Iran ping
Posted on 09/24/2004 3:55:26 PM PDT by freedom44
After years of baffling silence, George Will has finally written about Iran. His guide is the justly celebrated Azar Nafisi, but her one-liner Will used to portray contemporary Iran — "What differentiated this revolution from the other totalitarian revolutions of the twentieth century was that it came in the name of the past" — demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the past (the Führer's movement was every bit as anti-modern as Khomeini's) and thus of the future (both forms of fascism being quite capable of asserting a terrible revolutionary claim on the destiny of all mankind and unleashing their murderous hatred on a global scale).
Worse, Mr. Will tosses off a dismissive pronunciamento so absolute and categorical that he implies it is writ in the very nature of things: "There is no plausible path to achieving (regime change in Iran)." Why? Because "the regime-changers have their hands full with the unfinished project next door to Iran."
He'd have done better to concentrate his great talent and energy on preventing major-league baseball from reaching Washington, D.C. The claim that the United States cannot possibly bring about the fall of clerical fascism in Tehran is as silly as similar claims directed at Ronald Reagan when he set about bringing an end to the evil Soviet Empire. Indeed, skepticism about our determination to defeat Soviet Communism was far more justifiable than doubts about the thoroughly plausible path to end the Iranian mullahcracy. For only a small minority of the oppressed peoples of the Soviet Empire were ever willing to openly challenge the Kremlin — as, for that matter, were the people in the Philippines under the Marcos kleptocracy, or in Yugoslavia under the mad Milosevic. Yet all came crashing down, defeated by their own people, who were inspired and supported by Americans.
In Iran today, upwards of 70 percent of the population is openly hostile to the regime, vocally desirous of freedom and democracy, and bravely supportive of the Bush Doctrine to bring democratic revolution to the entire region.
If we could bring down the Soviet Empire by inspiring and supporting a small percentage of the people, surely the chances of successful revolution in Iran are more likely. By orders of magnitude. "No plausible path," my derriere! (as Senateur Kerry might put it). Ask Comrade Gorbachev about the power of democratic revolution before you write off the Iranian people.
I think that Mr. Will got it wrong because he assumes that regime change implies military conquest. But we don't need armies of fighting American men and women to liberate Tehran; the foot soldiers are Iranians, and they are already on the ground, awaiting good leadership with a clear battle plan. The war against the Iranian terror masters will be political, not military. The weapons that will end the dreadful tyranny — so well described by Mr. Will and Mrs. Nafisi — are ideas and passions, not missiles and bullets. To our great shame, we have failed to support the Iranians' battle against their hated regime, but that is a failure of will, not a failure of means.
Mr. Will believes it inevitable that Iran will become a nuclear power in the near future, and this may well be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Surely the United Nations, the British, and the Europeans are doing everything possible to bring it to fulfillment. But this is a fallacy of "static" thinking in a rapidly changing world. South Africa and Ukraine were members of the nuclear club when they were oppressive tyrannies, but scrapped their nukes when they became free. It is certainly true that the current Iranian regime will stop at nothing until they have atomic bombs, but a free Iran might well make a different choice.
Most importantly, there is a huge difference between atomic bombs in the hands of fanatical mullahs, and atomic bombs controlled by a pro-Western and democratic country. Mr. Will says it is "surreal" for Condoleezza Rice to discuss the Iranian nuclear program in terms of what we can "allow" Iran to do, I suppose because he is convinced we have no plausible path to prevent it. That may or may not be true; I don't know if there is a politically acceptable military option, and I agree that diplomacy cannot possibly derail the mullahs' mad atomic march. But it is at least equally "surreal" to dismiss the prospects of democratic revolution in Iran, and thereby join the ranks of the appeasers.
If Reagan had listened to this sort of criticism — and there was no shortage of it in the early '80s — Gorbachev would still be managing the gulags and funding Communist movements all over the world. If Bush accepts George Will's view of Iran, we will soon see the world's primary sponsor of terror armed with atomic bombs.
It is not inevitable. We can beat them. Delay costs lives, both ours and those of the brave Iranians who challenge clerical fascism.
Faster, please.
The good leadership and battleplans will come from our Special Forces and CIA operatives that are either already in country or are on thier way in soon.
Patience please.
I think Ledeen is being overly optimistic here. While 70% of Iran may be openly hostile toward the Islamic government, this does not necessarily portend good things for the United States. I would suggest that the model for Iran's future will likely be France, in that it will end up "free" in the true sense of the word but openly distrustful of the United States. Such distrust, in fact, will be the primary motivation in that country's plans to develop a nuclear arsenal in the future.
I agree. Before the recent war in Iraq there were articles claiming there'd be dancing in the streets of Baghdad once Saddam was gone. There was nothing of the sort. Hence am cynical about the population of Iran.
http://www.cbn.com/CBNNews/CWN/020703iran.asp
By Dale Hurd
CBN News Senior Reporter
Public opinion polls regularly embarrass Iran's anti-American leadership. In surveys, most Iranians agreed with George W. Bush that their government is part of the "Axis of Evil." In one poll, most Iranians said they wanted better relations with the United States. And despite years of government propaganda, many Iranians love the US.
Also this one.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,1072-717362,00.html
"A poll conducted by a state-owned company in Tehran in February revealed that 70 per cent of Iranians had a favourable view of the US (which is thus more popular in Iran than in Britain, let alone in France and Germany).
No, both you and Kantian are wrong - or should I say misinformed by the media. The average Iranian is openly aggressive to the clerics. The old 'revolutionaries' now have teenage kids who think the revolution that their fathers fought was pure tyranny. Even their military forces when they come into contact with our personnel are friendly and courteous. The Republican Guards are the hostile fanatics.
Basically, the Iranian people feel just like we would have if Clinton had served 25 years as president. Try to imagine that. They don't give a damn what it takes - they want to be free, and they see us as their only hope. If we help them overthrow the mullahs today, they have the honor to become a strong ally once again.
Freedom in Iran ~ NOW!
I would hardly describe South Africa as "free."
Who's to say that we are not doing something right now?
I would find it hard to imagine, with this President, that we would be broadcasting the fact that we were now funding those in Iran who would overthrow the Mullahs. That would be some Clinton might do during a Election year but not Bush.
I,of course, haven't got a clue if that is happening, but one can hope. I hope, not for our sake, but for the great Persians, that they can once again take their place in the World.
If we are not doing something we dang well better start soon. Remember, that part of our problem in Iraq is that we left people hanging when they rose up against Saddam and now, rightly they don't trust us to see it through...
"The weapons that will end the dreadful tyranny.... are ideas and passions, not missiles and bullets."
I sure hope so.
"I would suggest that the model for Iran's future will likely be France, in that it will end up "free" in the true sense of the word but openly distrustful of the United States."
Why do you suggest that?
I think you're right.
And Iran certainly can become a strong ally once again.
Welcome to FR
Openly hostile to the US ? Were you even alive when the Shah was in power ? Iran was an allie before Carter sold Iranians out to the marxist mullahs.
Heh heh...not apropos of anything but a sly little dig.
Anyone who thinks that plan A to supplant the mad mullahs includes running the 3d ID through the Zagros mountains is smoking crack. Revolutions are occasionally kick-started by foreign events but this one is going to have to be done for the Iranians by the Iranians. I am sure they would like it, but have we reached the point yet where they are willing to die for it? Because I think it will take that. The Shah went quietly, but that just isn't the theocracy's style.
I can think of one precedent. When Russia was mired in combat with the eastern German front in 1917 the Germans loosed a certain little feller who had been interned up to that point and sent him in a sealed train to wreak havoc with the Tsar. Lenin. We might well think on those lines, or perhaps we already have.
The only thing though --- Persians are not Arabs --- and Islam is essentially all about Arab nationalism and control over the world. Persians had a better religion and culture before they were dominated and forced into submission by Arabs --- and you can see a pretty big difference between Arabs and Persians when they come to the USA to live or study or travel --- Persians usually dress like normal people, they apparently don't beat their women into wearing veils or even hair coverings. Overall they aren't nearly as weird.
You're right --- it did have a lot to do with Jimmy Carter --- but even when the Iranian extremists took Americans hostage, they didn't immediately behead them like an Arab group would --- they left them alive --- and released them when Reagan came into power. Persians aren't suited to Islam the way the Arabs are.
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.