The Iranian 1953 Coup d'état and the CIA’s Involvement

By Tetracide

The relationship between the United States and Iran has been one roller coaster ride after another. In the past, our economic ties enriched a strong yet unique friendship between the U.S. and Iran, but today, the U.S. has branded Iran as part of an axis of evil and a country which has stubbed its nose to the international demands to stop the research and development of nuclear technology. 1953 Iran was no exception.

One of those roller coasters did an entire 360 degrees around the once Iranian Prime Minister Muhammad Mosaddeq in mid August, 1953. It is a fact that a coup d'état occurred, and that coup d'état was assisted by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Anyone might conclude that this is basic knowledge of the 1953 incident. So how did the sentiment leak into the minds of the Left that we “trained his [the Shah’s] own personal secret police” or that the government which followed after the coup “was installed by the west”?

While I could dive into a diatribe of the low standards some Americans have for their own country, a historical perspective and a rekindled enlightenment of the situation that was the 1953 Iranian coup d'état are required and would be more suitable.

Events surrounding the Iranian coup are important and like many other historical issues and concepts, any discussion should start with the context of the situation. While it is odd that anyone would defend a self-proclaimed communist, it nevertheless should be established that Mosaddeq was no innocent bystander that just so happened to be trampled by the immoral CIA machine. Some like to claim Mosaddeq was democratically elected, yet this is certainly not the case. To replace the Prime Minister Ali Razmara, who was assassinated thirty-nine days before his term was over, Mosaddeq was appointed on April 27th, 1952 by Iran’s legislative assembly, the Majlis. At the end of those thirty-nine days, against the consent of the Shah, and certainly undemocratically, Mosaddeq was appointed. With a clear horizon in front of him, his quest for power was ready to begin.

Almost immediately after his second appointment, Mosaddeq demanded ultimate power over all economic, financial, and personnel aspects of the government. The Majlis refused, and Mosaddeq childishly resigned on July 16th. General Zahedi was to be the new Prime Minister but after much political unrest and even riots, Mosaddeq came back to power on the 22nd, and his bill to give him dictatorial powers over Iran for a time period of six months was passed. The Mosaddeq regime was now in place.

In complete control of his future, things only went downhill for the Iranian people. Twenty days later, not only were economic, financial, and personnel powers in the hands of Mosaddeq, but so was every aspect of Iranian life. In a failed attempt to stop Mosaddeq’s consolidation of power, fifteen Iranian generals were dismissed from service or were forced to retire. Dissent would not to be tolerated by the new regime. As the socialist he was, the dictator enacted communistic economic reform which burdened small villages and farmers to surrender 20% of their land of which would then be divided up into equal parts for the better good. Along came tax increases and the specific targeting of wealthy Iranians. If they refused to pay, they were imprisoned and their property confiscated. It was the decree of the regime that all funds gained were to be redistributed equally to the masses.

Mosaddeq’s stern nationalistic approach to his governing not only ran counter to the Shah’s wishes, but to the United Kingdom’s interests in the region. Mosaddeq’s illegal seizure of western assets spurred even more unrest. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) fiasco led Iran down an extremely difficult path of trying to stimulate its own economy. The UK oil trade was calculated in to Mosaddeq’s economic development plan, but due to Mosaddeq’s personal ego, and his lack of ability to do what was right for his country and his people, UK-Iranian relations, for the first time since 1859, were severed.

Mosaddeq quickly lost support from the military to the religious figures in Iran. The United States also saw this situation as a problem. The early stages of the Cold War were in full swing at this time, and to the U.S.-led Western bloc and the Soviet-led Eastern bloc, any political moves made around the world were considered “wins” or “losses.” With Iran’s failed economy, and severed ties with their leading foreign trade dealer the UK, Iran was left with only once choice – do business with the Soviets and thus, be engulfed into the Soviet sphere of influence.

Because the U.S. did not want to “lose” Iran, Kermit Roosevelt, a senior agent for the CIA, developed a plan to assist the Shah and opposition parties of the Mosaddeq regime in a coup. The operation was dubbed Operation Ajax and a total of $1 million was set aside for the project.

And we’re off to the races!

Operation Ajax had international support. British MI6 agents and CIA operatives made up the operating group. The Qashqai tribal leaders arranged for the two governments, the UK and the U.S., to operate in secrecy in their part of southern Iran. With a footing in place, and the objective clear, it was time to act.

Unexpectedly and only a mere hours before the coup was to take place, Mosaddeq was tipped off. Iranian troops loyal to Mosaddeq spread across Tehran intercepting pro-Shah soldiers in their tracks. Despite what seemed to be a huge setback, CIA agents on the ground as well as General Zahedi himself thought otherwise. Kermit Roosevelt and Zahedi agreed that if the Shah sent a decree detailing the removal of Mosaddeq and the appointment of the lawful Prime Minister, General Zahedi.

The CIA made the arrangements, but before there was any implementation, another decisive blow to the operation came about when the Shah was reported to have fled to Baghdad. Kermit and CIA operatives on the ground now had no communication with the Shah to inquire him for the two decrees needed. In a last ditch effort to instigate the coup, and taking advantage of Mosaddeq’s premature removal of Iranian troops in Tehran, the CIA contacted the Associated Press in New York as well as some Tehran newspapers and told them the coup leaders were armed with the two decrees hoping the Shah would get the message and follow through.

On August 17th, the Shah got the message, and made an announcement that he had signed the decrees however some feared that it was too late. Pro-Mosaddeq newspapers declared the end of the Pahlevi dynasty and the Communist Party’s central committee attributed the coup had failed. Just as the CIA were packing their things to go home, heads hung low, word on the street changed and pro-Shah rallies raged through the avenues of Tehran. Iranian CIA agents, without specific orders, led the crowds to vandalize and overrun pro-Mosaddeq newspaper publishing buildings. Things were moving far more quickly than even the CIA had anticipated. An Iranian general that helped with the original coup days before showed up in front of the Parliament with a tank. Truckloads of military personnel were at every large intersection. In light of the situation, Mr. Roosevelt personally brought General Zahedi to one of the radio stations which were already broadcasting the success of the coup and the decrees from the Shah. Zahedi addressed the nation for the first time as Prime Minister.

Well, let’s hold on a second here. What did the CIA do again? Did they amass the crowds, arm them with AK-47s and point them in the right direction? Actually no, they didn’t. The will of the people and Mosaddeq’s totalitarian and communistic views and policies is what triggered the movement. While the CIA was packing their things due to their failure, the Iranian people stepped up. The full $1 million wasn’t even spent. A measly $75,000 was spent on only mobilizing personnel.

Hindsight is always 20/20, and in light of the aftermath of the 1953 coup, blatant blaming and condemnation of the CIA expectedly follow, but the question still remains; how did the sentiment leak into the minds of the Left that we “trained his [the Shah’s] own personal secret police” or that the government which followed after the coup “was installed by the west”? The CIA surly did not set up any training camps, nor was their any installation of a leader. The Iranian people followed the will of their legal leader, the Shah. Simply and honestly put, the CIA set an already strong movement in motion, and made room for General Zahedi to take his rightful position.

It is in the wish of history, that accurate perspective and informed conclusions remain potent. In 1953, Mosaddeq’s regime was one of brutality, social, and economic unrest brought about by communism. The United States, being the beacon of freedom and prosperity that it is, assisted little in the removal a dictatorship, and that is simply all.

The New Manifest Destiny

by Hobbie

The prevailing wisdom among the cultural "elites" in America is that the concept of manifest destiny, which emerged in the early and mid 1800's, was in fact an amoral imperialistic endeavor designed to forcefully assimilate or annihilate the Indians for hegemonic expansion. Nevermind the previous century and a half of unmitigated warfare; first against the Indians, then against the French and French-allied Indian mercenaries, and of course the two subsequent wars against Great Britain, followed by even further skirmishes against Mexican militias. Just ignore context, and embrace the fact that our forefathers were the forerunners to fascism. Simple enough? Good.

Now fast forward some one hundred and seventy years and take a look at modern-day America. Culturally magnanimous. Economically superior. Militarily unstoppable. Oh, and of course, once again engaged in an imperialstic endeavor designed to forcefully assimilate or annihlate people (this time Muslims) for hegemonic expansion. The prevailing wisdom seems to depict a pattern of behavior for this "evil empire" we've created. What's an ashamed and guilt-ridden American to do?

The answer to that question is "I have no idea." I'm not an ashamed or guilt-ridden American, but if you want to hear from some, I think Harry Belafonte is offering free guilt seminars in addition to his renditions of the "Banana Boat Song."

Manifest Destiny was, contrary to popular belief, not an evil plan for domination. It was not a hegemonic power grab. It was not a campaign to wipe out the Indians. It was, simply put, a campaign to further explore, chart, and settle the territory that Thomas Jefferson acquired in the greatest land appraisal of all-time, the Louisiana Purchase. Much of the political rhetoric surrounding the expansion of the nation was less focused on the necessity of expansion, and more centered on the debate of free states and slave states and the role that they would play in new territories. You had the occasional caterwauling of a Whig, opposed to the idea of rapid growth, but the debate wasn't as much about expanding, as much as it was about how to expand.

Population growth certainly had a great deal to do with the burgeoning of manifest destiny. But so did national security, and the pursuit of liberty. The west offered opportunity for blossoming entrepreneurs, classic adventure capitalists, and poorer families seeking to start a new life. Yet, expansion also served another purpose. The acquisition of new land, resources, and territory provided additional buffers against further foreign incursions from either the British Empire or the armies and militias in Mexico. This is what the debate should focus upon, as opposed to the rhetoric of the America bashers.

Unlike actual imperial powers, like Japan, the United States did not send its armies into the west to establish control, pillage the indigenous tribes, and seize the land by force for the purpose of consumption. The effort was spearheaded by American citizens and American families, all following some rather sage advice on Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The goal was not to dominate. The goal was to emancipate. This has since been lost in the annals of history; rewritten and forged into a myth about lust for power, when, if anything, it was lust for liberty.

Now fast forward one hundred and seventy years to modern-day America. In the aftermath of a tragedy of catastrophic proportions, America is once again engaged in her manifest destiny. The region is not the west. The region is the east. Specifically, the Middle East. And the battles, once again, are being waged for security and liberty; yet, it is not just for our interests this time. It is for the interests of free peoples everywhere. And yet, the elite and the America bashers have returned, and right on schedule. Instead of liberty, they see oppression. They'd make Orwell proud.

The 21st Century opened with a revelation of a global enemy with global support seeking to establish global oppression; and in that opening salvo, thousands perished. In return, America has reassumed her role of emancipation. This is the new manifest destiny:

Yet now there are only two options before our country — victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party because the security of our people is in the balance.--George W. Bush

Let's roll.

When the Going Gets Rough

By Chingu

America and American’s share a history of overcoming obstacles and hardships. The very founding of our nation was an enduring feat of providence that beat overwhelming odds. We faced up to the British Empire then thought (and rightly so) to be the preeminent power on Earth. And, we won our freedom. We fought our way out from underneath the tyranny of the crown. The going got rough and we overcame.

In a world of assorted government bodies, mainly monarchies, a collection of thinking men gathered and combined talents to script a paper that would forever embrace the spirit of humanity. In that incredibly well thought document, “The Declaration of Independence.” A national ideal was born and lives on to this day. Hopefully, we will see that torch of insight lit brightly well into the future. That document declared that all men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights. This concept mandated that a form of government be created that would embrace those seemingly simple truths. Not an easy road to travel. Not in a world where such a concept had come and gone several times and had failed due to certain inadequacies. The Venetians, the Romans and the Greeks had all dared to ponder similar concepts but they’d not considered the most important aspect. The Declaration of Independence covered that.

These founding fathers, as we now so name them, took on a task as bold as any. In the dim light of new nation they debated and argued and thought and voted and finally scribed a document worthy of their consideration. The Constitution was born and the United States of America was a nation governed by the people for the people. That was a tough battle that took serious men incredible energy to consider and agree upon. The going had been rough. But, we overcame.

Through thick and thin, the American has endured hardship. All the glory that is ours to either enjoy or squander was not won with restful and satisfied bellies. We would face a crisis and we would overcome it. The Civil War was one such crisis wherein the future of our grand nation, then a fully sovereign new world boldly growing and prospering faced a divergence of views not reconcilable through debate, diplomacy or the penned word. Suffice to say the going was tough. America survived.

We faced as a people a world devolving into a period of wars that would encircle the globe. We saw the rise of terrible powers in the Japanese immoral Imperialists and the Nazi Germans and the Fascist Italians who’s aim was to recreate the world under the iron fisted control of a militaristic few. And as the world fell like dominoes, one nation after the other, it wasn’t until the Americans rose up in defense of their collective vision of liberty that the world order was set right again. Oh, the going was tough - the outcome uncertain at best. But the ideals of liberty prevailed.

Again we faced the rise of evil. The Soviet Union wrote in their manifesto; a national directive, to bring Communism / Marxism to the world. Their aim was to defeat all other forms of government and to hold the people of the world hostage to this new concept rooted in fairness. Of course, that fairness was at the expense of the individual and ignoring the individual ignores the concept of Liberty and therefore, Marxism was in direct opposition to the ideals that American’s had learned to hold dear.

This new superpower, having risen out of the ashes of World War Two, threatened our liberty. The challenge was as simple as winning or loosing – a challenge we’d faced before. But now, the stakes were higher. No longer would there be pitched battles but these would be replaced by nuclear weapons capable of shattering entire cities in one blow. Defending against this new enemy was no easy task. It took the best minds and the greatest strategies and an enduring will to protect our liberty to overcome. And, we did.

Through all of these hardships and tests of will there were the voices of appeasement. Through each manifestation of evil there were those unwilling to or unaware of the dangers we faced. In the end though, the voices of reason, with a passion unequalled, won the battle of necessity and we were able to fend off whatever challenged to steal away with our liberties. No matter how tough the road, we always managed to rise to the challenge and overcome.

And now we face our contemporary challenge. As with all new crisis, this one takes a unique form. Yet, its purpose is not dissimilar to any challenge we have faced throughout time. On one hand you have a nation of people who believe in liberty and on the other, you have a force, which intends to take liberty away.

Again, we hear the voices of those who are unwilling to face the challenge. We hear the rhetoric of the ones who prefer the status quo. They seemingly think no case is strong enough to call men to arms in the defense of liberty. Perhaps, these voices are held by those who take their liberty for granted?

We faltered in the past. We fought a war half-heartedly and failed to win. That was the Vietnam War. The idea was to contain Communism, a global policy of the United States and our allies that eventually worked despite our having failed this one time. So, we have a precedent for what happens when American’s falter. What happened was that Communism gained momentum, over a million people died, another few million were forced into Communism and the Soviet Union and Communist China were emboldened and became more provocative. The global view was that America was not the end-all be-all of the world any longer. There was an unspoken fear that perhaps the age of Liberty was dying. There was a strange acceptance in certain realms that believed any fate was better than war, and the ideal of liberty was hanging tenuously like the proverbial Newtonian Apple ready to fall from the tree.

From the post Vietnam era disrepair and disrespect, we slowly pulled up our bootstraps under the guidance of an impassioned leadership and again, Americans were re-energized with the concept and practice of Liberty. It seems that all we needed was a demonstration of how tenuous our liberty is to wake us up and set us straight.

For decades we lived with the fear of nuclear war. We witnessed two diametrically opposite strategies for preserving our liberty in the face of the threat. One, under a liberal view nearly surrendered it while, thankfully, the following preserved it and built it and then eventually defeated through attrition, the dark force of the Soviet Union. It hadn’t been easy. The going had been tough. But, we survived and overcame.

In each instance we won or survived and preserved our liberty not though appeasement or by taking the easiest path but by boldly challenging those forces of evil that threatened to compromise our liberty. We have learned over time that these forces of evil that gather like storm clouds on the worlds horizon do not dissipate when we ignore them. They do not ignore us when we fail to recognize them. They do not shrink away when we speak about them. They do not crumble under the weight of diplomacy. They are defeated by force.

We face such a crisis now. We can not say in the framework of time how far into that threat we are or how much it might grow. We can not guess the strength this rising movement of evil might gain – what momentum it might gather. But, history tells us that we should never underestimate its potential.

And as we stand on the shore of this crisis, understanding full well that the crisis exists, it is disheartening to hear the same rhetoric and the same voices as we’ve heard before. Those voices insisting that the threat is minimal, that warring with them is wrong and that diplomacy is the proper course. It is disappointing to hear these voices again concern themselves more with the nuances of domestic political power than to attend to the certain threats we face. And, it is entirely terrible to understand that such voices are willing if not eager to let Liberty fall rather than stand up and defend it.

So, we must ask ourselves what history will say about the United States here and now. Will history be written by us or by the ones who have stolen liberty away from the people? Yes, the going is tough and people have died. Yes, everything is not perfect and we are forced to sacrifice. Yes, the status quo is no longer valid and yes, the world is unfair. The going is tough. We MUST overcome.

What a Tory Revival Needs

By Lord Hargreaves

I'd like to talk about the UK Conservative Party if I may:



In some respects the current Tory Leadership contest is rather asinine, because both Davids don't really disagree on much. Perhaps this is why I still haven't decided who to vote for, because of the lack of choice - yes, both sidesplay up their differences, but they are of style and method, not substance. Both agree that the Conservative Party's problem is one of image rather than policy.

Lets focus on one clear area of disagreement: tax policy. David Cameron, in his wisdom, has called for "the proceeds of growth to be shared between tax reduction and public services".

Eh?

It seems Cameron has not learned anything - when we call for lower taxes and increased public spending at the same time, voters usually scratch their heads and wonder "How does that work?"

Answer: It doesn't, not really.

In contrast, David Davis promises a 3% tax cut of £1,200. The reaction to this was largely a rather hysterical hissy-fit, and we were treated to warnings of how if we only focus on our "core vote" we were doomed to loose again. And this is over 3%!!! How can people say belief in conservatism is not dying before our eyes?

A Tory revival starts with a 10% tax cut.

I believe 10% is a good number to begin with but the prospect of further cuts must be kept in mind — and this is the beginning of economic wisdom, and we are the party of that. Economic initiatives must be encouraged for economic growth to happen. Yes, the Treasury will say that you must cut spending to make this possible. This insistence will make tax cuts impossible.

On social policy, I believe a Tory revival must incorporate Liam Fox's vision of addressing the "broken society". Left-Wing ideas about crime, immigration, health and education should be attacked and discredited. The family is one archetypically conservative institution and should be privileged as such. Cameron has mumbled something about tax benefits, but other than this the leaders seem all too silent.

A word on foreign policy. The Conservative party should announce that European integration has gone too far. A common European market is a good idea and those commonalities that emerge naturally among its members are usually good ideas as well. But what is developing is not a European union of nations but a transnational Europe with its political centre in Brussels. This is unacceptable — or should be — to the UK. Why is this so difficult to say?

Yes, it is absolutely essential for a Tory revival that we address public services, the environment and global poverty. However there is no need for our solutions to be left-wing. The public services require real choice, the environment can only be saved with technological solutions and not a subversion of capitalism, and global poverty can only be addressed with a defence of free trade and responsibility in the governments of recipient nations.

It is also essential we do not forget that our logo is the torch of liberty - We must begin to trust the people again - to manage their own money and their own lives. The best way to start this is to restore powers to local government, and allow elections for police comissioners, and perhaps judges too.

Our party has an excellent chance of winning the next election under either Cameron or Davis, like we had an excellent chance of winning in 1979 without Thatcher. We can always find ways to win elections. I am arguing that for a true revival of a party capable of building a legacy, we must do these things.

One other thing: a conservative party historically, in all countries, has been the patriotic nationalistic party. The Conservative party of Great Britain should celebrate this spirit. Fly the flag on school buildings - bring it on baby

The Ultimate Question

By Tetracide

The left are entertaining in the fact that they put all their energy into one matter, whichever is prominent at that moment, and consistently fail to succeed or at least leave the situation with a victorious light of which they crave.

Not too long ago we had the John Bolton nomination, where the Democrats were caught off guard while gussying up for the celebrating press conference, when the President appointed Mr. Bolton directly to the UN. To the left, John Bolton was a fascist, unethical, dirty old man, and not worthy of such a position. Putting their heart and soul into every speech, they painted that man as unfit for the job, and criticized the President for sending such an obvious moron to the likes of them. However, now, he isn’t talked about at all. We haven’t heard much about him, his business at the UN, and the policies he supports or denounces.

This brings up an interesting question. If Bolton was a spawn of Satan, like the left portrayed him and many others to be, why was he suddenly ignored once the opportunity to obstruct such an evil human being was much more difficult?

The left have amazing and admirable fidelity, whether it be tarnishing the wife and kids of a Supreme Court nominee, or the giddy publicizing of the 2,000 fallen American men and women in the armed service. If history respected the opposing parties of the time more, the modern left would certainly take the cake. Horrific comments made by their idols like Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, or Howard Dean were widely accepted or quietly ignored, highlighting the fact that they refuse to protect America on the political battlefield when it is so clearly under attack from within.

A shrug or a sigh is surly in order, but one cannot help but to think where the party of hate and obstruction is headed. The presidency?

In 2004, the harsh reminder that such anger and antagonism is not strong enough to win the hearts and minds of the American public was all too apparent. However, the left, in their attempt to analyze why the right won (not why they lost), they decided to not re-illustrate their base with their solid positions and values in the arena of ideas, but to rather deceive (Hillary Clinton) and continue to increase the size of their “hate base” (Harry Reed, and many others).

The ultimate question of life is “why?” and while three letters seems easy to say, type, and write, many if not all Americans are still confused in regards to the answer the left may provide to that question. They can run and hide from answering the question for as long as they want, but until they finally answer the silent majority; the voters; the people, they will never taste the sweet taste of power they so eagerly strive for.

Muslim Thuggery in France

by Hobbie

The recent firestorm in Paris has caught media headlines. At the time of this writing, the 'riots' have been raging for nearly two weeks. On the surface, one is tempted to view the widespread mayhem as the anarchistic actions of French youth rebelling against the status quo or the social hierarchy. But the surface rarely tells the story.

The violence is almost universally comprised of Muslim youth. The talking heads of the media believe that the 'riots' are a result of disaffected and disillusioned people who feel that they are economically and socially repressed. That's probably a part of it. But let's be honest for just a few moments. This is not a 'riot.' This is a national uprising. As has been reported at Fox, , the 'riots' have spanned the course of three hundred cities and towns. This is a movement, and a very dangerous movement at that. Already, schools, cars, buildings, and buses have been burned. A dozen police officers were shot in the southeastern town of Grigny. Close to 10,000 reserve officers have been called up. Clearly, this is an uprising on a scale that hasn't been seen in sometime. So, what's the catalyst?

France is a socialist welfare state. Their unemployment, nationally, stands in the double digits (around 10%). France is also home to millions of unemployed and culturally unassimilated Muslims. Enter the "perfect storm."

While some intellectually dishonest people may be upset with the accurate analysis of the situation and thereby accuse one of 'bigotry' for pointing out the unavoidable facst that these thugs are Muslims, it's important that clear-thinking individuals recognize both the problems and the culprits. One cannot hope to solve a problem without first identifying it.

The first step is for France, and the rest of Europe, to wake up. We're at war. We're not at war with Islam, but we are at war with Islamic fascists, and it's imperative that we recognize the effect radical Islam can have on Muslim youth. There's already an underlying stigma toward the west, and France's pacifistic approach toward reform in the Middle East isn't doing itself any favors in the eyes of both peaceful and violent Muslims. Surprisingly, the French Interior Minister, de Villepin, has taken a hardline stance on ending the uprising, even threatening to use the military (I know, I know, I was shocked to hear they had one, too). This is precisely what is needed at this hour. But that's the short-term approach. The long-term approach isn't likely going to sit well with most French people.

If France, and other European nations, wish to prevent this from happening again, they must abandon their welfare state and socialist policies. You cannot hope to spurn economic growth and encourage the creation of wealth by placing the government on a pedestal, by replacing opportunity with government handouts. The entitlements and easy money available through welfare is a poverty trap. It's always there, and it stymies potential drive to work to earn a living. In France, welfare is almost an encouragement among many minority groups. Sadly, while welfare means well, it completely fails to do the very thing it's meant to do. This is where the onus falls on France--abandon the welfare state and open up the free market and limited government approach that will allow immigrants and minorities greater opportunities.

But the second half of the long-term solution falls on the Muslim community itself. Islam must find its Reformation. There's a serious problem pervading Islam--and that problem is jihadism aimed at the west. Lashing out at western nations and western society, particularly when a segment of the Islamic religion has all but declared Armaggeddon on the west, isn't a good way to make yourselves look better. The actions by the Muslim community in France is thuggery--pure and simple. It's widespread, and it's using anti-western sentiment to fuel the violence.

Where is the Martin Luther of the Islamic faith? Where are the 95 Theses? Where's the Pope John Paul II? Islam is failing to define who its leaders are, and in turn, Islam is being defined by the most outspoken of its members--mainly, the Islamofascists like Zarqawi, the new President of Iran, and bin Laden. This is why pushing and fostering political reform in the Middle East is so vital to winning the War on Terror. We have to push and push until someone steps up to the plate. People like Karzai and Jaafari are good to counter Islam's image problems, but there is no defined figurehead within Islam that stands to counter the likes of bin Laden.

Perhaps a successful and democratic Iraq will yield that individual. Perhaps a Syria-free Lebanon will.

Regardless, the clock is ticking.

'Bush or Bust'

The conservative movement must decide whether its interests still reside with the President.

by Lord Hargreaves

In this space I have already written about discontent with George Bush's foreign policy, in Where is our cowboy?, so I do not come at this from an entirely new perspective.

What is different now is not just concern over foreign policy, but goes much deeper - yes to domestic politics, but more crucially whether the base that ensured Dubya's re-election still has the confidence in him necessary for his presidential agenda to move forward in any meaningful way.

In the first term the Republican Party did have tax cuts, which have worked, and then certainly after 9/11 many people were more than aware of what needed to be the government's priority - the war on terror. Now, though, hostility over high spending, a general failure to curb federal government, and a soft stance on illegal immigration has reached a boiling point with Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the supreme court.

To critics, this nomination symbolises Bush's faults rather well. Firstly, there is the issue of "cronyism". I know some may disagree with me on this, but how come the best person for the job is always someone Bush knows? The world can't be that small, can it?

Take this from Chief Justice Roberts, just recently on CBS:

The President conducts a nationwide extensive search for the best person for the job to be the nominee to be associate justice to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor and finds her down the hall

Strange coincidence eh?

Secondly, there is a sense of arrogance, almost aloofness, at choosing this type of untested nominee when the conservative movement is spoiling for a fight. How could the White House be so caught off guard by the reaction it recieved from the Right? Has no one in the entire administration ever listened to Rush Limbaugh or read Powerline? The mind boggles.

Thirdly, the irony of the White House come-backs should not be lost either. Should a conservative Republican administration really be accusing critics of a female nominee sexist, and asking us to look at her character?

Indeed, one now senses that conservative might be ready to desert Bush, out of a feeling - not without justification - that he has already deserted them. But will they?

Can George Bush regain conservative confidence - and if not, is that the end of his presidency? And perhaps more importantly: can the conservative movement itself survive an open split with a Republican administration?

Well, of course, we know how Bush can regain conservative confidence - slash spending, drop the bizarre strategy of using "big government for conservative ends", institute more tax cuts, tougher border control, re-engage the social agenda, and even perhaps withdraw Miers and nominate a proven and outspoken conservative... someone we know the Left will be throwing themselves out of buildings over.

Yet is this realistic? From what we've seen, it seems highly doubful. President Bush is stubbon and loyal (often this is a great quality of course) and he is unlikely to change.

As the polls appear to be showing, Bush may be done without the conservative vote of confidence. So now we must decide whether it is in our interests, as the grassroots, to continue to rally behind Bush for the final 3 years; or to now look for a new leader and direction, someone who can re-establish limited government conservatism as the dominant force in the Republican Party to fight the 2008 election.

The time is nigh, and the choice is yours. Both strategies have huge pitfulls if they fail, but the right choice could lead to increased success. Needless to say I haven't made up my mind. But within the next few months, we will surely see where the popular consensus lies......