Iran: What we know that isn’t so

Bryan Hyde is a news commentator and co-host of the Perspectives morning show on Fox News 1450 AM 93.1 FM. The opinions stated in this article are his and not those of St. George News.

OPINION – The tension is building over what many political leaders along with the American press refer to as “the growing Iranian nuclear threat.” Every day, our modern version of the Ministry of Truth feeds us breathless warnings about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. We are told that this is the man who allegedly wants Israel wiped off the map. Such rhetoric, coupled with endlessly repeated allegations that Iran seeks to build a nuke to attack Israel and the U.S., serves as a useful tool to provoke easily frightened Americans into another hysterical war frenzy.

Perhaps now’s a good time to recall that Will Rogers once said, “It’s not what we know, but what we know that isn’t so” that hurts us. With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at those ominous talking points and see if there’s more to the story.

The “wipe Israel off the map” quote is repeated ad nauseam as proof of Ahmadinejad’s irrational hatred of the Jews. Contrary to popular belief, this statement was never made. Arash Norouzi is no apologist for Ahmadinejad, but has taken the time to show that the Iranian president was actually quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini. The actual words in Farsi were: “Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”

That means nothing to most of us until translated directly to English: “The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.”

Taken in the correct context of his speech, Ahmadinejad is speaking of his belief that the Zionist regime, that he believes has a powerful negative influence over the Middle East, will vanish from the pages of time much like three other regimes that collapsed, crumbled or vanished over the past 3 decades. Specifically he refers to the U.S. imposed dictatorship of the Shah, the former Soviet Union and Iran’s former archenemy Saddam Hussein. It’s quite a different sentiment from the media’s constant refrain of Iran seeking to “wipe Israel off the map.” So why is this distinction important?

The Iranian president’s beef is with Israel’s government and not the Jews themselves. The thousands of Iranian Jews, who live, unmolested, in the Iranian capital city, further reinforce this fact.

Ahmadinejad isn’t about to be mistaken for one of the saints-who-walk-among-us, but the misinformation and hyping of his alleged threat against Israel is insidious in its own right. Considering that he doesn’t even control Iran’s parliament or its military, any comparisons to Hitler are overblown to say the least.

Both U.S. and Israeli intelligence admit that there is no evidence that Iran’s government has given the go-ahead to create a nuclear bomb. Even the International Atomic Energy Association is basing its suspicions about Iran’s intentions upon a lack of evidence for nuclear weapons. But only those who are unwilling to regurgitate the talking points pablum they’ve been spoon-fed by the media are likely to recognize that there’s more to the story.

Iran and Ahmadinejad could someday prove to be a grave threat to either the U.S. or Israel. But let’s not forget that these two nations are nuclear-armed and both extremely willing and highly capable of defending themselves. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insists that the proverbial line in the sand for Iran is “nuclear capability.” With unquestioning U.S. backing of Israel, this means that the justification for war against Iran would not be based upon the construction of an actual nuclear weapon much less the threat to use one. So why are we being encouraged to make the rush to another preemptive and unjust war against a nation that lacks the capability of harming us?

With the exception of Iran, no one’s back is truly against the wall at this point. Are we to believe that Iran will be easier to deal with after our leaders have initiated hostilities against them? Considering how well the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have worked out for us, perhaps it’s time we got a second opinion.

The war mongering, alarmist rhetoric that is currently influencing many American’s thinking on Iran is unreliable at best and outright false at worst.

email: [email protected]

twitter: @youcancallmebry

Copyright 2012 St. George News.

Free News Delivery by Email

Would you like to have the day's news stories delivered right to your inbox every evening? Enter your email below to start!


  • Firefly March 12, 2012 at 9:21 am

    If, as the author claims, that Iran is not a threat at this time based simply on Iran not having nuclear capabilities, that is well and fine. However, it has already been proven that Iran is a major sponser of terrorist activities through out the middle east. It has been shown that Iran arms and supplies the groups known as Hamas and Hezbolla. Iran also trains and arms and supplies the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq who have killed thousands of U.S. troops. The author claims that not having a nuclear weapon at its disposal should calm our fears. It is only a matter of time before Iran sends its terror cells to our shores to harm to this country. It is this type of false sense of security that is being advocated by this author that can become a danger to this great nation. The United States must remain strong in its security. Unfortunately, I feel it will not be long before this author will be proven wrong.

  • tq2 March 12, 2012 at 9:34 am

    Bryan, it’s refreshing to read something intelligently written. I am no pacifist, but this stampeding of the masses into clamoring for war by our political leaders has been going on for at least a hundred years, and it needs to stop. Thanks for a keen insight into this issue.

  • Allen L. March 12, 2012 at 2:26 pm

    @ firefly: Are you suggesting that bombing Iran is the answer to curtailing the funding of the supposed terrorists? Would we need to completely take over their country and their resources in order to curb their anti-American interests? Would it be worth it? Are you suggesting that we will best curb anti-American terrorists operations on our soil by throwing our weight around on “their” soil? Terrorists don’t have “soil”, that’s part of the problem and the more we address the problem out of context the more we fuel their legitimate claims against us.

    Upon further examination I think you’ll find they’re being funded by many, many groups in all areas not least through American moneys both public and private. We have anti-American sentiment in the US, I’d say over 50% of the population do not want us all over the world meddling in the affairs of others with money that is not ours.

    A good book for understanding terrorism has been written by Philip Bobbit “Terror and Consent”. Solutions to this problem will not be traditional nor obviously apparent. I do believe it is quite clear that further bankrupting our country, adding to the Military Industrial Complex and fueling hatred are not the right methods.

    Thank you Brian for the opinion. The media is crazy strong right now and we need as much discussion among us as can be well engaged by people who do more than go with the flow.

  • Rusty March 12, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    @firefly: There comes a time when you have to look at the facts, and as Bryan so aptly put it, the Ministry of Truth (FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Reuters, etc.) is not a valid source. If you look outside the western media, you will find that the world is not out to attack America, but to keep America from attacking them. As for Hezbollah and Hamas, their backs are against the wall in an apartheid situation, in refugee camps, constantly getting rocketed by Israel, constantly having political officials assassinated by Israel, having entire neighborhoods wiped off the map by Israel. The imbalance of power would be similar if the US went to war against Haiti. All these people have is their lives, and Netenyahu seems content on taking that from them. Their backs are against a sea, not a wall, and they are fighting for survival. If Iran doesn’t fund their last stand, then who will? And let’s not forget about our own terror group known as the CIA. This group is not only responsible for training terrorists, most notably bin Laden, but also trafficking drugs, weapons and humans, illegal coup d’etat’s to prop up puppet regimes such as Qaddafi and Saddam, and partnered with it’s sister cell, Mossad, assassinates foreign officials. And when that doesn’t work, we send big Army in to occupy a country and it’s resources while illegally poilcing their people. Even more recently, this has led to urinating on corpses, buring holy books, massacring women and children, and even targeting US citizens (al Alwaki), for assassination via drone strike in Yemen. By the way, did the President receive congressional consent to begin airstrikes in Yemen? Or Libya? What part of any of this sounds like a proper foreign policy promoting peace and democracy? If militants from Hamas and Hezbollah come to America, then that is another story; however, I believe there is little we will do about that being we seem much more concerned about the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan instead of the US/MEX border. On top of that, Eric Holder and the ATF, like the CIA, are trafficking automatic weapons into Mexico FOR cartel members (Op Fast&Furious). This is what we call flawed domestic policy that neither promotes peace nor democracy. I don’t know what the answers to these problems are, but I can definately assure you that we are perpetuating the problem. Here is a step in the right direction, vote for Ron Paul in 2012.

  • ron March 13, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Terrific article, Bryan. The media and the “talking heads” have driven us into needless wars in the past. We need to be on guard lest they do it once again.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.