We've been having an ongoing discussion about the statement Rush Limbaugh made regarding this article about Reagan and Iran. Surfer and Matt and myself have been going over what it means vis a vis Beirut and such, but I think it harbors another more important thought:In his memoirs, Rafsanjani makes it clear that without the disastrous naval battle and the downing of the Iran Air jet, Khomeini would not have agreed to end a war that had already claimed a million Iranian and Iraqi lives.
The reason was that Khomeini was leader of a regime that lacked adequate mechanisms for self-restraint. He was the driver of a vehicle with no clutch or reverse-gear, let alone a brake, and thus was doomed to speed ahead until it hit something hard.
Interestingly, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used a similar image recently when he committed the regime to a no-compromise position on the nuclear issue. "This train has no reverse-gear and no brakes," he said.
Khomeini could have ended the war with Iraq years earlier, obtaining decent terms for Iran. He did not because the extremist nature of his regime made it impossible to even contemplate the fact that realism, prudence and compromise are key elements of good leadership.
Khomeini could not have ended the war. He needed Reagan to do it for him. If the Islamic Republic is a train without a reverse-gear and brakes, it does not need a conductor. It could race ahead until it hits something hard on its way.
The writer, an Iranian, I guess is thinking that the only way to stop Iran is for "something hard" to hit it on its way. What is that going to be? The US is cleaning up the UN's mess in Iraq. We are cleaning up Russia's mess in Afghanistan. Isn't it about time the "world body" did something? Wait, that would imply they have a spine.
I think the writer is forecasting that we will come to blows with Iran, or someone (maybe Israel?) will and only that will be the stopping point for the nuclear ambitions. I found the piece interesting, and was a real thought provoker.
