iran

[walrus]

What are your views. I know we have a large European audience here which I think looks more kindly on Iran. I think Iran handled itself quite well in the negotiation. The deal looks more on the short term with Obama thinking Iran will change its ways in the short term while Iran has maintained the same long term goals since the seventies.Iran has not only been attempting to influence the middle east but has been building mosques in south America, funding Venezuela's state tv. Iran has invested in uranium exploration in Bolivia, Venezuela and Ecuador. In 2013, it was found that Iran was involved in a plot to blow up JFK airport. The Brazilian prosecutor whom released the report was found dead with a bullet through his head in 2013. Obama says that if Iran doesn't abide by the agreements outlined in this deal the same options are available to future presidents as they are to him. Isn't he the one who bitched about inheriting messes.

[Master]

Britain has had more problems and issues with Iran than Iraq. That is how strained the relations is with them.

[El Kabong]

England is 100% why the United States got involved in the whole Iran/Shah thing to begin with.



Thanks guys......assholes!

[Master]

England is 100% why the United States got involved in the whole Iran/Shah thing to begin with.



Thanks guys......assholes!

You're welcome.

[mrbig1]

It's funny to Israel talking about Iran and the bomb. Israel has the 4th largest Nuclear stock pile in the world. You want to talk about terrorist? Israel is the world champion when it comes to terror. Israel is worried about Iran breaking a agreement. Once again Israel has never kept there word not even once in it's history.

[Gandalf]

Yep, Israel is so full of shit. I have no problems with Iran. I respect any nation that wants to be free of occupation and will ban McDonalds. It's the way to go. Could do better on human rights, but they are a lot more free than Americans are.

[Bill Paxtom]

Yep, Israel is so full of shit. I have no problems with Iran. I respect any nation that wants to be free of occupation and will ban McDonalds. It's the way to go. Could do better on human rights, but they are a lot more free than Americans are.

Before giving your 'honest' opinion.

I suggest you visit Iran for a few weeks, and offer up some your criticism 'openly' about
their Human Rights issues. Maybe in the public square.

I guarantee, that will we never here from you again.

[SlimTrae]

For me, there are several events that have caused irreconcilable differences.

1.Historically speaking Iran knows they had a good relationship with America during her birth as a nation. (seeking to balance the power Russia exerted- Iran willingly courted America) & Did the Shaw have a stable relationship with Israel History seems to say so.

2.Religous dissent played a part in disintegrating their partnership. America was down with the Shaw, but the 1979 overthrow bringing in Khomeini changed that. From their perspective- it appears they saw the brutality of an incoming Baathist party fucking over their muslim brothers- The Exiled Khomeini verified this-when he returned to Iran. (Finding that America supported the regime that caused the Islamic overthrow by a coup -from a political base (Baathists) that didn't help the relations. Saddam by chance came to power & really, really fucked over the Iranians' brothers in Iraq. They knew Saddam was Stalin influenced. America tells a lie and called Saddam a muslim- even though the Baatihist coup- overthrew the Islamic regime.


(The changing of relations)
3.SOFA aka Status of Forces bill (1964) to many there came across as the very thing they attempted to evade from Russia- by siding with U.S.A.- The religious considered this: an agreement for the enslavement of Iran. During this time however-The Shaw turned Iran debtor to creditor- Gr8 for America who sold her goods there, while oil revenues skyrocketed-

Religous dudes questioned it like Khomeini. His claim: Iran was becoming (American) bad food (fast food) blue jeans showing ass and halter top shirts showing titties- music laced with sexual suggestions- Iran was splitting between being religious and westernized.

4 When CIA seemed to step back to allow Shaw to conduct matters- came across to Iranians as a sellout move- they sought to rid him & those complicit_ (USA) causing the hostage crisis- where students took over. Plus allowing Shaw to seek medical treatment in the U.S. -when the Iranians wanted to try him convinced them -America was complicit.

5. Then a crazed ass mofo named Saddam had taken over the Baathist- now ready to wage a war against Iran- and USA initially stepping back- was another damaging blow- When Saadam gassed Iranians- and they witnessed Reagan send Donald Rumsfeld as an emissary to personally shake Hussein's hand and photograph it? That shit was too deep. And when America finally intervened by selling weapons- Iran learned as the rest of the world (USA & Israel) were selling to both nations. How were they supposed to respond to that?


Robert Sick who served under Carter & Reagan has a couple of great books. I can vouch for "October Surprise" which I read- great accounts from a guy who doesn't tout idealism aka Liberalism or Conservatism. Very objective read.

And The Ottoman's Empire: A Peace to end all Peace by professor David Fromkin is a great read to understand how the middle east came to be- including Ira. dating back to Britain and cats like Lawrence of Arabia.


Today's relations with Iran is a mixed bag of politics , religious and financial issues. American media would have us believe it stems from a single issue. Conservative media would have us believe Iran is just an evil place with evil people.

Reality suggests it is a tangled mess that is way too complicated to explain how Iran came to be the way she is today.

[mikeeod]

Let me start by laying out my bias up front, so that anyone who reads this understands the lens I'm speaking from. First, I'm a 40 year old American male. Next, I've spent the last twenty years of my life in the military, and been numerous times to the Middle East (mostly on combat rotations but I did do an exchange/exercise in Israel). Finally, I am a registered republican but truly disgusted with BOTH parties.

With that out of the way: The majority of Americans haven't thought this issue through, and have zero depth or understanding of the problem set. Most Americans don't even realize that Iranians don't identify as Arabs, they are Persians. Afghanistan is similar in that sense, although Iran is much more modern and less tribal as a society.

Something to keep in mind when discussing this issue is that you have to think strategically, which means you have to remain unemotional. Both sides can point to atrocities or insults from the other. Iran can point out US meddling in Middle East affairs, overthrowing governments and proxy wars. The U.S. Can point to hostage taking, terrorist sponsorship (Hamas and Hezbollah), meddling in other countries' affairs and proxy attacks on U.S. Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strategic leaders understand that yesterday's enemy may be today's ally out of necessity, and that those countries who do not think strategically eventually find themselves isolated.

Next thing to look at is the Middle East in general, and Irans goals. Right now the Middle East is in a civil war, with Iran and the Shia battling with the Saudis and Sunnis for regional supremacy. If you look at which sect actually threatens the homeland, it is the Sunnis, who sponsor Al-Qaeda and ISIS, among other groups. 9/11 was carried out by Saudi sponsored Al-Qaeda, and Saudi has never suffered a moment in retaliation due to US reliance on their oil. If you look at the US's top enemies in the region, Iran is killing them as fast as we are.

Many don't realize how close the U.S. Was to normalizing relations with Iran prior to 9/11. There was unprecedented progress and there were overtures at the SECSTATE level to begin discussions. When 9/11 occurred, it wasn't widely reported that the first flowers to the embassies were from Iran, who pledged full support in the U.S.'s response to the attack. You can point to George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech in 2002 to where Iran and North Korea both restarted their nuclear programs at full speed/force, most likely for a deterrent capability. Which brings us to today. I'm not a big fan of our current president, and I think he has gotten quite a bit wrong. That being said, we are fiscally constrained as a nation, and spread thin militarily. The last thing we can afford is another all out war or proxy fight for the foreseeable future. With that in mind, I think it is smart to partner with Iran, and use diplomacy and financial incentives to get them to abandon their nuclear pursuits, their sponsorship of extremist groups, and death to Israel propaganda/rhetoric.

[walrus]

Let me start by laying out my bias up front, so that anyone who reads this understands the lens I'm speaking from. First, I'm a 40 year old American male. Next, I've spent the last twenty years of my life in the military, and been numerous times to the Middle East (mostly on combat rotations but I did do an exchange/exercise in Israel). Finally, I am a registered republican but truly disgusted with BOTH parties.

With that out of the way: The majority of Americans haven't thought this issue through, and have zero depth or understanding of the problem set. Most Americans don't even realize that Iranians don't identify as Arabs, they are Persians. Afghanistan is similar in that sense, although Iran is much more modern and less tribal as a society.

Something to keep in mind when discussing this issue is that you have to think strategically, which means you have to remain unemotional. Both sides can point to atrocities or insults from the other. Iran can point out US meddling in Middle East affairs, overthrowing governments and proxy wars. The U.S. Can point to hostage taking, terrorist sponsorship (Hamas and Hezbollah), meddling in other countries' affairs and proxy attacks on U.S. Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strategic leaders understand that yesterday's enemy may be today's ally out of necessity, and that those countries who do not think strategically eventually find themselves isolated.

Next thing to look at is the Middle East in general, and Irans goals. Right now the Middle East is in a civil war, with Iran and the Shia battling with the Saudis and Sunnis for regional supremacy. If you look at which sect actually threatens the homeland, it is the Sunnis, who sponsor Al-Qaeda and ISIS, among other groups. 9/11 was carried out by Saudi sponsored Al-Qaeda, and Saudi has never suffered a moment in retaliation due to US reliance on their oil. If you look at the US's top enemies in the region, Iran is killing them as fast as we are.

Many don't realize how close the U.S. Was to normalizing relations with Iran prior to 9/11. There was unprecedented progress and there were overtures at the SECSTATE level to begin discussions. When 9/11 occurred, it wasn't widely reported that the first flowers to the embassies were from Iran, who pledged full support in the U.S.'s response to the attack. You can point to George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech in 2002 to where Iran and North Korea both restarted their nuclear programs at full speed/force, most likely for a deterrent capability. Which brings us to today. I'm not a big fan of our current president, and I think he has gotten quite a bit wrong. That being said, we are fiscally constrained as a nation, and spread thin militarily. The last thing we can afford is another all out war or proxy fight for the foreseeable future. With that in mind, I think it is smart to partner with Iran, and use diplomacy and financial incentives to get them to abandon their nuclear pursuits, their sponsorship of extremist groups, and death to Israel propaganda/rhetoric.

Understood, but do you really think this is the deal to do it.

[mikeeod]

Let me start by laying out my bias up front, so that anyone who reads this understands the lens I'm speaking from. First, I'm a 40 year old American male. Next, I've spent the last twenty years of my life in the military, and been numerous times to the Middle East (mostly on combat rotations but I did do an exchange/exercise in Israel). Finally, I am a registered republican but truly disgusted with BOTH parties.

With that out of the way: The majority of Americans haven't thought this issue through, and have zero depth or understanding of the problem set. Most Americans don't even realize that Iranians don't identify as Arabs, they are Persians. Afghanistan is similar in that sense, although Iran is much more modern and less tribal as a society.

Something to keep in mind when discussing this issue is that you have to think strategically, which means you have to remain unemotional. Both sides can point to atrocities or insults from the other. Iran can point out US meddling in Middle East affairs, overthrowing governments and proxy wars. The U.S. Can point to hostage taking, terrorist sponsorship (Hamas and Hezbollah), meddling in other countries' affairs and proxy attacks on U.S. Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strategic leaders understand that yesterday's enemy may be today's ally out of necessity, and that those countries who do not think strategically eventually find themselves isolated.

Next thing to look at is the Middle East in general, and Irans goals. Right now the Middle East is in a civil war, with Iran and the Shia battling with the Saudis and Sunnis for regional supremacy. If you look at which sect actually threatens the homeland, it is the Sunnis, who sponsor Al-Qaeda and ISIS, among other groups. 9/11 was carried out by Saudi sponsored Al-Qaeda, and Saudi has never suffered a moment in retaliation due to US reliance on their oil. If you look at the US's top enemies in the region, Iran is killing them as fast as we are.

Many don't realize how close the U.S. Was to normalizing relations with Iran prior to 9/11. There was unprecedented progress and there were overtures at the SECSTATE level to begin discussions. When 9/11 occurred, it wasn't widely reported that the first flowers to the embassies were from Iran, who pledged full support in the U.S.'s response to the attack. You can point to George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech in 2002 to where Iran and North Korea both restarted their nuclear programs at full speed/force, most likely for a deterrent capability. Which brings us to today. I'm not a big fan of our current president, and I think he has gotten quite a bit wrong. That being said, we are fiscally constrained as a nation, and spread thin militarily. The last thing we can afford is another all out war or proxy fight for the foreseeable future. With that in mind, I think it is smart to partner with Iran, and use diplomacy and financial incentives to get them to abandon their nuclear pursuits, their sponsorship of extremist groups, and death to Israel propaganda/rhetoric.

Understood, but do you really think this is the deal to do it.

Don't think this is the deal, n think we gave up too much, but it's a start. Not sure how much better Obama could've gotten.

[walrus]

Let me start by laying out my bias up front, so that anyone who reads this understands the lens I'm speaking from. First, I'm a 40 year old American male. Next, I've spent the last twenty years of my life in the military, and been numerous times to the Middle East (mostly on combat rotations but I did do an exchange/exercise in Israel). Finally, I am a registered republican but truly disgusted with BOTH parties.

With that out of the way: The majority of Americans haven't thought this issue through, and have zero depth or understanding of the problem set. Most Americans don't even realize that Iranians don't identify as Arabs, they are Persians. Afghanistan is similar in that sense, although Iran is much more modern and less tribal as a society.

Something to keep in mind when discussing this issue is that you have to think strategically, which means you have to remain unemotional. Both sides can point to atrocities or insults from the other. Iran can point out US meddling in Middle East affairs, overthrowing governments and proxy wars. The U.S. Can point to hostage taking, terrorist sponsorship (Hamas and Hezbollah), meddling in other countries' affairs and proxy attacks on U.S. Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strategic leaders understand that yesterday's enemy may be today's ally out of necessity, and that those countries who do not think strategically eventually find themselves isolated.

Next thing to look at is the Middle East in general, and Irans goals. Right now the Middle East is in a civil war, with Iran and the Shia battling with the Saudis and Sunnis for regional supremacy. If you look at which sect actually threatens the homeland, it is the Sunnis, who sponsor Al-Qaeda and ISIS, among other groups. 9/11 was carried out by Saudi sponsored Al-Qaeda, and Saudi has never suffered a moment in retaliation due to US reliance on their oil. If you look at the US's top enemies in the region, Iran is killing them as fast as we are.

Many don't realize how close the U.S. Was to normalizing relations with Iran prior to 9/11. There was unprecedented progress and there were overtures at the SECSTATE level to begin discussions. When 9/11 occurred, it wasn't widely reported that the first flowers to the embassies were from Iran, who pledged full support in the U.S.'s response to the attack. You can point to George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech in 2002 to where Iran and North Korea both restarted their nuclear programs at full speed/force, most likely for a deterrent capability. Which brings us to today. I'm not a big fan of our current president, and I think he has gotten quite a bit wrong. That being said, we are fiscally constrained as a nation, and spread thin militarily. The last thing we can afford is another all out war or proxy fight for the foreseeable future. With that in mind, I think it is smart to partner with Iran, and use diplomacy and financial incentives to get them to abandon their nuclear pursuits, their sponsorship of extremist groups, and death to Israel propaganda/rhetoric.

Understood, but do you really think this is the deal to do it.

Don't think this is the deal, n think we gave up too much, but it's a start. Not sure how much better Obama could've gotten.

My history runs parallel to yours a bit. I do see Obama's point bringing Iran into talks, I mean the stud quo has gotten us nowhere but I truly believe this deal gives Iran more power and opportunity and puts us behind the nightfall with them. The sanctions were crippling Iran, they wanted to come to the table. Obama and Kerry could have done a lot more to make our allies feel better. The fact that this deal actually brought Israel and several middle eastern countries together says a lot about it. We are now being criticized by the Sauidis for Obama's policy of leading from behind.

[Kirkland Laing]

Ten to twenty years from now Iran will be America's main ally in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf kingdoms are going to crumble away with the demise of OPEC power and turn into failed jihadi nutcase states like Syria/Iraq/Libya.

Israel, who need permanent enemies in the region to justify their refusal to make any peace deals while they continue their slow motion ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians/eventually southern Lebanon


Israel wants a 'permanent stand-off' with Iran, says British Foreign Secretary - UK Politics - UK - The Independent *

will switch from claiming Iran is the world centre of terrorism to yelling about ISIS or whatever ISIS splinters into/various states of parts of states near them run by jihadi nutcases.

I already said this long before we made the first move which was the recent nuclear deal. Also please note this deal is between Iran and six major powers and five of those powers are fine with it, it creates zero political controversy in those countries. It's only controversial in America becase a. Israel have a very powerful lobby there and b. any international deal like this is always trashed by the right wing and likened to Chamberlain at Munich. See attached photo.

*The British conservative party is normally in lockstep with the American right over Israel, sometimes a step ahead. The occasional outbreal of truth like the article above represents just how pissed off even the right are with the way Israel is going. I've never seen a statement like that from the UK/US right since the early nineties and Jim Baker peace be upon him.27-reagan-gorbachev-ad.nocrop.w529.h848.2x.jpg

[walrus]

Ten to twenty years from now Iran will be America's main ally in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf kingdoms are going to crumble away with the demise of OPEC power and turn into failed jihadi nutcase states like Syria/Iraq/Libya.

Israel, who need permanent enemies in the region to justify their refusal to make any peace deals while they continue their slow motion ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians/eventually southern Lebanon


Israel wants a 'permanent stand-off' with Iran, says British Foreign Secretary - UK Politics - UK - The Independent *

will switch from claiming Iran is the world centre of terrorism to yelling about ISIS or whatever ISIS splinters into/various states of parts of states near them run by jihadi nutcases.

I already said this long before we made the first move which was the recent nuclear deal. Also please note this deal is between Iran and six major powers and five of those powers are fine with it, it creates zero political controversy in those countries. It's only controversial in America becase a. Israel have a very powerful lobby there and b. any international deal like this is always trashed by the right wing and likened to Chamberlain at Munich. See attached photo.

*The British conservative party is normally in lockstep with the American right over Israel, sometimes a step ahead. The occasional outbreal of truth like the article above represents just how pissed off even the right are with the way Israel is going. I've never seen a statement like that from the UK/US right since the early nineties and Jim Baker peace be upon him.27-reagan-gorbachev-ad.nocrop.w529.h848.2x.jpg

You sound like Obama.

[Kirkland Laing]

Ten to twenty years from now Iran will be America's main ally in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf kingdoms are going to crumble away with the demise of OPEC power and turn into failed jihadi nutcase states like Syria/Iraq/Libya.

Israel, who need permanent enemies in the region to justify their refusal to make any peace deals while they continue their slow motion ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians/eventually southern Lebanon


Israel wants a 'permanent stand-off' with Iran, says British Foreign Secretary - UK Politics - UK - The Independent *

will switch from claiming Iran is the world centre of terrorism to yelling about ISIS or whatever ISIS splinters into/various states of parts of states near them run by jihadi nutcases.

I already said this long before we made the first move which was the recent nuclear deal. Also please note this deal is between Iran and six major powers and five of those powers are fine with it, it creates zero political controversy in those countries. It's only controversial in America becase a. Israel have a very powerful lobby there and b. any international deal like this is always trashed by the right wing and likened to Chamberlain at Munich. See attached photo.

*The British conservative party is normally in lockstep with the American right over Israel, sometimes a step ahead. The occasional outbreal of truth like the article above represents just how pissed off even the right are with the way Israel is going. I've never seen a statement like that from the UK/US right since the early nineties and Jim Baker peace be upon him.27-reagan-gorbachev-ad.nocrop.w529.h848.2x.jpg

You sound like Obama.

This agreement is entirely controversial in every other major country.

It's only controversial in America due to a. a gigantic Israel lobby and b. the propensity for a large number of Americans to wet the bed over anything they perceive as a threat, no matter how ridiculous. And you have a bunch of politicians willing to pander to and encourage the bedwetters, particularly when there's an election coming up.