Theofascism

May 5, 2013

When is a Building in Syria actually in Iran?

By Don Kirk in Foreign Affairs, Theofascism

From CNN, the picture of a building in Syria allegedly destroyed by the Israeli Air Force earlier this week. Syria accuses Israel; Israel has no comment. Syria claimed earlier this year that Israel attacked this same building, so either what was re-built by Syria had to be destroyed or the Israelis simply returned to finish the job.

Or, as a third possibility, Syria moved armaments destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon back into the previously destroyed building, thinking they would be ‘safe’ from a repeat attack. What does all this matter?

Iran has its presidential elections in a month, and the Guardian Council vets all candidates next week. Hezbollah is centered in Tehran. The shattered building is in Syria, but it is theofascist Iran which is the object of the Israeli lesson.

March 20, 2013

2009 Corrupt, 2013 Meaningless

By Don Kirk in Foreign Affairs, Theofascism

Nikolay Kozhanov has a piece from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy which argues that the Iranians are so absorbed with their pending presidential elections in June that all discussion of the nuclear issue is taking  a back seat. Mr. Kozhanov mentions the impending political fight between the ‘principalists’ who support clerical supremacy and the ‘deviantionists’ who support deeply religious but technocratic rule. He offers the insight that this year’s election has no incumbent, and both previous presidential elections without an incumbent resulted in a shocking, unexpected winner.

What is missing in Mr. Kozhanov’s analysis is the appreciation that the differences between the religious clerics and the devout technocrats, while real, is like losing sight of the forest because so many trees stand in the way. It does not matter which camp wins the Iranian presidency this June.

No matter what, the winner will be a cleric. No matter what, the winning cleric will be totally devoted and loyal to the Supreme Guide, Ayatollah Khamenei. No matter what, the wishes of the Supreme Guide will dictate Iran’s nuclear policy. The result of the elections is already determined, regardless of who wins or loses, because the elections laws have been changed in such a manner since the corrupt ‘coup’ elections in 2009 that the winner has to be a clerical loyalist to the Islamic Revolution.

Instead of manipulating the elections on Election Day as they did in 2009, now the election laws carefully filter out any possible surprises well in advance. More than ever, the Supreme Guide will be in control of the Islamic Republic with an elected president utterly subservient to the Ayatollah. As it has steadily since the surprise elections in 1997, the theofascism in Iran will continue to consolidate after this June’s elections.

It doesn’t matter who wins or loses the presidential election in Iran. What matters is that the governing theofascism is still very much in charge, and still hardening.

October 12, 2012

Go See ‘Argo’

By Don Kirk in Foreign Affairs, Theofascism

Hollywood actor Ben Affleck directed and starred in the just-released political thriller, Argo, the story of the six Americans who secreted to the Canadian Ambassador’s house during the Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979. It’s a film worth seeing as it tells the story of the rise of Iran’s theofascism, but two strange things to note:

First, Mr. Affleck has unusually numerous long and loving face close-ups in his direction of the title character. Clint Eastwood and John Huston and even Sylvester Stallone in their starring roles in the films they directed never had so much close-up camera attention during long moments of no action or any dialogue. It’s almost as if Mr. Affleck believes doing nothing is the measure of better acting. Repeatedly every skin pore, every uncut hair, every nodule on his face is kept lovingly on the screen for the audience to inspect at their leisure.

Second, as the credits roll the audience hears the voice-over of President Jimmy Carter taking credit for resolving the hostage crisis in Iran in a peaceful manner. That’s accurate. What is conveniently left out of the voice-over is the fact that all of the hostage Americans were released by the Iranians only on the day that Mr. Reagan was inaugurated as the new President of the United States, after crushing Mr. Carter in the November, 1980 election.

It is not in this film, but in one of the interviews of the hostages after they were freed on Inauguration Day in 1981, an exchange was recounted between the American hostage and his Iranian revolutionary captor. The captor was boasting of the futility and impotence of both American presidents, the just-defeated Carter and the just-elected Reagan. The American captive was incredulous, saying something to the effect, ‘Do you even know who Ronald Reagan is?’ The implication was, to believe Mr. Reagan would respond to the hostage situation as Mr. Carter did, ‘peacefully,’ would be a mistaken calculation of the first magnitude.

See Argo. Mr. Affleck does a wonderful job in building the tension, and recounts American and Canadian and Iranian bravery with great honesty. It’s just that he treats the camera as if it were his personal mirror, and closing with Mr. Carter’s self-congratulation is filtered fact.

October 4, 2012

Iran’s Inflation, Fascism’s Fuel

By Don Kirk in Foreign Affairs, Theofascism

The chart of the last twelve month’s collapse of the Iranian rial is from National Interest. Note the gap-drop in value which occurred this week; the decline is accelerating. Recall that Hitler’s rise to power in the early 1930′s was greased by the devastating impact of hyper-inflation during the 1920′s in Wiemar Germany.

The inflation in the past twelve months has wiped out two-thirds of the value of all Iranian savings. Protests in the bazaar just broke out, but were successfully controlled by the theofascist regime by flooding the bazaar with riot police. In Iran’s culture, if the regime loses the support of the bazaar then it loses political legitimacy.

Iran’s presidential elections are next June. If the rial continues to plummet in value over the next eight months, the regime’s efforts to conduct ‘free and fair’ elections will be sorely tested as political criticism grows and repression follows. This inflation threatens the very legitimacy of rule by clerics. Another ‘if’: If the clerical legitimacy collapses, look for the elite, proto-socialist para-military Revolutionary Guards to intervene in order to protect their favored role in the Iranian government, much like the Praetorian Guard intervened to protect its role in ancient imperial Rome. The theofascism in Iran will likely flower as authority and legitimacy pass from inflation-discredited black-turbaned clerics to religiously-devout, national-socialist, black-shirted storm-troopers.

Final ‘if’: Wonder if Iran and its theofascism will even be mentioned in the foreign policy debates for the U.S. presidential election late this month?

September 13, 2012

Illusory Lines

By Don Kirk in Foreign Affairs, Theofascism

Fareed Zakaria, the admitted plagiarist still published by The Washington Post and other major media, wrote an Op-Ed in today’s WaPo calling for the United States to resist Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s call for an American “red line” on Iran’s nuclear program. Dr. Zakaria correctly points out that Mr. Netanyahu has issued no such ‘red line,’ so why should the United States?

‘Lines’ do not work against an opponent in foreign affairs. President Bush repeatedly drew ‘lines in the sand’ against the nuclear program in North Korea, to no avail. The only thing notable about Mr. Bush’s failed ’line’ policy was how many new lines he had to draw in the sand as he constantly back-pedalled from a previously drawn line. Line-drawing without the commitment to enforce the threat makes for the appearance of impotence and incompetence. Line-drawing against an adversary in foreign affairs is counter-productive.

North Korea proceeded with its nuclear weapon program despite Mr. Bush’s retreating lines, and there is no reason to suppose that Iran will not have observed the futility of the United States drawing lines–’red’ or otherwise–and so safely ignore Mr. Netanyahu’s call. If Israel wants ‘red’ lines, let them draw one first, and draw such a line not against the known belligerence of theofascist Iran but against the back-pedalling United States. Against its ally instead of against its adversary, an Israeli red line might actually work.