Politics and Religion

Very long read coverings very complex series of events!
WickedBrut 27 Reviews 67 reads
posted

Here's a feeling that kept cropping during the several coffeebreaks I had to take getting through it.

The overall mood of the piece suggests that this was a series of well-planned moves designed by Khomeini to achieve the desired end that he successfully accomplished. And that the Carter Administration either went along with it or was doublecrossed in appeasement.

The obvious takeaway is that diplomatic dealings with Iranians (or with the Islamic world? With Khomeini?) can't be trusted.

I'm sure Khomeini and his staff plan a few moves ahead whenever initiating such a move. And whoever they involve in the move is immediately at a disadvantage. That's kind of the principle of first-strike actions. It's easier to anticipate how another player will react to one's actions than it is for the non-initiator to anticipate the planned moves still ahead.

But things don't usually go exactly as planned, and decisions on how to proceed have to be made at every turn. Khomeini had a clear goal, but as success seemed increasingly viable he may have become more ambitious and decided to go for more as he went along. Carter responded in an attempt to salvage what he could and found fewer and fewer options.

I don't think the "end" was ever in sight. Leaves me wondering about "the end justifies the means" axiom. I also don't think we have yet reached the end. Khomeini's takeover is still the means. There is no end; there are only means.

If this gives us any clue as to how we ought to view the Obama no-nuke deal, IMO, it boils down to seeing it only as a means to another stage rather than as an end in itself. Personally, I think that was a good move and in time we'll see how Iran and others react to it. And, of course, we'll see what America's next move, its further plans that we as mere Citizens aren't privy to, turns out to be.

The world will never have a chance to judge us on the morality or wisdom of how it all ends because there is no end. We will only be judged on the morality and wisdom of our means toward reaching that (nonexistent) end.

THE END

OK, I thought that somewhat misleading headline would get your attention, but heres the thing:

A BBC report, based on recently declassified documents, has indicated that in 1979, the Ayatollah R'hollah Khomeini sent repeated calming messages to then-president Jimmy Carter ahead of his takeover of the country. It implies that the Carter administration effectively facilitated Khomeini’s rise to power by placating Iran’s military leadership and
preventing a coup during the tumultuous period

Thank you for posting this. I am old enough to vividly remember these events. It tells me a great deal about how reliable the promises of fundamentalist Islamic clerics are when they want something.

...I thought you were a believer in the Prime Directive AKA Starfleet General Order 1 AKA the Non-Interference Directive.  We fucked things up in Iran in 1953.  The CIA was behind the notorious 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.  We installed the Shah and then we turned our back on him and let a crazy cleric in exile take over.

The unwritten part of your post is the implication that Carter was responsible for making things worse for Israel in the Middle East.  Okay then, I'll wait patiently for your post explaining how George W. Bush put his chips on another leader in exile, Ahmad Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, in order to oust Saddam Hussein.  This led to making things exponentially worse for Israel in the ME

Here's a feeling that kept cropping during the several coffeebreaks I had to take getting through it.

The overall mood of the piece suggests that this was a series of well-planned moves designed by Khomeini to achieve the desired end that he successfully accomplished. And that the Carter Administration either went along with it or was doublecrossed in appeasement.

The obvious takeaway is that diplomatic dealings with Iranians (or with the Islamic world? With Khomeini?) can't be trusted.

I'm sure Khomeini and his staff plan a few moves ahead whenever initiating such a move. And whoever they involve in the move is immediately at a disadvantage. That's kind of the principle of first-strike actions. It's easier to anticipate how another player will react to one's actions than it is for the non-initiator to anticipate the planned moves still ahead.

But things don't usually go exactly as planned, and decisions on how to proceed have to be made at every turn. Khomeini had a clear goal, but as success seemed increasingly viable he may have become more ambitious and decided to go for more as he went along. Carter responded in an attempt to salvage what he could and found fewer and fewer options.

I don't think the "end" was ever in sight. Leaves me wondering about "the end justifies the means" axiom. I also don't think we have yet reached the end. Khomeini's takeover is still the means. There is no end; there are only means.

If this gives us any clue as to how we ought to view the Obama no-nuke deal, IMO, it boils down to seeing it only as a means to another stage rather than as an end in itself. Personally, I think that was a good move and in time we'll see how Iran and others react to it. And, of course, we'll see what America's next move, its further plans that we as mere Citizens aren't privy to, turns out to be.

The world will never have a chance to judge us on the morality or wisdom of how it all ends because there is no end. We will only be judged on the morality and wisdom of our means toward reaching that (nonexistent) end.

THE END

Register Now!