extremely informative.

I want to see Chomsky and Hitchens sit down and debate the middle east for a few hours.

A few things I'd appreciate if someone can explain to me.
1.Why mention the over throw of the Shah, but ignore that current Iranian popular opinion is pro-US and strongly against the Ayatollah?
2.Does America really have to accept Iranian support of Iraqi insurgents without complaint because America has backed insurgents else where?
3.When talking about American support for Saddam against Iran, it's disingenuous to leave out that America was working with most of the middle-eastern Arabs who looked to Saddam almost as a hero.
4.Why completely ignore the obvious reason to be more concerned over Iran's nuclear program than countries like Japan? That obvious reason being Iran's stated desire to remove Israel from the map. Chomsky himself points out the agreement between Iran and the EU were Iran restarts their nuclear program because their 'security' wasn't secured as promised. Let's not pretend anything but military security was at stake and Iran wants nuclear weapons to get it.
5. Why do all the talking heads on both sides refuse to discuss the real world. If Iran stops supporting Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist organizations and recognizes Israel's right to exist, then there aren't any valid complaints to throw at them anymore. As long as those are outstanding, it's pretty tough to say they are just victims of unwarranted American aggression. At the very least, Israel must be recognized as a victim as well of unwarranted Iranian aggression, which Chomsky et. al. are very reluctant to accept.