A Greater Iranosphere
Joe Lieberman lays out the case on Iran, but stops short of painting the full picture. Here’s his take on Iran at WSJ:
While some will no doubt claim that Iran is only attacking U.S. soldiers in Iraq because they are deployed there–and that the solution, therefore, is to withdraw them–Iran’s parallel proxy attacks against moderate Palestinians, Afghans and Lebanese directly rebut such claims.
Iran is acting aggressively and consistently to undermine moderate regimes in the Middle East, establish itself as the dominant regional power and reshape the region in its own ideological image. The involvement of Hezbollah in Iraq, just revealed by Gen. Bergner, illustrates precisely how interconnected are the different threats and challenges we face in the region. The fanatical government of Iran is the common denominator that links them together.
The whole thing here. Lieberman is the clearest-thinking, most principled Democrat on Capitol Hill, which is why, technically, he isn’t one any more. He lays the case out against Iran well. Here are some things he didn’t say.
We are engaged in an evolving, multi-generational war. It’s about oil, though not in the way the disengagement camp likes to say it is. It’s about ideology, domination and imperialism, but in exactly the opposite way that the disengagers like to say it is.
Those who want to disengage precipitously and pretend that we don’t face real threats in the Middle East start with the premise that Saddam Hussein was never a threat. History shows that is patently false. Saddam repeatedly tried to control as much of the world’s major oil supply as possible, and there is nothing to suggest he was done with that project. His apparent lack of large stockpiles and active WMD programs was a temporary setback. Saddam’s not a threat anymore.
Iran has the same ambitions. Right now, Iran is a technologically backward economic basketcase, but Iran understands that if it can humiliate and drive out the wavering superpower and control the world’s major oil supply, that won’t matter.
Another false premise put forward by the disengagement camp is that we fight for oil, and if we cut our dependence on foreign oil, we won’t have to fight. It is an isolationist argument that ignores some fundamental realities. Cutting dependence on foreign oil and developing cleaner, renewable energy sources may be good things for economic and environmental reasons, but accomplishing them will not solve our problems in the Middle East.
Even if we did not use a drop of Middle Eastern oil, the oil fields there would remain some of the most strategically important real estate in the world. Once Iran controls them, Iran will have significantly more influence over Europe, China, Russia, Japan, Africa, etal, than it has now. Iran, which has the blood of hundreds of Americans and Israelis and tens of thousands of Arabs on its hands from Lebanon to Gaza to Iraq, possibly as far afield as Lockerbie, will be on the way to becoming a world power. A murderous, autocratic Islamic fundamentalist third-world power, but a world power.
Disengagement advocates think we are naive and wrong to push democracy on people who are not ready for it, who may not want it, who have other cultural values. Some elements of those arguments may be true, though the evidence of the Muslim thirst for democracy and good government is evident from Lebanon to Baghdad to Kabul and even to Gaza … frustrated and sometimes tragically misguided though the choices have sometimes been. Small steps have been taken among our allies, from Kuwait to Bahrain and even Saudi Arabia, and there remains the real threat, as in Gaza, that radical Islamists and terrorists can use the ballot box to gain power. Fortunately, for the evolution of the region, Gaza now stands as a flaming example of the consequences of choosing poorly.
The spread of democracy in the region under the Bush administration has been imperfect and in some cases violently challenged. By Iran and its proxies, largely, as Lieberman notes. But it represents a significant leap forward, and it is necessary to look at the alternatives to Western-sponsored democratization projects to see what is at stake and why continuing this difficult project initiated by the Bush administration is in our vital national interest.
Iran is the power that seeks to fill the vacuum that would follow our exit. A false democracy that is in fact a theocratic dictatorship. A terrorism-supporting world power that seeks not only economic and military domination, but spiritual and cultural domination of the region and the world. Quick show of hands. Who would like to see a greater Iranosphere?
Captains Quarters has the backstory.
Tigerhawk: Our bi-polar attitude toward Iran.
Hewitt: Mullahs need a clear warning.
DC Examiner on Iranian and North Korean nukes.
Gateway on what protest gets you in Tehran and lefty confusion over who the enemy is.
Welcome RCP, Jawa, Sanity, etal. Heavy stuff, that war talk. It’s the weekend, relax with a little Mullah Goose. Hey, what is it about a woman in a uniform? If thine jihadi eye offends thee, pluck it out.
Topics: Iran
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 9:02 am Comments (29) on Friday, July 6, 2007
29 Responses to “A Greater Iranosphere”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Lieberman’s always on point, and thank goodness we have him. Your analysis here is excellent as well. Thanks much!
July 6th, 2007 at 9:43 am
Outstandingly said!
“Oil” is a national security interest of the U.S., whether liberals want to admit it or not, and not soley, as you point out, because of our dependence on oil. The “strategically important real estate” argument you make is a great one, and one that is too often overlooked or oversimplified.
As for democracy, it is also a hard and painful process – one need look no further than our own history to see that. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a goal both worthy and necessary to strive for.
And lastly, I couldn’t agree more with the good Professor Douglas – thank goodness there is a Senator Lieberman, and the Dems would have done well to listen to him…
July 6th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Outstanding additional analysis Jules, Lieberman would appreciate it I’m sure. I especially liked this passage:
“We are engaged in an evolving, multi-generational war. It’s about oil, though not in the way the disengagement camp likes to say it is. It’s about ideology, domination and imperialism, but in exactly the opposite way that the disengagers like to say it is.”
For an incredible back story on the Reagan years, I suggest this piece. It reveals twice as many terrorist acts by Iran than I ever knew transpired.
“HOW THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION TAUGHT IRAN
THE WRONG LESSONS”
http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2007/issue2/jv11no2a5.html
To make its case it’s long and well footnoted, but by far the most detailed and revealing piece I’ve read on those years. In short, Reagan’s team was stumbling around in the dark, not knowing who attacked us or how to strike back at. Casper Weinberger was weak and afraid striking back. Colin Powell was also dead wrong about withdrawal not making us appear weak or harming or interests in the Mideast.
It also reveals that a plane carrying 250 US servicemen went down in Canada due to an apparent explosive device and in Reagan’s memoirs he states, ‘it was part of the cost of doing business in the mideast’. This was during the Iran-Contra affair. This happened days after a disagreement with Iran over a weapons shipment.
Lieberman gets it. Always has. When it comes to killing Jews and Infidels the differences between Sunni and Shi’ites fall away.
There has been ample evidence that, from it inception, revolutionary Iran worked readily with Sunni terror groups like the PLO. Myopic congress people and poorly informed pundits still stick to the line that “Shi’ite groups don’t help Sunnis” and visa versa. Out of solidarity, a PLO flag flew over the American embassy in Tehran during the hostage crisis in ’79. Khomeini gave the PLO the idea and religious justification for (suicide) martyrdom attacks. Iran recently gave suicide bombing justification to the Taliban.
We (Nixon) should have never rescued the PLO from Jordan in 1970. King Hussein should have been allowed to slaughter the PLO leadership after the multiple assassination attempts against him. We then dropped them off in Southern Lebanon and they proceed to attack Israel and light the fuse that destroys Lebanon. And then when they are about to face the Israeli military we rescue them again! And now we are doing it again with US$. If the PLO had been pursued aggressively by all nations that it committed acts of terror against besides Israel, Britain for killing Israel’s ambassador on it’s soil, Germany for the ’72 Olympics massacre on it’s soil, the US for Yasser’s personal approval of killing our diplomats, we would not be in this situation today.
You can bet Khomeini and Zawahiri studied the PLO and the west’s corresponding lack of response. They’ve turned up the intensity and now we have the Qods Force, Hezbollah, Hamas, and al Qaeda.
Good piece of the history of Hezbollah here, we could be seeing some action that way soon.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/lebanon/tl01.html
July 6th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
[...] Rupert Murdoch,” with his OP/ED and elsewhere in the blogosphere Jules Crittenden is pounding on his own little toy drum, in hopes that we’ll go to war in Iran and he can be an embedded reporter again, so he can [...]
July 6th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Iraqi government leaders want to forge close ties with Iran.
Who are we to stand in their way?
July 6th, 2007 at 3:55 pm
We’re not.
July 6th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Then why all the anti-Iran hysteria, PA?
America shouldn’t act like a crazy, jealous, bunny-boiling girlfriend .
If our pals, the Iraqis, like Iran, we should, too.
July 6th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
[...] Jules Crittenden, The Newshoggers, Taylor Marsh, TigerHawk, Obsidian Wings, Captain’s Quarters, Shakesville, [...]
July 6th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Then why all the anti-Iran hysteria, PA?
Because they’re killing our people? Just a wild guess.
July 6th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Don’t forget, Purple Avenger, to jihad boy, “our people” means “Iranians”, not “Coalition” or “American”. So why should he care?
July 6th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
You’re great buds with every friend of every one of your friends? You think this is some kind of requirement or social obligation?
Iraq is perfectly free to forge whatever ties with Iran it likes. You can point, of course, to no behavior of ours that would indicate otherwise.
However, that Iran declared war on the US in 1979, blythe as we have been toward it, and that they undeniably wage war through proxies on Israel, Palestine, Lebanon and apparetnly on Afghanistan and Iraq as well in no way paves the way for us to be pals with the Iranian reigme.
The situation is not much different in Afghanistan. That governmetn has sought ties with Iran as well, naturally so as the two nations share strong cultural, linguistic and ethnic ties. But Iran is the nation persuing hegemony and is unwilling to be an equal in the region even with a natural friend.
July 7th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Even at the height of the cold war, the US had “ties” with the Soviets. Various cultural and scientific cooperations, grain sales, etc.
July 7th, 2007 at 12:57 am
Is that irony, RTO?
We did invade two countries on Iran’s border.
I think that makes us the hegemon.
I don’t think Iran has actually attacked anyone in centuries…so it’s kinda hard to believe our military’s propaganda.
They were oh so very wrong about Iraq, after all.
July 7th, 2007 at 2:09 am
It takes a special kind of ignorance to be this willful. You are on the internet, after all, so how can you possibly justify leaving a statement like “don’t think Iran has actually attacked anyone in centuries” when the facts of the matter could quickly settled by a search of the web, if in fact, you didn’t know better, or just weren’t sure to begin with.
Iran’s (Overt) Wars of the Twentieth Century:
Persian Revolution of 1906 Internal
Russo Persian War 1911 Aggressor: Russia
Persian Revolution of 1921 Internal
Involvement in WWII Invaded to end German control of oilfields
Iranian Revolution of 1979 Aggressor: Iran
Iran-Iraq War 1980 Aggressor: Iran
And of course you absolve Iran completely of their entanglements with Hezbollah, al-Dauwd, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command and HAMAS.
As for “hegemon” and “irony,” both these words have established definitions which I’d recommend you look up.
July 7th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Iranian Revolution?
You mean when the people of Iran voted out our thug of a puppet and his CIA trained secret police, RTO?
And I think you better check the Iraq-Iran war again, there military “expert.”
It was our boy Saddam who invaded Iran.
You guys are just makin’ stuff up now.
Do you really expect people will take you seriously?
July 7th, 2007 at 2:43 am
Voted out? Cart before horse. There was a referendum in March, two months after the Shah was forced to flee the country. It had one of those 99% results that alwasy seem so credible. In addition it’s subject wasn’t as to a form of government or a leader, it was whether the “voting public” approved of the methods of Khomeni and Friends. Not the same thing as self-determination.
If you equate “invasion” with “aggression” you are relying on another broken staff to match your wit. Iran had engaged in months of provocative action including sponsored terrorist activity (setting the trend they follow to the present), attacking Iraq’s embassy in Rome, attempting to rouse Iraq’s Shiites to revolt, and artillery barrages across the border.
And you still ignore Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism.
July 7th, 2007 at 2:52 am
Well, RTO,
It’s only a few countries currently run by wingnuts that consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization, if that’s who you mean.
Your circular logic isn’t enough reason to start a war.
July 7th, 2007 at 4:23 am
“Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism. Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) were directly involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and continued to exhort a variety of groups, especially Palestinian groups with leadership cadres in Syria and Lebanese Hizballah, to use terrorism in pursuit of their goals. In addition, the IRGC was increasingly involved in supplying lethal assistance to Iraqi militant groups, which destabilizes Iraq.”
“Iran continues to be unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaida members it detained in 2003. Iran has refused to identify publicly these senior members in its custody on “security grounds.” Iran has also resisted numerous calls to transfer custody of its al-Qaida detainees to their countries of origin or to third countries for interrogation and/or trial.”
http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2005/64337.htm
Then quit screwing around, and start frying the bastards.
July 7th, 2007 at 4:46 am
Irony, Dave?
We’ve been holding our suspected bad guys for up to six years without a trial.
July 7th, 2007 at 4:49 am
So you concede every point in favor of a majority of bureaucrats being unwilling (for a variety of reasons, some noble some not) to call it a spade?
Your debating skills are about as advanced as your research ability, Phred.
If anyone’s interested I can post 57 examples of Hezbollah’s activities. Folks can decide for themselves.
July 7th, 2007 at 4:51 am
“We’ve been holding our suspected bad guys for up to six years without a trial.”
…because of dilatory actions by those purportedly acting in the interest of those detained.
Yeah, that’s irony this time. You’re getting better.
July 7th, 2007 at 5:20 am
The only people who consider Hezbollah a terrorist organization are Bush and his poodles, plus Israel, of course.
If you really think unilaterally declaring Hezbollah a terrorist organization, then calling for an attack on Iran because they fund Hezbollah is gonna fly now, after six years of failed propaganda efforts, RTO, I salute your optimism.
July 7th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Please stop engaging with “alphie”. Mr. Crittenden’s fine work deserves better than this.
July 7th, 2007 at 9:57 am
Once again Alphie’s input is the equivalent of a child interupting an adult conversation by making fart sounds with his hand cupped under his armpit. His goal is to disrupt thought and prove how undeveloped his mind is. Sarah is right.
Hezbollah was considered a terrorist organization long before George W Bush was ever heard of on the American Political landscape. Former UN General council Mark Mulloch Brown and Alphie both think Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization, that fits. In fact George Soros just hired up Mulloch Brown after his UN stint because he liked his moral equivalent view of the world.
Hezbollah is suffocating the Lebanese Shi’ite population idiots like the alphatard think it is protecting and providing “social services” to. Real Lebanese know better. Real Lebanese are writing at length about this. Hezbollah is so afraid of losing its stranglehold over the Shi’ite population in Southern Beirut that it not moving forward with reconstruction projects that have modern city planning involved that would increase traffic flow and overall integration of the Shi’ite population with other communities and improve their lives dramatically. These plans are ‘collecting dust’ on Hezbollah desks while the rubble from last summer’s war remains and Shi’ites loyal to Hezbollah wait for their houses to be rebuilt. Control is everything to Islamists. Lebanon has also been libertarian and that makes it a huge target for forces of totalitartianism.
http://blacksmithsoflebanon.blogspot.com/2007/06/hizballah-hinders-haret-hreik.html
Hezbollah, like any criminal organization, buys its members loyalty. It pays for housing, medical, food, etc. If people die in battle, the family is taking care of. Pablo Escobar built housing and hospitals in Columbia. People loved him too. I’m sure you can still find people in Medillin who will swear he’s a saint, like the Alphatard does about Hezbollah.
Every administration involved has termed Hezbollah a terrorist organization. But our opinion doesn’t matter. It’s the Lebanese whose opinion that matters. The Lebanese are thoroughly sick of Hezbollah. Hezbollah needs to disarm. Their weapons are clearly not for the defense of Lebanon anymore but the overthrow of the government and menace of the population. And Hezbollah does not speak for all Shi’ite Lebanese. There are many prominent Shi’ite Lebanese who have spoken out against Hezbollah.
Simply put, Hezbollah is a state within a state that has two goals, the destruction of Israel, and expansion of Islamist power. Neither of these are in Lebanon’s interest, or the world’s interest.
Here’s a multi-segmented PBS history of Hezbollah. I’d say PBS is an unbiased sourced.
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/lebanon/tl01.html
July 7th, 2007 at 10:44 am
As sarah rolph says, it’s pointless to argue with alphie. No amount of proof will ever stop the relentless jihadist propaganda. It also speaks volumes that “alphie” doesn’t understand how little effect his posts have here, other than diverted irritation.
July 7th, 2007 at 11:26 am
“Patterns of Global Terrorism 1996″
“Hizballah (Party of God)”
“a.k.a.: Islamic Jihad, Revolutionary Justice Organization, Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, and Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine”
“Description”
“Radical Shia group formed in Lebanon; dedicated to creation of Iranian-style Islamic republic in Lebanon and removal of all non-Islamic influences from area. Strongly anti-West and anti-Israel. Closely allied with, and often directed by, Iran, but may have conducted rogue operations that were not approved by Tehran.”
“Activities”
“Known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-US terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombing of the US Embassy and US Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983 and the US Embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984. Elements of the group were responsible for the kidnapping and detention of US and other Western hostages in Lebanon. The group also attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992.”
http://www.state.gov/www/global/terrorism/1996Report/appb.html
Hezbollah was a designated terrorist group long before President Bush made the scene.
Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, they’ve attacked the United States many times, and we should have destroyed them back in the 1980s along with their state sponsor (Iran).
No amount of lies spewed by leftoid skanks is going to change the facts.
July 7th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
‘To shouts of “Death to America,” Iran’s parliament unanimously approved the outline of a bill Sunday that would require the government to resume uranium enrichment, legislation likely to deepen an international dispute over Iran’s nuclear activities.’
‘Still, Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Hossein Mousavian told The Associated Press there was a 50 percent chance of a nuclear compromise with European nations.’
‘He ruled out an indefinite suspension of key enrichment activities – a concession that European negotiators have sought – but suggested Iran would consider calling a halt to building more nuclear facilities.- AP’
Destroy them, before they attack us again. They aren’t screaming “Death to America” on the floor of their parliament just for the fun of it.
It’s just a matter of time until another American embassy is attacked by these animals or their pet terrorists. You want to wait until they have both nuclear weapons AND terrorist proxies like Hezbollah before we act?
That’s insane. Not responding to Islamo-loons who have already carried out terror attacks, and are screaming “Death to America” is EXACTLY what got 3,000 people killed on 9/11/01. Bin Laden issued his fatwa calling on Muslims to kill Americans, and we blew it off. Al Qaida attacked our embassies in Africa and we blew it off. And, because we kept blowing it off…3,000 of our guys got whacked. Enough of this crap.
The government of Iran and Hezbollah must be destroyed. No American is safe as long as they exist.
July 7th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
The story of terrorist attacks on America by the Pale-swine scum, the Hezbollah scum and other Muslim scum…and also the story of our government’s endless bumbling, and refusal to deal with it.
PBS actually does something useful for a change…
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/etc/cron.html
.
July 8th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Yes, Mr. Surls, I was also surprised to find PBS documenting terrorism so thoroughly.
However, the link I provided on the history of Hezbollah at PBS left off a critical element in the chain of events. They followed events pretty closely, in a heavily truncated form, then state, “Israel invades, 1982″ without any context. The reason Israel invaded was PLO terrorists killed the Israel ambassador to Britain on British soil and escaped with Iraqi assistance. For PBS to skip over this critical element is highly suspect and unfairly predjudices the reader in favor of the PLO (hiding behind Lebanese borders).
In fact, Al Gore gives an empassioned blasting of George Bush One for not taking out Saddam in ‘91 for his ties to terrorism that is posted on YouTube. It’s quite comical giving his new book and it’s opposite stance. Check out Al’s GruppenFuhrer haircut.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1602.html