Time to Revolt Against the Revolution

· Thursday, February 11, 2010

Today, February 11, marks the 31st anniversary of the Iranian Islamic Revolution. Iranian leaders, including the state’s religious leader Ayatollah Khamenei, have decided to “festively” commemorate this anniversary by vowing to deliver a powerful punch to the West.

Just over 30 years ago, with the support of the then-new Islamic regime, radical Islamic students in Tehran carried the banner of their revolution right up through an attack on the United States embassy compound, where they took 53 Americans hostage. Revolutionary leader Ayatollah Khomeini saw the hostages as more than bargaining chip as he built his new regime -- they were tokens of power and prestige that became increasingly powerful as each painful month of their detainment passed.

The months did drag on until we saw the magical images of the hostages’ release after 444 days in confinement, coupled with my father’s inspiring inauguration. This marked the start of an era of a bold and innovative America-first approach to foreign policy, when Americans again started to believe that their nation would pursue policies and take actions necessary to protect her people from the dangers of the world, whether in Tehran, Moscow or Tripoli. Sadly, we seem to have lost our way on that front.

It is of great concern that despite a year of allegedly aggressive negotiations with our “allies” in an effort to find a diplomatic solution to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities, the only tangible results appear to have been increasing nuclear progress and arrogance from the caretakers of the old Islamic Revolution.

These bold and boisterous proclamations on the part of Iranian leadership, in open defiance of the West, are undoubtedly an attempt to keep the focus of the international community and even many Iranian eyes off of their simmering internal rebellion. Iranian leadership does not want anyone to look too closely at the prospects of a new wave of protest by Iranians who are seeking more individual liberties and demanding that they have a say in their individual and national future. Iranian leadership particularly wants to keep anyone from looking too closely at the violent rebuttals issued by Iran’s military, police and intelligence networks.

The Obama administration and their Democratic enablers in Congress have previously failed to recognize that our strongest allies in the important fight against Iran’s nuclear ambitions and international terror efforts are not members of the United Nations Security Council such as Russia and China -- rather it is the unlikely duo of our friends in Israel and the millions of Iranians who have followed opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi into the streets. While I am pleased to hear that President Obama is set to announce unilateral sanctions against Iran, and that it now appears Russia is moving closer to support of international sanctions, this is simply not enough.

If he were alive today, my father would likely be mystified by this administration’s unwillingness to embrace the millions of people who are seeking freedom in a nation that has the United States and Israel as targets 1 and 1A. Undoubtedly, my father would have recognized that support of Iranians who are peacefully pursuing individual freedoms is not only the right thing to do -- it is also the smart diplomatic play.

By continuing to abide by its ineffective brand of diplomacy, this administration is setting us up for a risk much greater than the trouble of undertaking unilateral sanctions or using other forceful means to resolve the burgeoning conflict. It is time for our nation to send a strong, powerful message of support to freedom-loving Iranians. It is also time to send a message to Iran’s revolutionary leadership that the days of appeasement are behind us.

Today, Americans once again find themselves asking whether the United States and her allies are going to continue on a foreign policy course that encourages dangerous behavior by Iranian radicals while turning a blind eye toward freedom-loving Iranians, or instead takes a stronger, bolder approach that forces these dangerous elements to put an end to their pursuit of nuclear capabilities.

I for one support a policy that severely weakens Iran’s leadership to the point where they can easily find themselves on the wrong side of a new Iranian Revolution. And should our friends, the Israelis, decide to take military action on their own in an effort to protect the security of their homeland, our nation should unequivocally support them.

How is that for a powerful punch, Ayatollah?

©2010 Mike Reagan.


Third-party content does not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Patriot Post.


Comments

Alan

Great Article Mike, I'm sure your Dad would be proud. I was a Senior in High School when your Dad became President and he coupled with the Iranian situation at the time helped make my decision to join the Navy. I spent 26 years on Acitve Duty and still serve as a DOD contractor. His views are the standard for my life. I agree that if something is not done soon, it might be too late. I enjoy reading your articles, keep up the Good Fight

Alan in Huntsville, AL

Posted February 11, 2010 at 12:27:11 PM


Ed Watson

Yes, great article about our hero and his way of thinking. I spent my time in the USAF and have worked in the defense business my whole 50+ year career. May God keep your father in his arms. Ed, San Diego

Posted February 11, 2010 at 1:27:02 PM


Howard Last

Never forget who we have to thank for this, why Jimmy Carter. If the Shah was in power this would never have happened. What, it is was carter who overthrew him, who would have thunk it, or remember it?

Posted February 11, 2010 at 2:52:26 PM


Paul Stewart

I voted for your Dad for president, both times, God rest his soul eternal. I am proud to this day of that voting record. However, your father was the last Republican I voted for in a presidential election. Another voting record I am equally proud of.

As far as propping up one regime in favor of another, I would ask where is the wisdom in that kind of foreign policy? Did it work out with the Shaw in Iran in the 1950s? Did it work in Cuba? We supported Castro early on; he rode in open parades in Texas in 1959. Did it work in Afghanistan in the 70s? We (Charlie Wilson) supported Bin Laden. How bout Pakistan or Afghanistan or Iraq today?

Yeah, let’s rattle the sabers and start another war or encourage an ally to do it for us and get drug in that way. But don’t forget to buy Halliburton stock first, right?

It’s not about Republicans and Democrats any longer Michael. Both parties are the enemy of our Constitution as a whole. There are too many like Newt Gingrich and Haley Barbour and too few like Ron Paul for that GOP nonsense any more.

This military interventionism has got to stop. Our founders warned against such insanity, its time we listen to their wisdom and turn a deaf ear to those who would drag us into one war after another under the hubris of protecting American interests abroad.

We should stay the strongest nation on earth militarily and immediately crush anyone who dares to attack us. But its time to let the Bush doctrine come to an end. We can’t afford, in blood or money, the cost of these wars anymore than we can afford Obamacare, and neither is Constitutional.

"Preventative war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing." Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Posted February 11, 2010 at 3:54:20 PM


Walter L. Brown Jr.

Iran's Theocratic Regime is in an extremely precarious position:

http://patriotword.blogspot.com/2010/01/nuclear-iran-or-democratic-republic-of.html

Posted February 11, 2010 at 5:45:22 PM


Ian MacRanalds

First of all I'd like to say, your Dad was the last real American President this country has had and he is dearly missed.

What scares me we are headed for a revolution in the United States. And I will have to it would be merited if the Obama government tries to take our Constitution away from us and/or if he tries to disarm all law abiding citizens to be able to control the people like they did in Nazi Germany and the former U.S.S.R. and other Communist countries. True Americans would fight to preserve our Constitution and the right to own weapons, I would. I spent two terrible years in the jungles and lost my health for life, fighting for my country

and I'd do it again, even on American soil, to stop the Marxist from taking our government.

We have two types of enemy in our government, Marxist and Islamic Muslims, yes I know it's racist to call Islamic Muslims our enemies, but Americans need to read the Qur'an, it teaches all Islamic Muslims to hate and kill "all" non believers and those to quit the faith, like Mr. Obama, who claims to have quite the faith, when he was a nobody with no body guards, that's why many believes he's still a practicing Islamic Muslim, he's still around and a friend to the Islamic Muslim leaders, remember the Qur'an also teaches it's only okay to lie to act like their friends with non-believers to fool non believers and drop their guard. And Mr. Obama's more concerned about the well being of the Islamic Muslim terrorist, than our troops and veterans, which he and his Sec. of Homeland Security called them "terrorist", but banned the term "terrorist" when referring to Islamic Muslims cold blooded killers. If a Republican President and/or one of his officials called our troops and veterans terrorist, Nancy Pelosi and the other Democrats would being yelling in the streets for them to resign, why doesn't the Republicans stand up for our veterans and troops when their called Nazi's and/or terrorist? Why?

If it wasn't for people like us, our families and our friends, who loves our "CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC" as our Founding Fathers created and Americans fought and died for for over 233 years and still are, the politically correct liberal politicians (aka Marxist) and their Hollywood supporters, etc. would deserve to win and then when it ends up like Nazi Germany and/or the former U.S.S.R., with all their freedoms and money taken from them and when they start to whine about their lovely new government they helped create, off to the death camps they would go. Isn't it odd that Mr. Obama supported Marxism, many of his staff and the Hollywood think people like Castro, Che, Mao, Stalin and other Marxist are hero's. When Stalin, Mao, etc. were mass murderers of their own people. Hitler is credited with being the biggest mass murderer in history, when in fact Stalin killed 26+ million and Mao killed millions more than Stalin. Che was a cold blooded killer. And these animals are our new leaders hero's!

Yes, I'd truly hate to see a Revolution in America, but when talking doesn't work to save our Constitution and our Second Amendment rights, then I'd fight to preserve our Constitutional Republic. And I'd like to see how many politicians

God Bless America.

Posted February 11, 2010 at 6:16:53 PM


MichaelSSEC

Mr Reagan, this is one of the finest columns you've written and it marks you as one of the few American pundits who truly understands what Ronald Reagan accomplished in the world.

You are absolutely right, your dad would be supporting the Iranian demonstrators, while cranking up pressure on the militant regime -- and if that meant attacking their reactors and centrifuges, then Ronald Reagan would not have backed down from that.

But I think you're mistaken about a couple of things. For one, I do not believe your dad would have been mystified by Obama's inaction. According to his diaries, your dad came to understand that there actually were elected leaders in American who actively worked to harm this country any way they could. Your dad was one of the most well read leaders in modern history, so he would have been aware of the new work in understanding and defining the Liberal mind -- the work of Thomas Sowell and Evan Sayet and others, who define Liberalism by actions rather than words -- and I believe he would have agreed with those views. Liberals support "evil, failed and wrong," invariably. So he would not have been mystified.

Barack Obama has declared that Iran has a "right" to nuclear technology, despite their proud boast that they will use that technology to "wipe Israel off the map." That's not the position of a man concerned with liberty, justice or morality. That's a committed ideologue who sees ANYONE who opposes America as the de facto good guys, and does whatever he can to make life easier for them. Your dad would have seen right through Obama.

The other thing is your apparent willingness to believe that the Obama administration means to do the right thing for America, but simply disagrees with us on what the right thing should be. That is not correct. I assure you, President Obama is not remotely interested in doing the right thing for America. Obama is one of those committed Leftists who fervently believes in multi-cultural dogma. Thus America is to blame for everything bad in the world. We're the bad guy, the predator, the imperialistic conqueror oppressing other countries. The world, according to multi-culturalism, would be FAR better off if America were a second-rate power economically, militarily and diplomatically. Obama is trying to weaken this country in all three areas, because in his mind that is the only way to bring about justice for every other nation on Earth.

One of the commenters here remarked that intervention must be halted because it leads to bad outcomes. That is not so. We intervened like crazy in Germany and the results have been excellent. We intervened the hell out of Japan, and today it is one of the saner countries on the planet. We intervened in Nicaragua and El Salvador and the results were good. We intervened in Korea and today South Korea is a free country and a good ally. Not all intervention is created equal. We have intervened in Iraq and not only have the Iraqis now voted in numerous free elections, but that Democracy has been cited by the Iranian demonstrators as their direct inspiration to demand the same reforms in their own country. That's some pretty powerful evidence that intervention CAN work.

OTOH, intervention done stupidly does more harm than good. Look at the lovely outcome of our intervention in Somalia or Vietnam as proof. But that merely proves that half-measures and lack of conviction are the death of success. Ronald Reagan understood that, but there isn't a Liberal alive who does.

Posted February 13, 2010 at 11:05:33 PM


conservative man

I loved the article, it was great!

Posted March 18, 2010 at 9:22:12 PM


Post a Comment

Please keep comments civil and brief. Obscene, profane, abusive and off-topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked.

(required, displayed)
(required, not displayed)
Facebook Twitter YouTube RSS Connect with The Patriot Post






Our Mission

To Support and Defend -- Read The Patriot Post -- It's Right. It's Free. -- www.patriotpost.us

"The Patriot's mission is to advocate for Essential Liberty, the restoration of constitutional limits on government and the judiciary, and to promote free enterprise, national defense and traditional American values. Our objective is to provide Patriots across our nation with a touchstone of First Principles through brief, informative and entertaining analyses of relevant news, policy and opinion from reputable research, advocacy and media organizations, so they may better support and defend those Principles, and enlist others to join our ranks." —Mark Alexander, Publisher


The Patriot Post is not sustained by any political, special interest or parent organization, and we accept no advertising. Our mission and operations are funded entirely by the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you!

Support The 2012 Patriot Fund