Sunday, June 28, 2009

Iran's Mullahs Threaten the World

By Alan Caruba

In the more than four decades of the Cold War following World War Two, a cadre of specialists called “Kremlinologists”, academics, diplomats, and military, developed for the purpose of figuring out what the Soviet Union was doing and how best to counteract it. As often as not, they were wrong. The fall of the Berlin War came as a surprise to them, followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now we are watching the same thing occur as various “experts” struggle to tell us what is happening in Iran and why.

What I really want to know is why the President of the United States thought it best not to “meddle” with a nation that had taken American diplomats hostage for 444 days, was funding two Middle East terrorists organizations, Hezbollah and Hamas, and striving mightily to become a nuclear power with which to threaten their region and the world.

President Obama’s muted and belated response to the protests in the streets of Tehran by thousands of Iranians was a national and international disgrace. If America will not speak out boldly for liberty and support a popular uprising for democracy, who will?

My friend, Amil Imani, an Iranian-American who has forcefully spoken out for regime change in his former homeland, has posted a petition calling for an end to the slaughter of Iranians who only want what we in America and the West have, freedom.

You can add your name at

Addressed to the leaders of the free world, the citizens of the world, and even to the Secretary-General of the useless United Nations, Imani states what we all know. “The mullahs and their mercenaries are wasting precious human life to maintain themselves in power through terrorizing the population.”

Islam is not about democracy. It is a political system called a theocracy. The clerics rule and, in effect, they only answer to Allah. Turkey, an Islamic nation, has maintained secular rule by splitting off Islam from governance. Other Islamic nations hold “elections” but it is understood by their citizens that they frequently are rigged, that those who rule them, secular or not, are corrupt, and protest gets you put in jail or dead.

One Middle Eastern nation that fashioned a working democracy, Lebanon, has been struggling for decades to throw off the dictators that would rule them, whether it is Syria or Hezbollah, a terrorist group of Palestinian terrorists whose sole purpose is the destruction of Israel.

Imani’s petition calls on “the free governments of the world, as well as all other businesses, organizations, and individuals to enlist in a non-violent campaign of ending the reign of terror of the belligerent clerical regime.”

Towards that end he seeks to protect the lives of Iranians through “a comprehensive program of assistance to all democratic Iranian opposition groups, both inside and outside of Iran, in their struggle to accomplish the regime change themselves.”

“Proclaim wide and far, the cardinal reason for taking these measures against the mullah’s reign of terror is to prevent them from acquiring nuclear weapons, the threat they pose to the region as well as the world, and the stimulus they provide for other nations to develop their own nuclear arsenal..”

There are a number of other proposals in the petition which I urge you to read and sign, but the issue to my mind is the failure of the United States, that is to say our President, to demonstrate any understanding of the fact that one cannot “negotiate” with a “Supreme Leader” intent on having nuclear weapons with which to threaten the region and the world.

That “Supreme Leader” and his minions subscribe to a Shiite myth of a “Twelfth Imam” who can only return to rule the Earth after widespread death and destruction has paved the way.

Little known and underreported have been the discussions underway between Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia as to “strategic” actions they can take to secure the safety of their nations and to bring down the Iranian regime before it achieves nuclear status. Let me repeat that roster. Israel. Egypt. And Saudi Arabia.

America has the misfortune to be led by a President who has been fixated before and since election on a diplomatic resolution to the enmity between Iran and America. He apparently thinks he can talk them out of securing nuclear weapons. That is never going to happen. Israel knows this. Egypt knows this. And Saudi Arabia knows this.

Obama’s willful ignorance and personal arrogance is going to keep the Iranian people enslaved and get a lot of people in the region and beyond killed.

The Iranian mullahs are a pestilence that must be eradicated and removed from power. History teaches this lesson. A nation’s sovereignty is not an excuse to permit its leaders to plunge the world into war.


Anonymous said...

"The Iranian mullahs are a pestilence that must be eradicated and removed from power."

Ditto that. But what I want to know is, what is there to replace the mullocracy, and how can Iran be stabilized during the transition from it's being run be demons to being run be decent men.

I've always believed there are many decent Iranians, but Mousavi is NOT one of them, and if this revolution only manages to bring him to power, then there will be no change for the better from the perspective of the West. While under Mousavi, the Iranians may suffer less, which is a good thing, the danger to the Middle East and the World will probably increase. Note carefully the wording Mousavi uses to describe his evil vision of how to eradicate Israel.

He was also involved in establishing Iran's nuke program and of organizing the terrorists of Hezballah.

As much as I sympathize with the Iranian people, I don't see how support for those who support Mousavi will accomplish anything but replacing one lunatic with another. If you can help me see where I am wrong, I'm open to any new info.

Alan Caruba said...

Mousavi is not the answer, nor any of the current bootlickers for the Supreme Leader.

A new constitution is needed in Iran and the clerics have to be relagated to the mosques without any role in government.

It can be done. Turkey did it long ago.

Anonymous said...

Thank you.

And, won't the change, as it did in Turkey, have to come from within Iran? But, unlike in Turkey, the Iranians may need external help. In fact, I would think that Turkey, having good relations with Iran, might provide it, though the friendships seem to be with the wrong side to expect that. Still, maybe that's where to look?

I hope they succeed, but I fear that with the Ciper In Chief at the helm in Washington, If they look to America for assistance, they've not picked the most auspicious time to make their move.


Alan Caruba said...

I doubt that friendship with Turkey will have any affect on the leaders of Iran who are typical tyrants. It will be up to the people of Iran to wrest control from them, but they are ringed by loyalists...with guns.

Anonymous said...

"I doubt that friendship with Turkey will have any affect on the leaders of Iran who are typical tyrants."

Sadly, your probably right.

Thanks, again.

aghrab said...

Dear Alan
The Ayatollahs internal/ external politics may seem very complex at a quick glance yet in reality, it is based only on one important FIRST PRINCIPLE and that is To Maintain The Regimes Existence, No matter How/What. They Ayatollahs believe the distention/ goal will justify any tools/ paths they may choose.

The current regime in Iran, acts very similar to a Mafia organisation but in a much larger scale now. The Ayatollahs control the entire power points i.e. the judiciary, legislative and executive branches, in addition to the entire military and law enforcement agencies.

Now, the current rift between the Ayatollahs is widening at the very top level i.e. between the Hashemi- Rafsanjani and Khamenei about how to adhere to their FIRST PRINCIPLE? These two fight over who should be the godfather from this point onward? The two adopt different approaches when it comes to choosing the preferred tool to achieve the FIRST PRINCIPLE.

Rafsanjani sees the future of the regime in; gradually becoming milder, opening the privatization streams (his version of the Islamic capitalization) and to gain friends among the powerful Western nations by giving up their nuclear program and in return receiving lots of goodies including the Wests guarantees to keep the regime as is. He claims that the Iranian society is getting sick of the harsh version of Islam, the World doesnt tolerate revolutionaries any more and to preserve the regime they must give in a bit of freedom to people and at the same time play the Nice and Cutie games with the West (a good example of it is the Reformists notion of Dialogue between Civilization and the Reform Movement. Hashemi feels a real danger of an attack by the West, if they dont mellow down right now and he accuses Khamenei for not adhering to the regimes FIRST PRINCIPLE.

Whereas in a total contrast Khamenei says NO, we must preserve the regime with an Iron-Fist both internally and on a Global scale. Khamenei believes they have done this for the past 30 years and it has worked internally. AND he believes so long as the regime has the Nuke–Capability, the West wont dare to attack them. In return he accuses Rafsanjai as being the timid one in here and trying to project Rafsanjani as an opportunist who only thinks about his own pocket, hence endangering the FIRST PRINCIPLE.

These two so called Ayatollahs both have a common goal in here yet they bitterly disagree with each other on the choice of tools. This disagreement is getting to a high level that they both say enough is enough and only one must call the shots from this point onward.

Khamenei says fine I am the leader in here and I call the shots and Rafsanjani says NO, I am the head of the council who appointed you as the leader and I can get rid of you if I really want.

Adding these formulas together, youll see how these two Ayatollahs have lined up their chess pieces against each other for an internal proxy war for years. Rafsanjani and Khamanei only use Ahmadinejad and Mousavi to indirectly expose each others weak points. Yet at the same time they both warn each other that too much of exposure could mean an end to their common existence.

Now, in between who will be sacrificed is not that important to either of these gentlemen. They do absolutely anything they can to preserve themselves first. That is why you shouldnt be surprised to see their tactics in kill anyone, even the innocent people in here.

Alan Caruba said...

Thank you, aghrab, for your analysis and insight.

Anonymous said...

Here's an interesting summary, which is consistent with what scorpion says, and with what some of my trustworthy sources have been saying.

"Unlike Some of the Demonstrators, the Protest Movement Leaders Never Advocated a Regime Change in Iran; Their Campaign Is Part of a Struggle between Two Streams within the Regime "

As I commented elsewhere, "dog bites self, which one should be put down?"

aghrab said...

Dear Alan and ytba,
All the best to you people and it is always great to see sharp/ open minded people out there.

Caleb Bradshaw said...

So, you want Obama to get engaged in the conflict, both sides of which you want to be eradicated.
That's an exceedingly smart idea.

aghrab said...

Dear Nikolay if your comment is directed at me then please allow me to say this;
What I really want is; the West stop feeding all the mad-dogs in the Middle-east by making lucrative trade deals with them. I never say fight with Iran. You can bring the Mullahs economy to their knees only if you stop dealing with them. I genuinely believe the West doesn’t want the Mullahs to go. The West still finds them useful to make $.
Thank you for your comments Nikolay

aghrab said...

Dear Alan,
I put two comments in the following URL that maybe interesting for you too.