Friendly fire

Removing obstacle to a feared White House led pre-emptive military strike on Iran


Friendly fire
by Babak Talebi

On Tuesday, the Pentagon announced that Admiral William Fallon, the 41-year navy veteran and commander of US Central Command (CentCom) requested permission to retire, and that Secretary Gates approved his request. Last week, Thomas Barnett of Esquire Magazine published a revealing piece speculating that Fallon might be pushed out because he “was the strongest man standing between the Bush Administration and a war with Iran.”

Gates was quick to call a press conference to announce the retirement and dispel the notion that there were any policy differences between Fallon and the administration. We have been following this story all day, and a few different theories are percolating inside the beltway about what this all means.

Though there are plenty of reasons to see this development suspiciously, Fallon’s history with conventional wisdom suggests that the truth may yet be unknown.

When Fallon was named to the CentCom post on January 5th, 2007, it was widely viewed in anti-war circles with trepidation. After all, CentCom had never had a naval officer as a leader, because the area under its purview is dominated by land. From the Sahara in the West to Kashmir in the East and the Caucus mountains in the North, this is an area with two active theatres of war (Afghanistan and Iraq) and half-a-dozen conflict zones.

Furthermore, Fallon was to replace General Abizaid, who had opposed the Iraq surge and advocated for a regional approach to Iraq; so it was natural for many policy analysts to be worried that he was being brought in to command a naval-based war with Iran from the Persian Gulf. This conventional wisdom was fully turned on its head a mere two months later when Fallon opposed a military build-up in the Persian Gulf, and was even quoted saying, “There are several of us trying to put the crazies back in the box," referring to Iran-war hawks.

Since March 2007, Fallon has been seen by many within the DC policy community as one of the main obstacles to a White House-led pre-emptive military strike on Iran. Then on December 3, 2007, when the Iran National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) was released, the conventional wisdom inside the beltway (except for a few notable exceptions) changed dramatically to believe that a war with Iran would be improbable. (As recently as last week, Steve Clemons dismissed “premeditated attack on Iran”.)

Then last week, a six-part Esquire piece was published. When asked about the possibility that Fallon was going to leave before his tenure was up, White House press spokes person Dana Perino attacked the “rumor mills that don’t turn out to be true.” Yet today it seems the ‘rumor mills’ have been justified.

One disheartening byproduct of this resignation is that Fallon was an advocate for an “Incident-at-Sea” agreement that NIAC has also called for. This agreement, if pursued, could help prevent an all-out war being sparked by relatively insignificant incidents, like the one that occurred in January of this year. According to reports, these types of ‘brush-ups’ occur regularly in the narrow and heavily-trafficked Strait of Hormuz.

Thus, it is easy to view Fallon’s ‘retirement’ as an internal power struggle between the more hawkish elements of the administration in the Pentagon and the Vice President’s office, and those trying to pull the ‘crazies’ back from the brink of war.

There are other plausible explanations.

In a personal conversation between NIAC and someone close to the CentCom commander, it was suggested that he is retiring intentionally to provide himself with a cushion of distance in order to be brought back (in a policy role) by a future administration. Another informed opinion close to Fallon has indicated that he may be leaving because he is confident enough that an attack on Iran will not occur.

Whatever the case may be now, Fallon’s role in the complicated US-Iran relationship has been consistently misinterpreted. This may be yet another occasion where there is more going on than meets the eye. Or, it could be the first indication of an imminent policy shift on Iran. We will keep you updated as we uncover more information.

Babak Talebi is Director of Community Relations at the National Iranian American Council.


Recently by Babak TalebiCommentsDate
Funny interview with Ahmadinejad
Nov 16, 2011
Babak Talebi: Skydiving
Sep 16, 2011
On the political map
Sep 14, 2008
more from Babak Talebi

What is the answer, then?

by ArashMN (not verified) on

We can sit here all of our lives and listen to "Q" and "Apologist" go back 'n forth with thir non-sense. Or we can debate reasonably as to why the regime in Iran has not been over-thrown yet. I still maintain that Islam is the reason.
I also disagree with those who claim that IRA is a west's puppet. The IRA has created a potential problem to the U.S. They are, maybe foolishly, challenging the U.S. and they are still standing. And even worse, judging by how Iraq is going, I don't see the U.S. attacking them.

So, what is keeping these mullahs?


Terror is in the heart of the beholder

by Ye Irani (not verified) on

I just was terrorised an hour ago by a crawling spider under my shirt on my back - Guess what? My 1st reaction was to crush it immediately. I did it!

Terror is a state of feeling that reside in somebody's heart. A phenomena may look "Terror" and the inflicting person is called "terrorist" to the person subjected tp that action.
Palestinian consider terror as what is inflicted on them; Israelis think the same way; Iranians have their own terror accordingly defined by the above statement. I'm sure everybody lives in some state of terror. Some fear. some come to live with it.

Let's hope for peace; Peace for all, where no one feels terror inflicted by any other mankind.


Apologist: How defecient are you in reading comprehension?

by Q on

If you had bothered to read the article I referenced, you would stop asking this silly question.

Their rantings and ramblings are nothing but meaningless rhetorics aimed for domestic consumption!

I made the argument that the Mullahs also ramble and rant about NOT seeking nuclear weapons, about NOT wanting to KILL any people but WIPING out the government (something that US and Israel say about Iran every day).

Anonymous8 made the same point. And it's a valid one. Why don't you believe the Mullahs "rantings" only "some" of the time? Only when it suits the political (pro-war) agenda? You don't have an answer to this do you?

It's because you don't care about any "threat" from Mullahs, you only want to help paint them as fanatics that MUST be attacked to be stopped. There is no other way. Isn't that what YOU'RE implying?

The fact is that no evidence of any kind of nuclear weaponization has been found in Iran. That's a fact.

The fact also, is that a very big lie about weapons of mass destruction and ties to "terrorism" was the cause of a desasterous US invasion of Iraq. A lie told by the US lead to war. That's a fact.

So, you have no proof that Iranian leaders are lying, but there is plenty of proof that US leaders were lying about Iraq. That's a fact.

You want people to believe that known liars (US and Israel) are now all of a sudden telling the truth. The Mullahs are lying about not wanting a nuclear weapon but are telling the truth about wanting to destroy Israel militarily. Do I have this right? Do you know the definition of opportunism?

What is so vague about my response to you? khodeto beh koocheh ali chap nazan.

Your previous response was vague, and your current one is not a response at all. So, tell me, what happened to all that bullshit about me being an apologist and talking about a "bargain" being worst than "negotiation"? What was all that about? Are you sure you are not a confused?

"Kooche ali chap" is probably named after you.


How classically deceptive!

by Apologist finder (not verified) on

"hezbollah is not Al Qaeda, Iran is not Saudi Arabia or Taliban, Iraqi insurgents are not Iranian agents and the Palestinian resistance is not Iranian Ayatollahs."

What are you trying to get at by the above paragraph, other than saying that the whole world is making a lot of noise regarding Iran's nukes for NOTHING, and that American and Israeli politicians like Netanyahu are making mountains out of mole hills to deceive people of the world to wage a war against Iran.

YOU ARE IMPLYING that all the BS terrorist activities Mullahs have been engaged in for the last 28 years in the Mideast are nothing but fabricated stories by foreign powers. When Mullahs keep ranting about the destruction of Israel, they should not be taken seriously. Their rantings and ramblings are nothing but meaningless rhetorics aimed for domestic consumption!

What is so vague about my response to you? khodeto beh koocheh ali chap nazan.

The gist of all of what I am saying is "Do not make excuses" for Mullahs who are the real culprits in all this. Nobody else is to blame but them.

No, I am not going to waste my time with someone who pretends ignorance either.


to programmer craig, I agree

by Kfed (not verified) on

Fallon was not effective at CENTCOM. But what do you expect? He was nominated by an absolute moron who really doesn't know anything about military.

That moron is President Bush.


Apologist: that's what I thought

by Q on

You are incapable of answering a straight question. I challenge anyone to read your "response" and see if it correlates at all with the questions. You sound confused and angry and want to yell at someone. What a waste of time.

What does any "bargain" have anything to do with what I said or this discussion?

I said you speak in vague generalities, and you start your response with "In general". How classic!

programmer craig


by programmer craig on


Admiral William Joseph Fallon, USN (born December 30, 1944), served as Commander of the U.S. Central Command from March 2007[1] to March 2008. ADM Fallon was the first naval officer to hold that position.


And the last, no doubt! lol.

Why do you guys wnat to hang your hat on a guy who had the job less than a year? I'm not going to comment on the"he said, she said" stuff, but this guy is hardly the authority on US policy (or military matters) that his miraculously sudden fan following makes him out to be.

All of these past CENTCOM commanders are well thought of:

GEN H. Norman Schwarzkopf United States Army November 23, 1988 August 9, 1991
Gen Anthony C. Zinni United States Marine Corps August 13, 1997 July 6, 2000
GEN Tommy R. Franks United States Army July 6, 2000 July 7, 2003
GEN John P. Abizaid United States Army July 7, 2003 March 16, 2007
(Fallon = Loser)

I wonder how Fallon will be remembered, for hios brief term in that office? I didn't even know his name until this scandal erupted.


Q: don't throw your cow dong at me

by Apologist finder (not verified) on

"who am I apologizing for? And who are you insinuating is looking for a war? Do you know what you're saying, or are you just throwing around chicken feces?"

In general,

Apologists (including both OPEN and closeted supporters of the IRI) are those who attack everybody who does not want to see a "bargain" struck between the Blood-sucking Mullahs and the U.S. as WARMONGERS.

NEGOTIATIONS to resolve issues are FINE as long as they are transparent and known to all and nobody's against them but "BARGAIN" stinks real bad! as Iran-contra deal did! remember?

Idiotic Mullahs ruling over Iran who openly and constatnly call for destruction and annhilation of Israel, and total support for Hizbulah, Hamas, etc. are the ones giving foreign powers ample ammunition to wage a war against Iran, not the so called ne-Cons, or expat Iranians and exiles.

"Why do you have to speak in vague generalities? Just because you identify yourself as a Chicken, it doesn't mean you have to act like one. Talk to me when you have some human qualities, like courage and dignity."

It goes without saying that Mullahs forcefully ruling over Iran are the ones who are not even human and certainly lack both human dinity and courage. That also goes for their open and closeted supporters PERIOD.


Apologist: I understand you are a coward

by Q on

who am I apologizing for? And who are you insinuating is looking for a war? Do you know what you're saying, or are you just throwing around chicken feces?

Why do you have to speak in vague generalities? Just because you identify yourself as a Chicken, it doesn't mean you have to act like one.

Talk to me when you have some human qualities, like courage and dignity.


To Q:

by Apologist finder (not verified) on

Tell those you apologise for to not give any more excuses/pretexts to those who are looking for a war.

What part of the above sentence you didn't understand?!

it's got a world of "substance" in it. what more do you want?


Apologist: I did not read any substance in your response

by Q on

let me know when you get some.

Anonymous8: you are absolutely correct. See my previous article here.

Private Pilot

Oh, for God's Sake, please shut up

by Private Pilot on

Can't anyone say anything intelligent on this site except HALF NOOSHKHAARS from The Russian and Chinese news agencies?


Private Pilot


To Fred

by Proud Iranian (not verified) on

Dear Fred,
So you're "evidence" that NIAC is a lobby for Iran is that they talk to people in Centcom? Are you serious?? Are you a complete idiot??

I am so sick and tired of you backward Iranian "opposition" figures - you are so jealous of all successful Iranians and you are trying to bring yourself up by bringing others down. Shame on you!


Ye Irani, right on the money

by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on

Ye Irani, right on the money ! The biggest problem with people like him is that they really think that their communist and Islamic propaganda machine is actually attracting audience in Iran ! I don’t know how long is gonna take them to accept reality. The people in Iran want this: A Free, democratic, World-friendly, tolerant, open market, federal system of government. One that does not engage in bashing anyone (By the way, especially U.S and Israel, maybe they forgot that the whole world knows Iranians are friendly towards the U.S!), and one does not perpetuate conspiracy theories and initiate, inspire and promotes for a clash of civilization.


The most important obstacle

by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on

The most important obstacle in the way of any attempts to wage war against Iran is “US IRANIANS”, not Fallon, Bush or anyone else. We have to take matters into our own hand, denounce this regime and not let anyone else do our dirty work. This regime is the greatest threat to the survival of our civilization, not American bombs. This regime needs to be dealt with, if we don’t do it, someone else will, Saddam did it in the 80s, and now NATO is gearing up for war. Till we have this regime, our country will always be threatened with war and destruction. Let’s say there is peace in Iran, how would that change things? Are we supposed to be happy with this regime allowing women to push back their rosaries 2 centimeters every 10 years? Or should we be satisfied with living in state of denial about things that happens in Iran? Are we supposed to be happy that Iranians drink alcohol and throwing parties in hiding, as if they’re committing a crime? Is this the freedom this regime made us to believe we deserve? Is this regime gonna go from banning video to banning satellites dishes and whats next? Or are we supposed to wait for the “civil struggle” of bunch of former socialists like Soroosh and Ebadi? The people in Iran want change and wants change NOW ! Even “Red Ken” (The ultra socialist, border line communist, mayor of London) said living under this regime is horrifying! They don’t want their country attacked, but at the same time they do not buy for a split second, this Marxist Islamist argument of so called “gradual change” of people and groups like NIAC, Ebadi, Soroush, and others. Don’t you see the big picture? This regime is the cause of our problems. The world community, according to many public statements made by politicians in various European, Asian and American countries, is waiting for us to deal with this regime. They are giving us a chance. If we don’t stand up and deal with this regime, they will do it, and in the process innocent Iranians will be killed. So if you really care about Iran, stop bashing other countries and governments for our own problems and mistakes and fight the fascist fundamental regime in Tehran.



by Apologist finder (not verified) on

"hezbollah is not Al Qaeda, Iran is not Saudi Arabia or Taliban, Iraqi insurgents are not Iranian agents and the Palestinian resistance is not Iranian Ayatollahs."

Yeah but an apologist in any shape, form and disguise is still an apologist. sambalesh nakon joonam.

Tell those you apologise for to not give any more excuses/pretexts to those who are looking for a war.


Dear American

by Anonymous8 (not verified) on

They state their intentions clearly and they will use nukes on Israel.

that's the problem with you people, deep seeded hypocrisy being masked by 3rd grade logic. Iran has never said they will "nuke" Israel. But if you truly believe that they "state their intentions clearly", then why don't you believe the repeated, unmistakable, on-the-record statements about Iran not needing any nuclear weapons?


masoudA: total BS

by Qumars Bolouchian (not verified) on

hezbollah is not Al Qaeda, Iran is not Saudi Arabia or Taliban, Iraqi insurgents are not Iranian agents and the Palestinian resistance is not Iranian Ayatollahs.

Only opportunistic politicians in US and Israel claim these things are all the same thing. The reason is that the population, for years kept in the dark as to the true nature of their own government's involvement around the world, are gullible enough to believe it and direct their anger away from the next no-bid military contract.

Ignorance can be excused for people who are purposefully deceived at great cost. But for people like you there is no excuse. You are ignorant by choice.


This is from

by Anonymousll (not verified) on

This is from

"Secretary of Defense Robert Gates denied Tuesday that the abrupt resignation of Admiral William Fallon as CENTCOM commander indicates an imminent war against Iran. I think Gates's denial is credible. There is no sign of an American war on Iran, which would involve key positioning of warships, materiel and troops. There is no congressional mandate for such a thing, despite the non-binding Kyl-Lieberman resolution in the senate. A provocation is not out of the question, but it would be a risky move in an election year and could easily backfire on the Republican Party (ask Aznar in Spain).

My guess is that the real reason for moving Fallon out is not Iran but Iraq, and that he is being made to step down for the same reason that Donald Rumsfeld was. He does not agree with the long-term troop escalation or 'surge' in Iraq. He doesn't believe that counter-insurgency will work in Iraq in the medium term. And as an admiral, he has his eye on potential trouble spots such as Taiwan and North Korea, and is frustrated that the hands of the US are tied as long as it is bogged down in the Iraq quagmire."


Why on earth would Europe want Mullahs out?

by I wonder (not verified) on

Why on earth would Europe possibly want to get rid of Mullahs and help replace Mullahs' regime with a pro-US one, push Iran back into the arms of the U.S. and lose all the lavish lucrative business deals they'd been getting from Mullahs in absence of the U.S. for the last 20 so years?

Mercantile Europe would do their best to maintain the status quo (as it was before Dubya came along)and will go back to business as usual with Mullahs the minute Dubya is out of the White House.


Dear American !

by masoudA on

HAve you heared about something called: The War on Terror ?

Us Iranians are sometimes too complex we tend to overlook the obvious.   Believe it or not - and not just America, the whole world is fighting the Islamic terror and terrorists.  Do you know who the ISlamic terrorists are ?  they are the same people (Hezbollah) who have been terrorizing Iran for the past 29 years - same people who have been terrorizing Isreal, Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan.......... 

This war is more real than what many of you seem to realize - and believe me - the sane world has no choice but to win this war.   and I say it gain - this may be the best news for Iran in 1400 years.   This may be finaly our chance to do away with the backwardness that has been haunting us for centuries. 


Re: kamangir

by Ye Irani (not verified) on

Are you living in this world???
I can't get how some of us read ONLY in between lines and think totally out of reality BOX!
Just listen to yourself:
"The IRI was the product of the Western agenda against the Shah regime and his stablishment in Iran, as you guys have pointed out; the Shah became a pain in the neck and pushed buttons directly linked to oil, gas and therefore American and Western economy, therefore he was removed and replaced with the IRI. The only reason the IRI has remined in power so far; it's because of Western help (3 dimentional help) and therefore the internal uprisings against it never worked. My conclusion is that the IRI despite being a Western agent with a clear mission in Iran;"

Are you for real? Even the yongets generation in Iran does not buy your analysis!

In a broader range, one needs to take into account the role of history and it's inevitable destiny. A transforming nation goes through a tomoltuous precess to get where it belongs in history........The days of puppet regimes have come to an end and can not be accomodated anymore in international arena.


Why on Earth would the USA have a problem with Iran?

by American (not verified) on

I laughed when I read that in one of the comments to this blog? Sometimes, I wonder if Iranians can read or remember what they have read. It's obviously, a waste of time to list the activities of the Iranian regime since 1979. If you aren't upset with them for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of your own people, why would you care that the killed Americans?

On roozonline, an Ayatolla stated the intent of the Iranian regime. He wants to take over the world. I know...rhetoric...ignore we should ignore the "Death to America" chants by major Iranian leaders every single Friday during prayers. Peaceful Iran..who never wants to harm a fly...

Yes, Iranians are good people. There's no way that they will ever rise up to take back their government. There will always be a Supreme Leader in Iran. We know the intentions of the religious leaders of Iran... They state their intentions clearly and they will use nukes on Israel. Forget the fallout on the Palestinians. It's not about's about the power of Iran.

Why would anyone on Earth have a problem with Iran?


To Mehdi and ArashMN

by Kamangir on

I do agree with what both mehdi and Arash are pointing out. However; then we should ask ourselves a basic question: Why on earth  would the West (mainly the US but now even France and others) be so vocal and loud on their opposition to the IRI and its nuclear issue? Why called it the 'axis of evil'? why impose sanctions (now, severe ones) on the IRI?  To me the answer is to be found in the much larger picture for what has been planned for the Middle East. The invasion of Iraq was its first phase. The IRI was the product of the Western agenda against the Shah regime and his stablishment in Iran, as you guys have pointed out; the Shah became a pain in the neck and pushed buttons directly linked to oil, gas and therefore American and Western economy, therefore he was removed and replaced with the IRI.  The only reason the IRI has remined in power so far; it's because of Western help (3 dimentional help) and therefore the internal uprisings against it never worked. My conclusion is that the IRI despite being a Western agent with a clear mission in Iran; has learned some very important lessons on how the Monarchy collapsed (better say removed) in Iran. They have learned that they cannot relay on the powerful West only (mainly the EU) and they know that when time comes, the West will have a very hard time removing them from power if they (the IRI) has become a partner of China and Russia, among others. In other words, the West didn't bring the IRI to power so they would share Iran resources with others like China. Also, The IRI has created a network in region that affects other countries in the region (Lebanon, for instance)  The IRI has learned lessons and is applying them in order to remain in power or  at least to minimize the possibilities of a regime change either from inside or the outside or both. This was not the original Western plan. Therefore; the IRI has become a pain in the neck just as Shah did, with the difference the Monarchy of Iran relied too much on American and Western governments, hence its quick and somehow veryb easy removal. This won't happen so easily with the IRI. Using Iraq, the IRI has caused a lot of trouble to the US, they could have caused much more trouble, but they are sort of playing to see the reactions and to force the US and others to deal with them. Please note, that the rethoric and now actions and sanctions against the IRI has reached the point of no return. The IRI's economy is badly damaged and it's surviving only thanks to 100$ barrel. There're are visible cracks within its own stablishment and the social unrest although not visible yet, it boiling rapidly. Isolated, with its main banks and trade collapsed, with its key leaders unable to even travel abroad (very soon) and with all the propaganda against it, the IRI is doomed. China and Russia alone cannot do much to keep their little friend in power for much longer. As per what will replace the IRI, well; we all know that it will be a pro-American pro-Business regime. Because of it own nature and structure, the IRi cannot really evolve or adapt itself to any new role imposed by the West, hence it s entire stablishment will be removed. The IRI has somehow been succesful in using the nuclear issue as a patriotic weapon, but this alone won't help much longer. The rethoric and actions and sanctions are a point of no return. The IRI knows it.




To Mehdi

by Aseman (not verified) on

The West removed the Shah?!!! Wasn't there another "minor detail" (that monarchists usually tend to forget in their political analysis) that was also kind of involved in the revolution?!! I mean this minor detail called the "IRANIAN PEOPLE"?!!


I don't think the West wants a regime change

by Mehdi on

I can't think of any real reason the West would want to change the regime in Iran. If they attack, they only want to destroy whatever government and vague sovernity that exists in order to be able to draw Iran's resources even at a cheaper price - similar to Iraq and Afghanistan. Why would the West imperialist want to change the regime in Iran? They changed Shah because he had started to become a pain in their neck. But aside from the whining for show, the imperialists have loved the IRI. Why would they change it? Who would they put in its place that could serve them better?


Real Iranian

by Pire-Fasa (not verified) on

While some Iranian patriots wishing to annihilate and desroy.........
صبح امروز پيرترين رزمنده دفاع مقدس در فضايي صميمانه با آيت‌الله خامنه‌اي ديدار كرد.

، حاج صفرقلي رحمانيان، سردار پير جبهه‌هاي حق عليه باطل كه 101 سال سن دارد و از 75 سالگي تا هشتاد سالگي در جبهه حضور داشته، به آرزوي خود رسيد و با رهبر انقلاب ملاقات كرد.

اين گزارش حاكي است، در اين ديدار كه نوه و نتيجه‌هاي آقاي رحمانيان هم حضور داشتند، رهبر انقلاب با توجه ويژه به اين پيشكسوت جهاد و شهادت، از خداوند براي وي آرزوي طول عمر كردند.

اين گزارش مي‌افزايد: براي دقايقي دستان رهبر انقلاب در دستان اين پيربسيجي بود و رحمانيان خلوص جبهه‌هاي نبرد را با زبان محلي شهرستان فسا تقديم رهبر انقلاب كرد.

يادآور مي‌شود، چندي پيش، مركز فرهنگي دفاع مقدس خرمشهر در اقدامي ابتكاري و زيبا، غبار فراموشي را از اين پير فراموش‌شده جبهه‌هاي جنگ كه 66 ماه سابقه حضور در جبهه‌‌ها داشته، برداشت و با چاپ تمبر يادبود وي در موزه جنگ خرمشهر و احداث غرفه، از وي تجليل كرد.


Kamangir, you seem to...

by ArashMN (not verified) on

...indicate that the west has control over the people in Iran. If this regime could be overthrown by an uprising, don't you think that decades of living miserably under this regime would have caused a revolution by now?

The fact is that the regime has lasted this long not because of its brutality but because of the influence of Islam over the people. The IRA has simply planted a seed in the minds of the public that scares them from rising up. To many Iranians, assisting the U.S. in toppling this regime is equivelant to being against Allah, Muhammad, Ali and centuries of islamic teachings. And I don't really see any end in sight. Do you?


One war or the other!

by Kamangir on

The decision for a regime change in Iran has already been made by all parties involved (European as well) and this will take place with or without the surgical strikes.

If this is done, the whole scenario may resemble the US led coalition attack on Ex-Ugoslavia.  The attacks (surgical) were followed by massive social uprising and consequent fall of teh Milosevich government. Although in Iran's case there're many other factors involved that make this whole thing a lot more dabgerous but again, the fall of the IRI mafia will only happen with massive uprisings of the Iranian population fuelled by massive media and propaganda campaing against the regime from the West. The IRI stablishment (if we can call it that) knows that it's time to go.




Tough Times for Iran and Iranians

by Mehdi on

Whatever this change means, it is not hard to see that these are tough times for Iran and Iranians. Unfortunately a lot of the so-called opposition groups and individuals, knowingly or unknowingly are fueling the fire of a potential war between Iran and the US. There are those who openly state that such a war will actually be beneficial for the future of Iran and Iranians. Personally, I feel that these are groups and individuals who are speaking out of hatred and perhaps a sense of revenge. They seem to hate the regime and they have probably been hurt by the regime. They want revenge - spilled blood. Unfortunately, these people cannot even define what "the regime" means or what exactly should happen to it. Is it the top 1000 people in the current government? Is it the top 10,000 people in the government? How can one differentiate between a "regime person" and others. I am afraid real life is not like a video game where all bad guys are clearly marked with a red circle around them. If there was an attack on the regime, who will decide who should be hurt and how, and who should be spared? How will we make sure that Iran will not turn into another Iraq and Afghanistan? Where is that wise and mighty force of justice to control the nation after such an attack? Can we name one such individual or group? Do we think that George Bush will lead our nation towards happiness? I think all of the so-called opposition groups and individuals should stop direct confrontation with the Iranian regime. There is really no reason for it now, if there ever was. Improving the relationship between US and Iranian government will go a very long way in improving conditions in iran - any way you look at it. It is a safe and worthy cause to strive for.