Will Iran Replace ISIS?

If ISIS is defeated in Iraq and Syria, it’s likely that the Western world will breathe a collective sigh of relief. Many will assume that with the defeat of the supposedly un-Islamic Islamic State, things will return to normal—or, at least, to what passes for normal in the Middle East. As long as the beheadings, crucifixions, sex slavery, and destruction of churches come to a stop, Western citizens—many of them, at least—will be able to convince themselves that the danger is over.

We may soon see how the West will react to the rout of ISIS because the long-awaited boots-on-the-ground are now on the ground. Except that they’re Iranian boots. Well, to be exact, Shiite militia and Iraqi troops led by Iranian Revolutionary Guard commanders.

If the Iranian-led forces succeed in ridding Iraq and Syria of the Islamic State, what then? So much energy has been invested in the idea that ISIS is an evil aberration—a perversion of true Islam—that many will assume that moderate, mainstream Islam is back in the saddle. The fact that ISIS will have been defeated by other Muslims will reinforce the notion that most Muslims are just as opposed to jihad violence as are its victims.

After 1400 years of jihad warfare, many—including most of the West’s opinion makers—still don’t get it. The main problem is not ISIS or Boko Haram or al-Qaeda, but the Islamic doctrine of warfare. ISIS may not be the most powerful military force around, but it embodies a powerful idea. Much of its attraction hinges on its claim to be faithful to the original doctrine of jihad. So a battlefield defeat of ISIS does not necessarily mean the end of ISIS. ISIS might re-establish itself in Jordan or the Sinai or in Libya. Or it could shift its focus to terrorist strikes in the Mid-East, Europe, and America.

Even if ISIS were to disappear completely, the basic problem would remain. The obligation to engage in jihad warfare is a main pillar of Islam. If it’s not included in the well-known five pillars of Islam, that’s because it’s considered a communal obligation, not an individual one. But it is, nevertheless, of the essence of Islam.

The foundation of jihad doctrine is the distinction between Muslim and non-Muslim, more precisely between the “house of Islam” (dar-al-Islam) and the “house of war” (dar al-harb). The purpose of jihad is to bring the “house of war”—non-Muslim territories—under the control of the “house of Islam.” Thus, jihad is a perpetual obligation that remains in force until the non-Muslim world submits to the Muslim world.

This is not ancient history, it’s modern mainstream Islam. For instance, the influential scholar and popular television personality Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, speaking at a 2003 Islamic conference in Sweden, said, “It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of dar-al-harb … is not protected.”

This means that anyone living in the war zone, no matter how peaceful he may be, can be killed. For what? For the crime of being an unbeliever. Islamic war doctrine in its simplest form boils down to this: the Islamic community is obliged to make war on non-believers.

There are, however, a number of exceptions and qualifications. For instance, if the unbeliever converts to Islam or if he submits to the authority of the Islamic ruler and agrees to pay the jizya tax, his life will be spared. Indeed there are many “ifs,” “ands,” and “buts” surrounding the rules of jihad warfare. And these qualifications often serve to provide comfort to potential victims of jihad, even if it’s only a false comfort. Islamic apologists often say that jihad can only be defensive, that it can never be directed toward civilians, and that Islam forbids the taking of innocent life. That’s all very reassuring—until you realize that the terms “defensive,” “civilians,” and “innocent” are understood differently in Islamic and Western societies. A close reading of Islamic law books reveals that only Muslims are innocent. As Anjem Choudary, a UK lawyer and Islamic activist, explained to an interviewer following the 2005 train and bus bombings in London:

When we say “innocent people,” we mean Muslims. As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam. As far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God.

Whereas the term “innocent” is defined rather narrowly by Muslim jurists, the term “defensive” is construed in a broad sense. Indeed, the term is so elastic that it includes its opposite. Thus, offensive operations are often deemed to be defensive. For example, most of the many battles fought by Muhammad were battles that he initiated. Yet in the looking-glass world of Islamic jurisprudence, Muhammad was merely defending himself and Allah. Against whom? Against anyone who failed to acknowledge that Allah is the one God and Muhammad is his prophet.

In other words, anyone who fails to accept Islam is ipso facto an aggressor. Perhaps the most frequently repeated phrase in the Koran is “woe to the unbeliever” (or some variation thereof), followed by a warning that said unbeliever will be punished both in the next world and in this one. Difficult as it may be for the Western mind to grasp, in Islam mere unbelief is considered to be an act of aggression.

But how about Muslim-on-Muslim violence? None of the above seems to justify the frequent aggressions committed by Muslims against other Muslims. Muslims know that they are not supposed to wage war against other Muslims, but they do have a way around the prohibition. By the simple expedient of pronouncing your opponent a non-Muslim, you can presto-change-o transform him into an unbeliever and proceed with his execution. This is known as pronouncing takfir—an accusation of unbelief that can be roughly translated as “excommunication.” ISIS, for example, has pronounced takfir on other Muslim groups, and various Islamic authorities have, in turn, pronounced takfir on ISIS.

Even though Muslims may find it expedient to call other Muslims “un-Islamic,” the main thing to understand is that there is a remarkable consensus among Islamic scholars and jurists about the importance of putting non-Muslims in their place. If ISIS is defeated, the situation for Christians, Yazidis, and other non-Muslim minorities in Iraq and Syria may well improve. But it should be kept in mind that even before the advent of ISIS, Christians were persecuted in Iraq. Between the fall of Saddam Hussein and the rise of ISIS, approximately three quarters of Iraq’s Christians had fled the country.

Still, for the Christian residents of Iraq, the defeat of ISIS by Shiite forces will most probably constitute a change for the better. From the perspective of global security, however, the replacement of ISIS with Iran will likely turn out to be a frying-pan-into-the-fire type of scenario. An Iranian-led victory will greatly increase the strength and prestige of Iran in the Middle East and also on the world stage. Not that Iran is currently lacking in power and influence. ISIS may seem more frightening, but Iran is immeasurably more dangerous. Tehran is already in effective control of four major capitals in the Mid-East—Baghdad, Beirut, Damascus, and Sana. In addition, Iran possesses medium- and long-range missiles and is on the verge of producing nuclear weapons.

What’s more, the Iranian government is just as firmly committed to jihad as is the Islamic State. That the religion of Allah should be the religion of the whole world, by force if necessary, is an uncontroversial idea among Iran’s mullahs, generals, and government officials. The only disagreements are over timing. After all, it was the Iranian Revolution of 1979 that re-introduced militant Islam to the world. And the Islamic Republic of Iran has done more to export terrorism than any other Muslim nation.

The other feature Iran shares with ISIS is an apocalyptic mindset. This makes it doubly dangerous. More than any other Islamic state, Iran is governed by leaders who believe that the end times are imminent—leaders who seem anxious, moreover, to do what they can to shorten the wait. Like many Christians, Iranians believe in a second coming. Unlike most Christians, they believe it is just around the corner. Along with Christians, Shiite Muslims think that the end times will bring the return of Jesus to earth, although he won’t be the Jesus that Christians expect. The Muslim Jesus, however, won’t be the main attraction. That honor is reserved for the Mahdi—the Twelfth Imam who, according to Shia beliefs, has been in a state of occultation in the celestial cities of Hurqalya and Jabulsa since the ninth century. When he returns, the Mahdi will lead a revolution to establish Islamic rule and a reign of peace throughout the world. Then jihad can cease. The problem is, Iran’s leaders believe he can be woken from his trance state only by cataclysmic events.

What sort of cataclysmic events? How about a nuclear attack on the Little Satan (Israel), followed by the detonation of an EMP device over the capital of the Big Satan (America)?

Sounds crazy? To the Western ear, perhaps, but according to Denis MacEoin, a scholar who has contributed to the major encyclopedias on Islam and Iran, the yearning for the Mahdi’s triumphant return “runs through the veins of all [Shia] believers.”

Against MacEoin’s informed analysis of the Iranians’ apocalyptic bent, we have President Obama’s assurance that according to their Supreme Leader, “it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon.” Oh, well then, that’s all right. No need to worry, after all. As the administration sees it, the Iranian leaders are pragmatic, rational actors who can be counted on to do the reasonable thing.

But what if they’re wrong? Those who think that the defeat of ISIS will bring an end to the Islamic “troubles” may soon discover that the troubles are just beginning.

(Photo credit: Reuters / Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Sept. 22, 2011)

William Kilpatrick

By

William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website, turningpointproject.com

  • Seamrog

    As ususal, excellent.

    I marvel at the lengths this current American president has gone to to aid Iran, and to hinder America and Israel.

    It’s almost as if he wants to see a diminished America, an eliminated Israel, and a dominant Iran…

    • Jdonnell

      Maybe a “diminished America” would be a positive change. We currently have over 100 bases and installations in foreign countries all over the world and have used our military muscle to overthrow legal governments that have been doing nothing to us. Currently, the US policy is to overthrow the legal, elected govt. of Syria. I just came on a passage in Michael Burleigh’s “The Third Reich,” in a chap. on the genocide of the Jews in which he observes that “Many of history’s murderers have taken the moral high ground.” I cannot help but apply that to what the US has done and is doing in places like Syria, Libya, El Salvador, Panama, etc., etc.

      • Maria Gabriela Salvarrey Rodri

        Only one question. Where did you recieve your indoctrination?

      • Thomas J. Hennigan

        You have bought into leftist and Islamic propaganda blaming America for jihad. In fact, there are two types of Jihad. Defensive and Offensive, as the artilce explains. Supposedly only a Caliph can declar offensive jihad. So how do they get around the problem? By declaring themselves victims of American or Western imperialism, the crusades or whatever.. You need to study their mindset. Jihad has been around for 1400 years and America only 230, How do you think they took what is now Israel, Syia, Egypt, North Afica and every square foot of teritory they control, including Arabia? Exclsuvely by the sword? How many did Mahomed convince by preaching Islam for 10 years? More or less 100. How many did he submit in 10 more years of jihad in Arabia, about 100,00 and masacred thousands of Jews and others in the process. Can you now see that Jihad is essential to Islam and without it there would be no such thing as Islam. In fact., Islam is a religion cooked up to give a religious basis to an sprawling Empire conquered by the Arabs.
        Also once they take over Europe and the U.S, do you think that they will be thankful to the left for their unflinching support of Islam. Not at all. They lefties will be killed like the rest of the kafr.

        • Jdonnell

          You’ve bought into rationalizing America’s illegal invasion of Iraq (and Afghanistan, Libya, etc.) and its blind support for Israel by conjuring up an exaggerated, distorted jihad. As bin Laden said repeatedly, he was responding to the US support for Israel that set him in motion. There is no evidence that most Muslims favor any violent jihad, any more than do Christians support Crusades. (Your comments about the history of Islam’s violence could just as easily be applied to the Crusades, in which the Crusaders slaughtered Jews as well as Muslims.) Arab conquest attempts in Europe ended in the 17th Century. Only until the West began taking power and exploiting resources in the Mideast did jihad become violent once more. Rather than focus on Islam, you would do better to deal with the fact that the last Bush admin. left a president and vp and def. sec. as war criminals.

        • TruthWFree

          My readings and studies of Islam support everything you have said above. This Jdonnell apparently knows little of Islamic history. The other “glue” that holds islam together besides killing and subjugating infidels for the allah god (Jihad) is death for apostasy, as you know. To enlighten the liberals in this blog, Muhammad aid, “He who leaves his religion, kill him.”

  • Samuel63

    I disagree. The propaganda from the west is carefully designed to make you to believe this is the enemy. In reality, Iran is not an enemy at all. The real game is to get the USA to fight Iran at the bidding of someone else. Think for a moment. Who would benefit from the toppling of Iran, or Iran and Syria. This game has been going on a long time now. It is time for the “man” behind the curtain to be exposed.

    • Seamrog

      What you claim here is the exact opposite of what is currently happening on the world stage.

      I do not rely on the traditional media as a source of information, or to aid me in forming my opinion.

      • Benedetti

        No, probably just the Jerusalem Post.

        • Seamrog

          If you want to put up comments like this, go do it on another website – there are many to choose from.

          Crisis is a better website than what you’re doing here.

          • It’s funny how anything related to the Middle East brings out the jackboots, isn’t it?

    • Benedetti

      Exactly!

    • Martha

      Intriguing. I don’t know much, but what I do know is that things are never as they seem… and are carefully orchestrated so.

    • Watosh

      Some people are determined to have a war. Since we are the most powerful nation on the planet, they go around looking for dragons to slay with the conviction of a don Quixote. Then they can feel they have made the world better, like we made Iraq better. In order to feel good about slaying demons, they have to have demons to slay. Enter Al qaeda and enter Isis armed with American military equipment.

      Then we have Kilpatrick scaring us with Iran detonating a nuclear bomb over Washington. Shades of Condoleeza Rice telling us that we shouldn’t wait to invade Iraq until a mushroom cloud appears over Washington. It seems like fear works overtime in this land of the free and home of the brave. And now we are told Venezuela constitutes an existential threat for us.

      The thing is Iran realizes if they built a nuclear weapon, or used a nuclear weapon against the U.S. or Israel, they would be incinerated since Israel is reckoned by our intelligence to have 200 – 400 nuclear bombs and we have thousands. Iran knows it would be suicide to build a bomb even if they had the desire.

      Folks last summer the news reported on a woman who had left her child in a auto with the windows closed and the doors locked in a 95 degree outside day while she went shopping. Passerby had to break the windows of her car to rescue the child. It showed pictures of them breaking the car windows. When I heard this I thought, “What a terrible mother, she should be prosecuted for criminal negligence. However a day or two later a follow up to this was presented. Now everything reported in the first news bulletin was true. However what happened is the woman went into the drugstore to grab something quick and then as she left for her car just outside she realized she had left her keys in the car and couldn’t unlock the doors. She went outside and asked passerbys to help and to break the car windows which they did. Now this made a different picture and illustrates the desirability of getting all the facts.

      And of course you can count on the boo-birds to shout these arguments down, in the same manner as the brownshirts would treat those who opposed their program.

    • SnowBlossoms

      Are you joking? Iran just declared yesterday, I saw it with my own eyes, that America needs to be destroyed! Chanting DEATH to America! Thousands chanting it…you can look it up anywhere and watch it yourself.

      “Just one day after President Barack Obama tried to sell Iran on his
      nuclear deal by asking them to seize a “historic opportunity,” the
      supreme leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, spoke at a conference where the crowd burst into a roaring chant, shouting, “Death to America!”
      As the crowd grew louder and voiced their true hatred for the United States
      and the Western world in general, the ayatollah then said to the crowd,
      “Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original
      source of this pressure.”
      As if that weren’t bad enough coming from a nation with which the Obama administration is working out a shady nuclear accord,
      on Monday morning, Obama’s White House dismissed the “death to America”
      chants by telling a CNN reporter that they were “intended for a
      domestic political audience.”
      Conservative Journal

      • Samuel63

        Dear Snowblossom, this is a perfect name. I want to encourage you to get news from a wide variety of sources. It can be an eye-opening experience.

        • SnowBlossoms

          Good try. This is everywhere.

      • Benedetti

        Fox News could whip up a similar rabble of “death to Iran” zealots no doubt,

      • Watosh

        And why would Iranians say this, why surely they shouldn’t e upset that we organized a coup to replace their democratically elected government with the Shah, a dictator whose secret police terrorized Iranians for many year, surely they shouldn’t be upset that we encourage Saddam Hussein to invade them and helped Saddam Hussein with military supplies and information on Iranian defense locations that we obtained from our spy satellites, surely they can’t be upset because we shot down one of their commercial airliners flying a scheduled route when Iran was not at war with us, and then we refused to even issue an apology for the deaths of some around 200 passengers that died as a result, surely they shouldn’t be upset because we have subjected them to crippling economic sanctions, and surely they shouldn’t be upset when we threaten to bomb them regularly and we always tell them that “all options are on the table” as far as attacking them is concerned. Why should this bother them? In my day Americans prided themselves in seeing the other’s side, we speak of first walking in their mocassins, but now that we are all powerful, we can dispense with that, weaker countries should accept whatever terms we wish to give them I suppose. We are upset when they say death to America but we regularly tell them we are considering putting death to them, and advertising what kind of arsenal we may employ against them.

      • Truth

        Iran is a threat to its global empire which aims to subdue and subjugate all states and peoples whose resources it covets. America wants to dominate land, air, sea, space and even cyberspace in accordance with its ‘full spectrum dominance’ doctrine. As the only country on earth to have ever used atomic weapons against a wartime enemy’s civilian population – Japan during the Second World War – the US is therefore the number one war criminal nation which should be banned from having any WMDs whatsoever.

        America has hundreds of military bases throughout the Middle East all eyeing Iran. Since the false-flag terror event of 9/11, blamed on Muslims but orchestrated by the Israeli Mossad and the CIA, it has had ground and air forces stationed on and conducting major operations in two states bordering Iran – Iraq and Afghanistan. From the perspective of Iran, the US is a gigantic threat which could strike their nation any time it chooses, having a plethora of areas from which to launch an attack.

        Most of the sane world views the US as the greatest threat to global peace and stability. From Iran’s vantage point, the US is a mortal enemy to their sovereignty and well-being as a nation, taking over from its imperial step-father Britain.

        A cursory look at recent history sufficiently reveals who the real ‘threat’ is, and it isn’t Iran. Unlike its foes, Iran hasn’t invaded another country in hundreds of years. However, Iran has been a perpetual victim of Western imperialism.

        • SnowBlossoms

          I completely disagree with your entire post, all of it. America has a God given place in our world and what Obama is doing with Iran is going to cause untold world-wide misery and completely destabilize an already destabilized Middle East. Israel will, and is now, being maligned and despised more and more and will be left alone. Are you not aware of Iran’s ties with Russia? Are you not aware of what Putin is doing or who he is? Your post is for evil. Fatima – 1917. Read it.

  • Benedetti

    It seems that a propaganda campaign for a war against Iran is building. The next administration may well join Israel in attacking Iran. I am tired of this country fighting Israel’s wars. Many thousands of Christians and Moslems have died as a result of George Bush’s war with Iraq. When will learn.

    • John Flaherty

      I remember being briefed about the volatile state of many parts of the world around the fall of 1997. If you think the world has become a mess since George W. Bush became President, I think you grossly misunderstand the general state of world affairs.

      • Benedetti

        I didn’t say that the world just became a mess after that war, but that is a particularly egregious example. The war was unnecessary and it cost a lot of lives. That includes, of course, many Iraqi Chaldean Christians.

        • John Flaherty

          War always costs lives; again, declaring the Iraq war to be unnecessary reflects a gross lack of understanding of the world.
          We would have ultimately needed to fight a war in that area sooner or later. Better to have done so on our terms, minimizing casualties on both sides, but especially ours.

          • Benedetti

            You must be very wise indeed to be able to see into the future like that to justify a preemptive war. That must have been some briefing you got back in ’97. Glad the war turned out all right for you.

            • John Flaherty

              Sorry, Benedetti, but I don’t buy the usual arguments that insist that a war must be reactive in order to be just.

    • Watosh

      While the Muslim religion is false and has some very rough edges, what Kilpatrick says is much more closely aligned with what Bibi Netanyahu preaches than what Christ preaches. As I understand it Christ says we must love our enemies and Blessed are the peacemakers. I think He meant it.

      Of course, we should resist Muslims or any other false ideology from taking over the world or any group by force. Of course we should not encourage Muslims to spread their religion. But I find it odd Kilpatrick is so obsessed with the need to destroy Iran because it is a Muslim State but I don’t recall him calling for us to destroy Saudi Arabia, another Muslim theocracy that has contributed to fanatical Muslim causes.

      Then too we in the West have destroyed Iraq, Libya and are in the process of destroying Syria, three Muslim states that had a secular orientation, and in fact the extreme Muslim groups like al qaeda regarded them as enemies.

      Just to give a little perspective to Kilpatrick’s suggestion that Iran might very well nuke Israel and also even the U.S., Iran has not invaded any country for a couple hundred years, When Iraq used poison gas against Iran, the ingredients of which were supplied by the “Christian” nations of the West, and Iraq was supplied with intelligence by the United States so they could better aim their poison gas shelling and killed thousands of Iranian soldiers as a result, Iran never, Iran never retaliated by using poison gas against Iraq. Iran has signed the NuclearProliferation Treaty and allows U.N. inspectors to monitor Iran’s nuclear activities, which may not be perfect but the inspectors have access, and our CIA and Israel’s Mossad agree Iran does not now have a nuclear bomb weapon. They have the capability to produce a nuclear bomb as does any country since this is information that any country with good scientists has. Israel on the other hand has nuclear weapons as recently unclassified U.S. documents admits, and refuses to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and refuses to allow any inspectors to check on their facility. Israel often makes regular threats that they will bomb Iran. Iran’s religious leaders who control Iran have solemnly declared that their religion forbids using nuclear weapons. Maybe the are using this as a cover, but this is what they have proclaimed.

      Now I say this to provide some perspective to Kilpatrick’s comments. I certainly believe we should always keep an eye on what Iran and any other country is doing. I believe if Iran made a nuclear weapon we would be able to know about that immediately. I just think that one should look at all sides of an issue, in order to make an intelligent assessment.

      • Seamrog

        It’s a shame you can’t address the article without one whopper of a strawman.

        • Consider this:
          “Iraq under Saddam Hussein had an Iraqi Catholic as the foreign minister of Iraq and later he was appointed a vice president of Iraq”.
          That’s all that’s necessary to redeem Sa-Damn, Uzay and Kusay.
          Yet he doesn’t apply the same logic here, where we have a Catholic (hah hah chuckle guffaw) as Sec of State and another as (hah hah chuckle guffaw)
          (

          • Watosh

            You distort my point. Kilpatrick had been going on about how intolerant Muslim and Muslim countries are, and how they never tolerated anyone who had another religion. My point was to show where a Muslim took a Catholic into his government. Now the issue was not whether the U.S. was intolerant toward other religions, no one was arguing that the U.S. was mistreating Catholics. And of course the argument could be made that Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi were really “Catholic” but “hah hah chuckle guffaw” do not constitute an intelligent argument.

            Again you encourage me to leave. I have had a lot of people who strongly disagreed with me but I don’t recall any of them except one or two individuals telling me they wanted me to leave, nor have I ever told anyone who disagreed with me that I wish they would leave this country, as I recognize one of our values is to allow people to express their opinions freely. I thought a patriot would support this. But oppose the Nazi party and one would get beaten up,by the brownshirt followers just like you beat me up verbally. It is interesting that you always are strongly supportive of the interests of a foreign country, while posing as a loyal American. You seem so determined to get rid of me. You don’t have to agree with me, but are you afraid to see my remarks being available for any reader of this website. I have strongly disagreed with many, but I have never resorted to ridicule, or insults, to drive them away. I have never detested them as you display toward me. Now if you are truly a Catholic, and not merely masquerading as a Catholic, I wouldn’t expect this behavior. It seems like there is more behind your behavior than merely disagreeing with my arguments. Curious, the unadulterated rancor you display. Curious, but I can’t rule out that that is just you.

            Ah well there is a saying that in the valley of the blind, the one eyed man is king, I would argue that in the valley of the blind, they would put the one eyed man to death.

            • No, I applied it exactly as you stated it.

          • Truth

            Iran is a threat to its global empire which aims to subdue and subjugate all states and peoples whose resources it covets. America wants to dominate land, air, sea, space and even cyberspace in accordance with its ‘full spectrum dominance’ doctrine. As the only country on earth to have ever used atomic weapons against a wartime enemy’s civilian population – Japan during the Second World War – the US is therefore the number one war criminal nation which should be banned from having any WMDs whatsoever.

            America has hundreds of military bases throughout the Middle East all eyeing Iran. Since the false-flag terror event of 9/11, blamed on Muslims but orchestrated by the Israeli Mossad and the CIA, it has had ground and air forces stationed on and conducting major operations in two states bordering Iran – Iraq and Afghanistan. From the perspective of Iran, the US is a gigantic threat which could strike their nation any time it chooses, having a plethora of areas from which to launch an attack.

            Most of the sane world views the US as the greatest threat to global peace and stability. From Iran’s vantage point, the US is a mortal enemy to their sovereignty and well-being as a nation, taking over from its imperial step-father Britain.

            A cursory look at recent history reveals who the real ‘threat’ is, and it isn’t Iran. Unlike its foes, Iran has not invaded another country in hundreds of years. However, Iran has been a perpetual victim of Western imperialism.

            • Well then, move there.

      • Aliquantillus

        You are completely off track with your remark of loving one’s enemy. This biblical maxim never applies to relations between states but only to individuals. States have the obligation to protect and defend their citizens and to destroy their enemies.

        • Watosh

          Oh boy, now I can freely murder people if it protects the citizens of my state. My conscience can rest easy.

          But aren’t states composed of individuals? Shouldn’t I love these individuals? Or should we just love our neighbor? but who is our neighbor? I recall someone in authority was asked that same question, and He gave a definitive answer, I believe.

          Well to love one’s enemies is difficult and goes against ones inclinations, so it is good there is a loophole we can cite.

        • I’ve never seen a state walking the street. But I have seen individuals commanding states.

      • Benedetti

        You can still find Catholics (they are not rare) who try to justify the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo and nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
        These people are on the same level as Muslims who try to justify terrorist attacks.

        • Watosh

          Exactly.

      • mollysdad

        God’s character is that He loves righteousness more than he loves people, and more then He loves His enemies. He kills and gives life, He loves and He hates, and whatever He does is right.

        • Watosh

          I had thought that everything DE-173 did was right, now you tell me whatever God does is right. Maybe ….., but that is ridiculous.

    • Don’t forget the Saudi’s wars!

  • Geoff Kiernan West Australia

    A ‘Peaceful’ Muslim is not a very good Muslim

    • Nattifi

      Actually the word Muslim in Arabic means a submitter, a peaceful or a non-combatant. From the root SLM, the word for believer in Arabic is Momen, a muslim as per Koran, could be a believer or a non-believer.

      • Erika Allen

        We could discuss the morphology of a word all day, but what is boils down to is what the word means to most people. The word Muslim is the generally accepted sign in our society for the conventional signified–a follower of Islam.

        • Paddy

          The Bushs wanted Iraq in Iranian hands..and it has come to pass. Obama helped and then destroyed a few more Muslim countries.

          It’s madness on behalf of our Columbia-Harvard-Yale screwballs.

          • Erika Allen

            Well yes, but I was really just trying to figure out why that guy above me was trying to make a point with semantics.

            • Maria Gabriela Salvarrey Rodri

              He was trying to imply that Islam is a religion of peace. See how he defines submission as peaceful non combatent. What he doesn’t explain is that it’s submission to Islam or what is the same it’s precepts and peaceful and non combatent with and towards the house of Islam and only the house of Islam.
              In other words he was indulging in a bit of Taqiyya (deception).

    • hombre111

      Ooooo! Scary! The sight of Iranians marching like Nazi SS or the Red
      Army in front of Red square!!!!!!!! And then I ask a question few
      Americans ask: How many countries has Iran invaded in the last several
      hundred years? None. Look it up. Next question: Did the United States
      and Britain overthrow the democratically elected government of Iran and
      install an egomaniac to act as our stooge? If you have forgotten, the
      Iranians haven’t. Soo, they overthrew the Shah and kidnapped our
      diplomats. And they freed them, then colluded with Reagan in the Iran
      Contra Affair. But the generation that did that is dying away and the
      young Iranians who outnumber them are not spoiling for a fight…unless
      we give them a reason. Next question: How many nations has the United
      States invaded in the last century? You don’t have enough toes and
      fingers.

      We are guilty of simple projection here, blaming Iran
      for the ambition in our own hearts. It is the United States that has
      hundreds of military bases scattered all over the world. It is the
      United States that owns 10 nuclear carriers with enough nuclear weapons
      to destroy the world several times over. It is the United States that is
      mortgaging its own future by its ever expanding defense budgets when
      the current turbaned enemy had to hijack airliners to bring their war to
      us. It is the United States that has traveled half way around the world
      to control the destiny of a people whose culture and history it does
      not understand.

      • Thomas J. Hennigan

        Islam was conquering since the 7th century long before the U:S existed or had any military power. Islamic jihad is an essential part of Islam and it has nothing to do with American bases or American wars. That is totally false and it is another leftist lie.

        • hombre111

          Mmm, no. Osama himself said that he began Al Queda in resposne to the presence of U.S. bases on the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia. You are right about Moslems being conquerors, which goes back to their prophet. But maybe you could read more than one book about the consequences of our wars in the Middle East?

        • Robert Pentangelo

          Were you born an Israeli stooge or did you have to work at it?

          Instead of worrying about the 7th century AD maybe you worry about what the US and its stooge allies and the Israelis have done since 1948 which is foment war after war in the middle east.
          Boy, the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya went really well didn’t they?

  • St JD George

    Silly you Bill, I guess you didn’t get the talking points that this isn’t about an ideology whose true mission is peace and we just don’t understand, this is all about not having good paying jobs, the kind only the enlightened one can redistribute.

  • Jazzy Sandy

    So are you saying that the U.S. should continue to wage war on the Middle East? Are you suggesting that the US should wipe out all Muslim nations? I think we are being manipulated to be afraid, to want war, because the Industrial Military War Machine is very hungry. I have always voted Republican, though I did write in Ron Paul last time. I live in TX by the way, so no screams of horror about “letting Obama win!” I am not voting this time, because I am not voting for war in the Middle East!

    • Seamrog

      Do a search on this website for “William Kilpatrick” and read the last 10 of his essays. It should take no more than an hour or two.

      He is advocating nothing like you and similar posters suggest.

      I have gained much from his columns, and even more by following a lot of the links in the essays.

    • Nattifi

      thr war against Islam won’t be a piece of cake and end in 5 years as this was the case with Germany and Japan. Here we are talking a different league, not to compare with WWII. I do not see it in the interest of western nations to beat the drums of war to beat the drums of war against Islam. They did it twice and lost.

      • It’s been going on since 670.. All the faux pacifists here forget about Lepanto and Vienna.

        • littleeif

          And of course the war against Germany and Japan (I think that would be the second WORLD war) was a piece of cake that ended in five years.

  • littleeif

    Thank you, Mr. Kilpatrick. If we do not have the will to strangle Iran with sanctions, we must either accept the emergence of a nuclear power that cannot be deterred by mutually assured destruction or take direct action that pushes the world’s economy to the brink. The current administration knows this crisis will crystallize on another watch, therefore it can offer with impunity the illusion there is a fourth way and indict those who don’t see that way as alarmist. To so waste the time in the interim may prove to be the greatest blunder in history.

    • Maureen O’Brien

      Pakistan is a nuclear power.

      • littleeif

        … therefore Iran should be permitted to become a nuclear power. Because all Islamic states are analogous because they’re, well, Islamic, right? I would like to think you started to make a point, wrote five words, and then realized how ridiculous it sounded and stopped.

        • Watosh

          Strictly speaking as my friend DE-173 always recommends, any country that has a nuclear electric generating plant can be said to be a nuclear power. And according to procedures the U.S. set up any country can be a nuclear power as long as they accept the terms of the Nuclear non-Proliferation treaty.

          I notice in some quarters all islamic states are regarded bad because they are, well, Islamic. I am gratified you do not subscribe to that way of thinking.

          • littleeif

            OK sure, but you know and I know the concern with both Iran and Pakistan for that matter is not nuclear generating capacity. You know as well Iran is using that fiction to cover the production of enough fissile material to weaponize. And you know that intercontinental ballistic missiles are not needed to deliver electric power. The context of the discussion (please review), including the comment to which I replied, applies the description nuclear power to states possessing nuclear weaponry. Indeed, Ms. O’Brien was citing Pakistan exactly for that reason, I suspect although it is unclear, to indicate that Pakistan has been restrained by the principle of mutually assured destruction. Pakistan is not a signatory to the nuclear non proliferation agreement. Neither is North Korea, to whom AQ Kahn brought or sold the technology. Neither is India, the proximate reason Pakistan developed the bomb.

            Your gratification notwithstanding, I was not being gratuitously magnanimous as to Islamic states. I would have it no Islamic state become a nuclear power. That having been said, no sane person would find acceptable a situation where a nuclear armed Pakistan is faced off against a nuclear armed India and from Pakistan, nuclear arms proliferate to a North Korea. That is, however, reality and precisely what makes Ms. O’Brien’s comment silly. Enduring such an intolerable threat to world order, who would invite another iteration of it? Apparently Ms. O’Brien.

            Additionally, I am not aware of an instance of Pakistani aggression or acquisitiveness. I know of no direct Pakistani attacks upon the US outside its region and am not aware of Pakistan directly exporting Islamic terrorism outside the region. The US maintains ordinary diplomatic relations with Pakistan and its embassy there has never been occupied and it personnel held hostage. The US is Pakistan’s largest trading partner. Pakistan does not officially proclaim its aim to crush the US, and Pakistani officials have not, to the best of my knowledge openly proclaimed a desire for the return of the Mahdi or expounded on Islamic Eschatology.

            Or perhaps I can just say instead of the above, that I preferred to think Ms. O’Brien got five words into her comment, realized it was silly and abandoned it.

    • Watosh

      If when Iranians were fighting for their existence when Iraq invaded them and if Iranians did not start using poison gas against Iraq after Iraq killed thousands of Iranian soldiers with poison gas because Iran felt using poison gas was wrong, why do you feel Iran would not be deterred by the threat of mutually assured destruction?

      • littleeif

        First you must actually read the article. Then you must make logical arguments. The conclusion you are attempting to draw does not logically follow from your premise.

    • Truth

      Iran is a threat to its global empire which aims to subdue and subjugate all states and peoples whose resources it covets. America wants to dominate land, air, sea, space and even cyberspace in accordance with its ‘full spectrum dominance’ doctrine. As the only country on earth to have ever used atomic weapons against a wartime enemy’s civilian population – Japan during the Second World War – the US is therefore the number one war criminal nation which should be banned from having any WMDs whatsoever.

      America has hundreds of military bases throughout the Middle East all eyeing Iran. Since the false-flag terror event of 9/11, blamed on Muslims but orchestrated by the Israeli Mossad and the CIA, it has had ground and air forces stationed on and conducting major operations in two states bordering Iran – Iraq and Afghanistan. From the perspective of Iran, the US is a gigantic threat which could strike their nation any time it chooses, having a plethora of areas from which to launch an attack.

      Most of the sane world views the US as the greatest threat to global peace and stability. From Iran’s vantage point, the US is a mortal enemy to their sovereignty and well-being as a nation, taking over from its imperial step-father Britain.

      A cursory look at the recent history sufficiently reveals who the real ‘threat’ is, and it isn’t Iran. Unlike its foes, Iran has not invaded another country in hundreds of years. However, Iran has been a perpetual victim of Western imperialism.

      • littleeif

        Yours is not a reasoned opinion. To speak of the “sane world” is an illogical appeal to authority, and particularly ironic from someone attributing the events of 911 in a way that could only appeal to a paranoiac. Your look at history is, indeed, cursory, obvious to anyone reading this, so in the end it speaks to your intellectual and educational level and little else.

        But let’s simply leave it at this: no emperor, king, dictator, imam or warlord has ever governed here, in America. We are free. We are prosperous. We are self sustaining. We need neither the largess nor the permission of any other nation to exercise our will, and the world is fortunate that the will of the US has generally been magnanimous and benign. The portion of the world you purport to represent is generally impoverished, under perpetual and continual domination by unworthy despots, offering cities lying in rubble and ruin and never ending lawlessness and blood letting. Enjoy!

  • Nattifi

    The thing is, Islam is to stay, it did 1400 years ago, it is still doing it, and probably will be doing it for 1400 years to come. It is the only system and ideology that could replace the west.

  • Ruth Rocker

    The larger problem is the fact that the West refuses to understand that the entirety of islam is exactly what you see in ISIS. They are following their instruction book to the letter. The koran is filled with explicit exhortations to lie and deceive the unbeliever so that you can get close enough to kill him whenever, wherever and however you can. This barbaric little party was created whole-cloth from the mind of a pedophilic, murdering warlord in order to gain more power. There is not ONE shred of proof outside of the koran that any of it is true. The Bible, on the other hand, has many outside evidences for its validity.

    It’s time to wake up and call a spade a spade and understand that as long as islam is allowed to remain a viable “religion” it will continue to pose a threat to the world. And for those who say that most muslims are peaceful I say . They are not living the dictates of their faith in the same way that lukewarm, cafeteria Catholics don’t live theirs. Neither instance, however, is a true indicator of the true teachings they ignore.

    • mollysdad

      This is a serious and well-taken point.

      There is an urgent necessity to arrange a Final Solution to the Muslim problem. It would be preferable if it could be brought about by their conversion to Christianity. If it cannot be, then it must be done by other means.

      Among these means are the Jericho-3 missile which the Israelis deploy, which is nuclear-capable and which may be needed to break the back of the Iranian state.

      • Ah, yes, another “final solution”. And then people complain when they are compared to Hitler…

        • mollysdad

          There’s no comparison. Hitler was a bad guy. Israel and the Chrstians are God’s chosen people. If the Muslims would rather kill us than convert, then it’s imperative that the non-Muslim world arranges for their departure.

          Either we survive or they do.

          • You naively confused the state of Israel with the people of Israel. You couldn’t be more wrong in this an in your impetus for genocide.

            • mollysdad

              All the Muslims need do is change their religion. If they don’t, they’ll end up committing genocide unless someone stops them by whatever means are necessary.

      • Truth

        Iran is a threat to its global empire which aims to subdue and subjugate all states and peoples whose resources it covets. America wants to dominate land, air, sea, space and even cyberspace in accordance with its ‘full spectrum dominance’ doctrine. As the only country on earth to have ever used atomic weapons against a wartime enemy’s civilian population – Japan during the Second World War – the US is therefore the number one war criminal nation which should be banned from having any WMDs whatsoever.

        America has hundreds of military bases throughout the Middle East all eyeing Iran. Since the false-flag terror event of 9/11, blamed on Muslims but orchestrated by the Israeli Mossad and the CIA, it has had ground and air forces stationed on and conducting major operations in two states bordering Iran – Iraq and Afghanistan. From the perspective of Iran, the US is a gigantic threat which could strike their nation any time it chooses, having a plethora of areas from which to launch an attack.

        Most of the sane world views the US as the greatest threat to global peace and stability. From Iran’s vantage point, the US is a mortal enemy to their sovereignty and well-being as a nation, taking over from its imperial step-father Britain.

        A look at recent history sufficiently reveals who the real ‘threat’ is, and it isn’t Iran. Unlike its foes, Iran has not invaded another country in hundreds of years. However, Iran has been a perpetual victim of Western imperialism.

  • Neocons cannot have a good night sleep without imagined enemies abroad. Yet more belligerent jingoistic pablum from William.

    • Seamrog

      Yet another comment in poor taste.

      I wonder if the Israelis share your sentiment, or if they take the Iranian rhetoric seriously.

      (that was a rhetorical question, BTW)

      • It´s been 20 years that the Israelis have been saying that Iran is 5 years from having a nuclear weapon. What Israel is worried about is its own geopolitical pretensions. The US should have nothing whatsoever to do with Israeli foreign policy, alas it only serves the respective military-industrial-mediatic-congresisonal complexes, AKA the snake oilmen and a gullible populace.

        • Seamrog

          This is a terribly naive and simplistic comment.

          What Israel is worried about is the survival of its citizens.

          30 years ago, Israel faced a similar threat from Iraq, and handled it.

          Were it not for Stuxnet, and similar Israeli efforts, you could very well be munching on your words with a side of crow today.

          • What a terribly naive and simplistic comment, not to mention immoral for supporting preemptive acts of war.

            • Seamrog

              I remember when I thought I was right about everything too.

              Then I grew up.

              • So, are you recognizing that you are wrong or lying about having grown up?

                • Seamrog

                  Neither – shaking the dust off my sandals.

                • Samuel63

                  It is great to know someone else knows the truth about thesen events and areas of the world. Great posts!

              • Benedetti

                “If you want to put up comments like this, Seasmog, go do it on another website – there are many to choose from.”

      • Truth

        Iran is a threat to its global empire which aims to subdue and subjugate all states and peoples whose resources it covets. America wants to dominate land, air, sea, space and even cyberspace in accordance with its ‘full spectrum dominance’ doctrine. As the only country on earth to have ever used atomic weapons against a wartime enemy’s civilian population – Japan during the Second World War – the US is therefore the number one war criminal nation which should be banned from having any WMDs whatsoever.

        America has hundreds of military bases throughout the Middle East all eyeing Iran. Since the false-flag terror event of 9/11, blamed on Muslims but orchestrated by the Israeli Mossad and the CIA, it has had ground and air forces stationed on and conducting major operations in two states bordering Iran – Iraq and Afghanistan. From the perspective of Iran, the US is a gigantic threat which could strike their nation any time it chooses, having a plethora of areas from which to launch an attack.

        Most of the sane world views the US as the greatest threat to global peace and stability. From Iran’s vantage point, the US is a mortal enemy to their sovereignty and well-being as a nation, taking over from its imperial step-father Britain.

        A cursory look at recent history sufficiently reveals who the real ‘threat’ is, and it isn’t Iran. Unlike its foes, Iran has not invaded another country in hundreds of years. However, Iran has been a perpetual victim of Western imperialism.

      • TruthWFree

        Augustine ignores the plight of Christians in Muslim lands. He would have fit right in in Nazi Germany. The smell of burning Jewish flesh would have smelled like someone was barbecuing to him.

  • Paul Tran

    Obama’s assurance that the Supreme Leader of the Shia believers that obtaining nukes is contrary to their faith is equivalent to Neville Chamberlain’s promise of peace in “our time” after meeting Hitler.

  • SnowBlossoms

    Blessed Virgin, Fatima, “whole Nations will be annihilated” Iran is a much bigger threat to our world than ISIS is- and they will most likely make a treaty and work together in the end. They have flat out declared their intentions. Wipe out Israel and destroy America.

    • Benedetti

      Ah, the lost 4th secret of Fatima. Did Fr. Gruner make that up?

  • bonaventure

    This was yesterday’s news:

    Iran isn’t providing needed access or information, nuclear watchdog says

    Yet Obama pushes with his agreement. Even the French are gradually backing away. In other words, it looks that Obama wants what is worst for the Middle East and the world: a nuclear armed Iran.

    And here’s what everyone else wants to ignore: while ISIS and Iran are rivals (along the traditional Sunni-Shiite lines), once Iran acquires a nuclear weapon, ISIS will step out of Iran’s way to give it a relatively free reign. Because ISIS knows that Iran will not use a nuke on Ar-Raqqah, but on Israel.

  • Atilla The Possum

    There must be a collection of long handled spoons in the White House cutlery drawer since the Obamas moved in…

  • mollysdad

    There’s a very good article here by Mark Durie: “Challenging Islam’s Warrant to Kill.”
    http://www.aina.org/news/20150325130905.htm

    Once you read this, you will be able to understand the case that, if anyone affirms it to be a truth revealed by God that Muslims have a good warrant to kill non-Muslims, he is guilty of blasphemy.

    The customary punishment imposed for blasphemy in the time of Christendom was death by fire.

  • Jdonnell

    This reading of Islam is a pretty close equivalent of a fundamentalist reading of Christianity. The author emphasizes the most violent possibilities in it; anti-Christians can point to passages in scripture that warm to slaying enemies or to violent episodes in Christian history that bigots use to tar the religion.

    • TruthWFree

      Wrong. Christianity is based on Jesus and the Gospel writings about Him. I can go to NO verse in the Gospels that exhort me to kill anyone, much less unbelievers. The Quran has at least a 100 verses calling for hate and violence against unbelievers. The violence in the Old Testament was about Israel coming into the promised land (Joshua at Jericho etc). No Jew runs around killing people and pointing to those stories of violence. Muslims do it every day as we speak. Jesus said “They will kill you and claim to be serving God”. That’s Islam. Islam is dangerous because any Muslim can get the evil spirit of the allah god of Islam (Satan) and kill infidels. Jesus also said, Satan is the father of all lies. The allah god of the Quran says that Jesus did not die on the cross and never said He is the Son of God…both lies against the Gospels. The allah god also says he has no sons. Satan has no sons.

      • Jdonnell

        The Bible consists of more than the NT; the OT has passages encouraging the smiting of enemies, etc. You cherry pick. If you believe that “no Jew runs around killing people,” you’re nuts. Zionists regularly cite scripture to claim the right to take other people’s land and use bombs and bullets to do it. Xns have used papal encouragement to kill during the Crusades; lots of clerics have done similar things, even in modern times. The fact is that most Muslims, whatever you can find in the Koran, do not think that violent jihad is something they wish to support. Religion becomes a tool used to cover other interests, as history shows over and over.

        • TruthWFree

          “The fact is that most Muslims, whatever you can find in the Koran,…” Most Muslims? You do a poll or something? You have no idea what a Muslim does or does not support. My Christianity is based on the Gospels, not the Old Testament which is basically a history of God interacting with the Israelites. The land of Israel today was set aside for the Jews as it is their ancestral homeland, 2000 years before there was ever such thing as Islam. And no, they don’t point to the violent verses in the Old Testament to kill people like the Islamists do their Quran. Israel is in constant defense. You are the one who is biased against Israel. The Crusades started in 1096 AD. The Muslims had conquered across north Africa and into Spain by the early 700’s AD. word. They were defeated at Tours, France by Charles Martel in 732 AD, so Muslim aggression preceded the Crusades by 364 years. Islam was spread by the sword. Get educated or join Islam.

          • Jdonnell

            I’m just as aware as you are as to the heroics of Ch., Martel, etc., and that Muslims often–tho by no means always–spread their religion by force. But, we’re talking about now. More Christians than Muslims, according to more than one poll, support bombing civilians. A world opinion poll shows 51% of Christians supporting military targeting of civilian areas and only 13% of Muslims. What is telling is that most Muslims around the world have not joined in any jihadist movement. The record of modern times shows Muslims acting in reaction where their countries have been exploited or attacked by the West or by Israel with Western backing. Until then, the Muslims were at least as peaceful as Western countries, actually more so. It is the US that has attacked Muslim countries that had not attacked us, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. What Obama did in the way of going after bin Laden made much more sense than attacking the country that refused to hand him over–but did not even know whether or not he was in the country at the time. Bush’s making war instead was a criminal act. More than a million people have now died in connection with Bush’s wars. Talk about violence. Perhaps you are the one who needs educating to see things from more than your narrow perspective.

            • TruthWFree

              Based on your bias against Christians, you should become Muslim and go on Jihad, the highest act a Muslim can do to achieve Muslim paradise per Muhammad. Your world opinion poll is faulty. I seriously doubt that a person was asked if he was a Christian in the poll if the poll was in fact done. Muslim support Jihad in much greater numbers than you state…It’s the bedrock doctrine of their cult religion.

              • Jdonnell

                You, of course, know more than the pollsters. I cited one to show that you are wrong and didn’t bother to cite PEW, which would also confound you. But, it would have been meaningless, since you don’t care about facts. What you “seriously doubt” is just more blather. Actually, in your denial of reality, you are closer to much Muslim thinking, which also disdains polls and troublesome facts.

  • M.J.A.

    Iran , partly submitting to the Papacy , in the invitation to curtail the mindless violence by taking upon ISIS – hope that would bring enough mercy , to help them to steer more, in the right paths , like the donkey that The Lord used , undoing the wildness and the hand against each other, that the angel had fore told about the descendants of Hagar’s son Ishmael !

  • George

    Iran is not the devil you try to make it out to be. Iran has large Christian and Jewish populations who live there peacefully and are not subject to persecution. In fact, Iran has the largest Jewish population in the Middle East outside of Israel. And unlike the USA or Israel, Iran has never invaded or bombed another country. I agree we have to be realistic about Islam but this anti-Iranian, neo-con propaganda is dishonest and hysterical.

    • TruthWFree

      Go stick your head back in the sand. Rather go to iran and see if you can practice Christianity if infact you are a Christian. Met a Catholic man in the Dallas area from Iran who said he had three choices, convert to Islam, leave the country or die. That’s why he is here.

  • hombre111

    Ooooo! Scary! The sight of Iranians marching like Nazi SS or the Red Army in front of Red square!!!!!!!! And then I ask a question few Americans ask. How many countries has Iran invaded in the last several hundred years? None. Look it up. Next question: How many nations has the United States invaded in the last century? You don’t have enough toes and fingers. We are guilty of simple projection here, blaming Iran for the ambition in our own hearts. It is the United States that has hundreds of military bases scattered all over the world. It is the United States that owns 10 nuclear carriers with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over. It is the United States that is mortgaging its own future by its ever expanding defense budgets when the current turbaned enemy had to hijack airliners to bring their war to us. It is the United States that has traveled half way around the world to control the destiny of a people whose culture and history it does not understand.

  • M.J.A

    Hope the Synod on the Family would look into the 5th Dogma more, to declare and invite Bl.Mother , as The New Eve , Mother of all , which gives her rightful authority , through such a declaration , of bringing the respect of our freewill more into it , ..over all her sons , including Mohammed ..an authority that can be fulfillment of the mysterious mention about the colt and its mother, in the description of the Palm Sunday procession …bringing in the tenderness and thus the capacity to trust, in the goodness of The Father, in turn , to take in better the truth of The Incarnation , that the love of Her and the Father, in Son , of the heavenly court is infinitely more than the prevailing false notions and promises !
    Immaculate Heart of Mary , pray for us all !

  • Truth

    From the perspective of the United States, the world’s sole superpower, Iran is a threat to its global empire which aims to subdue and subjugate all states and peoples whose resources it covets. America wants to dominate land, air, sea, space and even cyberspace in accordance with its ‘full spectrum dominance’ doctrine. As the only country on earth to have ever used atomic weapons against a wartime enemy’s civilian population – Japan during the Second World War – the US is therefore the number one war criminal nation which should be banned from having any WMDs whatsoever.

    America has hundreds of military bases throughout the Middle East all eyeing Iran. Since the false-flag terror event of 9/11, blamed on Muslims but orchestrated by the Israeli Mossad and the CIA, it has had ground and air forces stationed on and conducting major operations in two states bordering Iran – Iraq and Afghanistan. From the perspective of Iran, the US is a gigantic threat which could strike their nation any time it chooses, having a plethora of areas from which to launch an attack.

    Most of the sane world views the US as the greatest threat to global peace and stability. From Iran’s vantage point, the US is a mortal enemy to their sovereignty and well-being as a nation, taking over from its imperial step-father Britain.

    A cursory look at recent history sufficiently reveals who the real ‘threat’ is, and it isn’t Iran. Unlike its foes, Iran has not invaded another country in hundreds of years. However, Iran has been a perpetual victim of Western imperialism.

    During the course of World War I, Iran was invaded and occupied by both Russia and Britain who plundered its food and natural resources to facilitate their war efforts. According to historian Stephen Sniegoski, the joint Russian/British occupation of Iran in World War I directly and indirectly caused the deaths of between 8 and 10 million Iranians who mostly perished from starvation after the invaders looted the country’s food supplies to feed their hungry soldiers. “As many as eight to ten million Persians perished because of starvation and disease during the famine of 1917-1919, making it the greatest calamity in Persia’s history,” writes Sniegoski. He continues: “What caused a famine of such horrific proportions? The Russians and, even more so, the British used Iran as a base for their war effort; and [historian Mohammad Gholi] Majd finds the British to be principally responsible for the famine.”

    After starving to death a good portion of Iran’s population, Britain and Russia once again invaded Iran during the Second World War, seizing most of her natural resources for a second time. British companies had controlled much of Iran’s oil production since the First World War, refusing the indigenous population the right to prosper form their own resources.

    In 1951, the Iranian politician Mohammed Mossadegh won democratic elections and promised to nationalize Iran’s oil sector, thereby diminishing the profits of the British exploiters. Because of his anti-colonial policies, Britain’s MI6 called on its American counterparts in the CIA to organize a military coup against Mossadegh. In 1953, the CIA staged terrorist attacks that were blamed on Mossadegh’s supporters, bribed Iranian government and military officials to turn against him, created and distributed anti-Mossadegh propaganda, organized mass protests, and committed other heinous acts of sabotage.

    The CIA’s murderous and illegal campaign successfully took down the democratic, populist leader and installed the brutal monarch Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi in his place. The Shah promptly re-instated the West as the imperial overlord and master of Iran’s oil and natural resources. Together, America and Britain propped up the dictator and trained his lethal security force SAVAK which repressed the Iranian people for decades.

    The Shah’s iron rule came to an end in 1979 when he was overthrown in a popular uprising known as the Islamic Revolution. During the early stages of the rebellion, anti-Shah student activists took dozens of American officials hostage at the US embassy in Tehran. The Iranians seized the embassy because it was considered a ‘den of spies,’ which proved true. Like most US embassies worldwide, it functioned as the headquarters of CIA covert action in the country. Shortly after the Shah was deposed, the popular religious leader Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Iran triumphantly after 15 years in exile and was declared Supreme Leader of the new Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Washington sought to punish Iran for breaking free from its control. It did so by backing Saddam Hussein’s attack and invasion of Iran in 1980, providing the Iraqi dictator with all manner of military, diplomatic and economic support. Hussein’s chemical weapons attacks against the Iranians and the Kurds of northern Iraq were fully aided and abetted by Washington.

    The Iran-Iraq war lasted eight long and bloody years. Around 500,000 Iranians and a similar number of Iraqis lost their lives in the conflict. In the latter years of the conflict, the Iranians gained the upper hand and not only pushed back Hussein’s forces out of Iran, but made a successful drive deep into the heart of Iraq. On the cusp of defeat, Hussein looked to his American patrons for help, and it came in the form of a US warship which parked itself off the coast of Iran in the Straight of Hormuz.American terrorism: US war ship USS Vincennes launches a missile at an Iranian civilian plane during Iran-Iraq war.

    On July 3, 1988, the American naval vessel, the USS Vincennes, deliberately shot down an Iranian civilian airliner – Iran Air Flight 655 – killing all 290 civilian passengers, 66 of whom were children. The US terror attack was effectively a death threat to Tehran, implying that if Iran continued to advance against America’s puppet regime in Baghdad, then the US military would start shooting their planes out of the sky. The incident forced the Iranians to come to the negotiating table with Hussein whose regime survived the war as a result of US pressure on Tehran.

    History testifies to the reality that Western governments have stifled Iranian self-determination for more than 100 years, perpetually violating its sovereignty, perpetrating and sponsoring acts of violence and terrorism against it, and sucking dry its resources for the benefit of avaricious Western elites.

    The West continues to inflict injury upon Iran and its people today, maliciously undermining their developing economy by way of economic sanctions. This is done partly because Iran refuses to submit to Western economic servitude and also because they have maintained a principled stance against the bandit state of Israel, which the West supports unconditionally.

    Since the Islamic revolution of 1979, Iran has paved its own path towards freedom, prosperity and victory over the oppressor nations who seek to hold her hostage and keep her prostrate.

    • The US just follow the Elizabethan tradition of regarding any rival power as an enemy power. And, now as then, it’s always useful to distracted a gullible populace to go abroad in search of monsters to destroy.

    • TruthWFree

      You are one sick history twisting puppy…or Islamist.

  • Jim

    Iran is not the problem. This is projection.

    • TruthWFree

      Islam is the problem. If I were a zombie Muslim, I would interpret the killer verses against unbeliever the same as the killers. Since I am a Christian and consider killing anyone a mortal sin except in self defense, I cannot tell you how I would act on these hate filled killer verses in the Quran if I was born into Islam….neither can you.

  • q

    Hatred of Muslims is evil.

    • TruthWFree

      Any Muslim that believes Quran Sura 9-5 and 9-29 and 2-193 and many more comes from his allah god and supports his allah god’s exhortations is an enemy of all, even Muslims that do not believe in violence. Good people who are born into the evil cult religion of Islam should leave it. If they stay in and really think it is the truth from their allah god, then they are complicit with the killers and they should be exterminated along with the killers. Islam is a cancer on mankind and should be outlawed by all civilized societies. Islam is a recipe for eternal killing and atrocities even if the world was all Muslim, some would be killed for being hypocrites…not Muslim enough to suit the fanatics.

  • Thomas J. Hennigan

    Excellent article as always. It seems to me that if Obama were a proper President, instead of opposing Netanyahu ad Israel, he should be promoting internal dissent in Iran between the various factions and also among the youth who came close to bringing down the regime some years back when there was electoral fraud. Obama is pro-Iran and dangerous for the world. If Iran geta nuclear weapons how can anyone be sure that they won’t nuke Israel or send in nuclear terorists to NYC?
    In fact, the Ayatollah regime does not have the support of the majority of the Iranian people, and even less of the youth. The mosques are empty on Fridays and the Supreme Leader has to give his sermon in the University with the gates locked so that the students are forced to listen to him.

    Why did they return the diplomats when Raegan got elected? Proabbly because he made a credible threat and they believed it whilst they knew that Carter was a mere wimp. Same goes for Obama. He is a danger to the whole world. Muslims only negotiate when they are overpowered or in a state of grave weakness. What Obama is doing is just confirming to them that he is weak and they can do whatever they want while he is there.

  • TruthWFree

    Excellent article as usual.

    “But what if they’re wrong? Those who think that the defeat of ISIS will bring an end to the Islamic “troubles” may soon discover that the troubles are just beginning.”

    To me, that is not an “if” they are wrong situation. We are dealing with fanatics in Iran, fanatics that control a state. If ISIS controlled a state, would they be less fanatic? The answer “NO”. Iran is more dangerous than ISIS because they control sources of funding Jihad…oil….and of course use it to build centrifuges and other nuclear producing material.

  • Robert Pentangelo

    The Shillman Foundation is a right wing Jewish Pro Zionist propaganda outfit. Kilpatrick, that makes you a “shill” for Israel. If you get this comment, let me know if you would like me to set up a debate between you and a REAL scholar, Dr. E. Michael Jones, on Catholicism, Israel, Islam, or some other subject you know nothing about.

MENU