Russian version
Iran's Ahmadinejad far weaker than he lets on
- Информация о материале
- Автор: Victor Davis Hanson
Jewish World Review Dec.
28, 2006 / 7 Teves, 5767
The Iraq Study Group, prominent U.S. Senators and realist diplomats
all want America to hold formal talks with the government of Iran. They
think Tehran might help the United States disengage from Iraq and the general
Middle East mess with dignity. That would be a grave error for a variety
of reasons — the most important being that Iran is far shakier than we
are.
The world of publicity-hungry Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
is not expanding, but shrinking. Despite his supposedly populist credentials,
his support at home and abroad will only further weaken as long as the
United States continues its steady, calm and quiet pressure on him.
In Iran's city council elections last week, moderate conservative and
reformist candidates defeated Ahmadinejad's vehemently anti-American slate
of allies. At a recent public meeting, angry Iranian students — tired of
theocratic lunacy and repression — shouted down their president.
By supporting terrorists in Iraq and Lebanon, enriching uranium and
insanely threatening to destroy a nuclear Israel, Ahmadinejad is only alienating
Iranians, who wonder where their once vast oil revenues went and how they
can possibly pay for all these wild adventures.
Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad has invested little in the source of his wealth
— the oil infrastructure of Iran. Soon, even the country's once-sure oil
revenues will start to decline. And that could be sooner than he thinks
if the United Nations were to expand its recent economic sanctions in response
to Ahmadinejad's flagrant violation of nuclear non-proliferation accords.
So, as Iranians worry that their nation is becoming an international
pariah and perhaps heading down the path of bankruptcy in the process,
now is not the time for America to give in by offering direct talks with
Ahmadinejad. That propaganda victory would only help him reclaim the legitimacy
and stature that he is losing with his own people at home.
Better models to follow instead are our past long-term policies toward
Muammar el-Qaddafi's Libya and the Soviet Union of the 1980s. As long as
Libya sponsored terrorism and attacked Westerners, we kept clear, and boycotted
the regime. Only in 2003, when the Libyans unilaterally gave up a substantial
program of weapons of mass destruction, agreed not to violate nuclear proliferation
accords and renounced terrorism did we agree to normalize relations.
In other words, "talking with" or "engaging" Libya did not bring about
this remarkable change in attitude within the Libyan government. In contrast,
tough American principles, economic coercion, ostracism and patience finally
did.
The United States always maintained open channels with the Soviet Union.
After all — unlike with Iran or Libya — we had little choice when thousands
of nukes were pointed at us and Red Army troops were massed on the West
German border.
But Ronald Reagan nevertheless embraced a radical shift in U.S. policy
by actively appealing to Russian dissidents. He used the bully pulpit to
expose the barbarity of the "evil empire" in the world court of ideas.
All the while, Reagan further enhanced America's military advantage over
the Soviets to speed the regime's collapse.
After the fall, courageous Russian dissidents from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
to Natan Sharansky did not applaud Jimmy Carter, who had smugly pronounced
the end of his own "inordinate fear" of such a murderous ideology. Instead,
they preferred Reagan, who had challenged Soviet Premier Michael Gorbachev
"to tear down" the Berlin Wall. America came out ahead when we were on
the side of people yearning for change rather than coddling the regime
trying to stop it.
The larger Middle East that surrounds Iran is in the throes of a messy,
violent three-stage transition: from dictatorship to radicalism and chaos
to constitutional government. Thugs and terrorists like Ahmadinejad ("We
did not have a revolution in order to have democracy") want it to stop
and return to the old world before Sept. 11.
In similar fashion, there are also terrible aftershocks in Afghanistan
and Iraq, but the old authoritarian rules of Saddam and the Taliban are
over. So perhaps is the Syrian colonization of Lebanon. Yasser Arafat is
gone in the Middle East, and his successors are fighting each other more
than they are Israel.
In all this chaos — which will take years to settle — the United States
needs to stick to its principles. Neither immediate military intervention
nor dialogue with Iran is the answer. Instead, we must just keep up the
pressure on the trash-talking Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is far weaker than
he lets on.
© 2006, TMS
Russian version
Russian version
An introduction to MAOF
Haim Goldman
Haim Goldman
Dear Friends,
Would you believe that the undersigned has anything in common with
-- Professor Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University),
-- Dr Charles Krauthammer, (Washington Post, Time, The Weekly Standard),
-- Caroline Glick (Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post),
-- Jonathan Tobin (Executive Editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent).
Amazingly, the editors of the MAOF website decided that the missives of the undersigned are worthy of translation and posting along the articles written by these distinguished authors.
The first letter was published without the consent of the undersigned.
However, after thorough examination of the laudable attitude of MAOF and of the excellent contents of the website, the undersigned had most graciously granted his permission for publication of his missives in both English and Russian.
“Analytical Group MAOF” [1] is an organisation founded about ten years ago by Russian-speaking Jewish intellectuals. The attitude of MAOF is definitely pro-Zionist -- unambiguously and unapologetically.
One of MAOF’s primary purposes is providing information and analysis about Middle-Eastern and world affairs as well as about Israel’s history, values and dilemmas. In addition to extensive publication activity in various media, MAOF also organises excursions and seminars. While the vast majority of the contents of the MAOF website is in Russian, texts originally written in English are provided in the original [2] as well as in Russian.
There are arguably about 250 millions of Russian-speakers worldwide and many of them do not read English. The indisputable motivation for the author’s permission was to grant those millions of disadvantaged people the grand benefit of reading the author’s ruminations. If the author is ever maliciously accused that his tacit motivation for authorising the publication was his craving to be listed along with the above-mentioned distinguished writers, his plea will definitely be “nolo contendere”.
The editors of MAOF expressed their gratitude by granting the undersigned a privilege that no other author got – the opportunity to review and correct the Russian translation before publication. The original letters of the undersigned are at [3] and their Russian version is at [4]. At of today, only two letters are posted but several other letters are pending translation.
You are kindly ENCOURAGED TO RECOMMEND the MAOF website to your friends and colleagues worldwide, particularly those who speak Russian. Those who do not enjoy the benefit of proficiency in the exquisite Russian language can find many thought-provoking and inspiring articles about Middle-Eastern and world affairs in the English section [2].
Sincerely,
Haim Goldman
28.10.2006
REFERENCES:
[1] http://maof.rjews.net
[2] section.php3? sid=37&num=25
[3] authorg.php3? id=2107&type=a
[4] authorg.php3? id=2166&type=a