ARI Op-ed "What Obama Should Say To Iran"

[galtgulch]

<<<"Op-Eds

What Obama Should Say To Iran

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

By: Debi Ghate

Protests in Iran continue despite the theocracy’s attempt to crush them. As Tehran launches its usual accusations of “American interference,” could it be that America hasn’t “interfered” enough?

Imagine what might happen—what potential benefit there could be to us and to Iran—if this speech were made by an American President.

“Good evening. I am here to address events of great significance to the American people. Over the past weeks, we have witnessed the murdering, beating and intimidation of Iranian protestors by a theocratic regime clenching its iron fist to retain power. I strongly condemn these unjust actions of the Iranian regime.

It is time for America to be unequivocal and to recognize its past errors. It is time for the United States to make it clear that it does not recognize the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has not had a legitimate government worthy of our recognition for decades. The country has been ruled by a series of murdering clerics who seized power outside of any legitimate political means. They were not chosen through any representative process. They are dictators of the worst kind.

For decades, the Iranian regime has repeatedly declared itself an enemy of America, openly acting in violence against our citizens. We’ve known it since the clerics and their supporters took our embassy staff hostage in 1979. We’ve known it in the form of multiple Tehran-backed attacks on Americans since: 1983 in Beirut where we lost 241 people in a bombing; 1985 when TWA 847 was hijacked by Iranian-trained Hezbollah fighters and we lost a Navy diver; 1996 at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia where we lost 19; the list goes on. We’ve heard their message: “Death to America.”

This is a regime that loudly calls for jihad on the West—for the violent imposition of sharia law—it calls for Islamic totalitarianism. It provides the intellectual leadership for the Islamist movement: training, financing, and otherwise encouraging a multitude of terrorist organizations—including those responsible for the September 11th attacks on our soil. America has not forgotten that this regime orchestrated and participated in three decades of deadly assaults upon its people and is ultimately responsible for them. We have nothing to say to the Iranian regime—except that we will no longer repeat our grave errors of the past. We know what you stand for, and what threat you pose. But we do have much to say to the brave Iranians voicing their opposition to the Supreme leader, making it clear his regime does not represent them.

To those among you standing up in the face of threats; to those among you saying “We will continue to speak even if you, Supreme leader, claim that Allah forbids it”; to those among you deciding that it is time for freedom in Iran—we say: you have our encouragement, and our sanction.

To those among you protesting against more than the electoral results, who are wholesale rejecting the oppressive nature of theocratic rule—we offer you our moral and financial support. And if necessary, we will offer you military support to the best of our ability. You see, we share your goal of ending the Iranian theocracy and of eliminating the threat it poses to our own nation. We have had the moral right to end it for decades; you not only have that right, you have the moral fortitude.

To those few in Iran desperately seeking liberty: rejecting theocratic rule is critical, but what are you fighting for? Seize this opportunity to fight for a nation founded on principles that protect individual rights. As America once fought for its independence, so can you. Life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness: these are your inalienable rights. The time is now to fight to create a free nation upholding these principles.

It will not be easy. Our thoughts are with you as you face imminent danger and uncertainty. It will take courage and conviction. But to you, the true friend of freedom, we say: we are with you as you take your first important step towards real revolution. You have rejected the iron fist that smashes you down through religious rule. You have spoken. Stand firm, and we will stand with you.”

Unfortunately we will not hear this speech. Only a President acting on a foreign policy that properly defends the rights of its own citizens—a foreign policy of principled self-interest—would take this bold stand.

Debi Ghate is Vice-President of Academic Programs at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand--author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.">>>

[jordanz]

Perfectly said. Unfortunately, we have an Administration that prefers despots to free people. The Obama Administration (at first especially) actually supported the Mullahs. Now, in Honduras, the Administration is supporting a dictator on the deck as he prepares to obliterate that country's constitution.

[Martin Radwin]

<<<"Op-Eds

What Obama Should Say To Iran

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

By: Debi Ghate

Protests in Iran continue despite the theocracy’s attempt to crush them. As Tehran launches its usual accusations of “American interference,” could it be that America hasn’t “interfered” enough?

Imagine what might happen—what potential benefit there could be to us and to Iran—if this speech were made by an American President.

“Good evening. I am here to address events of great significance to the American people.

Perhaps an explanation would be in order as to why the internal affairs of Iran are of great significance to the American people. The US government has claimed this about every nation on earth where it has militarily intervened, including such places as Somalia, where the US government has been intervening for years. Are the internal affairs of Somalia also of great significance to the American people? When you're an empire, everyone's business is your business.

Over the past weeks, we have witnessed the murdering, beating and intimidation of Iranian protestors by a theocratic regime clenching its iron fist to retain power. I strongly condemn these unjust actions of the Iranian regime.

That's interesting. Since this hypothetical president is so concerned with human rights violations in Iran, why has the US government continued to maintain military alliances with some of the most brutal dictatorships in the world? The US government gives billions of dollars every year in aid to Egypt, a country with a far worse human rights record than Iran. Perhaps because the government of Egypt is on friendly terms with the US government, and the government of Iran is not. Who cares about human rights, anyway?

It is time for America to be unequivocal and to recognize its past errors. It is time for the United States to make it clear that it does not recognize the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran has not had a legitimate government worthy of our recognition for decades. The country has been ruled by a series of murdering clerics who seized power outside of any legitimate political means. They were not chosen through any representative process. They are dictators of the worst kind.

The murdering clerics who first seized power did so after the Shah was overthrown. The Shah was a brutal but non-clerical dictator installed with assistance from the US government. His secret police force, SAVAK, was trained in methods of torture by the CIA. The US government helped to maintain this dictator in power for many years, after participating in the coup and assisination of the democratically elected leader of Iran in 1953. It's very interesting that the writer of this screed neglected to mention any of this history.

For decades, the Iranian regime has repeatedly declared itself an enemy of America, openly acting in violence against our citizens. We’ve known it since the clerics and their supporters took our embassy staff hostage in 1979. We’ve known it in the form of multiple Tehran-backed attacks on Americans since: 1983 in Beirut where we lost 241 people in a bombing; 1985 when TWA 847 was hijacked by Iranian-trained Hezbollah fighters and we lost a Navy diver; 1996 at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia where we lost 19; the list goes on. We’ve heard their message: “Death to America.”

Iran took the US embassy staff hostage. Prior to this, the US government supported the dictatorship of the Shah in Iran for 26 years. Which of these two is a greater crime against humanity? The seizing of the embassy is always mentioned by ARI without any reference to any of the history that preceded it.

As to the Americans killed by Iran, would it be impolite to mention that the US government supported Iraq in its war against Iran, a war in which an estimated one millions Iranians were killed? Since there was not even any plausible excuse that such an intervention was necessary to the defense of the United States, the US government bears moral responsibility for every one of these million Iranians killed. So it appears that the US government is responsible for killing about one thousand times as many Iranians as the Iranian government is responsible for killing Americans. Another inconvenient fact that ARI forgets to mention.

Lets do a hypothetical role reversal here. Suppose that, about fifty years ago, the government of Iran helped to impose a brutal dictatorship in the United States. The Iranian intelligence service provided logistical support to the American secret police, including instruction in the fine art of torture. The American people had to live under the yoke of this Iranian imposed dictatorship for 26 years. The United States was finally able to overthrow this Iranian imposed dictatorship. Shortly after this overthrow, the Iranian government decided that the United States was a security threat to Iran and starting providing money, weapons, and intelligence to Mexico, which went to war with the US. During this war, one million Americans were killed (or, if we're going to make the casualties proportional to population, perhaps we should say that five million Americans were killed).

Years later, during the Iranian presidential campaign, one of the Iranian presidential candidates started singing a mutated version of a Beach Boys song, "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb America". Another Iranian presidential candidate, who later went on to become Iranian secretary of state, declared that it might be necessary to annihilate the United States. It was agreed by all leading Iranian politicians that, if the US doesn't bend to the will of Iran, "all options are on the table", including the use of Iran's nuclear arsenal.

If Americans had to endure this hypothetical alternative reality, perhaps we would be out in the streets, yelling "Death to Iran".

This is a regime that loudly calls for jihad on the West—for the violent imposition of sharia law—it calls for Islamic totalitarianism. It provides the intellectual leadership for the Islamist movement: training, financing, and otherwise encouraging a multitude of terrorist organizations—including those responsible for the September 11th attacks on our soil.

Iran had nothing to do with the September 11th attacks on our soil. These attacks were planned and carried out by Wahhabite Sunni Muslims, mostly from Saudi Arabia, an "ally" of the United States. Iran is a Shiite Muslim country and a long time enemy of the Wahhabite Sunni Muslims. But, what the hell, Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks either, and yet phony intelligence was gathered to justify attacking Iraq in a war that has killed at least 100,000 Iraqis, probably many more, and that has created over 4,000,000 Iraqi refugees. The Iraq occupation is getting boring already, so perhaps it's time to unleash some of this "creative destruction" on Iran. What's the point of spending a trillion dollars a year to maintain the world's greatest military without actually using it?

America has not forgotten that this regime orchestrated and participated in three decades of deadly assaults upon its people and is ultimately responsible for them. We have nothing to say to the Iranian regime—except that we will no longer repeat our grave errors of the past. We know what you stand for, and what threat you pose. But we do have much to say to the brave Iranians voicing their opposition to the Supreme leader, making it clear his regime does not represent them.

To those among you standing up in the face of threats; to those among you saying “We will continue to speak even if you, Supreme leader, claim that Allah forbids it”; to those among you deciding that it is time for freedom in Iran—we say: you have our encouragement, and our sanction.

Perhaps, after the way that the US government has treated Iran over the last fifty years, Iranians ought not to be particularly interested in either its encouragement or its sanction.

To those among you protesting against more than the electoral results, who are wholesale rejecting the oppressive nature of theocratic rule—we offer you our moral and financial support. And if necessary, we will offer you military support to the best of our ability.

Who could pass up an offer like that? If a large number of Iranians believed the president and decided to launch a rebellion against the regime, the US could end up forgetting to support them, leaving them to be slaughtered, just as happened after Operation Desert Storm, when the US government told Iraqi rebels to rebel against Saddam Hussein's regime and then forgot to support them, leaving them to be slaughtered. Ditto for the ill-fated Bay of Pigs. Perhaps it is understandable that Iranians should also be rather skeptical about the US government's concern for their welfare, given that the US government has repeatedly threatened to nuke them.

You see, we share your goal of ending the Iranian theocracy and of eliminating the threat it poses to our own nation. We have had the moral right to end it for decades; you not only have that right, you have the moral fortitude.

What an offer! Iranians most certainly have the moral fortitude to fight and die to replace their dictatorship with another dictatorship that is friendly to the US government, just as at least 100,000 Iraqis have died in order to replace the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein with an American friendly dictatorship.

To those few in Iran desperately seeking liberty: rejecting theocratic rule is critical, but what are you fighting for? Seize this opportunity to fight for a nation founded on principles that protect individual rights. As America once fought for its independence, so can you. Life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness: these are your inalienable rights. The time is now to fight to create a free nation upholding these principles.

Well, as the old joke about Iraq went, perhaps we should give them our Constitution, since we haven't used it in years. Perhaps Iran should not look too closely at the United States as a role model for a nation whose government recognizes individual rights. Perhaps they should not try to emulate our worldwide empire of military bases, the Patriot Act, the Patriot Act II, the Military Commissions Act, the endlessly evil and stupid "War on Drugs", the Department of Homeland Security, the TSA, the IRS, etc., etc., etc.

Perhaps, if this hypothetical president of the United States really cares about individual rights, he will dedicate himself to doing everything possible to liberate the American people from the yoke of their own government, rather than worrying about Iran.

It will not be easy. Our thoughts are with you as you face imminent danger and uncertainty. It will take courage and conviction. But to you, the true friend of freedom, we say: we are with you as you take your first important step towards real revolution. You have rejected the iron fist that smashes you down through religious rule. You have spoken. Stand firm, and we will stand with you.”

And if you believe that, I have some prime real estate in Washington D.C. that I'd like to sell you.

Unfortunately we will not hear this speech. Only a President acting on a foreign policy that properly defends the rights of its own citizens—a foreign policy of principled self-interest—would take this bold stand.

Too bad that it's been well over a hundred years since the United States had a president or a government that gave a damn about the rights of its own citizens.

Martin