Mr. Obama: Don’t Betray My People

Mr. Obama, how do you propose to engage the point-man of the end-of-the-worlder Shiite regime in negotiation or discussion, without sacrificing the valiant Iranian people who are struggling to free themselves from the yoke of fascist Islamists?

It looks like Mr. Obama may well be the next resident of the White House. It also looks like my people are going to be betrayed once again by a badly misguided American president. Jimmy Carter helped give birth to the virulent Shiite Islamism by forbidding the Shah of Iran to crush the bloodthirsty Ayatollah Khomeini and his band of rabid Islamists. Now, Mr. Obama intends to confer legitimacy on the illegitimate child, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Jimmy Carter, the self-appointed touring ambassador of bad-mouthing America, must be rejoicing in the prospect of Mr. Obama’s presidency. Mr. Obama holds the promise of not only carrying on the Carterian misguided policies, but taking them to their very ruinous end.

Jimmy Carter did his thing and my people died. In no time at all, the vicious Mullahs gutted the Iranian armed forces and executed many of its most capable officers. Saddam Hussein watched gleefully as the Iranian military disintegrated, and found the opportunity to carry out his Pan Arabism ambition by attacking Iran. Some eight years of barbaric butchery killed and maimed millions on both sides, gutted the vibrant Iranian economy, and visited misery of all sorts upon the Iranian people.

Iran’s Mullahs, with the aid of the beguiled illiterate and religiously fanatic masses, strengthened their stranglehold as they blamed others for their incompetence and larcenous nature for the people’s intractable problems. The ever-machinating Mullahs had to find a scapegoat, preferably many scapegoats, to blame. True to form they turned and bit the hand that helped bring them to power – the United States. For good measure, the Mullahs included Israel. Jews have always been good scapegoats for Islamists, going back to the time of Muhammad in Medina. The prophet of Allah, as soon as he gathered enough power, found it expedient to plunder the Jews’ properties, kill the men and take the women and children as slaves to exploit or sell.

The Mullahs who took over Iran needed more straw-men, preferably on the home-front itself. Well, Allah helped them with that problem with some 300-400 thousand peaceful Baha’is. Baha’is were perfect for the part, since they had their holy places in Israel and that automatically made them agents of the Little Satan.

Now, history is about to repeat itself. While the ever-contrite ambassador of apology, Carter, cavorts with the officially designated terrorist Hamas, bestowing legitimacy on the thuggish Islamists, Mr. Obama is promising to outdo his idol Jimmy by engaging in negotiations or discussions with the “loveable” president Ahmadinejad of the IRI: a sort of tete-a-tete of two heads of states to settle things amicably. Doesn’t that sound lovely and a sure vote-getter? But, I am troubled and I have serious concerns.

Mr. Obama, you keep blaring about “change,” but you hardly spell out the details. Recall, the devil is in the details, as they say. Change from what to what, Mr. Charisma?

Mr. Obama, how do you propose to engage the point-man of the end-of-the-worlder Shiite regime in negotiation or discussion, without sacrificing the valiant Iranian people who are struggling to free themselves from the yoke of fascist Islamists? You believe that you, still somewhat wet behind the ears, can do better than the four-year combined efforts of seasoned diplomats from France, Germany, and Great Britain?

Mr. Obama, do you have trouble reading the man’s lips? Ahmadinejad, the one you wish to engage in negotiation, shouts as clearly and as often as he can that he is not going to stop enriching uranium; that he is irrevocably committed to the destruction of Israel; that the U.S. must pack, abandon all its interests and friends in the Middle East and leave the Mullahs in control of the world’s major oil spigot.

Mr. Obama, how are you going to sweeten the deal for Ahmadinejad? What would you give him to stop killing our GIs in Iraq; to arm and finance Hizbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and its ilk next door to Israel, and even the Taliban in Afghanistan? Give him Iraq and its oil? How about at least parts of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait?

Mr. Obama, it takes two to tango, as the old saying goes. The uncompromising oil-intoxicated fanatics of Iran and their proxies don’t want to dance with you. They want the entire floor – the Middle East – and the rest of the world down the road.

Mr. Obama, if you get elected as president, don’t you even think of doing anything that would further whet the insatiable appetite of the Islamists. Your mentor and idol, Carter, helped the Islamists and an untold number of my people died and are still dying. And by “my people,” I include both innocent people of my native birthplace Iran, as well as many noble compatriots of my adopted homeland, America.

Mr. Obama, you are either naïve or find it politically expedient to propose your foreign policy approach. In either case, you’d best keep in mind that the Islamist enemy plays by a completely different set of rules. Negotiating with the Islamists is like flipping a coin: Heads they win, tails you lose.

Mr. Obama, in your meteoric rise to power, you found it expedient to throw your wonderful grandmother under the bus, so to speak, you readily discarded the Reverend Wright, the man you held as your revered spiritual mentor and emulated for 20 years. Now, who else are the people you intend to steamroll over to service your personal ambition?

Mr. Obama, I repeat, if elected president, don’t betray my people.

Share

1 comment to Mr. Obama: Don’t Betray My People

  • Bob Stapler

    Amil,

    I like what you write and agree with most, but I am perplexed on two points. First is your remark about literacy, the second your preference for diplomats.

    Literacy

    I was in college in the late 1970s when Carter failed to solve all the world’s problems through appeasement. There I met a number of Persians (Iranians) who were not only some of the most literate of campus students, but by far more literate than most other non-Jewish middle-easterners (where Morrocans and Egyptians debated Marxism and Muslim brotherhood, Persians also discussed Neil Simon, Baryshnikov, Hayek and Hawking). Admittedly literacy in Iran has suffered under the mullahs, but even they encourage basic reading if only to teach the Koran. But, in the period immediately following the revolution (early 1980s) literacy would still have been very high. The current literacy rate in Iran is around 83%, which isn’t exactly bad. While U.S. literacy is quite high (99.0%), American functional-literacy is only around 78%; about the same as Iran. This second measure is the more relevant one to political manipulation. If Iran’s problems are to be blamed on literacy, how explain the greater resilience of Americans? The real difference, I think, is that all Americans believe objectively in freedom (even as we disagree on its essence). Even our statist politicians believe in freedom and hesitate to crush it outright. Iran is divided between those who want freedom and those who loathe it.

    The other thing to consider is how much of a bulwark is literacy against usurpation, and do we put too much reliance on it. Remember, Germany before the Nazis was one of the most literate and cultured societies on earth. Socialism and academe are practically synonymous here and in Europe. Both the Nazis and modern-socialism share a virtual certainty only they know what is right and a tendency to kill dissent. Literacy helps preserve freedom by giving people alternate sources for what to think, but it is no security against group-think. So, it is not literacy but the fundamental belief a people have in freedom (supported and propagated via literature) that makes this difference. I’ve known a lot of extremely well-read people convinced of socialism and appeasement, and I’ve known a lot of semi-literate Americans who can’t tell you Hayek from Horowitz but know the moment their freedom is threatened and exactly how to respond. I put my reliance for freedom in the latter.

    Seasoned diplomats

    Reagan also bypassed the professional diplomats in favor of personal diplomacy, but where Carter failed miserably, Reagan triumphed. Professional diplomats become so territorial and process-oriented they are sometimes the problem and not a solution. They are useful where you want to hold an adversary at bay and gum up the works, but if you really want to get things done, you have to sidestep them. Carter’s mistake wasn’t bypassing the ‘seasoned’ dips, he simply lacked any kind of a program with specific rational objectives. All he talked about was finding a ‘formula for peace’, leaving it up to the enemies of peace to define what that meant. Reagan, by contrast, dictated acceptable terms for peace and left it to the opposition to take it or leave it. When they refused, he called their bluff by spending them into the ground until they cried uncle. You are right Obama is like Carter because both are all talk with nothing concrete to hang it on.

Leave a Reply

IC Writers

Articles Archived by Topic