"Decades of wrong assumptions, combined with hesitant leadership and diplomatic overreach, produced the war we are witnessing today." For me this says it all.
It’s a good article, and your comment is a good comment.
However I suggest the article could more fully have explored whether Left-leaning, woke, globalist diplomacy ever was genuinely committed to a resolution as you or I might recognise such a thing.
The fact that the preceding thirty years have led to the uncontrolled immigration and effective creeping (sprinting?) Islamification of the Western world indicates to me that the policy of diplomatic rapprochement with Iran is far more than it seemed and was never intended to produce a genuine solution.
American policy towards Iran since 1979 can be defined as appeasement of an ideologically driven foe that was never interested in moderating it’s irredentist ideology
The so-called misconceptions of liberal foreign policy were the smokescreen for something deeper at play: the misconceptions of modern society which the people who fomented these idiotic policies also promoted, chief of which was that modern society, embodied in the West and achieved after centuries of effort, was basically a smokescreen for maintaining the powerful against the oppressed, a reworking of Marx's denunciation of capitalism extended now to the entire spectrum of society. Obama translated Habermas' description of modernity as the colonization of social life into a call to transform America in similar New Left fashion, exemplified by his Cairo speech which was an out and out lie in its description of Islam. Of course other leaders mischaracterized Islam too - George W. Bush's and David Cameron's insistence on Islam as a religion of peace, current Canadian PM Carney's assertion that Muslim values are Canadian values - but Obama's message was rooted in his leftist project that he has not abandoned, even though he rode it all the way to a Martha Vineyard mansion, helped along by his Jewish leftist coterie of advisors. The repeated misreading of Islam and the modern Middle East by western government leaders reflects one of democracy's blindspots, namely that religion being defanged under modern democracy and become peaceable becomes extended universally, just as the shibboleths of democracy become universal truths for society is made up of people endowed with inalienable rights. This is not the most accurate description of democracy, but it is functional for the way things work under conditions of modernity. It is even less an adequate description of how Muslim societies work, where religion is not separate form state and democracy hardly reigns. The roots of the problem you address go much deeper and are still operative, extended now to the younger generation under the tutelage of their lazy and misinformed elders.
Obama’s message was rooted in his Islamic schooling and upbringing in Africa. His leftist policies was a product of same. His beliefs in Iran being “rational” were the influence of his senior advisor and Mullah supporter, Valerie Jarrett.
Those were his formative years, a fact which everyone ignores, raised by two fathers in Muslim countries. A very confused dude who remains exactly that, and that is being charitable. I suspect the women who capture him drive him, psychoanalytically speaking.
You left out the most important aspects of Obama's approach to the region. In his heart he believes that Islamists (The good kind) should be ruling Islamic states. Thus his tilt towards the Mullahs of Iran and his harsh tilt against our traditional allies and of course Israel. He intended to make Iran a great Middle Eastern power. The deal was just a cover. He knew they would cheat and he didn't care.
What astonishes me is that it has taken this long for the U.S. administration to recognize what should have been obvious decades ago—and the truth is, it would not be recognized today if Donald Trump were not in power. Iran is not simply another authoritarian regime that can be moderated through diplomacy or economic incentives. It is a theocracy built on religious ideology, and when political power and religious zeal are fused together, compromise becomes impossible. Anyone familiar with deeply religious movements understands that believers are often willing to sacrifice almost anything—including their lives, even their children—for what they see as divine truth.
What also gets ignored in Western discussions is that Islam, historically and politically, has functioned very differently from any other religion that I know. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism—whatever their internal differences—largely evolved into traditions that can coexist within secular political systems. Political Islam, by contrast, has often tied religion directly to governance and expansion through the idea of a caliphate. If policymakers refuse to acknowledge that difference, they will keep misunderstanding the nature of the conflict.
That misunderstanding also affects immigration policy. Multiculturalism assumes that all cultures are equally compatible with liberal democratic norms. But if a society brings in large numbers of people from communities where religion and politics are inseparable, without asking whether those values align with democratic institutions, tensions are inevitable. Recognizing this is not hatred—it’s realism.
Why do you say the Iranian revolution caused the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini? The reality is that President Jimmy Carter toppled the Shah of Iran and promoted exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as a saintly leader like Santa Claus in white garb. Then the French neo-Marxist neo-intellectual Michel Foucault wet himself with unrestrained delight of cheerleading the greatest anti-Americanism since George III.
There was probably too many foreign policy failures on Iran during Reagan administration as well leading to disastrous decisions to do nothing other than continue deliberating Iran policy in response to attack on US embassy which is, after all even legally "casus belli" and continue deliberating foreign policy after Iran's proxy army, Hezbollah killed hundreds of US Marines in Beirut .
The West (mis)engagement with Iran over the decades reminds me of the “konceptzia” that resulted in Israel believing that Hamas would end in fact had turned the corner and was trading “resistance” for “governance”.
Obviously, the scales dropped from Israeli eyes on October 7. And the rest of the world, who had been taken in no less than the Israeli, of course saw an opportunity to blame Netanyahu instead of engaging in any introspection.
Now that Iran has attacked all of its neutral neighbors, fires off illegal cluster munitions and targets mostly civilians, perhaps the West will draw the appropriate conclusion about what, precisely, the theocratic terrorists of the regime in Teheran are and what they are capable of.
After firing missiles at Diego Garcia, proving that almost all Western European capitals are at risk, the UK Defense Minister assured his audience that Iran would never attack London. I guess with all the London real estate owned by the new Supreme Leader and his IRGC henchmen, he might be right and that itself is telling.
In my view, what has led us to war is Shi'ite Islamic ideology as expressed by the Ayatollahs in Iran.
We can bomb and destroy the Iranian Navy. We can destroy the Iranian air force. We can destroy the Iranian missile launchers. We can destroy, or at least substantially degrade, the Iranian nuclear facilities. We can target and kill the leaders of the Iranian government and military. And we (the US, Israel and whomever else wishes to join) should do all of these things.
What we probably cannot destroy is the radical Islamic ideology that permeates the Iranian Shi'ites.
So, what we must do is to periodically engage in war to destroy and degrade Iranian military capability.
"Coup 53: The Story of How Operation Ajax Killed a Nascent Iranian Democracy
By Janet Levy
Playing the game of What if…? with history is usually futile. But sometimes it yields valuable lessons. For instance, What if the CIA and MI6 had not orchestrated the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953? Consider one possibility – that Iran might have become a bastion of democracy and not what it is today, a threat to the interests of the U.S. and its allies and the biggest cause of instability in the Middle East."
Can the left possibly be making this many “ miscalculations “, or has their actual agenda been derailed. Thankful that Trump saw through what they were doing and was courageous enough to stop the insanity.
"Decades of wrong assumptions, combined with hesitant leadership and diplomatic overreach, produced the war we are witnessing today." For me this says it all.
It’s a good article, and your comment is a good comment.
However I suggest the article could more fully have explored whether Left-leaning, woke, globalist diplomacy ever was genuinely committed to a resolution as you or I might recognise such a thing.
The fact that the preceding thirty years have led to the uncontrolled immigration and effective creeping (sprinting?) Islamification of the Western world indicates to me that the policy of diplomatic rapprochement with Iran is far more than it seemed and was never intended to produce a genuine solution.
American policy towards Iran since 1979 can be defined as appeasement of an ideologically driven foe that was never interested in moderating it’s irredentist ideology
The so-called misconceptions of liberal foreign policy were the smokescreen for something deeper at play: the misconceptions of modern society which the people who fomented these idiotic policies also promoted, chief of which was that modern society, embodied in the West and achieved after centuries of effort, was basically a smokescreen for maintaining the powerful against the oppressed, a reworking of Marx's denunciation of capitalism extended now to the entire spectrum of society. Obama translated Habermas' description of modernity as the colonization of social life into a call to transform America in similar New Left fashion, exemplified by his Cairo speech which was an out and out lie in its description of Islam. Of course other leaders mischaracterized Islam too - George W. Bush's and David Cameron's insistence on Islam as a religion of peace, current Canadian PM Carney's assertion that Muslim values are Canadian values - but Obama's message was rooted in his leftist project that he has not abandoned, even though he rode it all the way to a Martha Vineyard mansion, helped along by his Jewish leftist coterie of advisors. The repeated misreading of Islam and the modern Middle East by western government leaders reflects one of democracy's blindspots, namely that religion being defanged under modern democracy and become peaceable becomes extended universally, just as the shibboleths of democracy become universal truths for society is made up of people endowed with inalienable rights. This is not the most accurate description of democracy, but it is functional for the way things work under conditions of modernity. It is even less an adequate description of how Muslim societies work, where religion is not separate form state and democracy hardly reigns. The roots of the problem you address go much deeper and are still operative, extended now to the younger generation under the tutelage of their lazy and misinformed elders.
Obama’s message was rooted in his Islamic schooling and upbringing in Africa. His leftist policies was a product of same. His beliefs in Iran being “rational” were the influence of his senior advisor and Mullah supporter, Valerie Jarrett.
Those were his formative years, a fact which everyone ignores, raised by two fathers in Muslim countries. A very confused dude who remains exactly that, and that is being charitable. I suspect the women who capture him drive him, psychoanalytically speaking.
Extremely well put.
You left out the most important aspects of Obama's approach to the region. In his heart he believes that Islamists (The good kind) should be ruling Islamic states. Thus his tilt towards the Mullahs of Iran and his harsh tilt against our traditional allies and of course Israel. He intended to make Iran a great Middle Eastern power. The deal was just a cover. He knew they would cheat and he didn't care.
What astonishes me is that it has taken this long for the U.S. administration to recognize what should have been obvious decades ago—and the truth is, it would not be recognized today if Donald Trump were not in power. Iran is not simply another authoritarian regime that can be moderated through diplomacy or economic incentives. It is a theocracy built on religious ideology, and when political power and religious zeal are fused together, compromise becomes impossible. Anyone familiar with deeply religious movements understands that believers are often willing to sacrifice almost anything—including their lives, even their children—for what they see as divine truth.
What also gets ignored in Western discussions is that Islam, historically and politically, has functioned very differently from any other religion that I know. Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism—whatever their internal differences—largely evolved into traditions that can coexist within secular political systems. Political Islam, by contrast, has often tied religion directly to governance and expansion through the idea of a caliphate. If policymakers refuse to acknowledge that difference, they will keep misunderstanding the nature of the conflict.
That misunderstanding also affects immigration policy. Multiculturalism assumes that all cultures are equally compatible with liberal democratic norms. But if a society brings in large numbers of people from communities where religion and politics are inseparable, without asking whether those values align with democratic institutions, tensions are inevitable. Recognizing this is not hatred—it’s realism.
yes. needs to be said out loud, a lot.
Why do you say the Iranian revolution caused the rise of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini? The reality is that President Jimmy Carter toppled the Shah of Iran and promoted exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as a saintly leader like Santa Claus in white garb. Then the French neo-Marxist neo-intellectual Michel Foucault wet himself with unrestrained delight of cheerleading the greatest anti-Americanism since George III.
There was probably too many foreign policy failures on Iran during Reagan administration as well leading to disastrous decisions to do nothing other than continue deliberating Iran policy in response to attack on US embassy which is, after all even legally "casus belli" and continue deliberating foreign policy after Iran's proxy army, Hezbollah killed hundreds of US Marines in Beirut .
Sadly the Israeli left also bought into this nonsense and still does. Read almost any Israeli newspaper.
The West (mis)engagement with Iran over the decades reminds me of the “konceptzia” that resulted in Israel believing that Hamas would end in fact had turned the corner and was trading “resistance” for “governance”.
Obviously, the scales dropped from Israeli eyes on October 7. And the rest of the world, who had been taken in no less than the Israeli, of course saw an opportunity to blame Netanyahu instead of engaging in any introspection.
Now that Iran has attacked all of its neutral neighbors, fires off illegal cluster munitions and targets mostly civilians, perhaps the West will draw the appropriate conclusion about what, precisely, the theocratic terrorists of the regime in Teheran are and what they are capable of.
After firing missiles at Diego Garcia, proving that almost all Western European capitals are at risk, the UK Defense Minister assured his audience that Iran would never attack London. I guess with all the London real estate owned by the new Supreme Leader and his IRGC henchmen, he might be right and that itself is telling.
In my view, what has led us to war is Shi'ite Islamic ideology as expressed by the Ayatollahs in Iran.
We can bomb and destroy the Iranian Navy. We can destroy the Iranian air force. We can destroy the Iranian missile launchers. We can destroy, or at least substantially degrade, the Iranian nuclear facilities. We can target and kill the leaders of the Iranian government and military. And we (the US, Israel and whomever else wishes to join) should do all of these things.
What we probably cannot destroy is the radical Islamic ideology that permeates the Iranian Shi'ites.
So, what we must do is to periodically engage in war to destroy and degrade Iranian military capability.
"Coup 53: The Story of How Operation Ajax Killed a Nascent Iranian Democracy
By Janet Levy
Playing the game of What if…? with history is usually futile. But sometimes it yields valuable lessons. For instance, What if the CIA and MI6 had not orchestrated the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953? Consider one possibility – that Iran might have become a bastion of democracy and not what it is today, a threat to the interests of the U.S. and its allies and the biggest cause of instability in the Middle East."
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2023/04/coup_53_the_story_of_how_operation_ajax_killed_a_nascent_iranian_democracy.html
https://edition.cnn.com/interactive/2020/01/world/us-iran-conflict-timeline-trnd/
Oh gosh GROW A BRAIN. Being Conservative is a DISEASE and backing anything put out there by them shows how much of a cult your in by believing it 🤦♀️
"Liberal" - Joke of the Century - 20th and 21st
They are Communists - all of them and they are allied with Islam.
They are all totalitarian.
You get the hostages back and then you decimate -- that's how you do it.
A great analysis, but could use some editing and tightening up. A lot of unnecessary repetition .
I offer this as someone prone to do the same thing in my writing..
Can the left possibly be making this many “ miscalculations “, or has their actual agenda been derailed. Thankful that Trump saw through what they were doing and was courageous enough to stop the insanity.