Here's a senior Iranian military commander, speaking yesterday:
"If Israel wants to take any action against the Islamic Republic, we will eliminate Israel from the scene of the universe," the semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Ashtiani as saying. "Our answer to any military attack against Iran will be strong."
State Department mouthpiece Sean McCormack replied just about as you'd imagine he would:
It is "more unbelievable rhetoric out of the leadership of the Iranian government about attacking a fellow member of the United Nations," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.
But strangely, McCormack didn't have any similar complaint about this statement last week from Binyamin Ben-Eliezer:
"An Iranian attack will prompt a severe reaction from Israel, which will destroy the Iranian nation," Ben-Eliezer said on April 7, as the nation conducted the largest home front security drill in its history.
Now, on the surface McCormack's differing reactions here might seem a little odd. A little hypocritical. We might even be tempted to question the sincerity of his dedication to the sacred bond between United Nations members that makes him feel it's such a grave wrong to use this harsh language.
But that would be a mistake. If you read carefully, you'll see what McCormack actually said was that the threat from Iran was "unbelievable rhetoric". And I have to agree with him on this; after all, it's completely beyond belief that Iran could "eliminate Israel from the scene of the universe," no matter what the provocation. But on the other hand, when Ben-Eliezer threatens a "severe reaction" which will "destroy the Iranian nation" McCormack knows full well that it's a reference to Israel's massive nuclear arsenal, and so he knows it's completely believable—especially since Israel has demonstrated repeatedly that it's eager to attack its neighbors on any pretext. Sure, Iran talks a big game, but who have they ever attacked?
So McCormack isn't offended by threats per se; just empty threats.
Comments