Sunday, May 24, 2009

Just Say No to Iran!

Over the course of recent months we have been forced to suffer Roger Cohen's paeans to Persian "civility" scrawled over the pages of The New York Times. Now, in a May 24, 2009 op-ed published by The Times entitled "Are We Losing Iran?", Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett also implore President Obama to forge "a new approach toward Iran." The Leveretts contend:

On its present course, the White House's approach will not stop Tehran's development of a nuclear fuel program - or, as Iran's successful test of a medium-range, solid-fuel missile last week underscored, military capacities of other sorts. It will also not provide an alternative to continued antagonism between the United States and Iran - a posture that for 30 years has proved increasingly damaging to the interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East.

Does this mean that Israel is no longer an ally of the U.S., or, do the Leveretts presume to know what is best for Israel as well as America's other Middle East allies, i.e. Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan?

The Leveretts go on to say:

The notion of an Israeli-moderate Arab coalition united to contain Iran is not only delusional, it would leave the Palestinian and Syrian-Lebanese tracks of the Arab-Israeli conflict unresolved and prospects for their resolution in free-fall. These tracks cannot be resolved without meaningful American interaction with Iran and its regional allies, Hamas and Hezbollah.

Sorry, Leveretts, but you've got it wrong. Hamas and Hezbollah are not Iran's "regional allies", but rather Iran's regional surrogates, busying themselves with murder, suicide bombings, terror aimed at civilians, the undermining of governments allied with the U.S., and illegal drug dealings. Are you asking the U.S. to be nice to Iran in the hopes that Iran will call off its dogs? Do you presume that Iran is capable of dictating terms to Syria, which views Lebanon as its backyard?

More to the point, how does anyone write an op-ed of this nature without mentioning Sunni/Shiite tensions? Do you know that the dozens of tribal conflicts among the Arab nations and between Iraq and Iran have claimed an exponentially larger number of lives than the combined Israeli/Arab wars?

And how does anyone call for "a new approach toward Iran" without mentioning the oppression of Iran's Baha'is, Kurds and Jews?

Yes, the ascension of President Obama undoubtedly marks a sea change in U.S. foreign policy, but does this mean that the U.S. need befriend every rabid totalitarian regime, every savage repressive theocracy, with the goal of fostering "change"? Guess what? You cannot and should not be friends with everyone, and in the instance of Iran, Obama should just say no -

  • Because Iran persecutes its Baha'i minority in much the same way that the Nazis persecuted the Jews;
  • Because Iran brutally persecutes its Kurdish minority;
  • Because Iran stones to death alleged adulterers with their children watching;
  • Because Iran severs the hands of alleged thieves;
  • Because Iran tortures and murders unfriendly journalists;
  • Because Iran imprisons anti-regime bloggers;
  • Because Iran calls for Shiite revolution across the globe;
  • Because Iran funds suicide bombings directed against civilians;
  • Because Iran sponsors terrorist bombings against Jews as far away as Argentina;
  • Because Iran supports genocide in Darfur;
  • Because Iran hangs homosexuals;
  • Because Iran has called to "wipe Israel off the map";
  • Because Iran oppresses and sanctions violence against women;
  • Because Iran seeks to undermine governments friendly to the U.S., e.g., Egypt;
  • Because a regime crazy enough to do all of the above is crazy enough to let its nukes fly;
  • Because if Iran has the bomb, Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan will also be quick to follow (strange how these four countries are not perturbed by the Israeli arsenal, but then Israel is not calling for Shiite revolution).

If Obama turns a cold shoulder to Iran, does this mean that tiny Israel will be reenacting Thermopylae against the Persian hordes? Nah. As already noted, enmity between Shiites and Sunnis far exceeds Iran's hatred against the Jews, and with oil at $60 a barrel, Iran cannot meet its domestic budget while pursuing foreign intrigue.

1 comment:

  1. The splendor of Baha'u'llah has not totally emerged from the clouds of misconceptions and superstitions; but when it does, it willl be evident that He is the Holy One of Israel.
    It is He who came to the Ottomans and was rejected and predicted the collapse of the empire, which made way for the State of Israel, which both protects the land from Muslims who don't know their Promised One has come, and are protected for God's own purpose.

    ReplyDelete