Current Events

LoveOfLiberty

The only thing Rogers deserved was a court martial. But Reagan could care less about justice. He just wanted to prove he is macho. Of course he owed his presidency to Khomeini. If it were not for the hostages he would have never won. 

But why let gratitude get in the way of lies. Reagan was the fakest President we had in recent history. God I wish we could have another Nixon. Someone who really loves America and is competent and compassionate not like Bush on the right and Obama on the left. Neither one could give a damn about America.

Delavar

Well of course IRI regime is a terrorist regime. Yes it must go and sooner the better.

The dear USA could start by freezing and confiscating all their assets. I would prefer to see an international forum like the Court in The Hague handle this. All dealings with the regime should be null and void. All money put away by them in foreign nations: read Swiss; Canada .. should be frozen and put in receivership. 

Iranian diaspora must form a government in exile charged with handling the money. That would be holding on to all IRI stolen assets until the regime is gone. Once that happens the monies should be turned over to the legitimate government of Iran.

The nature of government in exile should be democratic and by real elections. All Iranians should be eligible to vote. UN should monitor it. No self declared MKO "presidents". I am talking about REAL elected parliament and government.

What do you say? I am thinking of throwing my hat in.

VPK

Love of Liberty

Whether or not that incident was intentional or not; It doesn't change the fact that the terrorist theocratic regime in Iran is a threat to Iranians and the world and therefore needs to be toppled and changed to a democratic regime whether by Iranians alone or with the help of International community.

VPK,

Yes, I've read some different views on this subject.

And, personally speaking, I don't think Rogers deserved that medal.

But, this being said, and given the circumstances of the event, I think it is a stretch to call that event "murder"...as if the shooting down of that civilian airline was actually intentional.

(Perhaps, as an afterthought, and even though this won't likely assuage your and others grief over that event, there hasn't been another incident like that since that event...which is something I think both Iran and the US can be somewhat satisfied with in retrospect.)

LoveOfLiberty

You should read the very good analysis by Captain David Carlson who was in the area. Rogers went looking for a fight and when he failed is shot down a plane anyway. It was criminal to appoint a loose canon like him as a Captain. Worse than that was to give him a medal. That was intentional. They don't give medals by accident. 

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#M...

By doing so Reagan in effect condoned the action making him accessory to murder.

Here is the letter by Carlson

//webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cac...

Remember this is by an American Naval Captain not me.

VPK,

While I cannot-and don't-speak for the US nor the US Navy, I personally regret the fact that a civilian jetliner had been shot down near the end of the Iran-Iraq War resulting in many civilian deaths.

With this being said, however, I really don't perceive that event as being intentional given the circumstances surrounding that event.

And, it certainly isn't the only time any civilian jet had been unintentionally shot down during a period of heightened tensions in a region.

Niloufar

disregard

niloufar

disregard this post

niloufar

 disregard this post

LoveOfLiberty

Would you please explain to me why I should trust USA? A nation which shoots down a civilian airliner. Then gives a medal to the guy responsible for it? Is there no shame or honor in the US military: I dare say there is none.

What sort of depraved mind does this. Do you remember the lies they gave. They first claimed it was filled with already dead bodies just to make US look bad! Then came up with every lie in the book. When all of it failed they still refused to take responsibility.

I am not making excuses for IRI; I hate them. But it does not make USA good. In fact I have to say when it comes to lying they are pretty much in the same league. The IAEA works for the USA. They do what they are told. To them lying is as natural as breathing. The only people who believe what USA says are their own population. At least the Iranian people know and realize their government lies. The Americans are so naive to actually take BS coming out of the State Department as fact. They have to mature and it ain't happening anytime.

So please do not tell me what USA say. The US government has no credibility. 

A government that rewards murder with medal is not worth signing treaties with. How many treaties did USA make with the Native Americans then break them. Didn't Clinton lie to the Soviet Union when they promised not to expand NATO. Did they not turn and break their word before the ink was dry.

I would not take a USA signed treaty any more seriously than used toilet paper.

I might as well go read fiction. At least is is entertainment. 

Niloufar,

Niloufar: "i see you are as usual engaged in historical revisionsim.

the report CONCLUDED with "high confidence" that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to evelop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003.""

Only in someone's delusions should originally-sourced and cited material be construed as being "historical revisionism."

And, once again, the following is what the 2007 NIE actually stated:

A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its
nuclear weapons program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high
confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to
develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt,
and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared
uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed
primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure
resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.

We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military
entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear
weapons.

We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several
years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this
Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence
that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire
nuclear weapons program.)

We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear
weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently
intends to develop nuclear weapons.

We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does
not currently have a nuclear weapon. Tehran’s decision to halt its
nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop
nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment
that the program probably was halted primarily in response to
international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence
on the issue than we judged previously.

And, once again, and instead of citing from secondary sources-such as from a CNN news article, such as you have done Niloufar-I cite and reference from the original source document: //www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release...

And, also from that same original source document, to clarify; 

*High confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on
high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it
possible to render a solid judgment. A “high confidence” judgment is not
a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still carry a risk
of being wrong.
*Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly
sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated
sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.
*Low confidence generally means that the information’s credibility
and/or plausibility is questionable, or that the information is too
fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or
that we have significant concerns or problems with the sources.  

NPT

Has one single purpose and that is to lock in the power of the big ones. Let us not play games. The goal is to keep the nukes as sole property to a few.

Now I am opposed to all nukes. How about a non-nuclear middle east. That means NO one including Israel and American presence there should have them. I am all for it. As long as they have them all best are off. No more hypocrisy.

Why does USA have so many nukes on its ships in the PERSIAN Gulf. The people without the decency to use the correct name. The same nation that in cold blood shot down an Iranian jet liner murdering 290 innocents. Then turned around and gave a medal by Ronnie-Ray-Gun. Proving USA is not responsible and may not be trusted with regular weapons much less nuclear ones.

//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#M...

What is USA navy going to do next? Give medals to wife beaters and rapists for performing their duty?? Who is next? How about giving a medal to  Hannibal Cannibal Lecter!

Here is what a decent American Captain of another ship said about Rogers. Note this is from a USA Naval Captain not some Islamist:

Rogers was personally criticized for being overly aggressive by Commander David Carlson, commanding officer of the "USS Sides" , a second ship that was under the tactical control of Rogers at the time of the incident

delavar

let's be fair in our judgement. 'another country' used nukes 60 years ago, and ever since then that 'country' had invaded several other countries and killed countless other civilians totally needlessly. the americans define terror and terrorism by their behaviour. muslim terrorists are total amateurs compared to american ones. this same 'country' is threatening to do the same to our country. what on earth makes the theocracy more dangerous than these bloodthirsty maniacs who run usa?

hezbollah is a legitimate national resistance movement created as a response to israeli atrocities in lebanon.

the taliban and al qaeda were largely created through pakistani and american meddlling in afghanistan to fight the soviets, and later to fight iran. in fact, usa, israel, pakistan, saudi arabia, iraq, taleban and al qaeda were ALL part of the same axis of evil that fell apart after iraq invaded kuwait.

the term 'Global panIslamization' (WHAT?!) is just propagandist scaremongering. it is an impossibility. all muslims of the world put together do not even match the population of china alone. how on earth can they hope to rule the world?

as for the 12th imam business, that too is mere scaremongering. all religions have some type of messiah returning to save the world at some unspecified time in the future. it fits in with other fantasies like a virgin birth, an almighty god, creation, heaven, hell etc. you see, without some type of judgement day, the whole false notion of god represented by some power-hungry clergy on earth would fall apart. islam is the same as judaism and christianity in this respect. am not sure which group came up with the 2012 'end of time' thing. but as you see, there is a group that is stupid and fanatical enough to actually come up with a specific date for their fantasy...

in fact, ahmadinejad's messiah is a peaceful one, but the judeo-christian one will bring utter destruction - an apocalypse - with him.

as for your 'what is going to prevent them to Nuke Russia or China for example to kill millions of innocents who do not believe in God?' the answer is simple: it will be prevented as soon as you stop demonising them in your own head, because that is the only place where this could possibly happen.

the issue of theocracy in iran is iran's business alone. others should stay out of it. she is a sovereign nation that decides her own system of governance. 

peace

loverofliberty

i see you are as usual engaged in historical revisionsim.

the report CONCLUDED with "high confidence" that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to evelop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003."

btw, you got nukes coming out of your ears. and the NPT requires you to disarm. but you don't give a hoot about your obligations, which, btw, you yourselves wrote. and that's exactly why you think you can play historical revisionist games here...but you are only fooling yourself.

your murderous military are extremely dangerous terrorists constantly engaged in cold blooded murder of civilians in my region especially, but not exclusively.

no one represents a threat to innocents more than usa, loverofliberty. so where is your love for liberty?

or is the meaning of your chosen name here an indication of what you would Do to liberty in the name of 'love'?

The 2007 NIE

This is part of what the 2007 NIE actually stated:

A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program1; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.

We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.

We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran's entire nuclear weapons program.)

We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.

We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon. Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.

Source: //www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release...

Also, from that source:

*High confidence generally indicates that our judgments are based on high-quality information, and/or that the nature of the issue makes it possible to render a solid judgment. A “high confidence” judgment is not a fact or a certainty, however, and such judgments still carry a risk of being wrong.
*Moderate confidence generally means that the information is credibly sourced and plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.
*Low confidence generally means that the information’s credibility and/or plausibility is questionable, or that the information is too fragmented or poorly corroborated to make solid analytic inferences, or that we have significant concerns or problems with the sources.  

Niloufar

I disagree. Just because another country used Nukes 60 years ago doesn't mean that a religious theocracy such as the Islamic Republic should have Nukes too. Look , America was not a theocracy and still used Nukes. What guarantees can we have that a known terrorist entity that is blatantly sponor of terror against it's own citizens as well as abroad will not unleash Nukes against the others? They have already threatened and Vowed destruction of other countries.  How could anyone trust a govt that rapes it's own political prisoners and calls it an Islamic thing to do?

Can you trust the Taliban and Alqaeda to have Nukes? If your answer is no, then you shouldn't trust Hezbollah either. Hezbollah had commited the most number of terrorist attacks in the world until 911 when Alqaeda took over. As you know, Hezbollah is the same as the Republic of Islam in Iran. The aim of this illegitimate entity is and has been Global panIslamization and they believe mayhem and war will hasten the arrival of the 12th Imam mahdi. Even Ahmadinejad says that.

As for endangerment of Russia in case the Republic of Islam in Iran aquires nuclear weapons, I strongly suspect that the Republic of Islam will probably use it against them soon after they aquire them . Look , if they (the Republic of Islam) executes 20,000 Communists in a matter of 2 weeks in Gohardasht prison Near Karaj /Iran in the early 1980's just because the communists are considered Infidels , what is going to prevent them to Nuke Russia or China for example to kill millions of innocents who do not believe in God? That way to their oppinion and accrding to their ideology Imam Mahdi will hasten and appear sooner. In addition, they will force the Suuni's in the region to become shia or else.The Sunnies are consided heretics by the Shia and the Shia are considered Heretics by the Sunni; And the Bahais are considered Heretics and Indidels by both. Look at what they have done to Bahais in Iran for the past 30 years.

You see, the issue is the theocracy that exists in Iran. The only way to resolve the issue is to rid of this terrorist theocracy and a regime in Iran rather than only going after their nuclear facilties. With a secular democracy once again Iran will be trusted by the international community.

delavar

which regime would you trust with nukes? the one that has used it on civilians, twice? or the other one that does nothing but cause war in our region all the time since its ethnic-cleansing inception?

why are you setting democracy and the right to free speech as precoditions for scientific progress in the area of nuclear power? bebakhshid, but aren't you creating imaginery links between separate phenomena in order to back up your own political preferences?

far as we know, china has been far more 'responsible' with her nukes than usa (deliberate targeting of civilians with nukes) or soviet union (chernobyl). i would worry about brits with nukes. they would use them if faced with defeat. apparently they had plans for it in case argentina came close to beating them in the falklands war. imagine they would use them in wars that are of no direct threat to britain, fought over tiny islands on the other side of the planet...!

according to an unusually credible american intelligence report published december 2007, there was ""high confidence" that the Islamic republic stopped an effort to evelop nuclear weapons in the fall of 2003."  the reason i call this american report 'credible' is that it represented a consensus among all of america's top agencies, around 17 of them if i remember right. and the conclusion was reached after months of research. 

interesting though, if you read on in the same cnn report, the american administration's knee-jerk response was 'Iran remains a serious threat'.

you see, no one will ever accept any news about iran as 'good'  news. the words 'iran' and 'threat' have been married together in western discourse. you are free to join in with them. i cannot.

for example, i don't understand why you assume the iri would attack russia. sorry, but this simply seems like an irrational assmption. have they attacked any foreign country yet? we are talking about iran, not usa. iran does not attack countries. usa does. russia too, but they are no threat to iran. not yet anyhow.

yes i remember those atrocities you refer to. it is in the nature of violent revolutions somehow. and this one had to deal with a foreign invasion and war too. not excusable though. some of those responsible will be brought to justice. you can be sure of that. this would not necessarily constitute a real challenge to the regime though.

your point about iran's rulers abusing iranians is totally well taken. you know that the iri did not invent this trait in our history. of course she should not be allowed to get away with perpetuating it. we have to help bring this change. but unlike you and tabriz, i think on balance iran is moving in the right direction, though unfortunately she tends to take both forward and backward steps along the way.

peace

VPK

You might have seen Erin Burnett interview (CNBC) with one of the Iranian businessman who does lots of business in Kish Island. This man is Fariborz Chador and he used to have some official job during the Pahlavi dynesty. He said Shah had a vision to turn Kish into a large free trade zone. Possibly if Shah was still on power, Kish would've been the center of all the world trades. It was the time that no one even heard of Dubai or Emarat. Israel, U.S predicted a bright future for Iran if Shah was still on power, but they did not want that to happen, that's when they brought their backward religous zealot puppet,Khomeini(Lanatolahe Alayhe)and his retarded crowd to the scene.

Statira

No kidding! Well of course Israel wants to tbe to only one. In fact "ro shoon as in ziyad tareh". They want to be the only superpower in the world. But they are smart enough to know it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

Therefore they settle for getting USA to do their dirty work. Iran was a real rival under Shah. So they were only too happy to see Khomeini take over. If IRI ever goes Iran may yet achieve that. So remember folks the those of us who want a free Iran are not working for Israel. We want an independent and powerful Iran. 

در بارهٔ سخنان شائول موفاز، سیاستمدار اسرائیلی

در با ره رسیدن به دموکراسی مطالب و مقالات زیادی نوشته شده. ولی‌ دو مطلب هست که حرفهای دل‌ من را میزنه.یک مصاحبه چامسکی‌ با جرس تحت عنوان "راه دشوار دموکراسی" و دیگری "لتر تو اوباما" هست.
شما اگر دموکراسی  مردمی (نه‌ از نوع عراق و افغانستان) می‌خواهید باید متحدین و مخالفین و تمام موانع آنرا در نظر بگیرید.

بدانیم و آگاه باشیم که نه تنها دیکتارهای حاکم که این کثافتها و متحدان عرب  و غیر عرب آنها نیز اراده کرده اند که به مملکت ما چنگ بیندازند و آنرا غارت کنند. در دنیا خارج از ایران نیز ما  متحدینی و مخالفینی داریم. زنان ستمدیده عرب و کسانی‌ که به سا ن برده کارمیکنند وبا روزی یک دلار در این جوامع امرار معاش میکنند متحدین بالفعل و بلقوه ما هستند.
مخالفینی دموکراسی ما متحد عمل میکنند. سران عرب و اسرائیل از اربابان خود میخواهند که ایران را همچون عراق و افغانستان تسخیر کنند. لازمه چنین کاری به راه انداختن اختلاف در  جبهه  دموکراسی مردمی می باشد.مطرح کردن بحثهای انحرافی تبعیض  نژادی نظیرعرب، عجم، آریایی، ترک ، کرد، بلوچ  از نمونه های چنین کارهای زشتیست.
بفرمایید این آقای "شائول موفاز، " نمونه آریائی و سران عرب("عرب سوسمارخور") با هم متحد عمل میکنند، ایران را میگیرند، بین عرب، عجم، ترک، لرد، بلوچ اختلاف می انداند،‌هر  روز در هر نقطه ایران به اسم شیعه، سنی، عرب، عجم، ترک، کرد، بلوچ یک بمبی منفجر می‌کنن و به حیاط ننگین خودشون ادامه میدن
پول هم زیاد دارن، رادّیو، تلویزیون، روزنامه، مجله و وبسا یتهای مختلف و متعدد راه میندازند و یا اسپانسر(حمایت) میکنند . ایرانیهای مزدور را استخدام می‌کنن و اهداف خودشون را اینطور به پیش میبرند. هر جریانی که به این نوع سیاستها متوسل میشه مستقیم یا غیر مستقیم در خدمت چنین اهداف  غارتگرانی است. 
از خوب به پا خیزید
بیدار شوید یاران
در جبهه همدردان
از جنگ بپرهیزید.

Israel

wants to be the only country in ME with nuke. It might be able to bully Arabs but not Iranians. They dont care if there isnt Democracy in iran or arab countries, what they really want is to be better than others. They cant see better than themselves and they know Iranians have the potential to surpass them.

I agree with you peyghambar

"They prefer to soften the target with sanctions first anyway. So it is simply not the right time."

I think you are right on many points in several of your comments. I hope IRI gets around the ghertaas baazi in it nuclear program and builds the nukes,......, before that "right time".

Israel

I disagree Mola with your reason. Israel has not attcked Iran because USA said no. They almost did last year of Bush but he vetoed it. Yes the same evil Bush stopped them. Obama has done the same thing.

Reason: because USA is not ready. Any Israel attack will be viewed as a USA attack. They have to fly over USA controlled air. Or over Arab controlled air space.  Plus Israel lacks the power to do much by itself. US is not ready; they have too much  with Iraq and Afghanistan. They prefer to soften the target with sanctions first anyway. So it is simply not the right time. When and if they do it will be massive and USA led. Til then Israel will bark but not bite. Nothing to do with being afraid.

why haven't they attacked Iran

you ask?

It has nothing to do with if they are intelligent or not. They have not attacked Iran Because they're cowards. They want to push Arabs and U.S. to attack Iran. Israeli generals, politicians and soldiers don't have the courage to go to war against Iran because they are cowards period. 

Israel policies

have failed over and over. They came up with Hamas to oppose Fatah and now have to deal with it. They came up with dual containment and ended up with a more powerful IRI. They have very stupid policies which have endangered their own security.

Mistake #1

They first refused to help the Shah remain in power. They thought that Shah was making Iran too powerful. Iran was becoming too close to USA. With Shah gone they figured that they will be the single friend of USA. They were wrong. Now instead of a friend they have an enemy. No matter what happens after IRI the new regime is not going to be as friendly to Israel as the Shah was. This was mistake 1.

Mistake #2

They are constantly threatening Iran. I know that IRI is greatly at fault for this. However by getting in the war of words they make average Iranian anti-Israel.

Mistake #3

Israel created Hamas. They wanted something to be a thorn in Fatah's side. Well they got a thron in their side!

Mistake #4

They have not made this yet. But it would be attacking Iran. If they do that it will prove their utter stupidity. No action will get Iran more hostile to Israel as that. So far they have showed signs of intelligence.

Tabriz

I don't hate Arabs or any race at heart. I have made statements out of anger against Arabs but that was because of my genuine hatred of politcal islam and the Islamification of Iran. Islam, unfortunately, is inextricably linked with Arabs from language, the adoption of Bedouin customs and clothes such as the Hijab. It is natural that I direct my anger towards Arabs albeit I admit it is wrong to generalise. I realise a lot of Iranians in Abadan, Bushehr and Khuzestan province are Arabs. I have no objection if they celebrate they observe their local Arab customs and even their language. What is not acceptable is to expect to be anything other than Iranian and their allegiance must be to Iran as one single sovereign nation. 

Islam unfortunately has had a history of coercion, divide and rule, forced assimilation and subjugation of people to their religion. I am no respecter of Islam because Islam is intollerant towards Iran. 

IGNORE ME!

Israel is going down slowly but surely.

The old tricks do not work any longer!

Why do I smell a rat?

In fact it is stinking of a rat. He is trying to create a division between Sunnis and Shias and get them to do the Israel fight. There is already friction between these two sects, but the idea of one being allied with Israel could drastically increase the hostilities. Unfortunately I can see some Shia Akhonds try to use this opportunity for their own end and promote his ideas for him, and I think that is what he is betting on.

Arabs

Many Arabs are angry at their own governments. They find them impotent and corrupt. Whether that is true is not the issue. The perception is definitely there.That is why Arab regimes are so upset and scared.

These Arabs want someone to look up to. A leader who "stands" up to the West. They in desperation look to Iran. These Arabs are not Iran haters; in fact the opposite. They are Iran lovers. That is one reason their leaders try to fan anti-Iranian racism. Because they are afraid their population is more loyal to Iran than them! Unfortunately these Arabs are in for a disappointment since IRI just as corrupt. In fact IRI is more corrupt than many Arab regimes.The real enemies are the IRI gang not the average Arab.

Delavar

Easy question to answer. Israel provided material support to the Islamic Republic as part of the dual containment policy shared with the West to keep the Iranians and Iraqis fighting each other until both regimes would wear themselves out in a war of attrition. Or at least the aim was to  keep the Iraqis and the Iranians occupied in a war so that neither of them would pose a threat to its regional neighbours.

Israel is no saint and that is obvious but it was not in its interest for Iraq, which at the time of the first Persian Gulf war was the fourth biggest army in the world to come out and be a victor. 

The policy of dual containment did not work, of course,  and when the Persian Gulf War ended both Iraq and Iran became hindrances for Israel. 

The selling of weapons to Iran by Israel was just a means to an end in the dirty world of international politics. Having said that, I would agree with the assessment of Titra Parsi to a certain extend that Israel and the the terrorist occupiers of Iran (IR) have fed off each other and used the status of each other as a bogey man to distract from domestic policies or for Israel - more grants and financial aid for a perceived threat. 

the reality is, however, that the overthrow of the IR would be a great benefit to Israel as well as to IRan. I hope this will be achieved.