At 1/21/12 11:40 PM, satanbrain wrote:
I was wondering if there is even one official publicily stating this allegation.
Can you think of an official who would have any interest in stating this publically?
At 1/21/12 11:43 PM, adrshepard wrote:
No, you "come on." All you're saying now is that our word alone overthrew the Iranian pm, that the US somehow took out Mossadegh through the international equivalent of "peer pressure."
Money combined with promises of money, hence the parentheses.
If promises of money were all that was needed to get our way we would never have fought Vietnam, Korea, or either Iraq campaign.
Single cause fallacy; of course the factions opposed to the US in those countries were much stronger and more organised than in Iran. All you need to accept is that a dictatorship can exist; that a faction that does not represent the majority of the population can hold power through an abundance of military strength, money or strategic positioning. What's possibly just as vital is that the dictatorship is perceived as being in charge; people on the fence might decide to back the dictatorship or not join a rebellion if they expect Mossadegh's faction to lose in the end.
The US had the power to influence all these aspects: they could supply the loyalist faction with weapons, cash and intelligence. By paying for crowds to demonstrate against Mossadegh they may not have been able to permanently improve public opinion about the Shah, but they could create momentum for the coup. Then, after the coup had been completed, the pro-US faction would have a strategic advantage to cling to its new position of power. But they could especially embolden reluctant generals or dissuade potential rebels by (covertly) throwing their weight behind the coup. By doing so, a coup that would normally have barely failed can be emboldened to the point where it can barely succeed.
In Chile and Iran the pro-US and anti-US factions were balanced enough for US pressure to tip the scales in favour of the pro-US faction without direct military involvement, in Afghanistan and Iraq this wasn't the case. While you may say that the Iranians are themselves guilty for letting the pro-US faction get strong enough to be able to be emboldened into pulling off a coup with US support, this doesn't excuse the fact that the US intervened in the politics of a sovereign nation and allowed a dictator to seize power in doing so.
That would be relevant if Hezbollah and Hamas targeted the US and not Israel.
For Iran those are two heads of the same hydra. Seriously, since Israel acts as a proxy for the US in the region, the same way Iraq acted a proxy for the US during the 80s, I don't see the need to split hairs here.
What did Israel ever do to Iran?
The same way Iran maintains good relations with Venezuela because they share opposition to the US, Iran backs faction that are opposed to both the US and Israel. This way, if the US were to invade Iran, they could ask groups like Hezbollah and Hamas to return favours. Iran's only Arab ally during the Iran-Iraq war, Syria, is also hostile to Israel (which holds the Golan Heights that belong to Syria), so you could even see it as a return of favour for when they were still fighting US-backed Iraqis.
Ever ask yourself that?
Did you? If you believe that Iran's foreign policy can solely be explained by them being Muslim fanatcis, then why would they strive for good relations with a kâfir nation like Venezuela? And if they're pragmatic, then why would they not support terrorists against Israel?
That would be pretty impressive considering US support predated Saddam's gas attack on the Kurds.
I was talking about chemical attacks against Iranian troops in border villages in '84 and '85.
Ok. Except I've never said those things, so I don't care.
Did I say you did?
Sigh, that was a hyperbole. The point is that Iran's interest in nuclear weapons prior to 2002 is irrelevant, other countries such as SA and Brazil were also interested in nuclear weapons up to a similar level. What's relevent is that Iran's nuclear program did not begin in earnest until Ahmadinejad got to power.
Not at all. One option would be to abide by the Additional Protocol to inspections, which is voluntary, but would nonetheless do a hell of a lot to defuse the situation if the Iranian effort is as peaceful as they claim.
Look, I'm not naive up to the point that I believe that if Iran were to give up its nuclear weapons program and stop backing terrorists, that the West would stop being hostile. Not only does Iran still sit on massive oil reserves, but, like Cuba, they represent defiance. The very existence of Iran as an Islamic theocratic state is a threat to the interests of the US in the region. Fundamentalists in Egypt, Palestine and so many other Arab countries may not like Iran being a Shi'ite state, but they still look towards the revolution in Iran for inspiration. I don't think it's a stretch to say that the US government believes that if the regime in Iran were to fall, that this would be a blow to Islamists worldwide. As such, the Iranian government is constantly under threat, and their nuclear weapons program is a response to said threat. Going public about their desire to build a nuke is only to make it harder for powers like Russia and China to keep tacitly supporting Iran, so they don't.
On the other hand, I believe that the best blow that can realistically be struck at the Islamists at this point is to let the Iranian regime collapse in on itself due to sanctions and a popular protest movement that does have lie about not being supported by Western puppet masters.