I would like to point out, though, that while Iran's interests do not align with our interests, Al Qaeda's interests do not align with our existance, something I find all together more troubling. For that reason, I would rather we capture Osama Bin Laden instead of Ahmadinejad.

Also, Bill Gertz, Richard Miniter, Ken Timmerman and Curt Weldon have all written books discussing Iranian connections to Al Qaeda...

It was the impression that I got, but I was not saying that's what you meant, which explains the ?

but then you respond with,

*****Iran's goal is to replace western (US) hegemony in the region with their own, Al Qaeda's goal is to replace governments and institutions with their own. To that end, they are antithetical to each other. Hamas and Islamic Jihad want to replace Israel with an Islamic state, which Iran wants in it's sphere of influence. To that end, they are compatible.*****

replace?

do you see why now?

Those are some very soft words for what I see as 4 different banners of the same murder-crazed fanatical true believers and it seemed like the first time you where excusing 3 of them as not so bad,and you seemed to infer that because they were after Israel, which explains my use of the analogy of good and bad.

And all on Dubya's watch.

Regards, C

I honestly don't get much out of this story. The present Iranian regime is not favorably-disposed to us. They have interests of their own. They're willing to support other enemies of ours against us. How is any of this earth-shattering?

Stories of this sort are mostly good for generating complaints that we're ginning up a war against Iran.

Agitprop.

Co-incidentally, Heritage Foundation insider and blogger Captain Ed will have Lake and some bod from the Heritage Foundation on CQ radio tonight. Smooth.

Regards, C

I didn't say Hamas and Islamic Jihad are good terrorists (there is no such thing anyway), I said that they don't pose a threat to Iran. You'll also notice I never mentioned Israel in my post, and was referring only to positions on foreign *Islamic* governments.

Iran's goal is to replace western (US) hegemony in the region with their own, Al Qaeda's goal is to replace governments and institutions with their own. To that end, they are antithetical to each other. Hamas and Islamic Jihad want to replace Israel with an Islamic state, which Iran wants in it's sphere of influence. To that end, they are compatible.

So Hammas and Islamic Jihad are good terrorists because they only want to destroy Israel? And Iran is not Fanatical Isalmists because of this same position, and Al Qaeda are are bad terrorists because they might turn on the good terrorists?

Uhh...Why don't we ever hear about SAUDI ARABIA?!?!

Given the fact that most of the foreign fighters captured in Iraq are from Saudi, maybe we should start putting pressure on the Wacky Whabbis who are the main supporters of Al Qaeda?!?

Come now, how is this going to help us start a war with Iran? Let's get serious.

It is long past time that one important piece of fantastical rubbish be finally sent on its way: this is the idea that Islamists maintain some kind of fastidious ethnic and theological separatism when it comes to who they’re willing to work with on killing people.

The Iranians, contrary to some people's beliefs, are not fanatical Islamists. Al Qaeda may be willing to work with Iran, but I doubt Iran would have any interest in working with Al Qaeda. They don't have the same goals, operating procedures, or even enemies. On top of all that. Iran couldn't trust Al Qaeda, because they'd be as much a target in the future as the USA is now.

The co-option of Hamas and Islamic Jihad (Sunni Arab) by Iran (Shia Persian) is one piece of reality that intrudes on this comforting notion;

Neither Hamas nor Islamic Jihad want to overthrow the government of other Islamic states, they pose no threat to Iran's government and provide a popular propaganda tool. Al Qaeda on the other hand would just as soon overthrow the Iranian government and Supreme Council.