What I fnd notable isn't the overstated military power of Iran by him, but the arrogance of American attitudes that simply take for granted that we should have huge dominance, and leave everyone else in a 'better not say anything we don't like or else' situation, where we view not attacking them as a big favor on our part for which they should be grateful.
It's the sort of warped view reflected in the old slave days when owners had no perspective on the fundamental wrongs, and instead would be offended if the slaves had any resentment because 'why, I treat them well, and they're ungrateful!' I recall, late in the civil war, a diary entry from a woman who said she was so shocked her slaves left to join the north that it made her wonder if she had been wrong about how happy they were.
It's the sort of arrogance that can lead a USSR to think colonization is nice to do.
If a big corporation you bank with, or the IRS, told you that you were powerless and should appreciate any gesture they made to treat you decently, how would you react?
And yet, the people I'm describing just take it for granted that it's ok for them to have national security that's far above other nations, and ok for us to tell them they can't do the same thing we do. It's a little as if one house in your neighborhood said you couldn't have guns because they had bought a ton of guns and didn't want any threats to them, and had the guns to coerce you to do as they said, but then said how equal things were. That's not bad enough - then it's as if they start 'borrowing' neighbors' belongings coercively.
When our national leaders are openly debating an attack on Iran, some here call it a provocation for *Iran* to simply say they can defend form it.
Imagine your neighbor saying he'd have to use his guns on you if you don't stop talking about getting your own, and then that you are 'making him shoot you' when you say that you aren't going to let him dictate that. While I'm saying this at length in response to Socio's post, it's a broader issue, really. Americans are too-litle expose to the views of other countries. There's a sort of sick cycle where Americans treasure their security over others, and this makes them treat others less fairly, making them even more treasure the fact that they're an American and not in another country. The more the dominate others, the more they are glad to be an American. Where is their recognistion of the issue of fairness to others though? It is indeed not unlike the slave owners who missed the basic unfairness and thought they were 'good' owners.
While I'm not suggesting that every nation become a highly militarized nuclear power the same as the US, I am saying that in light or our not wanting that, we need some better, fairer systems for protecting the nations who don't get that than 'as long as the US is happy with your behavior'. Not surprisingly, US leaders think that's a fine standard. Add n a little PR - 'Noriega is indicted on drug charges', 'Saddam invaded Kuwait', 'Greanda is, um, well bad', and the next thing you know, they are free to use our military.
I'd say Iran has a lot of good reason to say things because of the history where we were behind ending their democracy and installing a brutal Shah, we were involved in encouraging Saddam to invade them for no good reason (but for our own desire to see a proxy harm them) in a war with gassed schools and a million casualties - why shouldn't they resent events far worse than 9/11 that were done to them?
Can you imagine Al Queda having installed a brutal dictator here to replace our democracy and having a big nation that's stilll threatening us, and getting mad if we don't say 'ok'?
No, the Socio approach is nothing but arrogance that leads to war and shows how other nations are right not to trust the US having such advantage - which has implications on their being happy to see US power reduced by our economy being weaker. I'd liike to see a US president say that those acts we did are wrong, and then work towards some agreement with Iran. Is the issue really Iran as a threat, or is it our wanting to have our proxies in charge in the reegion?
That's the sort of approach which leads to double standards where the same action is a terrorist act justifying response if done by an 'enemy nation', and ok if done by an ally.
Compare the reported arming of the insurgents in Iraq by Iran with the arming and assistance - we had our fleet in combat against Iran for Saddam and other assistance (not to mention even the accidental shooting down by our ship of an Iranian civil airliner) - we did for Saddam in the war against Iran. "Unacceptable and justification for war" for the first, and "we don't want to discuss it" for the second.
