What do you think about Iran? Are they as bad as is claimed?

[Armstead]

Frankly, I don't know what to think about Iran.

Iraq was a different matter. Even those of us who were against the war in Iraq generally acknowledged that Sadaam and was a despicable creep, and his government was generally corrupt and evil.

Many in the government and media are now attempting to do the same to Iran. Demonizing the country and its rulers as beady-eyed crazies intent on destroying Israel and taking over the Mideast. They are depicted as the mastwerminds behind almost all terrorism, and sworn enemies of the US.

There are a lot of historical justifications for our antipathy and suspicions about iran. There are also a lot of reasons for their antipathy towards us.

However, I also have to admit that I'm surprised at how reasonable and rational their viewpoiunts are whenever I've heard Iranian officials or others in that country interviewed, or listened to Iranian media (they have an English news broadcast service). Even their current president did not seem quite as wild-eyed as I was expecting when he was interviewed by Mike Wallace.

I suspect the truth about Iran's intentions are somewhere between the two stereotypes of Iran as evil empire and reasonable nation that is simply defending its interests.

What are your views on this? I'm curious about it.

[Junkdrawer]

1. The mullahs derive their power through our misbehavior.

Iran was a democracy before we brought back the Shah. After the Shah fell, the West spent 20+ years in slow, patient diplomacy trying to mitigate the influence of the mullahs.

Bush flushed all that down the toilet. And the more we misbehave, the more powerful the mullahs become.

[acmavm]

2. Exactly. They're damn sick and tired of our arrogance. We

don't like their particular government, find ourselves a puppet, put his ass on the Peacock Throne.

I'd hate us too. Pahlavi was not a nice man.

[Armstead]

3. That's how I tend to view it...But how bad are the mullahs?

I think Bush did a great job of undermining the moderates in Iran, and bolstering the position of the more etreme elements.

However I also wonder if the mullahs are really as bad as they are portrayed too. Their goals for imposing fundamentalism on their population are not wonderful, but that's more of an internal matter.

I gues the real question is whether the mullahs simnply want to strengthen Iran's position in the world and defend itself, or if they really do have bigger and more sinister things in mind.

[Junkdrawer]

6. Well, the mullahs are most dangerous when...

they have decisive power, but perceive they are about to lose it. I blame Iran and Likud as the two biggest factors in killing the I/P peace process.

Surprisingly, when the mullahs are firmly in control, they are less rash. I guess they want to convince everyone that they can be trusted with power.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Perfectly correct

You just start at 1953 and work forward. It's quite laughable than anyone should complain about how Iran has become - it's the ineveitable outcome of the antics of both our countries.

[Armstead]

5. It's blowback from the Cold War

One reason we intervened and overthrew their government in the 1950's was because we wanted their oil and were concerned that they might become a "client state" of the Soviet Union.

I'm sure a lot of their resentment today is based on that.

[dipsydoodle]

8. That's not quite correct

Mossadegh intended to nationalise the Persian oil supply and increase its price. The British called in help from the USA to prevent that.

story here : http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Iran_KH.html

[Armstead]

10. Yes, but the Red Menace was also a factor

From that link:

John Foster Dulles was certainly different. The apocalyptic anti-communist saw in Mossadegh the epitome of all that he detested in the Third World: unequivocal neutralism in the cold war, tolerance of Communists, and disrespect for free enterprise, as demonstrated by the oil nationalization. (Ironically, in recent years Great Britain had nationalized several of its own basic industries, and the government was the majority owner of the AIOC.) To the likes of John Foster Dulles, the eccentric Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was indeed a madman. And when the Secretary of State considered further that Iran was a nation exceedingly rich in the liquid gold, and that it shared a border with the Soviet Union more than 1,000 miles long, he was not unduly plagued by indecision as to whether the Iranian prime minister should finally retire from public life.

[dipsydoodle]

14. That was only in Dulles deranged mind.

The USA has yet to be paid back for the Dulles inspired antics in Guatemala. Just another chicken waiting to come home to roost.

[Cosmocat]

9. Yep ...

Well said ... IF we would talk with them, it could be mitigated ...

Iran and Iraq are two different things ... Saddam was a bad guy, but he was no threat at all at the point where they trumped up the "war" against Iraq ... Iran IS a threat, and more of a bad actor across its borders, but still is not a threat to the point where military intervention is needed ...

[KurtNYC]

7. B*sh rushed us into the war which was the hardest to sell

(out of the 3: Iraq, Iran, North Korea). Iran and NK really are enriching uranium and Iran is "commiting acts of aggression against their neighbors" (Israel).

Saddam and the Shah were probably as good as it could get for our strategic goals in the region. Both were secular leaders of countries full of religious fanatics. Saddam kept the Sunnis and Shiites from going at it full bore and we now see the alternative.

[msmcghee]

11. I think they see themselves as ruling . .

. . a Shia empire - and they see themselves as becoming the de facto leader of the greater pan Islamic middle east - Persian Shias ruling Arab Shias and Sunnis coming along if they submit to their lesser role for having chosen the wrong form of Islam and cooperate. Long range, their mullahs expect to impose Sharia law on the west or kill us trying. They've been waiting 400 years for this - if it takes another couple of decades they don't mind at all.

However, I think they can get further right now without military confrontation with Israel or the US. They have the potential ability to damage us economically by controlling the flow of oil. I can't see why they would want to have most of their infrastructure leveled - which would be the result if they directly attacked Israel with missiles. Then again, they could have a few nukes, in which case all bets are off.

A possible scenario for today is that they will place in motion a cutoff of whatever oil they control, possibly using weapons (or the threat of weapons) to damage Arab pipelines they don't control - like in Iraq or Afghanistan. They could also attempt to close the Straights of Hormuz which would be a step just short of war with the US. (Obviously they have many more of those anti-ship missiles that they bought from China.)

If they go "ballistic" the missiles will be fired from S. Lebanon aimed at Israel. I worry that they have managed to bring a few very destructive missiles there that could do some real damage in Tel Aviv - that have been saved for this day. Their missiles could reach Israel from Iran but this way Hizbullah will be the acting agent - who will be responding to Israeli provocation of course.

The UN will probably not exist within a month or two. The world will be a darker place and the stage will be set for some pretty deadly events in the coming months. Many in the ME will die. But also many in the west will as well as both Iranian and Al Queada cells carry out plans that have been in the works for years.

Bush will get his Crusade - and the west could lose just because we need their oil to wage war and they are willing to accept much greater human losses than we are. Their children are taught from nursery school age that death for Allah in war with infidels is the greatest possible honor - boys and girls alike.

There are about 1.2 billion Muslims in the world, about 20% of the world's population. Although all of them are not out to kill us - most of them wouldn't mind very much if we were dead.

[Armstead]

15. Even if they want to dominate, I doubt they have their eyes on the West

It's quite likely they are making a bid to be the domonant power in the Middle East.

But that's the same game many other nations play (including the US) who want to dominate their regions.

And there may be fanatical elements who would love to impose Islam on the world. However, I tend to think the majority of Iranians are more pragmatic than that and couldn't care less about US society -- other than wanting us to stop bugging them and interfering in that part of the world.

I'd compare it to Russia/the USSR and Chine. We spent decades worrying that the monolithic Communist Empire wanted to "bury" US capitalism and were intent on world domonation.

Turns out that the biggest issue for Russia was holding its own Soviet Union together, holding on to its sattelites and avoiding bankruptcy. And they and China hated each otehr asa mucj -- or more -- than they hated us.

And today, both China and Russia have become uber-capitalist.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. No, but only because some of the claims are so silly.

The government of Iran is a very unpleasant and repressive one indeed. Many conservative commentators make it out to be (even) worse than it is, but the fact that right-wing Christians dislike it should not deceive one into forgetting just how bad it is.

Ahmadinejad makes Bush look like Ghandi, and the Iranian theocracy make most American Christian conservatives look like Bertrand Russel.

[FormerDem06]

13. Check this out and decide for yourself....

On Human rights:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=5

On Women:
http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/index.php?storytopic=6

And on their President:


snip

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=2605


=================================================
During the crackdown on universities in 1980, which Khomeini called the “Islamic Cultural Revolution”, Ahmadinejad and the OSU played a critical role in purging dissident lecturers and students many of whom were arrested and later executed. Universities remained closed for three years and Ahmadinejad joined the Revolutionary Guards.

In the early 1980s, Ahmadinejad worked in the “Internal Security” department of the IRGC and earned notoriety as a ruthless interrogator and torturer. According to the state-run website Baztab, allies of outgoing President Mohammad Khatami have revealed that Ahmadinejad worked for some time as an executioner in the notorious Evin Prison, where thousands of political prisoners were executed in the bloody purges of the 1980s.

In 1986, Ahmadinejad became a senior officer in the Special Brigade of the Revolutionary Guards and was stationed in Ramazan Garrison near Kermanshah in western Iran. Ramazan Garrison was the headquarters of the Revolutionary Guards’ “extra-territorial operations”, a euphemism for terrorist attacks beyond Iran’s borders.

In Kermanshah, Ahmadinejad became involved in the clerical regime’s terrorist operations abroad and led many “extra-territorial operations of the IRGC”. With the formation of the elite Qods (Jerusalem) Force of the IRGC, Ahmadinejad became one of its senior commanders. He was the mastermind of a series of assassinations in the Middle East and Europe, including the assassination of Iranian Kurdish leader Abdorrahman Qassemlou, who was shot dead by senior officers of the Revolutionary Guards in a Vienna flat in July 1989. Ahmadinejad was a key planner of the attack, according to sources in the Revolutionary Guards.

======================================================================

[Armstead]

16. I won't defend that -- but ...

as was the case with Iraq, there's a difference between distasteful leaders and a threat that demands military response.

And don't forget that Bush undermined the moderates in Iran by refusing to differentiate between them and the more fanatical elements.

And I also notice the parallels between Ahmadinejad and what Bush and the right wing are doing in the US. Our cultures and systems are different, so they can be cruder and more blatent. But the US is doing very similar things in a more subtle way -- stifling dissent and diversity and putting raw power ahead of human rights and liberties.

[msmcghee]

18. Right now at least half of Americans are not that . .

. . upset about NSA wiretaps without FISA approval. They figure if that's what it takes to protect us from Islamist fanatics then go for it. They see us Dems as worrying about dotting the I's and crossing the T's while people are trying to bring down the planes that our children are taking home from their European vacation.

That percentage will go up to 99.999% moments after the next successful terrorist attack in the US.

That .001% left over will be a few members of DU that I could name but won't. :eyes:

[Armstead]

23. That's missing the point

I assume you haven't read 1984 in a while.

I'm not opposed to things like NSA wiretapping people who they believe are linked to trerrorism, and otehr legitimate uses of law enforcement to protect national security.

But that's not the same as giving the government -- especially the executive brance -- carte blanche to do whatever it wants whenever it wants. We have those Constitutional checks and balances there for a reason.

This sacrificing of democracy and freedom becausew of blind fear is also is going to bite the people who blindly support that in the butt. Things like using the "Patriot Act" for totallty unrelated criminal investigations like gambling enterprises is the slippery slope.

I hope the "I have nothing to hide" nitwits realize what they'd done when the SWAT teams come to their house over an unpaid parking ticket, or if they get on a watch list because they unknowingly rented a room to someone who knows someone who might be a Muslim.

[msmcghee]

24. I agree with you completely . .

. . re: the propriety of those laws and safeguards.

I was pointing out that a majority of Americans - if asked to choose between letting the gov. wiretap American citizens at will, no warrant at all - and having their children's lives safe from terrorists attacks - they will choose the latter in very large percentages.

I think Dems are being stupid and are losing a great marketing opportunity. The BFEE has done a great job, along with some very bad terrorists, to create an incredibly strong fear in all Americans along with an emotional need to be safe.

Use that. Don't stand in front of the tsunami. We need to be showing how we can do a better, more sensible job - and not so much attacking the admin's claims of danger, and their efforts no matter how inept. We should be showing how upset we are that the danger is even greater than the admin claims and that they don't have any fucking idea what they are doing - to protect us from that HUGE danger.

I'm suggesting we use these strong emotions (every marketing person's dream) against Bush. We should be showing how we can do it right. Right now we are playing into their hands.

Note: See posts 20 and 21 below. That's bad for Dems - very bad.

See this headline: "US interventions have boosted Iran, says report"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1856362,00.html

We should be riding that wave, not saying that there is no danger from Iran, for example.

Think about what happens when we get hit again by terrorists in the US.

Do you want to be saying to Americans? "I told you they didn't know what they were dong to protect us from terrorism."

Or, "Oh, I guess those guys are kind of dangerous after all."

[Armstead]

25. The problem is the false choices that are presented

It is irrelevant to the actual campaign against terrorism whether or not Bush Inc. adheres to the laws that have preserved some semblance of democracy in the US for over 200 years. That's the kind of false choices Democrats have to stop buying into.

The real questionis HOW we perceive these things, and HOW we handle them.

Iraq was a classic example. I was totally opposed to that war (stood in sub-zero weather to participate in loal protests).

However, I never believed Sadaam was innocent or innocuous, or should have been ignored to do his deviltry.

If Bush had honestly initiated vigorous international pressures to contain Sadaam and to force him to respect human rights, I would have been with that effort 100 percent....But the rush to war with Iraq was complete folly. Not only was it philosophicaly at odds to everything a democracic superpower is supposed to stand for, it was also just plain stupid and counter-productive.

Same goes for Iran. I'm under no illusion that itr is run by a bunch of boy scouts. However it is a complex culture and nation, and even the less reasonable among them know the limits of what they can and can;t get away with.

We have to stop buying into the GOP False choices.

[msmcghee]

32. OK - I don't see where we disagree on either point.

Chasing false choices is one way these guys have screwed things up. A major one. We can pursue better and smarter choices.

But, arguing over the relative danger of Saddam Hussein or Amedinijad to the US - is a really dumb thing for us to do. We should be using the danger they represent to our advantage and not giving the pukes free points when they say we can't defend the US.

We can do it better. That should be our message.

As I said, when the next terrorist attack happens, what do you want the Dems to be saying to America,

a) See, I told you these idiots don't know what the hell they're doing.

b) Or: Darn, I guess those terrorist threats are not just a Bush/Rove campaign tactic, after all.

I agree totally with your assessment of Saddam and Iran. Step back and take a breath. I despise those people as much as you I am sure. We gotta be smart about this.

[Armstead]

34. I don't disagree totally, but On one point I do

Here's where I do disagree:

"But, arguing over the relative danger of Saddam Hussein or Amedinijad to the US - is a really dumb thing for us to do. We should be using the danger they represent to our advantage and not giving the pukes free points when they say we can't defend the US."

It's not dumb to discuss such things, because it is important. I believe we have to question the "conventional wisdom" to avoid making the same mistakes again.

Too many people on out side of the aisle took the crap that Bush and the NeoCons sdaid about how dangerous Sadaam was at face value -- which turned out to be totally wrong. That's how we got into that mess.

And if we now accept the latest version of the same crap uncritically regarding Iran, we'll just fall into the same trap again. Giving Bush a pass to pursue a new debacle (or series of debacles) by accepting their dubious premises at face value.

Maybe Iran is the boogeyman that the hawks are tryibng to portray it as. Maybe it isn't.. Maybe the truth is somewhere in between. But we have to examine that, because if we just go along we'll succumb to the Chicken Little scenerio yet again.

As far as terrorism goes, I'm not saying it isn't a threat. But also think we have to question the real extent and nature of it before we go off half-cocked on some jihad on a basis that is far out of proportion. And that we also shouldn't play into the hands of the terrorists by undermining our own way of life out of an exagerated sense of fear.

That also seems to be politically wiser than merely echoing the fearmongering of the GOP.

[FormerDem06]

19. No disagreement here..N/T

[LSK]

22. thats enough for the Bushies to use an excuse for war

And thats what worries me. It doesnt take much at all for them to start shit.

[NNN0LHI]

28. This Iranfocus sounds an awful lot like the Iraq Working Group to me

Does this Iranfocus group have any relationship with the son of the former Shah Of Iran by any chance if you know?

Don

[NNN0LHI]

31. Iran Focus is the propaganda arm of MKO which is on the US terror list

http://www.payvand.com/news/05/sep/1122.html

Iran Focus (www.iranfocus.com): The MKO Propaganda Machine

I’ve written several times about my distrust of several news sources by hard-line monarchists or the Mojahedin-e Khalq Organziation (a.k.a MKO, MEK, National Council of Resistance of Iran, NCRI, People's Mojahedin of Iran, PMOI, etc.) as well as those who rely on these sources as "news". Reading news from one of these agencies isn't about reflecting on different interpretive accounts of events. This isn’t like choosing between the New York Times and Washington Post where there are different “spins” on the same source of information. Both the Time and the Post believe they are being objective, but in different ways. Relying on news sources by hardline monarchists and the MKO, is about choosing an agency that absolutely lies or exaggerates incidents in order to enhance their own political objective. Let us take Iran Focus as an example. In the past I have noted that Iran Focus is a agency run by the MKO for various reasons:

1) The current executive director of Iran Focus is Mohammad Hanif Jazayeri. Hanif is the son of Hassan Jazayeri. Until three years ago, Hassan Jazayeri was rumored to have died in 1980 as a result of being abandoned by MKO and Iraqi trainers. Later the story was changed to Hassan being executed by the Iranian regime for his membership with the MKO. Given Iran and the MKO's history of human rights abuses, I won't argue which is the correct account. Before Iran Focus was ever created, Hanif has time after time advocated his support for the MKO. In fact, earlier this year Hanif was engaged engaged in a campaign to remove the MKO from the UK’s list of terrorist organizations (it is worth noting that the MKO is also included in the State Department's list of terrorist organizations.)

Additionally, in various posts dated in1998 and 1999, Hanif has advocated his support for the MKO as Iran’s only "democratic alternative."

Hanif's signature also appears on this petition supporting the MKO cause.

2) Iran Focus along with its sister site Iran Terror (look at the website designs and stories as well as the website for the MKO and you can easily see they're created by the same designer) are registered in London and Paris respectively. In fact both organizations, including the MKO, tried to allege that the Human Rights Watch report illustrating all the human rights abuses committed by the organization was a result of some conspiracy between HRW and agents in the Iranian government. A response to the allegation can be found here. I'd like to add that the "Gulf 2000 list" which Iran Focus and Iran Terror refers to is a listserv with hundreds of academics, politicals, and thinkers on the Persian Gulf with different political viewpoints. Nevertheless, the Iran Terror email refers to emails sent in the listserv as "secret emails" which they had intercepted.

3) The Iran Focus website uses language supporting the MKO cause. There are particular ideological positions and phrases which MKO members and supporters use. By continously using the MKO as Iran's "democratic alternative" both the Iran Focus and Iran Terror websites intend to create the misleading image that the group, as well as their political counter-part NCRI, are legitimate proponents of human rights and democracy with a significant backing inside and outside of Iran. Read this article, this article, and this article for an image of the type of propaganda used by the websites.

[H2O Man]

17. I think so.

A significant portion of the Iranian leadership are.

[endarkenment]

20. Iran hasn't invaded anyone in like 200 years.

At this point that is just about all I need to know about them. Yes they have a vile theocracy that hopefully some day the good people of Iran will get rid of. That is their problem not ours. We have our own vile theocracy that the good people of the USA will hopefully wake the fuck up and get rid of. We are invading nations or having our proxies do it for us every couple of years and we have a huge nuclear arsenal and our idiot leaders have publicly stated their willingness to use this arsenal to acheive political objectives. I suggest we clean our own house first and then worry about our neighbors.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

21. As bad as claimed? Yes. As dangerous as claimed? No. -nt

[Taxloss]

26. Iran has a horrible regime. That doesn't mean war is a good idea.

The violence and depravity of Iran rulers is really sickening, and the cruelty of what happens inside Iran's prisons is chilling. It's a vicious regime, rotten throughout. But attacking the place is hardly going to improve things - just look at Iraq. Attacking Iran would increase the horror by orders of magnitude. Draining that swamp will be a long and painstaking diplomatic process. You can't just slam-dunk something like that.

[CollegeDUer]

27. All you need to know is that war with them would be hell for everyone

No one would be left out of that battle.

[Postman]

29. Read the book "All The Shah's Men"

and you'll know why there was an Islamic Revolution in Iran.

It always comes back to money, greed, power.

The US, at the behest of the UK, overthrew their elected government because they had the audacity to think that they should benefit from their own naural resources.

After overthrowing their democracy, the US installed into power a brutal dictator known as "The Shah"

After years of oppression and finding strength to resist by relying on their faith in Islam, the people of Iran connected the dots of US involvement in subverting their country.

It reached critical mass in 1979 when US embassy was raided and hostages were taken.

[devilgrrl]

30. I'm sure Iran has "issues" that Iranians are able to solve themselves...

they've only be around for the last 100 million years.

[focusfan]

33. Bush says they are bad,so most likely they are not

I always believe the opposite of what Chimpy says.