Iran

Frankly, My Dear Readers, I Don’t Give a Damn

by

After the Shah was deposed, a constitution was enacted in Iran which set out the details of their government.

It pretty much takes the form of a parliamentary system, with a President and elected legislature. But I’ve always just assumed that all of it is for appearances sake. A dog and pony show to placate the rubes.

The reason why is due to the fact that, try as they might to cloak their government in the guise of a functioning democracy, real power is wielded by a single man. No one is able to do jack unless the Supreme Leader approves. Every position of any note, from high ranking military commanders to the people who run the media to the head judge in the country, is appointed by this guy.

All new laws have to be approved by something called the Guardian Council. People running for parliament have to be approved by the G.C. before being allowed to take their posts. And who makes up this unelected body? It consists of six people hand picked by S.L. and another six hand picked by the head judge. And, in the paragraph above, who did I mention picks the head judge?

It is possible that some form of dispute can arise between the Guardian Council and parliament, although that seems extremely unlikely. But, should it happen, then the dispute is decided by the Expediency Council. And who appoints every single member of the E.C? If you can’t guess, then you haven’t been paying attention.

Besides having a title that sounds exactly like a comic book villain that Captain America would have fought, who is the Supreme Leader? A cleric. A religious leader. Iran is in the iron grip of a theocracy. The only people in the entire country who have direct control over the citizenry, from the military officers who control the guns to the media moguls who control the news, serve at the pleasure of a religious fanatic.

Read more

Quote of the Day

by

Michael Ledeen on the Iranian elections:

But things are different now. The Iranians do not expect any help from the outside world. Bush did not help them, to his shame, and nobody thinks Obama would lift a finger for Iranian dissidents. They’re on their own, just as the Lebanese voters were a few days ago. I think many Lebanese decided that they’d better take a stand against Hezbollah before all hope for freedom was lost. Many Iranians may well reason the same way.
 
If violence breaks out, what will the West do? Probably nothing, except express concern, and call for sweet reasonableness. Good luck with that! What should the West do? Support freedom in Iran. Nothing would so transform the region as a free government, dedicated to good relations with the West. Such a government would end the profligate spending on terrorism and devote the country’s resources to domestic concerns. Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, and the other jihadis, would be dramatically weakened. Syria’s Bashar Assad would suddenly find himself without his big brother in Tehran. If you want to dream of peace in the Middle East, a free Iran is at the heart of your Utopia.
 
Finally, for those who unaccountably continue to believe that the most important thing in the Middle East is the Arab-Israeli conflict, the best chance is once again a free Iran that worries about Iranians instead of Palestinians. There is no chance of peace so long as Tehran runs the terror movements. But if the terrorists have to raise their own money, find their own weapons, and train their own killers, things might get a lot easier.

I think that Ledeen’s comment about Lebanese voters is probably right. Anyone who isn’t blind must see that US allies threatened by aggressive dictatorships, as well as oppressed populations in those dictatorships, are now on their own with no chance of receiving US help. Certainly most Israelis understand this, though it’s not clear whether their corrupt political class does. Nor are Japanese, Taiwanese, South Koreans, Australians, Georgians, Venezuelans and others likely to have any illusions. Interesting times ahead.

Nuclear Weapons, Israel, and the Obama Administration

by

The Obama administration is looking at pressuring Israel to change the status quo regarding that country’s nuclear arsenal.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.

“Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, … remains a fundamental objective of the United States,” Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting.

Read more

Quote of the Day

by

Quite aside from the nuances of counterinsurgency warfare, nothing would so advance the cause of peace as the fall of the regime in Tehran, and its replacement by a government designed and elected by the Iranian people. I have long believed that can be accomplished peacefully, by supporting a non-violent democratic revolution in Iran. No American president in the last thirty years has attempted it, and most of them have acted as if they were actually afraid of supporting freedom for Iranians. A young Iranian blogger, upon hearing Obama’s love video to the mullahs, reacted with an elegant mixture of sadness and pride:

…people have been tortured on the charges of having connections with the United States. Some have been silent thinking you will come to their rescue. At least Bush had the honesty to separate this regime from the people. How easy you play with the people card. Please do not talk about our people anymore. Engage the regime and leave us alone. We will free Iran, even when you are helping this occupying regime…

That’s the key issue. It should come naturally to any American president, but it doesn’t. I fear we’re going to pay a terrible price for this deliberate refusal to see evil right in front of our noses. Negotiations are a very long shot, and sanctions have never compelled an enemy to change its policy. If we do not support revolution, we will most likely get war, a war far greater and far more lethal than the one the mullahs have been waging against us since 1979.

–Michael Ledeen

UPDATE: See this Melanie Phillips column (via David Foster).

The Perfect Enemy

by

Suppose you wanted to create a perfect enemy. An enemy so vile that its evil would be recognized by almost everyone. An enemy that would inspire people to come together in order to ensure its defeat.

To be more specific: suppose you were a screenwriter with the assignment of creating a suitable villain-organization for a major motion picture. The marketing plan for this movie suggests that it will be marketed primarily to a certain demographic and that, hence, your villain-organization should be particularly appalling to members of that demographic. The demographic in question consists of people who are affluent, highly educated (college with at least some postgraduate education), not particularly religious, and who consider themselves politically liberal or “progressive.” The plot of the movie demands that the audience must see the necessity for Americans–of many beliefs, occupations, and social backgrounds–to come together in order to defeat the enemy.

Oh, and one other thing. The year in which you are given this assignment is 1999.

Read more