Do you mean like when the US president Ronald Ragan was elected president and the Iranians struck a quick deal to release the American embassy hostages before Ronald Ragan could take office? If so wouldn’t it be more precise to say that the Iranians were reacting to events. And please to remember that even way back then, Iran was not the central campaign issue in America at the time or why Jiminy Carter lost the election.
Iran Invasion soon ?
- Thread starter GG20DELTA
- Start date
Well it started when they took over the US embassy and held the staff hostage for over a year. It has been tit for tat for years since. More recently Iran was training and equipping Shia terrrorists with IED capable of destroying armored vehicles in Iraq and now to a lessor degree Afghanistan. Personally I would like my government to just leave the mideast , europe and asia and let the UN deal with any issues. But I am slanted as I am retired from the military
To explain the animosity that now exists between the US and Iran by historical grievances alone is unsustainable. For everything that the US did that can be considered as hostile towards Iran and its people before the Iranian revolution there would be three things that were just as equally favorable. I know because I once knew several of the people that went to Iran to work and help modernize and develop it. A long history which has been deliberately forgotten by some people, because it does not serve their political needs. And yes I know the complete history because I was alive when it all happened both good and bad and knew people who were actually there.
The reason that there cannot be good relations between the US and the current Iran government is very simple one and it is not the conduct of the US. The revolutionary government needs a Great Satin to justify its very existence. It needs powerful external enemies to justify its internal oppression. The US as the most powerful country of the West has to be hated, feared, and despised because its very existence represents life-styles and ideas that the revolution was designed specifically to prevent from ever finding their way into Iran and is hence the source of great evil.
Why is this even relevant??, America is the Western Big Brother to countries like Australia (Me) and New Zealand (You). Our countries are basically just blips on the Map in comparison, If America was not there I would dare say we would be speaking Cantonese by now. America is the one who must decide whether to intervene without knowing Iran's true intent or must wait to see what they do with nuclear power. An impossible question of morality. Punishment before the crime, Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. People are so caring of letting other nations think and do what they want under of cultural right of passage even to the lunacy of letting other these nations be allowed to threaten and be aggressive. Its a simple rule that has been around for a long time, A little Lion Roars at a Big Lion the little Lion turns to dinner. Nuclear power could potentially mean death for millions of people (if if if if). Who cares about a handful of farmers who have lost one of many potential markets. Its not even comparable. Compensation! Ridiculous. They are important to you but on a world stage its completely irrelevant. "The Iranians have just condemned us to death and wish a painful death on all Westerners, should we put the sanctions on sir to weaken their military capacity? To try and preserve life rather than War" "NO!! New Zealand will loose a client for the Lamb exports, we can't do that to them!"
Just read the latest rumor at DEBKA, yeah, I know, they are a bit out there but interesting theories to ponder. One is that Iran might try to slowly close or curtail the Straits, not really sure how Iran would proceed but I am guessing the idea is to continually keep tensions and oil prices high and make the Europeans and Asian countries wonder if it is worth it. Not sure I buy how Iran could "slow" traffic but not completely stop it 
, just put a bit of a squeeze. Still, I think it's an interesting thought.
The other one will make the person (I can't remember the name) on that other Iran thread happy, the one where we spent so much time "invading Queshm", supposedly the US has a 100,000 troops massing on Socotra and Masirah islands. Wow, that is quite a lot and in pretty much complete secrecy. Can't see anything on Google Earth as the latest satellite pictures date of 2004-2005, we would need more recent ones to see in the US has a huge base on the islands. Personally, I don't buy it.:lol3
, just put a bit of a squeeze. Still, I think it's an interesting thought. The other one will make the person (I can't remember the name) on that other Iran thread happy, the one where we spent so much time "invading Queshm", supposedly the US has a 100,000 troops massing on Socotra and Masirah islands. Wow, that is quite a lot and in pretty much complete secrecy. Can't see anything on Google Earth as the latest satellite pictures date of 2004-2005, we would need more recent ones to see in the US has a huge base on the islands. Personally, I don't buy it.:lol3
StrategyFTW
New Member
Israel doesn't invade forgein countries for fun, almost everytime Israel attacks is because they were attacked first or Israeli citizens were harmed by a forgien adversary. Also Israel has no wish to build up an empire, they just want peace and their neighbors to recognize that they're there to stay. Also Israel is an ally of the US and Iran isn't, also Iran is the Middle East's military power and if they got a hold of nukes they'd fire them at Israel faster than Obama makes military budget cuts (and that's saying a lot). Also Iran is threatening to cut off oil and when you throw that on top of nuclear weapons development, thats enough for drastic action.
StrategyFTW
New Member
I agree with you on the slowing oil trafficing, I don't buy it either, but there are some things you've had some missunderstandings. First Google earth wouldn't have images of a US military base since ANYONE can use it, thus ANYONE can FIND IT. Second there might be 100,000 troops massing there, but it's impractical, since US forces in Middle East only slighly number higher than that by 35,000 and most of it is in Afghanistan and especially since Obama is reducing the US Army by 100,000 troops (Don't believe me, look at the BBC website) and amassing the same number is foolish to say the least. Third the US would not in a million years attack first and if it did, it probably wouldn't land 100,000 troops in Iran, plus the logistics required to supply that number is large enough that it would be noticed. On top of that the Americans don't want another Iraq and if the US landed troops that's exactly what we'll get. If we take military action against Iran it would most likely be air and naval action and even that is unlikely.Just read the latest rumor at DEBKA, yeah, I know, they are a bit out there but interesting theories to ponder. One is that Iran might try to slowly close or curtail the Straits, not really sure how Iran would proceed but I am guessing the idea is to continually keep tensions and oil prices high and make the Europeans and Asian countries wonder if it is worth it. Not sure I buy how Iran could "slow" traffic but not completely stop it
The other one will make the person (I can't remember the name) on that other Iran thread happy, the one where we spent so much time "invading Queshm", supposedly the US has a 100,000 troops massing on Socotra and Masirah islands. Wow, that is quite a lot and in pretty much complete secrecy. Can't see anything on Google Earth as the latest satellite pictures date of 2004-2005, we would need more recent ones to see in the US has a huge base on the islands. Personally, I don't buy it.:lol3
Easy, send some people out in boats to get in front of the tankers and force them to turn. Environmental fanatics have done it lots of times, watch “Whale Wars” for some examples. The only counter tactic is to have your own boats out there either arresting them or playing chicken, both of which can lead to lots of incidents that Iran can exploit.Just read the latest rumor at DEBKA, yeah, I know, they are a bit out there but interesting theories to ponder. One is that Iran might try to slowly close or curtail the Straits, not really sure how Iran would proceed but I am guessing the idea is to continually keep tensions and oil prices high and make the Europeans and Asian countries wonder if it is worth it. Not sure I buy how Iran could "slow" traffic but not completely stop it
DEBKA is an Israeli site that deals in unsourced rumors. DEBKA claims they are 80% accuracy, but Israeli intelligence says it is more like 10% (which may be sour grapes on their part). The story has been picked up by a variety of sites, but so far no news services.
The number of troops on Socotra and Masirah will be 50,000, not 100,000. The other 50,000 will be at other locations in the region.
Socotra is part of Yemen and located in the center of the mouth of the Gulf of Aden leading to the Red Sea, and is on the other side of Saudi Arabia from Iran. Population about 43,000.
There have been a lot of proposals to put a naval base there because:
- It is perfectly located for anti-piracy patrols to keep the Somali Pirates out of the Red Sea.
- It is perfectly located for the Somali pirates who use it as a refueling base.
Masirah is part of Oman and is located on the Indian Ocean. It has been used by the British and American as a refueling base for aircraft starting in 1929. The USA established a logistics base there in the 1980’s, but there are only supposed to be around 3,000 US personnel there to support the transport and patrol aircraft squadrons. Population is around 12,000, including foreign troops.
Masirah
These are not what I would prime stepping of spots for attacking Iran.
- Long distances from Iran for troop deployment. However, for aircraft, Masirah is a good, and historic, choice.
- Climate wise both are good part of the year, and a slice of hell the rest.
- Neither has a deep water port, so they are logistics nightmares.
- Both have insufficient potable water to support the numbers of troops that are rumored to be present.
- Both are small dry desert islands, not large tropical jungle. There is really no way to hide a large base and training areas needed for a buildup.
As to you comment
Economic sanctions hurt everybody in the world to some degree or other, even if they are not the direct parties involved because they distort markets and create inefficiencies in the global trading system. That is why they should not even be considered unless the issue is every serious. Nuclear weapons are a very serious issue and if they end up being used (the worst case possibility) it would be a worldwide disaster in uncountable ways.
If the US sponsors stations it is still up to individual governments to enforce them. So if the New Zealand’s government decides to stop selling anything to Iran it is up the New Zealand government to compensate its own people if it thinks any composition if any is warranted. Food however would not be on the list unless there was full out war.
But to use the logic in your statement, that if sanctions are implemented then the US is responsible to make hole any economic damage that might happen to other countries that join in the sanctions, wouldn’t it be just as logical that if the US succeeds in its overall goal of preventing the creation and use of nuclear weapons in this case that the rest of the world should compensate it for it sacrifices. How much would that be worth do you think? Or is this just another one way street?
Last edited by a moderator:
The US doesn't want war - #1 It wants stability. Conflict- particularly in the Middle East, makes investors nervous, drives up oil prices and generally inteferes with the world econmy. #2 It wants to be liked. Really. The USA wants to be the good guy - it is part of our self image. #3 US Politicans do not want to be seen as "weak" on defense or foriegn policy. Ever since the Republicans back with Ronald Regan have beat the Democrats over being "weak" on defense - the two parties trip over each other come election time to show thier stong defense and foriegn policy credentials. #4 The US wants to be strong - we need to feel like we can kick everyone elses asses - even if we don't really want to actually have to ever do it. Again it's part of the post WW2 self-image we've created. Americans have pretty firmly believed in the idea that the best way to ensure peace was to be so tough that attacking you would be insane. 9/11 has popped that bubble now - since we are beginning to realize that we might actually have to deal with insane people and that having the most powerful military in the world is no defense against such folks - this gives us anxiety attacks. The ultimate American nightmare is nuclear terrorism. It awakens our old cold-war anxieties about nuclear war - but with the added worry of religous lunatics pulling the trigger - rather than another super power with something to lose. We have Pearl Harbor and 9/11 flashbacks. Americans are not used to the idea of being vulnerable. Since 1865 wars are something that get fought "over there" and its always some other poor countries civilians that suffer, not us. The idea of that paradigm changing scares America to its core. A nuclear armed Iran fuels all of those fears and anxieties. Iran is the boogeyman face on religious extremism to Americans - and has been long before anyone had heard of Osama. Would a nuclear armed Iran really execute/sponsor a nuclear terrorist attack against the US? It would seem insane - since the end result would be significantly less Iranians in the world - but Americans are afraid (rightly or wrongly) they can't judge Iranians by our standards of logical or illogic. Even North Korea doens't scare the US the same way Iran does. The US has tolerated a NK nuke - mainly becuase NK can effectively hold Seoul hostage, and we figure China will keep them from doing anything to stupid. I don't think the US will tolerate a nuclear Iran. There are a million reasons why war with Iran would be bad for everyone, but the US - like Isreal - will be driven to act more from fear and anxiety than logic.
Adrian
Adrian
That's largely because they haven't been bombarded with a propaganda campaign, first launched in the 1980's at the height of a vicious war involving Iran and Iraq - during which the West supported Saddam - constantly reminding them about the ''evil'' Iranians and the so call danger the Iranians pose to the ''free world'' and how they hate democracy and the American way of life.... Statements made by Iran's nutter of a President hasn't helped the Iranian cause either.
The U.S. and Israel will be driven to act to further their national interests not due to ''fear'' or ''anxiety''. I'm convinced that all this beating of war drums is a smokescreen for the real aim, that of regime change or to severely weaken Iran, to ensure continued U.S. and Israeli hegemony in the region. An Iran which was weakened due to strikes or a crippling embargo, would lead to positive effects [from a U.S. perspective] in Afghanistan and Iraq, places which contain Shiites and which are areas of strategic importance for Iran. It would also weaken Syria [which would result in Israel not having in the near future to holds talks about the Golan], which in turn would lead to a weakened Hezbollah and strengthen the pro-U.S./Western government that the U.S. would like in Beirut. And it goes without saying that the U.S.'s ever subservient Sunni Arab allies, would welcome a change of leadership in Iran, as part of the current clash being waged between Sunnis and Shiites in the region for influence.
A very interesting article -
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...-can-only-deepen-the-iran-crisis-6296132.html
A video with comments by a former CIA analyst in how Israel would benefit.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNFK_fBwDQk"]Israel may attack Iran this month - YouTube[/nomedia]
Last edited:
The reason that the pursuit of stability works for the US most of the time and is its preferred course of action in most cases, instead of direct action, is a simple one. If the parity that seems to threatens you has a society that is basically dysfunctional, all you have to is just wait it out. Dysfunctional societies, especially ones that do not allow any form of self-criticism is thus unable to use this method to self-improve themselves through this time tested process. If not it will eventually fall down of their own accord. If the society is capable of improving itself through the method of self-criticism, regardless of its starting point or how it got there, it is likely to evolve in such a way that will be less threatening to the US and so international relations can then improve. Think China changing stance from 1960 to 1980. No country is perfect even if we could agree what perfect is but in an ever changing world countries that do not continually attempt to improve themselves will fall behind and eventually fall.
The reason that Iran and North Korea cannot allow any criticism, ether internal or external, is that such an examination would visibly display, perhaps fatally, the internal contradictions of their societies. An examination which the power structure cannot endure. Societies that are secure about themselves regardless if they please us, are not afraid of criticism from ether internal or external source and can use this method for improvement.
prince99x
Banned Member
6¥1 6¥1webmaster:U.S cant anyway ever never at all invade SYRIA because:1-syria attacked by any nato country=the end of israel no matter the cost,consqences,tools, of that.2-we got god power wepons.yakhont will dertroy ship. the state of the art pantser s1 and buk m2 will destroy in close~mid range any flaying thing and not one but many at time.scuds scrabs fateh m600 you name any missile you want will destory anything called thing <alive or dead> in every cm of israel so their planes fly >do what soever>then they dont find place to land >high tech F's planes fall from skies ha.ha.ha.our advanced era armour t80 t72 will destroy mks of israel and the rest of israel tanks will be destroyed like in 2006 . peace my friend we are strong army in syria and nothing will stand in front of us until we all syrian die by dirty nukes or something .we love all the world.peace.^^6¥0
Mod edit: Permanent Ban for violations of the Forum Rules following Mod Team discussion
-Preceptor
Mod edit: Permanent Ban for violations of the Forum Rules following Mod Team discussion
-Preceptor
Last edited by a moderator:
Armoured Recce
Banned Member
That was an interesting response from a slightly different view point..
I'm sure the translation program kind of had a few issues with what was being typed, yet the underlying message seemed to come through....lol..
Not having any information regarding that poster, it kind of seems like his post exhibits exactly what was being discussed, Middle eastern countries and the inability to allow for internal or external critisism or study. I believe the case being most strongly exhibitied by that last posts use of "high tec F's planes falling from the sky" and the "advanced era T 80 T70's" Does this show the actual level of belief in retorhic and propaganda evident in many Middle Eastern countries? or simply an effort to instigate violent responses from readers?...
I'm glad that the mods are watching for such things...but really, could such an evidently rediculous post really be taken seriously or offend anyone with even a remote degree of intelligence?....
As a past member of the Canadian Forces, I have to say, that over my years I;ve certainly enjoyed lots of the propaganda and military displays that have come into our possession and viewed with interest and almost unbridled laughter.
Cheers to the mods.......some times a good laugh is good medicine!......
I'm sure the translation program kind of had a few issues with what was being typed, yet the underlying message seemed to come through....lol..
Not having any information regarding that poster, it kind of seems like his post exhibits exactly what was being discussed, Middle eastern countries and the inability to allow for internal or external critisism or study. I believe the case being most strongly exhibitied by that last posts use of "high tec F's planes falling from the sky" and the "advanced era T 80 T70's" Does this show the actual level of belief in retorhic and propaganda evident in many Middle Eastern countries? or simply an effort to instigate violent responses from readers?...
I'm glad that the mods are watching for such things...but really, could such an evidently rediculous post really be taken seriously or offend anyone with even a remote degree of intelligence?....
As a past member of the Canadian Forces, I have to say, that over my years I;ve certainly enjoyed lots of the propaganda and military displays that have come into our possession and viewed with interest and almost unbridled laughter.
Cheers to the mods.......some times a good laugh is good medicine!......
I don’t know, it seems to me that Hitler’s 3rd Reich did not allow much criticism, but waiting for it to collapse does not look like it would have been a good idea.
The problem is the amount of damage and instability that these dysfunctional societies can inflict on other countries before they collapse on their own. And if their gains (conquests) from doing so are sufficient then their stability can actually increase, as with Imperial Rome and Nazi Germany before the invasion of Poland.
And, based on North Korea, I don’t think the US can afford to place defensive troops in all the surrounding countries and wait 50+ years for Iran to reform.
Thanks people for a very interesing discussion. I am in a way playing devils advocate but I also have access to a university library and its resources which is good in lots of ways but also tends to be somewhat dry. There are some points I want to note and I am not going to name names. There are two schools of thought in this discussion. One very pro US / Israeli - western and one that is more caustious of the rhetoric. First, the nuclear weapons issue. I strongly believe if you have nuclear weapons you also have the will and the ability to use them. It is the same as pointing a fire arm at a person. If you point it at them you mean to shoot them. If you are going to shoot them then you mean to kill them. Simplistic but true and that was how I was taught.
Ok it was said that the US, UK and France (they forgot Russia) are decreasing the size of their nuclear arsenals. Which on the surface is a good thing is it not? Well not really. The basic tennant behind M.A.D (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine was that if you nuke me I can still nuke you many times over. So no nuclear war is winnable. What happens when the numbers of warheads are reduced to where it is possible that a nuclear war is winnable? The US and Russian doctrine has always been is if you use WMDs on me the I'll retaliate in kind. But in recent years the US has been somewhat creative in its definition of WMDs. Traditionally WMDs have always been nuclear, biologial and chemical weapons.
With regard to Iran, the US gets all paranoid about the possibility of it having nukes, but stayed quiet about Israel (unconfirmed reports the material for the first Israeli weapon was stolen from the US) which was done in conjuction with apartheid South Africa. The US didn't jump up and down a lot about Pakistan having nukes nor India, neither of whom have signed the Non Proliferation Treaty. Another point relating to the Iranian nuclear program. Some Iranian scientists have been killed by bombs attached to their cars. The western media call it an assassination or a targeted killing, yet if the same thing was done in the US, France, Israel, or the UK it would be called a terrorist act.
The US and Iran. In 1941 the Soviet Union and Britain invaded Iran because of it's ties to Germany and the Shah was forced to abdicate in favour of his son. In 1951 Mosaddegh was elected Prime Minister of Iran and after he nationalised all the oil companies he was overthrown by a joint UK - US operation in 1953. This was at the instigation of Churchill the then UK Prime Minister. The Shah over time modernisede Iran with mostly US help and at the same time became more despotic and autocratic, until he was hated and despised by his population. In 1978 the Iranian revolution began led by the Ayotollah Khomeini and the Shah left in January 1979. It was then that the US embassy in Tehran was overrun and hostages held for 444 days against all international protocols. From 1980 - 1988 the Iran - Iraq war was waged with the US arming and supporting Iraq who had started the war.
Since the fall of the Shah the US has been running a war of words and to all intents and purposes a cold war against Iran. It seems that if you mention Iran to a US politican now, they start getting wild eyed and now all they talk about is war with Iran on any pretext. The US, and unfortunately other western, media have bought into this line. Iran, or Persia as it was named for thousands of years, is an old culture and arguably the oldest culture in the Middle East. One wonders if it didn't have oil would this state of affairs have even been reached.
That is the historical context as I have seen it, interwoven with a comment upon nuclear weapons beause the two are insperable with the third leg being oil and fourth Israel. To truly comment on both those would be entering the political realm and I have already skirted that with a couple of comments.
Ok it was said that the US, UK and France (they forgot Russia) are decreasing the size of their nuclear arsenals. Which on the surface is a good thing is it not? Well not really. The basic tennant behind M.A.D (Mutually Assured Destruction) doctrine was that if you nuke me I can still nuke you many times over. So no nuclear war is winnable. What happens when the numbers of warheads are reduced to where it is possible that a nuclear war is winnable? The US and Russian doctrine has always been is if you use WMDs on me the I'll retaliate in kind. But in recent years the US has been somewhat creative in its definition of WMDs. Traditionally WMDs have always been nuclear, biologial and chemical weapons.
With regard to Iran, the US gets all paranoid about the possibility of it having nukes, but stayed quiet about Israel (unconfirmed reports the material for the first Israeli weapon was stolen from the US) which was done in conjuction with apartheid South Africa. The US didn't jump up and down a lot about Pakistan having nukes nor India, neither of whom have signed the Non Proliferation Treaty. Another point relating to the Iranian nuclear program. Some Iranian scientists have been killed by bombs attached to their cars. The western media call it an assassination or a targeted killing, yet if the same thing was done in the US, France, Israel, or the UK it would be called a terrorist act.
The US and Iran. In 1941 the Soviet Union and Britain invaded Iran because of it's ties to Germany and the Shah was forced to abdicate in favour of his son. In 1951 Mosaddegh was elected Prime Minister of Iran and after he nationalised all the oil companies he was overthrown by a joint UK - US operation in 1953. This was at the instigation of Churchill the then UK Prime Minister. The Shah over time modernisede Iran with mostly US help and at the same time became more despotic and autocratic, until he was hated and despised by his population. In 1978 the Iranian revolution began led by the Ayotollah Khomeini and the Shah left in January 1979. It was then that the US embassy in Tehran was overrun and hostages held for 444 days against all international protocols. From 1980 - 1988 the Iran - Iraq war was waged with the US arming and supporting Iraq who had started the war.
Since the fall of the Shah the US has been running a war of words and to all intents and purposes a cold war against Iran. It seems that if you mention Iran to a US politican now, they start getting wild eyed and now all they talk about is war with Iran on any pretext. The US, and unfortunately other western, media have bought into this line. Iran, or Persia as it was named for thousands of years, is an old culture and arguably the oldest culture in the Middle East. One wonders if it didn't have oil would this state of affairs have even been reached.
That is the historical context as I have seen it, interwoven with a comment upon nuclear weapons beause the two are insperable with the third leg being oil and fourth Israel. To truly comment on both those would be entering the political realm and I have already skirted that with a couple of comments.
Why should Iran reform to western ideal? They are muslim so, different culture different rules. True they have human rights issues but who are we to judge? Doesn't the good Book say "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? So I think a lot of our countries in the so called enlightened west also have human rights issues that we have not yet addressed in our own countries. So what is truly the real reasons for the west getting stuck into Iran? Is it over oil? Is it because the US doesn't like losing? Is it a religous war - the fundametalists Christians versus the fundamentalist Muslims (God help us)? One thing I have learned, is that you cannot impose your own belief systems upon another culture or time, because by doing so you will only end up with a narrow biased view, of what you are looking at, and will not understand the import of what they have to offer.
There is a power struggle on in Iran at the moment which is being played out in the local newspapers (that apparently is unusual) and it is between the moderates and the hardliners. So that has to be played out and how long that takes is anyones guess. And if I had a great power and nipping at my heals every day since January 1979 I'd be getting a bit paranoid to about a great satan. However calling for the detruction of an entire nation based upon their religion is totally uncalled for.
At this point, it simply isn't viable for USA to invade ANY nation, like they did in Iraq, with the sheer amount of resources and manpower involved. The US is now reshaping their military, trying to recover from a major economic crisis, so an invasion like Iraq is not on the menu for at least a couple of years.
But make no mistake, defending it's allies in any region, with all the necessary force required is absolutely ON the agenda. This is a conflict that will begin by action from Iran, not the USA. IF someone has to light the fuse of the powder keg that is the middle east, it seems like Iran will be the one to do so. In that case, USA will retaliate with all it's might. No doubt about that.
But make no mistake, defending it's allies in any region, with all the necessary force required is absolutely ON the agenda. This is a conflict that will begin by action from Iran, not the USA. IF someone has to light the fuse of the powder keg that is the middle east, it seems like Iran will be the one to do so. In that case, USA will retaliate with all it's might. No doubt about that.
Don't be too sure about that, from what's been presented in the press, it is Israel which will probably ''light the fuse of the powder keg'' and drag the U.S. into the mess. Unless I'm mistaken, it isn't Iran which has invaded any countries in recent history, has troops in dozens of countries and is itching for war.
And instead of continuing to isolate and demonise Iran [a policy which has been an utter failure since the 1980's], and to view it from a Western centric perspective, largely to secure Israel's interests, Uncle Sam should reach out to Iran, and by doing so make things easier for the Iranian ''moderates''. An improvement in relations between Iran and Uncle Sam would bring huge benefits to both parties, as Iran has concerns of it's own in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and the Lebanon, and can help there.
Last edited:
I agree Sturm and in my view Iran has been demonised much as Cuba has too. North Korea I can understand to a point and then it gets all crazy because the leading junta are so hard to figure out rationally. But you are dead right about Israel being the one who will light the fuse. I used to have a lot of respect in my younger days for the Israelis but after Lebanon and how they have treated the Palestinians, I no longer have any respect for them at all. I think that in some way they are no better than those who killed 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, and countless gypsies, homosexuals and poltical opponents during WW2. Of all the people in the world I thought the Israelis would be the one people who understood persecution, pogroms, being treated as animals or sub humans, and hatred. I am sorely disappointed and they have so much say in Washington, thru high powered lobbyists. I've read some articles criticising this power and it's not being written by non Jewish people but by highly educated mainstream US Jews themselves who are being pilloried for it and told that they are persecuting the Jewish people. Some have even been called nazis.
Iran does have enough problems on its own doorstep and I strongly believe that all this has to do with oil, much like Iraq, no matter what claims are made tothe contrary. The evidence is out there. You just need to look.