Saturday, March 05, 2005

The Democratic Republic of Iran?

It would be impossible to be unimpressed by what is happening in the Middle East and the Muslim world in the year 2005. The cynics of the world will soon be, if they are not already, eating crow. To borrow a phrase from U.S. President George W. Bush, freedom IS on the march. In Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, the Palestinian territories, possibly even in Egypt and Syria the call of freedom is loud and clear. The muslim people of the Middle East and South Asia have seen that the reign of tyranny and dictatorships need not continue in perpetuity. Its early and the darkness that has enveloped this part of the world has not been washed away by the light of liberty just yet, but the signs are encouraging.

Yes, it is is too early to celebrate, but nothing that has happened thus far would have been possible if not for George W. Bush and his "vision" of a free and democratic Iraq. The Iraqi elections of January 30th were most certainly a turning point, this cannot be denied. However, the momentum toward democratic reform in the region ultimately rests on the fate of one nation, that nation is Iran.

It has taken 25 years to undo some of the damage that Jimmy Carter has done to cause of freedom in the world. It is truly shameful the way the media covers for Carter by portraying him as a respected elder statesman. President Jimmy Carter, had he won a second term, would have been responsible for the over running of the western hemisphere by Soviet supported communist regimes and eventually the loss of the Cold War by the West. But his agenda didn't stop with merely covertly inviting communism into our own backyard, he was
also bent on destroying the fuel supply of the West by aiding radical elements of Islam to come to power in Iran. Iran had been an American ally nestled in the underbelly of the Soviet Union. It can't be over stated what his disasterous presidency did to the muslim world. For 25 years the people of Iran have paid for what Carter did by his tossing aside the Shah of Iran in favor of the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Well, friends, from what I have been reading Iranians have had enough. There is real unrest in Iran. The government of the mullahs and ayatollahs are on notice. When President Bush looked squarely into the camera during his State Of the Union speech and said point blank to the Iranian people that if they rise up in support of their own liberty that America would stand beside them. It was, to my mind he most dramtic moment in the speech and also the most dangerous.

The youth of Iran are perhaps the most pro-American people on the planet. They believe President Bush when he says he will stand beside them. While many might even be waiting for GI Joe to drop in and kick some mullah ass it would be the biggest mistake we could ever make. Any invasion would bring about Iranian patriotism and turn our biggest potential allies inside Iran into our biggest nightmare.

For the President it is a double edged sword; on one hand allowing the mullahs to obtain the ability to make nuclear weapons would be insanity, on the other any attempt at negotiations with the theocratic Islamic government would make him look weak in the eyes of ordinary
Iranians. In an interview with FrontPage Magazine Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi and her husband Elio Bonazzi, writers, activists and Middle East pundits, recount the chilling history of the 1979 revolution. They also put down in no uncertain terms that any "talks" between the mullahs and the United States would be seen as a victory for the repressive regime holed up in Teheran. In a candid remark from the interview they state: "The Islamist establishment that unfortunately today governs that country is not interested in making the best possible deal with the West. Its only interest is the destruction of the infidels and their corrupt world."

I found it interesting as well that it is former Carter Administration National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski who is advising the West to engage in a dialouge with Islamic Republic of Iran. It seems the Carter Adminstation's tenticles have a long reach. Again from the interview: the exiled Ayatollah Haa’eri strongly instructed Brzezinski and his fellow panelists that engaging the mullahs would simply embolden their aspirations to destroy the West, because in their mind they would smell a weak adversary prepared to make concessions.

This is the dilemma faced by President Bush as he contemplates joining the European Union's futile attempt at preventing a nuclear Iran. We need to pray for the President and hope he makes good decisions; the consequences are enormous. Now that he has the CIA and a the State Department in his corner my advise would be subversion. A good old fashioned coupe is in order. He can't let the braying asses disuade him. If democracy has any chance in the muslim world it has to visit Iran eventually - preferably before they go nuclear.

CW


1 comments:

TJ Willms said...

The only way the Carter administration could have been more damaging to the United States and the world is if it had been allowed to continue its disastrous policies one day longer. Even after he was long out of office, he collaborated with North Koreans to strengthen another of America’s enemies. They were, as a nation on deaths door facing massive food shortages and a floundering economy. Enter James Earl Carter, and in a weeks time he negotiated a deal that helped them become a nuclear player that we dare not ignore. I wouldn’t be surprised if he in the next few months ventured to Syria to help steer them away from the abyss of democracy and push them directly into the arms of the radical Islamist’s.