This article will assist anyone without the time or inclination to do some real fact checking and historical review of the country Iran. It seems lately the drumbeat of war has become louder and Iran is being vilified (as a Nation) to create public support for war. Rhetoric includes, but not limited to, nuclear bombs being lobbed at Israel (the infamous "wipe them off the map" statement). Women are being forced to stay at home barefoot and pregnant cleaning the house (in their burkas’ of course). Let’s not forget Iranian armies are funding and arming terrorists who are murdering American soldiers. Let’s review some of what we have been inundated with over the last few years.
President Bush:
"Iran's active pursuit of technology that could lead to nuclear weapons threatens to put a region already known for instability and violence under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."
"Iran's leaders...cannot escape responsibility for aiding attacks against coalition forces...The Iranian regime must halt these actions. And until it does, I will take actions necessary to protect our troops. I have authorized our military commanders in Iraq to confront Tehran's murderous activities."
"Recently, coalition forces seized 240-millimeter rockets that had been manufactured in Iran this year and that had been provided to Iraqi extremist groups by Iranian agents. The attacks on our bases and our troops by Iranian-supplied munitions have increased in the last few months..."
"We know that we've got common goals that make sense for both our peoples (Russia and the United States). Two such goals are Iran, convincing the Iranians to get rid of its nuclear weapons..." (My god, they have nuclear bombs already?)
Condoleezza Rice:
"...Iran's activities in support of terrorism in Lebanon, in support of Hezbollah in the Palestinian territories, in support of the worst elements of Hamas, in support of the death squads and violent militias in southern Iraq, the policies that -- we believe they're using the cover of civil nuclear power to seek the technologies that would lead to a -- could lead to a nuclear weapon." (So many things wrong with that statement I just decided to highlight one)
Dick Cheney:
"We'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region,"
"Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards,"
"I want you to know that the American people do not support a policy of retreat," Cheney said. "We want to complete the mission, get it done right, and return with honor."
"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, (and) Iran is right at the top of the list,"
John Bolton:
Iran has "mastered the enrichment technology now," he said. "They’re not stopping, they’re making progress and our time is limited."
"So to stop them from doing it, we have to massively increase the pressure. If the choice is between a nuclear-capable Iran and the use of force, then I think we need to look at the use of force."
"If the choice is them continuing [toward developing a bomb] or the use of force, I think you’re at a Hitler marching into the Rhineland point. If you don’t stop it then, the future is in his hands."
These are a small sample of the statements that have been made on the ever growing threat that is Iran. I added the bold text to highlight the problem areas as I see it.
Can you feel the fear creep up your spine? Do you feel the time running out, slipping away? Is there an uncontrollable urge to hide under something? Do you want papa Bush to make the monster go away so you can sleep better at night? I especially love it when they dust off Hitler and parade him around.
(take a deep breath...relax...use the bathroom if you have to)
Let’s see if we can agree on some important points of interest listed above.
Why would Iran want a nuclear weapon?
If you believe the rhetoric it’s to destabilize the region and blow away Israel. I think a common sense approach would reveal a wider benefit of such a device. First off it would force the UN to take a harder look at the sanctions Iran has had placed upon it recently.
Resolution 1747 (March 24, 2007)
Resolution 1737 (December 23, 2006)
Resolution 1696 (June 31, 2006)
Most assuredly the concept of "mutually assured destruction" would play to their benefit. Getting a seat at the UN "adults table" as do all countries that possess nuclear weapons. Apparently, Russia, the United States, France, China, Great Britain, Israel, Pakistan, and India all have stockpiles of nuclear weapons. The United States has to play ball with all of these countries and stay out of internal conflicts. Please take note that Israel is listed and plans have been "tossed around" of a first strike before Iran is able to retaliate.
And then of course we have to consider the option that Iran really does want to bomb Israel, but let’s look at the statement and the reasons.
NY Times reports President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as saying,
"Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement."
Iran's President betokens the removal of the regimes that are in power in Israel and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel itself. This is of course assuming that this is what the President actually said and there is some grey area surrounding this point. The Middle East Media Research Institute had this translation,
"Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise."
An independent translation of the original (like the version published by ISNA) yields that Ahmadinejad does not use the term 'map'. He quotes Ayatollah Khomeini's assertion that the occupation regime must vanish from this world - literally translated: from the arena of times. Correspondingly: there is no space for an occupation regime in this world respectively in this time. The formulation 'wipe off the map' used by the 'New York Times' is a very free and aggravating interpretation which is equivalent to 'razing something to the ground' or 'annihilating something'. The downwelling translation, first into English ('wipe off the map'), then from English to German - and all literally ('von der Landkarte löschen') - makes us stride away from the original more and more. The perfidious thing about this translation is that the expression 'map' can only be used in one (intentional) way: a state can be removed from a map but not a regime, about which Ahmadinejad is actually speaking. [link]
Even if he didn’t say "map" he sure sounds pissed about something. Why the hatred of Israel, especially when they have so much in common?
Israeli leaders who were born and raised in Iran;
· Israeli President Moshe Katsav
· Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz
Iran's Jewish community is the largest in the Middle East outside Israel.
Israel hit military targets in Iraq during the Iraq – Iran War.
Israel and Iran share a common enemy the Soviet Union and militant Arab states. (update: Although it appears Putin is changing his tune and rebukes the assumtion Iran is working towards building a bomb now). [read here]
It must be something else.
Perhaps it could have something to do with the fact that the Israelis propped up a Christian dominated government in Lebanon, which has traditionally dominated, excluded, and left in poverty, the Shia majority in Lebanon. Secondly, when the PLO took refuge in the Bakka valley, where the Shia was concentrated, the Israelis bombed Shia villages in the hope that the Shia would turn over the PLO to them. The Israelis committed many atrocities against the Shia; this caused the Shia to turn against the Israelis.
Or possibly this point of view offered by,
Trita Parsi, a doctoral candidate at Johns Hopkins University SAIS in Washington could shed some light.
"The defeat of Iraq in the Gulf war of 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union improved the security environments of Iran and Israel - but also left both states unchecked. Without Iraq balancing Iran, Iran would now become a threat, Israeli hawks argued. By late 1992, prior to Iran's sponsorship of Palestinian extremists, Israeli Labor party officials began to publicly depict Iran as an existential threat. They argued that Iranian rhetoric reflected intentions and, having been freed from the chains of Iraq, Iran was acquiring the capacity to turn intentions into policy. While the threat depiction resembled prophecy more than reality, it underlined that the Arab-Israeli peace process had turned the periphery doctrine on its head: To convince a skeptical Israeli public that peace could be made with the Arab vicinity, it was necessary to bolster the threat portrayal of the Iranian periphery.
At the time, Iran was keener on peacemaking with Washington than seeing to Israel's destruction. Much like the shah, the mullahs were seeking a key role in Persian Gulf affairs. But now, the legitimacy Iran needed didn't come from the Arabs, but from America. Tehran believed that its behind-the-scenes cooperation with America in the 1991 Gulf war would be rewarded through Iran's inclusion in the postwar regional security arrangement. But when U.S. President George H.W. Bush's administration declared that Saddam Hussein was saved in order to balance Iran, Tehran concluded that it could only compel the U.S. to accept an Iranian role in the region by undermining American policies.
The American-Israeli push during the 1990's (when President Bill Clinton was in power) to create a new Middle East order based on Iran's isolation prompted Tehran to turn its anti-Israel rhetoric into policy. It began supporting violent Palestinian groups in order to undermine the American-Israeli endeavor by hitting its weakest link - the peace process. Yet while Iran's obstructionism played a minor role in undoing the Oslo process, the latter's collapse removed a strategic threat and enabled Tehran to contemplate moderation in its Israel policy. For instance, President Mohammad Khatami re-adopted Iran's pre-Madrid policy in which Tehran accepted any Israel-Arab arrangement acceptable to the Palestinians. Currently, if a U.S.-Iran accord can be achieved that grants Iran a key role in Persian Gulf security matters, its interference in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will lose strategic utility.
Israeli pressure for a hawkish American policy toward Iran - driven by fears that Washington might betray Israeli concerns through a rapprochement with Tehran - only strengthens the strategic value of continued involvement in the conflict from the Iranian side. Today, Washington again believes it has to choose between addressing the Iranian conundrum or the Palestinian conflict. But American re-engagement in the peace process, while continuing the policy of isolating Iran, will repeat Clinton's miscalculation of 1994 and produce the same failure. Whatever Washington chooses, with Iran and Israel being the two most powerful nations in the region with aspirations for primacy, a Persian-Jewish alliance against a declining Arab world will be hard to revive, regardless of the identity of the Iranian government or the fond memories of the romantics."
Now on to a different question
Should Iran be in the Axis of evil?
It has been said that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorists. The name Hezbollah gets tossed around quite frequently when this claim is being made.
Just for historical accuracy, Iran didn't create Hezbollah; Hezbollah originated from Amal. Amal was a Shiite militia founder by Imam Sadr in Lebanon (and Iranian born cleric who moved to Lebanon to help the traditionally down trodden Shia). He organized the Shia into a political force in Lebanon, and when civil war broke out in 1975, he organized and created Amal to protect the Shia. In the late 1970 or early 80's, Amal split due to ideological differences, and a splinter group formed called Islamic Amal. Islamic Amal was later transformed into what is modern day Hezbollah with the help of the Iranian revolutionary guards. However, as one can see, the seeds of Hezbollah were sown and pre-dated the Iranian revolution and Iranian assistance.
for the rest of the story go here (Donkephant)