Ayatollah calls for genocide

Last Friday, in a major speech at prayers, Ayatolah Khamenei announced that Iran will support any nation or group that attacks the “cancerous tumor” that is Israel. This statement was seen by some in the West as mere rhetoric, but today the Iranian government, through a website proxy , has laid out the legal and religious justification for the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews everywhere.

The doctrine states that because Israel is going to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran is justified in launching a preemptive, cataclysmic attack against the Jewish state, the doctrine argues. The article, written by Alireza Forghani, a conservative analyst and a strategy specialist in Khamenei’s camp, now is being run on most state-owned conservative sites, including the Revolutionary Guards’ Fars News Agency, showing that the regime endorses this doctrine.

This announcement comes on the heel of Iran's successful launch of a new satellite into orbit, reminding the West that its engineers have mastered the technology for intercontinental ballistic missiles even as the Islamic state pushes its nuclear weapons program. In addition Iran’s Defense Ministry announced this weekend that it test-fired an advanced two-stage, solid-fuel ballistic missile.

Hatred so intense it make an old man perspire.

Some time ago, I wrote an article making fun of Ayatollah's pathological hatred, effectively suggesting he needs to be medicated. If he was in the West, he probably would be a nasty crank, who could be managed with the right pills. But in Iran, he can lead a nation and openly call for genocide.

Unfortunately, we cannot medicate foreign leaders, no matter how much it would help them. Only one kind of cure remains - regime change. Nobody wants to do it, but the alternatives of merely taking out nuclear facilities, etc. are anti-Machiavellian. This man is an implacable enemy of US ('the great satan') and Israel, which it won't even dignify by naming, calling it a cancerous growth. Europe is also in Ayatollah's sights, after freezing the Iran's central banks assets, and beginning to institute an oil embargo.

Japan found itself in a similar economic blockade after US placed an embargo on the oil in the West Indies. It chose to strike first, hitting Peal Harbor. In its present situation, it's not inconceivable that Iran may opt for a first strike. It has recently demonstrated its willingness to take risks, by attempting to hire Mexican drug cartel to assassinate the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Washington, D.C. Iran didn't have much concern about collateral damage and the possibility of killing Americans on US soil, either.

Jerusalem Post recently published an article entitled "Israel isn't about to hit Iran: Get used to it!" by Barry Rubin. He is the director of the GLORIA institute, author of many books on the Middle East, who modestly calls himself a 30-year 'student' of the region, and is typically flawless in his analysis. Rubin laid out logical reasons against the Israeli strike: the risks are too high, the benefits are uncertain. However, Ayatollahs deranged, pathological hatred makes Israel's calculation very difficult. Could political and military leaders of a country facing an existential threat take any chances?

If Obama gave support for the 'Persian spring' in 2009, as he did for the 'Arab spring' in 2011, the regime could have been overthrown, or at least completely deligitimized Assad in Syria. Now, unless the US steps up overthrow the mullahs militarily, the only remaining questions appears to be whether Iran or Israel chooses to strike first, and when.