BiggerPockets

Unfortunately once our leaders began to lump Iran in the "Axis of Evil" they did great harm to our relationship with just about the only POPULATION in that part of the world that actually LIKE us. I worked in Iran for a time in the '70s, it had a large, and growing modernizing, westward looking middle class. Albeit the entire population was held in check by the Savak (secret police).

When the Shah fell and the Ayatollahs came to prominence many people friendly to the US either fled, were murdered by the new regime or "went along to get along". In the past 8-10 years I've known many 20-30and 40 something Iranians who've moved home as the country has become more liberalized, ie; the more radical Ayatollahs lost much of their standing.

Then we start insulting them and lumping them in with North Korea and it gives their more radical element the perfect vehicle to sway the modernizing element back to the anti US viewpoint.

Attack them, WITH WHAT! Our military has taken a drubbing the past couple of years of occupation. Somehow everyone who claimed that our forces were GROSSLY OVERTAXED and "spread too thin", and "losing the cream of the officer and NCO corps", when we had 20,000-30,000 troops in the Balkans, seem to see no problem with the current mess.

But not too worry about Irag, it's "the war that will fund itself through oil revenue" WHOOPS, and "Mission Accomplished", WHOOPS, and "Democracy is messy", WHOOPS, and "you go to war with the troops and equipment you have" WHOOPS, and "we know EXACTLY where the WMD are", WHOOPS.

You asked for opinions, thought I'd throw in some FACTS so everyone can berate me for being a "liberal".

all cash

From my conservative point of view(please don't hate me)I personally don't think we need to find weapons of mass destruction to justify helping a country unseat a monster like Hussein. That man hates the USA, and would willingly & gleefully aid & abet anyone who wants to harm us. Anyone ever read what he allowed his sons to do to people over there? Or what HE did? The man was a threat, and he needed to be taken out. All you have to do is talk to any of our returning troops to find out how the majority of Iraqi's are so grateful that they are there. We need to get the job finished & get out.

If a country needs help & we ignore what is going on,
who will then help us in our time of need?

Ahmadinejad - a clever and dangerous enemy

There is a fascinating interview with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Der Spiegel.

Key excerpts:

ON HOLOCAUST

SPIEGEL: Denying the Holocaust is punishable in Germany. Are you indifferent when confronted with so much outrage?

Ahmadinejad: I know that DER SPIEGEL is a respected magazine. But I don't know whether it is possible for you to publish the truth about the Holocaust. Are you permitted to write everything about it?

(...)

We don't want to confirm or deny the Holocaust. We oppose every type of crime against any people. But we want to know whether this crime actually took place or not. If it did, then those who bear the responsibility for it have to be punished, and not the Palestinians. Why isn't research into a deed that occurred 60 years ago permitted? After all, other historical occurrences, some of which lie several thousand years in the past, are open to research, and even the governments support this.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, with all due respect, the Holocaust occurred, there were concentration camps, there are dossiers on the extermination of the Jews, there has been a great deal of research, and there is neither the slightest doubt about the Holocaust nor about the fact - we greatly regret this - that the Germans are responsible for it. If we may now add one remark: the fate of the Palestinians is an entirely different issue, and this brings us into the present.

Ahmadinejad: No, no, the roots of the Palestinian conflict must be sought in history. The Holocaust and Palestine are directly connected with one another.

SPIEGEL: Are you questioning Israel's right to exist?

Ahmadinejad: Look here, my views are quite clear. We are saying that if the Holocaust occurred, then Europe must draw the consequences and that it is not Palestine that should pay the price for it. If it did not occur, then the Jews have to go back to where they came from. I believe that the German people today are also prisoners of the Holocaust. Sixty million people died in the Second World War. World War II was a gigantic crime. We condemn it all. We are against bloodshed, regardless of whether a crime was committed against a Muslim or against a Christian or a Jew. But the question is: Why among these 60 million victims are only the Jews the center of attention?

SPIEGEL: We're not Israel's uncritical ally in the Palestian conflict. But we want to make one thing very clear: We are critical, we are independent, but we won't simply stand by without protest when the existential right of the state of Israel, where many Holocaust survivors live, is being questioned.

Ahmadinejad: Precisely that is our point. Why should you feel obliged to the Zionists? If there really had been a Holocaust, Israel ought to be located in Europe, not in Palestine.

SPIEGEL: Do you want to resettle a whole people 60 years after the end of the war?

Ahmadinejad: Five million Palestinians have not had a home for 60 years. It is amazing really: You have been paying reparations for the Holocaust for 60 years and will have to keep paying up for another 100 years. Why then is the fate of the Palestinians no issue here?

ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Ahmadinejad: We're fundamentally opposed to the expansion of nuclear-weapons arsenals. We don't need any weapons. We're a civilized, cultured people, and our history shows that we have never attacked another country.

SPIEGEL: Iran doesn't need the bomb that it wants to build?

Ahmadinejad: It's interesting to note that European nations wanted to allow the shah's dictatorship the use of nuclear technology. That was a dangerous regime. Yet those nations were willing to supply it with nuclear technology. Ever since the Islamic Republic has existed, however, these powers have been opposed to it. I stress once again, we don't need any nuclear weapons.

ON PALESTINIANS

Ahmadinejad: Our stance with respect to Palestine is clear. We say: Allow those to whom this country belongs to express their opinion. Let Jews, Christians and Muslims say what they think. The opponents of this proposal prefer war and threaten the region. Why are the United States and these two or three European nations opposed to this? I believe that those who imprison Holocaust researchers prefer war to peace. Our stance is democratic and peaceful.

SPIEGEL: The Palestinians have long gone a step further than you and recognize Israel as a fact, while you still wish to erase it from the map. The Palestinians are ready to accept a two-state solution while you deny Israel its right to existence.

Ahmadinejad: You're wrong. You saw that the Palestinian people elected Hamas in free elections. We argue that neither you nor we should claim to speak for the Palestian people. The Palestinians themselves should say what they want. In Europe it is customary to call a referendum on any issue. We should also give the Palestinians the opportunity to express their opinion.

ON IRAQ

Ahmadinejad: Let me say something about Iraq. We have always favoured peace and security in the region. For eight years, the Western countries provided arms to Saddam in the war against us, including chemical weapons, and gave him political support. We were against Saddam and suffered severely because of him, so we're happy that he has been toppled. But we don't accept a whole country being swallowed under the pretext of wanting to topple Saddam. More than 100,000 Iraqis have lost their lives under the rule of the occupying forces.

SPIEGEL: But, Mr. President, who is swallowing Iraq? The United States has practically lost this war. By cooperating constructively, Iran might help the Americans consider their retreat from the country.

Ahmadinejad: This is very interesting: The Americans occupy the country, kill people, sell the oil and when they have lost, they blame others. We have very close ties to the Iraqi people. Many people on both sides of the border are related. We have lived side by side for thousands of years. Our holy pilgrimage sites are located in Iraq. Just like Iran, Iraq used to be a center of civilization.

(...)

We have always said that we support the popularly elected government of Iraq. But in my view the Americans are doing a bad job.

(...)

We feel animosity toward no one. We're concerned about the American soldiers who die in Iraq. Why do they have to die there? This war makes no sense.

(...)

They should not use Sept. 11 as an excuse to launch a military attack against the Middle East. They should take those who are responsible for the attacks to court. We're not opposed to that; we condemned the attacks. We condemn any attack against innocent people.

(...)

Europe has made three mistakes with respect to our people. The first mistake was to support the shah's government. This has left our people disappointed and discontent. However, by offering asylum to Imam Khomeini, France earned a special position that it lost again later. The second mistake was to support Saddam in his war against us. The truth is that our people expected Europe to be on our side, not against us. The third mistake was Europe's stance on the nuclear issue. Europe will be the big loser and will achieve nothing. We don't want to see that happen.

(...)

We understand the Americans' logic. They suffered damage as a result of the victory of the Islamic Revolution. But we're puzzled why some European countries are opposed to us.

Unlike most Third World tin-pot dictators (Chavez, Mugabe and many others), Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an incredibly smart and dangerous opponent. In this interview, he very cleverly identifies major points of disagreement within the Western world and exploits them to the fullest.

Notice how he cleverly links the Palestinian question with the issue of Germany's guilt about the Holocaust. By effectively saying that Germany has been financing Israel out of guilt, he succeeds in hitting the Israelis in their softest spot.

Notice how he never flatly states that Holocaust is a myth, but strongly denounces the West for not permitting to discuss that issue openly. Very clever.

Notice how he guilt-trips the West again and again over supporting the shah and Saddam Hussein. How he defends democracy in Palestine. How he almost approves of the US invasion of Iraq, but not its occupation.

And most cleverly of all, he tries to drive a wedge between the US and Europe by effectively saying that the Americans have the right to oppose Iran (we understand the Americans' logic. They suffered damage as a result of the victory of the Islamic Revolution), but that Europe doesn't have that right. He is saying, in effect, that while the US is an opponent (and can be respected as such), Europe might become something far worse unless it stops supporting the Americans. Notice how he condemned terrorist attacks in the US, but not in Europe. The message is clear: our beef is with the Americans and we will fight them fair and square (i.e no terrorism). But whoever betrays us and joins the American side will be treated like a traitor - without any fairness. And with terrorism.

I often give Assclown Awards to leaders who say stupid, crazy or inaccurate things. But Ahmadinejad is not a fool or a liar. And he is way more dangerous because of that.

Our policy even toward nukes has to be more even-handed. India has them, Pakistan has them, Israel has them and even Brazil is getting ready to start, not to mention China and Russia. Our policies towards these nations has to be even, everyone have them or no one does, because I dont believe that everyone that has them will or could use them against us. North Korea has been said to have one that can reach the west coast, but we are not jumping to wage war with them, why not?

I think this is a simple case of the Darwinian priciple of "Survival of the Fittest" - yes, we know that almost everyone has them - but we're not worried about North Korea or China or Brazil launching one at us - so why would we be worried about them? The only ones we're worried about are those countries we see as a threat of throwing one of those things our way. So, if we can get enough of our "allies" to see those countries as a threat, not only to us, but to them as well, then maybe we can eliminate one of our threats.
And everyone is going to keep producing them anyway...I don't think anyone wants to possibly be in the middle of future war and be sitting there saying "Wait, we followed the rules and don't have any nukes....why does everyone else have them?" Everybody either has them or wants them, but they don't want their "enemies" to have them - that's just human behavior. Everyone always wants to have the advantage.

Guide, I completely agree with you in the fact that this war we're in right now certainly does make us vulnerable to other attacks right now - and maybe I'm wrong (hopefully not), but I just don't see them making an attack on us. But definately, we are extremely vulnerable.
I think our biggest mistake in this war is not giving a whole-hearted effort. It seems as though we thought we could just kind of walk in over there and everyone would throw down their weapons and surrender. Obviously, we underestimated them. And back to the bully analogy - that's when bullies always lose - when they underestimate the others. To stay at the top of anything, you have to have extreme confidence in yourself and in what you're doing - but if you're not careful, that confidence turns to arrogance, and therein starts your downfall. I think as a country and society as a whole, we may have crossed that line from confidence to arrogance.

It really is difficult to say because last time we believed we were under a real threat from a country(iraq) we went over there an created this whole fiasco.

This is exactly the reason why we cant rush on this issue. The idea of going in again without proof of intention to me would be national suicide. El Baradei just said that Iran is 5 to 10 years from even the possibility of a bomb. We have to have true diplomacy which means talk face to face, one on one and not try to have the reat of the world negotiate our problems for us. Think of how this sounds, paraphrasing reports in order that they came.
1. Irans Pres. sends letter to Bush for dialogue and says that his country is willing to hold DIRECT talks with US.
2. After saying NO to direct talks, the US says that it will talk to Iran only if it gives up its enrichment program.
3. Iran says it will talk but will not give up program first.

It would seem to me that if you want to stop someone from doing something and you are truly using ALL diplomatic channels, that we should talk to them and tell them why they need to stop, not ask them to stop and them come and tell them why they sould not proceed.

How do you settle battles with clients and customers, and friends or others that you disagre with? You sit down and offer the strength of your position and force them to recind based on the truth of your argument.

Bush saying they want diplomacy is a smokescreen because they knew Irans answer before they made the the suggestion.

This is a high stakes game being played way over most of our heads, until the bullets hit us in the head!

Adam, remember when you were in school taking algebra or trig., or some subject that mey have been a challenge and a student would ask "why am I learning this, I am not going to need this for what I am going to be in life!!"? The reason why math applies to everything in life is because at the root, its about adding and subtracting not just numbers but facts.
When you add for instance the things that were said by people like Richard Clark, and others in the administration that left and came out against the President, the "bad intel" on WMDs, the shifting of story lines and purpose(Wmds today, regime change tomorrow, then liberation of a people who we found out didnt want us there), It leads you to suspicious conclusions. Every math problem has a way to check it so by viewing the vast array of info available on the web and foreign news etc., we can come to true conclusions about whats going on.

Yes, its all what someone wants you to know, NBC, ABC and others are a part of the whole info control cylce. In spanish the word "media" means the midpoint or half. The media sits in a buffer zone of info between us and the government and always has. If you watch Fox News, Beltway Boys and Brit Hume, the pundits that come on and help shape the opinions of the news we see mostly subscribe to the neocon philosophy. William Krystol, Fred Barnes, Krauthammer and Kondrake are all neocons yet you never hear them say it openly. Goto their websites and you will see it. This is news that sets out to create and foster
opinions that coincide with the government interests i.e. "state run media" in diguise.
You have to read the so called "conspiracy theorist" info and sites and not think that they are wrong just because they are in opposition to the official position. There are some positions that are very compelling. I also read foreign news and sites to see how the stories they put out compare to ours, in many cases, that will raise hair on your neck.
Based on my math, we are in deep trouble and it will take truly righteous leadership to get us out. No nation in history has just been able to DESTROY all of its enemies and keep up their rule. The history of the Romans is very much like our own.

It seems clear to me that this whole upheaval is simply a pretext. I don't believe for one second that the people in a position of power truly believe that if Iran had a nuclear weapon that they would launch an attack on the US or Isreal; if they did or troops would be over there right now and they would reinstate the draft, if necesary. Our president and others have been working tirelessly to leave the public with the impression that the Iranian regime is almost as unreasonable as Al Qaeda. Let's assume that Iran is trying to ultimately develop a nuclear weapons program, so what! The most that they would be able to produce is probably less than a hundred, while the US and Isreal together posess well over ten thousand warheads. Even if they managed to develop a delivery system the could not destroy the US but they would be assuring the complete destruction of their society, way of life and probably every living being within their borders. The regime has consistently shown that they are trying to better their country and to me, this doesn't display suicidal tendencies. In my humble opinion, even if Iran had a few nuclear weapons the only thing that would change is that it would close out the plausibility of a foreign power toppling their regime. The US wouldn't be able to use that stick against them! I am thinking this on the fly so I encourage anyone to poke holes in my theory; I may not be right , but something is fishy.[/i]

You are a gentleman and a scholar. Very few realize the "business of war" and the profiteering that goes on during negative circumstances. Its an unfortunate bi-product of capitalism and has always gone on. When some type of disaster occurs, be it natural or human, there is always someone there to make money from the extension of the circumstance. The extension of grief and mourning or the extension of a war benefits the greedy. We need to bring em home and stop the madness or maybe they will wait until they find a way to profit off bringing them home.
The idea of another war is absolutely insane considering the debacle that we are in now.

Crpntr, if you can see that he is not a real threat, then so should our esteemed President and his Cabinet, and they should stop beating the drum of war and pissing people off. Its not the President of Iran, its the people in the region who may have had moderate views who become anti US in the process because they come to see us as trying to bully them. There is no "move" for him make and Bush knows it, and they need to stop lying to the world to make us think there is a threat.