"Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran," argues Coren in the Toronto Sun. Doing the unspeakable—or, that is to say, the unspeakable for normal, sane people not afflicted with murderous psychopathy—requires "a basic understanding of history, politics and the nature of fascism."

Obviously, Mr. Coren has a tenuous grasp on these subjects, for if he did have a grasp he would realize the nation of Iran is not a threat to "world peace." Rather, the neocons pose a threat to world peace, as they have at their command the Pentagon and its mighty and destruction potential, including thousands of ready-to-go nukes.

"Not, of course, the unleashing of full-scale thermo-nuclear war on the Persian people, but a limited and tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s military facilities and its potential nuclear arsenal," continues a deluded Coren. "It is, sadly, the only response that this repugnant and acutely dangerous political entity will understand."

Even more sad is the lamentable fact Mr. Coren knows not of what he is talking about. If the United States nuked Iran, no doubt they would use low-yield "mini-nukes," for instance the earth-penetrating nuclear bunker buster, as the alleged diabolical Iranian nuke labs are below the surface in hardened bunkers.

"Our findings unequivocally refute the contention by the Bush administration and the Pentagon that nuclear bunker busters could be used in Iraq or anywhere else with minimal so-called collateral damage," writes Victor W. Sidel, MD, of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. "The nature of that 'collateral damage’ would be fatal doses of radiation to anyone within a kilometer of the explosion and acute radiation sickness for potentially thousands of people who would die excruciating deaths over several days to a week or more." In a densely populated urban area such as Tehran, this would result in hundreds of thousands, if not more than a million dead people.

"The tragedy is that innocent people will die," Coren continues. "But not many. Iran’s missiles and rockets of mass destruction are guarded and maintained by men with the highest of security clearance and thus supportive of the Tehran regime. They are dedicated to war and, thus, will die in war." As will, naturally, those not "dedicated to war," those of collateral status who are, the neocons tell us, less innocent than others—namely, Israelis and Americans—and thus of peripheral consideration.

"Frankly, it would be churlish of the civilized world to deny martyrdom to those who seem so intent on its pursuance. Most important, a limited nuclear attack on Iran will save thousands if not millions of lives."

Coren is so blinded by the neocon ideology, with its Manichean, dualistic core of cartoonish good versus evil, he is sincerely incapable of comprehending the indisputable and horrific fact that a "limited nuclear attack" would certainly not be limited, would not be contained. For as science reminds us, "unfissioned nuclear material, and weapon residues which have been vaporized by the heat of the fireball will condense into a fine suspension of very small particles 0.01 to 20 micrometers in diameter. These particles may be quickly drawn up into the stratosphere…. They will then be dispersed by atmospheric winds and will gradually settle to the earth’s surface after weeks, months, and even years as worldwide fallout," although this danger is somewhat reduced with bunker buster mini-nukes. "Atmospheric winds are able to distribute fallout over large areas" (Nuclear Weapon Radiation Effects, Federation of American Scientists).

"From a technical perspective, critics of mini-nukes argue that it would be impossible with existing technology to adequately limit the damage of the weapon," writes Benjamin Friedman for the Center for Defense Information. "Dr. Robert Nelson, of the Federation of American Scientists, has argued that a mini-nuke could not penetrate the earth deep enough to avoid creating a huge crater above the target and spreading harmful radiation for miles—the kind of damage you expect from a nuclear weapon," including the above noted atmospheric dispersal.

"The spasm of reaction from many will be that this is barbaric and unacceptable," Coren admits. "Yet a better response would be to ask if there is any sensible alternative. Diplomacy, kindness and compromise have failed and the Iranian leadership is still obsessed with all-out war against anybody it considers an enemy."

But how is this possible, considering the United States has not communicated with Iran along diplomatic lines for nearly thirty years? Moreover, Coren refuses to put the conflict between Iran and the United States into its proper context.

A brief trip to the National Security Archive, readily and easily available online, reveals the history of the CIA’s operation TPAJAX, engineered to overthrow the democratically elected leader Mossadeq in Iran, circa 1953. "Perhaps the most general conclusion that can be drawn from [the National Security Archive] documents is that the CIA extensively stage-managed the entire coup, not only carrying it out but also preparing the groundwork for it by subordinating various important Iranian political actors and using propaganda and other instruments to influence public opinion against Mossadeq," explains Mark Gasiorowski.

In addition to deposing the elected leader of Iran for the crime of nationalizing the country’s oil, thus denying British Petroleum exclusive rights, the CIA installed a tyrannical monarch, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi (Shah-an-Shah, or King of Kings), and his brutal Gestapo, SAVAK, founded in 1957 with the assistance of the CIA and the Israeli Mossad.

"SAVAK increasingly to symbolized the Shah’s rule from 1963-79, a period of corruption in the royal family, one-party rule, the torture and execution of thousands of political prisoners, suppression of dissent, and alienation of the religious masses," notes GlobalSecurity.

"Over the years, SAVAK became a law unto itself, having legal authority to arrest and detain suspected persons indefinitely. SAVAK operated its own prisons in Tehran (the Komiteh and Evin facilities) and, many suspected, throughout the country as well. SAVAK’s torture methods included electric shock, whipping, beating, inserting broken glass and pouring boiling water into the rectum, tying weights to the testicles, and the extraction of teeth and nails. Many of these activities were carried out without any institutional checks."

From Mr. Coren, we hear no mention of these brutalities and injustices, thus prompting the conclusion Coren and the neocons either approve of such behavior or cannot be bothered to care, as it stands in the way of their clash of civilizations ideology. For Coren and the neocons, it is irrelevant the current government of Iran, admittedly a militant version of Islam, is the direct result of the 1953 coup and the installation of the Shah and his CIA and Mossad tutored thugs.

Next, Coren expends a lot of verbiage complaining about Iran’s Shahab 3ER and BM25 missiles, "which are so powerful that they can hit targets in Europe," as if the Iranians actually plan to do this, thus expecting us to believe the Iranian leadership is insane and suicidal.

Of course, for Coren and the neocons, the development of such missiles reveals a nefarious desire to kill all infidels, especially the Israelis, never mind Israel has more than 400 nuclear bombs and is stocked with the latest military technology from the United States.

For Coren, the mullahs are worse than the Nazis. "Comparisons to the Nazis in the 1930s are unfair—to the Nazis. Hitler had the French army, the largest in Europe, on his border and millions of Soviet infantry just a few hours march away. Iran has no aggressive enemies in the region." Except Israel, conveniently left unmentioned, is a nation that routinely calls for attacking Iran.

"Its fanatical leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, controls a brutal police state, finances international terror and provokes bloody wars in foreign countries." Of course, Coren is making reference here to Hezbollah and Hamas, two self-defense organizations completely legitimate under the charter of the United Nations, as Israel has invaded Lebanon on numerous occasions and continues to occupy Palestine and subject the Palestinian people to unspeakable brutality and violence. As for provoking "bloody wars," the United States has done a heck of a job in neighboring Iraq.

"A conventional attack would be insufficient because Iran and its allies seem only to listen to power and threat. Better limited pain now than universal suffering in five years."

A bit of translation is in order here: conventional shock and awe, as proposed by at least some of the neocons, is "insufficient" because it would not inflict the required degree of "pain" on the people of Iran, that is to say nuclear bombs would be more effective in destroying the country’s infrastructure and thus ushering in the sort of massive and criminal chaos unleashed on the people of Iraq and, to a somewhat lesser degree, Afghanistan. Indeed, if the neocons use nukes against Iran, there will be "universal suffering," not only for Iranians but for millions of others exposed to radiation, delivered by way of the closed system of the planet’s biosphere.

Michael Coren and the neocons are criminally insane. In a prefect world, they would be duly arrested, outfitted in orange jumpsuits, tried by a jury of their peers under the rule of law, and punished accordingly.

However, as it now stands, we live in a less than perfect world and these psychopaths are allowed to espouse their murderous nonsense in corporate newspapers, thus infecting those of lesser discerning capacity to the sway of their hateful and nihilistic pathology.