Iran's Lessons, Shouldn't 'realism' mandate regime change?
The Washington Post / EDITORIAL
27-Jun-2009 (2 comments)

Still, by now it ought to be clear that the best chance to protect what Mr. Obama calls "core U.S. security interests" lies in a victory for the Iranian opposition. That may look unlikely for now. But it is considerably more probable than a turn toward detente by those now engaged in murdering young women. There may not be much that can be done to help the opposition, though some tangible steps -- more money for broadcasting into the country, for example -- are readily available. But at the least, nothing should be done that would harm the cause of change. That is not just the moral course; it is the most pragmatic and realistic.


Post's belated epiphany

by Fred on

The editorial in part says about the IRI “… now engaged in murdering young women”.  Due to its incurable fascination with and belief in Islamist reformism Wash. Post has always shied away from the horrible reality and bought into Islamist lobbies concocted scenarios. Alongside men Iranian women were being raped and murdered all during the “reformist” phase of the Islamist cutthroats’ republic. That NOW thing is just to cover for all the past nonsense Post used to regularly belch out about “reform” within the ranks of IRI.   



How about some Consistency?

by Ron Thompson (not verified) on

"The only plausible path toward ending the threat (Iranian Theocracy) poses is ... regime change."
I applaud this long overdue sentiment. But how do you square this with your unrelenting pressure on Israel with regard to the settlements, a pressure that can only give aid and comfort and legitimacy to Hamas and Hezbollah, Iranian proxies?
If you hold to the opinion of this editorial, maybe you'll finally get basic priorities right and conclude that the burden of proof on moves toward a final peace must rest with those who continue to swear they want to "wipe Israel off the map".