Christopher Hitchens has an interesting piece in this month's Vanity Fair also carried in Front Page:
Driving down through the desert, from Tehran to the holy city of Qom, I am following the path of so many who have made the pilgrimage before me. They either were seeking an audience with, or a glimpse of, Ayatollah Khomeini or, if they were journalistic pilgrims, were trying to test the temperature of Iran's clerical capital. As I arrive, darkness is gently settling over the domes and spires of the mosque and the Shia theological seminary, the latter of which is demarcated by a kind of empty moat which doubles as a market. But I am not headed for these centers of spiritual and temporal power. My objective is an ill-paved backstreet where, after one confirming cell-phone call, a black-turbaned cleric is waiting outside his modest quarters. This is Hossein Khomeini. The black turban proclaims him a sayyid, or descendant of the prophet Muhammad. But it's his more immediate ancestry that interests me. This man's grandfather once shook the whole world. He tore down the throne of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in 1979 and humiliated the United States. His supporters seized the American Embassy and kept 52 members of its staff prisoner for 444 days. The seismic repercussions of this event led to the fall of Carter, the rise of Reagan, the invasion of Iran by Saddam Hussein, and quite possibly the occupation of Afghanistan by the Red Army. It moved us from the age of the Red Menace to the epoch of Holy War. It was, at one and the same time, a genuine revolution and an authentic counterrevolution. I have become almost averse to shaking hands in Iran by now, because it isn't permitted for a man to shake a woman's hand in public in this nerve-racked country, and if you unlearn the conditioned reflex in one way, you unlearn it in another. But as I feel young Khomeini's polite grip, I fancifully experience a slight crackle from history.Iranian hospitality is one of the most warming and embarrassing things it is possible to encounter. Before any conversation can begin on these grand questions, there must be fragrant tea, a plate of sohan, the addictive pistachio-and-saffron brittle that is the Qom specialty, and a pressing invitation to stay for dinner, and indeed for the night. The pressure is re-doubled on this occasion because the last time we met and talked I was the host.
Young Khomeini has been spending a good deal of his time in Iraq, where he has many friends among the Shia. He is a strong supporter of the United States intervention in that country, and takes a political line not dissimilar to that of Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani. In practice, this means the traditional Shia belief that clerics should not occupy posts of political power. In Iranian terms, what it means is that Khomeini (his father and elder brother died some years ago, so he is the most immediate descendant) favors the removal of the regime established by his grandfather. "I stand," he tells me calmly, "for the complete separation of religion and the state." In terms that would make the heart of a neocon soar like a hawk, he goes on to praise President Bush's State of the Union speech, to warn that the mullahs cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, and to use the term "Free World" without irony: "Only the Free World, led by America, can bring democracy to Iran."
Read it all.
The parallels with China are striking. The one a communist country that is no longer communist; the other an Islamic society that is only superficially Islamic. Who'd bet against Khomeini's legacy going the same way as Mao's?
OT
BigSleep:
I left you a message on the June 15 JW "Spain makes . . ." thread. Please respond there if you see it.
Wow.
You really have to believe that oft-repeated cliche : "Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction".
Khomini's grandson praising the leader of the great satan? Whudda thunkit?
Effractor:
Mao's the top mass-murderer of the 20th century, a new book reveals. Beats the likes of Stalin, hitkler and Pol Pot to grab the top-spot. China retains the innate capacity for shutting out the outsuide world and doing 'whatever it takes' to preserve the commie party's hold on power. A 1000 tiananmen's may yet bloom before freedom triumphs in one the world's oldest civilizations.
"Khomeini's grandson praising the leader of the great satan? Whudda thunkit?"
-- from a posting above
But among those who helped change the minds of Party officials in the Soviet Union were the gilded youth, the children of apparatchiki.
I suspect that one thing that helped was that while some of those youths were no doubt corrupt, many others were not. But as preferred children of the regime, some were allowed to enter those Institutes (such as that for "Eastern Languages") that were high in prestige and in the academic pecking order, where children of the Party elite would share their lecture halls and classrooms with others who were there because of academic performance. And the latter, because they were intelligent, would no doubt have a higher proportion of dissidents, full-fledged or part, among their ranks, and those dissidents, in turn, could affect the thinking of their Nomenklatura-classmates who, in turn, could influence their own powerful papas. That, at least, is my suspicion.
In the case of Khomeini's grandson, he has eyes to see. He saw. He was not, unlike his grandfather, blinded by decades of theology taken perfectly seriously. He has seen the Islamic Future, and it didn't work. Not at all. He may even wonder if it has permanently, or only temporarily, damaged Islam in Iran. Quite a few clerics are worried about this. They should be.
It'w all well and good, but he's not a mullah in charge of anything. While this author obviously wants to see the good in Iran, there are obviously many people in Iran who love strict Islamic governance.
Occasionally I have read 'what ifs' regarding the Muslim Brotherhood, so be it if they win the Egyptian election, let the people choose them, and then let them experience the same corrupt and strict Islamic govt like Iran. The same for Hamas in Gaza. The problem is these people believe 'one vote, one time' is the right interpretation of democracy.
OT
William the Crusader and Vikrant:
You are confusing two different posters, johnb (anti-jihad) and john_b.
You owe johnb (a regular) an apology.
reset said: "so be it if they win the Egyptian election, let the people choose them, and then let them experience the same corrupt and strict Islamic govt like Iran. The same for Hamas in Gaza."
Hmmm...brings to mind a line from the Tao Te Ching:
"If you want to shrink something,
you must first allow it to expand.
If you want to get rid of something,
you must first allow it to flourish.
... This is called the subtle perception
of the way things are."
OT
SPQR:
I left you a message on the June 16 DW "India . . ." thread. I have since found out that you WERE banned from JW.
I suggest contacting Spencer at director@jihadwatch.org and asking him about it directly. He will tell you why posts were deleted and which of his "rules" you have broken. He will most likely re-instate you as long as you apologize and promise not to repeat any offending behavior.
Spencer is merciful, most compassionate and
oft-forgiving. ; - )
CGW:
Good grief - an imposter calling himself "john_b"
I may have to undergo a name change :-) Like hell I will.
BTW - I haven't come across any of his posts - was he banned?
johnb:
He only posted one or two times, but they were enough to stick in the memory. I noticed the difference in the nic right away since I'm familiar with yours. Needless to say, they were posts ill-received by JW/DWers.
CGW
I don't believe that he was banned, no.
Carolyn wrote...brings to mind a line from the Tao Te Ching:
"If you want to shrink something,
you must first allow it to expand.
If you want to get rid of something,
you must first allow it to flourish.
... This is called the subtle perception
of the way things are."....
Not sure how to interpret 'subtle perception'. Is that Ching sarcasm. I was intending it as sarcasm. I don't think the US can stop either becoming the elected govts but I will be sickened if we continue to support those govts which, of course, is expected payment of jizya for the dim dhimmis of the west.
Hugh has made the point elsewhere on dw/jw well with his excellent examples of Libya, Algeria and Somalia. The point being, sink or swim on your own. Appeasement and paying jizya to these Islamic govts never, ever works.
CGW:
Thanks for the clarification. He apparently stuck in the memory of Mr. William the Conquerer.
Cheers all.
Those in India falling under "Open" category, the writing's on the wall, pack ur bags boys...
Muslims to get reservation for the first time in India. Dhimmitude in India. Check this Time of India article.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1145517.cms
Why don't I believe this?
If Khomeini's (spit of a pig be upon him) grandson were as much of a threat as this article would have him appear to be, he'd be dead.
So, either this guy is a eunuch, politically/theocratically, or he is someone that the ayatollahs consider a pathetic joke.
His views are utterly incompatable with living in Iran, so why is he there?
A death wish?
Something doesn't flush here.
(Or is Hitchens trying to get him assassinated for some reason?)
My genuine Ernest Hemingway-approved bullsh*t detector is beeping wildly.
(Meanwhile, for what it's worth [nothing], I hear that the pre-approved candidate for the Iranian election won. Or will, shortly.)
A good article -- Mr. Hitchens reminds us that we must hate the sin and not the sinner -- It is a hopeful sign that when the malignant pall of Islam is lifted from the shoulders of the Persians they will strive to live in light. The monotony of Islam, in all of it's horrible variety, is always the same -- the more ardent the follower, the darker his vision... It is horrible to think of the degradation and misery Islam has caused, including those who have the misfortune to be born into it...
I am filled with despair when I listen to Muslims deny Islam's blackness, and then suggest that it is superior to all other things... The complete insanity of their love for Islam threatens to make the world insane also...
Reset - no I wasn't being sarcastic. I was agreeing with your logic about allowing these folks to elect their own Islamic governments and then leaving them to lie in the beds they've made (which would include cutting off aid rather than rescuing them financially from the consequences of their actions). Allowing Islam to reach its full expression in Iran (to "expand", to "flourish") - appears to have turned a good proportion of the population against Islam. "The subtle perception of the way things are" seems merely to refer to the way human nature operates and how to go with it as opposed to struggle against it to accomplish one's aims.
So no - I wasn't being sarcastic, I was basically agreeing with you.
I sorta agree, Carolyn, with cavests. It takes a long time for the disillusionment to set in, Iran took at least 15 to 20 years for the disillusion with Islam. In the meantime the ayatollah regime sponsors hezbullah and tries to make a big bomb.
Reset - without a doubt I am getting in over my head here (as a prelude to my comments). So just a couple of thoughts.
You note that you don't think we can stop the election of Islamic governments. And with that I agree. Perhaps some of us had illusions that once the boot of dictatorship was removed, people given the chance to vote wouldn't actually voluntarily vote themselves into a new tyranny (I get the impression Bush was under that illusion). But in this regard we are somewhat between a rock and a hard place as our past support of dictatorships has been a major selling point of UBL's message. Of course it's rather obvious that UBL only opposes our support of dictatorships because they stand in the way of him and his ilk imposing their own brand of tyranny. But obviously the average guy on the street doesn't get that. And hell - even many leftists don't appear to get it as their litmus test of democracy in the ME appears to be the election of anti-American governments (no matter how undemocratic, misogynistic, and illiberal they might be). But nevertheless, the can of worms of democracy has now been opened and I'm not sure we have much choice - as you seemed to suggest - but to accept the consequences.
But - and here a major caveat as I am quite ignorant re the history of our foreign aid to the Middle east - I get the general impression that much of our aid has been due to the fact that we are paying off the somewhat western-friendly dictators suppressing the Islamic forces. (Like I said - I am totally ignorant here and would welcome any education on these matters). The point is, though, once anti-American islamic governments are freely elected by the people - what is our obligation to provide aid any longer? And once we withdraw the aid, and Islamic governments are forced to make good on their promises of prosperity for the people (which they obviously cannot) who can point the finger at us? Wheregoes UBL's talking points in other words? Wheregoes the blame game?
You note that it takes a long time for disillusionment to set in. It may be me, but I get the impression that history is speeding up with the internet and satellite technology. Modern communications technology is obviously having a big impact in Iran and the mullahs appear to be losing their mind control over their citizens so taking that into account - the turnaround time of people appreciating the consequences of their own actions might perhaps be shorter than we think.
Re your caveat re the bomb. Yes, that's a major caveat. But it's not clear to me that propping up pro-western dictatorships (to whom we funnel money) has been a great deterrant on that score either. Afghanistan under the Taliban never got the bomb, e.g. (especially if we cut off aid).
Of course, no long term strategy can work as long as we continue to open western borders to Muslim immigration. If we continue to do that, I'm hard-pressed to see what difference it makes what we do in the ME. That's the one area in which I most certainly WOULD NOT apply the Tao Te Ching - "If you want to shrink something, you must first allow it to expand."! And for rather obvious reasons - that Islam has historically fed off its hosts - so allowing it to flourish in the West is not honestly allowing it to expand in any pure sense. It will simply eat up the host, all the while claiming the accomplishments and history of the host as it's own (rewriting history), which is, of course, totally dishonest. So no - it must be free to "flourish" in it's very own petri dish as it were and then quite possibly (if Lao-Tzu is correct) - it may well shrink dramatically in the long run! Hey - just a thought...
2 further thoughts:
1. In place of the Muslims we so freely allow in the west - (given the above post) - we should open our borders to the minority Christians, Muslim apostates and others fleeing Islamic governments and
2. Use surgical strikes to take out any incipient WMD capacities in newly elected Islamic states. We're good at that and I'm hard-pressed to see how anyone could object (and frankly, screw the UN if they do)...
I argued last Jan.-Feb. at http://www.daneshjoo.org/ with my usual Stalinist panache that if the Iranians can't or won't de-nazify Iran on their own that they must accept the the West will do it for them. They didn't quite look at my arguments as objectively I did. They didn't seem to appreciate my suggestions at all. But we should work closely with them in all possible areas to stop the continuation of their fascist government or else accept the fact that we will likely annihilate them. They didn't like either idea, and who can blame them? But what are we going to do if the Iranian general population continue to do nothing while their rulers continue to make their way toward nuclear war?
Whether we have Iranian friends or not, even if we don't like them as a people or as individuals, still we must accept that they are people like any others who have a right to live, which we will have to over-rule in the interests of our own survival if their rulers continue to develop nuclear capabilities.
We have some power here as readers and writers
in that we can conspire with Iranian exiles to bring down their government by whatever means it takes.Until the Iranians themselves determine that they will accept those harsh means they're sitting around waiting for the end. Still, there were some few who saw my point and might well have concluded that a forceful reaction against the fascist system in Iran is not only justified must essential and unavoidable, not only to bring down the government of Iran as it is now, but to go further to purge the nation of that ten per cent who will be the counter-revolution. The Iranians didn't like the sang froid I might have shown. Why try to be pretty about it? We have to do in our interest that which will save them too. They don't like it. It's too bad. It's people here who can approach Iranian exiles and work with them until they come to the conclusion themselves that they must act. We here know enough and have some skills that the Iranians can use to their own benefit, and we also have for the most part the critical distance from the people there to know exactly how much deep surgery it needs to restore Iran to the healthy state it must be in to survive in the modern world. We can work with Iranians. We can help them organize and we can support them in their work. By doing so we will learn and grow into a force in the West that will benefit the West. We should, and we can, have a merger of forces and talents. We could invite them to join with us and us with them to create an extra-parliamentary opposition to destroy the Iranian government.
The West saved Germany and Japan, and God help us if we have to save Iran too. Who among them will survive it?
Iran is a large chunk of desert plateau inhabited by a fiercely proud people with an ancient culture and ancient sense of themselves and a great deal of mistrust towards outsiders. Hence, in a US invasion to "save" Iran from the mad mullahs could have the same effect as Japan's invasion of China in the 1930's to "save" it from Communism. It could very well result in unifying the Iranian people behind their mad mullahs and get us stuck in a long, bloody war. While I wish Hossein Khomeini and people like him well, the rescue of his country is something for the Iranians to work out--if they can.
I'm not very good at math so it's safe to say that the Persians/Iranians have been beaten more times than I can count, big chunk of desert populated by slaves whipped into battle or not. Whipped, beaten, and burned till they fought reluctantly and were beaten over and again by the Greeks.
The better comparison is Americans fighting Mexicans in Texas.
The point is what we're going to do if the Iranians don't act, and we do have to "save" them by actually going to war to stop them from going through the same defeats they've suffered before, proud and suspicious xenophon-ophobes or not. Can we afford the gas to march to the sea?
Iran need not be "saved" from itself. It need only be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons. This must be done, whether Rafasanjani is in power, or anyone else, and whether or not the Islamic Republic of Iran is still functioning, or has been overturned. The West cannot rely on any future regime, no matter how seemingly benign, not in some still more distant future reverting to Islam. This is a permanent problem. And the Western world has to act to deprive all Muslim states, "moderate" or "immoderate," in the throes of a despot or enjoying democracy, from acquiring such weapons or, where such weaponry has been acquired, from keeping it or being able to use it.
That is why it is so importnat to act soon. What if the Iranian regime shows signs of being overturned? There are those in the West who would then counsel patience, waiting for the "good regime" to come in. And precious time would be lost, and that "good regime" might indeed come in, but that does not in any way change the need to deprive a Muslim state, where a significant number of people will be prompted now, or in the future, by the tenets of Islam, to do harm to Infidels with whatever instruments they happen to possess-- and Infidels means, among others, us.
Sonofwalker, in 1931 the Japanese thought that since they beat China in 1895, and that China had been beaten up by everybody for a century (not to mention that it was ruled by a dynasty of alien origin from 1644-1911), going into China would be a cakewalk. Sure, they occupied a lot of it, sacked their capital (Nanjing) and killed a lot of Chiang Kai-shek's brass on the battlefield; yet when 1945, China had a seat at the victors' table. I'd be pleased as punch if the Iranian people rose against the mullahs, but that's their call, not Washington's.
Also, I think it has been quite plain to almost everyone since 1975 that if you're in a war with the USA, all you have to do is stay alive for another four years. Not to disparage American soldiers (politicians are another story), if we managed well in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's as much a testimony to how much the peoples of those countries had it with the governments they were under.
Iran strikes me as a curious nation. They are Persians, not Arabs, they speak Farsi, and not Arabic. A slippery slope between friend and foe, much like our Turkish 'allies'. A large-scale military invasion is out of the question while air strikes against WMD sites is possible with proper intelligience. Volatile is the word here and it can fall either way. A country worth watching to be sure.