Someone just wrote to ask me what I’ve got against Iran.
I wrote to ask what he meant by that and he replied, saying, that I seem to have a lot of material on the blog that could be considered anti-Iranian or anti-Muslim.
So, this is probably a good time to address the issue.
I am emphatically pro-Iranian and pro-Iran. Not the government bigwigs, but the guy running the fruit stand; the bakery; the neighbourhood taxi; or the woman getting her kids off to school in the morning; the young girl dreaming of her wedding; the young poet, whether she is writing about music… or dancing about architecture.
Iran is a big country, with over 65 million people spread over an area about one-fifth the size of the United States. It has a brilliant culture that has woven itself together (with strands from many faraway places) over thousands of years. It has, at various times, made great strides in science, design, mathematics, human rights and political thought. I just don’t happen to consider the past 30 years of its history to be its crowning renaissance. And I think that most Iranians would—even if reluctantly—have to agree with me on that.
As for being anti-Muslim: Anyone who can remember to give thanks to G-d five times a day is all right by me. The Lord Eternal is my Rock and Redeemer, too.
The crew presently running the show in Iran are not evil because they are Muslim. They are misguided because they would risk the whole world to advance their theological interpretation of the Mohammedan scriptures. They see “their way” as the best exemplar of the will of G-d (Allah), which is intrinsically arrogant.
The reigning political cabal in Tehran bears strikingly resemblance to a sophisticated doomsday cult that would harness the national pride of its people and the broader surety of Islam in service of its own self-declared objective of hastening the appearance of the Messiah (al-Mahdi) by bringing the world to the brink of absolute chaos.
And that’s just not fair to the guy at the fruit stand. Not to mention the rest of us.
Venezuela’s recent purchase of the most lethal shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles in the Russian arsenal is sharpening U.S. concerns that parts of President Hugo Chávez’s massive weapons buildup could wind up in the hands of terrorists or guerrillas in neighboring Colombia.
imahd.ca 
C’mon, Matt…
Drudge Report seems to be in some sort of feeding frenzy at the moment. Maybe they’re trying to drive more traffic in order to sell more ads. Matt…?
Just check the following page leader from earlier today:
Source: www.drudgereport.com
What can I say? Well, right off the bat, it’s definitely inflammatory. And, what’s more, it’s needlessly inflammatory and not at all representative of the text contained in the linked story. When did Matthew Drudge turn into J. Jonah Jameson? (The Drudge Report website just dropped two notches in my book.)
The Drudge-linked Washington Post story goes on to say that President Obama endorses the right of the Iranian people to energy security, including the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Isn’t that what we’ve been telling Iran for years through the IAEA? Is it not already the official position of both the US government and the United Nations Security Council?
This is almost a ‘non-story’ — and yet Drudge goes BOLD RED CAPS with what, to many readers, might sound like Obama endorsing covert Iranian nuclear weapons development. Outright fear-mongering.
So, congratulations, Matt, for getting it so wrong — and for looking so cravenly propagandistic while doing it!
Share this:
Leave a comment
Filed under Chicanery, Conflict
Tagged as commentary, DRUDGE REPORT, Energy, IAEA, Iran, Middle East, Nuclear, obama