Daniel Pipes
Mobile Edition
Regular Site

Iran--stay out
Reader comment on item: Symposium: The Showdown [with Iran]

Submitted by Peter J. Herz (United States), Jul 31, 2005 at 10:08

Iran is not a problem for the West; but a problem for America. Much of Europe and Canada seem determined to distance themselves from the USA on issues related to ferment in the Islamic world. China also is determined to help Iran's nuclear development. Further, I fear that much of America's response to Iran remains a mysterious, irrational mix of nostalgia for the Washington-Tehran axis that existed in the days of the Shah and sheer paranoia that can't get over being blindsided by the events of 1978-79. Hence, it is best to sit back and let history happen to Iran.

Iran's warped, conspiratorial mindset--which infects everyone from its president to the lowest dirt farmer--is a very good reason why the USA should not try to intervene in its affairs. Nobody in that country needs someone else on whom the country's troubles may be blamed. It is no accident that its likely alternatives are the mad mullahs on the one hand, and the Mujhaeddin-e-Kalq, who hold to an unholy mix of Marxism, New Left romanticism, and Islamofascism. This is no promising seedbed for a future democratization; but an excellent recipe for an unholy internal conflagration that will burn any outsiders who seek to intervene--no matter how benign their intentions.

The best course for the USA re Iran is a public declaration that the USA will pursue a MAD doctrine with Iran--one strike on the USA or an ally, and it's Marg Bar Tehran, Mashad, Tabriz, Isfahan, Bandar-e-Pahlavi, Qom, Hamadan, ve etc. etc.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

Submit a comment on this item

Search by Enter name or date
Search Forum Comments:

Reader comments (18) on this item

Title By Date
iranian situation [168 words]nick wrightAug 15, 2005 02:56
Iran already has nuclear weapons [357 words]Norm GrantAug 11, 2005 21:46
Response to Asim [250 words]No dhimmiAug 8, 2005 00:34
Further Comment [313 words]Peter J. HerzAug 7, 2005 01:45
Answer to Asim [389 words]WernerAug 3, 2005 22:28
Answer to Iran [176 words]Tony AAug 3, 2005 20:57
Monty islamists are after epople like you [108 words]Asim AhmedAug 3, 2005 19:25
no nuclear war -Iran already has bomb [259 words]haydarJan 8, 2006 21:44
Soft power [277 words]WernerAug 1, 2005 20:12
USA – playing for the mullahs! [127 words]John MAug 1, 2005 19:47
Soft-Power Works and Is Cost Effective [98 words]GWAug 1, 2005 15:32
Iranian Quagmire [88 words]John MAug 1, 2005 07:46
Disposition of the Military [78 words]MontyJul 31, 2005 11:39
⇒ Iran--stay out [249 words]Peter J. HerzJul 31, 2005 10:08
MAD makes sense [64 words]WJ HalversonJan 26, 2006 23:55
Shias & Sunnis [172 words]michael cJul 31, 2005 06:35
Which option [391 words]WernerJul 30, 2005 22:31
Israel's role? [109 words]Yehoshua ZellerJul 30, 2005 19:31

Comment on this item

Name
Email Address (optional)
Title of Comments
Comments:

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.

See the 25 most recent outstanding comments.

Back to top of page