Dan Darling analyzes the current state of affairs regarding Iran. Are things going downhill? The election of the mayor of Tehran to the presidency is not encouraging.
In fact, the new president made clear right after his triumphant election victory, "We did not carry out the Islamist revolution in order to introduce democracy." He hammered his objectives home to the rejoicing followers. "Our revolution seeks to achieve worldwide power," he said, continuing, "I am a pure fundamentalist." He repeats these principles the length and breadth of the country, castigates "Western decadence," promises "the strictest interpretation of the religious laws of Shari'a." Internationally recognized conventions on women's rights are for him "a fatal offense against the values of Islam." This is not so much a devout Muslim speaking as rather one who knows that he is in possession of the one, the pure truth. The masses follow him.
Within the close circle of his loyal followers, Iran's new state president Mahmud Ahmadinezhad revealed his great vision. It stems from the days of the 1979 Islamist Revolution. Now it harbors within it a new explosive force. "The new Islamic revolution" according to Ahmadinezhad, will cut out the roots of injustice throughout the entire world. The era of the Godless regime, tyranny, and injustice has come to its end," he prophesies. "The wave of the Islamist revolution will soon reach the entire world."
Not good. Darling outlines the threats from this, including the regime using acquired nuclear power and terrorism as blackmail against western states. Iran is quickly turning into by far the most dangerous nation on earth.
For years, according to the findings of Middle Eastern and Western intelligence services, Iranian intelligence services have already worked together repeatedly with Sunni jihad organizations of Al-Qa'ida. "As an Islamist, I go to the Saudis to get money," the Jordanian GID man outlines the current practice of Islamist holy warriors. "When I need weapons, logistical support, or military terrorist training and equipment, I go to the Iranians."
As if there was any doubt that Iran was harboring terrorists.
Really, read the whole thing.
The Cicero author over at Winds of Change ponders.
Throughout the 1930s during Hitler's rise, the West maintained the hope that appeasement would contain the Nazis in Germany. Chamberlain claimed victory for appeasement in 1938 when he and Hitler signed the Munich Agreement.
In March, 1939, Hitler invaded Czechoslovakia, in spite of the Munich Agreement. This date is largely recognized as the point at which appeasement was no longer viable -- that only force could counter fascism. And then a few months later, Hitler invaded Poland, and World War II began in earnest.
Throughout the first half of this decade, appeasement has been the weapon of choice to counter Iran's nuclear ambitions. In addition, Europe's handling of its burgeoning Islamic immigrants for the past few decades -- corralled into dreary welfare cities -- has been another kind of appeasement, meant to assuage the passions of Muslims in places like France, the Netherlands, England and Germany.
So this week I am wondering: Is November, 2005 similar to March, 1939?