As each day passes, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's radical expressions are becoming a massive trove of critical danger to the international community. Despite his obvious desire not only to eradicate Israel but furthermore to install a universal Islamic republic across the Middle East, the leaders of many superpowers and democracies appear to be taking a one handed approach to pacifying the president, rather than forcefully taking action against him.
True, the use of force goes hand in hand with distrust and violent actions, yet those are not excuses to use in withholding due action against the extremist executive. Our failures with Iran go back to the days of Jimmy Carter, when the Democrat's government failed to prevent an upheaval in the country which helped create the rise of the Ayatollahs and their twisted rhetoric for jihadist dominance over the republic. Before Carter's hesitance, America had enjoyed strong diplomatic ties with the Shah, Iran's pro-western monarch who decried Muslim extremism.
Under the new spiritual leader rule of the Ayatollahs and now the joint leadership of President Ahmadinejad, Iran's government has turned into a bastion for regulation of free speech and enterprise. No longer is their desire to only speak out--they have embraced a position in the world, together with their grasp of nuclear weapons, that threatens Middle East stability like few other power blocs have accomplished before.
In keeping with basic sensibilities, I am hesitant to endorse military action against the Muslim state, yet we must begin to accept that Iran is not a small player in the race for spiritual authority in the world anymore. With the backing of a more industrialized nation such as Turkey, it could easily transform into a more formidable--and unwavering, force. All Iran which Iran truly requires however is an opportunity to strike, something which countless examples of gerrymandering by world leaders in the present day are creating.
President Obama must cease his coy strategy with the Iranian government and instead breach the walls of extremist dialog to make way for a more moderate state. Doing so would be as simple as offering support and sympathy to the Green Path of Hope, a movement which has managed to shift the fundamentals of political power in Iran and force at least some action from its leaders.
This issue cannot be treated as an off the table topic for the Whitehouse. Freedom is at stake because of fear which is rooted deeply in the hearts of political leaders. But its foundations are wholly unjustified, as a decisive move would be more than accepted by even the United Nations, which has noted the threat posed by the conservative president in Iran today. It need not be a bloodbath, but it must be an agenda item; else we shall reap the consequences of inaction.
Ayla Samadi
National Alliance Vice President for Domestic Affairs
I always feel a painful touch of nostalgic melancholy when reading of the great conquests and works of older nation leagues, and how their once indomitable circumferences of power kindled to a dying status as time goes on. And sad as it might be to deal with, I must make yet another warning marker for the oncoming collapse and assumption of irrelevance by the past great nation bloc, the United Kingdom. Even as times change, the fragile delicacy which is the British governmental system remains the same: open to deconstruction, and fragile on the preservation of individual freedom.
Largely, Britain's loss of hope is due to the shifting sands of its constitution, as well as its system of courts and legislature. Although the earliest days of British government by Walpole, and even to Gladstone and Disraeli, the olden parliamentary system worked brilliantly. Nobles presided over the House of Commons, and the prime minister was a mere extension of the still powerful monarchic authority, which at least generally knew best when it came to the country's defense.
In recent days however, the tide of good governance has turned to one instead of insipid and dangerous appeasement rule, threatening the former superpower alongside an equally deadly force in the spreading of Sharia Law within its borders. In modern Britain, a ruling body is formed by the majority party group of the Commons, which then chooses a candidate for the executive office of the nation, the premiership. Providing that the lower house possesses at least a decent majority, they essentially receive a one party mandate for the nation. Never mind the wills of the people, for according to analysts today, the country's system is far more democratic that the so called "imperialistic presidency" of the United States. Besides a slight tenure of bills within the upper House of Lords, most any law can come to the desks of Members of Parliament on a Monday, and be law within the space of several days, no matter how infringing it might be on the rights of the people.
But wait, what rights of the people? Are those not reserved for the incivility of the American system? Without mincing words, those two questions are a key particle of the reason why Britain stands ready to capitulate to the domestic insurrection of religious fanatics to this very day: the country has no central documentation of a constitution. Sure, legal commentators will point to the collections of manuscripts and royal papers which are supposed to supplant a fully adopted document for the British people, but these are hardly enough to guarantee personal liberties and freedom from government oppression.
Consider for example a recent tenant of law adopted by England, which makes the incitement of violence or religious hatred a imprisonment carrying offense. First instated by Tony Blair's Labour Government in 2006, the law gives particular shielding to those of the Christian faith, but its greater focus, after pressure from pro-Middle Eastern social groups, places exorbitant protections on the religion of Islam, which is growing phenomenally fast in Great Britain. While the world should still offer ample respect to Blair for his legacy, this law was potentially his major blunder in the surrender of the royalist nation to the extremist religion. Because although plenty of citizens speaking out against the festering radicalism of Muslim activists have been locked up by constabulary officers, the sword edge reflecting the Muslim population has overwhelmingly been blunted. In fact, the Islamic community did not think twice before helping to charge filmmaker and Dutch legislator Geert Wilders with incitement of racial hatred, as shown here. Yet even as crowds of Muslims advocated the beheading of George W. Bush, Tony Blair, and the end of the British State, the police did nothing to arrest the perpetrators.
All good intended people across the world should hope and pray that Britain's government comes to its senses, yet the likelihood of such an occurrence is not in a healthy range of any sort. For his own part, Gordon Brown only helped to encourage the Muslim extremism during his three years as premier, culminating with the banning of conservative talk show host Michael Savage from entering the United Kingdom in June 2009 due to the man's passionate tirades against radicalism within the Islamic faith.
A little more than a year later, the new and bright faced Conservative Party Prime Minister, David Cameron, given the chance to revert the damage done, instead chose to stall his action, upholding the unimportant decision against Savage. Cameron, who has run from his election to the opposition leadership in December 2005 as a progressive liberal conservative, seems wrapped up in satisfying his extended political career as a caretaker leader in Westminster, and not risking his tenure with difficult choices as an executive. Much of the world has held high hopes for the new British head of state, yet Cameron's unwillingness to take up the helm of Churchill, Thatcher, and Blair is costing the country dearly. No matter his Conservative membership, Cameron has an intense desire to be a typical European everyman premier, attune to Yves Leterme of Belgium and Frederik Reinfeldt of Sweden. In these systems, the prime minister can change economic policies, yet social or legal elements remain largely untouched as the nation is preconditioned to stay fixed in government equilibriums for these issues near indefinitely.
Whether Blair, Brown, and Cameron realize or not, their governments are helping extremist Islam to gain more influence and control within Great Britain. Placing someone who disagrees with the religion on a list alongside murderers and Nazis is not prudent; it simply hands another victory to the adrenaline pumped hopes of the most disagreeable. Unless radical constitutional and legal reforms, couples with a new system of government are firmly adopted, the once great empire will be lost to a one time vote for the application of Sharia Law across the United Kingdom. The means for such a horrific bill are present, only requiring elected leaders to turn a blind eye to allow it through.
Michael Veramendi
National Alliance Vice President for Foreign Issues
