| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
With no awareness of the fact that the only viable pluralist republic ever established in the Islamic world, Turkey, was established in the context of a war against Islam: an open and unapologetic effort, which continues in many ways, to limit the power of political Islam. Modern-day State Department wonks wouldn't dare formulate a strategy including such an effort -- and that's why this proposed effort in Iran, as well as the Iraq democracy adventure, have only dim chances of succeeding. Of course, in Iran State can capitalize on widespread dissatisfaction with the regime. But the Shah had already established a modern pluralist republic and yet still suffered a backlash: the Sharia impulse will not just disappear. More on that in this article I wrote over three years ago (it starts with "NO" at the bottom of the page.)
From the Financial Times, with thanks to JE:
The US and UK are working on a strategy to promote democratic change in Iran, according to officials who see the joint effort as the start of a new phase in the diplomatic campaign to counter the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme without resorting to military intervention.A newly created Iran Syria Operations Group inside the State Department is co-ordinating the work and reporting to Elizabeth Cheney, the senior US official leading democracy promotion in the broader Middle East.
“Democracy promotion is a rubric to get the Europeans behind a more robust policy without calling it regime change,” a former Bush administration official commented.
The new direction, the former official said, reflected a growing belief in the US and UK that diplomacy through the United Nations and partial sanctions were unlikely to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability. In the absence of a credible military solution, the argument went that international diplomacy could try to slow down the nuclear programme while more “robust” efforts continued towards the ultimate solution of regime change, he said.
Posted by Robert at April 22, 2006 7:20 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Is there a mistake in the fourth line?
Posted by: Interested![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 22, 2006 7:55 AM
"DEmocratic change"? Look, take care of the nuclear bomb project, and after a month or two or three of rally-round-the-flag support for the Islamic Republic by many who detest it, that support will end, and the full humiliation of what has occurred will embolden all enemies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the more corrupt mullahs will begin to be liquidated, and the end will be, if not nigh, nigher than it was before. Do not believe those transparent remarks -- by the likes of Gary Sick, say -- that an attack on Iran would "set back" forever the cause of democracy and reform. It wouldn't. And even if some (not all) anti-regime Iranians begin to feel more nationalistic, and assume that the regime will fall and then they, the good guys, the sane ones, will be in possession of those nuclear weapons, keep in mind that had the Shah's regime obtained nuclear weapons, they would now be in the hands of the regime that followed him. It is not the Islamic Republic of Iran that must be kept from getting nuclear weapons; it is Islamic Iran, an Iran that is full of Muslims, and that at any point in the future, might begin --as Turks despite Kemalist constraints have begun -- to feel that old Islamic feeling, and we all know what that means for Infidels.
One does not wish to "democratize" Iran. One wishes to zoroastrianize or christiainize or otherwise de-islamize Iran. It can't be done from outside. It can only be done, if it can happen at all, by those within iran depicting Islam, truthfully as it turns out, as a vehicle for Arab linguistic, cultural, and other kinds of imperialism. It was Arafat and the PLO that helped bring Khomeini to power. It is the attempt to be plus islamiste que les arabes that is causing the Islamic Republic to threaten, and no doubt to mean its threats, to destroy Israel (we did it, you Arabs couldn't do it -- so we get to be seen as the bestest Muslims of all time).
Again, if this "strategy" is a substitute -- who's in charge of this "democratization project" --Cheney's daughter? -- for the sensible and time-honored "strategy" of bombs (missiles) away, it is a threat to clarity and therefore to our, Infidel, safety.
If the English are involved, this is silly for two reasons. First, Straw and the Foreign Office will always try to find ways to keep those "hot-headed" Americans from behaving as they should behave. Second, Great Britain is regarded as the cunning, manipulative hereditary enemy of Iran, not of the Islamic Republic but of Mossadegh, and the left. Having Great Britain involved shows American naivete, and ignorance of that long history of suspicion of what is seen as British imperialism. That should have been kept in mind.
But several weeks ago, on NPR, I heard a leading American general (General Scales? I can't remember his name), giving his reasons for not invading or attacking Iran. And he blithely asserted that Iran was very different from Iraq becuase in Iran "all the people are Persians and are united." There goes the whole idea of working to weaken the Islamic Republic by encouraging the Kurds, the Baluchis, the Arabs in Khuzistan, even possibly the Azeris, to begin to show their disaffection with rule by the Persians. With that kind of ignorance being so casually and self-assuredly displayed by one of the highest-ranking and most relevant generals, what do you expect of our policies? How can anything requiring detailed knowledge, and then the imaginative ability to figure out the thousand cuts that might be inflicted, ever be presented, and adopted as policy?
Posted by: Hugh at April 22, 2006 8:11 AM
When the Iranian regime goes the chaos there will make Iraq look mild, and it will not be a good place to have nukes. I don't think it is in the interests of anyone in the region (including Russia) that Iran have nukes-except Iranian clerics and jihadists. Interesting article re Iran and the matter:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/luttwak0506.html
Posted by: Frank at April 22, 2006 8:32 AM
the Shah had already established a modern pluralist republic and yet still suffered a backlash
Let's not forget that an American President named Carter helped Khomenie come to power, then an American President named Reagan sold them weapons when they were fighting for their lives, then an American President named Bush (the elder) severely hurt their biggest enemy (Saddam). Then an American President named Bush (younger) took down Saddam completely.
BTW Clinton opened up trade with Iran.
So we have an continuous line of Presidents who helped out Iran. Don't believe that Bush will invade!!!
at April 22, 2006 8:48 AM
Bush will invade only when attacked now, and invade after this fall.
Posted by: Lulu at April 22, 2006 9:03 AM
"all the people are Persians and united"
The general forgets that in the 1930's, the Shah of Iran was so enamored of Adolph Hitler's philosophy that he changed the name of his country from Persia to Iran, meaning aryan in Persian.
Whatever their stance toward Israel and nuclear weapons, hopes for the populace to rise up and get rid of the present regime are probably far fetched dreams.
Sadly,most of the solutions voiced about today are just that,either hopes or dreams. Like most folks, I have no real solution. That's way above my pay-grade.
Without getting into a long discussion on biblical prophecy, we need to get ready for a bumpy ride. The handwriting is on the wall,even though the original did take place in Iraq.
Posted by: cactus at April 22, 2006 9:10 AM
Promoting democracy in Iran is only one of many current projects. I hear State is also engrossed in a scientific endeavor to teach turkeys to fly.
You can probably look for the flying turkey project to take flight before the Iranian one.
Posted by: scaramouoche at April 22, 2006 9:43 AM
Democracy in Afghanistan Iran Iraq and Syria. Well I suppose it's possible. I wonder what that thing that just flew past my window was. Give me a moment ... ah yes, just a pig with wings. Such strange things can happen nowadays.
I hope everyone had a really good Easter.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem at April 22, 2006 9:50 AM
Democracy is possible in Iran, but only by force, and only by setting up a Democracy based on the U.S. Constitution and NOT on Shariah.
It's amazing that we still let International (most times tainted and ignorant) Opinion dictate our every move.
Iran must be attacked. This is now truly about National Security. More than Afghanistan. More than Iraq. More than North Korea. More than China.
If we do not act to take out the nuclear capabilities of Iran's Muslim leadership, I can promise you, as God is my witness, we will curse ourselves as fools one day after we witness new terrors on American soil that will make 9/11 look like a warning shot.
I guess it's time we started putting new people into the House and Senate. I see no other way to get this country moving in the right direction other than ousting the vermin that currently are being paid off by lobbyists both foreign and domestic.
Think clearly in the next elections. Vote out the idiots.
Posted by: Foehammer at April 22, 2006 10:32 AM
When are these completely inept politicians going to realise that democracy and islam dont mix? Maybe when they read the koran will they see the egg all over their faces. Until then be ready, be just as vigilant, sneaky, and underhanded as our enemy are. Taqiyya is great!
Posted by: stranger at April 22, 2006 10:32 AM
Mein Kampf- a lonely frustrated artists's diary full of longing for a better world.
Al-Qur'an- an orphan's diary about how to make this world heaven.
Why do the politicians still see the second story as true, but not the first?
Answer: 57 million dead.
Book Two has only killed 3,000 of us.
We require something more deadly before taking it seriously.
Until then, we weaken... thanks to the concerted efforts of Western political pimps and their Press Corps whores.
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 22, 2006 12:05 PM
Democracy is possible in Iran, but only by force, and only by setting up a Democracy based on the U.S. Constitution and NOT on Shariah.
Posted by: Foehammer at April 22, 2006 10:32 AM
A fine observation but the anti american quislings will always distrupt this process. My suggestion is to forget about democracy and freedom building for the moment.
Instead we should be using our geopolitical advantage in the region i.e. troops and equipment flanking Iran to put Iran into a position where they are incapable of projecting power beyond their own borders.
Action should be directed at military and government infrastructure. The action should be decisive so that nothing is left and then we should pull back and let them sort out the mess for themselves. It will tie up the jihadists for years as they try and recover from it. Do not forget Iran is the biggest supporter of state sponsered terrorism in the name of Islam and as such they should be made to pay for their actions.
Posted by: km at April 22, 2006 12:56 PM
Aha! The mistake in the fourth line has been corrected. I realised only one letter was wrong, but I thought it was meant to say "tanks".
Posted by: Interested at April 22, 2006 1:13 PM
as in "tankers."
As Arthur Askey used to say "I tank you."
at April 22, 2006 1:20 PM
If another project similar to Iraq is going to be embarked upon, will Iranians have the liberty to leave Islam? Or will the Bushies look for the Iranian equivalent of Ayatollah Sistani, their Nobel candidate?
Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 22, 2006 1:25 PM
Or Willy Tanka and the chocolate factory.
Posted by: Interested at April 22, 2006 1:29 PM
Actually, the mistake was in Robert's intro, where he writes that "the Shah had already established a modern pluralist republic and yet still suffered a backlash."
Iran was never a "republic" under the Shah. Even after he fled into exile and the hapless Shapour Bakhtiar briefly took over, the regime officially remained a monarchy - with the Shah expected to return as a figurehead once order was restored.
And though the Iran of the Shah was infinitely preferable to the odiuos Mullahs who took over, I think it important to qualify just how "pluralist" his regime was. While there was a degree of economic freedom - one could get rich as long as important palms were greased, the parameters of political freedom were quite constrained.
Posted by: Cornelius at April 22, 2006 1:30 PM
"and that's why this proposed effort in Iran, as well as the Iraq democracy adventure, have only dim chances of succeeding"
I agree with Roberts assessment, In addition, Turkey lost any international credibility after WWI. It was only Mustafa Kemal Atatürk that forced them with radical changes , into the 20th century, that gave them back some of the respect they lost under the Ottoman empire.
Today we have a democratic turkey, However, it is still far from modern in its thinking.
Iraq has lost twice against the West, all within the space of fifteen years. Split three ways politcally and suffering from post Saddam suppression, they have a long long way to go.
at April 22, 2006 5:46 PM
Though the posting of a $25 million reward for the capture of Osama bin laden has not borne fruit yet, I believe awards to filmmakers, writers, songwriters, musicians, sculpturers, cartoonists etc who accept the challenge to create works which envision the transformation of iran into a sane nation can facilitate the upheaval of the homicidal regime currently in power. by drenching the champions of democracy within iran by worldwide artistic collaborators the drive to uproot the ruling poison ivy will be oxygenated and relentless. a million dollar award to each category of artist will inspire many more artists to race to create work which will finish off one of the chief menaces to humanity, the propagators of death worship in iran who then farm it out. you can even delineate prize categories also by age, by state, gender, religious affiliations, deathrow inmates etc.
president kennedy challenged us to reach the moon and we did. let our art clock the kooks. dollars help fund campaigns against diseases. we have a disease in iran. inspired support to our artists can wipe the smile off the face of hitler redux. in the words of flight 93 heroes who thwarted the destruction of the capitol or the white house-"LET'S ROLL"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
at April 22, 2006 10:55 PM
Texican-
Democracy in a theocracy is an absurdity.
It is an autocracy, with human mouthpieces speaking for the "God".
Or, in laymen's terms: a friggin' madhouse.
You give any human the ability to speak and act for "God" and you create psychotic homicidal despots.
It is a rule more certain than the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
(And eerily similar, psychologically.)
Posted by: profitsbeard at April 22, 2006 11:02 PM
Robert Spencer says:
...the only viable pluralist republic ever established in the Islamic world, Turkey...
But the most recent Freedom House report (PDF file) does not rate Turkey as 'free' -- only 'partly free'. The only Muslim majority states that make it (just barely) into Freedom House's 'free' category are Mali, Senegal and Indonesia. Freedom House shows that despite such exceptions, Muslim majority nations in general make up the most backward group as far as civil liberties and political rights go (despite some progress over the last decade).
I'm not sure why Robert looks at Turkey rather than Senegal, Indonesia or especially Mali, as the democratic paragon (relatively speaking) among Muslim nations. Perhaps he considers Mali as not within the Muslim heartland of the Middle East and culturally not truly Muslim, despite a nominally Muslim-majority population. - Omar
Posted by: www.islamquest.blogspot.com at April 23, 2006 12:37 AM
Omar,
I can't speak for the man, but I think Robert was referring to the fact that secularism was/is enshrined in the Tukish Constitution. If you'll notice, he didn't use the word "free" but rather "pluralist."
And if Freedom House ranks Turkey only "partly free," it is precisely because the Turkish Constitution limits the power of elected officials to undo the Ataturk Constitution.
But worry not. Erdogan and his gang are actively subverting the system known as Kemalism, and without military intervention in the near future, it is very likely that Turkey will find itself re-catagorized by Random House as "free" while at the same time evolving into a religious-based society where secular law no longer reigns supreme.
Such is the paradox of the Muslim world that for many, "freedom" will come to mean Sharia.
Posted by: Cornelius at April 23, 2006 4:44 AM
Cornelius said:
I can't speak for the man, but I think Robert was referring to the fact that secularism was/is enshrined in the Tukish Constitution. If you'll notice, he didn't use the word "free" but rather "pluralist."
There is little or no practical difference between "free" and "pluralist" over at Freedom House -- or at many other places for that matter. Both words indicate that no one group has a monopoly on culture or politics, that multiple groups of diverse viewpoints can play. In terms of pluralism or freedom, Turkey is slightly behind Senegal and Indonesia and all three of those countries are a bit behind Mali. So the question about Robert's statement remains.
Cornielius said:
And if Freedom House ranks Turkey only "partly free," it is precisely because the Turkish Constitution limits the power of elected officials to undo the Ataturk Constitution.
Well, not 'precisely because' as you put it. If you go to http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2005 and select Turkey and then read the report, you'll see that the military's influence is only one factor in the rating it got from Freedom House. Women's rights and restrictions on press freedom are just two examples of other areas Freedom House criticized with regard to Turkey.
Cornelius said:
...without military intervention in the near future, it is very likely that Turkey will find itself re-catagorized by Random House as "free" while at the same time evolving into a religious-based society where secular law no longer reigns supreme.
This judgement of Freedom House is about 1/4 correct, at least in spirit. You are correct that Freedom House disapproves of the military controlling Turkey's politics, and that the paradoxical result of getting the military out could well be less freedom and less secularism. But you are flat wrong to claim that Freedom House would then categorize Turkey as 'free'. If Turkey went down hill, freedom-wise, after removal of military from politics, you can be sure Freedom House would report it, just as they report that the Muslim world as a whole is at the bottom in terms of freedom. You are too ready to find enemies, so you shoot yourself and your allies (which probably includes me) in the foot. One could complain that Freedom House fails to have sufficient skepticism about the potential compatibility of Islam and democracy. But you cannot say, without telling a lie, that Freedom House would call Turkey free if it establishes a theocratic state.
No, the only reasons I can see for Robert's statement that
the only viable pluralist republic ever established in the Islamic world, Turkey...
at April 24, 2006 4:21 AM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)