Must-read about Iran

Fortunately for those who don’t subscribe to Commentary Magazine, you can still read Amir Taheri’s article urging regime change in Iran. Taheri exposes decades of failed policies vis a vis Iran — not just American, UN and European policies, but also Russian and Turkish policies — and suggests that regime change is not only the answer, but is possible.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    Gun-Boat diplomacy, Teddy Roosevelt style. Just cause he was a progressive doesn’t mean the Republicans shouldn’t emulate him.

    By the start of the second term, however, the Bush administration had identified the Islamic Republic as a principal obstacle to the President’s policy of democratization.

    Again, high level government analysis can now be done by amateurs on the internet because of parallel data processing.

    Wonder how much time they spent “identifying” Iran as an obstacle. Would that be like the time spent identifying the UN as an obstacle?

    There can be little doubt that Ahmadinejad, Meshkini, and the others have been encouraged in their belligerence by Western statesmen and pundits who insist that no realistic alternative exists to “dialogue” with the Islamic Republic, even if this appears to play into the hands of the regime.

    It is as not as if you require government resources to know what game Iran is playing. This isn’t the Dark Ages where people lived in villages, and were ignorant of the intrigues at the court of royalty. Up Until they got killed cause some noble decided on a little short and victorious war for kicks and giggles, that is.

    None of it has succeeded in influencing its fundamental tenor or curbing its radical ambitions.

    Leverage is a physical quality, existing in the real world of physical laws and attributes. It does not exist in language, but in fear of reality, not fear of words. To get leverage, one must have position and are able to exert power. The US has that position and the ability to exert power, but chooses not for some reason. Are they worried about tipping the world into war or something? In case they hadn’t noticed, they don’t have the power to ensure perpetual peace.

    and one that immensely enhanced the prestige of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, but it discouraged the anti-Taliban forces, many of whom concluded there was no point in fighting a foe backed by the world’s only superpower.

    I thought that american support meant more Jihad and more insurgents? I’m confused. Or confuded as the case may be (neo reference).

    Bush sort of has the problem that he doesn’t like to be a bully, he doesn’t like to intimidate, he doesn’t like to interfere with the affairs of other nations. It is like almost an instinct, it is not from his advisers, idiotic or smart. Bush just doesn’t like using America’s power to interfere in other people’s affairs. This means that shipping weapons to the Iranian Kurds and the Turkish Kurds, for material benefit to America’s allies and America herself, is so foreign to Bush’s mind, that he is probably not even thinking about it. Let alone thinking of supporting a insurgency type revolution in Iran with money, backing, and weapons. This kind of paralysis is not very decisive. And when we saw Bush get out of this paralysis with Afghanistan and Iraq, he was in a much better position and so were the rest of us. We were moving, taking the fight to the enemy, the initiative was ours. Now it is our enemy’s, they are now moving against us, and we are on the defensive. Not because of Iraq, but because of political decisions.

    f backed by the requisite political will, it could open the way for a truly bipartisan approach toward dealing with a regime now identified as the United States’ most determined and potentially dangerous adversary in the region.

    key word, “political will”. Where do we find that again?

    Nor can U.S. victories in Afghanistan and Iraq be consolidated without change in Iran, or meaningful progress be made toward resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as long as the Khomeinist regime is determined to pursue its “wipe-Israel-off-the-map” strategy.

    Like I said to CDR Sala, logistics matter. Iraq and Afghanistan sandwitches Iran. But Iran also sandwitches Afghanistan between it and Pakistan, and it also sandwitches iran between itself and Syria/Lebanon/Palesitnians.

    If you don’t box in the enemy, the enemy will box you in, and then it will be game over people.

    Even today, Tehran is the ideological capital of international terrorism, with more than 60 groups from all continents gathering there each February for a global terror-fest.

    Makes for a great roach motel. They go in, but they don’t come out.

    But—some might object—even granting the virtue of the idea, how realistic is regime change in Iran? Can it happen?

    Could you get the Japanese to surrender without committing ritual suicide? Reality is what you make of it, through will and hard work.

    Since then, successive Khomei-nist administrations have systematically dismantled the vast, multiform coalition that made the revolution possible.

    You mean “purged”.

    The Khomeinists have massacred their former leftist allies, driven their nationalist partners into exile, and purged even many Islamists from positions of power, leaving their own base fractured and attenuated.

    Ye, that is Stalin type purging all right. Go Iran. Go Lefties. May you each destroy each other.

    Unfortunately, such a nucleus cannot be created so long as the fear exists that the U.S. and its allies might reach an accommodation with the regime and leave Iranian dissidents in the lurch.

    Herbert Walker Bush, another thing we may thank you for. I know you didn’t plan it like that, but it was a great example for why people “should not trust those decadent and silly Americans”. JFK couldn’t even do that with the Bay of Pigs.

    Look, if Bush wants to play domestic President, he may do so. He can let the Iraqis fight it out, win or lose, and do nothing but watch on the sidelines. I can deal with that. But only Bush can deal with Syria and Iran. He can’t be expecting other people to do his job. They dont’ have the power, they don’t have America’s military, and they sure aren’t the Commander in Chief of all American military forces.

    Those with power have a responsibility to themselves and to humanity to use it responsibly and for the good of as many human beings as is humanely possible, limited by the amount of power they wield, of course. Given how much power the US wields, getting some insurgency going on in Iran shouldn’t be a big deal.

    Forget about the bombs. At the Dawn of the 21st century, technology ain’t going to be the solution in war. Not when the US leaders are not even willing to test nuclear weapons in unpopulated regions. Ya, bombs can do it for you, but this is the 21st century, not the 20th. If it was the 20th, Truman and Churchill would be able to use bombs to win the war. But not now.

    the Azeris in the northwest, the Kurds in the west, the Arabs in the south, and the Baluch in the southeast, among others.

    Bush should have learned to back the Kurds a long time ago. Especially since his father just let the Kurds hang for awhile before putting up the no-fly zone. Okay, fine, Bush made a mistake in OIF 1 by not using the Kurds. Whatever, that’s in the past. Not supporting the Kurds in Iran, isn’t the past, it is now. Why hasn’t Bush learned any lessons? If we can get rid of the Democrats, maybe we can actually get a loyal opposition to help the President out for the good of us all. It is too bad we can’t purge the CIA and State Departments. Too many valerie plames, way too many.

    Ahmadinejad is now desperate to provoke a mini-conflict with the United States to divert attention from the gathering storm inside Iran.

    Isn’t that what Bush did?

    In his address to the UN General Assembly in September, President Bush showed unmistakably that he understands the desire of the people of Iran for freedom and self-determination.

    Oh Bush understands. It is obviously a conservative who cares, a compassionate conservative. Not a classical liberal, of course, but still, closer than normal. But the problem is, what is he going to do about it? He is still a conservative. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. What is going to make him “fix” Iran, excluding millionso f casualties on American soil?

    For instance, the adoption of a regime-change strategy does not preclude American participation in diplomatic initiatives focused on particular issues, such as the current efforts to engage the Islamic Republic in the matter of its nuclear ambitions.

    One of the best negotiation ploys is the good cop, bad cop act. You have this psycho killer dude out in the wings, and then you say to the other side, “deal with me, or deal with him, your choice”.

    Above all, the United States should be, as the President stated in his address to the UN, resolutely on the side of the Iranian people.

    Is Bush trying to pull a Herbert here? Iranians must surely be thinking of that. Like father, like son?

    U.S. will never endorse or grant legitimacy to the current despotic regime, and helping to expose the Islamic Republic’s repressive policies, human-rights violations, rampant corruption, and wanton subsidization of some of the worst terror groups on the face of the earth.

    Bush has trouble exposing the truth in Iraq, without the help of military blogs and the American people. I just don’t think he has demonstrated the ability to “expose” anything. Ja, he can help, he certainly has the power to. But if Iraq is an example of Bush exposing things, I don’t want any Version twos out there.

    Funding Iranian opposition groups, if needed, is one way to accomplish this. More important and ultimately perhaps more effective is for the U.S. to use its immense bully pulpit to publicize the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom.

    Bush doesn’t even use the bully pulpit to bolster support for Iraq, on a consistent basis. What exactly is going to make him do that for the Iranians?

    Accelerating the collapse and replacement of this aberrant tyranny, a curse to the Iranian people and to the world, will strike a blow against anti-Western and anti-democratic forces all over the globe, safeguard America’s strategic interests in the Middle East and beyond, and add another radiant page to the almanac of American support for the cause of freedom.

    As I learn more about war, it becomes more and more a case of logistics to me. Not tactics or strategy or whatever mumbo jumbo Zini keeps talking about concerning troop levels.

    Logistics. The foundation of your power and strength, from which all future actions and events will derive.

    When your logistics are secure, then your chances for winning are almost assured, if you can disrupt the enemy’s logistics at the same time. It is a field of study that reaches into many human endeavours. Iran is certainly the logistics base for the enemy. Just as America is for liberty, and as Iraq is the logistics base for the toehold in the ME.

    Shatter the logistics base, and it is all over for you but the dying.

Leave a Reply