AMERICA AT WAR
At Salem the Soldier's Homepage ~
Honored member of FReeper Leapfrog's "Enemy of Islam" list.
Islam, a Religion of Peace®? Some links... by backhoe
The Clash of Ideologies - A Review
Posted on 11/12/2005 7:37:38 AM PST by F14 Pilot
When Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad made his "wipe Israel off the map" remarks last month, many diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic rushed to explain, read between the lines and relativize what was an unambiguous statement of Teheran's long-established policy. They expressed the hope that Iran would "clarify" - meaning soften - its position.
That was followed by feverish diplomatic activities, mainly by the United Nations' Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to persuade Teheran to tone down Ahmadinejad's remarks. (Annan was forced to cancel a planned visit to Teheran after the Iranians told him they would not allow any conciliatory phrases into the final communique.)
Last week, however, Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi, the nation's ultimate decision-maker under the Khomeinist Constitution, not only gave his ringing endorsement to Ahmadinejad's remarks, but went further by offering his "vision for Palestine."
Addressing a congregation at the end of Ramadan, Khamenehi said Iran rejected the two-states formula proposed by the US, and would fight for the creation of a single state encompassing Israel and the Palestinian territories. In such a state, power would be in the hands of Muslims, although some Jews would be allowed to remain, under unspecified conditions.
Khamenehi went further by suggesting that Israel's political and military leaders, especially Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, be tried on charges of crimes against humanity.
WHY HAS Teheran decided to play hardball? The answer is that it wants a clash with the US over the future of the Middle East, and is convinced that it can win.
For almost a quarter of a century the Islamic Republic has been trying to change the status quo in the region while the US sought to preserve it. After 9/11 President George W. Bush transformed the US into an anti-status quo power and introduced major changes by toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Ba'ath in Iraq. Sooner or later a new status quo has to emerge in the Middle East. The question is whether it will be shaped by the US or by Iran.
Ahmadinejad believes that Iran has a better chance of putting its imprint on the new Middle East. The US lacks staying power and Bush is an aberration in contemporary American history. All that the Islamic Republic needs to do is wait until the Bush presidency is either politically destroyed by its opponents in Washington or comes to the end of its term. Then, once Bush is crippled or gone, no American leader would have the stomach for a fight with Iran.
In the meantime, the only regional powers capable of challenging Iran's leadership are out of the race for different reasons. Turkey has decided to become part of Europe, and would not cherish the prospect of being sucked into the Middle East's deadly politics. Egypt, for its part, is heading for a period of instability under an octogenarian leader who just managed to retain power with the support of no more than 12% of the electorate in a rigged election.
Iran, on the other hand, has become more powerful. Internally, the soft-liners have been kicked out, allowing a new generation of radical revolutionaries to seize control of all levers of state power. Iran's oil income is at an all-time high, allowing the new president to buy popular support.
Abroad, while the US is bogged down by the insurgency in Iraq and the periodical resurfacing of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Iran has formed solid alliances in both countries. Iran has also emerged as the main supporter of Palestinian radical movements, some of which had been without a patron since the fall of Saddam Hussein. Next February, Teheran is scheduled to host the largest gathering of radical leaders from across the Muslim world to endorse its one-state formula for ending the Israel-Palestine conflict. Syria, isolated and terrified, has become even more dependent on Iranian support while Iran, operating through Hizbullah, remains a major player in Lebanon.
THE NEW Iranian leadership is also encouraged by the current weakness of the European Union. Germany is apparently unable to form a new government while Britain's influence is fading as Premier Tony Blair becomes a political lame duck. As for France, it is facing a Muslim intifada while its top three leaders are tearing each other apart over who should be a presidential candidate in 2007. Italy is heading for elections that seem certain to spell the end of pro-American Premier Silvio Berlusconi and the return of weak coalition governments.
Closer to home, Iran is positioning its pawns.
After more than a decade of relative quiet, Teheran has also reactivated its network of Shi'ite contacts in the Persian Gulf region.
A Shi'ite coalition was formed in Kuwait last month, while two Shi'ite parties in Bahrain have been told to go on the offensive against the emir and his policy of rapprochement with Israel. Teheran has also resumed contact with Saudi Shi'ite opposition leaders in exile.
In the meantime, Iran's massive military buildup has been accelerated, and it is no longer a mystery that the new leadership is seeking a nuclear arsenal within three to five years.
Teheran also counts on support form China and Russia. Thirsty for energy, China needs Iran, which holds the world's third-largest oil reserves and second-largest gas deposits. A plan, originally negotiated under the shah in 1975, for building 25 oil refineries in China was revived last September as part of Ahmadinejad's "Look East" policy. Russia needs Iran for two reasons: to help counter American influence in the Caspian Basin and Central Asia, and to forestall revolt among Russia's Muslim communities.
Iran also hopes to revive the moribund non-aligned movement as a global anti-American forum, with the help of allies such as President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela.
The state-owned media in Teheran are in combative gear. Echoing Ahmadinejad's analysis, the Iranian media present the West, led by the US, as a "sunset" (ofuli) power that must be taken on and defeated by a tolue'e (sunrise) Islamic power led by Iran. In that context the destruction of Israel becomes a key element in Teheran's strategy in the Middle East because Ahmadinejad knows that radical Sunni Arabs will not accept the leadership of Shi'ite Iran unless it is perceived as the only power capable of realizing their dream of wiping Israel off the map.
If that's all it needs to do, why force the issue years before the end of his term by so brazenly pursuing nukes and producing a spiffy campaign marketing genocide against Jews?
I hadn't heard that. Wayne was a solid conservative and Ford was a weak conservative. But compared to Jimmy he was a General Patton.
Just goes to show, the GOP can't just put anyone on their ticket every four years...sometimes the base won't show up if so called moderates like Ford, Dole and, now, people named Bush nominated.
In foreign policy W is without doubt the strongest most determined president I've seen in my life time. Ford was like Nixon, he believed in detente. But Reagan said that detente is what you have with your turkey just before Thanks Giving.
Carter was an utter fool. His foreign policy was be nice to your enemies and stab your allies in the back. And gut our military in the process. He told us that we had an inordinate fear of communism while pardoning the draft dodgers who had fled to Canada.
I remember those times like they were yesterday. I was working at Lockheed Martin in Denver with an Iranian technician in the early 80's who told me he was a member of the Shah's elite body guard and had fled after the revolution in fear for his life.
He was one of the good guys. And totally disgusted with the religious fanaticism that was enveloping his country.
The more overt they are the better it is for us.
Well said! I sometimes wonder if the failures of Nixon and Ford helped to allow Carter to the White House. But also, I think that Carter's failures helped Reagan win.
Luckily, Carter did not get the opportunity to put a judge on the Supreme Court.
Judges are one of my top issues when voting, but I'll never understand why Nixon could only get one conservative Judge (Rehnquist) of the four he got to choose for the Supreme Court. If Nixon had chosen all conservative judges, there are a lot issues that would still be with the states...including abortion, since four conservative judges along with the one conservative judge (Byron White) picked by Kennedy would have not allowed the Roe v. Wade decision or allowed all the environmental regulations that came so quickly after Nixon established the EPA. Gerald Ford's only judicial choice, John Paul Stevens, is one that hopefully will retire soon.
bttt
Excellent. I hope Israel works it's magic with it's accurate target shooting. I won't hold my breath for our own leaders to finish what was started on 9/11. If Bush could launch one last strike, he would go down in history as the savior of Western civilization from the techno-barbarians. With the targeted assasination of the radical Muslim leaders, he would save countless American lives. Go Bush. Go to the heart of the axis of evil! Show them that we Americans will never give up!
Iraq is closer than Israel, and 75% of our entire active military are the target. Russia and China, who are supplying the missiles and the nuclear technology plan to take care of the other 25% at home.
Islam rides a Red horse.
(Revelations 6:3
When He opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature saying, "Come *and see."
4 Another horse, fiery red, went out. And it was granted to the one who sat on it to take peace from the earth, and that people should kill one another; and there was given to him a great sword.
The BAF crowd hangs out on other forums...
..........................................
...the Clintons came to the White House and allowed technological secrets to get to China in return for big contributions to the democrats by one of the companies dealing with China.
Hope you don't mind. I just hate unfinished sentences...
If the gang in Tehran gets a nuke, they will use it, for mohammed.
However,it is time for a little less knee-jerk,Pavlovian responding and a little more reflecting on the Aspens that are turning. Don't you agree?
Sounds like a potential target rich environment!
Sure they can reach us.
A freighter or tanker in any harbor USA.
And I doubt anyone will want to claim responsibilty when that happens... hence the MAD doctrine goes out the window.
That's the point.
They don't need to claim responsibility.
The goal is to both kill us and bankrupt us. It isn't terrorism in the strict sense of trying to cause wide spread fear. They're trying to actually destroy us.
In a tanker or freighter that could have come from anywhere, trying to determine where it came from after the fact would be very difficult. Pretty much nothing left...
Or small nukes placed at strategic locations (military bases) would leave us with our pants down while we tried to figure out what happened. The Russians and Chinese both stand to benefit from this strategy. Or, several large cities vaporized would also put them in a position to offer "help" to us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.