Obama 2008

By the way

It was the Clinton Administration that issued a formal apology about Operation Ajax. Which was a mistake, in my opinion. Do you think Bill Clinton has a functional moral compass?

The reason I think that apology was a mistake is that it needlessly gave the IRI and it's supporters yet another thing they could use against the US. And the only reason the Clinton Administration did that is not because they thought Operation Ajax was something the US shoudl be ashamed of, but because they mistakenly thought they could get some diplomatic concessions out of the IRI that way. Turned out to be yet another lesson about the futilty of trying to engage a regime like the Islamic Republic in any kind of meaningful dialog.

AnonymousAnonymous

I'm going to cut some of your comments off and just reply to the gist of them. You seem to be trying to prove a case :)

Agents and operatives of the U.S.
government paid Iranian individuals to commit acts of violence...

Well, if you coudl prove that, you might have a case for the US acting in an immoral manner. But then we'd have to argue about whether it was really immoral to support the Shah rather than Mossadeq. You wouldn't have a claim to that being ILLEGAL unless the US "operatives" were actively involved in the violence... did the US train assassins in Iran? Were Americans assuming a leadership role (giving direct commands, etc)? And so forth. I don't think you can prove that, because I don't think that is what happened. I could be wrong.

The U.S. behaved as an enemy of the Iranian
people and committed acts which were grounds for war.

I disagree. There is a difference between acting as an enemy, and committing acts of war. The US treats many nations as enemies, but we go to war with very few of them. When it come sto the episode in 1953, we would have to argue about whether Mossadeq is the hero (and democrat!) that you make him out to be, or the Soviet puppet that otehrs make him out to be. And that wouldn't be very productive, because you still wouldn't prove your case about it being an act of war. That would only establish themorality (or lack thereof) of US actions.

 Common sense and
morality would dictate that this is self-evident. (By the way, you used
the word "ummutable"; I believe the correct word is immutable--but
that's neither here nor there).

That's correct. I made a typographical error. The 'u' is right next to the 'i' (on my keyboard at least) and I type fast and sloppy.I've gotten spoiled by spellcheckers to highlight my typos. Unfortunately, teh firefox spellchecker doesn't work in this custom comment editer. Maybe we can get JJ to remedy that. I'm not about to start proofreading blog comments, though. This isn't an essay for a creative writing course I'm working on here!

You say: "And that's what we are talking about here - the
law."--Actually no, that's not the only thing were discussing here. The
law is often detached from morality;

Your morality is not the same as my morality. All we can talk about when it comes to international relations, is the law. International law is written to the lowest common denominator. A set of rules that all people, everywhere, can agree is just.

It's interesting that you state: "Under US law, the only crime more
heinous than kidnapping is murder." So would it have been less heinous
if the hostages had been executed?

No. That would have been kidnapping AND murder. Both.

You make very little sense with teh rest of this paragraph, so I'm skipping it.

And you further state "if the US had chosen to get involved, it
would have been justified in doing so." So the U.S. was justified in
helping Iraq in its act of aggression?

You bet. The US would have been justified in invading Iran in 1979, when the embassy was seized. You think any lesser measures could have somehow been unjustified?

Was Iraq also justified in its
invasion of Iran?

That's not relevant re: the US.

By "US restraint" do you mean America's assistance to Iraq in its
murderous aggression against Iran? That's a rather pathological
definition of "restraint".

Iraq recieved very little in teh way of assitance from the US. Maybe the US should have provided Iraq with more. To ensure that iraq won the war. But, we didn't. My own assessment is that the US didn't have a high opinion of Saddam, either. And didn't really want iraq to win. Lucky for the IRI.

Craig, I find it difficult to debate someone, like you, who seems
(and I say seems because I do not know you well) to have no moral
compass whatsoever.

I won't comment on that. Or the rest. If you are comfortable with the IRIs "moral" stance the last 30 years then I hardly think you are the one who should be talking about somebody else's moral compass. I belive the IRI to be EVIL. In capital letters. That's why I try to stick to the law when I discuss the IRI. If we get into MORALITY then my beliefs would suggest an entity as EVIL as the IRI must be destroyed, without mercy and without delay. And no matter what the cost.

Reply to Programmer Craig

Agents and operatives of the U.S. government paid Iranian individuals to commit acts of violence by distributing cash to gangsters and street thugs. Is it lawful (or to use your phrase "legally valid") to pay others to carry out acts of violence, including murder? If a foreign government is engineering a coup against the legal, duly elected, and popular Prime Minister of a sovereign country, does that not constitute the highest violation of a nation's sovereignty? The U.S. behaved as an enemy of the Iranian people and committed acts which were grounds for war. Common sense and morality would dictate that this is self-evident. (By the way, you used the word "ummutable"; I believe the correct word is immutable--but that's neither here nor there).

You say: "And that's what we are talking about here - the law."--Actually no, that's not the only thing were discussing here. The law is often detached from morality; for example, the laws of the U.S. and other countries once sanctioned slavery. We're also talking about right and wrong. The wrong that a group of Iranian individuals committed by holding the U.S. embassy staff hostage was far exceeded by the wrongs committed against Iran by the U.S. (namely, the 1953 coup; helping to establish, organize, and train SAVAK; and giving Iraq assistance in its invasion of Iran). Iran has NEVER interfered in America's internal affairs; abetted an attack on the American heartland; or helped provide WMDs for use against Americans.

It's interesting that you state: "Under US law, the only crime more heinous than kidnapping is murder." So would it have been less heinous if the hostages had been executed? Or if the hostage-takers had paid others to kill them, as CIA agents paid others to have Iranians killed in 1953? That way, they could have simply used the defense that they themselves had not personally committed violent acts (because, as you said "you cannot attribute acts of violence to people who are not directly involved. It doesn't work that way").

And you further state "if the US had chosen to get involved, it would have been justified in doing so." So the U.S. was justified in helping Iraq in its act of aggression? Was Iraq also justified in its invasion of Iran?

By "US restraint" do you mean America's assistance to Iraq in its murderous aggression against Iran? That's a rather pathological definition of "restraint".

Craig, I find it difficult to debate someone, like you, who seems (and I say seems because I do not know you well) to have no moral compass whatsoever. I point out the fact that the U.S. government (but NOT the American people) has played a very malign role in Iran's history in recent decades and you offer me lame, amoral legal niceties of questionable validity. You typify the kind of Mafia lawyer who tries to spring murderers out of jail by using every conceivable loophole.

Best Regards

Trying again

The violent interference of the U.S. government in Iran's internal
affairs (notably by spearheading the coup d'etat against Mosaddeq, an
operation which was largely based in the U.S. embassy) occurred decades
before the embassy takeover. We could perhaps say that the U.S.
"declared war" on Iran in 1953?

No American was "violent" in Iran in 1953. You can blame the US as much as you want, but the ummutable fact is that the violence was all Iranian on Iranian. Therefore you can't claim that the US perpetrated an act of war against Iran.

Moreover, U.S. interference in Iran far exceeded in scale and scope
the embassy takeover, since it led to significant loss of Iranian life.

I don't know how many times I have to say this... it's improper for you to blame the US for what Iranians do. It's legally invalid. And that's what we are talking about here - the law. If my co-worker tells me his wife is cheating on him with another man, and I tell him (my co-worker) that he should go beat the hell out of the guy... an he does it... is it my fault? Will I be arrested and prosecuted for giving my co-worker dubious advice? What if I take it one step further... what if I drive him over to the guy's house. And then he runs in and assualts the guy. Is it my fault then? Or not? Legally speaking, I mean.

The taking of the embassy staff as hostages was wrong and unjustified;

Yes it was. It was also an act of war, and a violation of the Vienna Conventions in every detail:

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_...

Iran could have simply asked them to leave and/or recall its own
embassy.

That is the only LEGAL way to break off diplomatic relations with another country.

However, none of the hostages were killed.

US law was sovereign at the US embassy. Under US law, the only crime more heinous than kidnapping is murder. And by using the diplomats as hostages in order to try to extract political concessions, it became state sponsored terrorism as well as kidnapping.

On the other hand,
America's backing for Iraq's invasion of Iran (along with the support
given by Europe, Russia, and most Arab states) through military,
satellite, WMD assistance, and diplomatic means helped facilitate
Iraq's aggression.

Again, you cannot attribute acts of violence to people who are not directly involved. It doesn't work that way. It just doesn't.

But, if the US had chosen to get involved, it would have been justified in doing so.

The U.S. supported Iraq while it bombed Iran's
cities and used chemical weapons against Iranians. I suppose one could
say that the U.S. government started the "war" against Iran over
half-a-century ago and has the blood of a lot of Iranian citizens on
its hands.

OK. You wouldn't be able to make that case, but lets assume for a moment you are right. It doesn't change the idea that the only thing preventing the US from attacking the IRI at any time is US restraint.  Does it? Whoever started it, there is and has been a defacto state of war between the US and Iran for quite some time.

AnonymousAnonymous

I am not aware of Iran ever having issued
a declaration of war on the U.S. Are you referring to the embassy
takeover?

Yes. That was an act of war. No declaration of war is necessary, when a defacto state of war exists.

I was going to comment more but this commenting tool seems to be having trouble with formatting for me today. Maybe I'll try again later :)

Programmer Craig: when did Iran "declare war" on U.S.?

I am not aware of Iran ever having issued a declaration of war on the U.S. Are you referring to the embassy takeover? The violent interference of the U.S. government in Iran's internal affairs (notably by spearheading the coup d'etat against Mosaddeq, an operation which was largely based in the U.S. embassy) occurred decades before the embassy takeover. We could perhaps say that the U.S. "declared war" on Iran in 1953?

Moreover, U.S. interference in Iran far exceeded in scale and scope the embassy takeover, since it led to significant loss of Iranian life. The taking of the embassy staff as hostages was wrong and unjustified; Iran could have simply asked them to leave and/or recall its own embassy. However, none of the hostages were killed. On the other hand, America's backing for Iraq's invasion of Iran (along with the support given by Europe, Russia, and most Arab states) through military, satellite, WMD assistance, and diplomatic means helped facilitate Iraq's aggression. The U.S. supported Iraq while it bombed Iran's cities and used chemical weapons against Iranians. I suppose one could say that the U.S. government started the "war" against Iran over half-a-century ago and has the blood of a lot of Iranian citizens on its hands.

Mehran-001

From what I understand the Georgian's are the one who started the whole
mess.

And if the US encouraged Kurds in Iran to delcare their own autonomous region, and the IRI sent in troops in response, would Iran be the one who "started the whole mess"?

I think their dictator president made a strategic error and gave
an excuse to the Russian to smoke him out.

And in my above secneario, wouldn't the US just *love* for the IRI to make the exact same strategic error? Wouldn't the US love an opportunity to drwa the iranian military into an offensive operation where it would be extremely vulnerable to US military superiority?

The main difference is if the US did something like that, it would be for cause. The IRI declared war on the US in 1979 and never reversed position on that. Russias actions in Georgia are simple greed and megalomania.

Huh?

Mehran, I too read Obama's statement and I am not sure what part of what Obama says you are not sure about or understand.

He clearly starts his comments with :"No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country. Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks.

Anonymous I am not sure what McCain's position is but even if its same as Obama's on this issue, what seems to be the problem?! Do you think only because they are presidential candidates of two different parties, they have to disagree on EVERY issue???!

Yes, this is not the first time history has observed Russian tanks rolling down the streets of another country. I remember many of them in my lifetime, but this one is after the cold war. The Russian leadership in that past few years has been showing new nostalgic signs of their old empire again..

Who said Russia is not a democracy?

Right! Democracy is also what goes on in Iran now.

Russians are always innocent since Russia still reminds some of the "glorious" Bolshevik revolution of 1917 ... an inspiration to the Proletariat and the oppressed of the world ... lol

Is this actually McCain's statement?

I can't tell the difference between Obama's position and that of McCain, because they are identical. This is what "choice" in American politics means. Who said that the U.S. is a democracy?

What is this about?

From what I understand the Georgian's are the one who started the whole mess. I think their dictator president made a strategic error and gave an excuse to the Russian to smoke him out.

So, I am not sure what Obama is talking about here.