Thinking About A Revolution, In Iran

For some time I've been wondering why we aren't more aggressive about destablizing the Iranian government. Why not begin air-dropping in crates of AK-47's and ammo and bombs and anti-tank missiles and radios? Certainly a lot of this would be captured by the government; but then, they have all the guns and bombs and radios they could want. (And the anti-tank missiles would be just strong enough to take out their crappy Soviet export tanks, not our well-armored Abramses).

We seem to have this national consensus that we will not promote civil war or further violence, except if its by our own military, with our military quite-humanely limiting the number of deaths to a minimum. But why should this be such an imperative?

If there is in fact a good-sized chunk of the Iranian population willing to dethrone the mad mullahs, why not arm them? Why should the Iranian government have a monopoly on weaponry?

In America, we say that the second amendment protects us from tyranny; an unarmed population fears the government, but the government fears an armed population, etc. Why not export this particular Ameican value to Iran?

Yes, some of the weapons would be used in terrorist attacks. But only very few. Those seeking a revolution don't try to alienate the rest of the population by blowing them up. The weapons would be used, guerilla style, in taking out Revolutionary Gaurds and their barracks and the local police, both regular and secret. All legitimate targets in any war.

Just wondering.

Iran certainly exports a lot of weapons and bombs to the Palestinians and Iraq. Why shouldn't we return the favor and balance the insurgent-weapons trade deficit?

posted by Ace at 03:16 PM

| Access Comments