Heil Ahmadinejad
Editor's note: The following contains remarks that disparage US policy abroad as well as the current Iranian regime. We would like to believe it is thoughtful if a bit passionate. Please be advised.
Wow. CNN reported today that Iran's new president and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution has banned Western music. Before you dismiss the significance of this event, look at the first thing that happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban was ousted during the war - music, formerly banned, was played in the streets. Music became a symptom of freedom of expression, the first and most important right of a human being living in a free society. Quashing that kills all the cultural features that come with it - the shared passion of music, the cultural crossover, the connection that belongs to the world and makes you revel in its beats and rhythm and dance - isolating those people from the world in a way more profound than you might imagine.
This Ahmadinejad guy is really starting to scare me, because he's *actively* dragging his people back nearly 30 years, with the advantage of hindsight so he can better avoid public outcry. If he ends up with nukes, I think we will be looking at another Kim Jung-Il situation - someone we have to appease just because we can't really do much to uproot him diplomatically or militarily.
And the sad thing is, the US is to blame for this asshole. It was in 2002 the president of US called Iran - then in an internal struggle between a moderate, liberal president and the disconnected mullahs of the Supreme Council - part of the "axis of evil," one of the most counterproductive and inflammatory pieces of rhetoric spoken by a US president, EVER. We pissed off Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, and what has happened? Those words undermined the delicate position of reformers at work in their nations and empowered the hardliners. Those reformers, who had been empowered through international support and goading by world powers to be brave and stand up to the tyrants in their midst, were told that it wasn't good enough, that their work was for nothing and moreover, they were lumped in the same category with those tyrants they struggled against. So in Iran's case, seeing that there was no hope of appeasing the impatient Western nations with their modest progress, they had a nice little backlash. They elected a guy who would stand up to the biggest bully in the world, who wouldn't take any shit off anybody. He took them back to their "roots" in repression and fear. He purged his goverment of progressives and replaced them with zealots and yes-men. Now, if anybody fucks with Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad starts waving around his potential for mass destruction, goading his enemies on arrogantly. Sound like anybody we know?
What's the end result of all this hubbub? Let's go back 20 years in Middle Eastern affairs. Look at it like this: back in 1985, the intafada was raging in the Holy Land, fought by Hezbollah. The tensions between revolutionary Iran and the more secular Iraq were mounting. The US was involved in the "Bear Spares" and Iran-Contra affair, passing arms to the underequipped Iraqi army in a hope of staving off Iranian aggression in the region.
But today, the stakes are even higher. The stokers of the intafada are Hamas, who are home-grown and have had 20 years to win hearts and minds as a social service organization in the Occupied Territories, making uprooting them (or support for their policies) much more difficult. We're building that new Iraqi army ourselves, as an an arm to stave off a more fervent, wealthier, and possibly nuclear armed Iran. Our international reputation is in the shitter, we're overextended militarily, and we no longer fight enemies who wear uniforms or drive tanks, who are unwilling to engage in any diplomacy and seek death with a fervor unmatched by love of Party or comrade or country.
Mr. Bush, as a member of the generation to follow you, I thank you for another 20 years of trouble to look forward to. Fuck you very much, Georgie.
Editor's note: The following contains remarks that disparage US policy abroad as well as the current Iranian regime. We would like to believe it is thoughtful if a bit passionate. Please be advised.
Wow. CNN reported today that Iran's new president and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution has banned Western music. Before you dismiss the significance of this event, look at the first thing that happened in Afghanistan when the Taliban was ousted during the war - music, formerly banned, was played in the streets. Music became a symptom of freedom of expression, the first and most important right of a human being living in a free society. Quashing that kills all the cultural features that come with it - the shared passion of music, the cultural crossover, the connection that belongs to the world and makes you revel in its beats and rhythm and dance - isolating those people from the world in a way more profound than you might imagine.
This Ahmadinejad guy is really starting to scare me, because he's *actively* dragging his people back nearly 30 years, with the advantage of hindsight so he can better avoid public outcry. If he ends up with nukes, I think we will be looking at another Kim Jung-Il situation - someone we have to appease just because we can't really do much to uproot him diplomatically or militarily.
And the sad thing is, the US is to blame for this asshole. It was in 2002 the president of US called Iran - then in an internal struggle between a moderate, liberal president and the disconnected mullahs of the Supreme Council - part of the "axis of evil," one of the most counterproductive and inflammatory pieces of rhetoric spoken by a US president, EVER. We pissed off Iraq, Iran, and North Korea, and what has happened? Those words undermined the delicate position of reformers at work in their nations and empowered the hardliners. Those reformers, who had been empowered through international support and goading by world powers to be brave and stand up to the tyrants in their midst, were told that it wasn't good enough, that their work was for nothing and moreover, they were lumped in the same category with those tyrants they struggled against. So in Iran's case, seeing that there was no hope of appeasing the impatient Western nations with their modest progress, they had a nice little backlash. They elected a guy who would stand up to the biggest bully in the world, who wouldn't take any shit off anybody. He took them back to their "roots" in repression and fear. He purged his goverment of progressives and replaced them with zealots and yes-men. Now, if anybody fucks with Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad starts waving around his potential for mass destruction, goading his enemies on arrogantly. Sound like anybody we know?
What's the end result of all this hubbub? Let's go back 20 years in Middle Eastern affairs. Look at it like this: back in 1985, the intafada was raging in the Holy Land, fought by Hezbollah. The tensions between revolutionary Iran and the more secular Iraq were mounting. The US was involved in the "Bear Spares" and Iran-Contra affair, passing arms to the underequipped Iraqi army in a hope of staving off Iranian aggression in the region.
But today, the stakes are even higher. The stokers of the intafada are Hamas, who are home-grown and have had 20 years to win hearts and minds as a social service organization in the Occupied Territories, making uprooting them (or support for their policies) much more difficult. We're building that new Iraqi army ourselves, as an an arm to stave off a more fervent, wealthier, and possibly nuclear armed Iran. Our international reputation is in the shitter, we're overextended militarily, and we no longer fight enemies who wear uniforms or drive tanks, who are unwilling to engage in any diplomacy and seek death with a fervor unmatched by love of Party or comrade or country.
Mr. Bush, as a member of the generation to follow you, I thank you for another 20 years of trouble to look forward to. Fuck you very much, Georgie.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home