As everyone knows, the United States and Iran have a long and tangled history dating back to the middle 1950s. It was then that the CIA helped to overthrow Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadeq and reinstall the Shah of Iran as the leader of the country. The thinking at the time seems to have been that Mossadeq would have moved the country into the orbit of the Soviet Union, while the Shah was very open to an alliance with the West. During the height of the Cold War it was almost inconceivable that an American administration would allow such an important ally fall to the hated Soviets, and the US went to the mat to prevent that from happening. So the Shah was returned to power and all was well with between the US and Iran… until the Iranian Revolution of 1979.

It was in 1979 that President Jimmy Carter (D-Ga) decided to abandon the Shah in the face of the Iranian Revolution that was being led by the religious conservatives in the nation, and who drew their spiritual inspiration from the long exiled Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. President Carter reasoned that the Ayatollah Khomeini would be a wise and benevolent ruler, especially since he was such a religious man. Unfortunately for the Iranian people, the Ayatollah Khomeini was a hard line Islamic cleric who instituted Sharia law, seized control of the press, and became a power hungry dictator…while wrapping his megalomania in the veneer of religious piety. And the Ayatollah bequeathed to the Iranian state several things that plague the nation to this day: a theocracy that subjugates the people and that seeks to export the “revolution” by making Iran the leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. They bankroll Hamas, Hezbollah, and the “insurgents” in Iraq that work so hard to destroy the budding democratic government in that country.

But to the complete and utter shock of the ruling mullahs the Iranian Revolution has come full circle, and now the Iranian people seek their ouster. In 1979 the young people of the country took to the streets to demand the end of the Shah’s tyrannical reign, shouting “Death to the dictator”; today the young people of Iran take to the streets seeking the death of the religious dictatorship foisted upon them by Khomeini. Then the young people were confronted by the police and security forces of the shah; now they face the thugs sent after them in the name of the Ayatollah Khameini. The 1979 revolution ended with the splintering and replacement of the Shah’s regime, and we can only hope that this revolution meets with similar success.

From the moment that the mullahs attempted to certify a clearly fraudulent election result that would return their hand selected puppet Mahmoud Ahmadenijad to the presidential office, the Western world had been open in recognizing the election for the fraud it was. The European Union, the Germans, the British, even the United Nations has openly questioned the election results in Iran. Yet the leader of the free world, one Barack Hussein Obama has done his best to appear both strong and noncommittal at the same time. His reactions have been lukewarm at best, starting with some pap about “vigorous debate” within Iran to his most recent statement that lets the mullahs know that “the world is watching.”

What Obama seems not to understand is that the world is not just watching the happenings in Iran, but that the world is watching him as well. Our allies are watching him to see how he handles a crisis, and what the United States is willing to undertake in the defense of freedom around the world. Our enemies are watching to ascertain the same things, and to see whether the president is strong or weak. And so far they have seen nothing from President Obama but abject weakness. He seems bent on being non-offensive so that the Iranian junta will be willing to sit at a conference table with American diplomats, instead of supporting the forces that could overthrow the very junta that he seeks to engage.

Obama must realize that at some point, his ‘above the fray’ posture needs to give way to a more realistic position in the foreign relations arena. Pretty words at an Egyptian university do not excuse the President from taking a stand on issues that scream for his attention. The President and his advisors, who are so keen on European opinion, can this one time look to the Europeans and follow their lead. He can follow them in their support for the freedom of the Iranian people who so obviously are demanding their liberty from a repressive, backwards regime. A government for, by, and of the young people of Iran could be the greatest engine of democracy in the Middle East ever seen. These are people who are not antagonistic towards the Western world, who are actually looking to us as a model of what they can be, and ask only that our leadership let them know that they are not alone in standing for freedom. The Senate and the House have answered the call by passing resolutions that affirm that they stand with the people in their fight to be heard and respected by their government, so now is the time for President Obama to finally take a stand for freedom.

Concerns about past acrimony and shop worn bromides about ‘diplomacy’ should be cast aside in favor of taking a stand for freedom. Mr. Obama has plenty of words for his friends at CBS, CNBC, ABC, and the White House Correspondent’s dinner, so why not a few for people who are risking their very lives seeking their freedom? We are waiting to see if Mr. Obama is eloquent in the defense of freedom, or simply grandiloquent in the pursuit of his own power. I pray that the President will find his voice and start to become a leader on this issue.

Now is the time for the President to live up to the words of the Marine’s hymn, “to fight for right and freedom.” Now is the time to lead Mr. President, the world is watching, and history will be your judge.

There are many reasons to distrust the Democratic Party, among them their penchant for tax increases, governmental interference and growth, and their tendency to support social engineering as good policy. But the issue that gives people the most pause with the Democrats is their seeming fundamental fumbling with foreign policy. The last two Democratic administrations have presided over the loss of Iran to Islamic extremists, the loss of valuable secrets to the Communist PRC, and the complete boondoggle of building nuclear reactors in North Korea in exchange for their “abandoning” their pursuit of nuclear weapons.

This morning on Fox & Friends we were treated to another shining example of the obtuseness of Democrats in the field of foreign policy. Gov. Bill Richardson (D-NM) was being asked by host Steve Doocy about the recent Iranian missile tests and the prospects of actually sitting down and negotiating with Iranian President Ahmadenijad. In answer to the inquiries, Gov. Richardson goes into this speech about how we should negotiate with Iran, but not with their President; according to Richardson, we should be talking to the “moderate” clerics in Iran, and besides Ahmadenijad is not looking too strong in the next Iranian presidential elections!

To which I say, WTF!?! This is just the type of foolishness you can expect from Democrats in the realm of foreign affairs, and it would be funny if it weren’t so serious. In what world does Mr. Richardson live, where the presidential politics of Iran even matter? Does he not understand how things work in Iranian politics? And who are these “moderate” clerical plenipotentiaries that he expects to negotiate with?

In case Gov. Richardson doesn’t understand, there are no free elections in Iran, so their presidential elections do not matter. The President does not run anything in Iran, the Guardian’s Council does, and no one is even going to be on the ballot unless the Council allows it. And you can bet that anyone serving as President of Iran is but a mouthpiece for the Council; that person is no more independent of the Council than Quisling was independent of the Nazi Party. So worrying about upcoming Iranian presidential elections is a waste of time and energy, because whoever occupies that office is still the puppet of the Council.

As for the idea that there are “moderate” clerics for us to talk to, that is laughable. There may be some moderate clerics in Iran; as a matter of fact I am pretty sure there are some. The only thing is, they don’t sit on the Guardian’s Council, and they damned sure are not the highest cleric in the land! You can talk to a million moderate clerics, but that will not do you any good so long as the Guardian’s Council exists. They are the only group of clerics in Iran whose voices matter, and they are committed to the Islamic Revolution launched by Ayatollah Khomeini and have actively worked to export their revolution all over the region. And these are the people we are supposed to be negotiating with?

This is what makes the Democrats so dangerous in foreign policy; they see everything as analogous to our political system. You see it when they urge endless jawboning when action is urgently necessary, and you see it when a person who should know better puts his faith in a change of the President in a country ruled by a council of twelve clerics! They fail to realize that these foreign governments don’t work like ours, and mostly are not interested in working with us! Iran is not interested in negotiating with us; they are interested in our ultimate destruction and in their ascendance to the position of primary power in the Middle East. Nothing else really matters to them, and the quicker the Democrats figure that out the better off they will be. Then they can have a say in the foreign policy of the United States that makes sense, and is not diametrically opposed to our national interests.

God help us if these people get their hands back on the foreign policy apparatus of the United States, because they are a disaster waiting to happen.