Jahanshah Javid

Both Khomeini and the US wanted Saddam gone

Iran's decision to continue war and try to topple Saddam was because Saddam posed a continuing threat to Iran who could not be disregarded. Iran's concerns were only vindicated by subsequent events (Saddam's attack on Kuwait) and even the US concluded that Saddam had to go.

Frankly I am tired of hearing this "Khomeini extended the war" koongoshady amongst the exiles. If it wasnt for Khomeini you'd be kissing Saddam's rear right now.

not a compromise

Iran hasn't compromised on its enrichment program -- the program continues. Iran is testing the West to see if it can be trusted. Of course WE ALL KNOW that Iran will NOT be given anything in return in 6 mos, a year or even 10 years. Then, Iran can say "Look, we tried, and were cheated. - again. "

 And they'd be right.

 In fact the US has already made it clear that the uraium swap agreement will not be the end of it, and they see this only as a temporary measure to prevent Iran from really "going nuclear" while they continue to press Iran to give up her right to enrichment.

UN resolution 598 that Khomeini signed was reafirmation of 1986

//daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/524/70/IMG/NR052470.pdf?OpenElement

//www.un.org/Docs/scres/1987/scres87.htm

Above is from UN's own website about the resolution that Khomeini signed and it is a reafirmation of resolution 582 in 1986.  I don't see anything about saying Iraq was the agressor and the devil.

So if nothing else the war was prolonged for at least 2 years.  Of course we should compare the 8 year Iran-Iraq war to this nuclear debacle.

Ok Iraq back by the West tried to screw Iran and it was a war and they don't distribute halva in a war.  WTF did Iran do in terms of negotiations?  It prefered war war and goal of capturing Najaf and other places over saving hundreds of thousands of lives.  And in the end all they got was one big bilakh.  They got what they had before the war and not one inch more.

Same with the nuclear issue.  A lot of grandstanding and in the end nothing.  In a successful negotiation you gain something in the end, not go back to where you started and just waste time, money and manpower  - in the case of war, lives.

Whatever the detail in the case of Iran Iraq war, Khomeini will forever be known for prolonging the war and rightfully so.  He could've done something but refused.

Everything is sacred.

JJ, I have refuted this IRI extended the war

propaganda that has been proven false after passage of years has allowed the ACTUAL documents to reveal the truth! I am amazed how many Iranians in IC still repeat those nonsense still! I repeat one of my old comments for you:

"Here's part of a comment I had written in one of my blogs.  As you know, the The Freedom of Information Act, allows the release of former secret information where the passage of time has made it non-sensitive and can be released to public for research. The link to National Archives at the end, together with UN site for UN resolutions, is a good source for real info on Iran-Iraq war:

"From Sep 1980 that Iraq attcked Iran until the final Resolution 598 of 1987, which Iran finally accepted, none of the UNSC resolution either accepted Iraq as the aggressor who initiated the war, nor the party who used chemical weapons (the 2 condictions that Iran requested repeatedly from UN).

While Iraq was INSIDE Iran, the resolutions like 479 demanded cease fire (that is Iraq borders be defined by the territory captured from Iran) The first time that a demand was made to return to international borders was when Iran actually went INSIDE IRAQ.  

And even in 1986, when Iran captured FAW Island, and it made the west and Arabs worried about Kuwait, US in resolutions 582 and 588 of 1986 refused to accept Iraq as the culprit in initiation or use of the weapons, thus any war reparation to Iran.

Yet, from 1983 US knew that Saddam is using chemical weapons against Iran, (since they partly provided it to him,) but according to the now declassified documents, US policy was to help Iraq defeat Iran regardless of CW treaties,  way before Rumsfeld trip to Baghdad in 1984. You can slook up Reagn's declassified National Security Directive  of March 1982, (NSSM4-82), and april 1984 (NSDD139) to that account.

For US knowledge of Iraqi use of Chemical weapons on Iran, in the following link from the National Security Archives, click on document #24. Read just the douments, not the narratives of the link.

//www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Khomeini's imposed war

Jaleh, Yes the war was imposed by Iraq. But the "great and wise leadership of Khomeini" prolonged the war more than six after the invading Iraqi forces were pushed out of virtually every inch of Iranian territory. Dragging the war did not achieve anything but the loss of hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides of the border.

And we'll see how your great and wise leader Khamenei and Ahmadinejad will do with this conflict over nuclear technology while the Islamic Republic is at its weakeast ever, internally and internationally.

JJ, you have a wicked-vivid IMAGINATION!

It is amazing how in your mind you can twist the most fantastic achievements of Iran, even the ones which the passage of time have made it obvious to most, and make it sound as "futile" or "lost case"!!

The war IMPOSED on Iran was one in which the military and intelligence apparatus of the east and west, their political prowess in the UN,  and the combined economic power of rich Arab states colluded with a most satanic character, Saddam, who had no mercy on his own people, to defeat Iran and Iranian revolution. Iranians under the great and wise leadership of Khomeini sacrificed  in the tune of hundreds of thousands and defended the country's integrity, and established its path to its regional rightful supremacy denied by the west for centuries.

While Iranians inside did all that sacrifice, the fringe expats who didn't get what their mama and papa had been planning for them under Shah, sat in the west and made fun of those heroes for wearing "plastic keys to heaven.

Now, after thrity years where Iran has been vindicated and Saddam's true character been revealed to the world, and the entire evil designs of the west against Iran in that war is revealed, you are still belittling Iran's achievements in that war?!

The same goes for monumental strength that Ahmadinejad has shown in preserving Iran's right to nuclear technology. His most recent EXTREMELY CLEVER path, to either obtain a 20% enrichment for research, or else Iran would set the limit of enrichment to 20% itself is now being laughed at by you guys, the same way that you were laughing when he pressed for 3% enrichment inside Iran as fait accompli.

And, clearly your twisted opinion is shared by many Iranian expats who do nothing for Iran but nag at its every achievements. No wonder inside Iran, people overwhelmingly elect Ahmadinejad who stands to the western pressure and gets them their right to nuclear technology.

COP

It's intellectual (and perhaps even physical) laziness.  Why concentrate on finding the root causes to our societal problems when we can sit down, have a nice chelo-kabob with piaz, followed by delicious tea and shirini, take a nap, wake up and blame everyone else under the sun for our backwardness and stupidity...and it is stupidity.  If we weren't stupid, we wouldn't have handed the country to a a bunch of religious charlatans.  

OK Abarmard, whatever you say

It's others' fault why we're so screwed up after 5000-6000 years of history.

By the way, Japan was devastated by 2 thermo-nuclear blasts on its tiny soil. They came back and became the 2nd largets economy in the world. Imagine what would have happened to Iran if it had been in Japan's place.

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

JJ I agree with you

They are all sorry excuses.  Here's a part of my comment from my blog comparing the IRI to the Nazis, which is applicable here as well:

"Every time we get in a jet airplane or see a rocket blast off into space we should think of the Nazi Germany technology that invented all of these machines.  

See, the difference between them and us is that they didn't whine, they didn't lament and they didn't blame others for their ills.  They were badly defeated in WWI and their country was divided into parts and ruled by the British and the French.  They were in a semi-slavery state.  But they rose up, took control of their destiny and in a mere decade became the most technologically and industrially advanced nation in the world, and amassed a military that was so powerful that it literally took the whole world to stop.  We, on the other hand, are still writing books, arguing, crying and lamenting how the U.S. screwed us over sixty years ago over Mossadegh and what the "imperialists" did to us under Shah, blah, blah, blah... which, in mind are a bunch of sorry excuses to justify the errors of our culture. case in point: the "imperialists" have supposedly been out of the picture for the past 30 years.  What has the IRI accomplished?  Jack s**t!!! 

Every time one of their planes crashes they (parroted by the clueless idiots on this site) cry about the U.S. not giving them spare parts.  Nazis didn't cry about not getting planes from other nations.  They BUILT them, better than anyone else in the world.  And it only took them a decade.  Where has the IRI been in a decade?  It has expanded the Jamkaran well!"

Good analysis Abarmard, I agree with your sentiments 100%

Mehrdad

We are responsible for our own future

Abarmard, I don't understand your logic. How is the United States holding Iran back? Why isn't it holding back Turkey? Why isn't it holding back India? Why isn't it holding back Malaysia? Or Brazil? Or Singapore? Indonesia? How are these countries (and many others) developing normally but Iran isn't?

Since 1979, the Isalmic Republic has been blaming the West for all its ills. It cut off ties with the U.S., severely limited its ties with other western nations, prolonged a devastating war with Iraq, made it extremely hard and risky for wealthy Iranians to invest in industrial production, forced millions of the country's brightest to leave the country with its radical policies... and the list goes on and on.

Of course the United States and other powers want to stay powerful and don't like other nations to rise and compete with them. But to say that they are holding us back means we are ducking responsibility for our own failures and our own radicalism which has brought us to where we are today.

If Iran was a democratic country (like India or Turkey), respected human rights, gave equal opportunity for its citizens to invest in the economy (instead of giving a free hand to the revolutionary guards, and relatives and associates of atyatollahs and senior officials), and pursued a policy of cooperation with the international community, we could be a true power in the region.

Cost-of-Progress

"So, abarmard is saying that if it weren't for the west, Iran would be the utopia we all long for, right?"

Wrong. Whether the system of Iran messes up is one story and Western government wanting to hold their place in the region, wondering where the danger might lay is another. Just because Iranian system has not been answering the demands of portion of the population doesn't make them good or bad in the Western eyes. The issue for the West to go against Iranian regime is different than the Iranians wanting to change the regime. If you don't get that, then you are a good target audience for the Western governments.

Abarmard jaan tell it 2 regime not JJJ. Iran's econ = Always bad

Everything is sacred.

Blame the West Mentality

is what got us to this point in the first place.

So, abarmard is saying that if it weren't for the west, Iran would be the utopia we all long for, right? This blame game is actually an insult to the people of all countries who are under the said influence. There's no doubt that the West is looking out for its own interest -  who wouldn't?

The key question to ask is what about the people of these countries who are being manipulated? What is it about them that makes them accept totaleterian and anti-nationalistic regimes (in iran's case) year after year? What si it that makes the pacivists that they are?

Before blaming others, we must first take a long hard look at ourselves and identify our own short-comings. That's the first step toward utopia.

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

Mr. Javid

The United States and the world is not worried about Nuclear Iran, they are worried that if Iranian economy gets better: People would be more satisfied and Iran can be a (possible) model for Arab nations.

This is the concern that has been and will be, no matter what comes out of the Nuclear issue. The economic pressure will never stop so that Iranian system would fail.

You say: confrontation of the West is what Iranian regime thrives on, and I say that the West doesn't want any close relations with Iran not because Iran is a dictatorship (Saudi, Egypt), Islamic State (Pakistan), or has a bad human rights records (China) but because Iran has a forward looking population, strong production, technologically competent, and has the cultural similarities with her neighbors (Oil and strategical location is obvious). All which can translate into a possible role model if the West trades normally with them. All other smaller issues can be resolved once the Western credibility (normalized relation) is given to the regime. That would make the system have something to say, and the West won't want that.

Therefore isolating Iran as a policy is not an Iranian agenda but Western governments. The arguments that Iran is supporting this group and that group also won't play a role since regimes that support Sunni terrorist organizations have good relations with the West. It's important not to allow emotions take your analytical mind, although I do understand that bringing forth political realities would get some regulars burst...but nevertheless must be said once in a while, as a reminder.

An Iranian Solidarnosc is Urgently Needed (Washington Post)

U.S. solidarity could boost Iran's Green Revolution by Michael Gerson:

//iranian.com/main/news/2010/02/03/u-s-solidarity-could-boost-irans-green-revolution

Also Joe Biden's Take:

Iran leaders 'sowing seeds' of own destruction: Biden

Key conditions not addressed

Not so fast.

According to MSNBC and wsj, the Adminstration is on to Ahmadinejad's stalling tactics.

On Tuesday, a number of Western diplomats said they were skeptical Mr. Ahmadinejad's comments marked a major shift by Tehran. Conversely, they said the overture might be aimed at dividing the Security Council's members.

But his time frame of four or five months appeared to fall short of the year that Western officials say it would take for Iran's enriched fuel to be turned into fuel rods for the reactor.

If that difference cannot be bridged, it could allow Iranian officials to assert that the deal failed due to Western foot-dragging, despite their readiness to accept the proposed formula of shipping out the bulk of their enriched uranium and waiting for it to be converted and returned as fuel.

Ahmadinejad also did not address whether his country was ready to ship out most of its stockpile in...

//online.wsj.com

//www.msnbc.msn.com

Mr. Javid, thanks for the

great analysis.

I don't see this any different than any other "moosh-o gorbeh baazi" that the islamic regime has done in the past 30 years with its people and the world. They are just stalling; trying to buy time and, as you noted, point out to the world that they're playing nice while they go about their business with the nukes. 

History has shown us that no regime can last too long using repression as a method of governance.

____________

IRAN FIRST

____________

A show of strength, not weakness- possibly

Like I said on the other thread, give the Islamic Republic some credit here (if the deal actually pans out as it is now showing promise). It now appears there may be enough consensus to move forward with this nuclear deal through the executive branch.

Compare this to the fractious gridlock in the American legislative branch, in its inability to move forward on meaningful healthcare reform. Or the untimely lack of a renewed nuclear arms control pact between the US and Russia, which by the way is mandated by the NPT.

I was always for the nuclear deal, with the caveat- even if unspoken- that the Islamic Republic retain its right to the nuclear fuel cycle.

With the possibility of the nuclear deal and the good news concerning Iran's aerospace efforts, there looks to be something extra to celebrate this Daheh-ye Fajr.

Good analysis. This could also be the subtext

for Sepah to exert itself & take over fully as they know a second poison drinking may be too much for people to take, including the part of population still loyal to them. They are running out of options and tricks and whenever in this position they end up giving away Oil and other national wealth in secret deals.