web analytics
January 16, 2017 / 18 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’

Mossad and the Saudis Convinced Iran Seeking Nuclear Holocaust

Sunday, November 17th, 2013

A Sunday Times story headlined “Two Old Foes Unite Against Tehran” suggest, according to a diplomatic source, that Israel’s Mossad is working with the Saudis on contingency plans for an attack on Iran, should the latter not take down its nuclear weapons program in the deal to be signed in Geneva this week.

The Israelis and the Saudis are convinced that the Geneva talks that seek to place limits on Tehran’s military nuclear development are nothing more than appeasement, Munich style, and will do little to slow Iran’s effort to possess a nuclear warhead, which it can then mount on its numerous, Russian and home made ICBMs.

Riyadh supposedly has already given the go-ahead for Israeli planes to use its airspace in an attack on Iran.

As you can see on the map below, Israel’s line of attack on Iran must pass either via Turkey in the north, or Saudi Arabia in the south, as it would not have free passage over Iraq. It might also be able to use both prongs simultaneously.

In an interview to Le Figaro on Saturday, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu spoke of the “meeting of the minds” between Israel and the “leading states in the Arab world” on the Iranian nuclear threat.

“We all think that Iran should not be allowed to have the capacities to make nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said, referring to himself and to his newly found Arab cohorts. “We all think that a tougher stance should be taken by the international community. We all believe that if Iran were to have nuclear weapons, this could lead to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, making the Middle East a nuclear tinderbox.”

Netanyahu called on the world’s leaders to take notice and recognize the seriousness of the threat, which is severe enough for Israel and the Arabs to be in complete agreement over it.

According to the Sunday Times, both Israel and Saudi Arabia are convinced that the West has decided to run out the clock on the Iranian nuclear program, to the point where an attack on Iran would be far more dangerous than it is today, due to its ability to retaliate with a nuclear counter attack. Apparently, both countries do not believe that the concept of a Mutually Assured Destruction, which kept the U.S. and the USSR from nuking each other during the Cold War, will not deter the religiously fervent Ayatollahs.

In that context, of Israel and the Arabs know just how dangerous the Iranian threat is (“We know something about this region. We know a great deal about Iran and its plans. It’s worthwhile to pay attention to what we say,” Netanyahu told Le Figaro). Here are a few citations from the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (1902-89), who commented, as his army and Saddam Hussein’s were grinding one another to a bloody pulp, that no matter which of the armies is destroyed, Islam would benefit in the end.

In the discussion of a country possessing nuclear weapons it is crucial to know whether the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction. To that end, it would help to know how the founding father of the Islamic Republic valued life.

Khomeini told an audience early in the revolution: “Dying does not mean nothingness: it is life.”

Traditionally, Shi’a Islam has revered shahada, the act of paying the ultimate sacrifice in defense of the faith. In the annual Shi’a 10-day celebration of Imam Hussein’s death at Karbala, it was Hussein’s courage and religious devotion that was celebrated, not the fact that he had been killed. But Khomeini took this one step further, perhaps to its logical conclusion, preaching that not only was martyrdom a highly meritorious act, so were opportunities for it. (Daniel Brumberg, Reinventing Khomeini (2001).

Thus his insisting on continuing the war with Iraq well after Iraq had been driven out of Iran was not a bloody disaster for which Iranians should be angry with Khomeini—it was an important opportunity for the young to die fighting enemies of Islam. “Dying does not mean nothingness: it is life.”

Khomeini said about the ideal of martyrdom (paraphrased): If the great martyr confined himself to praying, the great tragedy of Kabala would not have come about. Among the contemporary ulema (Islamic scholars), if the great Ayatollah Shirazi thought like these people, a war would not have taken place in Iraq and all those Muslims would not have been martyred.

Yori Yanover

Why US Policy Betrayed the Moderates

Wednesday, August 21st, 2013

Originally published at Rubin Reports.

In 1848, the new Communist movement issued a manifesto. It began with the opening line:

“A specter is haunting Europe—the specter of Communism.”

For our purposes today, this threat might be reworded as:

“A specter is haunting the Middle East—the specter of America.”

For example, about a year ago Dubai’s police chief addressed a major international Gulf Arab security conference. He said that there were about three dozen security threats to the Gulf Arab countries. But this well-respected security expert said the number-one threat was the United States.

Since that time, this American specter has become vivid. For instance, The New York Times had a recent editorial which stated that the only protection for Egypt’s democracy–meaning Muslim Brotherhood participation in the next Egyptian government–was the United States and Europe. The Egyptian regime, Israel, and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Arab states were bad for wanting to protect their societies from Islamic ideology, revolution, and anti-Western Sharia states!

Might the United States and its allies rather be expected to battle Turkey, Iran, Hamas, Hizballah, Tunisia, Bahrain, and Hamas or otherwise might it support Islamists while Saudi Arabia fought Europe’s and America’s response as too soft on Hizballah?

But what if a crazy notion seizes policymakers, blessed with the mush of ignorance about the Middle East, that they can take control of the troublemakers? Perhaps Germany (World War One and Two jihads), or the Soviet control of radical nationalist regimes in the 1950s and 1960, or the French rescue of the Palestinian leadership in the late 1940s, or Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in Iran during the 1970s, or America in the 1950s (Arab nationalism), or the 2010 Muslim Brotherhood would turn nominal extremists into friends?

Imagine, dunderheads in Washington, London, Paris, and so on thinking they are masterfully preserving stability, making peace, and harnessing Sharia in the cause of boosting democracy!

How smug would be the smiles when those who perpetrated September 11, 2001, were supposedly defeated by those mentored into power a decade later by the West in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, or in the Arab Spring or the Syrian revolution!

Look at it through the eyes of the Arabs, Iranians, Turks, Kurds, and Israelis who think they will try to impose a new order the region?

Consider a famous speech by Winston Churchill at Fulton, Missouri, on March 5, 1946. In contrast to the Communist Manifesto,100 years later, Churchill began, “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an Iron Curtain is descended across the continent.” It might be strange that these two statements are compared to the current situation in the Middle East. But actually, they make a lot of sense.

The intention of great powers seemed to impose one (European) system on the region. In the first case, it was Communism. In Churchill’s case, it was anti-Communism he advocated, which in parallel would be Anti-Islamism.

But today, what is the system that Arabs, Iranians, Turks, and Israelis think they will try to impose on the region? The answer for those who have been watching in recent years is revolutionary Islamism.

It might seem strange that this is the thinking, but it isn’t. The question is whether there is a system that Western Europeans want to impose. And the answer is that to the Arabs and others in the region–although this does not mean it has to be true–since the 1979 Iranian revolution, they have supported radical Islamism. In fact, it should be understood that after the Arab Spring, Arabs did not generally identify Western interests with support for moderate democracy, but with support for Islamism.

Incidentally, Churchill’s title was the Sinews of Strength, and he favored policy leading a coalition of the Free world which would be welcome today.

To summarize, in the 1930s, Churchill favored anti-fascism and advocated a united front against Nazi Germany. After World War Two, he supported an alliance of the Free World against the Iron Curtain.

Where is the Churchill of today?

Well, directly his bust was quickly chucked from the White House because he was the symbol for Obama of Western colonialism.

Who was the genuine symbol of anti-colonialism for Obama? The left wing anti-Western revolutionary ideological movement represented by the Muslim Brotherhood or Chavez, and other demagogues.

Barry Rubin

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/rubin-reports/why-us-policy-betrayed-the-moderates/2013/08/21/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: