Sunday, November 06, 2011



The original April 2006, article was scrubbed by very active, pro-Iranian Mullah, Google techies soon after it was written and posted but luckily it had been cross-posted on by Ramin Etebar, himself an anti-Mullah activist at the time and not too long ago, became available to me again. This was in very early days for AntiMullah. The handful of posts in 2004 and 2005 were retrieved articles that other sites had kindly posted for me.

We were content to get some 25 visitors a day rather than the thousands who currently show up.

The Iranian situation, quite apart from my personal political inclinations, had taken such a turn for the worse with the election of Ahmadi-Nejad as President that there was a dire need - SIMILAR TO WHAT WE FACE TODAY (because we failed to act then) - to examine drastic measures.

Less than a decade later we face a highly exacerbated, even more globally dangerous threat than we did back then.

To which, having a pro-Islamic, (undeniably) anti-American best interests President of the USA,  has weighted everything toward a "final solution" as foreseen in 2006, becoming virtually the only effective solution.

Other than bowing to Obama's and his Moslem Brotherhood colleagues' desires and surrendering to a worldwide Islamic Caliphate he is working diligently to facilitate. 

In the interim years, we have learned much more about the murderous brutality of the Mullahs, intransigent Islamic Sharia laws, the unresolvable impossibility of Islamic tenets accepting any political leadership, any borders, any laws other than those they attribute to Allah and the Koran. And the realization that democracy of any kind is incompatible with all of Islam.

Takes a long time for reality to penetrate the self-serving filters and vote getting or vote loss prevention "correctness" politicians adopt but there a appears to be a sudden epiphany that being friends with Islamic Iran or accomodating the demands of Islamists in general and their "we are victims" false profile,  will resolve nothing.

On the contrary, invites enormous death and destruction, not only of our physical bodies but of our spiritual beings, social cultures and behavioral beliefs.

The word or concept of "freedom" fits nowhere in Islam - except in their preceived freedom to make demands they refuse and never allow anybody else in a reverse situation.

Sauce for their goose is definitely not sauce for our gander!

Considering the present war drum rolls from a finally open eyed Europe (aware of Obama's inability to do his job) in hindsight this analysis from some five years ago is almost prophetic.

Some comments/updates have been added in red into my original article.

 Alan Peters

© by Alan Peters (

PROLOGUE: Military Tactical, Strategic and Intel analysts fall down the same chute that Politicians seem to slide into. An almost total lack of real life assessment capability of Iranian mentality.

Most scenarios and opinions appear to be formed, even by the supposed "experts", on their contact with Iranians of various kinds, mostly those living abroad and as ex-pats offering a "skin deep" mis-perception of who the Joe Six Pack Iranian really is.

Or use the "skin" layer covering of the Iranian populace presented by those inside Iran, who have the ability to easily communicate with the outside world. Probably as little as 3% of the nation.

This thin covering layer of intellectuals, students and mostly outdated politicians going back to the Mossadegh era, with some to the monarchy, have no role to play at this point. Other than mind games.

Thrashed, killed, discouraged and rendered impotent over a quarter century of violent suppression, they only have philosophical and academic energy to contribute to a regime change.

They can neither muster forces to fight the neo-Islamic regime of Ahmadi-Nejad, intensely populated by Revolutionary Guards in all executive positions, nor be active in any kind of regime change till their freedom of speech is restored without fear of violent and deadly retribution.

Beneath that skin cover is a very different flesh, blood and guts that is virtually ignored, thus throwing off analysis and skewing decisions. This distortion becomes aggravated as Arabists, with openly pro-Mullah lobbyists advising them, instead of anti-mullah Iranians, are charged with making policy and Iraq situations are used to provide givens that do not fit the Iranian landscape.

Update: for some time, even before Obama took office, virulent Islamists have worked their way into positions of giving advice and guidance to those in power in the USA. Before  Obama it was mostly in Congress and some government departments. Now it is directly operating from inside the Oval Office. Quite a dramatic shift in power in their favor.

Instead of basing concepts on input from the thin skin layer with which we come/came into contact in the West, including a limited profile of those inside Iran!

Poll the 400,000 street kids who live in cardboard boxes for a touch of new reality - the Mullahs shut down all orphanages shortly after coming to power.

The hundreds of thousands of workers who have not been paid in months, sometimes nearly a year.

Those who will be arrested and abused as the crackdown on un-Islamic dress code becomes an excuse to arrest and abuse girls and women.

And those who, come September, (2006) will face rationing of gasoline for their vehicles and will often be unable to get to work at all or obtain food and daily necessities.

Again, only some 2% of the population of 70 million inside Iran are among these, who can make themselves heard to the analysts and tacticians. And/or distort the reality the flows beneath that.

An all day, live poll by an Iranian TV station, Channel One, in Los Angeles, where call-ins were accepted from inside Iran, usually from cell phones, provided a response of at least 50% of callers stating openly they would welcome USA bombing raids, even if civilians died in the process. As long as it removed the Mullahs.

Comment: does anyone think this has now changed in favor of the Mullahs and their regime?What follows may read like a bizarre, politically incorrect, war-mongering treatise. But then you, personally, did not fail to face down Hitler politically; probably did not endure his concentration camps; fight his storm troopers; nor were among the millions, no, tens of millions of dead in World War II. Neither did I but that's not the point.

Comment: you have heard, however, or read about Hitler days and how similarly to Obama and others before him,  the West tried to accomodate and "persuade" him to be nice to us. Like Obama insisting on talking to Islamic Iran "without preconditions" or current Presidential candidate Ron Paul insisting on being friends with Iran so that they do not do anything "bad".

Deaths that occurred exactly for the same reasons we had with Hitler then, we use again to avoid seriously opposing Ahmadi-Nejad and his Hojatieh neo-Islamic Iran. As a result, not simply risking but blithely inviting a repeat in spades of what went wrong last time we had a global threat, where we tried so hard to avoid confrontation.

Negotiate, appease, and procrastinate with an enemy who needs a Hiroshima, Nagasaki response to blow out his war candle - in concept - rather than necessarily by a real nuclear explosion.

We diddle while the world burns - or is about to. Trying to stay within accepted political parameters of the impractical, corrupt United Nations, which appointed Iran to the Vice-Chairmanship of the UN Disarmament Committee, a wishy-washy European Union and trying to achieve common goals with Russia and China – we thus try to do the impossible to escape adopting the real life, only practical solution.

Comment: After their active participation in Libya and the emerging and alarming rise in power of the terrorist spawning Moslem Brotherhood, Europe is finding some resolve, which they failed to have with Hitler. Finding the "Iranian" Uranium refining capacity in Syria helped sound the "wake-up!' alarm.

None of the reasons touted to prevent firm and perhaps brutal action against Iran, based on political or humanitarian correctness, are supposed to be a global suicide pact, which increasingly becomes the most likely result from our lack of decisiveness.

And leads to the question of which "innocent" lives are we supposed to save and protect?

Those trapped inside a country of a brutal and heartless Islamic regime, hell-bent on destroying the West and imposing a monolithic, Islamic Caliphate dictate on the world? Or avoid collateral damage – probably around 20,000 civilians (in 2006), during attacks on some 400,000 targeted MILLITARY people at some 5,000 known locations – but allow the tens of millions to perish if we do not "sandblast" Iran to clean it for a saner future administration.

If only our world leaders had shown guts, confronted Hitler, and stopped him a tiny bit earlier before he really got going. (The same refrain holds true today with Iran in particular and Islam in general).

Will we be moaning a similar refrain about Ahmadi-Nejad and his atomic or oil weapons and apocalyptic religious beliefs in a decade or so? After the fall of our civilized world to senseless destruction he promises with every breath? (Does this now resonate in your mind?)

Or do we resolve to kill nearly half a million Iranian military and paramilitary personnel – not civilians - to save millions of others – both inside Iran and around the world?

Do we need to destroy that many? Do we kow-tow to bleeding hearts who cannot see further than the tip of their noses and to vested interests or do we, like surgeons, take out the scalpel and excise the deadly cancer that has pervaded the global body's health?

This "total" excision requires the destruction of every, I mean every, military site, barrack, piece of equipment, even trucks and small arms in one massive, conventional weapon, bombing campaign. Night and day until every objective and every elite Pasdar, Basiji, Ghods Brigade and similar core unit ceases to exists.

A run at nuclear sites to bury or destroy them, again with deep penetration conventional weapons, would round out the attack yet becomes almost secondary as a prime objective.

Without the Mullah regime players in place, the nukes become less consequential.

Within some weeks of intensive, non-nuclear bombing and continued air support to mop up and "keep the peace", a more intense Libya operation, we would have wiped out the fanatical core of the Iranian "military" – personnel, weapons and equipment.

But no Mullahs? Without inserting troops into Iran? Pretty much so. At that point, the populace will take care of the Mullahs.

Without their repressive "military and para-military" bodyguards to defend them, the Mullahs will fall prey to the people of Iran they have abused for so long. Revenge will take place on a neighborhood level and on a national scale.

Resentments against those who have enslaved, tormented, tortured and killed will suddenly find free reign to exact retribution for past wrongs. Down to little villages where the clerics have raped, killed, corrupted and executed at will for over a quarter century.

The uprising of the people, something so many people (including those inside Iran) wish to promote, will, for the first time, be pragmatically possible without fear from the Mullahs and their henchmen. For the first time, the populace can then speak and act freely without being repressed.

No, the populace will not hate America as apologists and pro-Mullah adherents espouse to prevent an attack!

The Iranian population in general has fairly warm feelings toward America as was shown when they swarmed into Iranian streets to sympathise with us when the 9/11 attacks and deaths took place. They will have those who angrily mourn their own dead from the collateral or targeted damage BUT when the grief settles into an euphoria from the lifting of the Mullah yoke, appreciation will replace it. Iranians are traditionally a pragmatic minded populace though, like so many in the USA, too often naive.

Will they rise up? Give me a university street corner, megaphone and ten minutes to harangue them after their fears abate and see what can be done. (Obviously, I speak Farsi).

Clearly radio broadcasts and TV stations (not the insipid Voice of America and similar ones hogging regime change budgets) from outside the country, some which connect to people by cell-phone as they often do now in Los Angeles (Channel One), for example, and conducted the recent poll, would be more effective in mobilizing the masses than my single megaphone.

Same easy principle of dry tinder or powder and a spark, though.

Comment: knowing this, Obama has excoriated any anti-Mullah statements from our Voice of America (VOA) and other broadcasts into Iran to the point of firing all who were anti-Mullah regime and replacing them with pro-Mullah operatives, including NON-American Iranian nationals. Somethat liberal Rudi Bakhtiar,  a relative of the last pre-revolution Prime Minister, Shapour Bakhtiar  (later murdered in France by a Mullah assassin) was fired by pro-Mullah management and marched out of VOA under guard!

The BBC has also been infiltrated and corrupted by pro-Islamic Iranian activists, hobbling/crippling that organization, too.

This myth of "hating the USA if attacked", falsely based on Western mentality and mindsets, plus pro-regime apologists and some well-wishers with families in Iran, unable to see into the future if we fail to act, totally ignores the Joe Six Pack, Persian thought process.

Unwilling to shed blood themselves, more gentle in nature than commonly perceived, the man in the street of Iran, chafing under the boot of the Mullahs will not openly or publicly support the death of fellow Iranians – as a whole – but will not hate whoever takes out their hated ones – the Mullahs and their Pasdars, Basijis etc.

Families of those grieving for their lost relatives in the military will have to consider their neighbors, too. They will be concerned for their own safety and well-being at the hands of their fellow compatriots so will not immediately rise up as a resistance against America. Specially with a prospect of a better life dangling before them.

In any event, do the math. With an average of four to a family, times 400,000 becomes about 1.5 million potential "opponents". Say even two million people angered by the direct pain they have suffered by the bombing. They are, however, mourners not combatants. They are not fighting for the survival or retrieval of their political beliefs as in Iraq.

On the other side of the scales are the millions of Iranians whose pain has ceased or diminished and after vengeance against the clerics has been wreaked by them, will be ready and grateful for a new beginning. Chaotic though it may be at first.

Who fills the consequent administrative void? To get into detail here requires a lengthier article than even this one. But conceptually the answer is straightforward enough.

An "Iranian" coalition "government" or NGO of any kind set up in exile in advance, will move in with aid and succor and nominally assume administrative functions. Perhaps with some limited Western coalition troops for initial protection.

Comment: the Obama interference against any opposition organization, removal of even a vestige of financial support for anti-Mullah activists by the State Department and transfer of State Dept. available funds to infiltrators like Amir Abbas Fakhravar pretending to have been student leaders (do a Google search) but actually Mullah shills and using self-confessed Mullah supporters/representatives like Trita Parsi as consultants and advisors to set policy decisions, aggravates an already steep pro-Islamic Iran bias in the Obama administration/regime.

There is already work being done to putting into place a nationwide network of volunteers inside Iran (details being withheld on purpose) to allow a neighborhood by neighborhood set of Assistance Committees to take over and provide some formal local nucleus all over the country. (And tribal connections).

In the Khomeini revolution, after the fall of the Shah's government, the only remaining national network was the thousands of mosques. This factor alone snatched the revolution from the Marxist-Islamists and Communists and dropped it into the outstretched hands and open mouths of the Mullahs.

The aftermath should definitely not be managed by the United Nations, which recently officially elected Iran to a vice-chair disarmament committee membership (2006). (And used the IAEA Egyptian General El-Baradei, married to a female relative of an Iranian Ayatollah to cover up Iran's nuclear progress).

Again, Iranians respect strength and with the Mullahs now "gone" (mostly dead by the hands of Iranians), while demanding the world for aid and food and shelter they will not attack as did insurgents in Iraq.

The final nail in the coffin of the late Shah was when he was persuaded by liberals like Ehsan Naraghi to speak to the people and tell them he "got their message" when they thronged in the streets against him at the behest of Khomeini and pro-Soviet agitators like the Marxist-Islamist, MEK (Mojaheddin- e Khalgh) and Fedayeen.

The social infrastructure in Iran in no way resembles the situation in pre-war or post-war Iraq. An insurgency, after such a massive destruction of the Pasdars etc., will not fall on fertile mental soil. Specially with the insurgents in Iraq killing Iraqis proving a lesson and example for Iranians of what not to support.

Will there be negative considerations? Yes.

Update: China's expanded and Russian entrenched interests will be vital elements and a political grab for power by the MEK and Communist Tudeh party require attention.

Outwardly, while breathing a sigh of relief, privately and secretly also admiring the strength and USA resolution, Arab nations will probably spew verbal criticism. (They are already tacitly approving an Israeli attack on Iran among themselves).

Liberal do-gooders and mainstream media will berate the world for saving them from what neo-Iran would have unleashed, never understanding the scope of it.

The Kennedy and John Kerry clan and the Bush haters will all criticize those who end up saving their hides and their continued freedom to spew nonsense without fear of lashings and execution.

Hamas and Hezbollah will send out suicide missions against Israel.

While not so minor to the Israelis, on a global scale their problem is comparatively small, could be controlled, if need be, by sending some 20,000 troops to Israel to help out - instead of trying to send some 500,000 troops needed to invade and control Iran.

As long as Iranian military infrastructure is close to intact or only partially destroyed, the populace will remain fearful of lashing out in deserved revenge and thus negate the desired result of their rising up.

There might be a spate of suicide bombers in Europe or inside the USA but none of this will be more than a drop in the ocean compared to what will happen in the next decade if we do not conduct such a bombing "sandblast".

And might well happen anyway even if we "defuse" Iran. We still have other enemies to face who use these tactics.

Though recently denying any such thought or intention, Russia sending in troops to protect their 40,000 (now 60,000) consultants in Iran might be the only serious problem to resolve in advance. (Plus China possibly moving in troops to protect regional "stability", meaning their oil interests and investments in Iran).

By the time that could effectively happen, the bombing would be "over" and the situation no longer to their advantage for inserting troops. Withdrawing their (surviving) consultants to the safety of nearby countries would prove easier. (There has already been an exodus a few months ago as Russia feared hostage retribution from Iran for not providing them promised weapons).

The total destruction of the 400,000 military elite units' personnel – as opposed to the regular Iranian forces, who have much less (if any) devotion to the Mullahs – is the essential and key ingredient to success.

There will be chaos within Iran as the pieces have to be picked up. There will be opposing factions fighting for power but it will no longer be crazy religious leaders dictating matters with impunity to an enslaved and cowering nation and a naïve, hapless world.

And the world as a whole will be a safer place for everyone, even for the remaining Jihadists in many countries or timorous French politicians or dithering British Foreign Ministers like Jack Straw.

And oil? Oil will be what oil will be. With or without Ahmadi-Nejad we will face oil problems, only harsher ones if he and his ilk remain in charge with oil  (and nuclear weapons) as a weapon. This, too is the subject of another long article at another time.


Jack Straw has been accused (rightly so) of playing both sides against the middle, yet he is simply treading water till we and the UK can figure out what the heck we are doing, can do or will do in the face of the MSM in both countries, our weak-kneed politicians and the Russian and Chinese attitudes.

Meanwhile the only one with the guts to really do anything - our own USA President  (2006) - has to deal with the dilemma the Islamic regime finds delightful and flaunts as reasons why the USA will never attack Iran militarily.

Bush's choice is really quite simple.

Does he sacrifice the world's long term best interests for the Republican party's November re-election considerations or does he ignore national politics and do what has to be done while he still can.

Reverse side of the current Obama coin?

Losing either or both houses will hobble him with legislative and budget opposition, so now may be the only clear time he has to do something forceful.

While some may disagree with this article as being too drastic, I have twisted, turned and cogitated to find anything else that will work - both inside Iran and for the world - that provides fewer (immediate or longer term) deaths or casualties as a result.

Estimated collateral damage might go as high as 30,000 non-combatant Iranians from the bombing but how many will die around the world and continue to die inside Iran if we do not do something drastic?

The neo-regime of Ahmadi-Nejad has already started to execute prisoners by the dozens in the last couple of weeks. The Ayatollahs killed some 30,000 back in 1988/89 so why think Ahmadi-Nejad and the Revolutionary Guard will have qualms now to not duplicate that number?

(UPDATE: The estimated average number of OFFICIAL and less "formal" executions  in Iran during the last couple of years is, give or take, about ONE every EIGHT HOURS!) 

They are "cleaning up" the streets by gathering up and exporting homeless street girls and deserted women, selling them to the Gulf sheikhdoms as sex toys or "indentured servants" (slaves) with the Morals Police, in charge of the clean up, pocketing the proceeds.

Selected ones are kept to populate secret brothels owned and run by prominent and second level Mullahs.

Meanwhile, as of this Saturday,(2006) - as they did in the early days of Khomeini - they are once again roaming the streets and arresting pretty ones for "un-Islamic dress code".

These victims frequently end up being forced to have sex with their captors to be released. Having sex often takes the form of several nights of gang rape by various shifts of the jailers.

Abused and dishonored they are freed, with many committing suicide. Just as they did when the non-Iranian usurper Khomeini first invaded Iran. He never had a drop of Iranian blood in his veins from either his mother or father. (And by upbringing was more aSunni than Shia. Like our usurper Obama).

To round out their imposition of harsh conditions and increase the number of excuses to cow the populace, Iran has ordered the Morals Police to also accost anyone walking a dog in public or seen with a cat in their arms. Or any pets. Any loud noise (specially music) will be met with arrest. Decorating your vehicle will now also make you liable for arrest by the Morals Police.

Virtually anything other than total submission to the desires of the fanatical Amadi-Nejad version of Islam will receive immediate retribution.

That is the kind of administration with whom Obama is friends and and some Presidential candidate dhimmis want to be friends!

To implement the new regulations, he has launched 50 men and 50 women in black uniforms (remember Hilter's SS?) in special Mercedes cars to patrol the streets of Tehran and look for and deal with this kind of sinful behavior.

There are an estimated 100,000 homeless, desperate women and 400,000 pre-teen children living in cardboard boxes in the capital city of Tehran alone, trying to survive by prostituting themselves and selling drugs for the local Mullahs.

Incidentally, most of the younger boys also suffer the fate of their female counterparts in this slave trade.

Add to this the countless students and young men and women who cannot find a job and desperately enter the same fields of illegal endeavour to stay off the streets and live with their families, where breadwinners often have not been paid at their jobs for nearly a year.

Apart from the obvious nuclear and oil threats, does none of this qualify the Islamic regime for brutal reprisal?

Would the liberal, apologist MSM not be screaming holy murder if a tiny fraction of this was going on in their own respective countries?

Our only hope might actually be Bush's low poll ratings. He has little or nothing to lose if he steps on the side of the best interests of the world - including all of us - and the American population - by doing so. Other than seats in the two houses.

A one fell swoop success in ridding Iran of the Mullahs as described here, might quite to the contrary, become his redeeming action to restore his ratings and provide him with an honored place in history.

Not going to happen with Islamic Obama!

No comments: