By Roger L Simon
The struggle of the Iranian people against the violent, sadistic theocrats ruling their country has been in my life for over two decades now, so it was with some weary sadness I read the following in the Times of Israel:
“US special envoy Steve Witkoff suggested on Thursday that the Trump administration prefers a diplomatic resolution, rather than a military one, to the ongoing tensions with Iran, sparked by the regime’s deadly violence against protesters.
“ Asked in an onstage interview at the Israeli-American Council conference in Florida if he thinks a US military strike against Iran is likely, Witkoff responded, ‘I hope there’s a diplomatic resolution. I really do.’
“The US envoy said a diplomatic agreement with Iran would address four issues: “(1) nuclear enrichment, (2) missiles — they have to cut back on their inventory; (3) the actual [nuclear] material that they have, which is roughly 2000 kilograms enriched anywhere between 3.67 percent and 60%; and (4) the proxies.”
As if it’s all about the nuclear issue and weaponry for people being tortured and shot in the streets, often for nothing more than removing a hijab.
What comes to mind immediately are those clichés, “déja vu all over again” and “rinse and repeat.” Negotiating with the mullahs has always been a fool’s game. Whether for reasons of extremist theology or old-fashioned stonewalling or—most likely—because they play the long game, much longer than we could ever do, they can negotiate into oblivion, and nothing ever happens. The Islamic Republic remains the monster that it is.
Meanwhile, we are being inundated with contradictory news about what President Trump is planning. The latest is that a possible strike on the country was delayed by, of all people, Benjamin Netanyahu. Considering the Israeli PM is no friend of the Ayatollah and his bloodthirsty gang, why would this have happened? Amit Segal, whose daily newsletter from Israel is excellent, has three possibilities.
- Israel doesn’t have enough interceptors.
That’s the most obvious answer, and it makes some sense, but not much. Even if stocks are low, it would be worth it for Israel to risk a few hits if the strike topples the regime. - The planned American response is small or symbolic and therefore too limited to make a real impact.
In that case, Israel’s request might be a call to scale it up. According to reports, the head of Mossad—who landed in Washington this morning for meetings with U.S. officials—believes this to be the case. - It’s all part of a deception and testing operation—forcing Iran to mobilize its defenses, reveal positions, and exhaust resources against a strike that may never come.
What may be at the root of all this presidential indecision, if that’s what this is, is the old saw “When you strike at a king, you must kill him,” popularized by Ralph Waldo Emerson and more recently on cable’s The Wire. Trump knows there is no room for bungling when it comes to finishing off the mullahs. They must be destroyed once and for all, or the mission could well backfire with negative ramifications not only for him, but for what’s left of the Western world.
I don’t know where to place my bets on this one, but I have to admit, on the other issue du jour, I am more concerned about what will happen to the 90-million-plus Iranians, Persian and otherwise, than I am about the ugly madness in Minneapolis. Yes, I would like to see Tim Walz and Jacob Frey fry (without the e) for allowing unfathomable amounts of fraud for their own pathetic electoral benefit. But in the long run, ICE will continue its work until it is finished, which should be largely concluded during Trump’s term.
I guess Steve Bannon, if he were interested, would call me “Tel Aviv Simon” for my preferences, as he calls Mark Levin, “Tel Aviv Levin,” accusing me of having more allegiance to Israel than I do to the USA.
That, however, is what is excreted by a bull. I could have made aliyah to the Jewish state 60 years ago if I had been so inclined. I was never close. I love America with all my heart. When I hear the immortal song, written by another Jew far more accomplished than I or even Levin, Irving Berlin, “God Bless America,” it still brings immediate tears to my eyes. To me, America is Reagan’s “shining city on a hill” that others should look up to, that should lead the way for humanity.
Partly because I love America so much, since the outset of this century, I have developed tremendous sympathy for the benighted people of Iran, a fair number of whom escaped to the city I was living in, Los Angeles (aka Tehrangeles). I met many of these refugees when I was CEO of PJ Media, beginning roughly two decades ago. We would bring them in to appear on the fledgling PJTV, one of the few outlets to give them a voice. (I also would journey out once a week to a small studio in the San Fernando Valley to read out the news in English via satellite to Iran.)
Among my friends then were the mother-daughter team of refugee activists, Manda and Banafsheh Zand. Banafsheh now runs the Substack “Iran So Far Away.” Her latest entry. “Paying for the Bullet: How the Islamic Republic Extends Punishment Beyond Death,” has a bloodcurdling lede: “According to multiple reports from inside Iran, families who have lost loved ones to state violence during the latest wave of protests are now facing an additional, calculated cruelty: being told they must pay the government for the bullets that killed their loved one before they are allowed to retrieve the bodies for burial.”
It’s hard to imagine anything more sadistic. However, there are some even more evil (government-enforced rape of female virgin prisoners before they are killed, as an example) that Sheryl and I dramatized in our 2007 Iran screenplay, “Keys to Paradise,” and which Sheryl wrote about in an early post for this Substack.
Nevertheless, the likes of Steve Bannon shrug, because, y’know, “America First.”
That’s not “America First” to me. And I hope not to you.
First published in American Refugees
