U.S. policy towards Iran
The case of Iran Is a complicated one. Iran has to be punished because it broke free of U.S. control in 1979. The U.S. picture of Iran - as portrayed in media commentary and so on - says nothing ever happened in Iran up until 1979. The installation of the shah in 1953, that kind of thing is never mentioned. Here are some facts to help you understand the situation.
From 1953 to 1979, when Iran was ruled by the pro-U.S. shah, all the torture, massacres, and everything else got essentially no coverage at all. Starting in 1979, after the shah was overthrown in a popular revolution, all of a sudden there was huge coverage of the atrocities in Iran.
And when Iranians were finally able to throw off the yoke of oppression and brake with the United States in 1979, it was instantly realized that this was a crime for which they would have to be punished. And it goes way beyond rational state interests. And the same goes for Cuba, it’s the Mafia mentality: You can’t allow disobedience to exist; it’s too dangerous because other people might get the idea that they can be disobedient as well. So Iran’s going to have to be punished for that act of disobedience. The United States supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war partly because they just wanted both sides to slaughter each other, but they also wanted to make sure that Iraq won. When it looked like perhaps they weren’t going to win, the United States just entered the war on Iraq’s side: reflagging the ships, shooting down the Iranian airliner, and so on. The U.S. actually supported Iraq to such an extent that Iraq was given a privilege that no other country has, except Israel: They were able to attack an American naval vessel and kill a few dozen American sailors and get away with it. Who can do that? They could get away with it because it was part of the attack on Iran.
The U.S. is trying to isolate Iran economically, supporting subversion within the country... Iran has been under terrific threat. According to U.S.-British standards, Iran should be carrying out terrorist acts in the United States rights now, in what they (U.S.-Britain) call anticipatory self-defense. People make a fuss about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s grotesque statements about the Nazi Holocaust, but suppose that he were saying - credibly - we’re prepared to bomb the United States and Israel and carry out terrorist acts there? Of course, that would be the end of Iran, but that’s precisely what the United States and Israel, for years now, have been openly saying about Iran. Israel is a nuclear state, everybody knows that. It’s actually a little country, but it’s a U.S. offshoot. According to the head of research and development for the Israeli Defense Forces, its air force and armored forces are larger and more sophisticated than any NATO power apart from the United States. And to beef it up further in the last year or two, the Bush administration has been sending them over a hundred advanced jet fighter-bombers, equipped with what the Hebrew press in Israel calls “special weaponry” - that’s for the ears of Iranian intelligence, meaning probably nuclear weapons,(nuclear) bunker busters and so on.
Just to state the obvious, on the Issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect the Iranian are working on nuclear weapons. One of the leading Israeli military historians, Martin Van Creveld recently had an article in the International Herald Tribune, in which he said that of course he didn’t want the Iranians to have such weapons, but if they’re not developing them, they’re insane. Any state that’s under that kind of threat would be developing a nuclear deterrent. If they are developing nuclear weapons, it’s not for use - they can’t use them: They’d be instantly destroyed. But it’s a deterrent. They’ve got U.S. forces on two borders. They’re surrounded by nuclear armed states - Israel is a major nuclear power, the United States and Israel are openly threatening them with destruction and attack. So my guess is that they likely are developing a nuclear deterrent.
However, if one is seriously concerned about Iranian nuclear weapons, there are simple ways of increasing the probability that they won’t develop them. For one thing, if the pressures against Iran were relaxed, they would have much less incentive to create a deterrent.
Will Washington extremists proceed to attack Iran directly? I doubt it, and suspect that they will prefer economic strangulation and subversion, possibly for secessionist movements that they can then “defend” by bombing Iran.
From 1953 to 1979, when Iran was ruled by the pro-U.S. shah, all the torture, massacres, and everything else got essentially no coverage at all. Starting in 1979, after the shah was overthrown in a popular revolution, all of a sudden there was huge coverage of the atrocities in Iran.
And when Iranians were finally able to throw off the yoke of oppression and brake with the United States in 1979, it was instantly realized that this was a crime for which they would have to be punished. And it goes way beyond rational state interests. And the same goes for Cuba, it’s the Mafia mentality: You can’t allow disobedience to exist; it’s too dangerous because other people might get the idea that they can be disobedient as well. So Iran’s going to have to be punished for that act of disobedience. The United States supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war partly because they just wanted both sides to slaughter each other, but they also wanted to make sure that Iraq won. When it looked like perhaps they weren’t going to win, the United States just entered the war on Iraq’s side: reflagging the ships, shooting down the Iranian airliner, and so on. The U.S. actually supported Iraq to such an extent that Iraq was given a privilege that no other country has, except Israel: They were able to attack an American naval vessel and kill a few dozen American sailors and get away with it. Who can do that? They could get away with it because it was part of the attack on Iran.
The U.S. is trying to isolate Iran economically, supporting subversion within the country... Iran has been under terrific threat. According to U.S.-British standards, Iran should be carrying out terrorist acts in the United States rights now, in what they (U.S.-Britain) call anticipatory self-defense. People make a fuss about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s grotesque statements about the Nazi Holocaust, but suppose that he were saying - credibly - we’re prepared to bomb the United States and Israel and carry out terrorist acts there? Of course, that would be the end of Iran, but that’s precisely what the United States and Israel, for years now, have been openly saying about Iran. Israel is a nuclear state, everybody knows that. It’s actually a little country, but it’s a U.S. offshoot. According to the head of research and development for the Israeli Defense Forces, its air force and armored forces are larger and more sophisticated than any NATO power apart from the United States. And to beef it up further in the last year or two, the Bush administration has been sending them over a hundred advanced jet fighter-bombers, equipped with what the Hebrew press in Israel calls “special weaponry” - that’s for the ears of Iranian intelligence, meaning probably nuclear weapons,(nuclear) bunker busters and so on.
Just to state the obvious, on the Issue of Iranian nuclear weapons. I don’t know for sure, but I suspect the Iranian are working on nuclear weapons. One of the leading Israeli military historians, Martin Van Creveld recently had an article in the International Herald Tribune, in which he said that of course he didn’t want the Iranians to have such weapons, but if they’re not developing them, they’re insane. Any state that’s under that kind of threat would be developing a nuclear deterrent. If they are developing nuclear weapons, it’s not for use - they can’t use them: They’d be instantly destroyed. But it’s a deterrent. They’ve got U.S. forces on two borders. They’re surrounded by nuclear armed states - Israel is a major nuclear power, the United States and Israel are openly threatening them with destruction and attack. So my guess is that they likely are developing a nuclear deterrent.
However, if one is seriously concerned about Iranian nuclear weapons, there are simple ways of increasing the probability that they won’t develop them. For one thing, if the pressures against Iran were relaxed, they would have much less incentive to create a deterrent.
Will Washington extremists proceed to attack Iran directly? I doubt it, and suspect that they will prefer economic strangulation and subversion, possibly for secessionist movements that they can then “defend” by bombing Iran.