…what stuns me about the commentary over the last couple of days is the perception that the regime has done something shocking with this election. The regime isn’t any different today than it was the day before the election, the days before it gave logistical assistance to the 9/11 suicide hijacking teams, the day before it took al-Qaeda in for harboring after the 9/11 attacks, the day before Khobar Towers, or every day of combat in Iraq. Throughout the last 30 years, this revolutionary regime has made war on America while it brutalized its own people. The latter brutalization has ebbed and flowed with circumstances, depending on how threatened (or at least vexed) the regime felt at any given time.

Damn right. This is the country that made terrorism its main instrument of foreign policy, concentrates power among an unelected élite, tortures and executes its political opponents, practices and exports an oppressive theocratic ideology, exhorts the masses in “death to” whomever chants, and whose most foundational act was a hostage taking celebrated annually as “Death to America Day.”

They are barbaric, gangster scum who have impoverished and culturally maimed the accomplished civilization that President Obama waxes so rhapsodic about. Moreover, they are our enemy. With all due respect to Rich Lowry’s “realism” point, that we might be able to encourage or assist a democratic revolution in Iran (which we can all agree is the best outcome), the fact remains that almost any conceivable régime that replaces the Islamic Republic is a step forward for American interests. (What wouldn’t be? The Tûdeh taking over under Sino-Russian patronage? That’d at least put us more on Cold War or North Korea footing.)

Other than the Islamic Republic’s Manichæan, eschatological ideology, there is no Iranian national interest dictating hostility against the U.S. (Or its former ally Israel, for that matter, though much the population may have internalized decades of anti-Israeli propaganda.) Indeed, the Iranian pursuit of a nuclear weapon becomes a far, far more manageable problem when the government possessing it is not given to insane but not incredible statements about their desire to use it to vaporize a neighbor and—literally—imminentize the Eschaton.

It shocks me how many on the right are taken in by the sham trappings of democracy in Iran. Former CIA agent and Fox Newsie Mike Baker was on Red Eye the other night saying, essentially, “Well, we’ve got to wait, because Ahmadî-Nezhâd may have actually won the election. Sure, there was definitely some fraud, but we have to see how much.” Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, Mr. Baker?! Call up your former colleague Reuel Gerecht and ask him exactly how legitimate the elected governments of Iran are. Elections are provided to give people the perception they have a choice (between Supreme Leader- & Guardian Council-approved candidates) and to make the democratic West think better of the country. But it’s all a damn put-up job! Potëmkin had nothing on these guys!

Read Andy McCarthy’s whole, long post. And remember, he’s not using the word war metaphorically. The government of Iran has considered itself to be at war with us since 1979. Obviously, they can’t invade us, but they have used every possible type of irregular warfare to strike at us. Not only did they kill 241 Marines in Beirut, they blew up our embassy—twice. Or if that’s boring ancient history—they’re harboring al-Qâ’ida guys right now.

Also, there’s a lot of talk about the person of Mûsavî. He is only important insofar as his being robbed was the inciting incident here. He’s a régime-picked stooge, though a saner, more hygenic one than Ahmadî-Nezhâd. Anyone who hangs hopes on him is a fool. If things continue to be unstable, the government is toppled, and he ends up on top, most likely he’ll not be Boris Yeltsin but either a Thermidorian figure or a ten-minute man like Abo’l-Hasan Banî-Sadr. Remember him? I didn’t think so.

The bottom line may be that we can or choose to do nothing and end up with a post-Tiananmen-style Islamic Republic that may make certain domestic concessions (and tighten internal security) in order to maintain the criminal clique’s hold on power. I hope to God that this is not what the Obama Administration actually wants so it can get back to its glad-hand diplomacy, because that was the plan and they don’t want to consider any other options. This is probably the worst case for American interests. It may even encourage foreign adventurism or bellicosity on the part of the régime to provide an outlet for popular frustration (and kill off a bunch of young men—always the source of trouble-making).

The best case is the Islamic Republic’s overthrow in the name of democracy (whatever “democracy” comes to mean to Iranians). This won’t be perfect—after all, Iranians aren’t Americans and may vote for things that appall us or are against our interests—but it’s by far the best option for the country, the region, and the world.

Middle options could include a standard-issue Middle Eastern military dictatorship, a charismatic nationalist authoritarian, or a whole range of other possibilities.

What are we likely to get? Right now, perhaps too discouraged by the apparently feckless reaction of the Administration, I’m leaning more worse-case, though predicting large-scale, chaotic events like this is a fool’s game, and in a relatively closed, opaque society like Iran’s, it’s all but impossible.

But when it comes to что делать, I cannot advocate any policy other than giving the protesters any and all assistance we can in the hope that they can put paid to the “Islamic” “Republic”* once and for all—and come what may.

*Homage à Mike Meyers: The Islamic Republic is neither Islamic nor a republic. Discuss among yourselves.

Update: Added link to Michael Totten’s discussion of the IR’s “Arabization of Iran.” (And corrected the punctuation of Yo!)

Confucius, Œc. Vol.

Don’t ask impertinent questions like that jackass Adept Lu.