The Real Danger for Iran
The term Islamo-fascist is too broad a brush. But Having said that, it is fitting to the Theocracy in Iran.
Condi, the Mistress of Dominatrix outfits, is of the Madeleine Albright school of thought in that she is against military attack on Iran, and pro appeasement of the mullahs, and "sleeping with the enemy" (no pun intended) within the framework of a "Grand Bargain" which will gaurantee that US will not try to overthrow the regime, if and only if Iran stops supporting Islamic terrorists around the world, and also stop its nuclear activities (like THAT's gonna ever happen, even if the mullahs promise all!). Suffice it to say, Condi is no friend of the Iranian people or a future Iranian democracy, either.
The term Mao-Islamist was a label that was placed on certain political dissident groups under the Shah in the 70s. There were actual groups proclaiming they were Mao-Islamists in Iran in the 70s, it was a sort of mix of Chinese socialism and Islam. Rumour has it that Ahmadinejad's "career" started off as an active member of such groups back in the early 70s. And of course, we see today that Beijing is one of the most ardent supporters of the current Iranian regime, albeit more for cheap oil and other economic advantages for itself than anything else. But geopolitically, China also see the Islamic Republic of Terror in Iran, as its pseudo-proxy to ward off further US expansion in the region. Other than that, I am not even sure that the Red Chinese are "Maoists" themselves. They are more like "Profiteers", like the "Farangi" in Star Trek Next Generation, without ethics or scruple. Further it seems that Myanmar too is now closing in on a shift away from China and into the British circle of influence. As Pakistan is shifting away from US and back to its traditional British roots, as well, if Benazir is back on the saddle there soon. That leaves Iran...
And that is exactly the danger that threatens Iran, even more than war with the US: An internal "coup" within the Iranian regime, supported by the Brits (among other Europeans) to oust Ahmadinejad (Russian/Chinese faction) with their own Rafsanjani (British ties) and/or Khatami (German and Austrian ties) and their cohorts. If successful, this is extremely dangerous for Iran's future since it will basically give a renewed lease on life for the regime to survive as a "pig with lipstick" for perhaps another 28-years, or so. The bombing of the Rev Guards, IRGC, base, if it occurs, could be exactly what Rafsanjani and the Khatamites need to convince the Supreme Leader to back off, and allow the phony "Reformists" and the fake "Pragmatists" back at the helm of power in Iran with full support from Europeans (as it was during Khatami's reign). And that may be exactly why Gordon Brown is reportedly so eager and excited in his approval of such a "limited strike" against the IRGC.
Iranian people reject this kind of just 'changing of the guards' solution to their current problem. As an Iranian saying goes, that will be akin to having "the same mule, but with a different pack-saddle". An overwhelming majority of Iranians detest the Islamic dictatorship imposed on them since 1979 (with Europe's backing). They want change, real change, and that means the total up-rooting of this nasty regime, "Reformists" and all.
Too bad, they are too numb and disillusioned to act on that desire. They have a lot to learn from Myanmar and its budding Saffron Revolution.
Condi, the Mistress of Dominatrix outfits, is of the Madeleine Albright school of thought in that she is against military attack on Iran, and pro appeasement of the mullahs, and "sleeping with the enemy" (no pun intended) within the framework of a "Grand Bargain" which will gaurantee that US will not try to overthrow the regime, if and only if Iran stops supporting Islamic terrorists around the world, and also stop its nuclear activities (like THAT's gonna ever happen, even if the mullahs promise all!). Suffice it to say, Condi is no friend of the Iranian people or a future Iranian democracy, either.
The term Mao-Islamist was a label that was placed on certain political dissident groups under the Shah in the 70s. There were actual groups proclaiming they were Mao-Islamists in Iran in the 70s, it was a sort of mix of Chinese socialism and Islam. Rumour has it that Ahmadinejad's "career" started off as an active member of such groups back in the early 70s. And of course, we see today that Beijing is one of the most ardent supporters of the current Iranian regime, albeit more for cheap oil and other economic advantages for itself than anything else. But geopolitically, China also see the Islamic Republic of Terror in Iran, as its pseudo-proxy to ward off further US expansion in the region. Other than that, I am not even sure that the Red Chinese are "Maoists" themselves. They are more like "Profiteers", like the "Farangi" in Star Trek Next Generation, without ethics or scruple. Further it seems that Myanmar too is now closing in on a shift away from China and into the British circle of influence. As Pakistan is shifting away from US and back to its traditional British roots, as well, if Benazir is back on the saddle there soon. That leaves Iran...
And that is exactly the danger that threatens Iran, even more than war with the US: An internal "coup" within the Iranian regime, supported by the Brits (among other Europeans) to oust Ahmadinejad (Russian/Chinese faction) with their own Rafsanjani (British ties) and/or Khatami (German and Austrian ties) and their cohorts. If successful, this is extremely dangerous for Iran's future since it will basically give a renewed lease on life for the regime to survive as a "pig with lipstick" for perhaps another 28-years, or so. The bombing of the Rev Guards, IRGC, base, if it occurs, could be exactly what Rafsanjani and the Khatamites need to convince the Supreme Leader to back off, and allow the phony "Reformists" and the fake "Pragmatists" back at the helm of power in Iran with full support from Europeans (as it was during Khatami's reign). And that may be exactly why Gordon Brown is reportedly so eager and excited in his approval of such a "limited strike" against the IRGC.
Iranian people reject this kind of just 'changing of the guards' solution to their current problem. As an Iranian saying goes, that will be akin to having "the same mule, but with a different pack-saddle". An overwhelming majority of Iranians detest the Islamic dictatorship imposed on them since 1979 (with Europe's backing). They want change, real change, and that means the total up-rooting of this nasty regime, "Reformists" and all.
Too bad, they are too numb and disillusioned to act on that desire. They have a lot to learn from Myanmar and its budding Saffron Revolution.
posted by Jeanne De Rakhsh at 1:21 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home