Updated Author’s Preface to “Iran’s Final Solution For Israel”

This past March, 2014, I released my book Iran’s Final Solution For Israel—The Legacy of Jihad and Shi’ite Islamic Jew Hatred in Iran. Reviews of the book have appeared at Breitbart, Pajamas Media, The American Thinker, and the Canadian magazine Convivium. Following the announced “extension” of the “P5 +1” negotiations for another 7-months, this past Monday, November 24, 2014, I wrote an updated Preface to the book, which will be incorporated into a new edition that will soon be available at amazon.com.

Updated Author’s Preface

They [the Jews of Iran] live under profound oppression because they are considered as outlaws or outcastes. [T]he capriciousness of the governor and the pack of his subordinates weigh upon them [the Jews]; they use any pretext to plunder the Jews with impunity, for there is no one to whom the Jews could turn or dare to turn to complain of their oppression except the governor himself, who is the judge of his own case…If a Jew crosses the road dressed decently or hazards to mount a horse, the spectators complain that he dares to present himself as a believer. If on the other hand he is wearing miserable rags, the young rascals of the streets, excited by persons much older, pursue him throwing mud and stones at him…In the cases of jurisprudence, the Jew cannot invoke in his favor the benefits of the law; it is certain that the Muslim will testify against him, while one cannot trust the latter’s words nor that of his witnesses… One of the principal causes of the misery of the Jews is stirred up by the priests and descendants of the [Muslim] prophet, the Mullah and the Sayyids [Muslim clerics]. Living in opposition to the government, they surround themselves with the riffraff of society—brigands, highway robbers—to whom they throw as fodder all who fall into their hands, above all the Jews, inoffensive human beings not protected by the law… [E]ven the obtainment of a firman declaring the emancipation of the Jews and the abolition of all exclusion and restriction in regard to them, would not be sufficient to guarantee in the future its strict execution. Besides, the great distances which separate from the capital the numerous agglomerations of Jews, serve to give security if not a guarantee of impunity to the persecutors.

—Jacob Eduard Polak, 1865§

One year after the widely celebrated, yet dangerously de-stabilizing so-called P5 +1 Iranian nuclear weapons negotiations were announced, it was declared Monday November 24, 2014 that no final deal could be sealed. up1 New interim (March 1, 2015) and final (July 1, 2015) deadlines for continued negotiations were proclaimed, instead. up2

Prior to the announcement, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had lauded this ultimate development as the preferred, if hardly ideal, outcome. up3

No deal is better than a bad deal. The right deal that is needed is to dismantle Iran’s capacity to make atomic bombs and only then dismantle the sanctions. Since that’s not in the offing, this result is better, a lot better.

Expanding upon Mr. Netanyahu’s observations, the lack of a signed agreement provides Israel with a fortuitous, if evanescent strategic opportunity.

Thursday, 11/20/2014, reviewing more than a decade of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) analyses (and other investigative findings) a 104 page report concluded that the Iranian regime—despite repeated, disingenuous countervailing protests—had, “vigorously pursued its ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons.” up4 Tehran continued to engage in “systematic,” “vigorous” combined military, and dual military-civilian efforts, “such as enrichment, weaponization, warhead, and delivery system at some stage,” whose ultimate goal was procuring nuclear weapons capability. up5

In other words, Iran has worked on specific programs and projects to master all necessary aspects of obtaining a nuclear weapon

Moreover, the November 20, 2014 report noted, there were, “no serious indications that Tehran has stopped or abandoned this project or intends to do so.” up6 Iran, on the contrary, “has resorted to further secrecy and concealment to keep its program intact and unhindered.” Additional discoveries and data all underscore how “a military program and military related activities,” remain “at the heart of the Iranian nuclear program.” up7

Just 11 days earlier, on November 9, 2014, Iran’s theocratic leader, Ayatollah Khamenei reiterated his ceaseless call for the jihad annihilation of Israel, via his twitter account, in a “question and answer” tweet: Why should & how can #Israel be eliminated? Ayatollah Khamenei’s answer to 9 key questions. #HandsOffAlAqsa “9 key questions about elimination of Israel”. Khamenei argued that the “only means” of halting alleged “Israeli crimes,” was “the elimination of this regime.” up8 He recommended, specifically, for this purpose, up9

The West Bank should be armed like Gaza…those who are interested in Palestine’s destiny should take action to arm the people of the West Bank.

Ayatollah Khamenei justified this call for an annihilationist jihad by concluding, up10

Yasser Arafat was poisoned and killed by Israel, while he had the most cooperation with the Zionists [which] proves that in the viewpoint of Israel, “peace” is simply a trick for more crimes and occupation.

It is imperative for all those who aren’t ignoring the Iranian nuclear threat, or abiding complementary syndromes of dangerous delusion on the Left (“The Trusting Khomeini/Khamenei/Rouhani Syndrome” up11) and Right (“The Trusting Montazeri/Green Movement Syndrome” up12) to understand that Israel must strike, now, as a temporizing measure.

Caroline Glick’s October 10, 2014 essay up13 revealed a delusive mindset which continues to be championed by conservative Iran analysts (i.e., “The Trusting Montazeri/Green Movement Syndrome”), delaying the requisite, urgent Israeli military action. Glick endorsed the following dangerous nonsense espoused by self-avowed “Iran expert” Michael Ledeen: up14

Dr. Michael Ledeen, Freedom Scholar at the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies has been closely following the Iranian regime since he served in the Reagan administration in the 1980s. In 2009, he argued that even without US assistance, if Israel had been willing to help the Green Movement, with little effort, it could have empowered the opposition sufficiently to overthrow the regime. In a conversation this week, Ledeen said Israel still has the capacity to provide opposition forces the tools they require to overthrow the regime.









[Photo of Ayatollah Montazeri, Green Movement “inspiration,” Refusing to Shake the Hand of a Najis Jew (Translation of Farsi caption, beneath image):“This is Iran’s deceased Ayatollah Montazeri (d. December, 2009) in the photograph where he rejected  ‎shaking the hand of a fellow Jewish  Iranian. He declined the handshake because he  did not want to become dirty (najis) and his cleanliness despoiled  for  his  “Salaat” preparation  (for prayer, as a Muslim),  by contacting the (najis, infidel) Jew.” up15]

Pace reams of debunking evidence (including the captured scene, above), analysts such as Ledeen and Glick continue to grossly mischaracterize both the Iranian “Green Movement,” up16 and its designated “spiritual father,” Ayatollah Montazeri (d. December, 2009). up17 As embodied, legitimately, by Montazeri, the Green Movement’s Iranian Shi’ite theocratic ideology deviated precious little from the bellicose and bigoted Sharia supremacist norms of the retrograde 1979 “revolution.”

The following extracts from two Montazeri public addresses in 1987 (both verbatim translations, and contextual summaries, provided by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s open source translation office, the Foreign Broadcast Information Service up18), replete with sanctions from the Koran, hadith (traditions of Muhammad), and Islamic jurisprudence, make plain whom he viewed as the primary “infidel targets” for the Iranian Islamic Republic’s jihadism (and Jew-hatred), i.e., Israel (“Jews”), and the U.S. Montazeri also enunciated an unabashed call for a global jihad.

“[O]ur war is against Israel, which has been created in the heart of Islamic countries by satans and superpowers in order to weaken Islam and Muslims…[T]he Jews of Medina at the time of the noble prophet [i.e., Muhammad] sided with the infidels against Islam and Muslims…Palestine will never be liberated through political games. The territories that have been seized from Muslims by force can be regained only through strength. If the Muslims unite and become harmonious with one another they can do anything…Allah willing, then all Muslims should come together against the usurping Israeli government. They should be convinced that Israel will be defeated.” up19

“The Muslims should clearly recognize the main danger to Islam and the Islamic lands, which is the United States and international Zionism”…Grand Ayatollah Montazeri emphasized: “One cannot fight against the United States and Zionism merely by holding meetings and chanting slogans. The ulema of Islam and all the Muslims should make some serious decisions.”…The deputy leader then quoted a large number of traditions from the Prophet of Islam from both Shi’a and Sunni books…In the same connection, he referred to the need to establish Islamic governments and traditions and behaviors as did the noble prophet, and said that his holiness did not remain quiet in the face of oppression. He [Muhammad] did not sit in a corner and merely pray, although all his prayers would have been answered. On the contrary, he [Muhammad] carried out an uprising and had about 80 military clashes. He [Muhammad] called on the Muslims to arise, and he established a just government and powerfully implemented Allah’s laws, injunctions, and justice among the people.

He [Montazeri] said: “There are more than 300 verses in the Koran about jihad, which are unfortunately forgotten, and about 60 books of Islamic jurisprudence are devoted to political issues, economics, judicial matters, punishments, and similar subjects. In view of this it is regrettable that the enemies of Islam and the colonialists succeeded in influencing the thoughts and attitudes of Muslims and of the ulema and Islamic writers and preachers. These enemies took away from them their Islamic character, and said that religion is separate from politics. By so doing, the colonialists succeeded in imposing corrupt leaders over Islamic countries, in placing a few million Zionists in charge of the destiny of the Muslims and Al-Aqsa Mosque…Because the United States and Zionism hve placed their agents in charge of the destiny of Islam and Muslims…the only way for the salvation of Islam and Muslims is for them to recognize their real enemy…and to strengthen genuine Islamic movements in Islamic countries…In the same way that today the stirrings of the Islamic Revolution can be seen in Lebanon, Palestine, and Afghanistan, and thanks to Allah, is growing strong in all of the Islamic countries, resistance cells and Islamic movements should receive scientific, spiritual, and material support. This is the duty of all of us and all the ulema of Islam to identify these cells of Islamic movement and revolution and to strengthen them as much as we can. Allah willing, they will gradually grow and expand so that the nations may be awakened and liberate Jerusalem from the claws of usurping Israel…If we assist the religion of Allah…and if we make use of all the forces fighting against the enemies of Islam and the Koran, most definitely the colonial thesis of ‘divide and rule’ will be defeated…Very soon through a billion strong march by all the Muslims of the world, we can liberate beloved Jerusalem, destroy usurping Israel, and place the destiny of Islam and the Muslims in their own hands.” up20

As illustrated by interviews conducted in 2003 and 2006, Montazeri reiterated his ongoing support for Sharia supremacism, shared the current Iranian regime’s opinion about (and negotiating tactics for procuring) the Islamic Republic’s “right” to pursue “peaceful” nuclear technology, and re-affirmed his bigoted, strident opposition to Israel’s existence.

[Montazeri]: You see, if people around the world want to say certain things about women for example being equal to men in matters of inheritance or legal testimony, because these issues pertain to the very letter of the Qur’an, we cannot accept them…in Iran we cannot accept those laws that are against our religion….on certain occasions that these laws contradict the very clear text of the Qur’an, we cannot cooperate

[Interviewer]: So in future generations, when the number of professors, physicians, high-ranking experts, etc, will be more women, will Islam be able to have an ijtihad and modify these unjust laws because they no longer correspond with reality?

[Montazeri]: Those aspects of the Islamic law that are based on the very letter of the Qur’an, the answer is no up21

If the U.S. or Europe wants to force Iran to relinquish nuclear energy for peaceful purposes – that is meddling in Iran’s affairs… One of the ways of dealing [with the crisis] is to conduct a diplomatic dialogue…, if America tries to force its power on Iran so as to deprive it of the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, it would be a deceit [sic] – because knowledge and technology are not a monopoly but the right of all people. How can Israel have nuclear energy, and even nuclear weapons, but we, who don’t want [nuclear] weapons – why can’t we have nuclear energy for peaceful purposes?… Israel is a usurper government, that conquered the Palestinians’ lands and made them refugees. If not for Israel, we would have no problem with other countries. up22

The Glick-Ledeen “Trusting Montazeri/Green Movement Syndrome” approach stands in stark contrast to what I advocate in brief at the conclusion of this book, updated and elaborated in an essay (“End the Bush-Obama Fecklessness: Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Facilities Now”), published November 10, 2014. up23 The November 24, 2014 pronouncements regarding extension of the P5 +1 negotiations make plain that only continued Iranian obfuscation and delay loom going forward. However, now that not even the faҫade of agreement currently exists, Israel has been granted another window of opportunity—i.e., there is no “deal” yet affirmed that the Israelis are “sabotaging,” let alone bound to uphold.

The question arises as to why more than 12-years after the August 14, 2002 revelations about Iran’s Natanz and Arak nuclear installations up24—6-years under the Bush II Administration, and another 6-years (and counting) during the Obama Administration—sound, practical U.S. geostrategic arguments, and actions, such as those advocated by Professor Matthew Kroenig, have been dismissed. up25 My book examines at some length, the origins of this tragic, yet entirely avoidable failure of imagination, and will, rooted in intellectual sloth, and cowardice.

The case for limited, targeted military strikes on Iran’s four known nuclear facilities has been made with pellucid cogency by Professor Kroenig, Georgetown University International Relations Professor, and expert on Iran’s nuclear program. Kroenig’s dispassionate May, 2014, study, A Time to Attack, elucidates the profoundly destabilizing threat posed by an Iran armed with nuclear weapons: up26

From Iran , a revisionist and risk-acceptant state, we can expect…reckless behavior. Iran will almost certainly be willing to risk nuclear war in future geopolitical conflicts, and this will mean that it will be able on occasion to engage in successful nuclear coercion. It also means that, in playing these games of brinkmanship, it will increase the risk of a nuclear exchange.

Kroenig then outlines the tactical obstacles military strikes on Iran’s four established nuclear facilities would confront, from the relative ease of attacking the surface Isfahan and Arak sites, to the difficulty of targeting the underground Natanz and Qom complexes. up27

…Isfahan and Arak are above ground and therefore are easy military targets. We [the U.S.] could easily destroy these facilities using air- or sea-launched cruise missiles, launched from U.S. B-52 bombers operating outside Iranian airspace or U.S. warships in the Persian Gulf.

Natanz is buried under seventy feet of earth and several meters of reinforced concrete, and Qom is built into the aide of a mountain and is therefore protected by 295 feet of rock. To destroy these sites we would need to use the Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP. The MOP weighs 30,000 pounds and according to open source reporting, is capable of penetrating up to 200 feet before exploding. Some simple arithmetic (200 feet is greater than 70+ feet) suggests that Natanz doesn’t stand a chance. It is unlikely that the MOP could penetrate into the enrichment chamber of Qom in a single shot (295 feet is greater than 200 feet), but we could simply put subsequent bombs in the crater left from a previous bomb and thus eventually tunnel our way in. Putting multiple bombs in the same hole requires a fair bit of accuracy in our targeting, but we can do it. In addition to destroying their entrances, exits, ventilation heating and colling systems, and their power lines and sources. The MOP can only be carried on the U.S. B-2 stealth bomber. Since it can be refueled in midair, the B-2 can be sent on a roundtrip mission from U.S. bases in Missouri and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to its targets in Iran and back home again without stopping. The B-2 could also be escorted by stealthy U.S. F-22 fighters, or F-16s, to protect it against fighter aircraft.

This relatively limited, and very brief campaign consisting of “a barrage of cruise missiles and bombing sorties,” Kroenig observes, plausibly conducted in one night, up28

would almost certainly succeed in its intended mission and destroy Iran’s key nuclear facilities.

Citing four historical precedents where pre-emptive bombing of nuclear facilities achieved the goal of non-proliferation, decisively—“Nazi Germany during World War II, Iran during the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq several times in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, and Syria in 2007” up29—Kroenig concludes by enumerating the multiple benefits which would accrue from similarly destroying Iran’s known nuclear installations: up30

There is absolutely no doubt that a strike on Iran’s nuclear facility would significantly set back Iran’s nuclear progress and create a real possibility that Iran would remain non-nuclear for the foreseeable future.

Moreover…[a] strike…would stem the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and bolster the nonproliferation regime around the world.

Furthermore, a U.S. strike would also strengthen American credibility. We declared many times that we were prepared to use force if necessary to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. A strike would demonstrate that we mean what we say and say what we mean and that other countries, friends and foes alike, would be foolish to ignore America’s foreign policy pronouncements

Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps  Deputy Commander Brigadier-General Hossein Salami made the following comments at a conference held in Tehran, which aired on Al-Alam TV on March 11, 2014: up31

Despite the geographical distance, we are attached to the hearts of the Palestinians. How is it that our slogans and goals are identical to the slogans and causes of the Palestinians? Why do we strive to become martyrs and risk our lives for the Palestinian cause?  The answer is that the religion of Islam has designated this for us – this goal, this motivation, this belief, this energy – so that we, here, can muster all our energies in order to annihilate the Zionist entity, more than 1,400 kilometers away. We are ready for that moment in the future.

The “Trusting Khomeini-Khamenei-Rohani” brain trust shaping current Obama Administration Iran policy maintains the good general Salami doesn’t mean any of this, and it is somehow mere “cultural bluster.” Conservative “Trusting Montazeri/Green Movement,” self-styled “Iran shenasans” (“Iran experts”) would argue the good general is simply “distorting” Shiite Islam and we must be patient, support the (Soylent) Green Movement up32 of Iranian Jeffersonian Democrats, and at some unstated future time point, “regime replacement” will solve the Iranian nuclear weapons, and all other such problems engendered by the “distortion of Shiite Islam.” Accordingly, we must ignore the hard data that show 83% support for the Sharia in Iran, up33 or the 63% of Iranians who insisted that Iran should continue to develop its nuclear program, up34 even at the height of the period of strictest international economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

Till now, those are your Iran policy options from the ones who control such discourse—and current or  planned actions—across the political and ideological spectrum. As a potential alternative to this dangerously misguided policy morass, I queried Professor Kroenig (in early November, 2014) about the possibility of urgent Israeli airstrikes. Kroenig’s  A Time to Attack argues persuasively about the limitations of such an Israeli campaign, Israel lacking any known capability, for example, to penetrate the deeply embedded fortifications of Iran’s Qom/Fordow uranium enrichment facility. up35 However, given what is truly needed two-years from now, hope against hope—a complete U.S. political and policymaking class “regime change”—I offer Professor Kroenig’s temporizing solution until the U.S. regains its geostrategic and moral bearings:

As a last resort, an Israeli strike, and the year or two of breathing space, at minimum, it would buy, would be preferable to acquiescing to a nuclear Iran.

Finally, the American public, regardless of the attitudes of current political leadership and policymaking elites, appears fully cognizant of Iran’s intentions, and the unacceptable security threat posed by an Islamic Republic armed with nuclear weapons. Polling data from a U.S. national sample of 1800 Americans completed Sunday, November 23, 2014, indicated the following: up36

  • 85% of Americans do not believe the Iranians’ assertions that their nuclear program is peaceful
  • 81% of Americans do not believe the current government in Iran can be trusted to keep agreements
  • 69% of Americans oppose any negotiated agreement leaving Iran with nuclear capabilities

Hope springs eternal such gimlet-eyed Americans will elect equally astute political leaders also endowed with the courage necessary to authorize targeted military strikes which complete a task Israel will have initiated by 2015: destroying, or severely damaging the Islamic Republic of Iran’s current nuclear development facilities, forestalling, and perhaps even preventing long term, a nuclear weapons-armed Iran.

Andrew G. Bostom, November 26, 2014

References for the Updated Author’s Preface

§ Jacob Eduard Polak, “Persecution of Jews—Information About the Jews of Persia from an Eyewitness,” Archives Israélites, Vol. 28, 1865, pp. 489-49. (English translation by Ibn Warraq). Polak (1820–1891), was a Jewish physician and writer. Born in Bohemia [central Europe, currently in the Czech Republic], Polak studied medicine and science in Prague and Vienna. During 1851 he was invited to Tehran by the Persian government to serve as professor of anatomy and surgery at the military college. By1856 he was appointed court physician to Shah Nasr-el-Din. After Polak returned to Vienna in 1860 he was affiliated with the general hospital there, and simultaneously taught Persian at the University of Vienna. Polak composed important treatises in Persian on anatomy, surgery, ophthalmology, and military medicine, some of which became standard works. He also compiled a medical dictionary, Deutsch-persiches Konversationswoerterbuch (1914), in Persian, Arabic, and Latin which provided the Persian language with a system of medical terminology. A devout Jew, Polak drew the attention of European Jewry to the plight of their co-religionists in Persia, and his proposal that the Alliance Israélite Universelle send a Jewish representative to Tehran or establish a Jewish school in the city, ultimately came to fruition. {Biography per, Christoph Werner, “POLAK, Jakob Eduard,” [www.iranicaonline.org], December 15, 2009 [http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/polak-jakob-eduard]}

up1. Jim Sciutto, Nic Robertson, Holly Yan, “New Iran Nuclear talks deadlines: March 1, July 1, 2015,” CNN, November 24, 2014 [http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/24/world/meast/iran-nuclear-talks/index.html?hpt=po_c1%20%E2%80%A6]; “P5 +1” = the U.S., Britain, France, Russia, China, i.e., the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, plus Germany.

up2. Ibid.

up3. Michael R. Gordon, David E. Sanger, “U.S. and Allies Extend Iran Nuclear Talks by 7 Months,” The New York Times, November 24, 2014 [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/world/middleeast/iran-nuclear-talks.html?_r=2]

up4. “Examining 10 Warning Signs of Iran Nuclear Weapons Development,” International Committee In Search of Justice, November 20, 2014 [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bxsknizg1bK8ekNnby1NSjJTRWJqM205WEZtREp6djc3Uktv/view?pli=1]

up5. Ibid.

up6. Ibid.

up7. Ibid.

up8. [https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/531366667377717248/photo/1]

up9. Ibid.

up10. Ibid.

up11. Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khamenei, and President Rouhani

up12. Iran’s Ayatollah Montazeri, and the “Green Movement” he allegedly inspired.

up13. Caroline Glick, “Bringing happiness to Iran,” October 10, 2014 [http://carolineglick.com/bringing-happiness-to-iran-2/]

up14. Ibid.

up15. Andrew Bostom, “Photo of Ayatollah Montazeri, (Soylent) Green Movement “Inspiration,” Refusing to Shake the Hand of a Najis Jew,” March 30, 2014 [https://www.andrewbostom.org/blog/2014/03/30/photo-of-ayatollah-montazeri-soylent-green-movement-inspiration-refusing-to-shake-the-hand-of-a-najis-jew/]

up16. Andrew Bostom, “Yippee ‘Hizbullahi’ and ‘Chaadoris’?—Some Sad Realities About Irredentist Iran,” www.andrewbostom.org, Iran, June 20, 2009 [http://bit.ly/1do3UtN]; “Mullah’s Milk,” www.andrewbostom.org, June 21, 2009 [http://bit.ly/JZ0mU2]; “Perpetuating Iran’s Islamic Culture of Hate,” www.andrewbostom.org, June 22, 2009 [http://bit.ly/1do5hsq]; and “The Squandered Emancipation of Iranian Women,” The American Thinker, July 1, 2009 [http://bit.ly/1hnyGnj]; A. Savyon, “Elections in Iran – Part V: The Waning of the Protest Movement,” The Middle East Media Research Institute, Inquiry & Analysis Series Report No. 529, June 29, 2009, [http://bit.ly/JZ3Zcr]

up17. Michael Ledeen, “Montazeri,” Pajamas Media, December 21, 2009 [http://bit.ly/1hcjEmW]; Michael Rubin, “Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, R.I.P.,” National Review Online, December 21, 2009 [http://bit.ly/JHy3bW]; Reuel Marc Gerecht, “The Bill O’Reilly Fallacy,” The New Republic, October 16, 2010 [http://bit.ly/1n2gGT6]

up18. Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) daily reports 1974-1996 [electronic resource], Naples, FL: Readex

up19. “Ayatollah Montazeri Meets With Karrubi, Others,” April 22, 1987; FBIS, April 23, 1987, LD 222336

up20. “Montazeri Address,” November 27, 1987; FBIS, November 30, 1987, LD271348

up21. Goldbarg Bashi, “Eyewitness History: Ayatollah Montazeri,” Payvand Iran News, March 8, 2006 (The interview was conducted in 2003) [http://www.payvand.com/news/06/mar/1067.html]

up22. “Iraqi News Agency Aswathura’s Exclusive Interview With Grand Ayatollah Montazeri,” The Middle East Media Research Institute, May 24, 2006, Special Dispatch No.1171 [http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/1699.htm]

up23. Andrew Bostom,“End the Bush II-Obama Administration Fecklessness: Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Facilities, Now,” Pajamas Media, November 10, 2014 [http://pjmedia.com/blog/end-the-bush-obama-fecklessness-destroy-irans-nuclear-facilities-now/]

up24. “Examining 10 Warning Signs of Iran Nuclear Weapons Development”

up25. Matthew Kroenig, A Time to Attack: The Looming Iranian Nuclear Threat, New York, N.Y., 2014.

up26. Ibid, p. 165.

up27. Ibid, pp. 172-173.

up28. Ibid, p. 173.

up29. Ibid, p. 182.

up30. Ibid, pp. 188-189.

up31. “IRGC Deputy Commander Hossein Salami: We Are Ready to Annihilate the Zionist Entity in the Future,” Middle East Media Research Institute, March 11, 2014, Clip No. 4188 [http://www.memri.org/clip_transcript/en/4188.htm]

up32. See ref. 16, above

up33. “Iranians’ Views Mixed on Political Role for Religious Figures,” Pew Research Religion and Public Life Project, June 11, 2013 [http://bit.ly/1j6pDKH]

up34. Mohamed Younis, “Iranians Feel Bite of Sanctions, Blame U.S., Not Own Leaders— Most support nuclear program despite sanctions,” Gallup World, February 7, 2013 [http://bit.ly/1m59HW3]

up35. Kroenig, A Time to Attack, pp. 176-177.

up36. Bostom, “End the Bush II-Obama Administration Fecklessness: Destroy Iran’s Nuclear Facilities, Now”

up37. David Horovitz, “69% of Americans oppose deal leaving Iran with nuclear capabilities,”The Times of Israel, November 25, 2014 [http://www.timesofisrael.com/most-americans-oppose-deal-leaving-iran-with-nuclear-capabilities/]

Comments are closed.