by Rod D. Martin
March 29, 2006
The Shah’s son has come out against any bombing of Iran, which seems like a reasonable position for him to take (and he was being reasonable when he said it), even if it ultimately proves to be the wrong policy. This successor to a line of kings going back to Bible times certainly doesn’t want any more destruction and death coming to his homeland than necessary, and frankly, neither do we.
In any case, a friend of mine criticised his statement as anti-American (I don’t believe it was). Here’s my response.
Yeah, but don’t forget that Jimmy Carter sold out his father when it counted; hence the Ayatollah’s regime. Deposing the Shah and bringing in Khomeini was a liberal cause celebre for years — complete with campus protests, divestiture movements, stars wearing arm bands, blah blah blah — much like their earlier support for the “agrarian reformer” Pol Pot and their later adoration of the Communists Daniel Ortega and Nelson Mandella (fortunately for everyone, blacks particularly included, Mandella came to power right after the Soviet Union fell, and thus had tremendous incentive to build a democratic country). A quick glance at old Doonsbury strips from 1977-1978 will bring their hatred of the Shah into very clear focus (not to mention make it utterly laughable: they were demonizing a mildly autocratic, highly pro-U.S. leader who had done more to democratize, educate his people, introduce free markets and give rights to women than anyone in the whole history of the Middle East outside of Israel, in favor of the Ayatollah Khomeini).
This was all right before Khomeini established one of the more repressive regimes on the planet, took hostage all the occupants of the American embassy for 444 days, and began funding every terror group in sight. And I do mean right before, as in “liberals all adored Pol Pot right before he murdered half his own population,” or “liberals all hero-worshiped Joe Stalin right before he introduced a man-made famine to kill off every living Ukrainian. Oh, and thanks to the New York Times, they loved him right during and right after also”.
I believe it was George Orwell who said that “The sin of nearly all left-wingers from 1933 onwards is that they have wanted to be anti-fascist without being anti-totalitarian.” Well, by their estimation, the Shah was a fascist, and depending on how you look at it, maybe he was. But he was no Nazi (note that the Baath Party is expressly modeled on the Nazi Party, and Yassir Arafat’s father worked directly with Hitler, and the Palestine Authority sees itself as the modern successor of the Nazi Party with regard to answering “the Jewish Question”, yet this doesn’t seem to bother liberals either). He was one of the most courageous reformers in Asian history. Flawed? You bet. But we’re talking about the last in a line of Oriental despots stretching back to Bible times. He was not going to ever perfectly live up to our standards, and his people would not have him do so, not then. He was moving as fast our direction as his circumstances would permit, and derailing him meant sinking Iran back into a medieval abyss.
Anyway, I’ve rambled enough about this one (among oh so many) American leftist sell-out of a great nation which was trying to enter the 20th Century. We must never forget the degree to which the left is (at best) uncomfortable with patriotism toward American or (more usually) absolutely hates this country and seeks to undermine anyone who doesn’t. Last night, Alan Colmes — author of a whole book defending the patriotism of liberals — became enraged at a guest who, in his thick French accent, began criticizing France and the French (they are rioting again, you know). He demanded of this man why he was “anti-French”, and the man replied “because I am an American. I came to this country and became a citizen, because I love America and what it stands for.” Colmes sputtered out several angry half-statements about the audacity of this man daring criticize France and then said “well, if you’re an American, I’ll just become French!” The proud immigrant said “go ahead.”
The Shah’s son has every right to feel sold out. We could have saved not only his father — whom we owed, big-time, for all his help against the Soviets and others, not to mention for his outstanding record of real reform — but his country, from a band of mass murderers now seeking to plunge the world into nuclear oblivion. Instead, our President condemned him — mere weeks after having him to America and holding a dinner for him! — and left him and his people to the wolves. You can imagine how the Pahlavis must feel toward us, and the Chaings, and the Diems, and all the rest of the good men and women unlucky enough to lead an emerging but troubled country while a Democrat was running America.