You are here:   Anti-Americanism > Why the West Can't Do Business With Iran
 

Buchan traces the Iranian regime's hostility to the present world order to the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who led the Islamist revolution that created the Islamic Republic in 1979. Buchan writes: "None but God, Khomeini wrote, may rule on earth, and the world has in the Koran and the Traditions (hadith) all the law it needs. There is no place for legislation, assemblies or elections." In other words, such American concepts as a "government of the people by the people for the people" based on man-made constitutions and the rule of man-made law have no place in the ideal world order the ayatollah hoped to create.

Buchan is careful to remain agnostic about the possibility of war with Iran. However, his analysis depicts a regime that will not stop unless it hits something hard on its path. In the late 1980s and after Khomeini's death in 1989 hopes that the Islamic Republic might imitate Communist China and abandon adventurism in foreign policy in exchange for a place in the Western-dominated global system created some excitement among Iran-watchers. However, over the decades that followed it became increasingly clear that, even if its leaders wanted it, the Islamic Republic couldn't imitate Communist China. Communism is a secular ideology and Communist China was behaving like a nation state concerned with concrete issues such as national security, recognition, trade, economic cooperation and technological exchange. The Islamic Republic, however, behaves not as a nation state concerned with issues of interest to nation states, but as a cause, propagating and pursuing a messianic dream.

Every February in Tehran, the Islamic Republic hosts two international conferences under the titles "A World Without America" and "A World Without Israel". Dozens of papers are delivered and many more speeches are made at the two conferences that attract anti-American and anti-Semitic "thinkers" from across the globe, including the US and Israel. However, the talk is not of economic development, something Iran badly needs, or even cultural exchanges. The focus is on "the sacred cause": the destruction of the American "Great Satan" and, as the first step in that direction, the elimination of Israel. Would the Islamic Republic use a putative nuclear arsenal to further its "sacred cause"? Again Buchan is agnostic and, perhaps, has to be. But who could be absolutely sure that it would not?

View Full Article
 
Share/Save
 
 
 
 
Darkman
February 2nd, 2013
12:02 AM
Bush, unfortunately did nothing to stop Iran & Obama will do even less. The EU will continue its blind obeisance to the fallen god of "dialogue." And Israel...??? Let's face it, most of the Left & isolationist Right hope an Iranian mushroom cloud appears over Tel Aviv. In one stroke, that pesky Arab-Israeli conflict will be finally be solved & the "Palestinian" issue will go away. Then they can return to drinking their lattes in peace.

MAX
January 19th, 2013
1:01 PM
"Amir Taheri has been the subject of many controversies involving fabrications in his writings" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amir_Taheri

JasonC
January 19th, 2013
3:01 AM
Iran? I don't want to do business with New York. That is the center of the present assault on my liberties as a free man, not Iran. With this lot in charge, I would not spill half a glass of water to stop any foreign enemy, let alone pints of my blood. If the present rulers of America want patriotic support again, they can stop attacking American patriots every single day.

[email protected]
January 8th, 2013
7:01 PM
If we can tolerate nuclear weapons in Pakistan, it's hard to see how it will make much difference if Iran gets the bomb. Actually, Pakistan is more of a threat because it actually has something resembling a modern economy and a functional army. Iran's curse is to have enough oil to make other enterprises unattractive, but not enough to pay the bills. Indeed, it could be argued that oil has neutered much of the Islamic world, leaving oil-rich countries with masses of angry young men with not much of anything to do. But to suppose that an angry young Iranian (or Iraqi) man poses a serious threat to the West is fantasy--unless we succumb to hysteria. I never cease to wonder how a country which withstood the IRA blitz stoically gets so lathered about a threat which, statistically speaking, is about as dangerous to Britain as snakebite.

Post your comment

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.