Posted on 08/05/2006 2:46:25 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
How bloody-minded are the tyrants of Tehran? How far will they go in supporting their Hezbollah and Hamas legions against the Jewish State? Will they fight to the death of Lebanon and Gaza, or will they see the grave risk in their imperial overreach, using their uncertain ally Syria (and secret dupe Egypt) as an arms depot, and negotiate an armistice with the U.N. Security Council's proxies, the European legions?
The answer is not in the headlines, it's in the drama and history of the Shiites of the ummah known as the Twelvers. They believe profoundly and mystically in heroic martyrdom to gain Paradise. The legend of the self-sacrifice of the seventh century warlord Husayn at Kufa, the Lord of the Martyrs, Sayyid al-Shuhada, is well known. More up to date is a frightening tale from late in 1980, when secular Iraq occupied Iran's oil-rich Khuzistan province at the start of the eight-year long Iran-Iraq war.
The Khomeini-inspired revolution had purged Iran's officer cadre. The Tehran regime was without resources internally, and no help was coming from Europe or America because of the embassy hostage crisis. Desperation made the regime send tens of thousands of poorly armed volunteers to the front lines to face Iraqi armor. Catastrophe was imminent, and still Tehran would not relent or negotiate. Instead, the Council of Guardians — a governance invented by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — approved theatrics based upon Shia faith. Actors dressed in white robes rode white horses around the Iranian encampments late at night, and the pious recruits saw this display as proof of their commitment to martyr themselves.
The white-robed horseman was a vision of the Twelfth Imam, Muhammed al-Mahdi, who died, or vanished, at age five in the ninth century.
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
The Shiite Revival - Teh Belmont Club
*******************************AN EXCERPT ********************************
The Wall Street Journal describes the theories of a rising academic who believes that the central driver of instability in the Middle East is no longer Arab nationalism. It is the Islamic schism. Unfortunately most of this article is behind a subscription wall. But the excerpts below give the gist of the argument.
This is the big one folks. Forget negotiation. It's a fight to the finish. America, Israel, better fight it now because it will only be worse later. Europe, if you have any guts at all, fight it with us.
I would have never done what the Iranians did here. They basically played one of their best cards to take attention off their nuclear program. There is no evidence that the world powers will ever get together to stop Iran from getting nukes.
If I was playing this real world game of Stratego, I would have held Hezzbollah and their 13,000 rockets for a response to an attack, either by Israel or any other power.
I predict if he rides in an a horse against today's military weaponry, he's in for a severe ass whuppin'.
About the only thing he will be able to do is take all his minions to paradise.
Thank you, I read it and definitely see the parallels.
From the article
Mr. Nasr sees two main threats arising from today's Shiite revival. The first is Iranian nationalism, fueled by perceptions in Iran that a Sunni Arab-U.S. nexus wants to stifle its rise as a regional power. That explains the widespread support among Iranians for their country's nuclear program, he says. It also explains why some Iranian leaders have been sounding less like Islamic revolutionaries and more like the late shah, a Persian nationalist who extended Iran's influence into Shiite and Farsi-speaking areas beyond its borders.
The second major threat, he says, is the Sunni reaction to the Shiite revival. As Iraq's insurgents have shown, hatred of Shiites is ingrained in Sunni militancy, Mr. Nasr says. He worries about a replay of the 1980s and 1990s, when Saudi money poured into Sunni extremist groups throughout the region to counter the Shiite fervor coming out of Iran after the revolution. The same groups became the backbone of al Qaeda, Mr. Nasr says.
In a speech last year in New York, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, said it "seems out of this world" that U.S. forces would protect allies of Iran who are building a power base in Iraq. "Now we are handing the whole country over to Iran without reason," the prince said.
But Mr. Nasr says U.S. and Iranian interests in Iraq may converge because both want lasting stability there. Comparing Iran to 19th-century Prussia and Japan of the 1930s, he says it is important to manage the rise of regional powers. "You can't regulate them by isolating them," he says.
And Iran is surrounded on one side by ....US troops and the other side by ...US troops. I think it's probably time to bring down Iran. The nut cases in Iran have gone too far with their "uncivilization" of the Middle East. Sharia must die. Eight year old girls should no longer marry. And Muslim women INCLUDING those in the Saudi kingdom must be free to work, vote, DRIVE, wear makeup, get an education, divorce.
bookmark
That's exactly why I don't think Iran approved this and Hezbollah screwed up and didn't expect the Israeli response. This is much to Israel's advantage not to have rockets raining down on them from Hezbollah and Hamas when the confrontation with Iran comes.
IMO, Iran armed Hezbollah just for that ocassion...now, what do they do. It looks like Israel will now have foreign troops (at some time) protecting their northern border. I expect Iran is pissed, big time.
Israel's Arrow and Patriot missile batteries can deal with the larger rockets that will be fired from Iran. Israel is much stronger now.
Which is just one of the reasons that I was against invading Iraq.
Apparently that made me 'unpatriotic', but I believe history will vindicate my oopinion.
Either way, we are definitely living in interesting times.
We really don't know our enemy very well....but I really would like to believe you have it right ....
We invaded Iraq with a larger purpose in mind, surely. We have to have some additional Democracy western-style government holding in that area of the world - not just Israel.
The Shiites in Iraq will have to deal with other elements of Iraq just like the Republicans still have to deal with the Democrats in America. You are too far reaching in your simplistic view that the Shiites own Iraq and will team with Iran.
Welcome to democracy.
Oh I completely disagree.
I believe that at this point, only despots and strongmen can reign in the Islamists.
Note that tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of Muslims didn't march in the streets of Cairo, Riyadh or Islamabad. But they sure did in Baghdad (with urple ink still wet on their fingers)
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.