Is There A Job Opening For Cato The Elder Today?

In case you have forgotten, Cato the Elder (AKA "the Censor") was famed for demanding at the end of every speech he gave in the ancient Senate of Rome with the words, "Carthago delenda est!" Senator Cato's recurrent demand, "Carthage must be destroyed," wore very thin in the ears of his compatriots and the citizens of the Roman Republic generally.

Cato's astringent view that Carthage represented a clear, present, and very dangerous threat to Rome and its larger interests carried little freight with the Roman elite and plebs alike. Until one fine day the elephants of Hannibal came trumpeting at the gates of the City on Seven Hills. By then it was darn near too late for the laid back folks of the Republic. Hannibal's troops not only crossed the Alps thus taking Rome's dependencies by the back door, they chewed up Rome's active duty army by the legion.

Had the Carthaginian general had that time's equivalent of nuclear weapons or long range missiles, the decline and fall of Rome would have been expedited greatly. Fortunately for the previously war-averse gentry and plebs, Hannibal had no siege engines, no battering rams, no catapults and was stopped by the walls of the city. Rome had the time to out wait Hannibal, who could do nothing but traipse around the landscape doing marginal damage.

Eventually Hannibal had to leave. Then, in the fullness of time, the Romans emerged from behind their walls, built a fleet, carried the war to Carthage, and opened a giant can of vengeance on the inhabitants thereof. Defeating the army, selling the citizens into slavery, pulling down the walls and buildings and, in a final gesture, plowing over the ground and sowing it with salt, the Romans put paid to the ambitions and threats of Carthage.

Requests and suggestions that the US duplicate the final Punic War with respect to Iran are leaking around the right edge of the blogosphere. So far the requests and suggestions are mild, appropriate to a people and a time for which war is even more to be shunned than it was by the Romans of Cato the Elder's time.

The Geek rather suspects that were Cato alive and well today he would see the mullahocracy of Iran as every bit as much of a threat to the national and strategic interests of the US and its allies as was Carthage to the Rome of twenty-two centuries ago. It is difficult for anyone who is well oriented as to time and place right now to construe the Islamic Republic of Iran as anything other than the single largest disturber of international harmony.

The world view, belief system, policies and actions of the Grand Ayatollah Khemenei and his coterie of similarly minded clerics and secular jefes (including his son and preferred successor, Mojtaba Khemenei) assure that Iran will not willingly nor quickly abandon its offensive, destabilizing, and repressive ways. The recent vituperative diatribe issuing from the front man of the mullahocracy, Ahmedinejad, shows that.

Ahmedinejad's tirade, in which he demands that President Obama "apologise" for having expressed "outrage" at the repressive efforts of the mullahs and their henchmen of the basji and police and states that there is no reason for conversations with the US unless and until such an apology is received, demonstrates convincingly that Khemenei pere understands the nature and quality of the ongoing attacks on the regime. The introduction of Khemenei fils and the strong potential of a struggle for both power and rights of succession escalates the stakes in play currently.

While the MSM have paid little attention to either the matter of succession and how it may be directly affecting the post-election crisis, the same MSM have overlooked the role of Iraqi cleric Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani. Al-Sistani who ranks equal with Khemenei in the Shia hierarchy of clerics, has been meeting with dissident heavyweight clerics including Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Rafsanjani is both a former Iranian president and current head of the Assembly of Experts. He is also a long time opponent of GA Khemenei. Rafsanjani opposed the ascension of Khemenei to his current exalted position, ostensibly because Khemenei lacked the theological credentials and juice to do the job. Be that as it may, the crucial reality is that Khemenei outmaneuvered his opponent even though Rafsanjani was an icon of the Revolution.

The most important take away regarding al-Sistani is his often restated public position on the relation of multi-party, multi-denomination democracy and Shia. Put briefly, al-Sistani has taken the position that there is no fundamental discord between democracy and the requirements of observant Shia. Rafsanjani may not have gone so far in public, but neither has he embraced, recently at least, the notion so popular with Khemenei that there is no role for democracy in Islam.

Rafsanjani is getting on in years. So is his presumed bete noir, Khemenei. The notion of a family dynasty cannot be at all appealing to Rafsanjani or others of his generation. More than any of us on the outside, Rafsanjani and others such as former president and current dissident, Mohammad Khatami, and yet another Grand Ayatollah, Hossein Ali Montazeri, know how much and how disastrously the present Supreme Leader has altered the initial course of the Iranian Revolution. More than any of us on the outside can know (or perhaps imagine) these men fear the concentration of unaccountable power within the ambit of the Khemeneis, father and son.

The notion of dealing with men such as Rafsanjani, who was one of those infamous "moderates" during the long, long agony of the Iranian Hostage Affair, is not particularly appealing. However, the very real potential that a combine of Rafsanjani, Montazeri, and al-Sistani can pull off a palace coup cannot be overlooked and must not be ignored. The present turbulence in Iran--particularly if the body count suddenly escalates or Moussavi is arrested as an "agent" of the US, UK, Zionists, whatever--represents the last, best chance Rafsanjani and company have of taking back the fruits of the Revolution from those who would destroy it from within.

This far-from-remote possibility gives a basis for the Obama administration to recast their public posture regarding Iran. Initially the hands-off, detached approach was appropriate. But, that may well no longer be the case. It is true that anything the administration does to hold the mullahocracy's collective feet to the fire might engender more deaths on the streets of Tehran. It is absolutely true that any more robust language, let alone action, from the administration will result in more vitriol from Ahmedinejad.

More importantly, a stronger position taken by the US including rapid passage and signing of the sanctions legislation directed against those companies supplying gasolene and other refined petroleum products to Iran may well provide the critical impetus to the execution of the palace coup. Rafsanjani may be a "moderate" only in comparison with Khemenei but the fact that he has been meeting with al-Sistani (who is an unsung cause of the success of the American "surge" in Iraq and a man who has shown a rapid and effective learning curve in Iraqi politics) shows that he may be open to a new approach to both the internal politics and external relations of Iran.

The least worst outcome for both the Iranians and the rest of the world would be a Rafsanjani orchestrated palace coup. This would allow new elections, a step back from unending confrontation with the US while keeping the thugs of the Revolutionary Guard and basji employed and reasonably content so as to diminish the potential of either a counter-coup or a prolonged and very bloody struggle for power.

Absent a palace coup, without the replacement of the Khemeneis at the top of the power pyramid, there can be no hope of any meaningful change in the regime's approach to either internal politics or foreign relations. Iran will continue to be a threat to the US and its allies. Over time the nature of its threat will increase.

We will, as that reality unfolds, have a compelling need for a latter day Cato. We will need someone to demand over and over again, "Iran must be destroyed."

And, if we do not heed the call, the day will come, come with rapidity and starkness, that the new Hannibal will have his nuclear elephants blaring at our gates.

Sociopaths And Grand Ayatollahs

Even the most high minded, charitable sort of person in the US, in the West, anywhere in the world has to grant the recent election in Iran was no more honest than those in Chicago where the dead rose from the grave and voted while the living voted both early and often. Chatham House, a highly respected and notably impartial outfit in the UK has completed a preliminary survey of the votes based strictly on Iranian official sources.

The conclusion?

Ahmedinejad, which is to say the mullahocracy of Grand Ayatollah Khemenei, stole the election.

Beyond stealing a mere election in which the results are far more symbolic than real, Khemenei and Crew stole something far more critical. They robbed Iranians, particularly the sixty percent born and reared since the overthrow of the Shah, of faith in the Revolution and its fruits.

Khemenei has shown himself to be a power-hungry political creature clothed in clerical garb and turban. He has exposed to people already exploited, impoverished and fearful that he and those who surround him as well as those dependent upon the current regime for place, prestige, and power are utterly indifferent to the present and future of those who live under the regime's club and lie-based authority.

As the Chatham House study makes clear, the slogan, "Down with the dictator," which has resounded around Tehran and the rest of the country for days, is directed at the Grand Ayatollah and not his reelected mouthpiece, Ahmedinejad. In common with the general run of dictatorships over the decades, the Khemenei regime depends upon lying and coercing to keep itself in power.

For American policy makers the key word is "lying." As experience with other dictatorial regimes has shown, diplomacy with the dictator consists of two components. The first is listening without questioning to the endless litany of lies used to justify the regime's position and demands. The second is agreeing to the fundamental tenet of diplomacy, dictator style: "What is mine is mine. What is yours is negotiable."

The Grand Ayatollah is a more complete, comprehensive liar than the average dictator. This exalted status accrues from his position as Allah's Representative on Earth. As Khemenei probably believes this as an absolute and unchallengeable truth, he has no constraints acting on him either as a liar or as a killer.

Believing that his position in power as well as his goals are the will of the divine makes Khemenei a far greater challenge than the merely secular autocrats. He--and those responsible to him--will do whatever is seen to be necessary to maintain the status quo and achieve the great ambitions of nuclear status, regional hegemon, and theocratic state.

In order to survive and achieve, the Grand Ayatollah and his underlings--elected and otherwise--will lie, cheat, steal, threaten, bluster, kill, and terrorise. Throughout it all, through all the deeds considered by less abnormal folks as evil, Khemenei and Crew will believe themselves to be fully justified, completely absolved of both responsibility and sin by the will of the deity--as they understand that will.

If the sewers of Tehran are overloaded by the blood of Iranians dispatched by the thugs of the Basji and automatons of the Revolutionary Guard, the Grand Ayatollah and his companions in mass murder will feel no qualms of personal responsibility, let alone guilt. They will believe, truly believe to the depths of their beings, that the responsibility, the guilt, rests with those who have been killed.

Khemenei and his fellows are identical to the armed robber turned killer who protests, "If he hadn't resisted, I wouldn't have killed him. The rapist who echoes the sentiment, "If she hadn't screamed and scratched me, I wouldn't have strangled her."

Sociopaths and True Believers such as the Grand Ayatollah share one factor in common. Neither the sociopath nor the True Believer takes responsibility for their actions. It is always the Other Guy who is to blame.

So, whether it is a demonstrator against the "dictator" gunned down in Tehran or the "international community" slapped in the face with another violation of Security Council resolutions, the Grand Ayatollah and his subordinates never see themselves as responsible. They are merely carrying out divine will. The fault, the blame, resides with the protester or with the countries that imposed the sanctions.

The hypostasis of the Grand Ayatollah Khemenei's world view whether expressed in internal politics or foreign policy is the same. Those who oppose the will of the divine as interpreted by the Grand Ayatollah are doomed. The guilt lies with them. All that is necessary is that they not oppose the will of the deity as understood by the GA.

Or, more bluntly: "Submit to my way or call down death upon your own heads!"

It is not possible to treat with, negotiate with, compromise with the absolute nature of the True Believer who understands himself to be the instrument of divine will. The normal processes of international (or internal) give-and-take, the standard protocols that have governed international affairs (and internal politics), are beyond the mental realm of people such as the Grand Ayatollah Khemenei.

For Khemenei and his cohort any challenge, whether in the streets of Tehran or the plush surroundings of international diplomacy, is an existential threat in the making. The world view of Khemenei and company is too stark, too absolute, too black and white to admit of challenge, response and compromise.

For Khemenei and his ilk those who challenge them are actually challenging the divine. And, one makes no deals with the devil.

For Khemenei and those who follow and support him, life is a matter of kill or be killed, terrorise or be terrorised. The people facing the motorcycle mounted thugs and triggermen in Tehran understand this brutal reality.

Is the Nice Young Man From Chicago now occupying the Oval Office as insightful, as realistic?

Hope Versus Reality In Iran (and the US)

Following the events on the streets of Tehran and other cities in Iran is exciting, frustrating and, ultimately, tinged with sadness. It is apparent that many of those involved in confronting the mullahocracy want more, much more than a replay of the election.

The beautifully ambiguous chant, "down with the dictator," shows the ambitions of many extend far beyond simply replacing the mouthpiece-of-the-regime, Ahmedinejad, with a kinder, gentler, nicer sort of chap who would still toe the foreign policy line established by the Grand Ayatollah Khemenei. People are more willing to face clubs and bullets when their goal is large than when it is limited, small.

Opposition icon Moussavi has reportedly said he is willing to accept "martyrdom." This is the necessary prerequisite for political success in Iran--if the goal is more than simply to prevail in a disputed election. It is conceivable that Moussavi is playing a cynical game--his call for a general strike is redolent of self-preservation--but it is within the realm of possibility that the hard line prime minister of years gone by has been transformed by recent events into something more than a politico genuflecting to the GA and his coterie.

Perhaps Moussavi has found himself to be the sort of "transformational" figure for Iran that President Obama's flacks trumpet him to be. One might hope that Moussavi has found within himself greater depths and strengths than he had ever thought before.

From the dynamic apparent in the videos and tweets out of Iran, it is clear that more than a few of Iran's younger, more affluent, better educated, and, withal, alienated citizens see this transformational potential in Moussavi. For them, Moussavi is no longer a politician, he is a symbol, an icon of the change they so desperately hope may come.

The brutal, historically documented truth is that reality trumps hope. In Iran the reality is that the regime has the guns and, potentially, the will to use them. Today the minions of the mullahs, the cops, the vigilantes of the Basji used clubs, water cannons, tear gas and genuine, fer sure, lethal bullets to break up the demonstrations in Tehran.

The Basji, which is comprised of the same sort of mentalities as was the Nazi SA, is a reliable crew of sadistic thugs drawn from the margins of Iranian society. Formed back during the existential war with Iraq, the Basji has proved its reliability and importance to regime maintenance over the intervening twenty years. Today, it is the least politically risky force for the GA and his fellow turban-topped, Koran-thumpers to use against the Iranians in opposition.

Should the Basji prove insufficient, the mullahs can order up the Revolutionary Guard. This organ of state is a very good approximation of the Nazi SS at its height. Utterly loyal to the regime, completely dedicated to the preservation of the status quo, and very well armed, trained, equipped, and indoctrinated, the Revolutionary Guard can be depended upon to gun down their fellow citizens in wholesale lots without a qualm should they be directed to do so.

Like the SS or the KGB of the final decades of the Soviet Union, the Revolutionary Guard is virtually a state within the state. The continuation of the RG (to say nothing of the lives and power of the individual officers and men) stands upon maintaining the current regime in full, unquestioned dominance. The mullahocracy (and the rest of the world) can and does bet its collective bippy on the Revolutionary Guard doing its (killing) job.

Martyrdom is the way of Shia. Martyrdom was the key to the Islamic Revolution thirty years ago. It was central to Iran's strategy during the Iraq-Iran War. A little martyrdom, too little martyrdom inflicted upon the opposition will create more opposition. Sufficient martyrdom, the sort that would be inflicted by the Revolutionary Guard and perhaps even the amateurs of the Basji, will drown the opposition in its own blood.

No one should underrate the will of the mullahocracy to keep itself in power. It is clear the GA and his fellows are feeling nervous. It is equally evident that they fear that the opposition in the streets entertains ambitions transcending the removal of their chosen public image, Ahmedinejad. They see the long range target as their theocratic rule and not the political and international figurehead.

The desperate, rapidly shifting diversionary efforts of Khemenei are evidence of this. First he and his cronies blamed the outrage in the streets on "American meddling." The next day the GA announced that "Britain is enemy number one," as he reached far back in Iranian history to grab the magic of evil Albion and its agent the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Most recently, Khemenei went to the Islamist default position and placed responsibility for the demonstrations on the "Zionist controlled media."

(One might be forgiven for wishing that Allah could give His Representative in Qom the right story the first time.)

As history has shown repeatedly, desperate, fearful regimes engage in desperate actions. Like the possibility of mass slaughter such as to put Tienanmen Square deep in the shadows. The Chinese government killed in the hundreds. If massacre comes to Tehran it will be in the thousands.

The bloodletting at Tienanmen was carried out in the hours of darkness as shameful acts should be. The media were not there. Could not be there. The mullahs will not be so fortunate if they order the cancel button be pushed on the opposition. Twenty years has wrought such a transformation that the images and words of those about to butchered will flash around the world nearly instantaneously. The mullahs cannot hope to prevent that--unless they shut down the Internet and cell phone service completely.

Such a blackout would signal their intentions with certainty. The world will know what is contemplated before it happens.

So far, the Obama administration has played the game cautiously and well. It has properly and prudently left public expressions of condemnation up to the Congress and individual Americans. The President is correct when he avers that any posturing by the administration would harm the efforts of the opposition by allowing the mullahs to portray it as an American tool.

This will change with the speed of light if the mullahs in their fear and desperation order the Basji or, worse, the Revolutionary Guard into bloody action.

At that moment the whole world will be watching. It will not be watching Tehran so much as it will turn to Washington, D.C. expecting the American president to do what American presidents have been expected to do for the past sixty some years. Lead.

That's right. Lead. Tell us, show us, what you and by example the rest of us should do now.

Joe Biden, Please Call Your Office--Pronto!

OMG! The challenges are on us. On steroids. Just like renowned foreign policy expert, Joe Biden warned during last Fall's campaign.

The North Koreans have a ship at sea right this very minute. A ship which has been characterised as a "repeat offender" in the horrid crime of "proliferation." The USS John McCain is shadowing the freighter Kang Nam as it plies Chinese waters. What next? Will the Obama crew order the John McCain to stop and search the possible proliferator? What will the Hermit Kingdom of the North do in response?

Wow! A genuine foreign policy challenge.

The UN Security Council Resolution finally passed a while back after weeks of wrangling between the US and both Russia and China does not authorise a forced stop and search but allows only a voluntary sort of exercise.

The 12 June Resolution does provide for the option of "poisoning the host." That means the US can share intelligence with a friendly nation (or at least a country amenable to UN resolutions) so as to convince the host port to either refuse entry or demand inspection rights as a condition for entry.

Host poisoning has worked. When a North Korean aircraft suspected by the US of carrying a cargo of missile guidance gyroscopes requested passage rights over India after refueling in Burma, the Indian government denied the request. Iran had to wait a bit longer for these critical missile parts.

Depending on the number and size of range-extending auxiliary fuel bunkers on the Kang Nam, it is conceivable the ship can make the trip without requesting port entry for refueling or resupply. Alternatively, the Kang Nam can make port in Burma. No one has accused the military junta running that country as being overly concerned with the "international community." Of course, if China is more serious about reining in the Hermits, Beijing can put effective pressure on their Burmese clients.

Absent the host poisoning gambit, the US has few options. One is to stop and inspect the ship, presumably turning it back under escort if it is found to be hauling contraband. Pyongyang has stated it would consider this action an act of war.

Calling the bluff could be risky. The North Korean regime is not terribly predictable nor is it overly stable at the moment considering the crisis implicit in succession. The possibility of a North Korean version of "death before dishonor" should not be discounted even though it seems sheer lunacy.

If the Kang Nam goes about its (perhaps) criminal way loaded to the gunnels with goodies for, shall we say, the mullahs of Iran, then the sanctions (you know the 12 June resolution described by our fearless UN ambassador, Susan Rice, as "really biting") will be so much dead wording. The idea of UN Security Council resolutions as being worth less than the paper they are printed on is neither new nor alarming. But, it would be a severe setback to the Obama form of diplomacy.

In the setback department we also find the other Joe Biden level challenge. Iran.

The Grand Ayatollah has nailed his flag to the our-election-was-free-and-fair mast. His man, Ahmedinejad won. Accept that. Get over it. At the same time Khamenei took a slap at the outstretched hand of Obama friendship.

As far as the GA is concerned, the US is behind the current unrest in the streets of Iran. Similarly, we are behind a supposed effort to topple the mullahocracy. Sure, that's an absurd notion, but it's Khamenei's story and, by Allah, he is going to stick to it.

This demonstration of a less than warm acceptance of the Obama outreach program does not bode well for successful diplomacy. But, no one with knowledge of the history of US-Iranian relations over the past sixty or so years expected any other tone of response.

The Obama outstretched hand of friendship will be left hanging in the breeze to an even greater extent if the GA and his gang of turban-topped, Koran-thumping thugs go ahead with a program of harsh repression. This potential was clear when the Benign Man of Allah said that bloodshed would be on the heads of the "leaders" of demonstrations and other forms of protest.

Of course, even the Supreme Translator Of The Will Of Allah, Khamenei, knows that he has to kill carefully. The idea (or is it ideal?) of martyrdom is at the center of both Shia and the specifically Iranian understanding of Shia. Martyrs to the opposition will mean more, not less, opposition. To avoid this should be the first criterion for the mullahs--if they wish to stay in unimpeded, unhindered full power.

The alternative is to do what the Shah failed to do thirty years ago. Kill Iranians in such wholesale numbers that the opposition is eradicated. Completely.

While this approach would lead to "consequences," the GA and his mullah coterie as well as the leadership of the Revolutionary Guards might take that option. There is little to lose. And potentially, much, even very much, to gain. Can we say, "Theocracy and a nuclear capability?"

What the US does with respect to the small freighter Kang Nam and what effect our policy does or does not have on Iran are joined head, shoulder and hip.

Please, Joe, phone home with your extensive foreign policy experience. Your President needs you. After all his SecState is currently in unserviceable condition. Who else does he have?

While you are at it, Joe, you and others of your age might recall a chant from the Sixties. "The whole world is watching!"

And, it is.

Khemenei Has The Only Vote That Matters

The Grand Ayatollah Khemenei has a grand dream or two. The first is to eliminate the words of the Ayatollah Khomenei to always observe "the will of the people" and establish a pure theocracy without even the shadow of democracy which currently exists. The second is to procure nuclear weapons.

The GA has abandoned even the slightest pretext of being an impartial arbiter of governmental and political matters who rides sublimely on a cloud of Koranic interpretations. He has all but ordered the Iranian people to line up submissively behind Ahmedinejad whom Khemenei has called the "elected president."

Now, all that remains is to see whether or not the Grand Ayatollah can muster the will to kill enough "dissidents" to stop the protests. Will Khemenei do what the Shah did not do back in 1979--fill the streets with blood and corpses?

Or will Khemenei take the softer route? He has an alternative. Hold new elections. Make sure that Moussavi wins the next time. Khemenei can decide that the better alternative is to use all the old Chicago political tricks in favor of Moussavi.

After all it matters not in the least who is president. As far as Iran's pursuit of the atomic bomb and regional hegemonic status are concerned there is no measurable daylight between Moussavi and Ahmedinejad. There may be a reluctance on Moussavi's part to use the strident and insulting rhetoric which tumbles so naturally from Ahmedinejad's mouth. But, there is no substantial difference in their world views. Nor is Moussavi at loggerheads with Khemenei regarding the paramountcy of strict Islamist construction even if Moussavi is willing to acknowledge that women are human beings with unique and important talents.

As long as Khemenei is at the top of the food chain there is no reason to expect any change in Iranian behavior with the hypothetical substitution of the likable Moussavi for the completely detestable Ahmedinejad. Actually the substitution would be to Iran's favor.

Moussavi seems rational. He appears to possess all the attributes that the Western media and political figures deem "moderate." It will be harder to muster an effective diplomatic coalition to enforce sanctions against Iran with the nice, "moderate," rational Moussavi at the head of government. Moussavi's lack of lunatic words and bluster about such matters as the Holocaust and expunging Israel from the map will make it harder for the Israeli government to gain even tacit understanding for the existential threat Iran represents.

If the pro-Moussavi demonstrators can persevere in the face of escalating repression and if the Grand Ayatollah refrains from authorising wholesale slaughter, there is some slight chance that the mullahocracy will decide for the "soft" approach and let Moussavi win the next (rigged) election. That is the very best which Iranians and the world can hope for.

A Moussavi presidency might well mean some important albeit cosmetic changes internally. It will not mean any chance of any change whatsoever in Iran's foreign and national security policies. Iran will remain what it has been for some years--an eight hundred pound gorilla with unlimited ambitions and appetites. The gorilla will have a nicer face, a smile around the fangs, with Moussavi as president. That is a change without meaning.

The only real potential for change in Iran as some of the demonstrators chanting "Down with the dictator" know. That is getting rid of the Grand Ayatollah and those of similar mind and dreams. There is no real probability of that happening. Not in the real world.

Who knows? The mind of Allah might change. That is not for Geeks in the West or demonstrators in Tehran to know.