Sunday, June 21, 2009

Charles Krauthammer: Hope and change - but not in the offing for Iran.

 

by Charles Krauthammer

Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents.

The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.

And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence. Then, worse. Three days in, the president makes clear his policy: continued "dialogue" with their clerical masters.

Engagement with - which inevitably confers legitimacy upon - leaders elected in a process that begins as a sham (only four handpicked candidates permitted out of 476) and ends in overt rigging.

Then, after treating this popular revolution as an inconvenience to the real business of Obama-Khamanei negotiations, the president speaks favorably of "some initial reaction from the Supreme Leader that indicates he understands the Iranian people have deep concerns about the election."

Where to begin? "Supreme Leader"? Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator who, even as his minions attack demonstrators, offers to examine some returns in some electoral districts.

Moreover, this incipient revolution is no longer about the election. Obama totally misses the point. They want to bring down the tyrannical, misogynist, corrupt theocracy that has imposed itself with the very baton-wielding goons that today attack the demonstrators.

This started out about election fraud. What's at stake now is the very legitimacy of this regime - and the future of the entire Middle East.

This revolution will end either as a Tiananmen (a hot Tiananmen with massive and bloody repression or a cold Tiananmen with a finer mix of brutality and co-optation) or as a true revolution that brings down the Islamic Republic.

The latter is improbable but, for the first time in 30 years, not impossible. Imagine the repercussions. It would mark a decisive blow to Islamist radicalism, of which Iran today is not just standard-bearer and model, but financier and arms supplier. It would do to Islamism what the collapse of the Soviet Union did to communism - leave it forever spent and discredited.

In the region, it would launch a second Arab spring. The first in 2005 - the expulsion of Syria from Lebanon, first elections in Iraq and early liberalization in the Gulf states and Egypt - was aborted by a fierce counterattack from the forces of repression and reaction, led and funded by Iran.


Now, with Hezbollah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect. The exception - Iraq and Lebanon - becomes the rule. Democracy becomes the wave. Syria becomes isolated; Hezbollah and Hamas, patronless. The entire trajectory of the region is reversed.

All hangs in the balance.
Now, with Hezbollah having lost elections in Lebanon and with Iraq establishing the institutions of a young democracy, the fall of the Islamist dictatorship in Iran would have an electric and contagious effect. The exception - Iraq and Lebanon - becomes the rule. Democracy becomes the wave. Syria becomes isolated; Hezbollah and Hamas, patronless. The entire trajectory of the region is reversed.

All hangs in the balance. The Khamenei regime is deciding whether to do a Tiananmen. And what side is the Obama administration taking? None. Except for the desire that this "vigorous debate" over election "irregularities" not stand in the way of U.S.-Iranian engagement on nuclear weapons.

Even from the narrow perspective of the nuclear issue, the administration's geopolitical calculus is absurd. There is zero chance that any such talks will denuclearize Iran. The only hope for a resolution of the nuclear question is regime change.

And our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.

And where is our president? Afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror - and the people in the street yearning to breathe free. This from a president who fancies himself the restorer of America's moral standing in the world.

 

Charles Krauthammer

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.

 

2 comments:

Unknown said...

Good article and most points are correct. However, there is one key point he misses and gets wrong. It seems to me that either everybody is afraid to admit it, or they simply just don't understand the eastern mentality enough to pick it up.
Obama is indeed taking sides. He has stated he will not stand those wanting reform. He has legitimized the Iranian government, and has acted directly against Israel to keep them from keeping Iran from going nuclear, and has repeatedly shown Islamic allegiances against Christian, American, and western.
We are in a war that could see our (western) civilization lost either for a thousand years (again), or forever, and Islam knows this while Greece does not. It is time to stop hedging out bets, guarding our words, and burying our heads in the sand. It's time to call a spade a spade and say that Obama is acting as our enemy (I believe with full knowledge and intention) along side with political Islam (political being redudant). This will offend, but hopefully prompt some to go seek out the truth, and I hope to speak it.

Eliyahu Ben Avrohom said...

...well said,Hammer.

Post a Comment