Lion of the Blogosphere

Another Monday morning Iran update

In retrospect, Trump and his administration made at least two mistakes after the takeout of Soleimani (which I totally support). (1) There was the dumb tweet where Trump used the word “culture.” Trump needs to have professionals edit his tweets. (2) They have tried, are trying, to oversell the reasons for the successful mission. For example, it was not necessary to claim that more attacks were “imminent,” it just encourages Trump hating media (truly the enemy of the people) to quibble about whether that’s really true, which it probably isn’t in the strict sense, but I personally do not doubt (nor should any rational person doubt) that Iranian-supported terrorist groups nurtured by Soleimani would continue to do terrorist stuff, and likely they will do less terrorist stuff because of this U.S. operation because they now have greater fear of retaliation and because the guy who replaces Soleimani won’t be as good at doing his job.

The article in the NY Times this weekend had a lot of good information, but there are two problems with the article:
(1) It’s information the Times shouldn’t have had, people are leaking stuff they shouldn’t be leaking.
(2) The article is unable to just stick to the facts, so it has a lot of snide and more direct anti-Trump remarks. The headline uses the phrase “brink of war,” which is total bullshit, we were never on the brink of any war. Bringing up the “Ukrainian civilian passenger jet” implies that it’s Trump’s fault that Iran shot down a civilian passenger jet that took off from its own airport that Iranian air-traffic control cleared for takeoff.

On the topic of pointing fingers about the passenger jet, it’s ironic that American media blames Trump, while no one in Iran is blaming Trump; not the Iranian government, and not the various segments of the Iranian people. Once again, U.S. media is truly the enemy of the people.

Regarding segments of the Iranian people, they can be divided into three categories:
(1) Crazy Shi’te true believers.
(2) Secular Iranians who don’t like the theocratic government, but they are still not good people, they would still go to war against Arabs, do bad stuff, etc. Remember that Saddam Hussein (Arab, not Persian) was secular but he was still a bad person, and a lot of Iraqis supported him. There are lots of these types in the Middle East.
(3) Good Iranians who would like to live in peace and pursue peaceful activities and have good relations with the West.

What does the government of Iran want? This is the wrong question to ask. Iran doesn’t have a government the way that we think of government in the secular west, Iran has a religion. Ali Khamenei doesn’t see himself as the Supreme Leader of Iran, he sees himself as the Supreme Leader of all Shia Muslims everywhere on the planet.

The problem, for those of us are aren’t crazy Shi’ite religious fanatics, is that Khamenei is not entirely deluded. Shi’ites outside of Iran DO see him as their leader. That explains how Iran is able to have so much influence as a leader of terrorist militias. Wherever there are Shi’ites, there are some among them who are willing to join Shi’ite terrorist militias and do Khamenei’s bidding, for the glory of their religion and for the chance of becoming a martyr, the highest honor in both Shia and Sunni interpretations of Islam.

What does Khamenei want? His mid-term goal is for there to be a Shi’ite caliphate that includes contiguous countries with Shi’ite populations: Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. Plus Israel, with all the Jews living their killed. “Allah is the Greatest, Death to America, Death to Israel, A curse upon the Jews, Victory to Islam.” The Shi’ite religious crazies don’t keep the last part a secret, or really keep any of this a secret, notwithstanding that SWPLs in the west are too dense to pay attention. But the leadership of Iran are also realist and non-crazy enough to back down from shows of strength. People in the Middle East, both religious and secular, respect power and strength.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

January 13, 2020 at 10:27 AM

Posted in International

14 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Now, how is Shiite Iran able to develop warm relations with infidels like the Russians, Chinese, Cubans and even NAMs in Venezuela (like the late Hugo Chavez)? Iran is a lot friendlier towards these bedfellows than any majority Sunni state.

    Ok, what, who's this again?

    January 13, 2020 at 11:05 AM

  2. The firestorm over tweeting “culture” proves why Trump did it and why it was so successful. It got everyone’s attention, including the Mullahs.

    Andrew E.

    January 13, 2020 at 11:50 AM

  3. Hey Lion, do a write-up about Prince Harry and Meghan’s estrangement from the rest of the royal family. I know it sounds trivial on the surface, but the story is rife with the sort of themes you normally discuss here, culture, class and race.


    January 13, 2020 at 11:59 AM

    • What do you think about it? You would not ask if you hadn’t any opinion.

      I heard two old ladies talking about it on the train. The talkative one insisted it was because the press was “nasty” about Meghan’s race. This is obviously false. I doubt even tabloids would publish anything critical of a prince marrying a black(ish) woman.

      I bet it’s to do with Meghan being uncomfortable with the royal family, due to the class difference. She is an American from LA, whose parents divorced. She probably doesn’t get along with any of them.


      January 13, 2020 at 12:56 PM

      • Don’t know if you’re British or not, but the UK tabloids have always obsessed about royalty, and are always very flattering towards them, especially Harry and Meghan. But the deal is that if you’re a member of the royal family, and get paid by taxpayers to have an extremely luxurious lifestyle, in return you shut your mouth and do lots of charitable work and attend functions with members of the public. And if you marry into the family, you’re deferential to your husband, and especially the Queen. Meghan by contrast is highly political, tries to take the limelight away from her husband at functions, etc, and is causing an enormous rift within the family. She is also unkind to her servants and there is a very high rate of staff turnover within her household. She is becoming deeply unpopular with the establishment, and with conservative elements within the general public (military, etc). These elements of society also don’t take kindly to the couple trying to commercialise their membership of the royal family. Many people, myself included, think that Harry made a terrible choice of wife, and that he has become a hen-pecked husband. Ultimately, the marriage is unlikely to last. (You may know too that it is unlikely that Harry is a true member of the royal family, as it is unlikely that Prince Charles is his biological father. His mother, Princess Diana, had affairs during a very unhappy marriage. Harry’s rebellious behaviour may partly reflect those facts.)


        January 13, 2020 at 1:21 PM

      • @ lioncub

        I am not British, and I know next to nothing about the royal family. But based on what you say, it sounds like I am right that Meghan doesn’t fit in with them at all.


        January 13, 2020 at 1:45 PM

      • I don’t know much about this particular situation but I wrote about the general dilemma here:

        Alexander Turok

        January 13, 2020 at 2:39 PM

    • I’m usually not interested in anything to do with the royals, but I admit I’ve been interested in this. Imagine, woke actress joins most reactionary institution in the Western world, decides it’s not a good fit, and tries to loot it on the way out.

      Mike Street Station

      January 14, 2020 at 5:54 AM

  4. I’m not in the US right now and don’t have television or cable. But I was aware that the Dems and msm were so desperate to harm Trump that they’re actually helping our nation’s enemies. I never thought it would reach the point it has the last few years. This just shows what lengths the people in power will go to stay in power. They are not on America’s side. The only side they’re on is their own.


    January 13, 2020 at 12:21 PM

  5. If you support conservatism, it would make sense to support the government of Iran, as it is very conservative.

    My 2¢

    January 13, 2020 at 12:31 PM

    • This is directly false. Iran describes itself as a republic and as revolutionary for very specific reasons. The regime is opposed to the hereditary principle in general and monarchy in particular. It endorses the socialist critique of capitalist society and has always found it easier to get on with leftists around the globe than anyone except for Shi’ites. It has distinguished itself from the start by empowering (ostentatiously crazy) women and it rejects the traditional Shi’ite clerical authorities in favour of a bunch of guys who spent decades hanging out in French cafes. In short it is a left-wing theocracy, similar to the Fifth Monarchists or the New England puritans.

      If you want a right-wing Islamic theocracy then Saudi Arabia is the obvious candidate.

      Gabriel M

      January 14, 2020 at 7:38 AM

  6. Trump reading Scott Adams or people around him :

    Donald J. Trump
    The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was “imminent” or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past!


    January 13, 2020 at 2:14 PM

  7. Ayatollahs should not be confused with the head of a Sunni Caliphate. There are Iraqi Ayatollahs too, plus more in Iran. I understand that when Shiites arrange for paying for their bit of support for Shiism, they get to pick which Ayatollah should get the money.

    But Khameini is a cross between an Ayatollah and the civilian leader. This is unusual historically AFAIK (I’m not double checking it’s 3 am here.)

    Frau Katze

    January 14, 2020 at 6:05 AM

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: