It all boils down to Iran

The Boston Globe ^ | July 16, 2006 | Jeff Jacoby

[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?

[Hunble]

Today, the "good guys" have Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan. The "bad guys" have Syria and Iran.

If you study a map of the Middle East, you will find that Syria and Iran are currently surrounded.

There will never be a better time in history to confront Syria and Iran, than at this present moment. We must do it NOW!

The "good guys" can only grow weaker with time. If we fail to take advantage of this unique segment of history, then millions of people will die as a result.

The World witnessed what happened after Vietnam and the 2,000,000 deaths in Cambodia. That was a direct result of America's failure to perform it's duty.

If America and Israel fail to take advantage of this unique historical convergence, then once again, we will be responsible for millions of future deaths.

Why? Because we failed to do what was required, no matter how difficult, when it mattered the most.

I honestly hope that these millions of future deaths, will not end up being President Bush's historical legacy.

[af_vet_1981]

The only "huge explosion" should be a nuclear one in the middle of Tehran.

There should be a concerted and relentless campaign to topple the regime and its assets first.

[A. Pole]

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.

I have a question to all anti-Syrian zealots on FR. If Syria is a terrorist regime why the terrorist suspects were "rendered" to Syria for interrogation?

[A. Pole]

Our only resolve is to destroy, you cannot reason with people who do not have the capacity to reason.

We have to be careful to assume that our enemy is subhuman. But it is very hard to suppress the enemy or take his land if we do not do it. We need to look good in our own eyes and the eyes of others.

When Americans were taking land from Indians, Indians were exactly as subhuman, savage and evil.

Is there a more humane or godly way to conquer? Maybe making the vanquished into subjects and mingling with them (as Catholic Spaniards did in Latin America) is superior. But one has to have moral strength for that.

[A. Pole]

The World witnessed what happened after Vietnam and the 2,000,000 deaths in Cambodia. That was a direct result of America's failure to perform it's duty.

BTW, it was USA which destabilized Cambodia, it was Vietnamese Communists who put end to the Pol Pot rule, and it was USA with China who kept remnants of Khmer Rouge alive.

The collapse of Vietnam started with US undermining the regime of Diem

Everybody should see the film Quiet American (or read the prophetic book with the same title on which this film is based).

[Billthedrill]

I do not know. But I will state that Syria was, if you recall, on the coalition side during the first Gulf War.

Their government is walking a tightrope as well between a restive population that has rebelled once in recent history and Iranian pressure to continue to act as a staging area for a proxy war. If I could muster up sympathy for young Mr. Assad it would be on that basis.

But that government has also committed a deep offense in a detailed and deadly support for the "insurgents" in Iraq targeting Americans. On that basis I suppose you could class me an "anti-Syria zealot." Zealotry has, actually, little to do with it. A frank and objective assessment of Syria's actions with respect to foreign policy leads me to believe that the world would be better off with its current government replaced.

Shall we tot up the positives? That Gulf War I support. The withdrawal from Lebanon. And the negatives? The 20-year occupation of Lebanon preceding the withdrawal. The Hariri assassination that caused it. The support for the Ba'athist terrorists in Iraq. Acting as a conduit for Iranian weapons and personnel supporting Hezbollah.

That isn't a happy scorecard from the point of view of our support or even tolerance of the terrorist state that Syria absolutely is and has been for years. If I thought that might change without force I'd be all for it, but I don't honestly think that. And it has to change.

[A. Pole]

If America and Israel fail to take advantage of this unique historical convergence, then once again, we will be responsible for millions of future deaths.

One needs to be a true prophet inspired by God himself to predict the future and to know who will cause millions of deaths.

Between WWI and WWII for people like you it was obvious that the main danger is from the genocidal Bolsheviks and that Fascists should be supported as the main hope for defeating the Red Menace.

The next disaster will come from the LEAST expected direction.

[evangmlw]

You must understand these radical nuts have been directed by God to detroy Israel and all who are not Muslims as themselves. They have been brainwashed by years of being taught this is their mission and purpose in life. They will be destroyed, or they will destroy us! There is no such thing as being rational with these corrupted to the bone heathen savages. This is the only solution! We are at war and war means destroy the enemy. How did we defeat Japan? By destroying them and teaching them how to be civilized human beings. Today, they are our best friends! Mingle with these heathen and they will sever your head from your torso my friend, where have you been for the past few years?

[A. Pole]

I do not know.

Well, think about. Maybe here is the key.

[Billthedrill]

I shall do that. Thank you for the discussion.

[Radix]

"When Americans were taking land from Indians, Indians were exactly as subhuman, savage and evil."

The Spaniards easily conquered the Aztecs and the Incas, et al; because up to that period of time, there were no horses, pigs, cows, and other domestic animals on the continent which had pre-innoculated them to have resistance or immunity to certain diseases.

Perhaps the Indians were savages and subhuman and evil.

Maybe, but they were not going out of their way to disrupt the world by terrorizing innocent people everywhere.

I do not care for your analogy that American Indians were as despicable as are the real sub humans who nowadays go by the name Ayatollah, Imam, or whatever leadership nomenclature of that rotten cult.

[MVV]

Iran needs to be watched very closely these days. I am very concerned about them and Syria. Very dangerous days lie ahead in this region.

[A. Pole]

The Spaniards easily conquered the Aztecs and the Incas, et al; because up to that period of time, there were no horses, pigs, cows, and other domestic animals on the continent which had pre-innoculated them to have resistance or immunity to certain diseases.

At least in the case of Aztecs there was another reason. Aztec rule was quite nasty and for their Indian serfs the Spanish rule represented the huge improvement. So the majority of population sided with the new masters.

If you were given the choice between Aztec and Spanish rule whom would you prefer?

In general Spaniards with their feudal/Catholic mentality were looking for subjects so they could have the comfortable status of hidalgos (aristocrats) in the New World. That way the Spanish/Indian two class societies were formed and after passing of time they started to mingle. For example most of today Mexicans are Mestizo.

The self-reliant Anglo Protestants on the other hand had not much use for Indians. It was more convenient if the savages went out of the picture.

[Radix]

Well said.

[humint]

ARTICLE: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.

APOLE: There is one key error Jeff Jacoby view (shared by many). The Solidarity was a popular movement against the regime imposed from outside. So was the Islamic Revolution against shah dictatorship (BTW both movements took place at similar time). 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.

The Iranian government has its origins in an ideological minority among Iranian society. Its power stems from its ability to create fanatics and a willingness to commit violence against the majority. History suggests that theirs is an extremely fragile system that survives on crisis and foreign sponsors who manifest in the form of oil and LNG contracts. The Iranian government represents isolationists, of which there could be many in Iran, but theirs is an agenda destined to fail.

The truth is, I harbor a deep sympathy for your perspective however, it is part and parcel to why Iranians suffer today. As the threat from Iran’s nuclear program looms larger, yours is a logic that is quickly becoming… unforgivable. It is an irrefutable fact that this and future Iranian governments are inextricably linked to global affairs. Iran has a real and tangible responsibility to other nations because of its contributions to the global energy trade. It is of no consequence that the Iranian people did not choose and may not even want partial responsibility for the global economy. Face it, if you’re an Iranian, your life in that country IS NOW, and for the foreseeable future, WILL BE, subject to foreign influence.

You’re right about Iran’s history with “foreign sponsors”, but why is it so repulsive? It’s repulsive because of the nature of Iranian leadership, not because of foreign sponsors. There are numerous examples of resource rich nations that leverage foreign influence to their advantage. It’s no accident that the responsibility for those successes goes to democratic leaders. Conversely, where there is a democracy deficit, resource rich nations are prone to give and receive violence. This should be a profound lesson to Iran’s regime change advocates. What is required by committed Iranian dissidents is to establish healthy and deeply interactive relationships with the democratic leadership of their future foreign sponsors. If Iranian dissidents try to limit their relationships and ignore the economic implications of their ambitions, they will not only fail themselves, they will fail the Iranian people.