’s place. You keep working until all the pieces fit. Don’t forget, this argument was used as a reason not to take out Saddam. You have to eliminate evil even if it takes multiple attempts….

ritethinker on January 21, 2007 at 1:04 PM

The rationing, if you want to call it that, means that after the first 25 gallons at a subsidized 35 cents a gallon, gasoline will cost Iranians about $2.50 a gallon. This shows the weakness of the mullah’s regime. Read above how Iran imports 40% of it’s refined gasoline and diesel fuel. It has nine refineries that are deteriorating due to lack of investment and running over capacity.

Attack the refineries now with conventional weapons. We could do it with nine cruise missiles. As Billy Sol Hurok would say, refineries blow up good, blow up real good.

The Israelis could take care of the refineries. They have missile subs with cruise missile capabilities. A naval blockade of gasoline/diesel tankers might require the US Navy, and since most of Iran’s oil is offshore, some Navy Seals to take the oil platforms.

This would be a measured military response to a clear and present danger. The regime would collapse in a matter of days.

rokemronnie on January 21, 2007 at 4:34 PM

rokemronnie on January 21, 2007 at 4:34 PM

I like it ronnie. I like it alot. We know from experience how things get when the pumps dry up. Seriously, I think it might work. If not, get Limerick’s daisy cutters in there followed by BFI. (Gotta have a post war plan nowadays.)

Buck Turgidson on January 21, 2007 at 5:47 PM