Leading up to the election, Radix Journal will publish a symposium, “The Meaning of Trump,” drawing writers from across the Alt Right. This is Arktos publishing’s Editor-in-Chief Jason Reza Jorjani, PhD ‘s…
Leading up to the election, Radix Journal will publish a symposium, “The Meaning of Trump,” drawing writers from across the Alt Right. This is Arktos publishing’s Editor-in-Chief Jason Reza Jorjani, PhD ‘s entry
As far as I am concerned, this is a one issue election. We are faced with a stark choice between giving our stamp of approval to the enablers of the Islamic State or taking the first step toward seriously confronting the threat of a coming global Caliphate. Demographic projections show a Muslim majority worldwide within the 21st century, and as someone who has both studied and taught Comparative Religion it is perfectly clear to me that the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda interpretation of the Quran is the accurate one.
During the tenure of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the premature US military withdrawal form Iraq – where we should not have been in the first place – and orchestration of the overthrow of autocratic but secular regimes in the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ opened a vacuum for the rise of the first self-proclaimed Caliphate since the Ottoman Empire. With a view to destabilizing the Western-style Assad government, then Secretary Clinton worked to arm insurgents who became integral to Islamic State forces. Her toppling of Gaddafi in Libya granted the new Caliphate a transcontinental scope.
In the same period, Secretary Clinton failed to back the 2009–2010 uprising of the Iranian people against their Islamic government. While I was writing letters to her as a lobbyist for an Iranian human rights organization at the time, drawing attention to how so many young people were literally being butchered or shot to death in the streets, and tortured and raped in political prisons, Barack Obama was penning ingratiating letters to the Supreme Leader responsible for this repression in order to pave the way for his nuclear accord. Their policy was never about the threat of an Iran with nuclear weapons. Had the US backed the uprising, heeding an explicit call for American support from the Iranian people, Iran would by now be the greatest strategic ally of America and Europe.
The reason that Clinton and Obama backed, even engineered, the rise of theocratic Islamic governments in the Arab world but betrayed Persians seeking to overthrow an Islamic theocracy is that within elite policy-making circles it is well understood that the young generation of Iran has finally understood the truth about Islam and that if this regime falls Iran will become a bulwark against Islam on a global scale. Such an eventuality terrifies Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s largest campaign contributor.
As a member of an Iranian opposition think tank, I am privy to information and analyses that suggest Clinton has plans to work with the Saudis to extend and intensify the repression of the Islamic Republic as a catalyst for further fragmenting Iran into tribal microstates. This is their response to the specter of an anti-Islamic Greater Iran. They have even co-opted Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi for this purpose.
It is not enough that Clinton and the Saudis have facilitated the destruction of irreplaceable Parthian-period archeological treasures throughout Greater Iran, especially in Kurdistan, not to mention the genocide of the Kurds themselves, who together with the Persians, form the backbone of the Aryan nation of Iran founded 2,500 years ago by Cyrus the Great. Donald Trump will, at the very least, not stand against the Iranian Renaissance. When this movement triumphs, he may also have the courage to join tomorrow’s Neo-Zoroastrian Iran in the world war against those who will inevitably attempt to establish a global Caliphate.