LATEST LETTERS

Fareed Zakaria’s editorial

Tuesday, October 30 at 11:22 AM

TJ Kern of Littleton writes:

Fareed Zakaria’s editorial “The danger of ignorance about Iran” (Rocky Mountain News, 10/23/07) claims the U.S. is “on a path to irreversible confrontation with a country we know almost nothing about". To the contrary, we know a great deal about Iran through its own words and deeds since 1979. Iranian leaders have repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction, have labeled the Holocaust a “myth", have publicly wished for “death to America", have stated Iran’s readiness to transfer nuclear know-how to other Islamic countries (for electrical power generation of course), and have claimed that “Islam will conquer all mountain tops of the world". In 1979, Iran held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days and severed all diplomatic ties with the U.S. (which is why, Mr. Zakaria, the U.S. “has had no diplomats in Iran for almost 30 years"). Iran was directly involved in the 1983 U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Beirut that killed 241 American servicemen. Iran has funneled money and weapons to Hezbollah in southern Lebanon for two decades, and is providing advanced weaponry and training for Islamic terrorists to kill U.S. soldiers in Iraq. Iran has purchased long-range missile technology from North Korea while thumbing its nose at the international community in the aggressive pursuit of its nuclear program. Now, Iran is recruiting Russia to be its bodyguard should Iran attempt to act on its threat to destroy Israel. This information, and much more, is widely available to anyone who claims to be ignorant about Iran. The selective ignorance about Iran on Mr. Zakaria’s planet is the true danger to America.
p.s. It’s amusing that Mr. Zakaria supports his position by citing the CIA’s assessment that Iran is 3 to 8 years away from having a nuclear bomb when the same CIA was apparently unable to detect the presence of WMD’s in Iraq.

This letter has not been edited.

READER COMMENTS

We have been Irans' enemy since the CIA overthrew the democratically-elected president Mossedegh and installed the Shah. They are on to us. They know that we mean to impose our will upon them. Of course they will resist, as they have a ligitimate right to resist by whatever means are available on earth. If we had just left them alone back in 1953, we wouldn't be having all of these problems today.

Posted by on October 30, 2007 03:02 PM

I also read fareed Zakaria's editorial in Newsweek and came away with a totally different idea about what he was saying from mr. Kern.
I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about whether they hate Israel or us (by proxy). I also think Kern tried to slip one by when he makes the jump from hatred of Israel to direct involvement in the Beirut bombing. I'm pretty sure Zakaria was talking about knowing nothing about their society.

Posted by observer on October 30, 2007 03:38 PM

The Shah was a greater tyrant than Saddam. He was also buddies with Nixon and Rummie

Posted by on October 31, 2007 08:48 AM

Mr. Kern,
Regarding your last statement, "the same CIA was apparently unable to detect the presence of WMD’s in Iraq. " Are you claiming that Iraq had WMDs? You and your ilk have been proven wrong. Why are you still claiming that? I think your real intent is written in your statement that "Iranian leaders have repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction" . You want to convince Americans to tackle Iran for Israels' sake. Iran is not threatening the U.S. Americans are not likely to be fooled again, and we will not approve of another war for Israel.

Posted by on October 31, 2007 09:39 AM

America and Iran seem to be casting a lot of aspersion; however, it is not the people casting it; it is their presidents and it appears their popularity is quite lacking amongst the people.

Posted by JVB on October 31, 2007 12:52 PM

9:39: I suppose you believe that Saddam Hussein took out a giant order at Taco Bell for his army and farted the Kurds to death?

Posted by on October 31, 2007 02:46 PM

If you don't learn from history you are destined to repeat it.

Deja vu is not an option.

Posted by jay on October 31, 2007 04:36 PM

I find it bizarre that whenever people mention Iran, the first thing they mention is that Iran calls for Israel's destruction (which it doesn't - read the discussion about that piece of faulty translation that is deliberately repeated without correction) and Holocaust denial. Let's assume that these things are true -- are they relevant, and do they give sufficient cause to go to war? Only war mongerers could argue that. The US has troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, do we really need to find a third country to destroy?

Posted by on November 1, 2007 06:38 AM

More projection on the part of USA neo-con mentality
which ALSO talks about world domination as our "right" as a superpower....in the Project for the New
American Century. Why does this get so little coverage when it supports blatant imperialism and military superiority? We invite "blowback" and will again reap what we sow. The world currently hates us with good reason. Cynicism is the "moral" underpinning of our current "foreign policy" coup by the neo-con "death cult." God (if she exists) help us.

Posted by Wynne Dimock on November 1, 2007 08:48 AM

anonymous poster at 02:46... that event took place before the gulf-war cease-fire agreement which prohibited Iraq from possessing WMDs. Besides, that event occurred when Reagans' special envoy Donald Rumsfeld shook hands with Saadam Hussain and gave him the precursor chemicals and the secret formula for the nerve gas Hussain used. Is this how far the original rationale for the invasion of Iraq has devolved? Because Hussain gassed the Kurds in the 1980's??

Posted by on November 1, 2007 09:33 AM

Iraq gassed the Iranians in the 1980s, the Kurds in the 1990s. Hussein showed the world that he possessed such weapons and had a willingness to use them. According to UN resolutions, the burden of proof was on Iraq to show that the weapons were destroyed. Iraq failed to meet this requirement.

Posted by on November 1, 2007 01:21 PM