Iran Again

Only about half of the Iranian population is ethnically Persian. Much of the oil is in the Arab South West. There are Kurds in the North West. Half of the Baluchis are in the East, the other half being across the border in Pakistan, where they have long-standing secessionist tendencies. There are so many Turkemen that Tehran is actually the second-largest Turkish-speaking city on earth, even though Turkish is a minority language there. There are more Azeris than in Azerbaijan. There is a sizeable and very ancient community of Jews, complete with its own reserved seat in Parliament. And so on.

A multinational state such as the United Kingdom should be insisting on the preservation of Iran (which the looming war would undoubtedly destroy), as it should have insisted on the preservation of Iraq and Yugoslavia. And an America true to her own best ideals would take, and would have taken, the same view. But dream on!

Instead, we are subject to those who consistently promoted, or continue to promote, the Wahabbi interest in Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, putatively Syria, and on, and on, and on... Of course, they want for themselves the privileged dhimmitude of Moorish Spain, which is why they cannot admit that liberal democracy can only arise out of, and can only be preserved in and by, a culture formed definitively by the Christianity that they define themselves by rejecting. But what do you want, and why? If not that, then you need to be among those of us working to replace the existing parties (or, rather, Party) from the bottom up.

An attack on Iran would make the Iraq War look like the Teddybears' Picnic, exploding the Shi'ite Arab arc from South-Western Iran through Southern Iraq and round the Gulf (including most of the oil-producing part of Saudi Arabia), exploding Kurdistan across at least three countries including Turkey (a member of NATO), exploding the Turkish-speaking parts of Turkey as well, exploding Azerbaijan and thus the Caucuses, exploding Baluchistan (and thus nuclear-armed, Deobandi-ridden Pakistan), and on, and on, and on...

It is almost impossible to state in words the urgency of preventing this from happening.

But why would anyone want it to happen? Iran is a multi-ethnic emerging democracy with, among other things, more women than men at university. Its present President is on the way out, anyway. The people accusing him of having a nuclear weapons programme (contrary to a fatwa by the Supreme Leader) and of wanting to kill the population of Israel are the same people who told you that Iraq had magic nuclear weapons capable of being deployed within 45 minutes, capable of reaching New York from Mesopotamia, and one hundred per cent undetectable.

And they, too, are on the way out. Bush has to go. Blair will be gone very soon. And when Blair goes, expect the people whom he viciously sent into Iranian custody in order to provoke a war to be released, probably pretty much unharmed. By contrast, the moment that any such war actually started, they would be put to death. Which would you prefer, and why?

Oh, and before anyone suggests that I have contradicted myself by calling Iran an emerging democracy while saying that liberal democracy depends on Christianity, these are early days. Japan, to cite the obvious example, will no doubt remain a democracy for many, many years yet. And Iran is starting several decades later than Japan did. But sooner or later, liberal democracy can only survive by reference to its roots in the Biblical-Classical synthesis that is Christianity.

An America or wannabe-America which instead allows herself to be shaped by the disciples of Max Shachtman, Leo Strauss or Ayn Rand will come to have at least as much trouble on this score as Japan or Iran. Even more so, in fact, if that alternative system (let's call it, oh, "neoconservatism") has, however bizarrely and ridiculously, been declared to be Christianity for popular consumption, making it far more difficult to subject to a popularly acceptable Biblical-Classical critique.