Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Cliff May :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Iranian Revolution at 30
by Cliff May
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The 20th century was a time of great and terrible revolutions. The Russian Revolution of 1917 promised a communist utopia. It delivered man-made famines, the Gulag Archipelago and at least 20 million murdered. The Chinese Revolution of 1949 brought the Great Leap Forward and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution; estimates put the death toll as high as 65 million.

Thirty years ago, on February 1, 1979, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini led the Iranian Revolution. Like the Russian and Chinese Revolutions, it promised a global conflict leading to a new era of justice. But unlike those earlier revolutions, it would be not the proletariat bringing down the capitalists, but the Muslims rising up against the "infidels" - their power, values, laws, and their satanically seductive way of life.

I was in Iran 30 years ago -- a young foreign correspondent lucky enough to be sent to cover a historic upheaval. I recall standing in a dense crowd in the dusty streets of the holy city of Qom as Khomeini appeared on the roof of a modest bungalow, wearing black robes and turban. He did not smile like a politician would. His face was stern, like a father gazing on an errant son. He slowly raised his hand. The crowd erupted in frenzy. "There have been only a few such figures in history," an Iranian instructed me. "Moses, Jesus, Mohammad - and now there is Khomeini."

Many of my journalistic colleagues cast the revolution in a favorable light. The Shah, they said, had been a despot; Khomeini expressed the will of the people; the hatred of America was Washington's fault. Soon, alcohol would be banned and women would be forced to cover themselves from head to toe in black chadors. Most foreign correspondents would move on to other countries, other stories.

Many Iranians who were not Islamists supported the Iranian Revolution nevertheless. They believed Khomeini would show tolerance and embrace diversity. But he declared disobedience to his government a "revolt against God." A few years later, many of those I had known in Iran were dead or in prison or in exile abroad.

Today, the 30-year-old Iranian Revolution appears simultaneously dangerous and decrepit. Iran has made Syria its client, created Hezbollah as its proxy, and adopted Hamas. A new report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies says Iran is likely to produce enough low-enriched uranium to make a nuclear bomb before the end of this year. Long-range ballistic missiles are under development as well.

But, at the same time, Iran's attempt to export its revolution to Iraq has failed for now. When Israel retaliated against Hamas for years of missile attacks, Iran's support was only rhetorical. Iran's economy has been crumbling and falling oil prices have hit Iran hard in recent months. Further, while Iran has spent a fortune on its nuclear programs, it has built few oil refineries. So, despite being one of the world's major oil producers, Iran must import much of its gasoline.

Research by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (the think tank I head), led by FDD senior fellow Orde Kittrie, a former State Department official, reveals that Iran gets most of its imported fuel from just a few companies - Vitol, Trafigura, British Petroleum, and Total -- all of which have financial interests in the U.S.

That presents an opportunity: President Obama could pressure these gasoline suppliers to turn off the flow. Indeed, recent Congressional action reportedly persuaded the Indian company, Reliance, to end gasoline sales to Iran.

Obama could make clear to average Iranians that their rulers are to blame - they are the ones isolating and impoverishing them. And for what? So they can wave a big gun on the world stage? So they can attempt genocide and provoke a nuclear exchange with Israel? There is every reason to believe most Iranians don't want that.

President Obama has said that the world "cannot allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. .... And I will do everything that's required to prevent it." He also has said: "If we can prevent [Iran's rulers] from importing the gasoline that they need, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on them."

Exactly. The Iranian Revolution is 30 years old. The new administration still has time to limit its final death toll.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Clifford D. May is the President of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Be the first to read Cliff May's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

One more promise
from Obama. He will prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapon. The guy has guts, i'll give him that. Either he has no idea what he is promising, or he is confident he can talk his way out of anything. There is evidence to support both suppositions.

Pistol
I don't think B.O. has a clue, let alone any guts. Smart guy, raised and indoctrinated by the left. Remember, "Ours is a world ruled by the aggressive rule of force." (Rush Limbaugh)

Better than usual
This is not bad for a May column. The mistakes are mostly details. May continues to do Iran the favor of making them look more powerful than they are. Hezbollah formed due to occupation. Iran can't simply create rebel forces where it wants them.

Similarly May pushes the fantasy that we can prevent goods entering a country and have people blame their leaders instead of us. That is the thinking that has made Castro the longest surviving dictator in the world. It has probably helped the Iranian revolution last as well. It is a pretty ideologically bankrupt revolution. But there is little that ideologically bankrupt revolutions benefit from more than someone they can blame for their mistakes. It is less clear why we always want to volunteer to be that someone.

The quote above from Obama makes it possible he is making the same mistake, although it is not clear from the quote. I hope not.

Oh well, Lon
"Similarly May pushes the fantasy that we can prevent goods entering a country and have people blame their leaders instead of us."

There was a time, when this country was at war, that our Commanders-in-Chief prevented all kinds of goods from entering and leaving countries without any Americans giving a rat's tail who got "blamed." See: US History, 1861-1865, 1941-1945.

Oh well.

...........
----That presents an opportunity: President Obama could pressure these gasoline suppliers to turn off the flow.----

Excellent idea. Let the mullahs ride camels instead of Mercedes.

Lonnie??
Problems w/ Cliff? Look inside to find the truth. May nails it 95% of the time, including this collumn. Castro/surviving; Wow, what an example to put forth. God bless you...

Will he do it?
We'll see if Obama really has what it takes to be Commander and Chief. So far he looks like Carter 2.0.

Thinking of what Obama is going to do about keeping the country safe makes most people what to go out and buy a gun.

Obama was right the first time
Early in the campaign, Obama said, correctly, that Iran was one of many countries that are weak and don't pose a threat to the US.

He was right. Of course, he had to retract his statement in the face of the storm of criticism from The Lobby.

But Iran really is no threat to the US. The US government is still upset that the Iranians overthrew their little satrap, the Shah, back in 1979. This is why they still target Iran.

Iran has a GNP about on a par with Denmark. It may or may not give some support to Hezbollah and Hamas, but this does not make it a threat to the US.

Even if Iran could build a nuclear weapon--something which no one has come up with a shred of evidence that they are actually doing--they would still be no threat to the US. They have no delivery systems, and they would be outnumbered in nuke category by roughly ten thousand to one.

As a libertarian, I disagree with most of what Obama stands for. But if he is able to set up a good working relationship with Iran and other Muslim countries, I'm all for it. That is, so long as that relationship doesn't involve intervening in everyone's affairs across the entire globe.

ISRAEL ATTACKS
ISRAELI ATTACKS IRAN

When Benyamin Netanyahu is elected PM of Israel he will ensure Israel will be defended from her enemies. I believe he will strike Iran’s nuclear facilities to prevent another HOLOCOST from happening and this will be the beginning of Ahmadinejad’s worst nightmare.

I have given some thought of a better scenario to simultaneously attack Iran with an Israeli air strike and a naval bombardment on their refineries, routes of imports of material` and exports of petrol to obliterate their missile systems guarding their ports on the Gulf of Oman and destroy Hamas, Iran’s proxy killers, in Gaza and Hezbollah, more Iran proxy killers, in Lebanon.

I am aware this will offer Iran the opportunity to legitimately declare war on Israel (excellent) which Ahmadinejad prays to Allah for. This will begin their missile attacks upon Israel and her ships, perhaps with chemical and biological warheads!

Every Israeli has a gas mask, bunkers and they are prepared with the Patriot Missile Defense System and their Air force to knock them down in flight.

I am aware this will also block the oil the US receives from Iran and more than likely bring Chavez threatening to stop the oil supply to the US. However, Chavez can only rage because he has a huge deficit and needs the oil revenue to stay in power.

At this point the Israeli Air Force will remain intact to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. IF Iran decides to use chemical and biological weapons against Israel the Israeli Air Force will NOT be needed.

Israel has a few special missiles that will completely destroy every nuclear facility, underground or otherwise, in Iran and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s wish will come true, but not in HIS place of choice. FINALLY,THE THREAT ENDS!

Khomeini's family
Interestinly enough are part of the moderate groups that lost power after the last election. One problem we have is that Iran (though it has theocratic elements) elects its leaders -- I don't know what can be done if the Iranian electorate keeps putting the "radicals" in power. It is troubling that Iran will probably have nuclear weapons soon -- and it would be nice if that could be stopped -- but given that Pakistan and North Korea developed weapons, it would seem Iran could do this as well. I actually know some nuclear engineers in the U.S. who are ethnic Persians -- so clearly the "know how" exists. What is Israel going to do? In retrospect, it was good that Israel stopped Iraq's nuclear program 30 years ago with its bombing -- but I don't think they could do the same with Iran (which is further away, and a bigger country).

Sounds very similar..........
to something that was proclaimed in 1941 against the Japanese.......

America needs to use its' greatest weapon in its' arsenal as leverage.....FOOD!

"If we can prevent [Iran's rulers] from importing the gasoline that they need, that starts changing their cost-benefit analysis. That starts putting the squeeze on them."

As though Iran won't find alternative fuel sources in the middle of an oilfield?......lol..

Oh, by the way, Mr. May.....
30 years ago, I was a young U.S. serviceman that was watching the crisis closely in case we had to come and get your "reporting" backside out of there!....

Thank goodness Carter was such a wimp that nothing militarily ever materialized, except of course the botched attempt in the desert months later!

Trouble brewing
I fear that this oil price reprieve is temporary. We are significantly inflating our currency, which is the only currency used to value oil on the world market. Once the consequences of our monetary policy kick in, commodity prices will rise, and Arab oil states will be back in business. They will likely be assisted by Russia, who, because of her commodity-based economy, will be in a position to resume assistance to them.

As Iran's Islamist influence in Iraq increases, they will encounter more organized resistance from a loose coalition that can be described as secular socialist nationalists. This is a perennial bipolar conflict in the Middle East described in Phares' The War of Ideas. Unfortunately, the Islamists will have an edge in Iraq, although Saddam Hussein's long reign did substantially entrench notions of secular government in Iraq.

It's ugly out there. The lesson for us is that "compassion" as a political policy is always and everywhere too expensive.

Iranian threat
Lon makes a good point. We have put this long-standing embargo on Cuba and it has helped make Cuba poorer. It has given the Castroes an excuse to tell Cubans that the Americans are the reason for their misery. That alone does not mean the embargo has been either right or wrong, but that is one of the downsides: it gives the wicked leaders an excuse to blame someone else. The same could happen in Iran if we stopped the oil from coming in.

On that note, there is a discussion of May's column here:
http://uncouthruminations.blogspot.com/2009/01/iranian-pips queaks.html

Like Revolutions Before
Cliff made a good point to reference the Russian Revolution and Chinese communism. Both arose under similar circumstances to the revolution in Iran. And they collapsed not because of religious upheaval or military force. Their economies just couldn't match the demands of the citizens. And no matter how dedicated and pious the citizens are, poverty and famine eventually catch up. The best thing Western powers can do is speed the process up as Regan did with the Soviet Union. He forced them to spend so much money to match US might that the whole country imploded. Iran is already on the brink. If Obama is as smart as he tries to sound, he will do what Reagan did and push them over the edge.

Lon
"It is a pretty ideologically bankrupt revolution."

It was a theological and not an ideological revolution. And even if it was ideological, what makes it bankrupt? There are still plenty of Muslims in the world who want to impose shari'a on everyone, and there are still plenty of leftists in the West who are willing to let them do it in order to show people that they are not "Islamophobes."

"Countdown To Crisis...
The Coming Nuclear Showdown With Iran" By Nobel Prize Nominee Kenneth Timmerman is a book that should be read by every member Of the House and Senate, as well as President Obama.

Mr. Timmerman is a seasoned investigative journalist specializing in covert and classified operations. His immpecable sources and grasp of the facts is compelling in it's
presentation.

Bottom line: Our intelligence network fumbled the ball leading up to 911, writing off information as not credible, that could have prevented the attack.
Iran has Nukes and missles that will reach Israel, and soon The U.S.

The book is disturbing and yet enlightening.
All Americans should prepare themselves for what is almost inevitable.

JFP

The "leftists" want war against the terrorists and not against muslims. They do not fear Islam, which is wise.

PERILS OF A WAR WEARY AMERICA:
Phylo Se Fiser writes:

Many Muslims have an aggrieved view of the West.

ApolloSpeaks

Indeed they do. They believe with perfect faith that they have a divine right to replace America with a tyrannical, intolerant, oppressive Moslem state. We are at war with an idea that is shared by most Moslems and nothing short of America getting out of the way-withdrawing our forces from the world (America coming home) will appease them. Obama is totally ignorant of this and his Moslem outreach initiative will prove as dangerously blind as Chamberlian's failure to appease Adolf Hitler-possibly undoing our security gains in Iraq and leading to our next Vietnam.

To read more on this subject Click ApolloSpeaks and read my: Perils of a War Weary America in the Age of Obama.


................
-----Lon makes a good point. We have put this long-standing embargo on Cuba and it has helped make Cuba poorer.-----

The embargo applies to the US. Other nations are free to do business with Cuba. To blame the US for Cuba's economic woes is laughable. The fault lies solely with their communist leader, Fidel Castro.

By the way, Lon never makes a good point.

Zero will not stop Iran - he
even said so in his speech to Al Arabiya. They voted for Hope, and ended up with the Dope! He is a naive pacifist.

PERILS OF A WAR WEARY AMERICA:
Phylo Se Fiser writes:

Many Muslims have an aggrieved view of the West.

ApolloSpeaks

Indeed they do. They believe with perfect faith that they have a divine right to replace us with a tyrannical, intolerant, oppressive Moslem state. We are at war with an idea that is shared by most Moslems and nothing short of America getting out of the way-withdrawing our forces from the world (America coming home) will appease them. Obama is totally ignorant of this and his Moslem outreach initiative will prove as dangerously blind as Chamberlian's failure to appease Adolf Hitler-possibly undoing our security gains in Iraq and leading to our next Vietnam.

To read more on this subject Click ApolloSpeaks and read my: Perils of a War Weary America in the Age of Obama.

Morbid response to Alice @ 13:49
Actually, bh0 will stop Nutjob in a way--by making the US a colony of Iran.

FeargalX @ 09:09 scribbled "One problem we have is that Iran (though it has theocratic elements) elects its leaders". Much like India "elects" its President and VP (reality: Iran's real rulers are an unelected council of mullahs--and they choose who can run in election as well as the victor).

Coercive Utopias
How have they worked out? Some cases in point:
USSR, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, North Korea, Cuba. Have any them been or are of them now Utopias?
Donald W. Bales

PERILS OF A WAR WEARY AMERICA
Except from The Perils of a War Weary America in the Age of Obama

"Obama wants to plant his cult of personality in the midst of the Middle East in the hope of mesmerizing its masses into loving him like his awestruck followers here at home. But Moslems already have such a cult revering the personality of the prophet Mohammed, the ideal human being, a man of blood and war, and have contempt for Obama the weak, appeasing anti-war leader who would supplant their God annointed hero with his assurances of eternal salvation and conquest of mankind on earth."

Click ApolloSpeaks to read the rest of the piece

Response to Donald's 16:03
You're aware that "utopia" is Greek for "nowhere" (also renderable "neverneverland")?

U.S. laid the groundwork for '79
The Iranian Revolution was a direct result of U.S. Imperialism and meddling in Arab affairs to help secure cheap plentiful oil for the American Oil industry.

If the U.S. had not meddled in this region Iran would have still been a modern secular Westernized nation-perhaps even more modern then it was 50 years ago.

Prior to '79 and Khomeni, the CIA launched a coup in the 1950's and overthrew the Western style Iranian democracy. The Shah was installed as a U.S. puppet to insure cheap oil and ruled with an iron fist against Iranian national interest until '79 when he fled the country for cancer treatment in the U.S.

The theft of their oil, and cruel repression of arabs under the Shah consequently breathed new life into religious extremism which Khomeni exploited and continues this day.

Just as nukes are good for Israel and the U.S. to protect against invasion, they would also be good for Iranians to protect themselves from invasions by rogue states. China, North Korea, and Russia have all demonstrated that nukes are the best deterrant. If Iraq had nukes, it never would have been attacked and destroyed and there would be more peace and stability in the region. THe U.S. would also have not squandered $2 Trillion on a discretionary war.

While it would be nice if there were no nukes in the world, that will never happen becasue the last one to give them up (or hide them) wins. The next best alternative is for more nations to have nukes to create a balance of power and reduce warfare.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.