The people of the world have been watching events unfolding in these countries with a mixture of admiration and hope. The demonstrators are to be admired for their bravery in fighting back against oppressive regimes. In many instances it has cost them their lives. Hope comes from seeing the protests in Tunisia result in the removal of President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali, and the Egyptians ousting the despotic regime of President Hosni Mubarak.

These are by no means the only examples of political turbulence and upheaval in the Middle East and North Africa. Aside from aforementioned, there have also been protests held in Morocco, Algeria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Oman and Yemen. The catalysts for these protests have often been economic factors. However it is undeniable that in many cases the people are calling for regime change and greater democratic rights.

One of the most mesmerizing attributes of the demonstrations has been the way in which the people have used technology to transmit their messages to the world. This is extensively a twenty-first century phenomenon, as previously political protests could be suppressed with the rest of the world vaguely hearing about it. In 2011 the protesters were able to upload camera phone footage to YouTube, to email friends throughout the world, and to share their experiences on social media websites such as Facebook.

This was despite attempts by the ruling regimes to censor their citizens by muffling access to the internet. This was particularly true in Egypt, but has vibrated in other nations. The people were still able to use alternative methods to spread their voices, resulting in the world’s attention focusing on these countries and their struggles. The government of the USA has been monitoring events very closely, and must decide on what action to take, if any, on a country by country basis.

It is telling that the only country so far to see intervention by coalition forces, Libya, has not yet succeeded in achieving regime change. Colonel Gaddafi still remains in power despite the support given to the country’s rebel forces. As such, there is a continuing debate as to whether a better course of action might be to impose economic and political sanctions while strongly condemning the autocratic leaders of these regimes.

There is a real fear that military intervention will result in the political leaders actually receiving more support. Military intervention produces significant civilian deaths and leads to substantial collateral damage to the infrastructure of the country. The alternative, non-destructive, method of aiding people in their struggle is to put political pressure on leaders and open channels of direct communication with the pro-Democracy populace. This is much more likely to garner support among the people rather than the backlash military intervention could bring.

Iran and Syria are perfect examples of countries where the USA could help to bring about peaceful regime change. In both cases protesters demonstrating for greater democracy have been killed or injured by their country’s authoritarian leaders. The people want change, but are being denied their right to bring it about. In both countries the regimes are supporters of militant groups such as Hezbollah, meaning that they pose a threat to security in the region. They also promote anti-American propaganda, meaning that their revolting citizens may be more willing to accept US assistance.

The dawn of democracy is rising in the Middle East and North Africa. Given adequate support and concise foreign policy initiatives it could lead to a peaceful, progressive, stable and democratic region.

Slater Bakhtavar is an attorney journalist, foreign policy analyst and political commentator. He has appeared as a guest on numerous nationally syndicated talk shows including G. Gordon Liddy, Jim Bohannon Show, NPR, Crosstalk America, Mancow Mueller, Voice of America and Newsmakers. He is author of “Iran: The Green Movement” and attorney at Bakhtavar & Associates, PLLC.

Although the IRGC numbers a mere 130,000, it has become the main socio-economic political powerhouse in Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, himself a former IRGC member, has awarded the IRGC more than 750 significant government contracts, appointed more than 50 IRGC members to prominent government posts and afforded the IRGC a prominent role in Iranian politics. The IRGC falls under the direct command of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei–he has provided IRGC members key positions in intelligence and in oversight of the country’s nuclear program.

Mohsen Sazegara, a co-founder of the IRGC, who has repudiated the Islamic Republic and now lives in the United States, has said that although IRGC’s advent into Iranian politics began with Khamenei, its role has increased with Ahmadinejad. Khamenei allowed key IRGC members to enter politics “as part of a strategy aimed at safeguarding Khamenei’s own position of power, which was threatened by a clear absence of popular support.”

Notwithstanding the increased prominence of the IRGC, the struggle continues between the theocratic alliance of Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohammad Khatami on the one hand, and the military alliance of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ayatollah Khamenei, IRGC, Basij and Guardian Council on the other. The fraudulent elections, IRGC’s consolidation of power and the militarization of foreign policy effectively render the current Iranian government a military dictatorship. Unfortunately, left in the middle are the Iranian people. Although they would prefer the theocratic alliance over the military, the vast majority want neither and would prefer a democratic republic.

The United States of America has a compelling opportunity to support democratic change in Iran. The Obama Administration’s lack of moral clarity and of vocal support for Iran’s Green Movement has understandably been criticized. Further, the administration’s two-track strategy of offering Iran negotiations and threatening sanctions has been ineffective, mainly because the military establishment in Iran has no intention (or margin) to negotiate.

President Obama’s official position as to Iran’s nuclear program is that “all options are on the table”, including force. This coupled with its lack of support for the Green Movement leads to a probability that this administration is laying the foundations for a military strike on Iran. Military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities are inevitable unless the administration alters its failed strategy. Neither war nor sanctions is an effective option on Iran. Instead, we should support the Iranian people in their struggle for democracy via technological advancements and a well-crafted strategy supporting Iran’s Green Movement.

Democracy needs the United States and retreat is still not the answer.

Slater Bakhtavar is a journalist, foreign policy analyst and political commentator. He has appeared as a guest on numerous nationally syndicated talk shows including G. Gordon Liddy, Jim Bohannon Show, NPR, Crosstalk America, Mancow Mueller, VOA and Newsmakers. He is author of “Iran: The Green Movement” and attorney at Bakhtavar & Associates, PLLC.

To All Humanity:

My freedom is yours.

You won’t be free unless you help me to get my freedom. Don’t remain silent while in the dark of night you hear screams of mothers for the lives of their kids. Don’t cover your ears when you hear the cries of the children for their mothers and fathers who have been shot by hooligans. They’re trying to silence them and me and take away the thirst for freedom when they are done with us they will look for you.

Yes, my friend, my freedom is your freedom. Therefore, I beg you, to please post on this site any media that can show injustices to freedom fighters. – Jabi, on Facebook

For the Iranian people everything begins on June 12, 2009, with their 10th presidential election since the 1979 Islamic Revolution: the challenge was between the outgoing president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the opposition’s leader, Hossein Moussavi. Their decision today is largely whether to keep hard-line president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in power for four more years, or to replace him with a reformist more open to loosening the country’s Islamic restrictions and improving ties with the United States. Another candidate, Mehdi Karroubi, is more closely associated with the core causes of the Iranian reformist movement, including the freeing of political prisoners and women’s rights, but, as a former prime minister in the 1980s, Mr. Moussavi is given great credit for having managed Iran’s economy effectively during the war with Iraq.

We are hearing reports from Iran that text-messaging has been blocked all over the country. Independent observers are not allowed to be present at the voting. Results are expected to come in early on Saturday in Tehran. Mr. Moussavi’s supporters say they remain concerned about the possibility of fraud, but a determined campaign, led by Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a two-term former president and one of Iran’s richest and most powerful men, has kept that issue in the public eye. In an extraordinary public letter on Tuesday, Mr. Rafsanjani urged Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, to prevent any fraud, and on Thursday he met with the ayatollah for three hours. “If the system cannot or does not want to confront such ugly and sin-infected phenomena as insults, lies, and false allegations made in that debate, how can we consider ourselves followers of the sacred Islamic system?” Mr. Rafsanjani wrote.

On June 13th, the Interior Ministry, controlled by Ahmadinejad, announces that he has been elected in the first round with 62.6 percent of the vote, compared with less than 34 percent for Moussavi. Turnout is an extraordinary record: 86 percent of the 46.2 million eligible voters. But the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran reports that, according to the Iranian filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, officials from Iran’s Interior Ministry would have contacted Mr. Moussavi after the polls closed on Friday night, saying that he would have won the election, and asking him not to make any announcement.

As vote-rigging often leaves traces in the results, let have a look at some interesting items:

* After a legal and controlled investigation, Iran’s senior panel of election monitors says that, in 50 cities, the number of votes cast exceeded the actual number of voters;
* Even if candidates usually win in their home districts, especially where their ethnicity should help them, Moussavi, an Azeri, lost in Azerbaijan and Karrubi won only 5 percent into his native district, with a 10th part of his 2005 votes;
* With paper ballots, a speed count is suspicious, but for this election the Interior Ministry declared victory for Ahmadinejad only two hours after polls have been closed and results were immediately authorized.

The disbelief on the part of the international community is shared by many Iranian citizens. And while the defeated candidate launches a legal appeal, what ensued on the streets of Tehran,is the largest public demonstrations in the Islamic republic’s 30-year history. There are now hundreds of thousands of people protesting in the centre of Tehran. Security forces — who vastly outnumbered the small group of demonstrators — beat the protesters gathered on Tehran’s Baharestan Square with batons and fired tear gas canisters and rounds of ammunition into the air.

All three Ahmadinejad’s challengers in the election have made public allegations of fraud after results showed the president winning by a 2-to-1 margin, so, on June 16th, the Guardian Council, made up of clerics and experts in Islamic law and closely allied to Mr. Khamenei, having the apparent authority to nullify an election, is called to certify the results. Meanwhile, Reporters Without Borders, a media rights group, is urging nations not to recognize the results of Iran’s presidential election, citing censorship and a crackdown on journalists.

Some days later, the Guardian Council announces – in a rare acknowledgment – that there have been voting irregularities in 50 districts, including local vote counts that exceeded the number of eligible voters, but that, however, these discrepancies are not widespread enough to affect the result.

The Guardian Council warned that some material on the web is ”creating tension” and must be removed to avoid ”legal consequences.” After confining foreign journalists to their hotels, bloggers are the new target of the regime. The Guardians of the Revolution consider the web as a threat and to keep images and stories on events in the country from being published on the Internet, the regime has threatened those who use social networks to spread information. Blogs and social networks have been and are crucial for the Iranian opposition to let the world know what is happening. Facebook and YouTube have been playing an important role in this too, with the former hosting longer manifestos and idea exchanges, and the latter hosting grainy film of protests and police attacks captured on cell phone cameras. But for “front line” news bulletins, Twitter has emerged as the preferred mode of clandestine communication.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday Ahmadinejad visits Russia – which has long-time political and economic ties with Iran, where it is building a nuclear power site at Bushehr. The Foreign Ministry in Moscow declares he respects the election result: disputes about the vote “should be settled in strict compliance with Iran’s Constitution and law” and are “exclusively an internal matter.”

In New York, UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon urges an “immediate stop to the arrests, threats and use of force.”

On June 19th, the U.S. House of Representatives passes 405 to 1 the following bipartisan resolution, introduced by Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.6) and Rep. Howard Berman (D-Cal.28), to support Iranian dissidents and

(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cell phones; and
(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the importance of democratic and fair elections

Lastly and most importantly, the resolution expresses Americans’ unqualified support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and the rule of law.

America is freedom and in this cause the American people will not be silent. There is no intention here to pick sides in the Iranian election, but to simply stand by those who stand up for freedom.

Monday June 22nd will go down on history for Neda Agha Soltan’s death, whose video circulated worldwide, with her proud wonderful eyes. What we have seen through her last glance is a powerful desire on the part of the Iranian people to be free.

Caspian Makan, her boyfriend, said the 26-year-old woman had not been deterred by the risk of joining protests. She was a philosophy student and loved poetry: Iran’s Rumi and America’s Robert Frost were her favorites.

He told an Associated Press reporter during a telephone call that “she only ever said to want one thing: democracy and freedom for the people of Iran.” Iran state radio blamed civilians’ murder like Soltan’s on “saboteurs” – not the pro-regime Basij militiamen who have been beating the protesters. To verify reports on demonstrations, clashes and casualties is quite impossible: Iran has ordered reporters to stay in their offices, barring them from reporting on the streets. Reporters Without Borders put at 34 the figure of reporters detained since the protests began. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists said 13 are still in custody. State radio reported today that Iranian authorities arrested at least 457 people after post-election clashes that left 10 people dead, as the nation’s clerical leaders battled to contain the worst crisis since the Islamic revolution.
Perhaps do detaining journalists for reporting news and commentary indicate the government has something to hide?

Only on June 23rd, eventually, in response to critical comments from Sen. John McCain of Arizona and other Republicans, President Obama condemns the Iranian government for its crackdown against election protesters and accuses Iran’s leaders of fabricating charges against the United States. If only he would have read the new nationwide public opinion survey of Iran conducted by Terror Free Tomorrow – The Center for Public Opinion (“TFT”), the New America Foundation, and KA Europe SPRL (“KA”), he would know that Iran has been deprived of the benefits of globalization such as the import of new ideas, technologies and practices. Inside their houses, the lifestyle of Iranians suggests that they are following almost every contemporary trend, from fashion to the use of technology, above all in Teheran, but, as a student wrote on Facebook, Iranians don’t want to have to worry about too many rules: “We want the rest of the world to be open to us too. Ahmadinejad doesn’t think bigger than Iran, he thinks that Iranians will be happy if he gives us a bag of potatoes. But we want more.”

More than 70 percent of Iranians also favor Iran providing full inspections and a guarantee not to develop or possess nuclear weapons in return for outside aid and investment. In another consistent trend over the past two years, 77 percent of Iranians back normal relations and trade with the United States. Sixty-eight percent also favor Iran working with the United States to help resolve the Iraq war, while 60 percent back unconditional negotiations with the U.S. The Iranian people have proven that they desire a free, democratic and internationally and due to the Iranian people and social sites such as Twitter and Facebook the world can no longer ignore them.

– Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, The Shah of Iran

These were the words uttered by the distraught Shah of Iran when, grieving, he reflected on his downfall just before his demise in exile. The tormented former “King of Kings” ardently nurtured a deep-rooted conviction that the Carter Administration, in cooperation with the British Secret Intelligence, ordered and ensured his fall.

During World War II, England and the Soviet Union jointly invaded Iran, dividing the nation into two zones of occupation as the English and Russians had previously done in 1907. In the North, the Soviets secured a viable supply route and in the south the British placed their oil interests under their direct protection. Reza Shah, father of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, and the Nation of Iran were humiliated by the subjugation of Iran’s domestic and foreign affairs to their conduct by foreign powers. King Reza Shah, who had implemented numerous progressive social and economic reforms, was ousted by British and Soviet forces and replaced by Mohammad Reza Shah, his twenty-year-old, inexperienced son. The British and Soviets, wielding little sympathy for the mass populace, occupied Iran.

In the North, the Soviets promptly and forcefully revived Iran’s Communist Party with the objective of undermining the royal regime and installing a centralized Communist government. With Soviet assistance, the Tudeh party constituted itself as a pro-Soviet Communist party with its central management in Soviet Union. Meanwhile in the South, the British set monarchists against religious fundamentalists, fundamentalists against nationalists, nationalists against monarchists, faction against faction, and tribe against tribe with a “divide and conquer” agenda. Accordingly, Iran sank into social disorder, political disarray and economic hardship. Under foreign domination by both the Communists and the British, the Iranian people welcomed an increasing role of the United States. By 1946, the Iranian government crushed the pro-Soviet Tudeh party that had been infiltrating the nation and threatening to divide Iran.

Increasingly, Iran became dependent on the United States as a counterinfluence to the Soviets and British. As early as December 1954 the Shah noted

“the potentialities of friendly and close relations between the people of Iran and the United States are immense. There is a deep and fundamental identity of national interests which overshadows everything else. We both believe that the individual is the central figure in society, and that freedom is the supreme blessing. . . Iran has a great deal in common, in convictions with the Western world regarding freedom and democracy.”

He branded his regime’s politics as “positive nationalism”.

In January 1963, the Shah announced democratic reforms as part of a six-point program called the White Revolution, a program of reforms to divide landholdings such as those owned by religious foundations, grant women the right to vote and equality in marriage, and allow religious minorities a greater share in governmental offices. Ruhollah Ayatollah Khomeini led a movement among radical fundamentalists to oppose equal rights for women and minorities and the reform policies of the Shah. On January 22, 1963, Khomeini dictated a vigorously worded declaration denouncing the Westernization of Iran and economic reforms and human rights as anti-Islamic.

However, the Shah did not per se attempt to “Westernize Iran”. Iran was since its inception a Monarchy. Instead the Shah sought a pro-Western policy to counter the Communist Soviet Union. Iran’s socio-economic and foreign policy objectives were closely tied to the capitalist world, in direct conflict with the communist ideology of Soviet Union and fundamentalism of surrounding nations.

In contrast, the Iranian fundamentalists sought to eradicate pre-600 A.D. Iranian culture and history and supersede it with an exclusive focus on post-600 A.D. This is in line with Khomeini’s decrees, such as one issued on March 21, 1963 in which he declared that Persian New Year (“Norooz”) celebrations be cancelled and that references to pre-Islamic Iran be eliminated. In 1964 Khomeini was arrested and exiled to Turkey. On September 5, 1965 he left Turkey for Najaf, Iraq, where he spent 13 years as an exile out of touch with the Iranian people and culture. On October 3, 1978 he left Iraq for Kuwait, but was refused entry at the border. After a period of hesitation in which Algeria, Lebanon and Syria were considered as possible destinations, Ayatollah Khomeini embarked for Paris. Once arrived in Paris, Khomeini took up residence in the suburb of Neauphle-le-Chateau in a house that had been rented for him by Iranian exiles in France. Subsequently, journalists from across the world visited the cleric, and the image and the words of Ayatollah Khomeini soon became a daily feature in Iran and across the world. The BBC and other agencies broadcast nightly interviews with Khomeini beamed into Iran, which incited the people against the Shah.

In November 1978 then President Carter nominated George Ball as a member of the Trilateral Commission. The commission acted under the direct control of the National Security Council’s Zbigniew Brzezinski, an ardent opponent of the Shah of Iran. This commission cultivated a clandestine Iran task force. While serving on this commissio,n George Ball championed cessation of United States support for the Shah and clandestine support for Rubhullah Ayatollah Khomeini who, albeit in exile, led a proletariat Islamic opposition. Pursuant to this agenda George Ball sought to garner the support of Robert Bowie, who was at that time the Deputy Director of the United States Central Intelligence Agency.

Meanwhile, Iran and British Petroleum commenced negotiations in Tehran, Iran concerning the renewal of a twenty-five-year-old extraction agreement. These talks collapsed because the British demanded exclusive rights in Iran’s future oil output and refused to guarantee purchase of the commodity. The disintegration of the these negotiations was domestically branded as a step towards nationalization of Iran’s oil for the first time since 1953. Subsequently, the Shah turned to prospective buyers in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere. The Shah had increased Iran’s control over its oil resources, implemented progressive economic and social initiatives, undertook speedy process of capitalist reforms that focused on industrialization, increased Iran’s military capabilities and sought to build a strong, prosperous and independent Iran; however, his goals and policies became the bases for his eventual downfall.

In mid-January 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini returned and the monarchy collapsed on February 11, 1979. Subsequently, Iranians, many of whom believed in Ayatollah Khomeini’s promises of freedom and democracy, voted by a national referendum to become an Islamic Republic on April 1, 1979. They also approved a new constitution, and Khomeini became Supreme Leader of Iran. But Khomeini did not fulfill his pre-revolution promises to the people of Iran. Instead, he started to marginalize and crush the opposition groups and those who opposed the clerical rules. He ordered establishment of many institutions to consolidate power and safeguard the cleric leadership. During his early years in power he launched the Cultural Revolution in order to Islamize the whole country. Many people lost employment, and books were revised or burnt according to the new Islamic values. A newly established Islamic judicial system sentenced many Iranians to death and long-term imprisonment, as they were in opposition to those radical changes. The current regime continues many of the policies of the regime of the now-deceased Ayatollah Khomeini, including revising and eradicating Iranian history, culture and identity.

Perhaps the revolution and subsequent consequences would have never occurred if the Carter Administration had not taken the helm. No doubt, neither President Richard M. Nixon or President Ronald Reagan would have paved the way for the arrival of the current theocracy. Criticizing the Carter Administration’s handling of the crises in Iran, President Reagan said “I did criticize the President because of his undermining of our stalwart ally, the Shah, I do not believe that he was that far out of line with his people.” Former United States President Richard Nixon was the sole United States representative to attend the Shah’s funeral in Egypt.

To the present, many Iranians believe that the Carter Administration and the British intervened in 1979 and paved the path for the Shah’s demise. Sympathetic remarks about the revolution by high-level Democratic American officials, such as Bill Clinton, who dubbed Iran a “democracy”, and several former members of the Carter Administration, indicate the pretentious attitude of these officials. These officials should be reminded that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, erroneously labeled by foreign journalists as the “Leader of Iran”, exerts minimal control in Iran. Rather, pursuant to the Iranian Constitution virtually absolute power is in the unelected “Supreme Leader” Ayatollah Khamenei.

Iran is an absolute theocracy and lacks the basic foundations of even a limited form of democracy. Perhaps, if the Carter Administration had not undermined the Shah of Iran, the regime itself would have implemented the proper foundations for a modern democratic republic or constitutional monarchy. Modern Iran could have been an “island of stability” in the Middle East. Without the Carter Administration’s misguided foreign policy initiatives, Iran, similar to Japan, Denmark, Spain or England, could today be a close U.S. ally with a hereditary monarch and a democratically elected President or Prime Minister.

President Carter’s misguided approach to raising human rights (catered to fundamentalists and communists) in the context of US-Iran relations, led to the Shah’s fall. Iran then became a theocratic abyss, whose radical fundamentalists tolerated far more abuse and torture of political prisoners than the Shah ever had, and supported a stream of terrorist acts and causes. The individuals who comprise Iran’s theocracy are now the worlds, as well as the vast majority of the Iranian people’s greatest enemies.

Now, Barack Obama has said that he is inclined to meet with the internationally controversial Iranian President at the right time after due preparation and advance work by US diplomats. Contrary to mainstream media views, the President of Iran is virtually powerless. Any candidate for the presidency of Iran must first be vetted by a hard-line group of twelve clerics who are controlled by the un-elected Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei. During the recent election for President of Iran the members of the Guardian Council disqualified over ninety-eight percent of the candidates, including all female candidates and virtually every single reformist. Hence, although Iran has elections, these elections are simply fodder for the mainstream media, providing straw figures to distract foreign politicians like Barack Obama.

Many of Barack Obama’s national security policies are sideways backward-looking and retreads from the Carter Administration. Obama supports direct negotiations with the Iranian theocracy, opposes support for pro-Democracy Iranian groups, and advocates open lines of relation with the most corrupt members of the regime. All this works to legitimize the dictatorship.
The signature moves of Obama are to be too noble for mere politics, but the team of foreign policy security advisers that his administration looks likely to field is the constellation of advisors and policy staff that will render him just another “high-toned liberal” doomed to failure. The Obama team is composed of a combination of the young and inexperienced, a retreads of the usual suspects, characteristic of the Carter and Clinton Administrations, lofted up from poorly grounded gray matter of liberal universities and think tanks. The team members may be united by with good intentions; but without appropriate grounding, they are likely on the road to disappointment and failure.

Among the few prominent figures are Zbigniew Brzezinski who was President Carter’s National Security Advisor and a veteran of multiple failures in Iran; Lt. General Merrill McPeak, designer of untimely Air Force retrenchment and stillborn change during the Clinton Administration; Gregory Craig, aide to Ted Kennedy and an exuberantly creative Clinton partisan who defended his President at the impeachment; and Susan Rice, the black hole of talk and inaction.

President Bush has consistently reached out to Iranian people, a nation that Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute dubbed the “most pro-American in the entire region, if not the world”, and Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called “the ultimate red state.”, while the un-elected anti-American government wields a miniscule 15-20% support.

Although we are unsure whether Obama merits to be judged by the company he keeps, his advisors appear to adhere only to the obvious immature foreign policy proffered by Jimmy Carter. In Iran, the Carter Administration helped bring down one of the United States greatest allies and infiltrated modern terrorism. The lack of intellectual and moral clarity about global threats and how America and the freedom seeking people of the people of Iran and other mid-east nations should respond will make them incapable of acting on the crucial deeper game.

In early October, members of the separatist Kurdish Workers’ Party (“PKK”) stationed in northern Iraq, instigated a clandestine military attack, which led to twelve casualties. This attack is a minuscule part of a spate of intensified attacks by the Kurdish Workers’ Party. The Kurdish’ Workers’ Party, whose agenda includes the autonomy of Turkey’s southeast region and an end to Turkish assimilation, have infiltrated segments of northern Iraq and Turkey. Keen to ferocious tactical which include, but are not relegated to kidnappings, beheadings, tactical bombing, and pillaging. This month alone, the Kurds have racked up a body count of 42 Turks and kidnapped eight others. In just twenty years, the organization, which is designated a “terrorist organization” by the United States and Europe, has murdered over 30,000 people.

Feeding on rampant sectarian violence in Iraq, the PKK have intensified their militaristic approach. Contrary to their glorified public relations campaign, the PKK is not a heroic counter-interventionist movement. PKK’s Marxist ideology and treacherous brutality is an aberration in a society recognized for its tolerance. Turkey’s ethnic Kurds, the majority of who recently voted for the Justice and Development Party, oppose PKK’s agenda. The Kurdish people recognize that the guerrilla fastidious escapades have promoted regional and international political upheaval. Once, isolated and prone to factionalism, the guerrilla movement is on the rise due to the dire situation in northern Iraq.

The Turkish government, which believes Turkish citizens should have no loyalty outside of the state, has responded. On October 17th, the Turkish parliament voted 507-19 to authorize cross-border raids into northern Iraq to root out the PKK. Turkish General Yasar Buyukanit angrily touted, “We are determined to make those who cause this sadness grieve with an intensity that they cannot imagine,” Prime Minister Erdogen, leader of the moderate Islamic Development Party said “Turkey shall intimidated.” Turkey recently amassed over 100,000 troops on the border with Iraq backed up by tanks, artillery warplanes and helicopters. Turkish jet fighters and helicopters pounded suspected rebel hideouts in Turkey and northern Iraq, strategic maneuver condemned by U.S. and Iraqi governments. The U.S. and Iraqi government fear that Turkish intervention could destabilize a moderately tranquil segment of the volatile region.

The two nations believe Turkish military intervention may deepen tension between diverse ethnic groups in the region, deteriorate loose coalitions and trigger a sharp increase in global oil prices. Neighboring Iran and Syria, which are both home to substantial Kurdish minorities, may be pressured to intervene. Even minimal ethnic friction in Iran, a predominately ethnic Persian nation, may escalate the fragile region. But the United States must balance its desire for regional stability with steadfast support for and cooperation with the Turkish government.

Turkey chastised the US-led invasion in Iraq, but it subsequently provided vital strategic airbases for U.S. flights into Iraq and Afghanistan. Turkey, a secular Republic with fragments of institutionalized democracy and constitutionally protected rights is a natural ally of the United States. But the once-friendly relationship between the U.S. and Turkey has waned due recent U.S. political maneuver seen as threatening to Turkey’s national sovereignty. Turkey, once a proud US ally with a populace generally supportive of the United States, is now one of the least America friendly nations in the world, this according to a recent Pew Research Center poll.

The Turkish public, largely opposed the US governments unilateral decision making in the Middle East, including the Kurdish quandary. A recent counterproductive resolution by the US congressional committee condemning the Ottoman Empire for genocide against the Armenians over ninety years ago farther agitated the Turkish public sentiment. Detrimental and untimely decisions, such as these, undermine our long-term interests in the middle-east.

Besides an array of rhetorical assurances, the U.S. government, has done little to pressure provincial, regional and national Kurdish political heavy weights. Masoud Barzani, president of the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq, must be confronted by the U.S. and the central Iraqi government. To its credit, the Iraqi government recently announced it will set up checkpoints to restrict the PKK’s movement and cut their supply lines to their mountainous hideouts. Military reports that the U.S. is supplying the Turkish government with PKK hideouts locations is a constructive political maneuver. But the United States must do more to provide channels of cooperation and mutual understanding between the Turks and Americans. Enthusiastically supporting the Turkish government’s justified campaign against the Marxist-terrorist organization may help mend bridges as well as ensure victory for a progressive democratic Middle East.

After the advent of the September 11th attacks, General Perez Musharraf’s militaristic regime, metamorphosed into a stalwart cohort of the U.S.-led war on terror. Confounding conventional wisdom, the Pakistani government cut financial, cultural and military ties to the Taliban, supplied the U.S. government with key intelligence, dissolved financial assistance to madrassas and denied educational visas for foreign Islamist students. This began a string of actions in the region that intensified the Pakistani people’s perception of Musharraf as a yes-man of U.S. foreign policy. Unfortunately, most Pakistanis, including Islamic fundamentalists, secular-nationalists and religious-moderates, are infuriated by Musharraf’s enduring obedience to Uncle Sam’s robust demands.

In a questionable April 2002 referendum, General Pervez Musharraf was “elected” president, by garnering a mountainous ninety-eight percent approval vote. This controversial ballot, which featured a predisposed two sentence query reeking of government-backed implantation, was challenged by prominent Pakistani legal experts as unconstitutional. Among the measures most prevalent critics is the revered Chief Justice of the Pakistani Supreme Court. In an ill-conceived and evidently hasty maneuver, the government reciprocated against dissident opinion by ousting Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, which resulted in wide spread denunciations and protests. Consequently, Chaudry was reinstated, but on November 3rd, the military regime subsequently dismissed 7 of 13 Supreme Court Justice (including Mr. Chaudhry), imposed a curfew, suspended the constitution, banned several publications and arrested prominent journalists. This form of government sponsored oppression is hardly promising for those who are wary of the increasingly unstable domestic situation in Pakistan.

But President Pervez Musharraf’s regime deserves praise for its achievements. Its ability to balance Pakistan’s domestic interests with international obligations is certainly laudable. On October 2, 2007, “The National Reconciliation Ordinance” was initiated by Musharraf’s Pakistan Muslim League and Bhutto’s Pakistan’s People’s Party, a monumental deal which seemed to profoundly enhance Musharraf’s political ambitions. This ordinance, which revoked anti-corruption charges against former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, strategically transformed a former formidable opponent into a strange bedfellow, albeit temporarily.

On October 18th, Benazir Bhutto, the 54-year old former prime minister, was enthusiastically greeted by over 200,000 of her ardent supporters. But minutes before Bhutto’s convey was scheduled to arrive at the tomb of the founder of Pakistan, Mohammad Jinnah mausoleum, two suicide bombers detonated bombs, murdering over 130 of her supporters. These horrendous attacks may complicate the volatile political discourse in Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto’s husband blamed the Pakistani intelligence service, under direct control of Musharref. This accusation was swiftly denounced by Musharref’s cabinet ministers who cited Ms. Bhutto’s pretentious return to Pakistan as motivation for the attacks. The aforementioned alliance reeks of feeble seasonal tides rather than a durable democratic alliance.

President Musharraf remains fairly popularity but astute political heavy-weights believe his popularity and political coalition are deteriorating as stakes in Pakistan’s highly volatile political situation heighten. A recent bombing in Karachi on May 12th and 13th which killed 40 people was carried out by members of General Musharraf’s loose national coalition. So far, over 350 innocent people, including women and children, have died in the last three months. Furthermore, Pakistan’s two mainstream coalition parties, led by former Prime ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, have garnered widespread affinity among diverse groups undermining Musharref’s iron-fist grip.

General Pervez Musharraf once enjoyed an unchallengeable relationship with the Pakistani military, but he is now confronted by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, who are vigorously and clandestinely gathering support from disgruntled generals and intelligence officers. Recent alarming polls show thirty percent of the Pakistani military as sympathetic to fundamentalist factions and a public cynical and dissatisfied with the status quo. This dissatisfaction has resulted in four failed assassination attempts on President Musharraf’s life.

The hard-line military establishment and fundamentalist religious clerics have minuscule prospect of victory in democratic elections, but they are astute architects of social upheaval and emotionally-driven oracles of Islam. Their ruthless vigor coupled with emotionally driven radicalism makes the assassination of Musharraf not only a possibility, but a probability. If the United States is preoccupied by the prospect of a nuclear-armed Islamic Republic of Iran; it should be obsessed with the probability of a nuclear-armed Pakistan ruled by trigger-happy regime with an evil eye towards the United States.

During the 1970′s Iran’s Shah propelled Iran into becoming a dynamic middle-east regional power. The Shah implemented broad economic and social reforms, including enhanced rights for women, and religious and ethnic minorities. Economic and educational reforms were adopted, initiatives to cleanse politics of social upheaval were systematized, and the civil service system was reformed. When sectors of society rioted to demand even greater freedom, the Shah promised constitutional reform to favor democracy. In the face of Soviet and fundamentalist Islamic pressures, constitutional reform remained on the back burner, as the Shah built what on paper was the world’s fifth or sixth largest armed force. In 1976, it had an estimated 3,000 tanks, 890 helicopter gunships, over 200 advanced fighter aircraft, the largest fleet of hovercraft in any country and 9,000 anti-tank missiles.

The Shah used Iran’s military might to address regional crises consistent with foreign relations goals of the United States. The Nixon and Ford administrations endorsed these efforts and allowed the Shah to acquire virtually unlimited quantities of any non-nuclear weapons in the American arsenal.

In accordance with the pleasant US-Iran relations then-existing, President Carter spent New Year’s Eve in 1977 with the Shah and toasted Iran as “an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world”. Nonetheless, between 1975 and 1978, the Shah’s popularity fell due to the Carter administration’s misguided implementation of human rights policies. The election of Mr. Carter as president of the United States in 1976, with his vocal emphasis on the importance of human rights in international affairs, was a turning point in US-Iran relations. The Shah of Iran was accused of torturing over 3000 prisoners. Under the banner of promoting human rights, Carter made excessive demands of the Shah, threatening to withhold military and social aid. Carter pressured the Shah to release “political prisoners”, whose ranks included radical fundamentalists, communists and terrorists. Many of these individuals are now among the opponents we face in our “war on terrorism”.

The Carter Administration insisted that the Shah disband military tribunals, demanding they be replaced by civil courts. The effect was to allow trials to serve as platforms for anti-government propaganda. Carter pressured Iran to permit “free assembly”, which encouraged and fostered fundamentalist anti-government rallies. The British government and its MI6 intelligence agency also heightened the Shah’s precariousness. The government-controlled BBC presented Iranians with a dossier of twenty hour newscasts detailing the location of all anti-Shah demonstrations and consistent interviews with the exiled outcast Ayatollah Khomeini, making a religious scholar few Iranians knew about into an overnight sensation.

When the Shah was unable to meet the Carter Administration and British demands, the Carter Administration ordered the Central Intelligence Agency to stop $4 million per year in funding to religious Mullahs who then became outspoken and vehement opponents of the Shah. Unfortunately, the Shah’s efforts to defuse the volatile situation in Iran failed, despite the grant even of free and democratic elections. Confronted with lack of US support and unleashed Mullah fury, the Shah of Iran fled the country.

Subsequent to the Carter Administration’s ill-conceived foreign policy initiative, Iran is now a dungeon. Ayatollah Khomeini’s dictatorship executed the Shah’s prisoners, predominantly communist militants, along with more than 20,000 pro-Western Iranians. Women were sent back into servitude. Citizens were arrested merely for owning satellite dishes that could tune to Western programs. American diplomats were taken hostage, and the Soviet Union invaded Iran’s eastern neighbor Afghanistan as a result of this chaos, allowing it to secure greater influence in Iran and Pakistan. The struggle against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and the defeat of this invading Superpower with help from the United States under President Reagan gave rise to the radicalization and emergence of Muslim zealots like Osama bin Laden. Moreover, within a year of the Shah’s ouster, Iran on its western flank was locked into the Iran-Iraq War, in which the U.S. sided with secular Iraq and its military dictator Saddam Hussein.

In retrospect, the Iran-Iraq War would never have occurred had Jimmy Carter not weakened the Shah’s regime. This conflict cost the two nations more than 500,000 lives, including thousands of Iranians killed by Saddam Hussein’s use of chemical weapons. The Iran-Iraq war triggered the rise of Saddam Hussein as a major power whose invasion of Kuwait was repelled by Desert Storm. The United States refrained from deposing Saddam Hussein in a continuation of the Desert Storm operation out of concern that the resulting “power vacuum” would be filled by Iran’s Ayatollahs.

Thus Jimmy Carter’s misguided implementation of human rights policies not only indirectly led to overthrow of the Shah of Iran, but also paved the way for loss of more than 600,000 lives, Iran’s rule by Ayatollahs, the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait and Desert Storm, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, and the mass murder of Americans and destruction of the World Trade Center towers on September 11, 2001.

The conscipuous benefits for Thompson becoming the President are on the surface. One of his subtle advantages is that he is not a hidebound career politician and has enjoyed a competent career as a lawyer, an actor, and as a politician, of course. His career as a lawyer gives him credibility as a professional. His political career gives him knowledge of power and makes him appreciate federalism and the Constitution. His acting career gives him “immediate face/name recognition” among voters. Moreover, as the long-running NBC television series Law & Order, that he was a star of, was especially popular among women, a Thompson race would smooth the gender gap which is prevalent in the GOP.

He is a lawyer, an actor and a former Republican senator from Tennessee. Thompson is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and he takes part in researching national security and intelligence as a Visiting Fellow with the American Enterprise Institute. Thompson is a public speaker of the Washington Speakers Bureau, and an analyst for ABC News Radio. In addition, he publishes a blog and podcast daily on the ABC Radio web site.

Thompson was a senator from 1994 to 2003. His record in the Senate shows that he was on the right side of every significant issue. Being a Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs he voted for national-debt reduction, efforts to privatize elements of Social Security and other problems. He was strongly for the legislation in the interest of free enterprise. He opposed many tax measures and was against the growth in social-welfare programs. He sustained the “decentralization and disfranchising of unconstitutional government programs” and an amendment to prohibit flag burning. Being, a strong conservative, he opposed partial-birth abortion, and cloning. Most importantly, Thompson was and up to this time is steadfastly supporting democratic initiatives in the Middle East.

What is astounding is that although being conservative Thompson is liked “by people on both sides of the aisle”. He is also well liked in the Senate, even though he has been out of it for several years. He exudes poise, buoyancy, confidence and leadership which people seek in a President, especially today. He has a realistic and trustworthy seize of national-security issues necessary for a President, predominantly in the light of the terrorism threat. Fred Thompson certainly cares about the future of the country and the people and he is clearly vigorous and active enough to make a Presidential run.

What is of abundant paramountacy is that Fred understands the everyday American and they understand him. He has stalwart bipartisan appeal and he is open for the efficacious advancements still he is a firm conservative. Fred Thompson has collected in himself the best leadership qualities of the past Presidents: tenacity of Harry Truman, perseverance of Franklin D. Roosevelt, charisma and charm of John F. Kennedy, and communication skills of Ronald Reagan. Thompson is expected to announce whether he is joining the electoral race sometime in July. All facts are telling he will join the game, however his decision cannot be predicted. Up to August, the voters should hold their breath waiting for his decision to come and repeat what Ronald Reagan once so eloquently said “how can a President, not be an actor?”

The ostentatious militaristic build-up of the Red Chinese has perplexed even the most astute military experts. The coordinated project has led to “the largest military build-up the world has witnessed since the end of the Cold War,” says Richard Fisher, a China specialist. The expiated pace of this build-up stress experts to contemplate whether China is being full-hearted when it portrays its rise in military power as peaceful. Chinese visits to the United States have been showered with a glowing array of peaceful interludes and promises of maintaining the status quo. As the United States battles Islamic fundamentalists keen on undermining the foundations of democracy, as well as passionately working towards the promotion of democratic reform in the Middle East, China has been feeding on the envy many nations have against the dominance of the world’s only super power by providing economical, social and militaristic support.

A recent Pentagon report reads “the United States remains the central focus of China’s military, with emphasis on “attacking stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, and helicopters, while defending against precision strikes, electronic warfare, and enemy reconnaissance”. The study notes that “China does not face a direct threat from another nation. Yet it continues to invest heavily in its military, particularly in programs designed to improve power projection. The pace and scope of China’s military build-up are, already, such as to put regional military balances at risk.” China’s defense budget is rising. It is adding an estimated 50 short-range ballistic missiles per year, its Navy is equipped with the latest Russian made destroyer, longer-range intercontinental ballistic missiles are common, and the lethality and accuracy of Chinese missiles are on the rise, amongst other disturbing trends.

In 2007 China’s defense spending will rise eighteen percent, the largest annual rise in spending in recent years, according to a forecast by Beijing’s legislature. The hefty increase means that the Chinese have doubled their military spending since the early 1990’s. While China maintains that its yearly military budget is around thirty billion most personnel inside the Pentagon put that number around ninety billion. There has been some concern in the United States over this rapid growth but most experts, including the State Department, believe China is merely trying to contain Taiwan rather than expand its power.

Experts who voice the axiom that Chinas military growth is related to containing and eventually unifying with Taiwan are obsessive compulsive over the near future and suffer from Alzheimer’s when it comes to China’s past. China has already been termed a “credible threat to other modern militaries operating in the region” by the Department of Defense and, while Chinas military growth may primarily be concerned with Taiwan in the short term, evidence shows that China is building its military, intelligence, influence and resources to directly confront the United States. China’s ambition is to replace the United States as the predominant power in the region, the continent, and eventually the entire world. The United States needs to pay more attention to China’s rise to power and prepare for the worst case scenario…another Soviet Union.