George Eliot’s Additional Insight on Iran:
The “Great Satan” is Necessary to the Mullahs’ Tyranny
The “Great Satan” is Necessary to the Mullahs’ Tyranny
It is incredible how prescient this woman, who died approximately one century before Iran’s Islamic “Revolution, was.
As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad lashes out at President Obama for interfering in Iranian affairs, it becomes increasingly clear to all but the most narrow-minded ideologues that nothing the United States can do or say, no matter how our leaders abase themselves before the mullahs, will change their attitude towards us. For they “need” to demonize us. It’s not just their opium (see Baudelaire on this one), it’s the very glue which holds their regime together as Tom Gregg pointed out in a comment he posted on Commentary’s Contentions blog:
I find myself astonished that so many people seem incapable of perceiving this obvious point: As far as the Iranian Islamofascist regime is concerned, America’s only possible function is to serve as The Enemy, i.e. a focal point for the hatred and fear without which such regimes cannot sustain themselves. The ayatollahs have absolutely no interest in making making nice with America. What would be in it for them? The approval of the “world community”? They couldn’t care less about that. No, what they want and need is the Great Satan.
George Eliot had explained this very phenomenon way back in 1857, when explaining why an abusive husband would not let his wife leave him:
Her husband woul never consent to her living away from him, she was become necessary to his tyranny; he would never willingly loosen his grasp on her.
Emphasis added.
Nor will the mullahs or Ahmadinejad loosen their grasp on their hatred of the “Great Satan.” Or the “Lesser Satan” for that matter.
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I’m confused. Are you saying that Obama can not give a speech that would have result of abusive husbands suddenly making nice with their wives?
Oh, ye of little faith. Sincerity of intent trumps violence every time it is tried. Or maybe not.
Comment by heliotrope — June 27, 2009 @ 2:42 pm - June 27, 2009
Bush didn’t do enough to confront Iran, but at least he didn’t kiss the mullahs’ butts. Obama is not only not confronting them, he’s trying to be friends with them and consequently making us look like a bunch of cowardly asses.
Comment by Scott Spiegel — June 27, 2009 @ 2:54 pm - June 27, 2009
There’s actually no real evidence that the elections in Iran were rigged. See IranAffairs.com for the point-by-point compilation of election rigging claims and counter-claims.
Comment by hass — June 28, 2009 @ 3:01 pm - June 28, 2009
#3: Well, hass, the Chatham House think tank in England believes the election was rigged and so does Abbas Milani (Director of Iranian Studies at Stanford). Plus, considering that Ahmadinejad and the gang of pedophilic sith lords holding his marionette strings are Holocaust-denying, genocidal psychotics, well…call me crazy, but I just don’t see a little thing like election fraud posing an insurmountable ethical dilemma for those withered old gargoyles. So, personally, I’m convinced.
But regardless of who won the election, it doesn’t change the imperative endgame–the confrontation of the regime and putting a stop to its nuclear ambitions by whatever means necessary. Unfortunately, all of the election turmoil ended up being that first “test” of Obama’s mettle six months into his Presidency that Joe Biden predicted. And as predicted, Obama FAILED miserably because he voted “present” on a matter of national security. Now, well in advance of any discussions with the regime regarding nukes, Obama has sent the clear message to Iran that, yes!, the US is nothing but a paper tiger with him at the helm. Obama’s limp-di*k statements proved that he is not qualified for the job of President of the US because one of the prerequisites is a commitment to unequivocally standing up for freedom from tyranny at every opportunity. And what’s worse, Obama’s mealy-mouthed equivocations confirmed for Iran that any demands made by the US in the future can be summarily rejected because they won’t be backed up with harsh language, much less military force.
This will end BADLY. I just hope that when the smoke and radioactive ash clears, some of us are still around to hear the soothing, familiar sounds of Pelosi, Frank, Schumer, Reid, Dodd, Cher, etc. blaming George W. Bush and “those evil Republicans.”
Comment by Sean A — June 28, 2009 @ 6:27 pm - June 28, 2009
Ahh … who else might be guilty of “demonizing” the opposition? Anyone right here, in our own backyard?
Comment by DoorHold — June 29, 2009 @ 12:35 pm - June 29, 2009