Under Tehran’s Spell
Published in Asharq Al-Awsat
(Pan Arab) on 12 February 2015
by Mashari al-Zaidi (link to original)
Iran is currently celebrating the 36th anniversary of Khomeini and co.’s revolution of mullahs and “Rule of the Jurisprudent” over the Persian kingdom.
The decades of revolution and upheaval have continued up to the present day. The founding of the Islamic Republic under Khomeini’s ideology caused extremism to radiate through the entire region and establish itself in the regional marketplace of ideas. This was because of Khomeini’s blathering about “Islamic Governance,” which was the title of one of his most famous books.
The mullahs sponsored many religious and/or revolutionary movements, both Sunni and Shia, causing many wars along with social and political strife, and they have not ceased their destabilizing activities. The subversive forces in the region allied with one another, and most prominent among them was the Muslim Brotherhood. It is no surprise that the Shia theory of “Rule of the Jurisprudent” mimics the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood’s theory of governance. The Shia’s supreme leader is a corollary to the Sunni caliph in the view of al-Banna’s group.
So it is strange that after all of the harm caused by the “Rule of the Jurisprudent” nation — it must be known that Khamenei translated some of the works of Sayid Qutb into Farsi! — that there is an interest in the West in dialogue and cooperation with the mullahs of Tehran. Obama doesn’t seem to want anything else.
On this topic, noted Iranian writer Amir Taheri wrote a short piece worthy of reading entitled “Remembering the Revolution: The Necessary Change” about the history of this American obsession with a more open dialogue with Iran in hopes of changing Iranian behavior. He also explains the pitfalls of this apparent faith.
Taheri asks, “What do George Clooney, Jack Straw, and Zbigniew Brzezinsky all have in common? They are all Hollywood stars who sell coffee machines on television. Britain’s last foreign minister, and America’s last national security advisor are part of a growing number of Western elites that urge rapprochement with the Islamic Republic, even if that means appeasing the mullahs.”
Taheri also summarizes America’s political complex, noting that Western thought on the Khamenei regime depends on two piece of magical thinking:
First, it makes sense dealing with this regime as a nation-state looking out for its interests just as any other classic nation-state. However, as has been the case with other revolutionary regimes, Khomeini’s regime did not behave, and could not behave, like a classical nation-state.
The second delusion is that what is needed is a change in the Islamic Republic’s behavior. However, the problem here is that Iran’s behavior comes from its very nature as a revolutionary state.
A few days ago Obama spoke in an American radio interview about his overarching strategy in dialogue with the mullahs saying, “We can assume that if we reach an agreement, then it will be an agreement the entire world can see.”* Khomeini is still an influence in Washington. It has been said before, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
*Editor’s Note: This quote, though accurately translated, could not be sourced.
The decades of revolution and upheaval have continued up to the present day. The founding of the Islamic Republic under Khomeini’s ideology caused extremism to radiate through the entire region and establish itself in the regional marketplace of ideas. This was because of Khomeini’s blathering about “Islamic Governance,” which was the title of one of his most famous books.
The mullahs sponsored many religious and/or revolutionary movements, both Sunni and Shia, causing many wars along with social and political strife, and they have not ceased their destabilizing activities. The subversive forces in the region allied with one another, and most prominent among them was the Muslim Brotherhood. It is no surprise that the Shia theory of “Rule of the Jurisprudent” mimics the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood’s theory of governance. The Shia’s supreme leader is a corollary to the Sunni caliph in the view of al-Banna’s group.
So it is strange that after all of the harm caused by the “Rule of the Jurisprudent” nation — it must be known that Khamenei translated some of the works of Sayid Qutb into Farsi! — that there is an interest in the West in dialogue and cooperation with the mullahs of Tehran. Obama doesn’t seem to want anything else.
On this topic, noted Iranian writer Amir Taheri wrote a short piece worthy of reading entitled “Remembering the Revolution: The Necessary Change” about the history of this American obsession with a more open dialogue with Iran in hopes of changing Iranian behavior. He also explains the pitfalls of this apparent faith.
Taheri asks, “What do George Clooney, Jack Straw, and Zbigniew Brzezinsky all have in common? They are all Hollywood stars who sell coffee machines on television. Britain’s last foreign minister, and America’s last national security advisor are part of a growing number of Western elites that urge rapprochement with the Islamic Republic, even if that means appeasing the mullahs.”
Taheri also summarizes America’s political complex, noting that Western thought on the Khamenei regime depends on two piece of magical thinking:
First, it makes sense dealing with this regime as a nation-state looking out for its interests just as any other classic nation-state. However, as has been the case with other revolutionary regimes, Khomeini’s regime did not behave, and could not behave, like a classical nation-state.
The second delusion is that what is needed is a change in the Islamic Republic’s behavior. However, the problem here is that Iran’s behavior comes from its very nature as a revolutionary state.
A few days ago Obama spoke in an American radio interview about his overarching strategy in dialogue with the mullahs saying, “We can assume that if we reach an agreement, then it will be an agreement the entire world can see.”* Khomeini is still an influence in Washington. It has been said before, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.”
*Editor’s Note: This quote, though accurately translated, could not be sourced.
Previous article![]( "Ukraine Crisis: A Quarrel Between Merkel And Obama?")
