Iran’s Fawning Western Apologists

The last Shah of Iran, ousted by revolution in 1979, often warned of “the accursed alliance of the red and the black” that threatened his country. By this he meant the union between the radical left and Islamist reactionaries, two ideological camps that, in theory, should have little common ground.

My family, which had leftist leanings and opposed the monarchy, left Iran when I was young. I have never had a taste for monarchy, either in my native Iran nor my adopted country of Canada, and am not usually fond of quoting the Shah, a monarch who ruled Iran as an imperial state. But in recent days, as I’ve observed reactions to the assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leader Qassem Soleimani, I must admit that, when it came to red and black, the Shah was quite astute. And it will be interesting to see which side Western leftists support now that there is a real threat of regional war.

Soleimani was killed in Baghdad by a U.S. drone strike on January 3. Since the Iranian Revolution, he had served in various military roles, ending with a nearly two-decade tenure as top commander of Iran’s Quds force, a sub-unit of the IRGC specializing in extra-territorial and “unconventional” warfare. As commander, Soleimani was directly or indirectly responsible for a wide range of brutalities, including the provision of support to Syrian leader Bashar Assad during that country’s ongoing civil war—which, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, has killed nearly 600,000 people. The Iranian dictatorship was never put out by the body count, because it operated on the stated premise that, as one Iranian cleric put it, “if we lose Syria, we cannot keep Tehran.”


https://quillette.com/2020/01/08/irans-fawning-western-apologists/

Thorin wrote:The last Shah of Iran, ousted by revolution in 1979, often warned of “the accursed alliance of the red and the black” that threatened his country. By this he meant the union between the radical left and Islamist reactionaries, two ideological camps that, in theory, should have little common ground.

My family, which had leftist leanings and opposed the monarchy, left Iran when I was young. I have never had a taste for monarchy, either in my native Iran nor my adopted country of Canada, and am not usually fond of quoting the Shah, a monarch who ruled Iran as an imperial state. But in recent days, as I’ve observed reactions to the assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leader Qassem Soleimani, I must admit that, when it came to red and black, the Shah was quite astute. And it will be interesting to see which side Western leftists support now that there is a real threat of regional war.

Soleimani was killed in Baghdad by a U.S. drone strike on January 3. Since the Iranian Revolution, he had served in various military roles, ending with a nearly two-decade tenure as top commander of Iran’s Quds force, a sub-unit of the IRGC specializing in extra-territorial and “unconventional” warfare. As commander, Soleimani was directly or indirectly responsible for a wide range of brutalities, including the provision of support to Syrian leader Bashar Assad during that country’s ongoing civil war—which, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, has killed nearly 600,000 people. The Iranian dictatorship was never put out by the body count, because it operated on the stated premise that, as one Iranian cleric put it, “if we lose Syria, we cannot keep Tehran.”


https://quillette.com/2020/01/08/irans-fawning-western-apologists/

Peoples positions on these matters can change pretty rapidly depending on who is involved. I don't think there is much benefit in this guys death, as he will be replaced and Quds will continue its proxy war throughout the region. But I also know that people can ignore thousands of innocent victims of drone strikes, if they like the commander and chief ordering them.

I mean we have been protected from evil by blowing up kids at a wedding and hardly anyone batted an eye.

Maddog wrote:

Thorin wrote:The last Shah of Iran, ousted by revolution in 1979, often warned of “the accursed alliance of the red and the black” that threatened his country. By this he meant the union between the radical left and Islamist reactionaries, two ideological camps that, in theory, should have little common ground.

My family, which had leftist leanings and opposed the monarchy, left Iran when I was young. I have never had a taste for monarchy, either in my native Iran nor my adopted country of Canada, and am not usually fond of quoting the Shah, a monarch who ruled Iran as an imperial state. But in recent days, as I’ve observed reactions to the assassination of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) leader Qassem Soleimani, I must admit that, when it came to red and black, the Shah was quite astute. And it will be interesting to see which side Western leftists support now that there is a real threat of regional war.

Soleimani was killed in Baghdad by a U.S. drone strike on January 3. Since the Iranian Revolution, he had served in various military roles, ending with a nearly two-decade tenure as top commander of Iran’s Quds force, a sub-unit of the IRGC specializing in extra-territorial and “unconventional” warfare. As commander, Soleimani was directly or indirectly responsible for a wide range of brutalities, including the provision of support to Syrian leader Bashar Assad during that country’s ongoing civil war—which, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, has killed nearly 600,000 people. The Iranian dictatorship was never put out by the body count, because it operated on the stated premise that, as one Iranian cleric put it, “if we lose Syria, we cannot keep Tehran.”


https://quillette.com/2020/01/08/irans-fawning-western-apologists/

Peoples positions on these matters can change pretty rapidly depending on who is involved.  I don't think there is much benefit in this guys death, as he will be replaced and Quds will continue its proxy war throughout the region.  But I also know that people can ignore thousands of innocent victims of drone strikes, if they like the commander and chief ordering them.  

I mean we have been protected from evil by blowing up kids at a wedding and hardly anyone batted an eye.  

I disagree. Before his death he carried out murder and terrorism for years. Believing he was untouchable. The Us has now stated there is a consequence for such action. In that they will not be afraid to take out the heads of the snake each time they orchestrate terror and death.

Just look at Irans pitiful response. It shows that actually the US attack did have a major impact

Thorin wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Peoples positions on these matters can change pretty rapidly depending on who is involved.  I don't think there is much benefit in this guys death, as he will be replaced and Quds will continue its proxy war throughout the region.  But I also know that people can ignore thousands of innocent victims of drone strikes, if they like the commander and chief ordering them.  

I mean we have been protected from evil by blowing up kids at a wedding and hardly anyone batted an eye.  

I disagree. Before his death he carried out murder and terrorism for years. Believing he was untouchable. The Us has now stated there is a consequence for such action. In that they will not be afraid to take out the heads of the snake each time they orchestrate terror and death.

Just look at Irans pitiful response. It shows that actually the US attack did have a major impact

Quds isn't going anywhere. The will continue to do what they have always done, which is stir up shit in the region, outside of Iran.

No doubt a message has been sent. US Presidents have been embarrassed by embassy's being overrun and Americans killed or captured. Trump isn't going to put up with it in the least. He will kill the people organizing such attacks.

phil wrote:I disagree. Before his death he carried out murder and terrorism for years. Believing he was untouchable. The Us has now stated there is a consequence for such action. In that they will not be afraid to take out the heads of the snake each time they orchestrate terror and death.

It also justifies them doing the same. It removes us from the high moral path, and makes us just like the bad guys.

Maddog wrote:

Thorin wrote:

I disagree. Before his death he carried out murder and terrorism for years. Believing he was untouchable. The Us has now stated there is a consequence for such action. In that they will not be afraid to take out the heads of the snake each time they orchestrate terror and death.

Just look at Irans pitiful response. It shows that actually the US attack did have a major impact

Quds isn't going anywhere. The will continue to do what they have always done, which is stir up shit in the region, outside of Iran.

No doubt a message has been sent. US Presidents have been embarrassed by embassy's being overrun and Americans killed or captured. Trump isn't going to put up with it in the least. He will kill the people organizing such attacks.  

Iran at best can only attempt to hurt the allies in the region and like I say their response was all bluff and bluster

I agree he has sent a message and after more sanctions Iran's regeme is going to suffer more

To me this showed the US power compared to Iran.

Who are basically a regional player, not a world player