Iran is the Lodestone.

Pejman Yousefzadah links Amir Tahiri on the protests in Iran, which are becoming triumphant merely for surviving.

Many Iranians believe that the Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings that toppled two Arab despots were inspired by Iran’s pro-democracy demonstrations of 2009. This week’s protests revealed three things: Iran’s opposition movement is wounded but alive; it is united in its rejection of Mr. Ahmadinejad; and, slowly but surely, it is discarding the option of change within the regime and seeking to change the regime.

For some reason, the Sunni Middle East seems to take its cue from Shi'ite Iran. Thus far that cue has been for jihad and Jew-blaming. Democracy and dictator-shaming is a welcome change.

Progress! Mahmoud Won't Throw a Rock!

The Peace Process is clearly working:

Hizbullah head Hassan Nasrallah confirmed that the Iranian President will not be throwing rocks at Israel in a speech he gave Saturday. "If President Ahmadinejad asks my opinion, I shall say: 'A stone? You are capable of throwing more than a stone,'" he said.

Yup. I can just feel the peace breaking out.

Mahmoud and the Pope

The things one does for Holy Spirit:

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sent a letter to the pope thanking him for opposing a Florida pastor’s threat to burn the Quran and calling for cooperation against secularism, the Vatican and the Iranian presidency said Saturday. 

Because a Florida pastor was going to burn a Quran out of respect for secularism.

The Vatican said Pope Benedict XVI had received the letter during a brief meeting with one of Iran’s vice presidents at the end of his weekly general audience Wednesday.
Vatican spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi did not release the contents of the message.

Since It's So Obvious that Iraq = Vietnam...

Let's look at the results of pulling out of that war. Lawrence Haas does, and look what he discovers:

In 1975, a Democratic Congress cut off funds for the U.S. effort in Vietnam. The public, disillusioned over Vietnam and Watergate, elected Jimmy Carter, who promised honesty and applauded the end of “our irrational fear of Communism.”

As America turned inward in the late 1970s, enemies sensed our vulnerability and dangers mounted. The fear of communism was not so irrational after all. In Ethiopia, Angola, Rhodesia and elsewhere, the Soviet Union or Cuba worked to stoke Third World revolution. The Soviets more openly laid bare their expansionist agenda in late 1979 by invading Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolution in Iran of 1979 toppled a staunch U.S. ally. The student seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran, leading to a 444-day hostage crisis, painted a picture of American impotence.

All of which resulted in the election of Ronald Reagan and a new belligerent American foreign policy, which further institutionalized the belief that Republicans are the hawk party and Democrats the dove party. Note as well the connection between the post-Vietnam era and the rise of current enemies.

The fact that this is penned by Gore's former communications director gives me hope that someone on the other side of the aisle appreciates that the post-Iraq situation will need to be handled by something other than blaming Bush for all our troubles. As I've recently been bothering the Commisar at Politburo Diktat, a conservative who's changed his mind about Iraq, I've been waiting six years for the Democrats and the Left to come up with alternative strategies to defeat the jihadis. So far, zilch. If that changes, I'll be the first to applaud it, and the courage of any Democrats to push against their extremists in doing so.

If We're Going to Do This...

....we would do well to consider the likely consequences. As far as I can determine, they fall along these lines:

1. Possible Iranian/Pan-Arab Military Attack on Israel. I don't know that this is very likely, but it is a possibility. If Saddam's WMD's actually existed in large quantities and actually made it to Syria, this is the kind of move the Baathists and others will be wanting. Scuds flying at Tel Aviv in revenge for Israeli surgical strikes into Iran are not beyond the bounds of possibility. A weakened Hassad may be unable to restrain the outbreak of war. And even if Syria doesn't launch, Iran might. Missiles flying back and forth across the MidEast could lead in a variety of places.

2. Protests/Riots/Blowback in Iraq. The extent of Iraqi sentiments regarding Israel have not, to my knowledge, been closely quantified. Nor, for that matter, have their sentiments regarding a nuclear Iran. Will they be outraged as Israeli cruise missiles flying over their airspace? Will they officially protest and cover their glee? Will they not care? It's something we should know.

3. Collapse of the Mullarchy. Military embarrassment is often the father of Revolution for unpopular regimes. So it was for Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, etc. A coup by the military against the "too-soft" regime might spin out of control. But we've been hoping that the people will throw off the Islamic state for some time, and so far the state has demonstrated the will to survive.

4. Failure. Iran's weapons facilities won't be as easy to take out as Iraq's was in 1981. Several of them are spread throughout the country, and I'm sure that several of them are near enough to civilian areas as to be uncomfortable. The Israelis might launch a strike and accomplish nothing but stirring the hornet's nest.

It would be nice to see some commentary along this line. Perhaps Belmont Club would be interested.

And Iran...Iran So Far Away...Couldn't Get Away

How to take Iran's declaration that they're doing...something with their nuclear plant? They claim it's within the bounds of their earlier promise. Should we believe them? How can we find out definitively? If they're yanking our chain and suddenly make a nice test mushroom cloud, what's the next step? Should we march our troops westward? Do we have the stomach?


How to take the fact that the EU seems to have a "big three": Britain, France and Germany? Doesn't this rather defeat the purpose of having an EU? How does Poland and Spain feel about this? Is there any chance of Iran taking seriously the "big three's" call to "seriously reconsider their decision"? What if Tehran says "We've reconsidered it, and we're doing it anyway, bugger you"?


Finally, what is All-Powerful Diplomatic God John Fitzgerald Kerry think should be done?

Faster, Please

Michael Ledeen, the biggest Iran-hawk you can find today (the title above is his mantra and sign-off to every essay on the subject) re-interprets yesterday's intelligence coup. I've been suspecting and saying for some time (although not here) that the mullarchy in Iran may collapse of its own weight. But I've read some about revolutions, and I know the inescapable First Rule of Revolution: the Tyrant has to blink first. So far, the mullahs haven't. But I don't see things getting less volatile in Persia, especially if Iraqi self-government becomes a reality. It may take only the tiniest loss of morale to make the wretched fundamentalists collapse.




Incidentally, I meant to mention how the story is being spun to add another Log to the bonfire of "Bush Lied!" See, the fact that al Qaeda isn't winning recruits among the people couldn't possibly mean that our effort is successful. No, it must mean that it was never worth fighting in the first place, because Iraqis and al Qaeda were never connected in the first place (implicit in this is the assumption that we should only fight al Qaeda, because none of the other organizations have attacked us yet. We have to take this hydra head by head, or the UN might not like us), because Bush. Is. Evil.




Fortunately, Instapundit has all the details for me, so I don't have to mention it.




Woops, too late.