What Ms. West found isn’t very encouraging. But my intuition was already in place before I read her post so I’ve been avoiding the story of the Iranian “elections” and their aftermath ever since our Supreme and Hallowed Leader started dispensing bromides about it.
Yes, it is a good idea to spread the story of this abomination. If we wait for the MSM to change their tune ( the song-and-dance first originated by Jimmah) poor Iran will indeed be lost.
At the same time it is crucial to understand the background and context of these farcical Iranian “elections”.
Here is Ms. West’s take on recent events:
Having been in transit during the start of the Iranian election protests, I’ve taken a little time to come up to speed on the issue. Scanning English-language (UK) papers in airports, I will say that my initial reaction to the euphoria I saw breaking out all over the West — especially the US? — to the obtusely labeled “green” revolution was, Why should we be so happy about Mousavi? When I learned that Mousavi was Mullah Rafsanjani’s boy, that A-jad was Mullah Khameini’s boy, my wonder deepened, as in: What’s the diff?
Well, I haven’t “been in transit” unless you count major avoidance as transit. I just couldn’t bear the predictability of the whole thing. The “whole thing” is a rigged election followed by killing young people. You could smell it coming a mile off. I’m too tired to be outraged anymore. Our pusillanimous President does nothing but cringe and play nice. No use speaking truth to power when power is busy bowing and scraping to those who want to kill us, too, not just their own people.
Ms. West turns to John Bolton’s essay at Politico to back up her assertions:
Iran’s “democracy” under the Islamic Revolution of 1979 is a wondrous thing, as the June 12 presidential election and its riotous aftermath proved.
First, only candidates screened and approved by the mullahs in the Guardian Council could run – in this case, exactly four presidential candidates out of nearly 500 who applied. Second, Iran’s highest official is not the president but, rather, the supreme leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Third, Iran’s election officials are not independent but rigorously controlled by the supreme leader. Fourth, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and other security forces stand ready, willing and able to preserve public safety if the “wrong” candidate appeared to win or protested in defeat.
And fifth, whoever won wasn’t going to change Iran’s 20-year campaign to acquire deliverable nuclear weapons or its role as the central banker for international terrorism. The supreme leader and the IRGC control Iran’s foreign and national security policies, under both “reformist” presidents like Seyed Mohammad Khatami (1997-2005) and incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad alike.
Credulous foreign reporters missed all of this, partly because they spent their time talking to middle-class Iranians or Iranian ex-pats who think like them rather than doing hard investigative work to understand what was actually afoot.
“Credulous”? That’s being kind. They’re lazy. They’re ignorant. They’re overpaid. Big time malfeasance in the media corps. If any military person filed an after-action report which resembled what the MSM is churning out on Iran, he’d be on his way out of the field of action real quick. We can’t afford these people any more. The media class is a parasite.
Mr. Bolton continues:
– – – – – – – – –
Perhaps these reporters never covered elections in Chicago. Some commentators predicted that President Barack Obama’s June 4 speech in Cairo would benefit Iranian “moderates,” and some compared the main challenger’s wife to Michelle Obama. Even Obama, self-referential as always, was caught up in the rapture, citing his Cairo speech as signaling “the possibility of change” in Iran.
Oh, they’ve covered Chicago all right. And any time Obama is in the Chicago picture frame, they cover it with flowers and kisses. They people can’t become much more craven without reverting to a form of invertebrate.
Ms. West quotes John Bolton again, this time from Fox:
When Bolton further noted that Mousavi had been the Ayatollah Khomeini’s prime minister that was more than enough for me. Still, there was more. As Bolton put it to Fox’s Greta van Susteren:
“Well, he [Mousavi] was the Ayatollah Khomeini’s prime minister. I mean, let’s get started there. So that qualifies him. He is the person who negotiated with A.Q. Khan to set up the beginnings of the Islamic revolution’s nuclear weapons program. He’s fully committed to Iranian terrorism, a lot of it began under his administration. So whatever changes there might be inside Iran, make no mistake, the foreign policy would remain essentially the same.”
As Ms. West said in the beginning: what’s the diff?
There is more, much more, at Andrew Bostom’s site, particular posts on background and context which Ms. West has linked in her post. Thus, I won’t repeat them here.
An essay to be highly recommended. We are fortunate to have Ms. West’s voice on the internet. It is always reasoned and careful.
I’m returning to a horizontal position with a pillow over my head, the position I’d assumed before all the email horrors began to trickle in. It is awful to know there is nohting, not one damned thing, we can do to save those young people.
May God have mercy on Iran. And on us, for the stupidly short-sighted and interfering foreign diplomacy that helped land Iran in this mess. We certainly were not innocent bystanders.