March 29, 2004
DEALING WITH THE DEVILS:
Who rules Iran? (AMIR TAHERI, Mar. 28, 2004, Jerusalem Post)
Since 1979, Iran has been ruled by an occult oligarchy with a strong theocratic component. That oligarchy sees itself as the embodiment of a messianic revolution in opposition to state structures that remain to be cleansed of millennia rule by "corrupt" kings, emirs and khans.The oligarchy controls the real levers of power, sets policies, and imposes key decisions with little deference to the governmental fa ade. That fa ade is maintained as a first line of defense for the revolution which, so the oligarchs assert, is sill threatened by internal and external foes.
At the center of the oligarchy stands the "Office of the Leader," Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the "Supreme Guide." Under the Khomeinist Constitution, the "Supreme Guide" represents Allah's sovereignty on earth and has unlimited powers. The opening articles of the Khomeinist Constitution, approved in 1979, make it clear that the "Supreme Guide" is also the leader of all Muslims throughout the world, whether they like it or not. Thus, theoretically at least, the Khomeinist "Supreme Guide" can decide what Islam is and is not at any given time.
But that is not all.
In practical terms, the "Supreme Guide" controls the purse strings of the Iranian state, one of the richest in the Muslim world. (In the past quarter of a century the "Supreme Guide" has supervised the expenditure of almost half a trillion dollars in Iran's oil income.) He must approve the national budget and is the commander-in-chief of all armed and security forces. Every ministerial, gubernatorial and ambassadorial appointment must receive his assent. Also, each year he has a cool $1.5 billion, some eight percent of Iran's average annual oil income, to play with as he pleases.
This is no time to take the pressure off and legitimize the mullahs by cutting deals, as the Europeans wish too. As Reagan did with the Soviets, we should begin speaking of Iran as the revolution that failed on its own terms. Posted by Orrin Judd at March 29, 2004 12:00 PM
OJ always speaks of the WoT ending in Pakistan. Maybe, but I would put my money on it ending in Iran.
Posted by: BJW at March 29, 2004 1:21 PMThere's already a democratic, pro-American majority there. They'll reform from within.
Posted by: oj at March 29, 2004 1:41 PMTotalitarian states only reform if the head men blink. Any sign that the chief mullahs will do so? And based on the competence of our intelligence, they'll have nukes sometime between yesterday and ten years from now. Won't that be fun?
Posted by: brian at March 29, 2004 2:10 PMIsrael won't let then have nukes.
Posted by: oj at March 29, 2004 2:28 PMIsrael's plate is pretty full right now - and with Sharon in personal difficulty, Iran might just get a pass. We can't rely on the IDF to do our work for us. But we should also be prepared to stiff-arm the Europeans out of the way. Hard.
Posted by: jim hamlen at March 29, 2004 2:34 PMIsrael has its own interests, which are by no means the same as ours, though they overlap far more than most countries in the current world situation. Also, how can Israel pull an Osirak in Iran? They'd have to fly over Jordan then over US-held Iraq and back. It'd be kind of hard to pretend we weren't in on the deal, so why not do it ourselves?
Posted by: brian at March 29, 2004 3:18 PMYou people really think Ariel Sharon is willing to trade Israel's security for our good will?
Posted by: oj at March 29, 2004 3:29 PMoj - I hope that question was rhetorical because he has been for 3 years.
Posted by: BJW at March 29, 2004 3:36 PMVice versa, for fifty.
Posted by: oj at March 29, 2004 3:52 PMIran has also learned the lesson of Osirak: their nuclear facilities are dispersed and underground, and can't be taken out with a simple airstrike.
Posted by: PapayaSF at March 29, 2004 4:08 PMIsrael isn't limited to simple airstrikes.
Posted by: oj at March 29, 2004 4:58 PM