Set My People Free
November 04, 2003
The Wall Street Journal
The U.S. blessing for the joint trip by the foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany to Tehran demonstrates a spirit of unity absent in their recent past. It is understandable that the specter of the foremost state sponsor of terrorism acquiring nuclear weapons should unite the EU and the U.S. in great fear.
But which is the greater component of that fear: Is it the nuclear state or the terrorist regime? In Iran's immediate neighborhood, in one of the least technologically advanced regimes, the Taliban's allies demonstrated that all they need is box cutters to use the free world's own resources against it. Yet nuclear-armed Pakistan is frequently praised as an ally in the war against terror. So it is the character of the regime, rather than the technology it possesses, that constitutes the greater part of the threat.
Then why doesn't the international community come together on the greater part of its fear, and declare its unambiguous opposition to a terrorist regime in such a strategic region? Why doesn't it unite with Iran's people, whose loudly demonstrated wish is to be rid of the only regime in the world whose theocratic constitution specifically rejects popular sovereignty?
Why the double talk from the West? Sometimes it is recognized that Iran is governed by an unelected few. But we also hear that Iran is democratic because it holds elections -- even though unelected cabals veto candidates; more journalists are in jail than in any other country; a self-styled judiciary is accountable to none; and, most importantly, the elected president, now in the second half of his last term, confesses that he never had the power to carry out his mandate.
The explanation may be the belief that the 50 theocrats who rule Iran are thuggish enough to keep Iranians enslaved for years to come, and so the world must content itself with damage limitation and containment. That belief is as wrong as it is cynical, and it is seen as such by my compatriots. It also means living in continuous fear of a catastrophe, possibly delayed by relying on "nuclear fact-finding" in a country four times Iraq's size, with deeper valleys and higher mountains than bin Laden's hideouts.
Even more ominous is Iran's approach to nuclear technology. Whereas with Saddam's paranoid compartmentalization, knowledge developed and resources accessed were confined to a tightly controlled few, Iran has a souk approach. There are mullahs who compete for public slush funds by developing networks for sourcing nuclear material and skills. No one knows who will use these networks in the future, or where and for what purpose. We only know that the theocrats have provided a safe haven and funds for nurturing these and other terror networks. But the world need not live in fear of a nuclear terrorist regime: I have no doubt that if it unites in support of democracy in Iran, it will unleash a popular force that will overwhelm the theocrats and sweep away their terrorist regime.
Mr. Pahlavi is the son of the late Shah of Iran. http://www.rezapahlavi.org/articles/wsj110403.html
To: Pan_Yans Wife; fat city; freedom44; Tamsey; Grampa Dave; PhiKapMom; McGavin999; Hinoki Cypress; ...
No leadership from diplofairies.
Time to overthrow the mullahcracy and its mad lust for its Islamist bomb.
Eschew Powell; rig for Rumsfeld.
posted on 11/04/2003 7:14:42 PM PST
(Hitlery: das Butch von Buchenvald)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson