Revolutionary Moderation

One more correction



I mentioned some time ago that my former-military friend Mike corrected a fact in this story. In particular, I claimed (in myth #1) that "Iraq and Iran [fought] a decade-long war primarily around Iran's desire to extend its theocracy"



Mike responded: "While Iran was just beginning to build its theocracy, I must point out that Iraq was the aggressor in this conflict, and the policies behind the action can be compared to US policies today: "Pre-emptively attacking your enemies before they can attack you "



The religious element in Iran gained control of the country largely due to a lack of any type of moderate opposition. The people of Iran had only the Shah or Ayatollah Khomeini to choose from. I believe that this was largely due to the failure of the 1953 pro-democracy revolution, and this failed due to American intervention on the behalf on the Shah. The Shah of course, had to put up with (to some extent) the Imams because a crackdown would have surly lead to a civil war. But Pro-Democracy opposition could and was put down where ever it was found. Saudi Arabia has many interesting parallels in this regard.



Middle East politics seem to be like that Kevin Bacon game, only everything seems to connect back to something the Americans did (or the British Empire, once you go back far enough -Don), I think it is important to look at that when looking at Arab views of US policy today.



In addition, the West (the Americans) supported Iraq despite it being the aggressor in this conflict and provided support in the form of money, weapons, intel, and biological agents."



None of this actually effects my main point, that Iraq's government is no friend to theocratic revolutionaries. And that Ezra Levant is a tool.