Doc's Talk: Islamic Republic of Iran's Smoke and Mirrors

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Islamic Republic of Iran's Smoke and Mirrors

Arash Irandoost

Since 1977, no two men have contributed more to the erosion of America's credibility and prestige than President Carter and his foreign policy advisor, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski (with the verdict not yet in on President Obama). Jimmy Carter, aided by Mr. Brzezinski, introduced new directions in foreign policy that would ultimately trick Russia to invade Afghanistan in a cold blooded eagerness to payback Moscow for Vietnam and betray one of America's closest allies in the Middle East. By orchestrating the Shah's failure and supporting Khomeini, they created one of the most militant anti-American dictatorships, considered by many as the most dangerous threat faced by the United States today. heir short-sided and ill-conceived policies have been a source of frustration and disappointment towards America leading to lack of trust and loss of respect for this great nation. Carter's policies have contributed to making the Middle East an extremely turbulent region giving rise to militant and ideologically-driven Islam that has been reigning terror ever since. Indeed, Taliban and the Islamic Republic are the byproducts of such miscalculated foreign policy decisions.

Out of character for America in terms of her history, sense of morality and basic decency, policy makers in administration after administration of American continue with their failed policies aided by the intelligence community and liberal ideologues, and orchestrated by Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) financed lobbyists and "so-called: reporters; university professors; opposition and human rights activists; and Iran experts. America is no longer the nation of Franklin Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower or Ronald Reagan. Gone are the days of America standing with democracy and freedom seeking groups." Bending down and bending backward to appease dictators, extending an open hand to terrorist nations, allowing a regime that randomly arrests, imprisons, tortures, stones, hangs and rapes women to have a seat on UN Women's Right Commission and ignoring blatant human rights violations by the United Nations member nations have become routine.

Such policies of appeasement have not gone unnoticed by various friends and foes. The United States' continuous acquiescence to IRI leaders has disenfranchised many pro democracy Iranians. Their last glimmer of hope was painfully dashed by Obama soon after his election when he extended his hand and addressed the rapist government of Iran on the occasion Iranian New Year. Frustrated by America's silence, demonstrators risked their lives and chanted "Obama are you with them or with us?", providing the United States with yet another opportunity to redeem itself. Obama turned his back on them and their cries for freedom and democracy went unnoticed. Sadly, such actions have emboldened the mullahs. Reports of torture, rape and hangings continue to pour out of Iran.

Cognizant that its weapons program and human rights violations might eventually be condemned by the world community, the Islamic Republic has been spending millions of dollars on a campaign of smoke and mirrors to legitimize, justify, and hide its criminal activities and weapons program.

Lobby groups and IRI agents are hard at work to discredit pro-democracy opposition groups and dissuade the world community from taking a decisive action against Iran. Deceitfully, they have infiltrated the universities, established foundations and mosques, bought out ethnic television stations to shape public opinion and the US policy. They appear on American television and news stations, write books and articles, and organize public events and orchestrate rallies. Their concerted and coordinated strategy is designed to fool the United States into thinking that Regime is pragmatic, can be reformed and Mousavi is the man to bring about the needed reforms. They oppose sanctions and claim sanctions only hurt ordinary people. They push for dialogue and diplomacy, and assassinate or smear those who oppose them as CIA, Israeli agents or belonging to MEK. All aimed at buying mullahs enough time to build their nuclear bomb to continue their vile existence.

Such handlers never talk about the elephant in the room, which has systematically monopolized major business and economic sectors of the Iranian community, the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC), the real power in Iran. IRGC will not allow any major economic reform to be implemented. Mousavi and any other "reformist leaders" will be powerless against them. IRGC has a lot to lose and little to gain by reforms. To some degree decisions on the nuclear weapons program indirectly rest with IRGC and not Khamenei. IRGC drives massive revenues by keeping the nuclear program alive. Forcing IRI to abandon its nuclear program translates to loss of a great revenue source for IRGC.

The schizophrenic position of IRI and its propagandists is indeed bizarre at best when it comes to sanctions. On the one hand, Ahmadinejad dares the West to impose strictest of sanctions, yet behind the scene he is frantically engaged in preventing it from happening. Despite what regime's handlers have made you believe, sanctions do work and the majority of Iranians are desirous and demanding of the strictest sanctions. Those who claim that sanctions will hurt the ordinary people are yet to provide any credible evidence to support their assertions. Such false claims are based on a few fabricated and phony surveys. A closer examination of such surveys reveals that they were sent to very few select individuals sympathetic to the regime. There is evidence now to support that lobbyist intentionally mislead Americans and lied to Congress using fabricated information. The majority of Iranians are angry at the West and the UN by not imposing the strictest sanctions in light of regime's blatant human rights violations.

Another strategy embedded within the propagandists' mission is to use the potential for war as the scare tactic and portray opposition groups as "war mongers." This is yet another ploy to push for dialogue and diplomacy with the rogue regime. In my opinion, just the opposite is true. Facts are, despite their differences of opinion, the world community is united on one issue. They are intent on preventing Iran from going nuclear and will not allow Iran to possess a nuclear bomb. If successful, it is the IRI propagandists, lobby groups and IRI policies that are inching Iran towards an all out war. Their strategy of aiding IRI to develop a nuclear weapon will ultimately lead to confrontation between Iran and the West.

The West was fooled once by Khomeini. He was sold to American as the great visionary, a Ghandhi- and MLK-like character with saintly qualities by agenda driven propagandists. Many of IRI's criminal activities and human rights violations were initiated by Khomeini and carried out by Mousavi and Mousavi-type characters. Mousavi sees Khomeini as his source of inspiration and dreams of returning Iran to that era. Mousavi is an anti American and a staunch supporter of the nuclear weapons program and was instrumental in establishing Hezbollah.

After the imposition of a fourth round of watered down sanctions to stop IRI's nuclear weapons' program, and anticipating yet another failure, decision makers in the United States must ask themselves whether they want to continue to be hoodwinked by masterful IRI propagandists and buy in their fuzzy and deceptive logic that dialogue and diplomacy is the answer, or change the course and work towards regime change and support pro democracy groups? They need to consider that:

* Thirty one years of appeasement and failed attempts at dialogue has been a source of frustration and embarrassment for various US leaders at various times from Carter, to Reagan, Bush, Clinton and perhaps in the not so distant future, Obama.
* The regime is intent on developing nuclear weapons. It is a mandate from Khomeini in the aftermath of his failed war with Iraq, and a part of an ideologically driven expansionist agenda to export Islam beyond Iran's borders.
* An examination of IRI's constitution, elections process, and power structure makes it abundantly clear that reform is not possible. In the regime's mind, it is the West that needs the reform. Theirs is a religious duty and a mandate from Allah. They perceive their theocratic system of governance superior to that of any other nation.
* Inaction by the West will have disastrous consequences for the world. With nuclear weapons at their disposal, mullahs are bent on wiping Israel off the map, expand their religion to remote corners of the universe and settle some unsettled issues.

Dr. Brzezinski's strategy of using militant Islam against Russia has been obviously abysmal failure. IRI not only has not served as a defense against Russia, but has intimately allied itself with her. Many Iranians, having seen the real face fundamental Islam over the past 31 years, are turning away from it in large numbers and are converting to Christianity and Zoroastrianism, something which Islamic Republic paid pundits do not tell Americans about. The notion that Iran is going to fall into Communist hands is no longer a valid theory. Iranian Communists and Marxists, after a sequential love and hate relationship with IRI, have now allied themselves with IRI and are working toward regime's survival.

Regime change, if successful, will kill two birds with one stone, and hopefully get rid of both IRI and the Iranian Left. Iranians during the demonstrations chanted several significant slogans expressing their prevailing views. Chief among them were slogans directly aimed at Russia, another in solidarity with Israel, and yet another one against Hamas and Hezb'allah. In reality, this is a great opportunity for the United States to seize the moment and support the Iranian prodemocracy demonstrators, since their political views are closely aligned with that of the United States.

Dr. Arash Irandoost is the founder of Pro Democracy Movement of Iran (PDMI) which focuses on human rights and pro democracy initiatives. He can be contacted at hakemiat.e.mardom@gmail.com. The pen name Arash Irandoost is used due to his concerns for personal safety. Read more of his blogs hakemiat-e-mardom.blogspot.com.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/06/islamic_republic_of_irans_smok.html at June 27, 2010 - 12:24:11 AM CDT

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk