WAR

"Major player".... Ha Ha Ha

A bunch of rag head criminals set a fire on Cinema Rex in Abadan(1978) and blamed it on S.A.V.A.K. By that execuse and other lies such as shah is giving free oil to American took power in 1979. No official establishment. It was just a gang of uneducated people who took power. They showed no respect to international norms and international community since they occupied Iran. They robbed our country for 32 years and accumulated their wealth in Canada and Swiss banks. They promoted prostitution by making left and right sigheh. Mullah's contribution to Iran history is his sperms. Each has plenty sigheh. That is all. They massacred our brothers and sisters in thousands. The major massacre took place in summer of 1988 according to Arabian law of FATWA. Needless to say our virgin sisters were being raped the night before their execution. These criminals showed no respect to Iran culture and traditions such as Norooz since they occupied Iran. Imposed idea of lizard eater arabs such as stoning and lashing people in public like animals to our poor people. Constantly made a threat to Persian history and Persian civilalization by changing our school text books from Koroush, Babak, and Kaveh to Arabian figures such as Hosaian and Ali and Fatima. Demoting Iranians to the level of bare feet desert arabs. Left and right these criminals had been threat to civilized world  and the whole civilalization. They were enemy of modernization, as it has been the echo of arab's idea from 1400 years ago. it was late Nov. 1979, these lampoons raided to Chatanoga resturant on Pahlavi street in Tehran and destroyed everything and burned the whole building later on. All one time pimps and drug dealer became Islamic revolutionay after 1979.  Even the third world nations such as pakistan and arab nations around Persian Gulf never tolerate these bastards because those nations felt these lunetic gang may do something harm to them. Their fear got more and more since they heard ruling mullahs may gets their hands on nuclear weapon. Saudi authorities have always been on state of "Uncertainity" about these monsters since mullahs unlawfully took power in Iran.

 In 1980, mullahs tried to expand their Islamic empire throughout middle east. They sent a bunch of lampoons posing as a pilgrims to Saudi Arabia. The lampoons tried to change the Haj ceremony to the scene exporting Islamic revolution to the region. The Mecca became the scene of bloodshed.  Another scenario took place in 1987 when ruling mullahs orchestered a scene of bloodshed in Saudi Arabia during Haj ceremony. According to the report over 400 people from different nationalities were killed. In the same year, they were handing out tapes of Khomainie  in Kuwait inviting them to establish an Islamic state such as in Iran. Is that "major player"? oh.. I see.

   The monkey who calls himself Iran president expressed very clearly: Israel should be wipe out from the map. What is ambigous about this statement.? it is crystal clear. It is funny to call these bastards as "major player".    

اوا، فریبا خانوم چه حرفا؟؟؟؟!!!!!

vildemose, it seems that no

vildemose, it seems that there is no one on this thread including the esteemed author who would want to characterize, define, spell out, describe the euphamisms (grand bargain, major player) that they use as the bases of their arguments.  currently, iran can be considered a "major player" in the region for the following reasons: many of important iraqi leaders (e.g. al maliki, sistani) have actually lived in iri under the guardianship of their rish o pashm brethren and are very cozy with iri.  iri is a "major player in afg with its long presence, its anti-taliban stance prior to 9/11, common language, etc.  iran has strong and somewhat nuclear ties with pak.  then there are iri's ties with syria, hezbollah in lebanaon, and hamas in israel and beyond.  not to mention iri's strong ties to the former soviet republics to its northeast, on-and-off relationship with turkey, and its sway in bahrain.

if by be recognizing iri as a "major player," one intends to give iri some kind of award, then so be it.  "and the the 'major player' award of the middle east goes to" ...[drum roll]... "islamic republic or iran."  [claps][salavat]

if by recognizing iri a "major player," one expects iri to be on the conference calls and joint meeting with western countries including u.s., saudi arabia, israel and other countries in the region, then a big fat zeki is in order if iri does not stop its terrorist supporting activities. this is in agreement with your point.  deflecting attention from issues at home (lack of human rights, dire economy, lack of social freedoms, ....) by blaming the outside world and being (or pretending to be) preoccupied by external forces/issues is the main m.o. of the iri regime.  that's why they would never want to sit at a bargaining table and to avert the rhetoric/threat of war.

meanwhile, we can all agree war is a terrible thing and wait for those who preach against war to clarify on how u.s. policy or rhetoric can shift away from it; namely, by specifying what sort of "grand bargain" they have in mind or how one can recognize iri as a "major player."  until then, they can hide in 'left ali alley.'

EA: you are not making any

EA: you are not making any sense. That is not how foreign policy works.  That’s the problem whenever this debate gets going and self-righteous declarations by populist idealogues  clear out sober examination.

A state of war only serves
as an excuse for domestic tyranny.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Born December 11, 1918

Hamsade, if you know everything why are you asking me?!

You are so quick to dismiss North Korea, it must be inconvenient.  On the issue of looking at it from the Iranian side, let's hear it from the horse's mouth Ehud Barak, Israel's former PM and current Defense Minister in his interview with Charlie Rose in late November:

 "If you were Iran, wouldn't you want a nuclear weapon?" Rose asked his guest.

"Probably, probably," Mr Barak replied. "I don't delude myself that they are doing it just because of Israel. They have their history of 4,000 years. They look around and they see the Indians are nuclear. The Chinese are nuclear, Pakistan in nuclear as well as [North] Korea, not to mention the Russians."

Now to your questions that you already know the answers, right?!

will iri be willing to have a transparent nuclear program and not support terrorist groups in exchange for no sanctions, no military threat, and no meddling in its internal affairs? 

You'll have to ask IRI oh IRI's that question! Regardless of what IRI oh IRI says I think it is important to note that IAEA is in Iran and checking stuff.  Now if they're doing a shitty job that is another story.  

Military "threat" and meddling in internal affairs can mean a lot of things and they don't really sound scary to me.  

 in your words, if u.s. (or other countries) recognizes iri as a major player in the region (i didn't know anyone was denying that!), what will the u.s. (or other countries) will get in return?

US and other countries will get whatever they pay for.  Another words if they don't buy anything they get nothing in return! 

Now about the 3%, I know and that was one of my comments that you run over (I do the same ;-). They won't change but they're not here either.  I only know of one or two commentators that openly ask for foreign military invasion of Iran to eject IRI.  None of those commentators are here in this thread, the ones here are too timid to say it openly!  They're just blaming IRI oh IRI for any "future" war.

I know you are for "threat of war" which I consider harmless but if you're all for a foreign war, let me know so I can cross you off my list of christmas cards! 

Everything is sacred

 Dear HG: How did IRI

 Dear HG: How did IRI become a major player in the region?? Answer: funding terrorist groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraq's Badr group, syria, and any other anti-US interests in the region.

If the IRI gave up those activities, it will no longer be a "major player"?

Vision of IRI for the region is diametrically opposed to the vision of US et al. Clinton offered to recognize IRI as a "major player" in the region but only in name not in any meaningful way.

I'm still confused on the definition of "major Player" truth to be told. How does one become a major player in the ME?? Supporting terrorist groups who are anti-Us interest?? Becoming puppet or Russia and China?? I really don't know what it means and what the IRI will gain by being "recognized" by the US as a "major player"?? What is the IRI after anyway in the region??

A state of war only serves
as an excuse for domestic tyranny.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Born December 11, 1918

esfand, i'll be straight

esfand, i'll be straight with you that i don't read all comments as some people leave way too many commens, too long of a comment, or irrelevant comments.

i'm trying to look at this objectively.  i don't need to tell you that iran is situated in the smack center of oil region in the world.  and we all know how important oil is (forget north korean, iranian, palestinian, guantanom bay human rights for now!).  i also don't need to tell you that iri sends cash and other material support to terrorist groups in the middle east.  iri also doesn't have nuclear weapon as we speak (unlike n. korea).  these facts separate iri from north korea.

now, can you answer my original question: will iri be willing to have a transparent nuclear program and not support terrorist groups in exchange for no sanctions, no military threat, and no meddling in its internal affairs?  in your words, if u.s. (or other countries) recognizes iri as a major player in the region (i didn't know anyone was denying that!), what will the u.s. (or other countries) will get in return? the answers to these questions are the gist of the problem.  that's how the u.s., israel or other western countries will base their decision on having a war or not.  it's not about my or your desire to go to war with iri.  remember, the paaia survey indicated that 97% of iranian americans are against the war.  you can argue and scream until you're blue in the face and will not be able to sway the other 3%.

Correction. It is Persian Gulf, NOT Gulf

"In regards to the Kurds, as you may well know, they became the victim of American plan right after the 1991 gulf war and lost many lives " Mehrdad

Correction:

In regards to the Kurds, as you may we know,they became the victim of American plan right after the 1991 PERSIAN Gulf war and lost many lives.

I am sure it was an honest mistake. I hope this mistake doesn't happen in front of people from foreign nationalities.

Siavash

Hamsade jaan please read the comments on this debate

The comments and debate here are for the most part between those who do not want to see a US or NATO led war, or threat of war for that matter, as a solution and those who do.  Reasons for being on either side of the debate are being presented.

Bringing in North Korea into this debate is in line with showing yet another reason why a war in Iran is anything but a "solution".  I am not suggesting Iranians should worry about slavery in North Korea and nukes, oh god no!  No no no!  You know you are an Iranian ... if you do not care about ___ ;-)

The reason I brought in North Korea was that IF the arguements for asking US, NATO or the world to start a war in Iran to eject IRI oh IRI, is that situation in Iran has reached a boiling point, Iranians can not "ask" the world for help because they're being brutally silenced, they are dangerously close to getting a nuke and they will use it, lives of not only 60 million but perhaps 1 BILLION (Austin Powers BILLION ;-) citizens of the world are at risk, other countries in the region are being threatened, THEN North Korea is a better and more urgent case for US, NATO and the world to consider.  No?

North Korea has already threatened a major US ally, South Korea with nukes and they have even sunk one of their warships AND bombarded something or another in the past year or so.  They have also sent missiles over another US major ally Japan.  Now imagine IRI oh IRI does something similar to Saudi Arabia or Israel.

So US, NATO and the world are not interested in sending their foreign armies to North Korea but very willing to do it in Iran.  How nice!  How lucky we must be! Oh joy!

So I told you my reason about bringing in North Korea.  Now as far as "grand bargain", well Ms. Amini is saying Iran wants to be acknowledged by US as a major regional force.  Like Obama asking for his drone back, not confirming the drone itself, but wanting "it" back!

Now I know this is a funny subject but in reality, isn't US naming Iran as a major "problem" in Iraq and Afghanistan, when they had up to 170,000 troops on the ground in Iraq and about 70,000 in Afghanistan, tanamount to acknowledging Iran as a major regional player, call it "major pain" if you like?

Everything is sacred

Dear Mehrdad

You posted there so obviously realize what is going on. Maybe USA is not so against RP as you thought and is willing to deal with him. If we all support RP now he may get the attention he requires.

//www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/son-of-...

esfand jan, no need to

esfand jan, no need to bring north korea and human rights into this debate.  it's a moot issue as far as this article is concerned.  ms. amini concedes that neither iri nor the west has the welfare of ordinary iranians at heart.  therefore, in a "grand bargain," the issue of human rights wouldn't even come up.

in the "grand bargain," iri wants assurances that it won't be attacked.  the west wants assurances that iri will not develop nuclear weapons and support terrorist groups.  iri will haggle for a "no sanction" clause.  if all agree, there will be no war (and perhaps no sanctions), both sides will be better off economically and iri will go on repressing the iranian people.

this "grand bargain" scenario is the optimal solution for both parties (putting aside human rights issue or should i say non-issue).  however, there's a catch.  why do you think such bargaining would not lead to an optimal solution? hint: i think that the west would go for it.

Leave the IRI alone, and it will all work itself out

Reform is on the way....And now back to issues more relevant to Iran....for example, Palestine.

VPK Jaan: The sad reality is…

That US will not be seeking any groups in this ground fighting that you envision, if their prospect for the future of Iran even slightly counters the US vision, hence your good example of support for MEK.

Case in point:
Here and today we are witnessing a great example of such contrast of vision.  RP which undoubtedly is far more committed to a secular system and arguable far far more pro-democracy has earned little to no support from the powers in US, yet MEK which has virtually near zero support in Iran, a great history of atrocities and betrayal, a bankrupt ideology yet seems to have become the favorite child within those powers and a possible replacement for IRI.

With track record as such, how are we to trust and more importantly risk yet another regime such as MEK that will take many more decades to be defeated, again.

We need to invest in our own good people and lend them all of our support in defeating IRI and hoping a regime will emerge that can work and  compromise with the West based on mutual benefit and respect and a path to cooperation that is beneficial to both nations.

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

Nuclear armed North Korea should be in line first!

As far as Nukes, North Korea already has the nukes and as far as human rights violation against it's own citizens they are actually turning their people into slaves!  Yes slaves.  See article below. 

So based on arguments so far for a war with IRI oh IRI, for violating human rights galore and acquiring the nukes shouldn't the foreign armies first overthrow the North Korean regime?  Aren't North Korean more deserving than us?  They have already said that not only they will use their nukes but they will also sell it to other countries.  ANY country, it doesn't matter!

North Korean labor camps in Siberia 

Everything is sacred

dear Mehrdad

Thanks, I agree there is a lot to be desired about war. And that people I spoke to are not representative. I made it very clear or I hope I did.

My point about Iraq was not that they should set up different ethnic regions. It was that if people do not wage asymmetric war it benefits them. American public opposes troop deployments. The problem this:

• America will try to rely on Iranian oppositions to do the ground fighting. That if why they are courting MEK and separatists. This is dangerous for Iran and I don't need to explain it. The most hopeful option is a united Iranian front to do the fighting without MEK. They may get American air support as in Libya. Then keep the nation together and avoid American ground troops. It will probably be the best we could hope for. The worst is ethnic conflict; dissolution and MEK take over of some regions. That is why I think we should be lobbying now to avoid the worst. In order words don't work do avoid regime change. Instead work to guide the results to they are good for Iran. Because America will interfere; might as well take advantage of it.

VPK jaan: I appreciate your comment

It speaks volume about you and I appreciat that. As I understand that we ALL can have those bad moments and say things that is uncalled for.  Anyway, accepted and appreciate it.

Regarding your second point: 
It is without a doubt that some are fed up enough with the status quo/present system that may wish for war, but we are to examine
1) The wisdom of that
2) Are they speaking for majority or a tiny minority
3) And what is the end game

In regards to the Kurds, as you may well know, they became the victim of American plan right after the 1991 gulf war and lost many lives merely due to the fact America did not have a good replacement for Saddam at the time.  Their current success and  autonomy is not as a gift or setup by the US, but as a counter to other faction within Iraq.

If we are to take them as a guide for Iran, as a best case scenario, do we want groups/ethnicities in Iran to be setup so fractious and counter to other groups yet in line with foreign powers?

As it is in Iraq, are we expecting a whole lot of good to come out of it?

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

Dear Mehrdad

I just posted but want to again respond to you. 

• I apologize for being nasty towards you.
• I don't know about "we" but I spoke to a few people who visited from Iran. I know this is not a scientific survey and has no statistical validity. But some of them wanted major action including military.

What is it in store for Iranian people after the attack and possibly invasion?  Do you really think freedom and democracy will be brought to Iranians?

A very good point that we should think about. It is up to us both inside Iran and in the West. For example see Iraq and what happened. Americans lifted the sanctions and held elections.The rest was how people reacted to this.

The Kurds decided to cooperate with Americans and got freedom; security and autonomy. Arabs decided to fight back and ended up hurting themselves. They killed a few mercenaries which results in American retaliation. A whole city was destroyed.

My suggestion is if it happens "work with Americans". Ideally Iranian Americans start investing in Iran. Get some outsourcing going and ship jobs there. Iranian people back home vote; and pick non radical secular representatives. Americans people do not like troop deployment so make it safe and they withdraw. Then make a deal with them. Oil for security. Put the nation back on its feet and get some of the immigrants to go back. Stop the theft or resources and brain drain.

Or people could decide to fight "to the last drop of whatever". The result is the nation destroyed. Lot of people killed and Iran turns into southern Afghanistan. But "we" get to huff and puff about "how we resisted". And do it on piles of rubble and dead people.

DM & Mehrdad

Thank sDM. I have changed in my point of view over time. It is pretty obvious that wait is not getting people anywhere. 

Mehrdad: I apologize for being harsh and I know you are a good person. The differences we have are honest. I know it is difficult to imagine war; I don't like it. IMHO Iran is occupied and I am have no faith IRI will go without major power.

The one lesson I hope we learn is not to allow another dictator to get power. 

title of the article

The orignial title which appeard in Huffington Post was :Repblicans in the U.S. go all the Way: Nuke Iran

//www.huffingtonpost.com/fariba-amini/republi...

JJ changed it a little bit.

I don't think any of these models are for Iran. We cannot use models ; every country and its people are different. In fact,  in my opinion, the Arab Spring came out of the Green Movement. 

Iran must find its own path.

Dr. Mohandes: “we” is the essence of the argument…

Who is this “we” that you are contending when you say “How many years or even decades are we supposed to put up with”

And is your position that your experience thru your visit in Iran should be taken with more validity then a collective of surveys, or the wishes expressed on the streets of Tehran during 2009 uprising and the countless folks currently imprisoned by IRI?

And then one may ask:

What is it in store for Iranian people after the attack and possibly invasion?  Do you really think freedom and democracy will be brought to Iranians?

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

VPK

Glad you brought thatup. I totally forgot to mention that. This basically Follows from The comment i made with regards to the "complacent" part. It has come to the point that everyone is fending for themselves. There is not "all hands on deck", so to speak, mentality. Hey! Get the damn GC , Turn the damn GC into a Nice and Juicy Ceeeteezenship and that is it. We are outta here. Good luck everyone, we will definitely send you a post card. 

Hence , the fact that lingering and prolonging this "wait" period will not bear any fruits.

AMIR 1973

 You are welcome. Gotta give credit where credit is due. 

 Yes indeed. You are right on the money on both points. those are the realities "on the ground":)

Replies...

VPK 

Precisely!! they will make whatever decision necessary and take whatever step they think would protect best their interests...

Amir jan 

True. The collective voices can not be heard through any official means due to the exactly the reasons you enumerated, But you can tell by looking into people's eyes... what is on their mind.

Bavafa.

1- So How many years or even decades are we supposed to put up with that? Unprecended Records have been set in each and every one of those areas you recounted... So.... where is it gonna end? what is the plan? More of the same Shiiiioot?:)) Have you not noticed that all those divisions and fractions been somehow mended and fixed Just for the love of the game?... To keep the whole thing well-oiled and functinal?

That may not mean that people are indifferent... But at the same time what Results are they obtaining????

2- The "Fact"??? Fact based on what? Some dumb and stupid , good for nothing Survey By so and so Organizations? You use such strong words . How can you or anyone of us be sure? Which one would you say matters most? Surveys or what you hear On the streets? Which one gives you a more accurate gauge of what is really Going on?

And as i said before... All you need for handling things themselves are already right in front of them .

3- Is it? Is that really the argument here? So i guess we are not done with this meryy-go-round buisness yet. More arguments... More Debate... More commenst and still the same conclusion?? NOTHING!!! You know something? I think we are kinda getting used to doing this, It is kinda like Not having our cup of joe and getting headaches later in the day. we are just addicted to this.

I sense a very striking similarity regarding the essence behind Both of those questions... Look. This is not an easy decision to make or a simple stance to adopt. Of course emotions will be triggered and there will be sparks and conflicts amongs various views... But the other alternative would be to Act as onlookers and hoping upon hoping... that someday...something gives and cracks open and we get to see what we wish to see.

Amir

I know Iranians who come to visit to the West then go back. When here and not afraid some definitely ask for pressure and more. 

Dr. Mohandes,

Thank you for your kind words. I do like how certain individuals here and elsewhere say, "Iranians in Iran would ask for outside pressure, etc if they wanted it" -- as if Iranians in Iran are free to speak their minds (yeah, right!). They know that doing so is considered a line absolutely NOT to be crossed by the Islamist terrorist regime. The IRI has seen what has happened in Libya and is happening in Syria -- they see that major outside assistance is the only thing that could achieve regime change, and that is the one thing they cannot overpower with their IRGC goons and their oil money.

Dr. Mohandes: Good write up, only…

Facts on the ground do no support your position.

The fact that
   - We have more political prisoners then ever
   - There is the biggest division within those in power
    - The regime spends/invests large sum and effort in tools to track and disrupt dissidents

Does not support people indifference to the current system

And The fact that
Iranian people [inside Iran] overwhelmingly if not unanimously reject the West involvement and oppose military intervention points to the notion that they want to handle it themselves.

Lastly, the argument here is what should be the role of dissident outside of Iran?

Should we be supporting the wishes of Iranians who are paying a high price at the hand of IRI and undoubtedly will be the recipient of a higher price of a military intervention

Or should we push for what we think it is good for those who are living daily and will be living daily with the aftermath of a war?

Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad

DM; Amir

Please do not worry because war is not our choice. The Americans will do it if they see fit. Iranians  back home also matter but we don't matter much.

Amir Jan

Please be aware that It was actuallly your excellent and In-your-face and to the point comment that really inspired me. So to you goes all the credit my friend.  

This Thing is getting old and people need to really stop it , Otherwise we will be in this non/never ending cylce for the long haul. I mean, North Koreans may even be able to get their country on a straight and democratic path... and we could still be going like... Khoobbb... Migofti... What are the options today??? SHould we go for Reform or Should we still wait??? eh... Khale joon o bache ha migan We should be more patient?? Okay pass... Ye chayi bezae gorboon daset...!!!!

Dr. Mohandes,

I pretty much agree with every word you wrote on your comment. The Iranians will do it if/when they want, if/when they are ready stance promoted by some is the perfect gift to a regime that has all of the resources, weapons, oil money, etc on its side and can easily withstand any sort of domestic uprising that doesn't have major outside backing.

 HG: Thank you for

 HG: Thank you for spelling it out. I hope it finally registers in the mind of those who keep stating all the obviouses  ad nauseum like a broken record.

A state of war only serves
as an excuse for domestic tyranny.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Born December 11, 1918