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
Monday, June 29, 2009
W. Thomas Smith, Jr :: Townhall.com Columnist
Violence in Iran: What the West Needs to Know
by W. Thomas Smith, Jr
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The violent crackdown continues in the wake of Iran’s disputed June 12 presidential elections in which – according to the Wall Street Journal – “hard-line clerics have rallied behind Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in supporting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's declared landslide poll victory.”

Hardly a “victory,” much less a “landslide,” so-say supporters of opposition candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and and Mehdi Karroubi, who have “challenged the vote, alleging widespread vote-rigging.”

Despite restrictions on media, at least 20 people have reportedly been killed and hundreds wounded by Basij militia forces. Some sources suggest the death toll is much higher. And it doesn’t appear as if the mullahs, Ahmadinejad, and their cronies are going to let up until any hint of expressed opposition is crushed.

Additionally, according to the Kuwaiti newspaper Alseyassah, the leadership of Lebanon-based Hizballah is appealing to the Iranian regime – literally the hand that feeds Hizballah – to use all means to quash the opposition movement in Iran. Alseyassah also reports “a number of troops of the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] in Kuwait, Iraq, Lebanon and Syria have been recalled to Tehran ... to join the Tha’r Allah [Vengeance of God] forces … These special forces are in charge of protecting the regime."

Saturday, I discussed Iran with Middle East expert Dr. Walid Phares – director of the Future of Terrorism Project for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies – for the initial Q&A in what will be an ongoing series of interviews, Three Questions for Dr. Walid Phares, providing timely perspective on Middle East issues and international terrorism as events unfold.

W. THOMAS SMITH JR.: Considering the large pro-democracy turnouts in recent elections in Lebanon and Iran – and the now seeming desperation on the part of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to quash all dissent – is the IRGC, its Quds force, Hizballah, etc., on the ropes? Does the West now have a strategic opportunity here?

DR. WALID PHARES: The Iranian people have a unique opportunity to liberate themselves from 30-years of oppression embodied by the Vilayet e-Faqih Jihadist regime with its Pasdaran and Basij militias. Such windows of opportunity come only once every one or two decades, and many young Iranians understand this. Hence we have this explosive uprising in the streets of Tehran, and we will continue to see urban opposition for a long time inside Iran.

Moreover, the Lebanese people, who have been under the yoke of Hizballah terror for a quarter century, also have an unexpected opening wherein regional support for Hizballah may be declining inasmuch as Iran's regime may well lose its ability to support Hizballah. Lebanon's Cedars Revolution, which has been under attack for the last four years may also derive tremendous benefit from the youth uprising in Tehran. But even though both civil societies in Iran and Lebanon are looking at a generational opportunity to defeat the terror system in the region, it is really in the hands of the free world and particularly in the hands of the United States to either hasten the advance of democracy or let go of the latter, allowing the Pasdaran to win.

There seems to be an amazing alignment of the planets in favor of pushing back against these terror forces in the region, but Washington will have to say “yes” or “no” to the international push. Iranians and Lebanese can only struggle, but America and other democracies can make it happen soon or in the far future. So, Pasdaran, Quds force and Hizballah aren't on the ropes as you say. But with a quick, serious international alignment of the international community coordinating with the uprising, these militias can be isolated and their terror power significantly reduced. If the West doesn't realize this huge change taking place now out of Tehran and take action, the so-called “Tha’r Allah” forces will become an extremely dangerous tool in the hands of a surviving angry regime.

SMITH: Is there not also an increased danger of an IRGC-inspired attack elsewhere in the world, to divert attention from Thar Allah operations in Iran?

PHARES: Obviously. Strategically, the Iranian regime is bleeding politically. Its credibility is gone, even if it crushes the opposition and pursues the youth across the country. And when such regimes see their political shields shattered, they begin acting irrationally and preemptively. Iran's billions of petrodollars invested in propaganda via satellite TV, as well as the infiltration and influence of Western media have built an unnatural image of the regime camouflaging the oppression. As a result, journalists and academics have described Iran's Khomeinist regime as “reasonable, stable, and with whom democracies can conduct business.” The young men and women on the streets of Tehran have come very close to destroying this expensive public-relations image. Hence, the IRGC could be tasked to strike at targets overseas and engage in terror regionally as a means of deflecting attention from the “Tha’r Allah” operations inside the so-called "republic." The international community in general, Western democracies in particular must be very attentive to the possibility of Pasdaran-guided, ordered and/or inspired terror operations worldwide as the crisis inside Iran persists. Therefore, it is crucial that the West in general and the United States in particular work on backing the democratic uprising in Iran now before the Pasdaran takes them by surprise. This is not an issue of luxurious choice, it is a matter of national security.

SMITH: What is the West failing to understand, that we must get our heads around regarding the IRGC – its subsidiaries like Hizballah – and the “Tha’r Allah” forces?

PHARES: As of the fall of 2006, early 2007, the pro-Iranian-regime lobby in the United States – and some other Western countries – has succeeded in imposing a new equation regarding Iran. Whether it is because of propositions of oil advantages or false promises of help in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is a fact that the Iran policy in the United States has shifted during the last two years of the Bush Administration and throughout the current Obama administration from considering the Iranian regime as a strategic foe supporting terrorism to just a nuisance with which one might cut a deal. U.S. policy has reached a summit of contradictions as its intelligence and legal components consider the Pasdaran and Quds force, as well as Hizballah, as terrorists; yet our political decision-makers look at the Iran of Khamenei as a potential partner in regional political business. The West – particularly the U.S. and the UK – knows all too well that the IRGC and Hizballah are strategic threats but a political decision was made to disregard this reality hoping that it would – or could – end when the “engagement path” would bare fruit. This is a dangerous game, a bet that is irrational, which may cost democracies greater losses and the region's civil societies longer oppression. The Tehran uprising should be viewed as an event of destiny, and it should open Western eyes. Let’s see if Washington and London figure it out and change course or stubbornly continue toward the precipice.

— Visit W. Thomas Smith Jr. at uswriter.com.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
W. Thomas Smith Jr. is a former U.S. Marine rifle-squad leader and counterterrorism instructor. He is the author of six books, and he has covered war and conflict in the Balkans, on the West Bank, in Iraq, and Lebanon. Visit him online at http://www.uswriter.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read W. Thomas Smith's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Yes, the West has to wake up!!!
Phares is on target.

Great article
Iran is a state sponsor of terror and yet the guy whose name I won't mention wants to have tea with Ahmadinejad.

On target indeed!
But as we all know, the West has a bad habit of ignoring experts in their fields and doing what their cronies want them to, for some odd reason. I have yet to figure out that skewed logic! Hopefully the baboons in Wash DC will keep their mouths shut long enough for the Iranian people to topple their government and before the "one-who-shall-not-be-named" makes a "date night" with Ahmadinejad.

Well...
...the fact is that ALL parties have committed terrible violence.

This use of the term terrorist is just too simplistic. If other nations used this rubric, they would never speak to the US. If you're unaware of any of the US's actions that might be considered terrorist, I'd be happy to inform you.

The point is really that we must remain in communication, even with our enemies. I've never heard Obama say that now we're going to agree with everything Iran has to say. Rather, we are going to engage Iran, precisely because we disagree on so many things.

You know, we really won't last much longer on this earth with the attitude that it's our way or no way. The harder they come...

Also: what is the suggestion here regarding the role the US may play in supporting the revolution in Iran? Do y'all know the history of the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon? In a nation of 4 million people, 1 million took to the streets demanding the withdrawal of Syrian occupiers and their warlike ways with Israel. The people won, but when the Hezbollah subversively fired rockets into Israel they were able to draw the July War.

If the US had been serious about supporting the revolution there, we could have stopped the Israeli incursion, which set the revolution back by 3 years.

Let's all be on the lookout now for the constructive, not destructive, ways the US may support the pro-democracy movement.

The Iran problem
I have much respect for the intellect of Dr. Phares, but we have to keep in mind that U.S. interests come first, and there are ancient wisdoms about how to deal with foreigners.

It is simply not to our interests to offer overt material aid, including military action, unless and until the protesters explicitly adopt Western secular liberalism. It is not enough that they are disgruntled about being beaten for listening to iPods or wearing their head scarves too far back or that they think Ahmadinejad is an idiot. Their movement must possess a real ideology, or it will not last. I see the beginnings of the adoption of Westernism in them, but again, it must be explicit, not implicit, or else it will eventually degenerate and revert, just as Russia did.

If we jump in militarily to save a movement without a real foundation, it will amount to self-sacrifice. We must see things with a clear and rational head and not romanticize.

Message to the youth of Iran: Show me.

If they do explicitly and resolvedly adopt Westernism, then it would probably be wise to intervene. Keep in mind, however, that due to Bush's SOFA with Iraq, our forces in Iraq could not be used.

I should further add that...
The justification for such intervention would not be "to bring freedom to the Iranian people." No! That would be unjust to the American people. The justification would be the utility to U.S. citizens of the differential between the current regime and the new state, i.e., Iran is so hostile and dangerous right now, and a new state which expresses a Western and pro-Western ideology would be so benign, that the difference between them in terms of objective U.S. interests would justify whatever costs and risks are imposed on us by intervening. Otherwise, no.

Among the current regime's liabilities are the fact of its killing U.S. soldiers in Iraq, its role in 9/11, its funding of terrorist proxies around the world, and its destabilization of the Middle East. These would effectively go away if the regime were replaced by popular Westernist leadership. But they must be Westernist.

Responses to Wendy and paranoidmystic
To Wendy,
Indeed US interest must always come first. Offering aid is a decision made by the nation when it feels its national interest and security is at stakes. There are no permanent "always intervene" and "always never intervene." Past involvements ranges from WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Yugoslavia twice, and the many other places. Past non interventions covered Darfur, Sudan, Lebanon (15 years), etc. So, there are no firm mechanisms but decisions to be made based on our values and our interests. Having solved that first issue, I consider a US open support (non military) to the uprising in Iran in our interest. One the current regime is dangerous, and any challenger (any at this point) is better. Two, inside the challenger there are political forces which are way more secular and progressive than most forces we have worked with in Iraq and Afghanistan. You need to look well not just sit back and watch. Three, the US Administration is not even trying to look because it already cut a deal with the current regime. The youth in Iran have shown, but the eyes in Washington are shying away. Last, when we suggest morally backing it is strange that those who are opposed to it, immediately respond that military response is not good. Either they don't hear or read or they don't want to extend the moral support. Hence, we are explaining to the US public exactly what is going on inside Iran so that pseudo explanations aren't blockign that direct knowledge.

The Cedars Revolution was abandoned..
As with regards to the "Cedars Revolution" example offered by paranoidmystic, the example is right on target but not the explanation. The US voted for UNSCR 1559 and stopped there. None of the requests made by the Cedars Revolution regarding media and other NGO assistance have materialized in time. Instead the Bush Administration was badly advised to deal with the Lebanese Government and send some spare parts to the Lebanese Army. Both the Bush and Obama Adminstrations were and are badly advised on how to support democratic revolutions. The so-called "advisors" are the ones we need to question.

Tom
Good point about bad advice on how to support democratic revolutions.

And excellent point about NGO and media support being more helpful than military.

I think the NGO route is the way to go. If we, on this board, are interested in helping the cause we should all be donating to Amnesty International, Reporters Without Borders, and Red Crescent.

Good interview
Disappointing to contrast Obama's handling of Iran with Reagan's handling of Poland. America used to support those who sought liberty. It is not our role to bring freedom to all corners of the planet, but we can support these Iranians the way Reagan supported the Polish uprising in the 80s.

Local NGOs must be supported..
Thanks paranoidmystic,

In fact we should support NGOs that are local and directly involved with energizing civil society, rather than international NGOs whose goals are not to get involved such as AI, HRW and the various medical rescue institutions. We need to support Women, students, labor, minorities, human rights,journalists groups inside Iran (and in exile) who are struggling to establish pluralist democracy. Those equivalent of Solidarity in Poland, dissidents of the Soviet Union or anti-Aparhteid groups. They will take the struggle into their societies. Nothing really new that we haven't seen before, but Washignton and Brussels must declare it as a policy and engage without any complex in this direction.

tom -- Right!
So which are those NGOs?

Selective outrage
How is it that the neocons keep talking about repression in Iran when there are scores of other countries with worse records?

What about Burma (Myanmar)?

Here's what one newspaper account had about the protests in September 2007:

"With the killing of an unknowable number of peaceful protesters and the imprisonment of thousands more during the pro-democracy demonstrations last month, many people fear reprisals by the military".

And of course there was not even an attempt at holding elections!

But of course Burma is of no strategic value and has no large deposits of oil and such.

So repression goes on for decades.

Aung San Suu Kyi, the opposition leader has been under house arrest for 20 years!

But any country that dares challenge the US-Israeli hegemony is fair game.

What utter hypocricy!

Ralph
Bush was supportive of Aung San Suu Kyi.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN064691152008050 6

Some actual facts for you. What more would you have Bush do, since you oppose using military force in toppling dictators?

It is Obama who is selective in his outrage, failing to support partriotic Iranians while jumping into the Honduran situation with both feet.

paranoid mystic is actually a druggie
It is profoundly disturbing to read the ahistorical, anti-fact diatribe of paranoidmystic in CA. Based upon your demographic and your ideas, I would say that you, like Michael Jackson, live in a drug induced stupor, accompanied by senility, emotional instability, irrationality, cognitive dysfunction and probably a whole host of physical disorders. The government of Iran is insane, whether it be ACK!!!! vomit!!! or the genocidal, misogynist mullah's who long to murder the entire world. Anyone who would argue on their behalf or the behalf of our traitorous President needs to be signaled out for public shame and humiliation. Bring back the public stock!
Patricia A. Helvenston

What do you suggest Tricia?
That Obama should insert himself into this situation and thereby taint the entire movement with calls of American imperialism?

Just A Moron
To Just A Guy:
Only a marxist-communist traitor or an illiterate fool could spout this line. Obama supported the Iranian government and wimped out on the revolutionaries. In Honduras, he supported the Marxist Communist government and condemned the military for seeking to enforce the countries' constitution. If you can't see a pattern of support for totalitarian communist or islamofascist rule in this, you are either a moron or a complete Obama dupe. You certainly don't have any reasoning skills. The US could and should have provided support to the Iranian dissidents, moral at least, but clandestine arms shipments through third and fourth parties at most. The Obama administration should have been on the side of the Military in Honduras and I believe that his decision here is predicated on the belief that at some point the American military is going to overthrow him if all else fails. Thus he wants to build a case against military coups. I don't think this will pass muster with the majority of tax-paying citizens in the US. Of course, all the welfare cheats, corporate welfare cheats, CEO's in bed with the Obama administration (they all vote democratic - check the record) will swoop and grovel and stick their tongues up his lower ailimentary canal denying this possibility. The military hates Marxist Communists and Obama with a passion that can win any war and Obama knows it. The Military hates Obama and although the great generals have not actively opposed him yet, you can be absolutely certain that they know exactly what he is doing and in their minds, at least, they are formulating a response.
Patricia A. Helvenston, Ph.D.

Scary... VERY Scary..
Seriously, Obama's support of Honduras' previous regime is DOWNRIGHT SCARY. I have been outspoken against him from the start, but I think that is my personal breaking point. I am now downright terrified that this guy has ambitions for total power. Why else would he chum up to dictators? Why would he support a "president" that is going beyond his constitutionally allotted term? I've just crossed my personal threshold - no action is too base or too excessive to stop this narcissistic moron from his malevolent ambitions... It is ironic that I recently suggested that you can summarize the democrat's political agendas in a Disney movie, because I'm beginning to think Obama is about as close to the pure storybook evil as anything else in reality...

Justaguy - wow you memorized a talking point. That will NOT get you a cut of Obama's massive redistribution of wealth. Best to wise up and defend yourself.

Obama should support freedom for Iran
What Obama seems to be missing is that Jimmy Carter installed the Iatolla Komeni as God's representative destined to control IRAN. Carter withdrew support for the Shah of Iran and backed Komeni's people who later killed thousands of moderate Iranians and caused tens of thousands of others to become international refugees.

An American President's endorsment of Komeni as a "man of God" was responsible for the Shah's demise. Why can't Obama correct Jimmy Carter's terrible miscalculation of thirty years ago! Carter did not ask for UN concurrance when he threw the Shah to the wolves. The Shah's sin was that he tried to move Iran into the modern world. Komeni used terror, God and Carter to move IRAN back to the dark ages.

Maybe this time the US President can back the moderates instead of the terrorists.

Obama has to remain silent.

Obama can't speak out about corrupt elections in Iran because his group,(A.C.O.R.N.), corrupted his election and other elections here in the U.S.

Who the Heck Cares?
Why do "conservatives" whip themselves up into a left-winger frenzy about the BAD GUYS overseas who REMAIN overseas?

The USA doesn't run the world. Iran is no real threat to us anymore than the USSR was.

Stay out of Iran's business.

This article is great
God bless patriots like Mr Smith and Dr Phares.

Vincent-VA says SCARY
VERY VERY SCARY.. I agree completely!! I never thought I would live long enough to see scoundrels of the ild presently in the White House and Congress!! I was in complete agree with "W" in his handling after 9-11, not so much his Micromanaging (Via RUMMY) iRAQ AND nONE AT ALL IN HIS spending spree!! But thru it all I never diubted that the man was BASICALLY honest and was doing what he felt was RIGHT.. I'm not sure this IDIOT presently getting mail at 1600 Pa Ave even knows what RIGHT

Vincent-VA says SCARY
Pg 2--This site, or my Computer is truly messed up.. I've been trying to most this note for 2 days.. Popups keep preempting.. I,m getting ready to preempt the popups!!

Contd. "even know what RIGHT IS!!" We, the NATION, (NOT I- Obama) need to let the Young, educated people in Iran know in no uncertain terms that WE STAND BEHIND THEM.. A coup is totally repulsive to me, personally.. To even think that such a thing COULD happen in AmeriCa should not be feasible.. But I never thought I'd see a DICTATOR..
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.