Let us look at the facts …

1. Iran’s demographics indicate that there will not be enough young people of military age in twenty years to defend their oil interests.
2. Iran’s repressive regime is being subverted by those with access to the Internet, particularly the social media.
3. Iranians in the United States who are thriving and have parents and other relatives in Iran are spreading the word how life in a democracy is wonderful.
4. Iranians have seen the “respect” accorded an allegedly nuclear North Korea and a nuclear Pakistan and believe this is the equivalent of self-protection.
5. Unlike other religions, Muslims welcome death as a reward for leading a pious life – and consider fellow Muslims who die as collateral damage as martyrs.
6. There are those who believe that a world-wide calamity is necessary to bring back the 12th Imam and restore the entire world to Islam.
7. YOU CANNOT TAKE THE WORD OF A MUSLIM IN WAR: Iranians, being Muslims, find it Allah-approved to lie when it comes to promoting Islam or conquering the infidels (non-believers).

The principle of Al-Takeyya <Source>

The Arabic word, "Takeyya", means "to prevent," or guard against. The principle of Al Takeyya conveys the understanding that Muslims are permitted to lie as a preventive measure against anticipated harm to one's self or fellow Muslims. This principle gives Muslims the liberty to lie under circumstances that they perceive as life threatening. They can even deny the faith, if they do not mean it in their hearts. Al-Takeyya is based on the following Quranic verse:

"Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah." Surah 3: 28

According to this verse a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and display adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming him.

Under the concept of Takeyya and short of killing another human being, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The following actions are acceptable:

• Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan.
• Renounce belief in Allah.
• Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
• Utter insincere oaths.

So I question the views of the liberal David Ignatius as published in Investor’s Business Daily …

On The Left

War Between Israel And Iran Doesn't Have To Be Inevitable

As Israel and Iran entered this summer of confrontation over Tehran's nuclear program, the Iranians were also conducting talks with the U.S. and other leading nations to seek a diplomatic alternative to war. Since then, the rumors of an impending Israeli military strike have grown almost daily, but whatever happened to the negotiations?

The answer is that the "P5+1" talks have been in recess during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan, but contact is expected to resume soon between the top negotiators. Talking with Iranian and American experts, I don't hear any hint of a breakthrough that would ease the war fever, although some useful new ideas have been floated.

Another month passes without a resolution to a “nuclear Iran” and suddenly everyone claims that they didn’t know the nuclear programs was that advanced when the first bomb explodes.And are we so confident that Iran did not divert some of their petrodollars to simply purchase a working weapon from Pakistan (where most of the rogue nuclear development originated) or North Korea? Or that an upcoming nuclear test in North Korea is not a “proof of concept” demonstration of the Iranian design? With the democratic gutting of our intelligence agencies and an over-reliance on electronic surveillance – there is much we do not know; as demonstrated by recent world events.  

The diplomatic track has been frustrating to U.S. officials, so far. But it remains important because the military alternative is so fraught with dangers — not least for Israel and its long-term goal of preventing the Iranians from having nuclear weapons.

An Israeli military strike might set the Iranian program back several years. But it would probably shatter the international coalition against Iran, galvanize support for the mullahs at home and in the region — and thus might make Iran's eventual acquisition of a bomb even more likely.

Why are liberals always pandering to the International community when it is often in the best interests of the United States to seek solutions unilaterally or in conjunction with our true allies. One need only look at a Obama apology tour and his gutless political reactions to crisis to wonder if our current Administration has the best interests of our nation in mind when they bow before foreign dictators.

Because of such risks, many leaders of Israel's national-security establishment, past and present, appear to oppose Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's consideration of a military strike.

Despite this internal Israeli split, Republican candidate Mitt Romney has strongly endorsed Netanyahu and chided President Obama for taking an independent U.S. position, saying at a campaign rally Monday: "The president throwing Bibi Netanyahu under the bus was totally unacceptable. Him negotiating for Israel, our friend, totally unacceptable, in my view."

This is nonsense. There are no Israeli leaders who believe that the security and safety of Israel should be compromised by endlessly discussing matters while Iran goes nuclear. Like listening to Hitler describe what he planned to do, certain Iranian elements led by Ahmadinejad must be taken at their word when they speak of the destruction of Israel. To allow wiggle-room by claiming they were speaking about “Zionists” as opposed to Israeli citizens is disingenuous and dangerous.  

Yada, Yada, Yada …

Here's the situation in the negotiations Romney evidently dislikes: By the end of August, Catherine Ashton, the European diplomat who is chief negotiator for the P5+1, will likely talk by phone about next steps with Saeed Jalili, the representative of Iran's supreme leader. The possibilities include another technical meeting of experts or deputy negotiators, or a full, top-level negotiating session.

Ashton is a leftist … a British labor politician. And when it comes to institutional anti-Semitism, Europeans, especially the French, cannot be trusted. Many Europeans point to the Jews as the source of their troubles. A viewpoint supported by the left to distract from the fact that socialism and the outlandish demands of labor unions are the proximate cause for much of their economic uncertainty.

The P5+1 nations (the U.S., Britain, France, China, Russia plus Germany) are still discussing their bargaining position. The consultations quickened last week with a trip to Beijing, Moscow and London by Wendy Sherman, the undersecretary of state who is the top U.S. negotiator. The six countries agreed to continue working together despite some disagreements about tactics: "At the end of the day, we will proceed in unity," said a senior administration official.

This is why endless talk by politicians is worthless unless there is a military option and the will to use it. Lest us not forget, the sole purpose of war (and terrorism) is to produce an acceptable political solution to some problem. What’s to discuss? Iran cannot be allowed to go nuclear; to threaten Israel, Saudi Arabia or any other nation in the region. Especially since the leadership of Iran might be on the verge of being toppled by a populist revolt similar to the Arab Spring uprisings.

There remains a "significant gap between the P5+1 and Iran," according to the U.S. official. The Iranians officially have offered only to suspend enrichment of uranium to the 20% level, in exchange for lifting sanctions. This position is a non-starter for the U.S. and its negotiating partners.

Unofficially, Iranians have signaled that they would be ready to export their stockpile of 20% uranium and cap future enrichment at 5%. This comes closer to meeting U.S. concerns, but it still leaves Iran with a big stockpile of about 6,000 kilograms of low-enriched uranium that could fuel a breakout. It's this ability to "dash" toward a bomb that most worries Israel.

An interesting bridging proposal comes from Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a former Iranian negotiator who's now a visiting fellow at Princeton. He told me this week that in addition to capping enrichment at 5%, Iran might agree to a "zero stockpile" of this low-enriched fuel.

The time for talk has past. It is now time for action. Let Iran allow IAEA inspectors into nuclear sites NOW. No more staged visits. No more phony IAEA reports. No more corrupt IAEA personnel. And no more hidden facilities. Let the world know – in particular the Iranian people – that if there is a single nuclear attack, Tehran will cease to exist. 

Here's a final thought, based on the all-too-real possibility that negotiations will remain deadlocked and Israel will decide to take unilateral military action. In the resulting fog of war, there will be a need for reliable communications in the Gulf and a hotline with Tehran. Establishing these communications links is an urgent priority, as the rumors of war continue.

Bottom line …

In the final analysis, it is up to the Israeli government to decide what is best for Israel as they appear to be facing an existential threat from a nation and religion that demands their destruction. That the international community does not affirm their right to self-defense or wants to curtail their actions, is unacceptable.

When it comes to supporting a war-like religion with no separation of church and state, whose stated goal is conquest, a religion that does not promote tolerance for any other religious viewpoint, and a system of laws that is oppressive and barbaric – I side with Israel. To the extent other nations do not have a similar viewpoint, makes them complicit in setting the stage for the next holocaust. One likely to involve the death of millions of innocent people on both sides of the issue. Some may claim they were martyred … but DEAD IS DEAD!

-- steve