The Folly of Attacking Iran!

by Kamangir

Iran is not Iraq and everyone knows it. The most bizarre course action would be a military one against Iran. Please refer to the site below:


Simple words saying it as it was and it actually is!




Recently by KamangirCommentsDate
Tahmineh Milani criticizes gender separation (clip!)
Jun 26, 2008
Interesting Reza Pahlavi clip!
Jun 23, 2008
Who belongs to IRI regime?
Jun 22, 2008
more from Kamangir

To: Jamshid of course NO to OPPRESSION!!

by Anonymous-2 (not verified) on

Jamshid, obviously no one wants to be oppressed under IRI or any other regime.

Governments have an obligation to take care of the needs of all of their people, plain and simple. If they don't the consequences will be built up resentment and frustration which will eventually blow up in their face.

However, this does not justify any citizen of any country to cooperate with any foreign power against their own country. So, I guess you and I are squared on this issue.

But one more point before we leave this subject, the minorities in Iran (i.e. Kurds and Balouchis and those in Khuzestan) are also being instigated by foreign powers. We know for a fact that various groups have infiltrated Iran, and are steering up-rising in those areas! Alot of the skirmishes and recent clashes in these areas have been instigatged by covert action!

This is your typical "divide and conquer" strategy. Similiar to what was taking place under the reign of the Shah! The situation is no different!

This is another method being used by the CIA, MI6, Mossad, and certain terrorirst organizations (i.e. MEK, PJAK, Jundallah in Balouchestan etc.) to bring about an internal up-rising! Let's also not forget this!


Anonymous IL: continued...

by Q on

Let me explain 2) to you. I listed a large number of things that an irrational actor would do that IRI had the opportunity to do but it did not.

You had listed a number of things that made no sense to you. But they can be explained rationaly. The list I made for you cannot be explained if Iran was in fact irrational. Part of the argument for irrationality is that Iran wants to nuke Israel because it hates Jews. That's what I was referring to in my response.

On #3) You don't seem to understand. It's laughable that the west is worried about Iranian missile program which is based on the North Korean missile! And now you are saying that North Korean missile technology is useless? Well, it's not, but it doesn't matter. North Korea doesn't even need missiles or nukes to be a threat to the US. From Democracy Now

It was conventional weapons—massed artillery on the DMZ, the border with South Korea. Extensive massed artillery aimed at the capital, Seoul, South Korea, and at the U.S. troops in the south. Unless the Pentagon can figure out a way to get rid of that with precision weapons, or something or other, that is a deterrent to a U.S. attack.

North Korean deterrent from Time Magazine:

But some foreign-policy veterans, including Christopher, think North Korea poses the bigger strategic threat, given its more advanced nuclear program, its long-range delivery systems and its propensity to sell weapons to anyone who will buy them.

The regime boasts a standing army of 1 million troops?the world's fourth largest?with an estimated 4.7 million more in reserve. It also keeps a massive store of artillery shells and hundreds of Scud missiles that it could load with biological and chemical agents and rain down on South Korea and the 37,000 U.S. troops stationed there. Some U.S. military officials believe that a conventional exchange with North Korea could result in as many as 1 million South Korean casualties. Even so, a senior Bush Administration official says, the chief impediment to U.S. military action is the possibility, however remote, that Pyongyang might try to use nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Says the official: "You can't ignore the fact that nuclear weapons are a game changer."

As to your question about Saddam "having nukes".

I understand. US doesn't want Iran to have any nuclear power or weapons. But these are not so important. Maybe what you say is right that US would not be able to muster a "coalition" to drive Saddam out, but that's not what they think about. But they could if they wanted to take him out even with a nuclear weapon. Think about this:

Why is nuclear weapons a problem in your Kuwait scenario? It's a problem because Saddam may use them on what? Kuwait? on the advancing US troops? First off, understand that Saddam did have chimical weapons that he could have used in both places. All projections show that US army was not ready for chemical attacks, a large percentage of troops did not have enough traning or equipment. Even a mad man like him didn't do it. Why? Colin Powell mentioned at the beginning of the war that such an action will invite "strategic response", or code word for nuclear weapons. It's the same reason.

So the question you need to ask yourself is why didn't Saddam use the WMD that he did have? And why did he use it against Iran? Answer: there was a deterrent against US, but Iran couldn't do anything to retaliate at the time.

This just Bullshit. Show me some proof, otherwise, I have to laugh at this. We are talking about nuclear weapons program right?

Also, IRI's nuke program is 100 time more advanced and expensive than North Korea's, Pakistan's or India's. No comparison.

No way!

Simply put, having access to nukes or even the appearance of having access will give the IRI more power. The West does not want this.

This is true but not the whole story. But it has nothing to do with nuclear proliferation (which they tolerate in Pakistan, etc.) It has to do with the fact that they don't want Iran to be able to defend itself, so that they always have a way to threaten it.

Ask yourself- why are they (all) so afraid of the IRI. It can't just be the Neocone/Zionist lobby.

Ask yourself, why no one besides US and Israel talks about a threat from Iran? If people were really afraid of Iran, wouldn't the arab countries in the region support an attack of Iran? Why don't they? Isn't it their oil fields that neocon propaganda says that Iran will take over? Why don't you think about this for a minute.

In conclusion. You repeat a lot of talking points, but where is the justification for attacking Iran? Where is the evidence that it will attack other countries or that anyone in the region is afraid this will happen? You have none of it, yet you continue to claim that Iran is a danger to the West or to the middle east. This is how you are contributing to the pro-war side. I remind you that your original post was title "The folly of NOT attacking Iran."



Anonymous IL: I don't have time to go back and forth

by Q on

If you are going to argue, you have to be willing to accept responsiblity. Do you have enough 'ensaf' to do that? Will you apologize or acknowledge that you were wrong, if you were proven so? That is the only way I will keep going on these elementary exchanges.

On Libya. Libya had no weapons program. Libya had obtained a lot of material for its energy program. AND had some dealings where some documents for weapons design, but had not pursued actually making any weapons with those documents. Please pay attention to what I said: the program was hyped on purpose to bolster the argument that the Iraq war "caused" Libyan cooperation. The US and UK needed for the program to be "real" to use for propaganda purposes. But no evidence was ever produced that it was anything serious, or anything worth worrying about at all.

Your second source is wrothless. NTI is an American establishment. Just look at its board of directors packed with US-linked foundations, Repubican Senators and Ted Turner of CNN. This is a joke "think tank," used to legitimize US political positions, no one takes seriously. Of course they will use the account of the Bush administration.

Your first source, FAS, is a real source. But the report confirms what I'm saying. Read the document (which I had actually read years ago). The only admission to there being any nuclear weapons "program" is that Libya had "agreed" to dismantle it. Just do a search for "weapons" and you'll see what I'm talking about. Why had Libya agreed to this language? Because that's what US was demanding in order to lift the sanctions. That's what Libya wanted for years and wasn't getting.

Here, I'll prove it to you. Libya started cooperating in March 2003 (officially, that was part of the deal, even though they had been wanting to do this for years.), and dismantled their WMD programs which included chemical and biological by early 2004. In August 2004, FAS (not Bush) did a report on Libyan nukes:

in recent years concerns about Libyan nuclear ambitions have faded, though apprehensions about Libyan chemical weapons efforts remained very much alive. Libya was no position to obtain access to nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future, given the extremely limited domestic technical base of the country.

The official IAEA investigation found that there was really no nuclear weapons capability. There was an energy program, but nothing that could be called an active WMD program. Of course this didn't work for the Bush Administration so they tried to spin it. Read carefully between the lines here (Wisconsin project):

It was reported that ElBaradei and U.S. officials disagreed on the status of Libya’s nuclear program. U.S. and U.K. weapon inspectors, who had visited at least ten of Libya’s secret weapon sites during the lengthy negotiation process, reportedly believed Libya’s program to be more advanced than ElBaradei, who described the program as one “in the very initial stages of development” following his preliminary inspection on December 29th.

ElBaradei was quoted as saying that “we haven’t seen any industrial-scale facility to produce highly enriched uranium. We haven’t seen any enriched uranium.”

There you go IAEA is saying there was no enriched Uranium. Can you build anything without enriched Uranium?

And what did the Libyans themselves say?

Libya did not admit to possession of weapons of mass destruction, still less nuclear weapons, only to having materials that could "lead to the production of internationally banned weapons."

I hope you can now agree with me that the Libya program was basically nothing. At this stage, it would be a judgement call weather or not it was a "weapons program" and in any case it was completely harmless.

As to why this was done in "secret". That's the same reason Iran's program was done in secret. US could bomb it at any time. US had lready bombed Libya under the Reagan administration and had killed Kaddafi's daughter. US didn't care about nuclear proliferation with both Iran and Libya and had the policy of keeping these nations from getting any heavy industries, even those for energy. This short-sighted policy had driven these programs underground and had actually allowed both countries to explore weapons options. I'm not saying Libya did not want to, maybe it did. But it had not begun to build any weapons and did not have any facilities that could be called a program, this is according to IAEA.

Now a question for you. Why would a country that is pursuing nuclear weapons in secret, offer to give it all up 10 years ago? From Caprio in 2004:

As more of the story of Kaddafi's apparent capitulation emerges we gain a clearer understanding of the chain of events and calculations that led the Libyan leader to disclose the extent of his weapons programs. First it is important to note that attempts by Libya to cooperate predate not only the U.S. capture of Saddam Hussein, but also the U.S. preemptive attack on Iraq. In its Statement the Libyan Foreign Ministry pointed out that its weapons' experts have been holding talks with their British and U.S. counterparts for some time. A Los Angeles Times editorial reports that for over a decade Libya has been trying to "trade its uncomfortable renegade status for international acceptance."{5} These negotiations bore fruit in mid-1999 when Libya accepted responsibility for first the 1984 murder of Yvonne Fletcher, a British police officer at the Libyan embassy in London, and second the 1988 bombing of the Pan Am jetliner over Lockerbie, Scotland. It was around this time that the Libyan government first offered its illegal weapons programs for negotiation.

And again, for what the real motivation is for hyping this so-called nuclear weapons program, from the same source.

Although reluctant to meet Libya's demands, the Bush administration has not shied away from advertising this success story to fit its war on terrorism agenda. In his 2004 State of the Union address, the president contrasted twelve years of U.S. failure to negotiate a deal with Iraq against its success after but nine months of intense negotiation with Libya. This gross distortion of the facts reflects the desperation felt by the Bush White House: unable to find Iraqi weapons it uses another "rogue" state's disarmament to justify its illegal war. This also suggests why the U.S. finally appears to be thawing to a disarmament offer that the Libyan government made four years ago.


Re: Anonymous-2

by jamshid on

I read your three options. However both under the shah and today under the IRI, there is a fourth option which you are forgetting. It is not directed to the Kurds, it is however directed to the IRI regime:

4. Don't oppress us (kurds, blaoochis, etc) and we'll put down our arms.

How does that sound to you? Is is fair? Kurds and Baloochis and other ethnicities are people too. And they are Iranian too. If the government of Iran is not meeting its most basic responsibilities towards those citizens, then they will rise against that government.

They have done it for 2500 years. Even we the Farsis have done it against the Sassanid, Saljooghs and many other oppressing rulers who happened to be Iranians.

The answer is not to continue the oppression and possibily mass murder of millions of Iranians in case of a war. The answer is to stop oppressing them.

They say one ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.

Again for the Nth time: No to war AND yes to IRI is wrong. No to IRI and yes to war is also wrong.

Only both no to war AND no to the IRI represents the great majority of Iranians' opinion.


Deaf ears won't hear you!

by Anonymous22 (not verified) on

Very nice point Anonymous-2 and Kamangir. especially Anonymous-2 when you talked about Shah's options to separatists.

But watch out whom you are reasoning to! Don't waste your time arguing with this guy! useless.


Q, I think you have a problem with

by Anonymous Iranlover (not verified) on

The TRUTH. First of all, you failed to clearly respond to a singled question I posed to you. You changed the subject matter and introduced issues that were not germain to what I asked. I do not think I will get a straight honest answer from you. It does not matter. Additionally, you make an inference that I have bought into the "neocon" agenda or the "Bush" agenda. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Again, I asked simple questions. You did not answer one. You just twisted my words and your own answer. For example:

1) You state that Libya "never actually pursued nuclear weapons" or that "Libya never even had a weapons program." Please see the following report from IAEA.


Also, Please see the report from NTI:


Why was all this done in secret? Why did they get drawings for nuclear weapons? It was AQ Kahn by the way. I am sure you know who he was/is. You are walking on egg shells with such weak arguments.

2) As to your answer #5.I have no Idea what you are talking about. I never brought op the issue of Killing jews or killing Iranian Jews. You had stated
that Iran was acting "rationally" in trying to avoid a war. I listed 5 specific examples (none of which had to do with killing jews). But you somehow came up with killing jews. Iran's support of Hamas & Hizabollah has to do more with its attempt to create
chaos in the Arab world than hurting Israel. No Arab country (except for Iran's proxy Syria) supports Hamas or Hizbolah. In fact they all hate Hamas & Hizbolah.

3) As to your reply regarding Korea- Your argument is extremely weak. Korean missile technology is useless. It can not effect US/Asian pacific trade. Moreover, 90% of the goods that go thorough are Chinese goods. Are you saying that China will allow North Korea to attack Chinese goods going to the US?
Furthermore, the Nukes that the North Koreans came up with were weaker than what was dropped on Hiroshima. US is more concerned about transfer of nuke technology than the actual North Korean weapons. Again- China would never allow this to happen. The Middle East is much more important and volatile than the Pacific trade. China's wealth goes through this route. China is the USA's number one creditor these days- Nothing will happen to that route.

Again- Assume Saddam had a nuke. Assume that he even tested one and the whole world knew that he had it. If He had invaded Kuwait with nukes in hand- Would any nation, including the US, would be so bold to build a coalition to invade Iraq and liberate Kuwait?

Also, IRI's nuke program is 100 time more advanced and expensive than North Korea's, Pakistan's or India's. No comparison.

This is not "propaganda". Its Strategy. Its balance of power. If you remember in the 80's. The soviets went bankrupt in trying to compete with the US STAR WARS program. A program that did not exist. It was all made up to make the soviets spend their resources on technology that was not achievable at the time. However, because of the POTENTIAL, the USSR went bankrupt. Simply put, having access to nukes or even the appearance of having access will give the IRI more power. The West does not want this. It has nothing to do with Neocone crap. This is the same west that was OK with Iran's nuclear ambitions under the Shah. They simply do not trust the IRI. The IRI has done nothing to reduce the fears the West has.

IRI will never be trusted. Yes there is hypocrisy and might is right type of diplomacy by the US and its allies. Ask yourself- why are they (all) so afraid of the IRI. It can't just be the Neocone/Zionist lobby. As I stated earlier, does the AIPAC have local chapters in Germany, France and the EU?

This has nothing to do with the truth. It has all to do with reality. Everybody is concerned about the oil. The IRI is in power only because of the Oil.


To: Jamshid let's put it this way ....

by Anonymous-2 (not verified) on

Let's just put it this way anyone who proposes a war with Iran definitely does not have the interest of Iran in mind. I don't give a damn if it is the Kurds or Balouchis, or Azaris etc. if they are inviting a foreign gov. to invade Iran they are more than welcome to march over to Iraq or any country of their choosing.

During the reign of your beloved Shah, the Kurds wanted an independent Kurdistan and so did the Azari's. I can give you facts, my grandfather was commander in Chief of Kurdesan and Azarbaijan at that time.

They were being armed by Russia.

He gave them three options: (1) If you are Iranian you don't pick up arms against your own people, so you either lay down your arms, and abandon your aggression; or (2) If you don't consider yourself Iranian, we will provide you with military escort and security to leave Iran to Iraq (which was siding with Russia at that time); and (3) If you refuse and intend on continuing your aggression against Iran and side with foreigners,then we will have to take down your arms by force. Your choice!!

I would give them the same response today!

Do you really think if any group within any country asks foreign powers to invade their country, this would be tolerated by that country?

I would like you to ask Americans how they would feel if for example, the Cuban Americans decide to side with foreign powers and invite a war of agression against the U.S. how the Americans would react and how the U.S. would respond!!


Re: jamshid

by Kamangir on

Dear Jamshid

Should we assume that all non-Iranian anti-Iran war activists and individual actually do not care about Iranians? I agree with you in saying that characters such as Brzezinski and Carter, specially the latter, do not give a damn about Iranians, why should they? Neither Bush,Cheney, McCain nor Obama, Clinton and Kinzer care about Iran. However; for us concerned with the current dangerous situation, having a group of people which Kinzer is part of, organizing tours across the US againt the possibility of war with Iran, matters. This matters, because even if they don't give a damn about Iran for whatever reason they are against war.

Jimmy Carter in particular is a very odd and to me nasty character part of a hidden group of people (call them builderbergers, ilumati or whatever..) that actually goes around the world visiting any existing dictatorships and giving them legitimacy. A good example of this is when he visited Venezuela as a part of a team of international observers that validated the truthfullness of the elections. He spoke about the elections there as fair and just. I'm certain that there're several hidden world-wide power groups with different agendas, but again; at this point in time stopping a war with Iran has the first priority and we need anyone that can support this cause, regardless of whether or not they care about Iranians.





Re: Kamangir

by jamshid on

Thanks for the anti-war lecture. The only thing is that you are giving it to the wrong person, because I oppose any kind of military action against Iran.

However, there are many Iranians, living in Iran, who are licking their chops for a war. Just step in Kurdestan and you'll know what I mean. I have been in Kurdestan often and I don't have any reason to misrepresent them in this site. By the way, Kurds are as much "Iranian" as you and I.

So why so many Iranians belonging to ethnic minorities don't mind a war? Because they are all sellouts? Or because the IRI has driven them to the wall by oppressing and persecuting them in every possible and imaginable way?

You and many others can dream all you want, but these are facts, not dreams. One cannot claim that millions of kurds or hundreds of thousands of Baloochis are sellouts. It is the IRI that is to be blamed for their frustration and therefore their lack of judgement, AND for any possible future war as well.

Does Mr. Kinzer, who suddenly became and "expert" on Iran in just the span of a couple of years, knows what's going on deep in Kurdestan and Baloochestan? Better yet, ask yourself does he even care? If you honestly think the answer is yes, go right ahead and use him as a reference. But if you think that he cares more for his pockets, then you should use as reference many others who oppose the war because they actually care for Iranians.

Just remember Carter or Khomeini's pitches and how much they "cared" for Iranians.


Re: Jahanshah Javid

by jamshid on

Jahanshah Javid:

Kinzer has no credibility. There are too many lies, too many false accounts and too many false claims in his work. You can disagree if you want. Not everyone who opposes the war has the interests of Iranians in mind.

But why stop at Kinzer? Let's increase the bars of reputation and consider two other individuals that are far more reputated among American circles than Kinzer. I am refering to Brzezinski and Carter.

We all remember their pitch for human rights in Iran in the late 70s. Is there something wrong with pitching for human rights? No. Did they picth human rights for Iran because they so much cared about Iranians? No, they had in mind their own interests and agendas.

Will I ever trust Brzezinski or Carter, two self proclaimed human rights protectors, in the future? No. Does that make me an anti-human right person? No.

Do I trust Kinzer, a self proclaimed Iran loving person? No. Does that make me and advocate of war against Iran, as you indirectly suggested? No.

Do you see the parallels? There are those who oppose the war and don't care a bit about Iranians, and then there are those who oppose the war because they care for Iranians. I consider Kinzer to be in the former group, and me, you, Kamangir and many others in the latter group.

Kinzer is only interested in his pockets. I don't trust him. Khomeini said many things that "made sense", as you proposed for Kinzer, Did that make Khomeini a person we could trust? Yes, it did, but it shouldn't have.

History will keep repeating itself until we learn to distinguish between those who have the best intentions in mind and those that don't, and do so while both groups are saying the same "sensible" things.


Anonymous IL, you can only understand if you are open

by Q on

to the truth. There is no other way. So please, try your best to be open minded. It appears that you are not, but I will try one more time anyway.

1) Ordinary Americans understand that "iran will nuke us, let's bomb them now", and that's what they need to hear to support a war, just like Iraq. That's what they are being told, and that's what you are contributing to when you know there is no truth to it.

The rest of this point by you seems to believe that US should be able to Invade Iran, and if they get nukes it won't be able to. Why is this bad again? I see no "right" for America to be involved in the Middle East at all, and I -unlike you- am not worried about what makes them not be able to get involved.

The fact of the matter is that the double-standard that they have shown makes it easy for Iran to justify going after nukes (a decision that has not been made yet.) If the west is truly interested in peace, it would simply exchange a security, non-aggressoin guarantee for intrusive inspections. It would back a region-wide nuclear free zone. It would offer to recognize IRI and promise not to pursue "regime change". Be honest with yourself. This is what you do at a minimum if you are interested in peace. America is not interested in peace, because it is not afraid of a nuclear Iran. If anything it means that US troops must stay longer in the Middle East. That is what the warmongers want.

2) No, you didn't read carefully. Korean missiles can reach all of North Pacific. 1/3 of the world's wealth flows through the harbors of China, Japan and South Korea. If Kim Jong Il says that "we will attack any American cargo ship" in the area, this country could sink over night. It is much much more important to the United States, than the Persian Gulf. US only gets 10% of it's Oil from the Perisan Gulf. But US gets 70% of its high tech manufactured goods from China/Japan/Korea. North Korea is in a much better position actually. They will be able to last well more than a month if China cuts support, as they have shown they are willing to take much civilian casualties. Your response also discounts the fact that China is not a friend of the US.

3) First, you misunderstood fake fears. My point was to illustrate that there were much more severe real fears that did not need to be addressed militarily. US was fine with 1000s of nuklear missiles being aimed at it. Therefore when it says there is a threat from Iran's fantasy nukes of the future, it is lying. That's the point and it is irrefutable. Second, I already explained that if US wants to stop nuclear proliferation in Iran, it can do so at any time.

4) Your judgement is putting POTENTIAL nuclear arms in Iran (in 10 years) as more threatening than REAL nuclear arms, REAL terrorism, REAL "mad men" elsewhere that this country was faced with. This is how propaganda works, it messes with your sense of propotion and logic. I see it is unfortunately working on you.

5) Oh this one is simple. If Iran wants to kill Jews, why not kill them right there in Iran? If Iran is so suicidal as to risk being anhilated, why not attack Israel now? If Iran really wants to take over Iraq, why not invade it? If Iran wants a nuclear bomb why bother staying in the NPT, why not leave like North korea? Why not kill the British sailors or take more American hostages? Why does Iran want to negotiate over nukes? Why does Iran offer intrusive UN inspections, exposing sensitive military sites to the West? Would a fanatical, suicidal regime do these things? These are all rational decisions.

Also, listing Libya was not rational by you. Libya was actually smart. It gave up its clandestine nuclear weapons program (documented) in exchange for better relations with the US and the west.

It seems you are falling for the well known Bush propaganda. The fact is that Libya was under sanctions because of its support for Terrorism in the 80's. It never actually pursued nuclear weapons. All through 90's Libya was begging to settle the terrorism case and open up its Market, but Clinton was not interested in giving Libya any points. Bush used this fact to put on a dog and poney show to show the "world" that he succeeded in something. Libya never even had a weapons program. Their nuclear facility was not producing anything. Look it up. Nobody was concerned about Libyan nukes at all. It's well known in the literature that they had nothing and weren't going anywhere.

Then you say "This is the way to justify the war against your homeland. I know you said you don't want it, but you are making it possible".

How can you even doubt this? You are repeating Bush/Neocon propaganda word for word and you are wondering "how" you are making this possible?

As for Russia and China. They will go along with anything if they get some economic benefit from the US which rolls out extensive bribes at every single UN vote. Second, they don't care if US gets involved with Iran. They would love to see American empire bleed to death in the middle east. Are you kidding me?


To: G. Rahmanian

by Kamangir on

Dear G. Rahmanian

The last blog/article or better say the interview posted by Darius Kadivar //   has a lot to do with the issue we're discussing here. In the VOA interview several known Iranians such as Banisadr, Montazeri, Empress Farah Pahlavi and others have been interviewed regarding the origins of 1979 and its past and current situation and also the 'future' of Iran. This future can only be 'real' and positive if it's the result of a progressive change NOT a as a result of war or military action against Iran. I agree with you that change from within doesn't come from within on its own, but just as the so called revolution took place with the Western media and world against Pahlevi Monarchy while being-pro khomeini, the world now has to stop 'backing' and supporting the IRI because of its economical profitability. Change from within needs world-wide support. As per who will 'replace' the IRI, Iran has a much more mature and open-minded and realistic youth than 1979 and this youth and Iranian people in overall will be able to stablish the basis for a deep systematic soci-political change towards democracy. They don't really need the abroad opposition groups to help them much. The whole point is that a military conflict with Iran won't help Iranians at all and can actually cause severe long lasting problems in our country wich would boost the IRI presence and its very oppresive methods. We all want change and we all need world-wide help in the process, but not military help. Iran is a very complex country and its problems cannot be solved by force.



Dear Observer

by Anonymous Iranlover (not verified) on

You are being to emotional about the issue and it is having an impact on your though process. I never advocated for the bombing of Iran. Please go read again if you missed it.

Please gracefully accept the facts that I am no Zionist. Khaheshmikonam sahyonist hara dar een moazoh ghaty nakon. I was simply stating that IRI does not look rational when it invites the likes of David Duke to Iran on Anti Holocaust conferences. Forget the Jewish lobby outcry on the issue. What about the message it sends to the rest of the world? If that makes me a Zionist supporter than you have serious problems.

I am sure getting bombed is not fun. I am simply stating that the IRI is not playing its cards right. Please go read the scenario. What would you do if you were the US? Also, I am stating that US is not the only hardliner on the IRI issue. The gang who are usually softies and who had good economic relations with the IRI during the past 30 years have a red line when it comes to the IRI and nukes. Even these soft countries refuse to take the military option off the table. France, Germany Austria and the rest of "old Europe" are not controlled by the "Zionist Lobby". Do these countries have local AIPAC Chapters? Why do these countries take such a hard stance against the IRI and follow the US line?
All these countries were against the US in its invasion of Iraq. However, they seem to be very serious about

Instead of attacking me personally, please analyze the situation. Its about power, Its about oil and its about a brand of political islam that seems to be going out of control.


Iran lover: you are a pretender anyway

by observer (not verified) on

How can you claim to love Iran and advocate bombing Iran?
Then you are pretending to love Iran.
I smell a wheef of pro Israel/Zionist in your writing.
Tell me I am wrong and I'll gracefully accept it.
When it comes to be bombed I have to let you know I have experienced it first hand during the summer of 1360 in Ahvaz.
I know what it is all about.
Have you?
Don't prescribe it for any nation.


The Coup!

by G. Rahmanian (not verified) on


You wrote:
"If there's any change it should be from within only."

The question is how can this actually happen from within. Here, I am not implying change should come from without although outside influence is always there in different forms and shapes.

In one of my articles I sent to last year, I wrote Ahmadinejhad and the militarists running the country would stage a coup when they realize that Ahmadinejhad would not stand a chance for reelection. Thay did not even wait until the presidential elections and decided to install all their lackies in positions of power.

Like many Iranians you too talk about Mossadegh forgetting that in '79 Iranians had a chance to create their own democracy, but we saw what happened to that chance.

Iranians who until recently didn't care about politics are voicing their displeasure or even hatred vis-a-vis the autocratic rule of the IRI militarists.

Simply saying the change should come from within cannot and will not solve Iran's problems. Where is the kind of leadership which could lead any uprising against the regime? During Mossadegh's time it was the National Front, in '79 it was the National Front plus the religious leaders and other organizations, which group or organization do you recommend now?

Unless all the Iranian opposition groups which are for a change of government and establishing a democracy come to the realization that they are ONLY interest groups representing different layers of the Iranian society, there will not be a chance for success.

Ordinary Iranians know what they want, it is the opposition groups which seem to be lagging behind AGAIN blaming the past for their inability to unite!


Dear Observer

by Anonymous Iranlover (not verified) on

Khodet bisavadi Azizam. You lost the first bet. Shab bekheir.


Dear all take a look at the following two article!

by Anonymous-2 (not verified) on

Dear all:

Please read both of the articles I have posted. Both articles are written by pro U.S. Gov. Officials and representatives. Both are stating that Iran has difficulty of even fully enriching the 3,000 centrifuges. Both articles are stating that a possible solution to the Iranian nuclear program is possible, in fact Iran itself had proposed this two years ago which would ensure Iran would not be developing any nuclear weapons.

In summary this is the proposal:

“The proposal , is that the United States would work with several countries—possibly France, Germany, possibly the United Kingdom—and work with Iran to negotiate a consortium, or what is called a “multilateral fuel-cycle facility,” on Iranian territory that would encompass the Iranians’ existing work with their centrifuges to enrich uranium. It would become a partnership with Iran to further develop their nuclear capacity for peaceful uses, and be accompanied by a very strict and thorough regime of inspections and monitoring that would make certain that Iran did not produce highly enriched uranium, which is what would be necessary for nuclear weapons. It would also bar a heavy-water reactor, which could develop plutonium for nuclear weapons, and would encompass other constraints on Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear-weapons capacity
have provided a solution, which Iran had already provided two years ago.”

However, this has been rejected by Bush/Cheney. Why?

I spoke with a nuclear scientist who has been involved in this project for the past 11 years. You know what he said, he said this to me, (comes from the horses mouth not mine), it is not Bush/Cheney but the “Z” Lobby (he didn’t even pronounce it fully)!!

He indicated that the Department of Defense (DoD) is infiltrated by the Z lobby and they will not approve this solution!!

So then I asked “well this issue will never go away; so you are basically saying there is absolutely no solution whatsoever?”

This was his response to me:

“Not necessarily. Politics has no mother or father. ANYthing goes, when your interest are at stake. Sometimes, it may cost more than the going rates. It's business, nothing personal.”

So we know the issue is not that the U.S. is really threatened by Iran’s nuclear program.

It is seriously illogical to think that even, I mean even if Iran was ever to develop one nuclear weapon, it could possibly be a threat to anyone. Just take a look at all the nuclear armed countries surrounding Iran. Do you think Pakistan is more fanatical, and radical or Iran? Even with the IRI, I still fear Pakistan a lot more!! Have you taken a look at the Taliban in Pakistan? Even the Pakistani army can’t control them, and in fact they sympathize with them!!! They also sympathize with OBL, that’s why he has not been caught for the past 5 years!

It is different in our country. You know our culture, we don’t like to kill ourselves; it is simply not in our blood! Including the Mullah’s; are you kidding they like their life more than you and I!!.

I agree with Q, so far IRI has in fact acted more rationally than we have given them credit for. They don’t want a war. It doesn’t matter whether some may think that IRI wants a war because the people are going to rally around the flag, a military attack will be an end to IRI, as well as Iran.

I hate to keep taking Iraq as an example, but the situation is the same. Is there much left for any Iraqi to say we are happy at the current situation? They are totally humiliated and have lost everything! So, yes, Saddam is gone, but so is Iraq!.

Here are the two articles:

Luers: Possible Solution for U.S.-Iran Nuclear Standoff
Interviewee: William H. Luers, President of the United Nations Association–USA
Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor

March 13, 2008


And the Other:

Albright: Next U.S. President Must Deal Quickly with Iran Nuclear Program
Interviewee: David Albright, President, Institute for Science and International Security
Interviewer: Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor

March 3, 2008


Now read the following article and see how India is being given the most sophisticated nuclear technology. Why would India need nuclear submarines? By the way, isn’t it a violation for nuclear armed countries to assist non-NPT signatories?

US firm, CEO admit weapon, nuclear-linked export violations


So long as the U.S. can sell military arms, even the most sophisticated weapons, for dollars it doesn’t care who the buyer is. The U.S. don’t forget has a short term memory. It only looks at near term profits and not long term consequences. It will only start to take action when all of those it has armed (i.e. Taliban, Mujahedeen, Saddam, Al-Qaeda, maybe one day Pakistan, India, Saudi) turn against it; at that point it will bomb them into annihilation...

Even then it doesn’t care, because as it says war is good for the economy!! Unfortunately, this is the sickness of U.S. policy. However, I do not want my country to be destroyed for the benefit of anyone's economic or personal interest!!


Iran lover: with lovers like you who needs haters!

by observer (not verified) on

Dear sir,
Please pay attention:
1. I bet you are not Iranian at all but you pretend to be one.
2. You are probably one of those Iran/Moslem haters we encounter on this site a lot.
3. Your scenario doesn't hold any water. $70 per barrel oil?
4. Don't waste your time to persuade some "vulnerable" Iranians to agree with bombing Iran. I do not know any sane Iranian who is supporting bombing Iran.
5. You are not dealing with a bunch of uneducated "EYE Rainians". We've been through wars and have experienced being bombed.
6. Work for peace and tolerance while you are here or take a walk.


Q- This is not propoganda

by Anonymous Iranlover (not verified) on

Thank you for your reply. You have not convinced me for the following reasons:

1) "Ordinary Americans" would not even understand the following scenario. The Bush administration sold the latest war to the Americans based on a fear of WMD's in Iraq and they fell for it. Also, The ultimate goal of the US in 1991 was to insure safe oil supply- it was not the freedom of the Kuwaitis. For example- Saddam having WMD's would not be a direct threat to US because the US is obviously more powerful. However, would the US and the rest of the "Coalition" in 1991, attempt to free Kuwait if they knew 100% that Saddam had nukes? Would they impose sanctions for 10 years and corner Saddam in the manner they did if they knew that Saddam had a nuke? Would they re-invade Iraq and occupy it if Saddam had nukes? Surely, you would agree that Saddam would have the right to use his nukes against the invading Americans (even though it would be morally wrong- based on history he would have the right to defend his nation in that manner- as evil as he was).

2) Your reliance on the Korean example is very weak. Korea is not sitting in the Persian Gulf were Europe and Asia rely on the majority of their oil supply. Korea is dependent on Chinese support and could not last a month without China. This is not the case with the IRI. The IRI is a rich entity unlike North Korea.

3) Its not about rational/irrational or "fake fears" as you say. There was a cold war between the East & West over what you call "fake fears". Its about having the power to do it. Its not about Russia and China having missiles aimed at the US. We know that. I also know that the Mullahs will not invade the US. But could the Mullahs, with nukes, take over the oil region in Basra and get away with it because they have nukes? Would the US be as bold as it was against Saddam if it knew that the Mullahs had nukes? I am talking about balance of power. Why should America allow another country into the nuclear club if it can stop it? Especially in such a startegic region. This is not Pakistan and Korea.

4) You say "Iran does not even have nuclear weapons". I said the POTENTIAL. The potential is enough. That is why the entire West is against the IRI on this issue.

5) you also say "IRI also has done many rational things to keep itself out of war so far."

Can you please list the "rational things" Iran has done?

A. Is it the financial support and arming of the Hizbolah and Hamas?

B. Is it going to bed with Syria and Venezuela's Chavez?

C. Is it the arming of the Shia Militia in Iraq or Taliban?

D. Is it the stupid propeganda war of words (and word play) with Zionists, Israel and Holocaust denial conferences?

E. Is it the stupid claims IRI official make about their rights to the Arab Gulf nations which instills
fear in the Arab world that Shia Iran is competing with Arab Sunni Middle East for Dominance?

Also, listing Libya was not rational by you. Libya was actually smart. It gave up its clandestine nuclear weapons program (documented) in exchange for better relations with the US and the west.

Then you say "This is the way to justify the war against your homeland. I know you said you don't want it, but you are making it possible".

How exactly am I making it possible? Is it by showing you that there are two sides to the story? Is it by showing you that the IRI is not that rational in its behavior? Please. I am no Vatan foroosh. This is not a situation where the US is being the typical bully it is alway accused of being. The Germans, Italians, French and the rest of "old Europe" as Rumsfeld once said, is for this though stance against the IRI. The Arabs are silently for this as well. If god forbid anything happens to Iran, we have no one to blame but the IRI. You think they are playing their cards right. I don't.

Finally, as a reminder, the same Russians and Chinese, who are selling nuke technology to the IRI, are voting against them in the UN. These are the same Russians who armed Iraq to the teeth and dropped it like a hot potato in 1991. Who do you think they will side with if push comes to shove?


Clean your mind, Iran-Hater!

by traitorsareshameless (not verified) on

AnonymousIran Hater,

you better focus on the fact that around one million people have died in Afghanistan and Iraq (who cares? you don't care about that do you? nor do your western bosses.) during the past 6 years, mainly children due to hunger (=lack of food, do you ever know what dying of hunger means?) and that many Iraqi women were raped by invading forces in front of their husbands and that the people of Iraq are being exterminated due to the fact that now invading forces have designed the strategy of 'divide and rule' to keep occupying the country.

Instead of giving us imaginary and stupid scenarios and defending the west you better focus on advising your beloved western powers on not interfering in other countries.

If you keep your energy on defending your homeland and advising the warmongering powers to keep their nose out of your homeland it would be more beneficial both to them (they won't have all economic problems they now have) and to your countries' people.

Stop encouraging invasion and violation of human rights by those-whom-you-know-very-well!
That's all I say.


IranLover: don't confuse the propaganda with reality

by Q on

Your scenario is a very unlikely hypothetical based on fears that are instilled on TV to ordinary Americans, but they are not real. The leaders of the West do not believe them for an instant.

North Korea is A LOT crazier than Iran will ever be. They can threaten Tokyo with a Nuke right now. There is more wealth in Japan and Korea than there is in the Persian Gulf. It's ludicrious to thin they WOULD and it's even more ludicrous to think the IRI would make a nuclear "threat."

Don't be fooled. No one is afraid of Iran actually using a weapon. If Iran ever does, it will be anhilated with impunityu. It's all talk to scare the ordinary people. Look, America gave Saddam Hussein chemical weapons and is today giving the best planes and tanks to Saudi Arabia. Arming Turkey and Pakistan to the teeth knowing both countries could easily fall into radical hands. They gave the TALIBAN missiles and guns. They DO NOT CARE about the consquences. So, your thesis falls flat, there is no "threat" to the west, whatsover. It's all talk.

Your scenario is built on fake fears. It assumes that the "good guys" will be blackmailed by "potential" threat. NO! Just look for yourself. There was MUCH GREATER potential for destroying America from Communist USSR and China, and there was no need to go to war over that! Even though their leaders were very hostile to the US and unlike Iran actually had the means to make good on their threats. Right now there are both Russian and Chinese missile aimed at the US cities! Don't tell me about threat!

I do not accept that IRI is more irrational than North Korea, Libya, Saudis, Burmese, Taliban, Maoists, etc. or any number of current or former scenarios. Iran does not even have nuclear weapons.

IRI also has done many rational things to keep itself out of war so far. To say that they are SO irrational as to not leave any choice BUT to bomb them, is to accept the pro-war propaganda against Iran. If you want to bomb Iran, there really isn't much else you can say, is there? This is the way to justify the war against your homeland. I know you said you don't want it, but you are making it possible.


Dear traitorsareshameless

by AnonymousIran Lover (not verified) on

Please read my post. I do not advocate for attacking
the IRI. I do not want my homeland attacked. Instead of calling me a traitor, please read the scenario. It was only a scenario and because of the scenario, I think that the west has no option but to attack. Again, sir/madam, read the scenario. It was not an economic excuse. Its about balance of power and who is in charge. What would you do if your were the WEST under the scenario? Forget that you are Iranian. What would you do if it meant that you would have to deal with Mullah's who are armed with nukes. Please reply to the scenario instead of calling me a traitor.

I posted the scenario again for you to give you a second chance.

Imagin the following scenario in 10 years.

The IRI economy is in shambels. 15% unemployment. Oil is at $150 a barrel. World/US economy is also in Shambels. Saudis and the rest of the Arabs decide to increase output bu 50% to help the world economy. They manage to bring oil prices down to $70 a barrel.
This decision by the Arabs has a devastating impact on IRI's economy. The IRI says to the Arabs: "Decrease you output or we will cut off all oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. Buy the way, if the USA gets involved, we will have no reservations against using our nuclear arsenal on your oil field in retaliation."

What would the world do in such instance?

What could they do?

Why should the west potentially allow itself to be held hostage by the mullahs having such power at their disposal.

Again- I am not saying that the mullahs will do this. The potential and ability to do it is enough that it could justify hitting the IRI. This is the point I think that most people miss.

I don't think the west would have any issues if Iran was ruled by a rational political system. The current IRI system is simply not rational in its internal affairs and it does not have a good track record with respect to whom it supports outside its borders. The crazy left can make all its anti imperialist arguments. At the end these are losing arguments; as the cost/risks of having the Mullahs with the POTENTIAL ability of getting their hand on nuclear weapons is far more dangerous than the risks involved in weakening the IRI by surgical strikes in order to stop them in their pursuit of having the POTENTIAL to get their hands on such technology.

Inviting the likes of David Duke to a Holocaust denial conference for instance, is a perfect example of IRI's mentality and leadership ability.


best quote from the video

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on

"We have to rely on Iranians themselves to correct the excesses of their own system." - Barbara Slavin

Such simple truths are hard to come by. But this is the formula. No one can do it except Iranians: not exiles, not communists, not monarchists, not Americans, not Israelis. Everyone else should get their behind out of this issue.

Thank You Kamangir.


Stinking foreign affairs!

by Kamangir on

I cannot but agree 100% with Anonymous-2 and I would simply add that many observers both Iranian and non-Iranian believe that with enough international preassure and robust economic sanctions the IRI's stablishment will start to crack and will collapse with social uprisings as Iranians are simply fed-up with it.  Personally; my biggest concern has always been the severe cultural damage the IRI has caused in Iran, in its systematic attempt to erase the pre-islamic history and memory of Iran while replacing it with something non-iranian. I've no sympathy for IRI, none whatsoever; but as it has been mentioned here,  rather stick to what we currently have in Iran, as opposed to see my country burned and humiliated and with the IRI hardliners still there, repressing even more the already repressed Iranians. Look at what happened to Iraq. Iraq once had the best medicare system and infrustructure under in the region. The firt war against it and then embargo and the second and finall attack against it have broken the back of that country. How much more humiliation can a country go through?

The US cannot invade Iran and cannot remove the IRI (if that's what they really want) with air strikes... therefore there's no point in using that option.  The anglo-american hidden hand have taken Iran to what it's now and that's enough; we are sick and tired of their mediocre double standards. They are not concerned with human rights in Iran, why would they? Do they want to test their weapons again? do they want to destroy our country's infrustructure so then hallibuton and other private companies come to 'rebuild' it?

They can start by fixing their own medicare system...if it's fixable. 



American democracy is hypocrisy

by bidar (not verified) on

The Americans don't care about the freedom for Iranian people, what is important for them is to have a regime change in Iran and bringing someone(as always a dictator) to defend their own interest. Mullas are evil tyrants but still living under their regime is much better than living under an occupying foreigner force. Democracy in Iran should be established and flourished by Iranian people and not by American and other foreigners. We don't want that our country ends like the Iraq.


Dear Kamangir

by Anonymous-2 (not verified) on

I can see you are a true patriot and care about Iran and the Iranian people. Not only many of us Iranians but others in the U.S. political system fully believe that the U.S. Gov. will take military action against Iran. I have personally spoken to congressional representatives who are anti-war and they all say the same thing; that is, "if you believe the U.S. does not have an agenda for an attack, then we suggest that you think twice."

I spoke with about 20 congressional reps from both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats, and some who were presidential candidates (Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and others). They know what is taking place inside of the U.S. political circles.

Not only that but if you watch what has been going on from 2000 when Bush became President, and read all the lies and propaganda that led up to the war in Iraq, and then the saber-rattling against Iran it follows the same exact pattern. Iran has been the main target for the Bush Admin. and the neocons; Iraq was simply a precursor.

Furthermore look what has recently taken place Admiral Fallon was booted out, why? He was stating that: "we are not going to attack Iran on my watch"! There are many in the U.S. military who have the same view and some have already resigned, and others will follow.

The U.S. wants a regime change -not for your benefit, nor mine, nor for the benefit of the Iranian people, but simply for its own.

So while you are fighting for democracy and a secular system, and economic justice for the Iranian people. This is not the U.S. agenda, has never been and will not be. At least not in the near future. And personally, I question if the U.S. foreign policy will change over night even with Obama!

You can see the disaster in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, as well as all the other dictators whom the U.S. supports.

Right now, the Bush Admin. is fully supporting Musharaff in Pakistan against the will of the Pakistani people, even after the elections when the democratic party won! Does this make sense to you, why would the U.S. support a military dictator whom the people do not like, and have voted for a democratic gov.?

No, because the U.S. believes that it owns the world, and you, and I and the rest of the public have to shut up and take what they want to force down upon us!!

Why would they want to attack Iran?

(1) They want regime change so that they can once again control Iran - this means loss of our independence and imposition of a puppet that will do as the U.S. wants. U.S. is not looking to see an independent, democratic, self-reliant Iran; it simply does not serve their interest!!

(2) How can this be achieved - (a) either through covert action unleashing the MEK/NCRI, and other foreign terrorist organizations, or the CIA/Mossad etc. They have done this before and can do it again.

(b) if covert activity cannot remove the regime; Israel will never allow another Middle Eastern country to become powerful in the region, unless it is controlled by the U.S.

(c) IRI is not about to bend to U.S. dictates - as such if the first strategy of regime change via (a) does not work, surgical attacks will take place. And don't be fooled, when they say surgical attacks they want to destroy Iran's military capabilities, its armed forces all of its defense system; her telecommunication centers, and other infrastructure.

Do you think that mega collateral damage including civilian death will not occur?

Do you want to see Iran as weak as Iraq and Afghanistan, or like Saudi Arabia, or Pakistan? They surely don't intend to turn it into Sweden, France, or even Italy!!

Think about it and see what you, as an Iranian, regardless of your hatred for the regime may want for Iran. I mean IRAN, because it is our mother land and will always be our mother land. I don't care about regimes, they come and go, but I like you care very much about my country, my heritage, my roots, and the Iranian people. I surely don't want to wake up one day and see the "shock and awe" on television as bombs and missiles are being droped on Iran.

What I have been reading is that the Buch/Cheney will not leave the office silently but with a bang - and that bang is IRAN!!

This is why many of us are frightened, and believe this is our number one concern. They have done it before, and are capable of doing it again.

Kinzer, is not the only one saying this, there are many former intelligence officers, many other scholars who know U.S. foreign policy, and as I said the U.S. Congressional representatives themselves.
The list is just too long and in fact the media also speaks about it!!

I am 100% against any attack on Iran. I like you do not want Iranian soldiers, our armed forces to be destroyed so that Iran will be left defenseless, while foreign forces occupy Iran.

So while we are upset with what is taking place inside the country, personally, right now at this time, I am more concerned with what the U.S. and U.K. and Israel are planning for Iran! When our country is destroyed, when our people are killed, are we going to be speaking about how many newspapers are left open, or freedom of expression and speech? Our country just became another Iraq - are you seeing the Iraqis fight for freedom right now? No, they want to be able to cross the street without being killed, they want to drink clean water, they want to have shelter, they want to feed their children, they want hospitals which can gprovide medicine to keep their children and families alive.

As such, I don't beieve anyone of us should keep our guards down. Unfortunately, the U.S. has been threatening Iran for too long. They don't care about collateral damage!! But we sure do!!



The Folly of treason

by traitorsareshameless (not verified) on

Some people call themselves Iran-Lover but in reality they are pure Iran-Haters. They are shameless TRAITORS in the purest sense of the word.

These criminial 'rationalists'(trying to justify why the west should attack IRan) can not see the fact that if Iran is attacked the iranian army and sepah will not surrender soon and very soon there will be an escalation of the war to the NUCLEAR level.

Who does not know the devastating effects of a nuclear war (limited or surgical are all nonsense)?
Look at Hiroshima today. Every baby born there has genetical problems. Do you (sadeloh people or traitors) want that to happen to your country?

I see you are talking about economy to justify an attack to your country!! This is so funny to see traitors use sophistry to justify a crime. Look at US economy, it is now ruined due to the stupid 6 year war in Iraq and Afghanistan. If the US had pulled out 3 or 4 years ago all this would not have happened. Now US economy is well below Europe and China.

Don't worry about the inflation in Iran to justify the horrible crime of attacking IRan and killing millions of people and raping a country.
The inflation is high but people are living and making money, though hardly, but they are not being killed by devastating bombs and their women are not being raped by invading forces and their country is not being torn to pieces, it is all unified.

The Mullah regime is bad but any change for a country must come from WITHIN not imposed by devastating powers who only think of their own economic and geopolitical interests.

Shame on lunatic traitors who want their country destroyed by invaders!


NO to military attack

by IRANdokht on

A military attack will only result in a stronger IRI, drawing the support of the true patriots who will fight for their country against any foreign invasion.

No true Iranian should support such action 



The Folly of NOT Attacking IRI!

by AnonymousIran Lover (not verified) on

Most Iranians fail to see the other side of the story (why the west MUST attack IRI).

Most of our Hamvatans, love Iran. No question about it. The problem the West has is the IRI system. If the IRI gets its hands on nuclear weapons, it will be much more dangerous than Iraq. The IRI has no checks and balances. A few turban heads (and a few stupid hezbolahi idiots like Ahmadinejad) make decisions for 70,000 million people.

The IRI is a supporter of proxy terror. Sure, you can defend them for supporting Hizbollah, Hamas, elements of Shia militia in Iraq. Most of these arguments in support of IRI's idiotic policies are "Anti Imperialists/Anti Zionist" in nature and its the functional equivalent of lawyers defending a murderer caught on video tape..... These are lawyers who represent the losers in the world and the people who defend IRI's actions, defend the losers amongst us Hamvatans.

Imagin the following scenario in 10 years.

The IRI economy is in shambels. 15% unemployment. Oil is at $150 a barrel. World/US economy is also in Shambels. Saudis and the rest of the Arabs decide to increase output bu 50% to help the world economy. They manage to bring oil prices down to $70 a barrel.
This decision by the Arabs has a devastating impact on IRI's economy. The IRI says to the Arabs: "Decrease you output or we will cut off all oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. Buy the way, if the USA gets involved, we will have no reservations against using our nuclear arsenal on your oil field in retaliation."

What would the world do in such instance?

What could they do?

Why should the west potentially allow itself to be held hostage by the mullahs having such power at their disposal.

Again- I am not saying that the mullahs will do this. The potential and ability to do it is enough that it could justify hitting the IRI. This is the point I think that most people miss.

I don't think the west would have any issues if Iran was ruled by a rational political system. The current IRI system is simply not rational in its internal affairs and it does not have a good track record with respect to whom it supports outside its borders. The crazy left can make all its anti imperialist arguments. At the end these are losing arguments; as the cost/risks of having the Mullahs with the POTENTIAL ability of getting their hand on nuclear weapons is far more dangerous than the risks involved in weakening the IRI by surgical strikes in order to stop them in their pursuit of having the POTENTIAL to get their hands on such technology.

Inviting the likes of David Duke to a Holocaust denial conference for instance, is a perfect example of IRI's mentality and leadership ability.


What about ...

by Obsure (not verified) on

Mr. Kamangir,

Please also consider the possibility of a behind-the-scene agreement between Iran hardliners and Americans for an attack!! It sounds obscure but if you sit and list what hardliners will gain from an attack and what they loose, you may agree that such deal is quite feasible.