Secretary of State Clinton told a group of students in Qatar yesterday that the Administration fears that Iran is moving toward a "...military dictatorship". This is--again I stress--a cause for fear.
But why? Is a military dictatorship any worse than a religious dictatorship? Or the farcical "democracy" over which the mullahs preside now?
Two things strike me from this story--the first is that military dictatorship per se isn't a bad thing for Iran--but a military dictatorship presided over by the Revolutionary Guards, is. But say for instance, a group of military officers got together and overthrew the mullahs and drove the Revolutionary Guards out of power--would THIS necessarily be bad because it was a military putsch? I don't think so.
Secondly, I think the Administration is undertaking a not so subtle program of trying to instill doubt in the regime--they are trying to get inside Ahmadinejad's head (sorry if I spelled it wrong--I don't care enough to do so correctly). And to that extent, I think it's worth the effort.
IN THE MAIL: How to Live Forever….
1 hour ago
Posts
2 comments:
Military dictatorship, theocracy blah blah blah. Could anyone tell the difference?
You know the argument against Hillary was she was inexperienced. But along came Obama and compared to him she's Averell Harriman, so that narrative went away. Well guess what? She still doesn't know her ass from third base.
This administration reminds me of the old Apple Computer joke.
Q. What's the difference between the cub scouts and Apple Computer?
A. The cub scouts have adult supervision.
Would the leadership of this military dictatorship come from the present military that has stood by silently and allowed the theocratic leaders to kill torture and repress the people of Iran? And why should we expect them to behave differently when they are in charge?
Post a Comment