We stood up to the USSr repeatly. 1948, 1963 Berlin crisis,1973 Arab-Israeli war are just some examples. The USSr knew thought that they would crush us as Krushev used to say. But he was wrong. Only it took fifty years to make it happen.

The biggest difference between the USSR and Iran, is that the USSR never wanted to be destroyed. There was no religious component in their political thinking. People who want to survive and live another day think differently than people who want to usher in an apocolypse and die in jihad.
Jihad is the only promise of Paradise that is given in the Koran. There was no such promise given in the USSR. Therefore, negotiation was possible with the USSR. This is not so with Shia Iran.

Negotiation can only take place after victory in jihad by another…In other words after their defeat…not before.
Hudna is the only negotiation possible with jihadis outside of their defeat.

People in the West need to get their heads out of their asses. The jihadi propaganda machine has two components to it. One component is directed at western audiences…the other is directed at Muslims. Pay attention to the propaganda directed at Muslims. The shit comming from Al-gizz and other Muslim apologist sites…is pure BS.

If anyone is looking to read a new book. Try the Al Queda Reader by Raymond Ibrahim. It’s an opportunity to get inside the heads of these nutcases.

Dan Senor is right on.

“If Muslims themselves can be made to see the connection between say, Islamic ideas of government and the prevalence of despotism in the Muslim countries, or to point to jizya-dependence (including the disguised jizya of foreign aid) and inshallah-fatalism as the main cause of economic underperformance (an underperformance which, given the $10 trillion in unearned OPEC reveneus, can no longer be explained away), or to link, in their own minds, the scientific backwardness of Muslim societies with the habit of mental submission, and discouraging of free and skeptical inquiry, that is part of Islam as a Complete Regulation of Daily Life, and a Total Explanation of the Universe. Finally, if Muslims begin to see the mistreatment of women and of non-Muslims as the moral failure it is, then like Ataturk, more will come to realize that even within Muslim societies, in which, given the immutability of the canonical texts, Islam cannot be reformed, nor can the meaning of those immutable texts be interpreted away (no further “interpretation” is permitted in Islam; the gates of ijtihad swung shut long ago) then, just as Ataturk did, they may try to limit the social and political power of Islam, in order to improve the condition of their countries and the lives of their people, and relegate Islam which officiallly should regulate and determine everything, to a much narrower sphere in the lives of Muslims. The example of Turkey shows both that this is possible, and that at the same time, the force and appeal of Islam unchained will require the secularists to remain eternally vigilant, and at times, as ruthless as Ataturk could be but as many of his more recent beneficiaries have not been. ”

Any solution for Iraq must be in a Muslim context…not a Western one. Looking at Iraq though the eyes of a Muslim, instead of through the eyes of a Westerner, allows people in the West to think outside the box.

The guy that wrote that piece that I just quoted from is able to do that…although I disagree with many of his views
vis vis Iraq..This small piece is an example of a Westerner who has gotten inside the heads of Muslims.

Iranian Theocracy vs Saudi Sheiks, Tribal Leaders, and Warlords (ie Sunni vs Shia) with Iraqi pawns and a sandy chessboard.

I agree with Dan on a lot of what he stated…Just one word of caution…be very wary of the guy who comes up with a plan for peace in that region that all sides agree to…

Looking forward to more from you, Iggy.