The editors of the Wall Street Journal are presenting us
with an interesting conundrum exemplified by the piece they wrote under the
title: “Khamenei the Democrat.” Because it was drummed into our heads for many
years – over and over, and over again – that Khamenei was an autocrat, we ask:
how can they now claim he is a democrat? And that's the riddle which is out
there for us to solve.
The Journal's piece also came under the subtitle: “The
Ayatollah issues a new demand on the nuclear deal,” and was published on
September 5, 2015. So the question: What's it about, anyway? Is that it: What's
it about? Well, let's see what's there which needs to be figured out ... Look;
here is something: “the Administration is looking to bring more Senators on
board to filibuster a final vote on the deal. If the absence of U.S. democratic accountability disturbs you,
consider its expression in Iran .”
It is a mouthful. But what are the editors saying?
Are they saying there is no real democracy in America ? If so,
why is that? Is it because the Administration indicated it may call for the use
of tools made available by the “greatest deliberative body in history” – to
conduct the business of the nation? Come to think of it, these being old tools
used hundreds of times over the decades, does it mean that America ceased
to be a democracy long ago, and we didn't know about it till now?
Also, what do the editors mean by “consider its [the
democracy's] expression in Iran ”?
Are they insinuating that Iran
has a better democracy than America 's?
Actually, the editors of the Journal took the trouble to explain what they mean
by that passage. They start like this: “We aren't entirely jesting.” Wow! No
kidding! They say they aren't joking, and then go on to explain: “Khamenei
announced that Iran 's
parliament, known as the Majlis, would have final say on the nuclear deal.”
Do the editors believe that? No they don't. Not any more
than they believe America
has a genuine democracy. Look how fiercely they shoot down that idea: “Khamenei
says sanctions must be permanently lifted not merely suspended, or he'll
scuttle the deal.” Scuttle the deal, huh? That's not very democratic, is it?
But the editors have a caveat that basically says the Iranian democracy is only
as hypocritical as that of the Western Liberal Democracies. In other words,
they tell the readers not to get too exercised about Khamenei's pronouncement.
Whoa, it's really getting confusing now. Can you please
explain all that? Yes; here it is: “Tehran-watchers suspect Khamenei is
inviting members of the Majlis to take up his cause … its members would never
dare defy the Supreme leader.” And there is this: “Mr. Khamenei's reservations
may not go down well with ordinary Iranians eager to see sanctions lifted, but
ordinary Iranians lack a say on anything.” It seems that the Ayatollah has
learned something from Mister Smith, except that he'll not go to Tehran and filibuster the
vote by yapping and yapping solo. He doesn't need to because he can invite members
of the Majlis to take up his cause.
Oh great God! Stop talking now and look what's happening. It
is so extraordinary it's almost supernatural. It is that the editors of the
Wall Street Journal discovered they have much in common with the Iranians. And
so, they developed a strong affinity for the way that these people do things.
The result is that the editors began to treat their Persian nemeses the way
they treat the American political class. To help them improve their
performance, the editors started telling the Mullahs what to do to defeat America – or at
least exploit its weaknesses.
Behold and be amazed: “Perhaps the smartest play for the
Supreme Leader is to have the Majlis reject the agreement but allow Rouhani and
Zarif to negotiate an understanding with the U.S. in which Iran agrees to honor
the accord in return for concessions on sanctions and inspections … The
Iranians could also make it known [they want] U.S. restraint in the region by
keeping its aircraft carriers outside the Persian Gulf.”
Those words sound like verses worthy of being called Battle
Hymn of the Islamic Republic. Maybe they represent an act of contrition on the
part of the Journal editors. Maybe these people feel they blundered when they
said: “we noted earlier this week that the Democrats own the [Ayatollah].
That's another way of saying that the Ayatollah owns them.” A complete
reversal.