I don't think you're wrong. Is a secular democracy is achieved, the question will - and should - be : how long until the next revolution brings a new Ayatollah? That's another part of the reason we can't use military intervention in Iran. Along with Carter's destruction of the Shah, their hatred of us during their revolution, US alliance with Iraq in the hopes Iraq would defeat Iran (revenge by proxy in the face of near universal Iraqi and Iranian hatred for us). Combined with Iranian hatred for us, which continues to this day.
Iraqis don't love us either. They may be happy to be free, they welcome us, but they do not love us. They don't even trust us. We're a tool for them to get what they want, nothing more. In general this is the way the entire Arab world sees us. It's a form of arrogance and disdain on the order of the way Old Europe feels about us...and the UN. Now the Iraqis have got what they wanted, and they want us out...especially the Iranian backed tools of the mad mullahs so recently returned from Iranian 'exile' to Iraq.
The assurances coming out of Defense were little more than hype I hope.
I know for a fact the US plans no military aid for student dissidents in Iran unless something happens...hopefully nothing short of massacre, which the UN will be forced to take notice of.
Please no one get me wrong : I don't WANT innocent Iranian kids massacred by their nutzo government...but US interests should be our number one interests. Iran got itself into this, and for now it's in US interests for Iran to get itself out.
We wish them luck, we support their cause, but we're not going in. It would be stupid right now, it won't stop the terrorism, it would weaken our resolve and weaken us militarily. We need to concentrate on securing Iraq, while supporting the insurgants as much as we can.
Other than that, the devil with them. They're not Arabs. They're not predominantly Sunni. They are predominantly Shiite, however, and therefore will never be reliable allies in this fight against islamic terrorism.
I'm very, very pleased with the outcome in Iraq. It's quite a prize and I think it'll be viewed by historians as the turning point in our war against terrorism. Iran is almost a footnote.
BTW, does anybody know if it is true that Ghengis Khan wiped out all the original Persians? In other words, there are no real Persians left today; all the so-called Persians of today are really the descendants of invaders and other interlopers. (Well, that was a topic of discussion a few months ago, but I never saw the conclusion of it. Sounds a bit unlikely to me. Just wonder if it was ever settled to anyone's satisfaction.)
Right. If the Iranians have to EARN their freedom with their own blood, they are more likely to keep it when the next batch of mullahs roll into town.
For a people to KEEP their freedom, they must have FOUGHT for it. They must be comfortable with the idea of CONTINUING to fight for it whenever new threats to their liberties appear. They must be left with the attitude that any mullah that comes around telling them how to live, needs to be attached to the nearest tree, and that they won't wait for any outside help to show up -- the first Iranian seeing the need gets to do it.
Without this ATTITUDE of liberty, which will only come from having to FIGHT for it, and seeing friends and relatives DIE for it, their liberty will melt and evaporate like a snowball in the hot Middle-Eastern sun. Bleeding for a cause will create passion -- and fighting for it will induce a willingness to "deal with" any threats to it, on an immediate and individual basis
Remember, the surrounding Islamic theocracies CANNOT tolerate a state which has repudiated Islam (which is what thowing out the mullahs MEANS), and will declare all of Iran an Apostate region -- which will put Iran HIGHER on the hit list than Israel