Nor is Syria the only battleground for Khamenei; the Iranians continue to guide the slaughter of civilians and NATO troops from Baghdad to Kabul, and in all likelihood were involved in the recent bombing of UN headquarters in the Nigerian capital which looks very much like a similar action in Baghdad some years ago.
The Iranian regime is frantically trying to cope with two grave crises, one in Syria that threatens to deprive them of the main operational base for the sort of proxy war the regime has always favored. The other comes from within, from their own restive population. In each case, the tyrants in Tehran are bringing all possible force to bear. Thousands of Revolutionary Guards participate in the daily slaughter of Syrian citizens, and, in a reprise of one of comrade Stalin’s greatest hits, the regime is attempting to organize a show trial for at least one of the leaders of the Green Movement. Mehdi Karroubi, the movement’s #2, has been placed in solitary confinement, and it is reportedly under great psychological pressure to agree to make a public confession of crimes against the Islamic Republic. It’s unlikely they will break him, for while he is not young, he seems to be quite brave, having braved physical assaults in the streets of Tehran and openly accused the regime of widespread torture, including the systematic rape of prisoners, one of the practices for which this regime will long be remembered.
If only we had an administration with the will to defeat our major enemy in the world’s most sensitive region, we could probably enable the Iranian people to bring down the dreadful Islamic Republic in relatively short order, without firing a shot or dropping a bomb. But this is an administration that wants to be begged before it acts, and moves with little baby steps before doing anything serious. It took half of forever to get the president to say “Assad must go,” and he has still not pronounced the magic phrase about Khamenei, Ahmadinejad and the others in Tehran, even though the carnage in Iran — and the list of Americans killed by the regime — dwarfs the Syrian horrors.
Some day the top officials of this administration, like those who came before them, will be asked why they did nothing for so long, what on earth they thought they could accomplish without responding to the murderous assaults from our main enemy. I cannot imagine what they will say.
Obama is golfing….
The Islamic regime in Iran had better revisit history to see what a major role the Azarbaijanis have played in uprisings against oppression from after Al-Qadesiah all the way up to the Constitutional movement of the late Qajar period. On the other hand, it is better that the regime not revisit history and remain ignorant to the imminent danger they are facing.
On another note I came across the the following article:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/iran-bible-burning-christians/2011/08/26/id/408824
Quickly I went to our local newstand and purcahsed the latest edition of the L’Osservatore Romano scouring the pages to find the Papal Bull (Fatwa) demanding that the culprits be encased in the Iron Maiden. I couldn’t find it. Surely it will be in tomorrow’s edition. On the other hand the only bull I came across was in Ahmadinejad’s speech during Quds Day regarding the state of Israel.
The politically-correct, multicultural contingent in the US gets upset whenever somebody publicly burns the Qur’an, on the grounds that it’s “disrespectful.” The Qur’an instructs Muslims to kill Christians and Jews, and publicly burning the Qur’an is a perfectly justifiable protest against those teachings.
Those same politically-correct types never get upset when somebody burns Bibles. Go figure.
Michael
Please read this:
http://www.iranchamber.com/people/articles/iranian_ethnic_groups.php
You are still not simplifying matters, by not referring to them as Hezbollahi as we do in Persian.
who do you think should be referred to as “Hezbollahi”? i reserve that for members of Hezbollah.
Do you know any Persian Michael? Iranians call them Hezbollahi. They are part of the whole Party of God ideological system. Here is an old article:
http://t.co/uPBBgJK
These people are an international network and they have no interest in Iran and Iranian culture. They need to be isolated in any writing and not confused with the Iranian national character.
they call WHO Hezbollahi? sorry to be dense but…
Dr. Ledeen, although you are technically correct that a Hezbollahi is one who is a member of the Hezbollah, in common Iranian/Persian vernacular anyone who is associated with, supportive of, sympatico with or even likes the Hezbollah in particular and the international Jihadi movement in general is referred to as a Hezbollahi. It is usually used in a derogatory sense as a manifestation of hatred and disgust. The closest analogy I can think of are the skin heads in the West. Although they, for the most part, are not members of the National Socialist Party, yet in common parlance they are often referred to as Nazis. Clearly it is a misuse of a well defined word, but I will call someone like Ahmadinejad a bastard even though he may have been conceived through legal matrimony.
well sure. but i still do not get the objection to my language. it seems much too “inside baseball.”
The Party = Hezb
of God = ollahi
This is Khomeini’s ideology. You all have your own terminologies which incorporate the word “Iran”. That makes them look legit. They don’t call themselves Iranian. So why do the anti Islamists call them Iranian. This mislabelling is at the heart of the problem. Once the world media unanimously calls them Hezbollah then the political map of the Middle East will be much clearer.
It will be the same answer given by CNN in Baghdad before the first Gulf War. “We had to stay silent to maintain access to the government”.
Access for what, or to do what, is of course never spelled out or specified. Just the need for “Access”.
September is shaping up to be quite an explosive and eventful month with the front line Palestinian jihad army on Israel’s border making their unilateral move at the Useless Nations in NYC on the 20th.
The IDF which is usually busy taking weapons away from Jewish settlers is even training and arming them in advance of the Arab scorpions visit.
I don’t have any doubt that the Iranians and the Syrians are hatching plans with Hamas in Gaza and Fatah in Judea and Samaria.
What better way to get everyone’s attention off of boiling Syria and unite the fracture Arab world on their mission #1 ,the extermination of little Satan.
Syria’s Assad is getting squeezed a little more and war with Israel may be his escape valve.
Iran has been working tirelessly to decapitate the big Satan and unlike the naive West they know that China and Russia won’t sit this one out as they did with Iraq,Afghanistan and Libya.
.I think we will be caught off guard again on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 because we still have incompetent’s accountable to no one running things and because we chose to follow the failed Soviet Centralized Bureaucratic model
The Syrian conflict is of existential proportions: Alawites versus Sunnis. Assad believes that his Alawite tribe will be slaughtered by Sunnis if he loses. Attacking Israel will simply weaken his hold on the population by reducing the Alawite-dominated army’s strength. Alawites, you know, are heretics according to Sunni doctrine. And we all know what happens to heretics under Islam!
Michael,
I like your spunk. As you realize, the thug’s days and their unholy justifications are numbered.
The shallow lilliputin in The White House will lead, as you have written, with his rear. Begging the question: What is this preoccupation they have?
For the record, I look forward to a down and dirty slug fest with the Mullahs. Ayatollhs and their thugs. As such, you are not in this fight alone.
Hoo Rah
It’s bad enough that Obama is a “lilliputian” in every sense of the word, but the real problem is that Obama backs the agenda of Islamic expansionism every chance he gets. Hillary is the same way.
As long as either of these traitors are in office, there will be no attempts to stand up to our Muslim enemies.
The public moves by Iran are duplicitous as usual. Still, they publicly drop Gazprom while threatening to sue Russia for failure to deliver S-300 air defense systems. And this was after Russia provided cover by suggesting a fuel swap to make Iran less toxic. The Egyptian reversed itself to an extent as the Sinai erupted. They are not thrilled that Hamas still takes orders from Iran who threatens to defund Hamas. I take this statement in the same manner I take their chastising Assad.
Turkey is shelling Kurdish positions in Iraq as Iranian-influenced Sadrland fires scuds from Iraq at Kuwait as a warning regarding the new Kuwaiti Port of Grand Mubarak. Perhaps Iraq is far more important than Azerbaijan with Iran starting to encroach on Iraqi oil fields that was the cause of their long war with Iraq, but the Kurds are a common denominator.
Rumor has Saudi hardware and soldiers moving through Jordan towards the Syrian border. Again, Zour has both oil and Kurds. Syria is likely moving air defense systems to the Turkish border noticing the positon of Gaddafi. As Intel is brought to bare, weapon transfers and military movements in Syria become harder to mask. Beware the new moons….
Red lines for the US and Israel ought to include completion and expansion of enrichment at Frodo, any Hydrogen isotope production or preparing for nuclear testing. One wonders what the hell the Israelis are doing given their counter-productive internal political disorder. It does not appear Israel alone without using nukes could derail Iran and the IRG while leaving sufficient assets to guard threats from Lebanon, Syria, Gaza and now the Sinai (though not the same as the two northern threats). I rather doubt the nukes are even on the table.
The American position is most threatened by domestic meltdowns here and a series of poor signals. No matter the “jive”, Obama cannot run from the verdict of history. Even retiring the shuttle now seems slightly premature and the cuts to DOD come right as we wrestle with the last of the major obstacles to the next generation of military superiority.
It would make our influence far stronger if we appeared the strong horse rather than the confused donkey. Strength does influence considerations on the Iranian peripheral and add some motion to the internal conflicts plaguing Iran. They are spending billions to prop up Assad. We do know however, when the regime in Iran really starts to crack, they will instigate even more crisis. Watch in a few weeks as the UN takes up Palestinian Statehood. The worry the Mullahs might have is that Ahmadinejad has not created as deep enough network as he to claim plausible deniability as conflict unloads. Too many events are linked to the Iranian/Syrian axis. In part, that deniability is what he is doing with his recent statements regarding Assad and Hamas. Perhaps Kimmie will provide some cover.
As for Turkey, Erdogan had invested a lot in economic trade with Iran. It is interesting to note Exxon is contracted to work with Russia to extract Arctic oil. I would not underemphasis the threat to Iran the potential energy resources in the Levant and Med represent. If Assad folds, they lose an arm into Lebanon and its is their proxy Hizb’Allah (not to be confused with Iranian Hezbollah) who has the missiles to disrupt Cyprus and Israel from extracting their new found gas and oil.
Thank you for the update.
As usual, the news from papers and TV sound like “news from a parallel universe”.
I am sure that people in Iran wait for the 2012 elections in America with great anxiety.
(PS and off topic
I advise the Readers to click on the link with the history of the Aral Sea: it’s one of the “great” stories of the “successes” of socialism, seldom mentioned by the media. Another big crime brought to you by the internationalist subversives.)
Also, what if we applied Reagan’s Cold War strategy to Iran?
1. Reagan clearly aimed for Soviet planners to know what we were thinking. Conventional strategy was clearly signaled even in this re-write that was released in Reagan’s first term: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_World_War:_The_Untold_Story (see the abridged edition “WWIII, August 1985″ where projections are updated along with aspects of Reagan’s new military procurements.) In this scenario, Russia cannot stop the attrition of its conventional forces saddled with disrupted supply lines through resistance areas. There were US military procurements that stretched Soviet design teams and tapped out Soviet budgets. NATO we see is playing a huge role as explained in the Clancy-like discriptions of WWIII battles.
2. Russia was largely cut-off from Western markets unlike the mess we see today regarding Iran. Certain technology is so ubiquitous that with help from former adversaries, Iran is likely to manufacture what it needs unless we up the bar on superiority.
3. Soviet leaders were seen as relatively rational and that when faced with defeat in Afghanistan and the likely stalemate of an invasion of Europe, they would back down. The point of item 1 was that it attempted to show the Soviets that aggression would lead to attrition and retreat resulting in Russia’s decline as a world power. It was this critical factor that led them to option 2 which has indeed kept them in the game.
4. The Russians were less than thrilled with the history of the communist party and central planning and security services known to have led to the death of millions of Russians. The regime however played on nationalism and the “achievements” of the Soviet people. They attempted to filter our Western media and limit the power of religious groups.
I would suggest that either we manifest analogues of these factors or we accept that such comparisons are insufficient to produce “victory” relative the Iranian threat. One factor would be the transnational nature of Iran’s network and narrative, not that the Kremlin didn’t try to market it’s racket in Socialist and utopian imagery for foreign consumption. I am not sure the KGB considered some of the fantasies the radical extremists do.
And Reagan said he wanted to end the cold war, not win it. Again, I am not sure you could apply such a standard towards Iran, especially with Russia and the still communist China propping them up in our new multi-polar world. That does not mean however, no lessons can be learned. Perhaps we could start with item number one above….
….apparently the foundation from which Reagan built his strategy.
reagan wanted to win, not end the cold war. i can’t imagine why you would say the reverse.
“Some day the top officials of this administration, like those who came before them, will be asked why they did nothing for so long, what on earth they thought they could accomplish without responding to the murderous assaults from our main enemy. I cannot imagine what they will say”.
Most of the biographers will ask no such questions or if they do, they will willingly accept superficial or dishonest answers.
Historically, Azeris have been in forefront of any change in Iran! they brought first newspaper to the country, they was the 1st constitutional reform in Iran, they were the reason behind 1979 revolution! Azeris also ruled Iran for several centuries until 1920 when a Persian came to power 1924. Immediately Persians started suppressing Azerbaijani culture and language! Over the last century Azeris have been humiliated, and suppressed by regime. and Now, Azerbaijanis are refusing to contribute to any change in Iran. Azeris did not support green revolution because it did not offer them anything. That is why now, they are on the streets screaming ‘Azerbaijan’. Iran may lose Azerbaijan completely if they do not soon recognize it. it is also about Iranian disapora abroad who chose not to support Azerbiajnis struggle for language and cultural rights.
Well said and all so very true. Please refer to my post, number 2.
I am an Azerbaijani was born (in south Azerbaijan province) in Iran.
This is a big improvement that finally western media realized many Azerbaijanis in Iran are really upset about Iran’s Islamist-Persian centered attitudes ( fanatic religious people with racial attitudes), Just for comparison look at the difference of two nations Rep.Azerbaijan and Persian Islamic Rep. of Iran.
There is no doubt that many South Azerbaijanis (like myself) are ashamed of being part of Racist-Islamist country like Iran instead of being the part of the independent secular and pro-west country with the same culture , language, history and wishes, Republic of Azerbaijan.
Thanks Micheal you are the man.
Are you saying Iran is funding Boko Haram?
Azeri tribe? As an Azeri from Iran I can tell you we’re not a tribe, we could very well be the economically strongest ethnicity in Iran. Linguistically and culturally oppressed, yes. Tribal society? No.
We’re quite different from the Kurds, which is probably what made you think we know tribal loyalty etc.
don’t get excited, it’s the word all the scholars use, it doesn’t imply anything one way or the other. i’m a member of a tribe, too–the Levites–and it doesn’t upset me in the least. makes me chuckle sometimes…yes Azeris are different from Kurds, of course. and from Lur and Balouch and…the other ethnic groups that make up the Iranian population. Some years ago I organized a seminar at AEI about the “non-Persian Iranians” in an attempt to educate Washington people about the rich diversity of Iranian peoples, and was promptly accused of trying to foment separatism. hah! so I’m familiar with sensitivities…
There will not be a Tunisian-Egyptian-Syrian-like uprising in Iran before the four major opposition forces ->->->-> 1. Pahlavi Royalists headed by Prince Reza Pahlavi, 2. the Mujahedin-e Khalq, 3. the Left particularly both the so-called Aksariyat/’majority’ and the so-called Aqalliyat / ‘minority’ factions of the Fedaaiyaan-e Khalq, and the Regionalist-cum-Federalist (Azeri, Kurdish, Baluch, Arab & Turkoman leaders <-<-<- declare, NOT disingenuously, that they unconditionally accept Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi as top leaders of the new revolution and a post-revolution interim government headed by Mr. Mousavi with exclusive right to appoint the Cabinet, the Provincial Governors (Ostaandaars) etc. and that both the general elections for a Constituent Assembly to make the new Constitution, and the following general elections according to the new Constitution will take place under an exclusive Mousavi Administration. It is also important that Prince Reza disclaims monarchy for ever, and that particularly the Mojahedin and the Left shun violence and are not allowed to have open or underground paramilitary forces.
I believe it was the uncertainty about the nature of a post-Khamanai government — and the fear of chaos — that did not allow the 2008-09 Iranian Spring to reach full blossom.
Without the Mousavi-Karroubi leadership, the 2008-09 movement for a change less hostile to the West and Israel could not take the shape it did. The Iranian people including the "Regionalists cum Federalists" trusted — and continue to trust — Mousavi and Karroubi and their strategy to gradually reform the system from within. The Iranian people also knew that the first three of the four above-mentioned forces did not have any role in bringing about what became known as the Green Movement, nor did these three forces deserve any share in a post-Ahmadinejad administration, the overwhelming majority of the Iranian people thought. (Even the official results showed that most of the Sunni Baluchs, Sunni Kurds, the Turkomans and the Arabs had voted for Mousavi and Karroubi–against Ahmadinejad which means they agreed with their programs of gradual reforms including constitutional changes from within the system. The election results in the Azeri majority areas must have been heavily rigged as they were in rest of the country.)
Because the foreign-based leadership of all of the above-mentioned opposition forces had called for the boycott of the presidential elections and had ridiculed Mousavi and Karroubi for their honest declarations that they do not intend to immediately overthrow the so-called Velaayat-e Faqih (Shia Islamic theocratic) system, most of the supporters of the Mousavi-Karroubi-led Green Movement within the country were alarmed when the Pahlavists, Rajavists (Mjahedin-e Khalq) and the Left demanded equal shares in the management of the Green Movement and quotas in a post-Khamanai Administration. On the other hand, being gentlemen par excellence, Mousavi and Karroubi kept on saying that in a future Iran there will be a place for all Iranians including the Pahlavists, Rajavists and the Leftists.
Now, the fact is that without the active support of the Organized Left and the Rajavists, Khomeini and the Islamists could not hijack the basically Mosaddeqist Liberal revolution of 1979-80. Remembering these treacheries of the past and also knowing that none of these two groups nor the Pahlavists believe in Western democracy, most of Iranians do not want their return. Iranians including the Regionalists still love and trust Mousavi and Karroubi. Yet they know that exploiting the open-door policy of Mousavi and Karroubi,the Gog & Magog of Rajavi, Pahlavi and of the Organized Left will be back. The result will be Chaos, to say the least, and multi-dimensional long civil wars. It is the Iranian fear of the return of the Rajavist-Royalist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist-CheGuevarist Gog & Magog and of the resulting chaos and civil wars that put a damper on their enthusiasm for the ant-Regime Green Movement.
As a whole, Iranians within the country definitely prefer Mousavi & Karroubi expecting that they will eventually do away with the theocracy. However, they prefer Khamanai to chaos and uncertainty, definitely to the rule of a Pahlavi, Rajavi or a Red.
It is not up to Reza Pahlavi to renounce the throne. He does not have the right to decide for the Iranian people. It will be the decision of the people of the post theocractic Iran through a free and fair referendum to decide the fabric of their desired government, be it a republic or a monarchy. No blogger, pontificator or pseudo intellectual who has perused a couple of books will mandate the form of Iran’s future government by fiat.
The MEK is an organization trained by Abu Ammar’s PLO and George Habash’s PFLP. Their best chums were groups such as Bader Meinhoff, Brigatta Rossi and other anti semitic luminaries. We have had enough Jew hating by the current animals ruling Iran. Enough already! They call themselves Islamic Marxists, both adjectives are anathema to any form of democracy. If they renounce violence, anti semitism, Islamism and Marxism then they are no longer the MEK. They are just a bunch of guys and gals. It is like asking a leopard to give up its spots. They currently sing the songs of western style democracy and universal sufferage to attain power. But so did Khomeini, Lenin, Pol Pot before unleashing their true hell on their hapless people.
Listen, I have some sympathy for Prince Reza Pahlavi mainly because of my deep respect for his mother,Shahbano /Queen Farah Pahlavi who, by the way, came from a Mosaddeqist family. I can only pray for the ‘emancipation’ of this young man from the clutches of the following:
1. remnants of the notorious Ashraf-Nassiri gang and their likes;
2. the fanatic racist Pan-Persianists dreaming for an Arya Mehr-2;
3. compulsive corrupt coward cronies and flatterer of the kind Sa’di mentions in a couplet:
AGAR SHAH ROUZ RAA GOUYAD: “SHAB AST EEN”
BE-BAAYAD GOFT: “EENAK MAAH VA PARVEEN” !! =
“If it is (a bright) day, but the Shah says” “(No.)It is night!”
One [of the kind mentioned in # 3] must say: “(Yes, Your Majesty, it is indeed dark night!! Lo and behold, I can see)over there is the moon and (over there is) the cluster of stars, Pleiades.”"
If Sa’di had lived in the 1950s through the 1970s, he would have added:
“Otherwise, one will be treated the way Prince Reza’s father treated Dr. Mohammad Mosaddeq.” … And, on the appointment by the shah of Dr. Shapour Bakhtiar as Prime Minister in 1979, the great sage of Shiraz, Sa’di, would have said: “Your Majesty, It is too late”.
Listen, My fellow Iranian, Because of developments and circumstances — and also because of the fact that the prince as a person has behaved well and matured enough, this young man, the son of a great cultured woman, Farah Deeba Pahlavi, has enough chances to become a future elected president — and remembered in history as a Great Statesman President. The kind of ‘referendum’-to-make-him-king you are dreaming for will never happen in Iran. And, if it happens ‘with the help of friends’ the consequences will not be different from those of the return of his father to the throne in 1953 –’with the help of friends’.
And as I mentioned it will be up to my Iranian people to decide whether he shall be King, President or a common citizen. It is not for us to ask for his abdication. Insofar as Dr. Mossadegh is concerned the story is long and tedious. I shall make two points. First, Dr. Mossadegh’s opposition to the Pahlavis stemmed from his belief that Reza Khan, Ostovar Maximy, and, by extension, his offspring were beneath his station as part of the Qajar nobility through his father and maternal Farmanfarma side. It was personal. That personal hatred was further propagated by Mozzaffar Firouz (Farmanfarma) for years. Second, the nationalization of petroleum in Iran, althought the Shah took credit for it later, was Mossadegh’s doing. Arguably the worst thing that could have been done which can be reasoned to be the cause of the ’79 turmoil. By doing so he created a private kitty bank for the Pahlavi’s and the government through the sale of the only exportable commodity available to the Iranians. With this amazing revenue filling the coffers of the government there was no longer a need to rely on the general population for income in the form of taxes, hence no longer answerable to the people. No need to be answerable to the people! That surely led to the massive corruption of most functionaries from top to bottom. From the traffic cop to Gholamrza Pahlavi. So, in my personal opinion Dr. Mossadegh did more damage to the country in one stroke of his pen than all the perceived ills from the Pahlavis.
One other thing; I really don’t care what Sa’adi may or may not have said then or may have said in 1953. His Golestan and Boostan make for a good read, but that is all there is to it. Plato, in his Phaedo dialogue, “proved” that there was life after death. So?
Yeah, well, sooner or later comments ignore the subject of the blog and turn into intellectual onanism.
I believe that was nearly a direct quote of Reagan, but I will have to find the interview. It came up when Reagan was discussing why he let go several “Hawks” in his second term.
Ending, by the way as opposed to winning the Cold War (with Russia not China), is pretty much what happened. Putin has hardly embraced Reagan’s American value meme as their CEOs still travel in armored limos and journalists have a shortened lifespan. Reagan wanted, I thought, an end to Cold War brinksmanship, nuclear arms reductions and an end to the iron grip of oppression on the occupied States in the Red Orbit of Eastern Europe. How this is not “winning” is that the concessions from the Soviet side was to be matched with the benefits of integration with the West. That did not go smoothly under Yelstin and the Clinton Gore agreement basically told the Russians to continue supplying Iran, Belarus, Libya, Syria, etc. and stay out of our energy and military markets.
One could say strategies that involved Afghanistan, Iraq, and isolating Russian markets to our enemies have come back to haunt. Winning would have looked more like our relations with Germany And Japan….
http://www.slate.com/id/2102081/
” I cannot imagine what they will say. ”
C’mon Mike, you know what they’ll say- ” It’s George Bush’s fault! “
Of course we first have to find a mainstream media personality who would ask the question …
“the failure of the regime to do anything to save Lake Orumiyeh, the largest lake in the Middle East, and the third largest salt water lake in the world. It is drying up” … I’ve heard that those Israelis are kidn of good at water conservation …
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/08/30/israel-sends-more-warships-to-egyptian-border/ So let’s say three fronts.
Game on. This was predictable and in part an effort to spread Israeli forces. I think Iran will try to pit the street against the Egyptian military while the US exerts whatever leverage it has.
This has the potential for conflict and the Iranian fleet plans to coordinate its activities with the provocations designed for Sept 20 protests. We see the two arms reaching far and wide from IRG snipers in Syria to their fleet moving into the Red Sea.
What action will the US take? Perhaps an Iranian sub will disappear. http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/30/syria-and-irans-power-calculus/ And I hardly think Iran is giving up Hamas or Assad.
“But this is an administration that wants to be begged before it acts, and moves with little baby steps before doing anything serious”.
I think those words are way too kind to this sorry excuse for an administration, Michael.
I think, rather, that this is an adiminstration that looks upon its own country, (and its past “imperialist” allies), as being the fundamental cause of the area’s problems, conflicts and “injustices”.
In short, the Obama administration is the baleful incarnation of Walt Kelly’s old quip that “We have met the enemy and he is us”.
As I’ve said previously, the only people in the world Obama is a threat to are his own.
Yes, Obama is Pogo. But the admin does end up doing things it didn’t want to do, surging in Afghanistan and bombing in Libya…it could be similar in Syria life is s full of surprises.
Considering all of the Muslim Brotherhood moles that are on the loose in DC, I would suggest that his being a threat to his own people is not a “bug” but a “feature”.
He wants it that way.
Surprises? Well this isn’t a surprise: http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/08/30/americas-strategic-learning-disability/ (not that I agree with the author which says a lot about my learning disabilities)
In regard to Libya, ours wasn’t a “winning” strategy as then outcome is beyond control. With honor killings, the murder of its top general and apparent massacres, the transitional government is just that, transitional. What we did was end Gaddafi’s ability to murder Libyans.
As I said before, victory is replacing a threat with a friend (or at least the trajectory of friendship and shared values). Otherwise, the victory is transitory. Japan and Germany are proof-of-concepts.
Now as Iranian naval vessels prepare for the next round of incitement, what is our policy? Are we seeking to end our conflict with Iran on more favorable terms? Are we seeking victory over the pernicious regime and its proxies? Or are we hoping to avoid conflict and to remove ourselves from harm’s way?
How do we navigate this map if the commander if forced to act with each dangerous gust rather than plot the surest course?
Such a commander fails to take advantage of opportunity: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2011/Aug-31/147620-iran-warns-against-us-taking-lead-in-arab-protests.ashx#axzz1WcbMyZhE
Dear Micheal Ledeen,
With all respect and agreement to most of your opinions, I am one of the Azerbaijani Turk (you and Persians like to call us Azeri but we call ourselves Turk) who was living in DC area and had chance to meet you in your office several years ago alone with several activists from different ethnicity from Iran such as Dr. Karim Abdian (Arab patriot), Dr. Rahim Shabazi(Azerbaijani activist), Dr. M. Hosseinbor (Baluch patriot). I am not surprised that you didn’t even mention anything about ethnic conflict that all other ethnic groups have with Persian racism and chauvinism. If you remember we told you about all the discriminative policies that comes from Persian Racism against other ethnic people living in Iran. maybe you don’t like to hurt your Persian secretory or friends and don’t want them get hurt and turn their face back from you. I am sure that you know more than anyone else in this page about Persain racism and chauvinism. You are just repeating what Persian racists tell about Khmenei and Moosavi. Both of them are Turks( read it Azeri or whatever you and Persians like) BUT both of them were and are in the service of Persian racism; As Stalin was in service of Russian racism under the Soviet name. For me as an American citizen and activist from South Azerbaijan it is so disappointing that a US government foreign policy adviser like you doesn’t mention anything where the URMU lake problem started and why the Iran’s Persain-Racist-Radical Shie regime wants to dry out lake Urmu as Soviet did to lake Aral. If you are not agree with me, you can contact thousands of Azerbaijani activists, Kurds, Arabs, baluchs, or in rare cases Persian intelligent activists and asked them if I am right or wrong. The US regime supported Racist Shah’s regime with all that they could do and they helped Shah to attack South Azerbaijan’s democratic government established in 1945-1946, and killed thousands of innocent people( estimated 20-25000) in less than a week ( read the book writen by Jamil Hasanli, At the bottom of Cold War). For as long as the US or any other democratic government around world doesn’t believe or accept the reality of existence of Persian racism in Iran, we won’t have any democratic government there. If you watch most of the videos in you tube about South Azerbaijan, you and people like you will see the reality better. One of the Azerbaijani Turks slogan in Iran after comparing them with cockroaches in Iran newspaper was : ” haray haray mən Türkəm – hey hey İ am Turk.
I hope you will have a very good answer to my comment and I wish you didn’t get hurt by my statement. Waiting for your respond.
I am not getting involved in all that, Beyrouz. I know it’s very important to you, and I respect that, but it’s not my fight. I’ve got enough trouble without getting into this again.
and i am not a “US policy adviser.” i am a writer. and a very good bridge player.
I forgot to add that Turks are the biggest ethnic group living in Iran, not Persian. Even more than half of the population in Tehran are Turks from Azerbaijan and other plaes. On top of that you can add Ghashghaies, and Turks of Khorasan, plus Turk-men living in North east of Iran who are Turk.I hope I am giving you right information. thanks.
you’d better tell CIA, their published information is what I used.
So this is purely a writing exercise?
Seems to me Behrouz, the Turks of Turkey are supporting the Mullahs. And these Mullahs gave a green light to the Shah’s coup. You do remember the KGB? They are the ones that made sure the Kremlin distributed your oil.
This has been an informative treat to read, thank you
Michael, I am confused. Are you saying that Azerbaijan and Iran are one in the same country?
Could you please specify for me how boko haram and the Iranian regime are working together?
gary, there are two azerbaijans, one is part of Iran. I didn’t say anything about boko haram so far as I know…
sorry, make it THREE Azerbaijans: one country plus two (Iranian provinces). RFE/RL has a good summary of it all: http://www.rferl.org/content/dying_lake_revives_iran_protests/24314925.html
Boko Haram has claimed responsibility for the car bombing of the UN HQ in Nigeria. Just trying to figure out if they are working together or if you are saying that Iran is the real culprit and Boko Haram is taking credit for it.
I suspect that Iran organized and supported the Nigerian bombing, as they did in Baghdad…
Michael,
Thanks for being so honest and clear and correcting my mistakes. I think either you are writer or adviser, what ever you write or say, US government takes it as wise thought. I wish great success for you and all people who look for democracy and peace for world.
God bless us, every one.