The High Cost of Chartering Your Own Execution

 

The High Cost of Chartering Your Own Execution

History is littered with the corpses of "useful idiots"—those wealthy, idealistic, or simply power-hungry individuals who thought they could ride the tiger and somehow steer its teeth away from their own throats. Consider Karim Dastmalchi, the wealthy Tehran merchant who famously bankrolled the return of Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. He didn't just support the revolution; he literally bought the ticket. He chartered the Air France flight and paid the exorbitant insurance premiums required to bring the "Devil" back from exile.

Dastmalchi likely imagined himself a kingmaker, a pillar of a new, moral society. Instead, he learned—briefly, before the rope tightened—that religious zealots and totalitarian regimes don’t have "friends," they only have "tools." Within two years, the regime he funded labeled him a "corruptor on earth" and hanged him. His wealth was seized, and his family was scattered into the winds of poverty and exile.

This pattern is a historical rhythm, not an anomaly. Look at the Indonesian Chinese (Zhong-gui) in the 1950s. Driven by a misplaced romanticism for "New China," thousands left behind comfortable lives in Southeast Asia to build the motherland. They were greeted with parades, then stripped of their assets, labeled "bourgeois elements" during the Cultural Revolution, and subjected to brutal persecution. Like Dastmalchi, they traded their freedom for a nationalist or religious fantasy, only to find that the monster they fed didn't recognize their "contribution"—it only recognized their potential for betrayal or their usefulness as a scapegoat.

Whether it’s the Taiwanese elites in 1945 welcoming the KMT with "Long Live" banners only to face the 228 Incident, or modern-day politicians like the KMT’s Chairman Cheng heading to Beijing to flirt with a regime that views "autonomy" as a disease, the lesson remains: You cannot negotiate with a bottomless void. When you help a wolf into the sheepfold, don't be surprised when you’re the first course on the menu.

---

The French Paradox: A Centuries-Old Tradition of Setting Oneself on Fire

 

The French Paradox: A Centuries-Old Tradition of Setting Oneself on Fire

If history were a high school drama, France would be the student who burns down their own house just to spite the neighbor’s fence. There is a magnificent, almost poetic arrogance in French diplomacy—a recurring belief that they can outsmart the "crude" Anglo-Saxons by playing footsie with radicals. The 1970s saga with Ayatollah Khomeini is perhaps the crown jewel of French political masochism.

Resenting the Shah’s pivot toward the Americans and his stubbornness on energy deals, Paris decided that a bearded cleric living in a French suburb was the perfect "moderate" alternative. The French intelligentsia, then hopelessly intoxicated by Maoism and the romantic aesthetics of the Cultural Revolution, looked at Khomeini and saw a "revolutionary hero" fighting autocracy. They didn't see a theocrat; they saw a cool, exotic rebel. It was a projection of Western leftist fantasies onto a man whose world-view was diametrically opposed to everything the French Enlightenment stood for.

The fallout was a masterclass in irony. Once the revolution succeeded, the Islamic Republic didn't thank France with cheap oil and "merci." Instead, they labeled France "the Little Satan." To the clerics, French liberalism wasn't an inspiration; it was a swamp of decadence and "Westoxification" that needed to be purged. By the 1980s, France’s "hospitality" was repaid with a wave of bombings in Paris subways and department stores. They tried to use a refugee to influence Middle Eastern politics, and instead, they imported a holy war that ended in broken glass and severed diplomatic ties.

But then, this is the country that bankrupted itself to help the American Revolution—not out of a love for democracy, but purely to ruin Britain’s day—only to trigger the French Revolution and the guillotine at home. France has spent centuries engaging in self-destructive political gambling, proving that the only thing more dangerous than a French enemy is a French official with a "brilliant" plan for a foreign regime change.