The Ayatollah Who Killed the Revolution
Although some street skirmishes continue, the Green Revolution in Iran, highly touted by this blog and CNN, was effectively quashed by Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hoseyni Khameini on Friday, June 19, when he declared his unqualified support for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Khameini warned of dire consequences if protests over his re-election continued, and since then police and militia forces have spared no bullets in enforcing his decree. The Shah lost his throne when his soldiers refused to fire on the mobs demanding his ouster; the Besij militia now is only too happy to beat and kill the enemies of the current regime.
Iran is not alone in having a permanent leader who outranks all elected officials: Jordan, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia are ruled by hereditary monarchs; the Vatican State is ruled by a pope, who is elected, but never faces re-election. In the Soviet Union, the General Secretary of the Communist Party held effective control over all government officials. (1)
I was wrong in believing that the Supreme Leader would try to prevent bloodshed by calling for a run-off election between the top two contenders, thus maintaining a spiritual position above politics. By aligning himself and his office with Ahmadinejad, Khameini has forfeited this role, and has incurred the wrath of the millions of Iranians who believe the election has been stolen. In the fractured state of Iranian politics, Khameini is now clearly in the camp of the hardliners (along with Ahmadinejad), leaving former President Hashemi Rafsanjani as effective leader of the relatively moderate politicians. Mir H Mousavi, who still believes he was robbed of the presidency, (like Al Gore in 2000) is already fading as political force.
Khameini has been a restraining influence on the confrontational inclinations of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but his rhetoric about Israel is every bit as vitriolic. In 2001 Khameini declared that "this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region." When President Ahmadinejad said in 2008 that Iran was not against "the people of Israel" Khameini insisted that it was "nonsense to say we are a friend of the Israeli people." On the other hand, the Supreme Leader said in 2005 that " the Islamic Republic ....will never threaten any country." (2) Perhaps Khameini hates Israel even more than Ahmadinejad, but does not want a war .
Even more important is Ali Khameini's fatwa (or psak, religious decree) that nuclear weapons are forbidden by Islam. According to some reports, the military leaders of Iran are pressing for development of nukes anyway, and Khameini may have caved in to them on this. If so, Israel will attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and missile launching sites sometime soon, which will mean war between the two countries.
If Mousavi had won, there would have been a chance to prevent this nightmare scenario. Now it appears inevitable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Like Iran, the Soviet Union had elections----but all candidates had to be approved by the Communist Party "nomenklatura", the counterpart to the Guardian Council in Iran. Before Leonid Brezhnev, the President of the Soviet Union was a powerless figurehead.
(2) From Ali Khameini's biography in Wikipedia.
Iran is not alone in having a permanent leader who outranks all elected officials: Jordan, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia are ruled by hereditary monarchs; the Vatican State is ruled by a pope, who is elected, but never faces re-election. In the Soviet Union, the General Secretary of the Communist Party held effective control over all government officials. (1)
I was wrong in believing that the Supreme Leader would try to prevent bloodshed by calling for a run-off election between the top two contenders, thus maintaining a spiritual position above politics. By aligning himself and his office with Ahmadinejad, Khameini has forfeited this role, and has incurred the wrath of the millions of Iranians who believe the election has been stolen. In the fractured state of Iranian politics, Khameini is now clearly in the camp of the hardliners (along with Ahmadinejad), leaving former President Hashemi Rafsanjani as effective leader of the relatively moderate politicians. Mir H Mousavi, who still believes he was robbed of the presidency, (like Al Gore in 2000) is already fading as political force.
Khameini has been a restraining influence on the confrontational inclinations of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but his rhetoric about Israel is every bit as vitriolic. In 2001 Khameini declared that "this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region." When President Ahmadinejad said in 2008 that Iran was not against "the people of Israel" Khameini insisted that it was "nonsense to say we are a friend of the Israeli people." On the other hand, the Supreme Leader said in 2005 that " the Islamic Republic ....will never threaten any country." (2) Perhaps Khameini hates Israel even more than Ahmadinejad, but does not want a war .
Even more important is Ali Khameini's fatwa (or psak, religious decree) that nuclear weapons are forbidden by Islam. According to some reports, the military leaders of Iran are pressing for development of nukes anyway, and Khameini may have caved in to them on this. If so, Israel will attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and missile launching sites sometime soon, which will mean war between the two countries.
If Mousavi had won, there would have been a chance to prevent this nightmare scenario. Now it appears inevitable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Like Iran, the Soviet Union had elections----but all candidates had to be approved by the Communist Party "nomenklatura", the counterpart to the Guardian Council in Iran. Before Leonid Brezhnev, the President of the Soviet Union was a powerless figurehead.
(2) From Ali Khameini's biography in Wikipedia.
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 9:29 AM
3 Comments:
And where was our president in all of this?
Every president in my life time that has been faced with a similar situation has stood up and stood with the fighters for democracy no matter where they lived.
Where is our president?
The Ayotallah may have killed the revolution, but Obama stood and watched and did NOTHING.
As the saying goes all it takes in this world for evil to win is for so-called "good" people to do NOTHING.
Where is our president?
Clinton stood up for the Kosovars, Reagon stood up for the Russians, all Obama has done is to harangue the friends of the USA (e.g. Israel) and kiss the asses of our enemies (i.e. Iran).
Where is our president?
Obama is all over the TV with speeches about everything, Obama is talking to everyone and goes everywhere to talk, but where is he when people in the world want democracy and freedom?
Where is our president when he is really needed, when the voice of democracy and freedom in the world (i.e. the USA) is silent and why?
Obama is silent BECAUSE he does not like the USA, he does not see the USA as a voice of freedom and democracy in the world. He has said this himself. He says he is silent because once upon a time the USA involved itself in Iranian politics, therefore we need to be silent now because we are the evil ones.
G-d save us from this abomination, from this USA hating fake president, from this incompetant naive fraud who is ruining our economy and our country.
Where is our president?
Where are American Jews (and where is Mr. Glaser)?
By N. Richard Greenfield
The threat to peace in the Middle East, says our current administration, emanates not from Hamas, Hezbollah, Jihad or Arab nationalism, but from Israel. The U.S. is casting Israel in the classic Jewish role of scapegoat, blaming her for all of the region's problems.
President Obama has embraced the ever-ready and willing State Department's negativity towards Israel and, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leading the way, is making demands about Israeli 'settlements' which are harsh and uncompromising. At the same time, State ignores Arab illegal construction which is happening on a much wider and broader scale. The resulting bullying of Israel by the U.S. is without parallel in American-Israeli relations.
In the last month an undersecretary of defense unilaterally discussed Israel's nuclear capability. In the doing, a long-standing U.S.-Israeli agreement to publicly avoid discussion of this topic was broken. Defense is tampering with previously agreed-upon arms deals by denying Israel the right to make adaptations on equipment that Israel deems essential. Effectively, they are moving the long-promised F-35 fighter from Israel's grasp and, instead, Israel will put a good face on buying decades old F-15's and upgrading them to her specifications. At the same time, Egypt is being offered top of the line attack helicopters from a defense department that knows Egypt's only potential adversary for these weapons is Israel.
Meanwhile, Marine General (ret) Keith Dayton is training and arming a 5,000 man Fatah security force designed to secure a Palestinian state on land Israel has not yet ceded. At the UN, Susan Rice is changing U.S. policy from one of support to belligerence. General James Jones, the President's National Security Adviser is touting Presidential Adviser Samantha Power's suggestion that an armed international force including American soldiers enter Judea and Samaria to force the Israelis to make a Palestinian state happen. General Dayton is already training such a force of Fatah soldiers in Jordan, presumably for this task. Meanwhile, George Mitchell, the special envoy to the area, is picking apart previous agreements telling Israel to conform to his selected conditions, while ignoring the obligations to which Palestinians were supposed to have been bound. All of this while rockets still fall on Israel from Gaza, and Fatah and Hamas fight running battles on West Bank streets.
Mahmoud Abbas, the nominal head of Fatah, says he is waiting for this to happen before seriously considering negotiations. He is hoping the U.S. can get everything he wants before he even sits down with the Israelis.
Where are American Jews during all of this?
It seems they are still divided along pre-election lines. As individuals, most Jews who voted for Obama last November are content to ignore Israel's agony in the face of U.S. pressure because they still trust the President on other issues. They ignore the threats to Israel's safety and security and are blind to America's infringing on Israel's sovereignty as a free and democratic nation.
Without a strong American Jewish voice in support of Israel much is at risk. The solid coalition for Israel in the U.S. Congress is in the process of weakening as Democrats in Congress continue to find the pressures from Rahm Emmanuel and others difficult to resist. If Jews go silent during the 2010 elections and allow apathy, fear or political preference to prevent them from speaking up for Israel, the bullying will increase and the worst and most deadly outcomes will become real possibilities.
Re: Ivan's comment: "all Obama has done is to harangue the friends of the USA (e.g. Israel) and kiss the asses of our enemies (i.e. Iran)."
As Dennis Prager says (I'm not sure if its his original quote or whether he's quoting someone else): "Those who are decent to the cruel will be cruel to the decent." That's the history of the Left.
Post a Comment
<< Home