Friday, April 14, 2006

Iran Threatens The "Annihilation" of Israel

As if Iran wasn't threatening enough after acquiring enriched urranium, its President called for the destruction of Israel today:
The president of Iran again lashed out at Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called Israel a "permanent threat" to the Middle East that will "soon" be liberated. He also appeared to again question whether the Holocaust really happened.

"Like it or not, the Zionist regime is heading toward annihilation," Ahmadinejad said at the opening of a conference in support of the Palestinians. "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

I hate to point out the obvious, but military action against Iran becomes more and more likely everyday. Those who are unwilling to accept the use of force against Iran should begin to reconsider their options.

With the rhetoric of the regime growing harsher by the day, and threat on the rise with the country's acquistion of uranium, at some point we must realize that steps must be taken to ensure the safety of our country, and this reigns especially true for Israel. The U.N. Security Council has repeatedly shown itself to be untrustworthy, and when Israel (or the United States) takes action because the Council couldn't, the U.N. will have only itself to blame.


Over at The Weekly Standard, Reuehl Marc Gerecht has a very important column titled "To Bomb, Or Not To Bomb." It is a must read for the debate at hand. Key graphs:

If either Rafsanjani or Ahmadinejad were ever to follow through on their wild rhetoric against Israel with a nuclear strike--and this is certainly a possibility unprevented by either man's ethics--then the path now deemed reckless might seem, even to the dovish Europeans, in retrospect like a morally compelling course.

Deterrence theory may well work against the clerical regime, but it ought to be admitted that we have never before confronted a regime where anti-Americanism, violence, terrorism, and God's writ have been so intermarried. The Soviets in their hatreds were positively ecumenical. What we are dealing with in the Islamic Republic's ruling revolutionary elite is a politer, more refined, more cautious, vastly more mendacious version of bin Ladenism. It is best that such men not have nukes, and that we do everything in our power, including preventive military strikes, to stop this from happening.

Read the whole thing. (HT: Hugh Hewitt)