Iran’s Green Revolution Could Change the World
The success or failure of the democracy activists will resonate far beyond Iran. (Also read Roger L. Simon: "Iran: Siemens and Nokia should jam their own equipment — or be boycotted")
Should the Green Revolution succeed in toppling the regime, it will be the greatest event since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It will prove to be a more decisive event than even the invasion of Iraq and will rival the attacks of September 11, 2001, in influencing the course of history. The stakes could not be higher. The regime could fall, resulting in the greatest victory in the war on terror to date, or the regime will survive, leaving behind tens of thousands of bloodied bodies, a discouraged population unlikely to take such risks again and bitter at the lack of support from the United States, potentially losing the West one of its best allies. The regime will emerge stronger than before, far more emboldened, and far more vicious and radical — a development that could prove fatal to efforts to prevent a regional war from erupting.
The conflict between the Iranian regime and the civilized world has reached across continents, influencing almost every sphere of conflict. The most immediate effects would be seen in the Middle East. The world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, the primary lifeline of Hamas, Hezbollah, and other groups, and a secret but critical supporter of al-Qaeda will be eliminated, forcing them into a desperate search for funding, training, arms, ideological support, and guidance to keep them afloat. Hamas will suffer a mighty blow, setting them on a downhill track they probably won’t be able to reverse. Hezbollah will have to rely upon the Syrian government for survival, which will be facing its greatest instability since the 1980s as the people become inspired by the success in Iran and the regime loses its most critical ally. The Syrian regime either will have to dramatically liberalize and try to win over the West or will fall. So goes the Iranian regime, so will go the Syrian regime.
The Lebanese, already buoyed by their electoral victory over Hezbollah, will finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. Iraq will increasingly stabilize without Iranian interference, allowing for a safe withdrawal of U.S. forces. The political and ideological contest between the more secular and more Sharia-inclined Shiites will move decisively in the favor of the former, and that will ease the fears of the Sunnis, who understandably fear persecution by Shiite political forces they equate with the Iranian regime.
The new democratic Iran will have to work hard to resuscitate the collapsed economy. The first step they will take will be to sell oil, and lots of it, bringing down its price and reducing U.S. dependency upon the Gulf countries for energy. The Saudis and the other countries on the Arabian Peninsula can finally be held accountable.
In Latin America, Chavez’ potential nuclear partner-in-crime will no longer be around. Any covert activity by the Iranians to help Chavez shore up his security against similar unrest will end. He may not fall, but he’ll surely have reason to be worried. North Korea will immediately lose its most important customer, potentially along with Syria and other Iranian allies who decide to change course. Finally, North Korea will be feeling the economic pressure we’ve long sought.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Ryan Mauro is the founder of WorldThreats.com and the director of intelligence at the Asymmetrical Warfare and Intelligence Center (AWIC). He’s also the national security researcher for the Christian Action Network and a published author. He can be contacted at TDCAnalyst@aol.com.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
53 Comments
1. David W. Lincoln:The downside of this comes from having too many eggs in the basket of the United States. Would that more countries were mature, otherwise the stakes
Jun 22, 2009 - 8:06 am 2. Delia:would not be so high.
It would be great if the world had more ‘Americas’, but, now that ‘America’ is going down the crapper oddly enough, more people want and desire what America stands for.
Strange days.
Jun 22, 2009 - 8:22 am 3. SAF:Why the west is making a big deal of the battle between Ahmadinejad and Moussavi is beyond me. Both men have been selected by the Ayatollahs and thus hardly represent the kind of change people are dreaming of. Moussavi’s plan was to use less vitriolic rhetoric when dealing with the west. But there would be no change with funding of terrorism, developing the bomb etc.
Until the ayatollahs are removed there is no possibility of real change in Iran.
Jun 22, 2009 - 8:25 am 4. JFM:The real thunderclap would be if, a bit like in the French Revolution, after an intial moderately islamic government, the revolution continued accelerating until Iran ended rejecting Islam. That would shake Islam in its very foundations since it has ever assumed it could only advance never retreat. That is why Spain’s liberation nearly killed it and it was only saved by Turks’ victories in Eastern Europe.
That outcome (rejection of Islam) is not absurd: for one side direct clerical rule has evidenced the corruption of many mullahs and Islam’s lack of solutions to modern day problems and for another side many Iranians see Islam (and the Mullahs) as something foreign, or more exactly as omething forced upon Iranians with utmost savagery by people they despise (Arabs).
Now the differnce with France is that the Republicans while a minority were rutless and more violent than the majority. It will be harder to surpass partisans of Islam in violence.
Anyway Iran leaving Islam would be a major victory in the WOT.
Jun 22, 2009 - 8:32 am 5. pistol pete:Iran sees Iraq on one side and Afghanistan on the other enjoying having a voice in their government.Who was it who set out to liberate the people of Iraq,knowing how infectious freedom is,and what gratitude did he get in this country?
Jun 22, 2009 - 8:33 am 6. Professor Guvinoff:I agree with this essay. The front line of the war on terror is now inside Iran, the alienated crowds against the security apparatus of the tyranical aristocracy. The guard has the bullets, and the mandate to use them, but we don’t know how solid their loyalty is. On the other side, the insurgents have their aspirations, and their number. Could they flip the guard? Remember the fall of Milosevic?
We cannot predict the outcome, but I agree with Mr. Mauro’s conclusions, a decisive battle in the war on terror is before us. The excuses behind the “prudent neutrality” sound hollow to me. As Mr. Ledeen said “we are meddling because we exist”. Pretending otherwise is only a particularly dangerous form of vanity.
Jun 22, 2009 - 8:37 am 7. Delia:3. SAF,
I’m wondering that myself. Are the Iranian people trying to make a statement which is deeper than the ‘obvious’? Is there something bubbling to the surface which was underlying? Is there a real, true desperation that has found something to grasp and run with? It takes a LOT of people to fight and die for true ‘freedom’. Is this ‘fighting’ for just another ‘puppet’ leader or is this fight about fear and loathing for a regime that has been in ‘control’ of its people for far too long?
It will be sad if the results of all of this pain and uprising go no place. It’s definitely OBVIOUS that many Iranians have had ENOUGH of being dictated to.
Jun 22, 2009 - 8:38 am 8. Mike T:As he should. The CIA’s involvement in 1953 paved the way for the Islamic Republic in 1979. If the CIA had never overthrown Mohammed Mosaddeq, this whole issue probably would never have happened.
Jun 22, 2009 - 8:51 am 9. Sherab Zangpo:Congrats, Ryan Mauro.
You have listed all the reasons why Obama is not doing a thing to help the revolution in Iran.
All the items on your dream list would severely damage the agenda of the internationalist subversives. Hence, Obama’s “not taking sides”, which of course is a solid taking side with the mad mullahs.
The guy didn’t hug Chavez without a reason.
But I am glad to see that 90 % of the pundits have a strong faith in the Apologizer in Chief.
Don’t worry, live happy.
It will make your days easier.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Jun 22, 2009 - 8:56 am 10. Mongoose:Mike T
Prove that. It was Jimmy Carter’s support for Khomeine and Co. and lack of support for the Shah
and failure to stand up to the new forces that caused this. Do you really think that there was no political direct action by the Soviets in Iran throughout the entire post war period? What makes you think that the old National Front elections where honest?
There were a great many communists in that organization back then.
Do you not think that the Kremlin (or the Chinese) are not involved in events now?
Looks like chinese crowd control to me.
Are you really convinced that it was not a good thing to intervene there in 1953>
The fate of nations during that period where we did not act in time was not a pretty one. I caution against jumping on the Left wing meme bandwagon here about 1953.
I also fail to see how there is a direct causality here. Greece seems to have worked out ok.
What is forgotten here is the Communist leaning of the Iranian national front in the immediate psot war years, and the in roads that the soviets.
Back then they still had the backbone to stand up to all of this (and to protect their property rights too).
Jun 22, 2009 - 9:06 am 11. Marie Claude:SAF I share your analyse, besides the mobs were singing “Allah Ouakbar” while rioting
umm, islam proselytism isn’t dead, it is on the net too, like the many twitters and youtubers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRkmTwXpFwM (via creeping-sharia)
Jun 22, 2009 - 9:13 am 12. Marie Claude:I hope Robin Sloan will not help it, like he did improve the displaying of the news on Iran revolectionnaires
http://tweurl.com/r/2699
Jun 22, 2009 - 9:30 am 13. SAF:7 Delia:
Hope springs eternal I guess.
Hard to believe anything good will come of this. The fact is nothing Obama can say will change the course of events here. Look at the billions we spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. The outcome in both these places is still uncertain.
I don’t see the Mullahs loosing any power in the aftermath. Despite a decade of poverty and the loss of the first gulf war the Iraqis still couldn’t get up the courage to remove Saddam. It won’t be any different for the Iranians. And this time there won’t be the US available to bail them out.
Jun 22, 2009 - 9:30 am 14. Ms. Attitude:Most Islamist in the Middle East are Islamist in practice only. They know no other religion because they are not free to hear. They choose Islam because it makes life easier or last. The rulers of Iran, and other ME nations, use the religion to supress the people.
Jun 22, 2009 - 9:34 am 15. Fragmentarian:Seventy per cent of Iranians are under the age of 30. They want to live under the mullahs like I wanted to spend my life under the rule of Sister St. Dominic. Wake up Mr. President. History is on the verge of passing you by.
Jun 22, 2009 - 9:41 am 16. Nick G.:Ryan, this is the best article I’ve readom from you to date. Perhaps it’s because of the hopeful content. Good stuff.
Jun 22, 2009 - 9:42 am 17. jim:Muslims respect fear and force regardless of sect – he who wields it ferociously and swiftly is the greatest example any Muslim can aspire to become.
There is no retirement plan for despots. Ahmadenijad, the Mullahs, the corrupt politicians…no place for them to go if they fail to put down these riots. This is a winner-take-all game in which those who hold the guns make the rules.
This is nothing more than a well crafted means of flushing out, and making a list of names, those who are not loyal to Ahmadenijad and the Mullahs. They intend to go to war, destroy Israel and usher in the Mahdi (muslim Messiah) in order to seize control of the Ummah from Wahabi Sunni Saudi Arabia.
This episode in Iran is about power – domestic control of the masses means nothing when the real battle is for the hearts and minds of Islam; and at this moment Saudi Arabia is losing because they will not brutalize their own people, to usher in the Mahdi, as the Shi’a will.
Jun 22, 2009 - 9:49 am 18. Old Soldier:SAF – In 1775 through the first half of 1776, our forefathers were fighting for representation in Parliament and respect from their King.
Revolutions have a way of growing and expanding in unforeseen ways. I sincerely hope this one ends with a freed Persia. I doubt it will “end” Shiite Islam – but maybe it will be the beginning of a Reformation.
Jun 22, 2009 - 10:08 am 19. Delia:13. SAF,
The worst part is watching the news and feeling like an onlooker watching people jump out of a burning building and feeling like a helpless putz.
14. Ms. Attitude:
“The rulers of Iran, and other ME nations, use the religion to supress the people.”
EXACTLY RIGHT.
Jun 22, 2009 - 10:14 am 20. Mike T:Do you really think the support for the Islamic revolutionaries just came out of nowhere? It came from the fact that the Shah was a tyrant. He may have been less of a tyrant than the current regime, but that doesn’t mean we should have installed him. People like you, who take the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” approach only served to damage our reputation in the Cold War by supporting every two-bit thug who pledged to fight Communism–even if his vision for his country wasn’t really any better than Communism.
Jun 22, 2009 - 10:29 am 21. Mike T:No, it won’t be the start of anything like the Protestant Reformation. Nothing needed to change in Christian scripture to make the Reformation happen. Entire Suras in the Koran would have to be rewritten to make an equivalent event possible, and the Muslim world would never accept a blatantly rewritten Koran.
Jun 22, 2009 - 10:31 am 22. SAF:18: Old Soldier:
Glad you brought that up. Points out what a unique place America is. But the conditions that gave us the American revolution don’t exist in Iran as near as I can tell.
Although a free Persia, as you put it, would indeed change the world.
Jun 22, 2009 - 10:49 am 23. Mongoose:MikE T
I asked you to prove it, not reiterate you position and biases.
(nor did I need a repeat of Soviet propaganda of the period)
Perhaps it is beyond you. I suggest you go back an re-read my prior post–you seem to be missing the point. You certainly are not repsonding to them.
Again, prove to me how the events during Carter’s time are a direct response to 1953 and that there is a real causality, and that it is not more an matter of Carter’s perfidy and incompetence and political direct action out of the Kremlin and the communist leaning remnants of the old Iranian National Front of the immediate post war period.
An no, we were right to support the Shah, and if you did not have your lefty blinders on, you would see that the fates of nations in that period were we did not stop the Soviets are much harsher than those of nations where we did step in. We also, at the time, were men enough to defend our property rights. It was a perfectly reasonable thing to, and tha fate of Iran and all the ME would be much the better for it.
The Cold War was neither joke or a game. Go talk to some Eastern Europeans if you think otherwise.
BTW, are you suggesting that we depose all of the Monarchies in the ME? The Shah ws much less “brutal” than most of them. And what about there Baathist/Socialist equivalents? By you logic, Obama should not be supporting Assad or Hamas either.
You need to brush up on your histroy of the region and the history of the Cold War. Hint: do not read Marxist revisionist history, agitprop or cant.
These are all lies.
Jun 22, 2009 - 10:58 am 24. Ms. Attitude:This is worth looking at:
http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/22/iranian-protestor-plea/
What do these protesters want? Freedom…Hello, Obama, is anyone home?
Jun 22, 2009 - 11:01 am 25. Raymond in DC:Mike T writes, “Do you really think the support for the Islamic revolutionaries just came out of nowhere? It came from the fact that the Shah was a tyrant. He may have been less of a tyrant than the current regime, but that doesn’t mean we should have installed him.”
Of course it didn’t come “out of nowhere”. It reflected the strains of a country changing too fast for many of its citizenry. If the Shah was a tyrant, he was less so than many ruling his Persian Gulf neighbors, less so than Iraq or Egypt. Resentment certainly came also from the mullahs who opposed his land reform, and from traditionalists who opposed women’s rights. It came from the communist Tudeh party. But for those, like the Bahais and Jews, who didn’t meddle in politics, life was pretty good. I saw this in 1976 when I traveled to Iran (using a visa provided in Israel!).
Of course, that wasn’t good enough for Carter (who considered Khomeni a “holy man”) or those around him like Brzezinski. So they threw him under a bus.
Jun 22, 2009 - 11:12 am 26. David M. in Europe:If you could imagine democracy under Nazism or Communism you can dream democracy under Islam in Iran. These criminals, Khamenei, A-nejad, Mousavi, Rafsanjani, et al. are products of Islam and there are thousands of other mullah criminals as bad as these monsters. It is time to discard political correctness and say what is needed to be said.
The West needs leaders like Geert Wilders (who says what is needed to be said) not Barack Hussein or Gordon Brown.
Jun 22, 2009 - 11:17 am 27. john from cinncinatti:the law of unintended consequences has just taken over, or is that Murphy’s law. WE are the bad guys right? so lets help the good guys out and do what’s right. to our government…get your head out new guy. do it.
Jun 22, 2009 - 11:21 am 28. SeanLA:Money, guns and lawyers
Jun 22, 2009 - 11:53 am 29. ked5:has anybody thought of that?
the movie, true or not, charlie wilsons war didn’t have presidential approval.
why can’t someone pull that?
24. Ms. Attitude:
What do these protesters want? Freedom…Hello, Obama, is anyone home?
~~~
Considering zobamba is working to take-away freedom from American citizens, he can hardly support another country gaining any freedoms. especially as he’s soooo looking forwards to dealing with i’m-a-nut-job. if the protester’s win, he will have to change his plans. we all know how he *really* feels about change.
Jun 22, 2009 - 11:57 am 30. John Samford:“It will prove to be a more decisive event than even the invasion of Iraq and will rival the attacks of September 11, 2001, in influencing the course of history. The stakes could not be higher.”
Evidence please! Sounds like somebody has been sneaking behind the wet bar again.
At best the Iranian regime will return to it’s pre-Ahamadamnutjob condition, which only looks good compared to it’s current condition.
Go back and look at the history of ’soft revolutions’. They just don’t last. The soft Left likes them because they are showy, energetic and accomplish nothing.
Jun 22, 2009 - 12:08 pm 31. Dero:Russia now has a tyrant at least as bad as any of the old communist dictators. Lebanon has a new ’soft revolution’ every other year or so. I question how revolutionary it is if you have to do it over and over again. Georgia, the Ukraine? Their ’soft revolution’ removed dictators and replaced them with tyrants. Whoooopie! Halllaluuuuu_YAH!
Stand up and rejoice friends! Pass the koolaid, please.
Iran will be no different. Out with the old tyrant, in with the new tyrant.
This change of despots might impress those on the left, the right just yawns. Same-O, same-O….. Been there done that, got the scars to show for it.
We have no clue what comes out of this. For all we know the opposition leadership cuts a deal with the revolutionary guard that gives them more autonomy in exchange for backing the opposition. Or the baluchi’s try to secede and end up destabilizing pakistan. Or iran becomes a failed state and radical sunni groups move in to wage war. We don’t know what comes out of this. I mean, it’s better to mention “alternative realities” of a successful green revolution that don’t end in a rosy scenario for the west. Because those are the realities we have to prepare for.
And I’m still trying to figure out how conservatives got in the business of thinking in grandiose utopian ideas about foreign policy, but it’s dangerously naive.
Jun 22, 2009 - 12:10 pm 32. Harry:The Center of Gravity has always been the mind of the Islamic world. Rejecting the Clerics would be a victory for moderates.
It also might mean to an Iran more like Turkey, and hopeflly, Iraq: secular and Democratic (at least for the Middle-East).
Obama’s comfortable living-room theories (we all know whose living room) are rubbing up against a very uncomfortable reality.
Jun 22, 2009 - 12:40 pm 33. John Byrnes:If you are participating in the Iranian Riots or know someone who is and wish to remain safe? Let me help by showing you how to distinguish between those who are angry and those who are lethal. http://www.aggressionmanagement.com/Riots-in-Iran.htm
Jun 22, 2009 - 12:46 pm 34. John Samford:WE got no dog in this fight. Who ever wins in Iran, it will NOT CHANGE the politics between the USA and Iran.
Jun 22, 2009 - 12:58 pm 35. David W. Lincoln:Time waits for no man, or as Napoleon said to his generals. “Ask me for anything but time”.
The USA has had 2 opportunities to create a better relationship with Iran. The First was in 1979 when Ahamadamnutjob and his buds invaded and captured the US embassy in Tehran. “Peanut” Carter blew it when he didn’t stomp up the hill to Congress and DEMAND a declaration of War against Iran and activate NATO’s mutual defense clause.
If he had done that, The Mullahs would have gone in and rounded up the “students” and given back our diplos and Marines. Or cower in fear as the B-52’s leveled Tehran.
There would be no Islamic terrorist offensive against the USA today, No Hezz-b-Allah, No Al-Qaeda, No NYC attack. No WoT.
AQ was created for a lot of reasons, foremost among them was the KSA allowing US troops on it’s soil. They were there because Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Iraq invaded Kuwait because Saddam asked for and received permission to from the USA. He asked for Kuwait as his reward for attacking Iran, which he did partly because the Carter administration saw Iraq as a counterweight to Iran and as a source of punishment for the Mullahs. Peanut lacked the courage to take America to war but he had no problem with using Iraq as a proxie to wage war against Iran.
November 04, 1979 was a key date. A hinge in history. Whatever happens in Iran over the next few days is a result of that event, and is not as significant.
The Second missed opportunity was in the Spring of ‘04. President Bush had the power and the logistics to invade Iran. He only lacked the courage.
You see, the simple fact born out by history is that ’soft power’ is ineffective against despots, tryants, dictators, etc. Soft power only works against those nations with consensual government, since soft power works mostly against the middle class. No amount or type of sanctions will be effective against the Mad Dog Mullahs, Kim, Castro, Chevez, et. al.
We could starve as many North Koreans to death as we want, Kim won’t miss a meal. Saddam wasn’t worried about how many Iraq babies died because the didn’t have the medicine they needed (not near as many as were murdered by abortion doctors in America in that period). Saddam WAS worried about cruise missiles flying thru his front door, taking a left at the hallway and heading toward his bedroom. VERY worried.
Iran is the key to winning the WoT. Regime change in Iran means we win. What is happening now in Iran IS NOT regime change. It is changing the butler and the door guard, not the despot-in-chief.
John Stamford, Joel Rosenberg’s latest book, “Inside the Revolution” shows that there are Muslims who say that the shedding of blood is the preferred route to deal with adherants of other faith traditions, or of no faith tradition. He refers to them as “Radical Muslims”.
There is another section, in which he refers to them as “Reform Muslims”. These are the Muslims which abhor the shedding of blood, like the kind of Islam preferred by Morocco and Jordan.
What I am saying is, those Muslim countries which
refer to the radicals as “Un-Muslim”, (the death
of a cleric in Pakistan by the Taliban, not that long ago, is one way to identify those who stand
up to Radical Muslims.)
We are making progress in taking out those who
Jun 22, 2009 - 1:10 pm 36. David W. Lincoln:continue in bloodshed, and frankly it takes time
for them to be brought to their knees. Just like
the death of Heydrich encouraged those who lived
under the dark cloud of National Socialism, for
they knew that one day National Socialism would
be brought down to a place where they were kneeling.
To reiterate. There are Muslims who see themselves
Jun 22, 2009 - 1:15 pm 37. JFM:demonized because of the death and mayhem perpetrated and excused by the current government of Iran, and those who export cannon fodder.
To Mr Lincoln
At the Wansee conference three were Nazis who abhorred the shedding of blood and proposed sterilization as the way to implement a bloodless fional solution.
You see the problem is Islam, the ideology; The “peaceful Muslims” either have only tactical differences with terrorists, act as shields against our retalations or quite simply are bad Muslims.
Also have you noticed how often those peceful Muslims end pardoning jihadists who have killed infidels, and after a second pardon these end being released after less than five months in jail?
Anyway there is no substitute for the ideological destruction of Islam, since in its ideology when someone has perpetrated every kind of sin there is a sureproof way to reach paradise.
Jun 22, 2009 - 1:40 pm 38. lefroy:It’s natural that Americans, the most optimistic people in the world, and more power to them, should think like this. But what chance getting rid of the brutal, corrupt, mendacious and paleolithic grubs who wield power in Iran? Pretty small really. I hope I’m wrong.
Jun 22, 2009 - 2:08 pm 39. David W. Lincoln:JFM, it is a choice that had to be made. Either Muslims, like the cleric referred to in this story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan13-2009jun13,0,5947854.story
take the fight to the Radical Muslims now, in conjunction with those countries who have military forces where the bullets are flying; or they be on the sidelines, even though there are Radical Muslims to eliminate.
The Cleric who went after the Taliban can be equated with the Red Army. Eventually they will
have to be dealt with, but that day of reckoning
will come.
Hitler had to be stopped, and frankly the actions
of the Red Army shortened the length of existence
of the third Reich.
It boils essentially down to this: what timeline
Jun 22, 2009 - 2:55 pm 40. ABI:are we working with.
Surely..surely..we can do someting COVERTLY, without prancing into Iran or saying anything! these people need help. Covertly!!..
GO GREEN!!!
Jun 22, 2009 - 3:11 pm 41. Leo Appel:What we really should be discussing now is what we are going to do in the next year or so when some city on American territory or the territory of an ally disappears under a mushroom cloud. Are we going to intensify the debates about “moderate” vs. “radical” muslims or are we going to demand that our president respond in a manner that is appropriate to the mushroom cloud. Does someone here have some idea what an appropriate response would be? A response in kind? No response? Just think a moment: none of you have an easy answer to those questions. So, do you really believe that the inexperienced kid in the White House has an answer? If we are serious about the coming nuclear cloud, we must demand that the administration be candid in telling the public what responses are available and which of them might be used.
Jun 22, 2009 - 3:34 pm 42. ding:Too many what-ifs. All of this speculation is just…speculation. One thing for sure, cyber war is here. What happens next is anyone’s guess.
My guess? Radical attempts to curtail cyber info worldwide will increase dramatically. Can’t have us common folk allowed access to all this dangerous info.
Jun 22, 2009 - 4:05 pm 43. David W. Lincoln:Pakistan is shedding blood to make sure that the Taliban will not be in a position to claim nukes. Plus, when NoKorean ships enter international waters, one can be sure that any transporting of material will be interdicted.
There are people who are professional and their job is to make sure that those who want to use nuclear material as weapons, that they wind up like Ahmed Ressam, the apprehended millenium bomber who was bound for Los Angeles.
For it is easy to second guess the professionals,
Jun 22, 2009 - 5:01 pm 44. David W. Lincoln:but don’t you think that the cadre of professionals would have taken this into consideration, and therefore they have the number
of professionals that they have.
I came across this analysis at the Jerusalem Post:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1245184891821&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Needless to say, change is coming. For a prime contagion will have been removed.
Call it a vindication of the Sakharov doctrine: how a country treats its own citizens will be how other countries will be treated.
Change is coming, and those with the most fortitude and foresight will carry the short term, medium term, and long term futures.
Jun 22, 2009 - 6:23 pm 45. Libertyship46:There have been few times in my lifetime when I have been ashamed to be an American, but this is one of them. For our own President NOT to come right out and support the Iranian demonstrators was a terrible mistake and it betrays everything this country is supposed to stand for. Face it, the mullahs are going to blame us no matter what we do, so we may as well stand with the demonstrators and give them our full support. What the mullahs don’t seem to understand is that Moussavi is almost irrelevant now. The killing has started and the bodies are piling up and the Iranian public has had enough of their oppressive, medieval, theocracy. It may not happen in the next few days, or even months, but the people of Iran have had enough of the mullahs and want a change. And once the mullahs lose the support of the people, trying to stop them is going to be like trying to stop the Berlin Wall from falling. This rebellion is just going to keep growing until it gets a charismatic leader and then that will be the end of the mullahs and their supporting thugs in the Revolutionary Guards. For the American President not to come right out and support this amazing act of courage on the part of the Iranian people is embarrassing and shows how cowardly this administration has become. The mullahs can threaten us with whatever they want, but it means nothing, nothing, if they are overthrown by their own people. We should be doing everything in our power to support this revolution because it doesn’t seem like their leaders can be much worse than what the mullahs are offering right now. If the revolutionaries win, then at least we could say that America supported them when it counted most. If the revolutionaries fail, then America and the Western European powers will have the moral authority to further isolate the despotic regime in Tehran. And the mullahs will NOT attack us in Iraq or Afghanistan if they know we can destroy their power base at home by supporting the revolutionaries with guns and money. We should be standing firmly against dictators and with the people who are fighting for their own chance at democracy. The best part about this is that, aside from moral support, America doesn’t need to do much of anything. This is the Iranian people’s fight and they are the ones who are goign to win it, just like the people of Eastern Europe overthrew their Soviet masters. Shame on President Obama for not being on the right side of history.
Jun 22, 2009 - 6:42 pm 46. John Samford:Mr. Lincoln, I half agree. We are making progress against the “Radical Muslims”. Just as the west did in the 11th century and again in the 14th, 16, and 19th. We had them on the ropes in the 19th. European nations were squabbling over the choicest parts of the Ulmma. Sorta.
Jun 22, 2009 - 9:42 pm 47. Bad Karma:IIRC it was Gladstone who said, ‘Now we have Egypt. Don’t want it, don’t know what to do with it but we can’t give it back. Or maybe it was Earl Gray. Regardless, it was another few bricks to the load that was the “White Man’s burden”.
My points are that this war has been going on since Ol’ Mo came down out of the hills in the 7th century. Almost 1600 years now. By any objective measure the Muslims are winning. The reason why they are winning is they have a plan. That plan is called the Koran (Quran). It, among other things, divides the world into two houses, the house of Islam and the house of War.
So the distinction between ‘radical’ and ‘moderate’ is purely a western one. Muslims use it as what the Russians call a Maskarovia (sp?), or ruse of war. It is a major reason why the Muslims are winning.
Islam found out during the crusades that they cannot match Westerners (Europeans) on the battlefield unless the Europeans screw up by the numbers. So the Muslim learned to use guile and misdirection to defeat Europeans. This became even more important after gunpowder and critical after the ICE was introduced to the battlefield.
In the 21st century propaganda is a more powerful weapon then the ICE. Muslims are masters at it. That is why we ( the West) don’t have a lot of time left.
My great grandchildren will be answering prayer call if something isn’t done NOW.
I have serious doubts concerning the “revolution”. It’s not that I don’t believe the citizens want “change”, but change from what? Exchanging the current president for one that also advocates violence against Israel, one of the founding members of Hezbollah. So where’s the change? If this “revolution” did not coicide with the elections, I may have put more creedence towards the people wanting to the country of the current government along with the mullahs. But that is not the case, these protests evolved out of Mousavi not being elected and the outcry of tainted votes and practices. Many of these things, quite frankly none of them have been covered at all by the media. Possibly the people used this opportunity (bogus elections) to move forward with vetting the entire government system. This I could go along with. I hold little faith in Barry supporting the “revolution” as well as this achieving much of anything at this point as the ideology regardless of outcome will still be in place.
Jun 23, 2009 - 12:04 am 48. David W. Lincoln:Mr. Samford, yes things are being done now. For instance, what Gert Wildeers is doing, as well as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Walid Shoebat, Father Zakarias, Kamal Saleem, Wafa Sultan, Bat Yeor, et al, to expose the ugliness
of those who follow in the footsteps of Sheikh Yassin (onetime spiritual head of Hamas).
When Israel took him out, the National Post printed a letter to the editor
of mine that equated that action with the taking out of Heydrich.
Now, it is one thing to be killed for the witness of Christ, which was almost the fate of Joel Rahman in Afghanistan, but that is marginally better
than being a second class citizen in Malaysia, because one is not a Muslim.
I hear your frustration, and it is possible to deal with both of the matters
I raised above, but it is difficult to give equal bearing 24/7 to both. Sometimes it is possible to deal with the lack of equality, more easily. Other times it is easier to deal with those with blood on their hands.
One other thing, it is very easy to deal only with what is going on in North
America, Australia, and Europe. The rest of the world is seeing considerable growth in the church, and I dare say that that is where the future will be written, especially in the next 20 years.
I am in my mid 40s, and I expect a larger say from Africa, South America and Asia by then.
Jun 23, 2009 - 8:17 am 49. David W. Lincoln:My bad, the letter was about Selah Shehadeh, not Sheikh Yassin. Here is the letter, and I think it still is valid.
George Jonas does a very good job showing that democracies often get their hands dirty when dealing with those who use terror as a weapon, as in the case of Israel and the bomb it dropped on Hamas leader Salah Shehadeh (George Jonas column, Sharon Serves Notice, July 29).
Reinhard Heydrich, one of the top SS officials in Nazi Germany, responsible for the killing of thousands of Jews, was the Shehadeh of his day, and in a very good description in William Stevenson’s A Man called Intrepid, a detailed look is given of Heydrich’s assassination by British trained Czechoslovakian agents fighting the Nazis.
I say this because, it is just as true today as at any point of history — the arch-murderer’s actions finally caught up with them.
Even though innocents also lost their lives during the Nazi backlash following Heydrich’s killing, those who were living under the dark cloud of National Socialism gathered hope that it too would one day be brought to its knees.
BTW, the letter was written in July, 2002.
Jun 23, 2009 - 9:16 am 50. A.W.:The more i read the more convinced i am that we would be crazy to let this opportunity go by. I don’t know why obama is so determined to squander this possibility.
the regime now is neither doomed nor guaranteed to survive. its all on a knife’s edge and really could go either way. i pray to God that the iranian people will soon enjoy their God-given right to freedom and democracy, and i hope the road to that freedom will be as bloodless as possible (and if the tree of liberty must be fed, let it be with the blood of tyrants more often than patriots). Let us hope Neda and all the other voices of iran will not have been silenced in vain.
Jun 23, 2009 - 11:23 am 51. David W. Lincoln:From your lips, A.W. to God’s ears.
I came across this radio interview elsewhere:
http://live.radioamerica.org/loudwater/player.pl?name=wnd&url=http://feeds.radioamerica.org/podcast/DWP/audio/000007_010275.mp3
Needless to say, it is my conclusion that it is worth acting upon,
Jun 23, 2009 - 12:14 pm 52. David W. Lincoln:Taking a look at Michael Ledeen’s most recent piece
here, he refers to Steve Schippert. The analysis is intriguing, and the Al-Arabiya news story (the first blue link) with the comments are astounding.
Asking BHO to consider to begin a human rights abuse case against his fellow traveller, I need a dinner jacket, is as forlorn, or bereft, of logic as asking a fox to guard a henhouse.
If anyone can get the word out to legislators outside of the United States, to follow up on that course of action, I have one question: why
are you waiting?
Time is of the essence, and there is no time like
the present.
http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/06/regime-change-iran-movement-se/
Thank you.
Jun 23, 2009 - 3:22 pm 53. David W. Lincoln:An addendum. I am in Canada, I will be sending that analysis to the Israeli, Japanese, and German embassies, as well as the British and Australian High Commands (some sort of british thing that acts like an embassy, but only between members of the British Commonwealth), in Ottawa.
So, for those in the United States, and elsewhere, would you parcel out amongst yourselves those embassies which would be most welcoming of the message.
Also, would appreciate guidance as to how many times each embassy should receive the analysis, so that in our exuberance, we do not kill the goose which laid the golden egg.
This is one way for us, outside of Iran, to aid those on the front lines, to take out the malignancy that has afflicted this world for far
too long.
Long may truth and freedom overlap!
Jun 23, 2009 - 4:06 pm