There's an article in Foreign Policy by Michael Axworthy which argues that regime change in Iran would be a disaster for the region and the world. Axworthy actually contends that any American move designed to lessen the influence of the Iranians is the biggest danger to peace in that region. Iran, according to Axworthy, is a stabilizing force in the Middle East with no hegemonic or military aims outside its borders.
When I read this, I considered whether this was just Iranian propaganda or a manifestation of total idiocy garbed with the language of a so-called foreign policy expert. I'm still not sure of the answer. I do know, however, that the article is (in non-diplomatic language) total BS.
Think about the idea of Iran as a stabilizing force in the Middle East. This is the same country that armed those who were fighting US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan a few years ago. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American servicemen were killed or wounded by IEDs prepared or paid for by Iran. This is the same country that funded the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The civil war in that country still rages; it would have ended long ago but for Iran's constant and substantial support for these rebels. Iran is also the country that has engaged in a vigorous trade with North Korea regarding missiles and components needed for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Supposedly, that's stabilizing and non-militaristic? Iran is also the principal supporter of the terrorists of Hezbollah and the war criminal Bashir al Assad and his faction in Syria. Remember, Assad and his forces are responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties across Syria, and Iran applauds Assad's every move. Itan is also the country that sent terrorists to Argentina to blow up targets connected to the Jewish community in Buenos Aires. When over 100 were killed in that attack, how did that stabilize the Middle East?
Not long ago, Iran attacked and captured a disabled American navy ship in international waters. Sure, the Iranians released the crew after a few hours, but first they violated the Geneva convention by humiliating the sailors in a variety of ways.
Iran today is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Axworthy thinks that's stabilizing?
Seriously, one has to wonder how a magazine that is supposed to consider foreign policy questions in a serious manner could put such nonsense onto its website. I guess I should soon expect a sequel soon from "expert" Axworthy. I already know the title of the piece: "Hitler and Stalin -- misunderstood leaders just trying to survive in a harsh world."
When I read this, I considered whether this was just Iranian propaganda or a manifestation of total idiocy garbed with the language of a so-called foreign policy expert. I'm still not sure of the answer. I do know, however, that the article is (in non-diplomatic language) total BS.
Think about the idea of Iran as a stabilizing force in the Middle East. This is the same country that armed those who were fighting US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan a few years ago. Hundreds, if not thousands, of American servicemen were killed or wounded by IEDs prepared or paid for by Iran. This is the same country that funded the Houthi rebels in Yemen. The civil war in that country still rages; it would have ended long ago but for Iran's constant and substantial support for these rebels. Iran is also the country that has engaged in a vigorous trade with North Korea regarding missiles and components needed for the manufacture of nuclear weapons. Supposedly, that's stabilizing and non-militaristic? Iran is also the principal supporter of the terrorists of Hezbollah and the war criminal Bashir al Assad and his faction in Syria. Remember, Assad and his forces are responsible for hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties across Syria, and Iran applauds Assad's every move. Itan is also the country that sent terrorists to Argentina to blow up targets connected to the Jewish community in Buenos Aires. When over 100 were killed in that attack, how did that stabilize the Middle East?
Not long ago, Iran attacked and captured a disabled American navy ship in international waters. Sure, the Iranians released the crew after a few hours, but first they violated the Geneva convention by humiliating the sailors in a variety of ways.
Iran today is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Axworthy thinks that's stabilizing?
Seriously, one has to wonder how a magazine that is supposed to consider foreign policy questions in a serious manner could put such nonsense onto its website. I guess I should soon expect a sequel soon from "expert" Axworthy. I already know the title of the piece: "Hitler and Stalin -- misunderstood leaders just trying to survive in a harsh world."
No comments:
Post a Comment