|
Via Kathy Kinsley comes news of Glenn Frazier, John Weidner, It is, quite simply, their attempt at implementing Orwell’s dictum, "Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past". The next regime in Tehran need not, and may not, be reflexively pro-American. On the other hand, it will be publicly and actually more pro-American than the current one (it could hardly be less). It will also be anti-Islamofascist. Suman Palit is of the opinion that an "I3" axis of India, Iran, and Israel is not out of the question. Others dispute this; but it is beyond imagine that a secular Tehran would offer Hussein, the al-Sa’uds, or Musharraf any aid out of pan-Islamist feeling. That Islamofascism could be threatened – and could in turn threaten them and their incomes – is deathly frightening to the suits and talking heads of the major broadcast outlets, here and abroad. That the U.S. might benefit – however inadvertently and indirectly – is even more intolerable. Therefore, any such events in Iran must be swept under the rug. As "regime change" only comes from the West in their view (preferably guided by the wise and benevolent Left and its EUnuch fellow-travelers), burking the news of demonstrations and riots in Iran can only deprive them of the support that is a prerequisite of their success. Even if, they think, by some quirk of fate these Thirty years, this might have worked. Alas for their pretensions, there are now too many alternate sources of information for this to work. All those mentioned in the first paragraph know it. I know it. And now you, the reader, know it. (UPDATE: As Scott Koenig points out, he's Indepundit, not Isntapundit. ::sigh:: We need fewer pundits and more brains. At least, I do.) John "Akatsukami" Braue Wednesday, August 07, 2002 |
|