[lit-ideas] Re: Iran (1), The Revolutionary Imperative

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 08:40:38 -0800

An interesting analysis, Marlena.  You touch upon one long-held hope, that
the part of the Iranian population which is not supportive of the Imams and
the Khomeini doctrine would somehow be able to gain control of Iran.  I
think many in our administration have entertained that hope for years.
However, it hasn't happened.  There has been no peaceful revolution, the
Imams and their republican guard still run the country, important agencies
still support Hezbollah and other such organizations, the administration
still threatens to destroy Israel and the U.S. and they are still actively
seeking the most powerful weapons they can obtain.  They are ramping up for
war big time.  So waiting longer for the peaceful revolution doesn't seem
the most prudent course at the present time.

 

It is partly because of the significant anti-regime sentiment in Iran that I
prefer the surgical destruction of the nuclear sites rather than an all out
invasion or attempting to force them into submission with sanctions.  The
ones who would suffer most from the sanctions are the very ones we want on
our side.  But if we use our smart bombs and put a few Special Forces on the
ground in strategic places in order to destroy their nuclear facilities,
that would represent the least harm to the Iranians we hope will eventually
set up a peaceful regime.  We can get in and get out.  How angry will they
get if we destroy weapons they don't want in the first place?  

 

The objection was voiced elsewhere that attempting to destroy their nuclear
sites will be difficult because we don't know where they all are.  While the
CIA was weak in regard to knowledge of what was going on inside Iraq, it was
much stronger in regard to Afghanistan because it had provided support to
many of them while they fought the USSR occupation.  I think the same thing
may be true in Iran.  The CIA supported the Shah until he was ousted in
1979.  Hopefully they still have contacts in Iran and can obtain good
information on where their nuclear sites are.

 

Lawrence

 

  _____  

From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 7:11 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Iran (1), The Revolutionary Imperative

 

In a message dated 2/3/2006 11:44:40 P.M. Central Standard Time,
andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

With those three major countries as Islamic 
republics, the rest of the Islamic world will follow along. The implications
for the West 
are very severe: 50-70% of the world's oil is in the Middle East. They will
control the oil.

HI,

Of course, if Andreas is correct in his prediction, it makes the part of me
which is familiar with the fundamentalist Muslim very concerned.  (Having
played with international students on two campuses, I am familiar with both
sorts. One campus was full of very moderate Muslims--but the other was not.
Very scary group and quite terrified the ones who wanted to go to the
different outings and parties that we held...)

 

The main reason that I am not sure that I agree with the prediction or with
the dire viewpoint of what is happening in Iran is that (from what I know),
there is a great mixiness in Iran ... (Andreas alluded to this in a previous
post)--the election which happened recently was not a landslide...perhaps
one could compare it to our current president's 'landslide'--yes, he got a
whole lot of votes, but there were a whole lot of votes on the other side,
too.

 

There are a lot of people in Iran who would prefer to modernize--prefer to
NOT have the fundamentalists in charge. I do agree that one reason for the
fundamentalists (esp in the Middle East, but even here in the USA in various
elections) is the perception that the secular leadership is corrupt. It's
too bad that those running for office on a more secular platform are not
able to articulate the concept of caretaking outside of using 'faith' as
their standard...

 

 

But, if Andreas is correct--why does he think that it would be in the best
interest of the USA to let Iran continue on its path?  If doing so will lead
to the fundamentalist Islamic world taking over--then we will have things
like what is happening to Hindus in Pakistan (kidnapped girls being forced
to marry Muslim men and thus converting--and never being allowed to see
their families again...) and so forth.  Fundamentalism of any sort is not
what I would prefer to see running the world...  

 

But, if he is correct--then in the 'national interest' argument that is a
part of what drives all nations--the USA ought not get out of Iraq even if
it cannot or will not do anything about Iran. It sounds like it would be
stupid for us to do so (for those of us who won't be able to flee this
nation and go to another country...those that can run away or pretend that
they are not going to be affected because they have plenty of money and can
'hide' in other countries so as to not be touched are in a different
situation...) 

 

I think there best be another argument towards this besides what Andreas is
stating (which kind of backs up Lawrence's viewpoint, actually...)  I'm
slightly behind on all these posts so hopefully there is one waiting for me
as I read through them...but otherwise--what Andreas says kind of just
states why we best do what Lawrence is saying we BETTER do for our own good
in the long run...(Having met fundamentalists in both the Christian and
Muslim world--if I had to choose, I'd rather have to interact with those in
the Christian world...and that is bad enough most of the time...)

 

 

HOWEVER...we could let Exxon rule the world.  (in regards to the thought of
a world government...)  Remember when the oil companies  were asked if they
would help with the astronomical heating bills people are  experiencing this
year.  They said that, while they really sympathized and  all, that this was
really up to the government.

This from people who, in the normal course of events, don't think that the
government should do anything but fight wars and build highways.  Funny how
their tune changes when it's either their pocket, or Uncle Sam's.  (not that
they want to 'give' anything to Uncle Sam...)  But, maybe if they were 'the
government', they would take some social responsibility...

<wry look>

 

Best,

Marlena in Missouri

Other related posts: