into giving up its aspirations for nuclear weapons why then does it need 5000 centrifuges? Why then will it continue enriching uranium? Why does it have a heavy water plutonium reactor? Why is it building ICBMs, and have a Science & Technology Cooperation Agreement with Axis of Evil ally nuclear North Korea (the worst nuclear proliferator on the planet)? Countries like Spain, Switzerland and Canada with peaceful nuclear energy programs don't have a single spinning centrifuge between them. Why will Iran have thousands? Where is the evidence that the mullahs have given up their ambition for the bomb? Where?
A ) Because they need a bargaining chip. In their view, if they give up their enrichment program, we are going to request one thing after another, and ultimately attack them.
B ) Because they learned from the fate of Libya, Iraq and Syria after their nuclear programs were destroyed / scrapped.
C ) Spain, Switzerland and Canada are not situated in the world's most volatile region, and are not surrounded by countries and forces they deem hostile.
D ) Iran does not have the capability to build ICBMs. Their most advanced missile has a range of about 3500 - 4000 KM ( 2100 - 2500 Miles ). They do have an active space program however which is the foundation for building an ICBM.
E ) Ask George Bush why they are in the " Axis of Evil " with north Korea. We could have convinced them to scrap their entire enrichment program and maybe even their missile program back in 02 - 03, by simply giving them a concession not to attack them. But George junior dreamed of attacking Iran, so he cut off everything and sent them on their way. 12 years later, here we are, negotiating an uneasy truce with a nuclear threshold state.
You're a typical confused apologist for the evil, revolutionary, totalitarian, theofascist, "jihad is good" Khomenist regime. When the Shah was in power why was it that regional hostility toward Iran was practically nonexistent? Why was there peace between Iran and Israel, Iran and Saudi Arabia, Iran and Egypt, Iran and Jordan, Iran and Yemen, Iran and Kuwait, the Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, etc, etc? Why since the Shah's downfall was that regional peace shattered and replaced by so much hostility, strife, bloodshed and war? WHY?
Anyone who understands the ideological dynamics underlying and driving radical, jihadist Khomenist Iran knows that this regional hostility is entirely self-caused; that it's blow back from their subversive policies and expansionary aims, and wouldn't tolerate Iran having a single spinning centrifuge.
Nope, Iran's regime is certainly a contributor to the middle east turmoil, but not the cause. Arab states and Iran have a long history of rivalry, dating back some 1000 years, starting with the invasion and occupation of Persia by Arabs. Just pick up a history book, and start reading.
When shah was in power, Iran was the single most powerful country in the middle east ( with our blessing, of course ). Naturally, they preserved the peace and stability in the region, and scared Iran's regional rivals. Iran captured the three islands emirates claimed were their's, Iran interfered in Oman during Dhofar uprising, etc.
But as soon as the shah was out and Iran's power started to fade, Iraq declared war on Iran, and every other Arab state ( with the exception of Syria) supported Iraq. After the war, the rise of Saudi Arabia and their regional and religious rivalry with Iran, resulted in the mess we see today in the middle east.
Yep. Fact is for 36 years now Iran's radical Shiite "God-directed" regime has been a contributor to Mideast ethnic and sectarian strife as it is a revolutionary state aiming at Shiite supremacy and domination. Radical Khomenist Iran is the very worst of all bad actors in the region and was responsible for the Iran-Iraq War which killed and injured over one million people and cost billions in treasure. Those who believe this nuke deal with Iran (which rewards its evil behavoir with sanctions relief and billions) will somehow appease, moderate and normalize the regime are delusional.
Right now the Khomenists most likely view this agreement as a divine sign from Allah that he favors their regional and global designs and is guiding their revolution to victory. In retrospect the Iran-Iraq War was prelude to a broader Shia-Sunni regional conflict which is already underway in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.
Oh god, no wonder we can't do anything right in the ME.
Every historian and military expert will tell you that Iraq was the aggressor in the Iran-Iraq war, not Iran. They were too busy cleaning up the mess after their revolution, they didn't have the time to start a war.
In fact Iranian Government is FAR from religiously motivated. They care about two things, first is to survive, and second is becoming THE regional power. They use their branch of " faith " as a tool to gain more power in the region.
This deal will neither moderate nor normalize the regime. This deal is about one thing, and one thing only, preventing an Iranian A bomb and other related topics ( e.g sanctions imposed as a result of their nuke program ). That's it. It's not supposed to be a magical solution to all the evil in the ME, and is irrelevant to other problems we have with Iran.
Every expert says what? That Saddam started the Iran-Iraq War? On the contrary, when Saddam came to power in July, 1979 he praised Khomeini and the Islamic Revolution and offered him an olive branch of peace. Khomenie responded by denouncing Saddam as a false, hypocritical Moslem; like the Shah a disgraceful and secularizing enemy to the faith worse than godless infidels and Jews; and he called on Iraq's Shiites to rise up in righteous jihad and overthrow him and his secular Baathist regime. Shortly there after pro-Khomeini Iraqis organized anti-Saddam riots throughout the country and went on a killing spree murdering Baath Party officials. In short. It wasn't an aggressive, predatory Saddam who triggered the Iran-Iraq War. It was Khomeini trying to export his Shiite revolution to Iraq.
You're apologizing for the evil, oppressive, expansionary Khomenists is disgusting. Iran is a Koran based, autocratic theocracy modeled on the 7th century Medina caliphate of the Prophet Mohammed who held absolute religious and political power, just like Ali Khamenei does today. What drives the regime is a dangerous utopian vision of the revolutionary future (inspired by the Koran and the example of its warmongering author) of a victorious one world Moslem State at the end of history. All Islamic supremacists (Sunni and Shia) believe that ISLAM is the final answer to all of humanity's manifold problems. And they are hell-bent through violence, subversion and deceit to defeat the infidel and triumph over the world.
A ) Iran and Iraq were hostile towards each other, even before the Iranian revolution. A few examples are Shatt al arab waterway disputes and Iraq's Kurdish insurgencies backed by Iran and US.
B ) Saddam expelled Khomeini from Iraq ( to France ) prior to the Iranian revolution. ( This is when shah was still in power ). It is hardly a friendly gesture by someone who, you claim, praised Khomeini.
C ) Iraq started the war by bombing Iran.
Those three " FACTS ", in my opinion, is sufficient to claim and indeed prove that it was Iraq and Saddam that attacked Iran.
Iran is WAY more modern than most of our allies in the middle east. Khamenei doesn't hold absolute power, in fact no one in Iran holds absolute power. It's a combination of clergymen ( AKA Conservatives ), IRGC and moderate politicians like Rafsanjani that rule the country, with K as their " representative ". Khamenei is nothing without their support.
You do know that most of their elite class, IRGC commanders, etc have two or more passports ? Their children all attend US and European schools and Universities ? You know that they do almost everything that is forbidden in Islam, including manufacturing, distribution and consumption of alcohol and Drugs ( IRGC ) ? You do know that khamenei has exclusive rights for marketing BMW cars in Iran ?
That most of their " Conservatives " and " Ayatollahs " own and operate huge, tax exempt companies and corporations, own palaces ( literally ), luxurious cars, etc. ?
You do know that living like they do and doing what they do is forbidden in Islam, right ?
I mean what kind of a Islam loving Utopian visionary who truly believes Islam is the answer to everything, lives and acts exactly the opposite of what they claim Islam teaches ?
They sound like the Corleone Family to me, not the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
True or False: Khomenei was right to reject Saddam Hussein's offer of peace.
True or False: Khomenie was right to incite Shiite rebellion against Saddam because his predecessor expelled him from Iraq after 14 years of giving him refuge.
Don't you even know that Khamenei is the "SUPREME LEADER" of Iran? Don't you know that the adjective "SUPREME" means overarching, higher than, exalted above every other religious and political leader of Iran like the Prophet Mohammed's theocratic autocracy in ancient Medina? Don't you know that every Fatwa (religious decree) issued by Khamenei becomes the law of the land as if it came from Mohammed (or Allah) himself? Don't you know that the President of Iran is chosen by Khamemei, and that all national elections are rigged so that his choice always prevails? Didn't you learn at least that much from the violently suppressed Green Movement in 2009 when the country voted overwhelmingly for Moussavi against the very unpopular Ahmadinejad? But that Khamenei's choice, Ahmadinejad, took 65% of the vote? Moreover, in Khamenei's 26 years as Supreme Leader is there any instance of open defiance to his supreme religious and political authority that wasn't brutally suppressed ? I defy you to show me one.
BTW, the Prophet Mohammed was also an immensely wealthy man who lived in luxury owning stables of camels and horses, and harems filled with wives and sex slaves. Are there Moslem hypocrites who violate Islamic law? Of course. Then again Islam allows for deception, to blend in with the enemy and adapt his ways for jihad.
Oh, so you really believe that Saddam, the leader of Iraq who attacked three of his neighbors, actually wanted peace and friendship with his ideological and regional rival ??
True or False, we had the right to stage coups in various countries around the world to counter soviet union ?
That's called politics and interests. Most countries in the world do that. But since we do not like the IR, then i guess that is somehow more " Evil ". But guess what ? That is not a declaration of war.
You can use capital letters all you want, that's not gonna change the power structure in the Iranian regime. Ayatollahs need the IRGC to hold power. IRGC needs the ayatollahs to give it an umbrella of religious legitimacy. Both of them need moderates like Rafsanjani to be the face of the regime. They all need each other to survive, therefore none of them holds absolute power. All of them need their " revolutionary visions and ideas ", especially hostility towards the west, to justify the terrible living condition of their people which is a result of their corruption and greed.
Presidents in Iran are nothing more than puppets, carrying out the will of the core of the Iranian regime. Be it Ahmadinejad, or Rouhani.
Indeed, all religions are BS. Islam is and has been a tool to gain fame and fortune. Those in Iran who profit from Islam, actually like their luxurious lifestyle, and therefore will do anything to keep living like that. I doubt that they would start a war they know will lose, and which would cost them their lives and their fortunes.
And that's exactly why they were after the bomb. To discourage anyone ( primarily the US ) from pursuing the regime change policy, either by starting a war or using espionage and " velvet " revolution tactics.
That's why i said George junior could have had their entire nuclear program scrapped if only he had given them a concession not to attack Iran back when we had the momentum after the Iraq invasion, and they were afraid that we were gonna hit them next. We had the upper hand.
But now, situation has changed. ME is in turmoil, they know that we are not going to hit them no matter what. They are 2 months away from making a couple of bombs. They have the upper hand. And right now, our best option is this deal
Based on Saddam's philosophy or ideology of pan-Arab Nationalism there is no reason to doubt his sincere desire to continue the peace with Khomeini's Iran that Iraq had with the Shah in his final years.
Pan-Arab Nationalism calls for the political, cultural and racial unity of the Arab world; it has nothing to do with Persians or other non-Arab nations and peoples. Saddam invaded Iran as a last resort when Khomenism became a lethal threat to his regime inside Iraq. Khomeini's call for revolution against Saddam ended up costing Iran 500,000 dead, 500,000 injured and billions in treasure that could have been used to benefit the Iranian people.
Khomeini was so insane that after eight disastrous years of fighting Saddam to a stalemate he wanted to continue the war; and was dragged kicking and screaming to the peace table with Saddam when he found himself practically isolated and alone opposed by the Council of Experts, the Revolutionary Guard, the army and a war weary nation that wanted peace. In his final days as Iran's Supreme Leader Khomeini honored his treaty with Saddam as did his successor Khamenei.
Only a complete ignoramus (oblivious to the horrific outcome of the Iran-Iraq War) would say (as you do) that Khomenie's violent anti-Saddam policies were right and in the "interests (your term)" of Iran-when they proved to be a catastrophic blunder.
Moreover, the supreme political (or religious) power of any autocrat of any nation or regime depends on the respect he commands for his power, authority and position by his armed forces. As long as the autocrat controls all the guns and is willing to kill millions to stay in power (as Khamenei proved he was prepared do in 2009) he is a feared and respected and virtually invincible-as Khamenei is today.
Furthermore, religion may be "BS" to you, but it is the absolute, life-defining truth to religious zealots like the Khomenists (Shia fundamentalists). They're of a radically different mentality from confused and ignorant leftist secularists like you.
And lastly, the nuke deal is provably bogus. North Korea's sophisticated nuclear facilities (Iran's longstanding rogue ally) is a pathway that Khamenei can use to covertly build with impunity as many bombs as he desires; or he could simply buy nukes off the shelf from the cash strapped Norks (the worst nuclear proliferator on Earth). For all we know Iran could own part of NK's growing stockpile of nukes.
Exactly. Pan-Arab Nationalism required Saddam to crush the Iranians. Ever paid any attention to why he called his war with Iran the second battle of al qadisiyyah ?
Khomeini continued the war not because he believed in it, or because he was mad, or ideological. He continued the war because it gave him and his regime the opportunity to crush the opposition ( Mainly left wing communists ) under an umbrella of legitimacy ( The Holy War as they call it ). The war gave them their much needed time to fortify and solidify their grip on power. Since you haven't noticed yet, let me point out that the Iranian regime does not give a f*** about the Iranian people interests. They care about their power, and their survival and their own regime and it's interests. For Khomeini, not only it was a huge boost to capture and control at least parts of the Iraq, but also it meant a great deal to him to control " Najaf ", The prestigious capital of [Shia] Islam.
The reasons that forced the Iranian regime to accept the ceasefire resolution were :
A ) Iraq purchased new weaponry and refreshed it's army, and went on the offensive.
B ) Iranians were tired of war, and the Iranian population felt unsafe for the first time as a result of missile attacks by Saddam. Popular support for the war diminished, there were little volunteers left to be sent to the front.
As a result, the Iranian regime realized that if they do not accept the ceasefire, they will lose the war, and people will rise up and that would be the end of their regime. So they accepted the UN resolution.
In fact, not only they are not extremists, they far from it. This is not Al-Qaeda or Taliban we are talking about which gave up it's government and regime in Afghanistan just to attack us because of it's " religion ". They are the exact opposite, they will do anything and everything they can to safeguard their regime, and that includes avoiding anything that results in direct and open war.
Nope, what you said is true in case of a military dictatorship like those formerly ruling south american countries. In the case of Iran, or any other " religious " dictatorship, one can not rely on force alone to rule the country. They need religion on their side as well. But religion alone is not enough to suppress people's ( esp younger generations ) legitimate demands, that's when the force factor comes in. As a result, those who hold the " power " factor rely on those who hold the " religion " factor to legitimize their use of force. And those who hold the " religion " factor need those with " force " to back them up. They depend on each other, as neither can exist without the other one. Therefore no one holds absolute power.
Speculation is neither constructive, nor conclusive. We are talking about Iran, not NK.
Now you're making things up and in a very feeble, illogical and muddle-headed way. There is nothing in pan-Arab Nationalist ideology (as understood by Nasser of Egypt, Assad of Syria, Bakr of Iraq (Saddam's predecessor) or Arafat and Abbas of Palestine) that calls for the conquest of Iran. As you said yourself it was Khomeini who had territorial designs on Iraq as he wanted control of "Najaf." And it was Khomeini (as you said) who needed a conflict with Iraq to "consolidate his power." Saddam wanted no war with Iran and unsuccessfully sued for peace in 1982. (But believing that Allah would grant him victory Khomeini continued the conflict for six more years.) Saddam's dream (believing it was his destiny) was becoming the Joseph Stalin (his idol) of a unified Arab Middle East. If Khomeini had accepted Saddam's olive branch instead of inciting Iraqi Shiites to violent rebellion (who he funded, trained and armed) Saddam instead might have invaded Kuwait by the mid 1980s or earlier as that was the first step in his expansionist plans..with Saudi Arabia following.
BTW, by 1983 the Tudeh Party was completely destroyed; and the war with Iraq no longer served any purpose for Khomeini outside of defeating Saddam and conquering Iraq (his mad obsession).
Mr. Johnson never answered this last reply.