Tuesday, June 22, 2004

Sentiments from Iran: How Should Americans Respond?

Iran is obviously eager for a power vacuum to develop in Iraq so that Islamic theocracy can be easily exported. It has been reported that Iran has moved 4 divisions to the border of Iraq, and that recently several British servicemen were taken captive. These men apparently crossed over into the Iranian side of the Shatt al-Arab waterway which borders Iraq and Iran. (As an aside, it's been reported that these men were deploying devices which would aid in the detection of Iranian vessels used to sabotage Iraq's oil terminals.)

Just how strong is the Iranian desire to wage war on the west? Is their intent to simply undermine US policy, or do they have larger aims? Is Iran simply an Islamic theocracy with a small number of terrorists, or is the entire Islamic theocracy in Iran a terrorist organization? Read this excerpt from an article from geostrategy-direct.com and draw your own conclusions:

    The suicide recruitment effort which has enlisted 10,000 volunteer, is being directed by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, loyal directly to Khamenei. Officials said the IRGC wanted the first target to be the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. "We will burn the roots of the Anglo-Saxon race," Hassan Abbasi, director of the Center for Doctrinal Studies, said. Meanwhile, Arab diplomatic sources said Iran's military has moved troops to the southern Iraqi border over the last week.

Strong words. While the goal of the Bush administration is to destroy terrorist organizations, the goal of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps is to destroy all western society - every man, woman, and child.

So how do we, as a nation, respond to this threat? In the run-up to the recent Iranian "elections", Senator Kerry sent a letter to Iran's press agency stating how the US will improve "collaboration with other countries" if he's elected. Kerry apparently doesn't have a problem with Iran's mullahs and their stance on the west, and wants to win the favor of the Iranians. Perhaps he can add Ayatollah Khamenei to his list of "world leaders" who want to see him victorious in November?

While Kerry appeased, what did Bush do? After the election he stated "I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime's efforts to stifle freedom of speech, including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers in the run-up to the election." Bush sees the Iranian threat brewing, Kerry does not. Bush wants to meet terrorist regimes head on, Kerry does not. Bush inspires fear within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Kerry does not.

So who do you want leading our great nation, the mullah appeaser or the man feared by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?

No comments: