‘Step back from the rhetorical brink’


Roland Paris worries about the Prime Minister’s rhetoric on Iran.

If Harper is correct, virtually all measures, up to and including a military attack on Iran, might be warranted, or perhaps even required, to prevent that country from building such weapons. The problem, however, is that the prime minister’s assessment flies in the face of what we know about the behaviour of the Iranian regime. For all their revolutionary jihadist talk, Iran’s ruling mullahs have consistently worked to realize one goal above all others: keeping themselves in power.


‘Step back from the rhetorical brink’

  1. Distraction….probably the biggest tool in the kit leaders use.

    When things get bad at home, distract the population with foreign boogey-men.

    It worked during the Cold War, but we are now down to tinier and tinier countries….and it’s hard to make monsters out of a country when we know the youth want to overthrow their own leaders.

  2. The Harper regime has given most Canadians interested in international affairs an interesting new perspective: a reasons to be glad the world rarely pays attention to Canada.  To Harper’s credit, however, if our pronouncements carried more weight I bet he’d speak more carefully. 

    • You’re probably right.But for now i’m just glad we don’t have a finger on the button any NWs, or have any of our own.

      • talk about the need to step back from the rhetorical brink. 

        • “In my judgment, these are people who have a particular, you know, a fanatically religious worldview, and their statements imply to me no hesitation about using nuclear weapons if they see them achieving their religious or political purposes. And … I think that’s what makes this regime in Iran particularly dangerous.”


          Odd, that’s what a lot of people believe about Harper.

          •  by a lot, of course, you mean yourself and kcm2.

          • No, 60% of the country.

        • I’m certainly not equating Harper with that nutcase in Iran and logically if GMFD’s argument holds up and Harper did have some control over NW’s he might be more circumspect in the choice of his words. But politics is at least as much about emotion as it is about the rational, and in this sense my perhaps irrational response is to be glad Harper’s not a decider at the big boy’s table.  

  3. Harper’s comments were out of bounds, in the extreme, and he should have been held to account more vigorously by the media and opposition.  You don’t dick around with the spectre of nuclear war.

Sign in to comment.