Posted on 07/16/2006 7:55:45 AM PDT by A. Pole
Opening a security conference in Tehran on July 8, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad exhorted the Islamic world to mobilize against Israel and "remove the Zionist regime." People in the region are growing furious, he said. "It will not be long before this intense fury will lead to a huge explosion."
Four days later, Hezbollah terrorists staged a raid across Israel's northern border, kidnapping two Israeli soldiers and killing eight more. Over the next day, more than 120 rockets rained down across northern Israel.
[...]
Twenty-seven years ago was 1979, the year that Islamist radicals loyal to the Ayatollah Khomeini invaded the US embassy in Tehran and held dozens of American diplomats hostage for the next 444 days. Washington's response was weak and feckless, as it would be time and again in the years that followed. Only after 9/11 did the United States finally acknowledge that it was in a war with militant Islam and began fighting back in earnest. But not against Iran, which continues, unscathed and unrepentant, to stoke the terrorist fires. [...]
We will never win this war, Ledeen and others argue, until the Iranian theocracy is brought down. That does not have to mean military action. Our aim instead should be to empower Iran's restive population, which is largely pro-Western and moderate. Give them as much support as possible, much as the Reagan administration did for Lech Walesa and Solidarity in Poland -- and let them find the means to reclaim their government for themselves.
Israel may be able to inflict a punishing defeat on Hezbollah, but regime change in Tehran will require American resolve. Will we muster that resolve before the mullahs get the bomb?
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Iran is"The Puppet Master"of TERRORISTS!Hezbollah,Hamas,etc.,are it's PUPPETS!!!We need to take out Iran!!!!Syria is just another of it's PUPPETS!!!!!
Slight difference. I don't have immediate access to the article, and there was a thread on FR a while back, but Carter actually had a hand in the overthrow of the Shah at the time (had something to do with the Shah refusing some sweetheart deal for one of Carter's buddies/vested interests). If I can dig it up, it provides interesting reading.
The Tudeh Party had plenty of "foreign support," as well, if you know what I mean.
Oh, yeah, they're in exile, also.
Wow! Is that screwed up!@ How about "No US president other than JIMMY CARTER would help tear down the very pro-western leader of a country, so that a US hating regime could stir up an uprising".
I was in both countries, Poland and Iran, during these movements. There is no doubt that the Shah was supported by the US and the West, but he also had a firm grip on power and a constituency. He was overthrown by a combination of forces inside and outside of Iran. Personally, I believe the US and Jimmy Carter had more to do with the downfall of the Shah than anyone else. The US constantly counselled the Shah not to use Savak to put down the revolution in the name of human rights. Carter actually aided the Iranian revolutionaries by his statements.
The Mullahs hijacked the Iranian Revolution and eliminated many of the exile Iranian intelligensia who came in to take leading roles in the new goverment, e.g., Yazdi. Khomeinhi waas also in exile in France. The present Iranian regime does not enjoy wide public support. They are just as susceptible as the Shah except they have no compunction in employing the levers of power to surpress dissent.
Jaruzelski thought of himself as a patriot and not a puppet of the Soviets hence his great umbrage at Weinberger's statement that he was a Russian dressed up in a Polish uniform. The Polish communist party stayed in power because of their own repressive tactics and did not depend upon the Soviets to keep them in power. Albeit, the threat of Soviet intervention was always there.
Reagan and the Pope played a great role in supporting the forces of revolution in Poland. As strange as it sounds, they performed a role similar to Carter in that regard, except that they were on the right side. Poland is much better off after its revolution than Iran is after theirs. In Iran, the choice was different.
Shah acquired dictatorial powers in 1953 through the coup against secular government of Mossadeq, thanks to the foreign support. The present Iranian regime does have real social base in Iran and does not need to rely on foreign sponsors.
I disagree with your point. It is a distinction without a difference. Many of the countries in the world with despotic governments don't have to rely on foreign support to keep them in power. Instead, they use fear and repression to stay in charge.
The demonstrations and riots in Iran, boycotting of elections, etc. show that the current Iranian regime does not enjoy popular support. The current Iranian contretemps over nuclear weapons, statements calling for the anniliation of Israel, etc. are really attempts by the regime to focus on external threats and unite the public. I view it as a sign of weakness and vulnerablity. The majority of Iranians want to rid themselves of the mullahs.
LOL. It took me a minute to get it (hadn't heard Barbara Ann in years). Found this video from 1965. My whole day just improved, despite all the seriousness over in the Mideast.
Thanks! (P.S. Did you write that? or is that a DFU?)
The demonstrations and riots can prove that the regime does not enjoy COMPLETE support. You can have strong factions opposed to the regime still enjoying significant support. And the balance can swiftly change in favor of the regime if the outsiders try to get involved.
Read what Machiavelli has to say:
HOW DANGEROUS IT IS TO BELIEVE EXILES
And it does not appear to me to be foreign to this subject to discuss among other matters how dangerous a thing it is to believe those who have been driven out of their country, these being matters that are acted upon each day by those who govern States; and I am especially able to demonstrate this by a memorable example given by T. Livius in his history, even though it may be outside his subject.
When Alexander the Great crossed with his army into Asia, Alexander of Epirus, his brother-in-law and uncle, came with his forces into Italy, having been called there by the exiled Lucanians, who had given him the hope that he could through their means occupy all that province. Whence he, upon their faith and hope, having come into Italy, was killed by them, because they had been promised a return to their Country by the Citizens if they would kill him. It ought to be considered, therefore, how vain are the faith and promises of those who find themselves deprived of their country. For, as to their faith, it has to be borne in mind that anytime they can return to their country by other means than yours, they will leave you and look to the other, notwithstanding whatever promises they had made you. As to their vain hopes and promises, such is the extreme desire in them to return home, that they naturally believe many things that are false and add many others by art, so that between those they believe and those they say they believe, they fill you with hope, so that relying on them you will incur expenses in vain, or you undertake an enterprise in which you ruin yourself.
The previously mentioned example of Alexander is enough for me, but in addition, that of Themistocles, the Athenian, who, having been declared a rebel, fled to Darius in Asia, where he promised him so much if he should want to assault Greece, that Darius turned to that enterprise. Themistocles, not being able to observe these promises, he poisoned himself, either from shame or from fear of punishment. And if this error was made by Themistocles, a most excellent man, it ought to be considered how much more those men err who, because of less virtue, allow themselves to be drawn by their desires and passions. A Prince, therefore, ought to go slowly in undertaking an enterprise upon the representations of an exile, for most of the times he will be left either with shame or very grave injury.
(DISCOURSES, 2ND BOOK, CHAPTER XXXI)
Inspector Cluseau: Special delivery. It is a bomb. Were you expecting one? (does a double take) A bomb??????!!!!
Shalom.
Monty tag line, love it!
It depends on how they get involved. You can provide covert assistance similar to what we did in Afghanistan to remove the Soviets or overt participation like we did the second time around to take down the Taliban. Reagan's "evil empire" characterization of the Soviets and the Pope's moral leadership aided the Polish resistance to the Communists along with some other kinds of covert assistance.
It was obvious that Carter had personal animosity towards the Shah, as is evidenced by the fact that he refused asylum for him, and worked behind the scenes to pressure other countries not to provide asylum. As was typical of him, Carter made public statements during the unrest that signaled to the radical Islamists that the US would do nothing to back the Shah.
After the coup and the hostage taking, Carter worsened the situation by using the hostage taking as political leverage against Ted Kennedy in the primaries. If you recall, Carter stated he would not debate Kennedy, because it was inappropriate for the President to engage in politics while Americans were at risk. After defeating Kennedy in the primaries, Carter, of course, did start campaigning. However, his manipulation of the hostage situation resulted in the storming of several other US embassies, and other hostage situations. The US and the press ignored these situations, which generally ended up with the hostages being released after the kidnappers found out they weren't getting any political mileage.
Carter undermined the Shah, allowed the coup, made no preparations for evacuation of US personnel for a coup he was pushing for behind the scenes, legitimized hostage-taking as a political tactic by magnifying the significance of the event to defeat Ted Kennedy in the primaries, then masterminded an attempted rescue that even Mossad said was impossible, resulting in the crash of a US helicopter, the death of US troops, and creating the perception around the world that the US military was totally inept (it was, in fact, in disarray during Carter's term).
Credit to my daughter, she's another fanatic for the Pythons.
>> P.S. Did you write that? or is that a DFU?
Oops. Google is my friend... 1979!?!
No Rush use to play it a long time ago.
It all boils down to Iran.
Nah. It all boils down to sending troops to enforce the two-state Israel/Palestine solution, long overdue, not to Iran/Iraq/Syria, etc. America's troubles just got bigger when Bush walked away from moving on this. Until this is solved, strife will not end. Demographics and oil tells us so. Attempted military solutions have only exacerbated and metastasized the situation.
Ah, so. Figures, I haven't had TV since 1975, and don't listen to the radio much, and talk radio not at all. These days, "I git my news-'n-views from FreeRepublic!" That's the truth...
You might want to Podcast also. The MP3 is a great thing.
Haven't gotten into Podcasting; the reason I eschew talk radio is I get frustrated listening to one person talking. Even if interesting, the data rate is too slow, compared to reading with half a dozen windows open. But that could change, of course...
> The MP3 is a great thing.
Yep! I have a decent MP3 collection, ripped from my old CDs, and a player for use in the car. That's been a boon.
Unfortunately I think this is only a partial victory. For Israel truly to defeat Hezbollah will require an incursion into the Bekaa valley, which has been "no-go" territory for a quarter of a century now. And that will expose the IDF to a counter from Syria - Damascus is actually south of the valley and the Syrians will find the IDF operating forces' lines of communication open before them.
That means war with Syria and an overthrow of its current regime (or exile to the north). Syria cannot afford to permit the IDF to operate in the Bekaa valley and the Iranians will not permit them to permit it. And clearing out the Bekaa valley itself is likely to be a military undertaking of immense expense in terms of lives and materiel. But I do not see what less is likely to bring the desired result. It may be beyond the capacity of the IDF to mount such a campaign, at least alone; it certainly will be beyond its capacity to occupy that area and most likely would not even be attempted.
I personally believe it would be to the benefit of the U.S. and the world at large for the U.S. to support this operation by moving on southern Syria. But it won't happen, at least not unless the Iranians and Syrians provide a provocation sufficient to justify such a grave step. A pity, really - terrorist states should find that action fatal - but this is the real world and not a gameboard.
That would be a "major victory" in the war on terror states, but not a final one. That must wait for regime change in Iran and the de-toothing of the Salafi money machine. Those will be separate operations (unfortunately - I do think simultaneous operations on the part of the U.S. forces on Syria in conjunction with the IDF and Iran might be militarily feasible but politically impossible, or nearly so).
Tehran should be nuked and Syria leveled with conventional weapons. This would send a clear message to North Korea and all others who are determined to aid and abet terrorists.
This is exactly why the God of Abraham told the Hebrews when they went to war with heathen nations to destroy men, women, and children. They had become corrupt to the extent that the only solution was to completely destroy them. These militants are beyond the point of mental sanity. Our only resolve is to destroy, you cannot reason with people who do not have the capacity to reason.
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.