Thanks to Obama and Democrats are unlikely to just reverse it magically. So if we want this policy to continue we should elect Democrats. Iran should want Democrats in power. And so should we if we support a diplomatic solution.

Nothing more need be said.

A million Iranians died.

From their perspective, I can understand why they call us the "Great Satan."

and in the process we ringed their country with military bases and have been threatening war against them every year or two since

I'm sure they're real thankful for it, what with all the damage having already been done and us introducing new threats in the process.

We didn't do them no favors.

The motives for getting rid of Saddam weren't any better than the motives for aiding him in his war against Iran.

Iran has certainly benefited, but that was far from the intent.

They haven't launched an aggressive attack beyond their borders since the 18th century. Even if they did develop a bomb, there is no way they could use it offensively.

The real objection to an Iranian bomb is that it would make it harder for Israel or the US to attack them. For the latter two countries, complaining about that is like a burglar complaining that homeowners are attacking him by putting locks on the doors.

No, really, that is the singular core of all the scaremongering about Iran; because Muslim. They can't be trusted with nuclear energy becuase muslim. They're going to blow up everyone, because muslim. They're going to renig on any deal, because Muslim. On and on and on, every speck of bullshit in this situation stems from islamophobia - the idea that because Iranians are mostly Muslims they're a murder-suicide death cult with no morals, ethics, or standards who cannot be trusted on any level to do anything other than chop people up with scimitars and blow up Israel with all the nuclear weapons they'll have 'a week from now." because, I guess, 'that's what Muslims do."

And it's been repeated, rehashed, asserted over and over and over again that the "because muslim" doesn't need to be said - it's simply assumed. It travels on its own inertia.

And they are among our closest allies in the world.

that had not the US (read The Dulles Brothers) gotten their knickers so atwist about Mossadegh nationalizing the oil companies (which by "chance," their former law firm had represented for decades) a Shah-free Iran would have been our principal ally in the region for the last 60+ years.

Mossadegh had no quarrel with the US, as such. He just had the unforgivable opinion that Iranian assets should be used for the benefit of the Iranian people and not foreign oil giants. And, payback/karma being what it is, the US reaped the rewards of its arrogance when the brutal and corrupt Shah was eventually knocked off his throne.

The Iranian and American peoples have had a much longer and significant affinity for each other than Americans and the perfectly ghastly Saudis.

I only dispute the ridiculous claim that a country being Muslim is cause for the US to have hostile relations. This is plainly not true.

Interesting how some folks buy into the Iran propaganda as much as some others buy into the Republican propaganda.

Operation Scorch Sword

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Scorch_Sword

You consider counterattacking against a country that invaded you to be "an aggressive attack"? Really?

You know, your calling something "BS" doesn't magically make it so, especially when you are flat out wrong. But that doesn't seem to make any difference to you.

You seem to use that tactic a lot. I wonder why?

of neocons even in the democrat party.

And whom we invaded TWICE.

I mean, oh my word! They invaded Iraq!

The only difference being that they invaded Iraq after Iraq attacked them.

Granted, we and Iran differ in that regard.

in Lebanon, Iraq, and Gaza. They support violent groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and al Qaeda. They have geo political goals that extend well beyond their borders that they have no problem supporting violence to attain.

Iran's proxy wars: As if the people in Gaza and Lebanon did not have reasons of their own to fight Israel. In Iraq, Iran supports the government in Baghdad; in Syria, it supports the government in Damascus.

I consider Hamas and Hezbollah to be essentially national liberation armies, not terrorists. You may quibble.

"They have geo political goals that extend well beyond their borders that they have no problem supporting violence to attain." You are such a hoot! How many friggin' wars do we have going on in the Middle East right now? And by we, I mean the US government. And that's not even our neighborhood.

it is ignorant beyond belief to think Iran is not an active player in the ME or that they are not not shy about using violence to reach their goals.

Though, sadly, not at all beyond belief.

BTW, Hezbollah is a political party with a TV station and and a strong alliance with Maronite Christians. Hamas is a political party that is in power only because of the corruption of the PLO.

Hezbollah was .created and trained by Iran in the 1980's. Their brand of Shia ideology was developed by Ayatollah Khomeini. They receive nearly $1 million annually from Iran. Hezbollah military leaders are working with Iranian commanders in Iraq.

Hamas waged a violent suicide bombing campaign against Israel that killed many. They presently have a uniformed military wing that has received arms and training from Iran.

The Maronites sided with Israel then, but that changed in 2006 with the second Israeli invasion.

Hamas has a chickenshit military capacity on the order of that of Vanuatu. They are dangerous in the sense that kids kicking the back of the driver's seat are dangerous--the car could go off the road and wreck. The kids have no power to decide that the car is going to Disneyland instead of Aunt Em's in Kansas--the parents have the money, the car and the drivers' licenses. Conquered people can't prevent being conquered--all they can do is try to make the spoils of conquest as unpleasant as possible.

It is a strictly indigenous party with widespread connections to other interest groups there. Iran funds Shi'ites the way the Saudis fund Sunnis.

pp 460-62 in the hardcover edition of Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine.

I am surprised at your ignorance. Khomeini espoused a unique blend of revolutionary radical Shia - the same blend that Hezbollah adopted.

Iraq is majority Shi'ite, and arguably much closer to Iran than Hezbollah.

Last edited Sat Apr 4, 2015, 05:00 PM - Edit history (2)

and they are actively pursuing that goal. For thirty years they have been a major player in the ME.

Now there's a shock. Saudi Arabia feels the same about Sunnis--which you apparently approve of because they are our noble ally. Any sane person, if forced to choose between the two as a place of residence would pick Iran. (Everyone has already thought of the gonorrhea vs syphilis analogy, so spare us.)

this is the comment that led to a discussion of proxy wars and Iranian meddling in the ME to further their interests. In fact they have been very aggressive and do not hesitate to support violence to further their goals. That is my only point.

No US citizen has standing to spout bullshit about using violence to support their goals. We are all citizens of the world's largest terrorist organization.

Hezbollah embraces that brand of Islam.

young Iranians are not running the country.

--that the Soviet Union had such a tight grip on its population that it could stay in power forever. Yeah, right. It really does matter what the people think, especially the next generation.

right now the right wing fundamentalist are firmly in control. It is delusional to argue otherwise.

the question is whether they would still support Iranian support for violent groups in the ME.

When did Iran do something like invade Iraq and kill a million people? Iraq, urged by the US and Europe, attacked Iran, not the other way around. I suppose you want them to stop supporting the people fighting ISIS?

... condemning Iran for (paraphrase) nuclear proliferation, sponsoring terrorism, selling weapons and trying to overthrow other govt's ... when that's exactly what we've been doing in the Middle East since ... Goddess knows when.

And you pointed out the reasons why...knr

the disarming of explosive relationships between the US and countries like Iran. They knew he had not yet earned the Peace Prize, but they were hoping that he would.

I think the president has much less power than most people realize, and that the Deep State actors have more control over our belligerent foreign tan any given president does. But Obama does try to push back against the warmongers in a lot of ways, and the outrage from them over his attempt to deal with Iran through diplomacy and agreements rather than only through saber rattling and sanctions is evidence of how hard it is for any president to move against their power in Washington.

After he left the White House, an interviewer asked Jimmy carter what surprised him most about being president, and he replied that he was most surprised about how little power the president really has.

One of the president's (any president's, not this one in particular) main powers is what Teddy Roosevelt called the "Bully pulpit." I wish Obama had made better use of the bully pulpit as president. I think the Dems in general are much less effective than they could be at getting their message out to the public. Yes, I know that the MSM is not on our side, and that they deliberately block Dem efforts to reach the public--even going so far as to refuse to carry the president's speeches on the TV networks, even though they would have cut into prime time programming for such presidential addresses for any past president.

But Dems also tend to run from their own accomplishments, or to disdain the work of educating the public about what they are doing and why. Even worse, Dem politicians refuse to listen to experts like George Lakoff who try to teach them how to make the public listen to and remember the Dem message. Voters do not respond to long, detailed intellectual arguments. They respond to simple messages repeated endlessly. But Dems seem to consider it beneath them to operate on that level. Yes, that is the style of propaganda, but it is the way the Republicans get their message across and get the public to accept their lies, and Dems are foolish not to employ similar techniques in service of the truth.

Even here on DU I sometimes see posts arguing that we should appeal to reason rather than to emotion when arguing our case. But people don't listen to reason. They listen to emotional appeals--and they act on emotional appeals.

Thanks for sharing the truth!

I met a man who had been tortured in an Iranian prison not too long after their revolution. He was in bad shape. We need to be very careful. It's good that we are negotiating peace. But we need to keep our eyes open. There are elements in Iran that do not want this agreement just as there are elements of our population who do not want it.

An agreement is only as good as it is kept and adhered to.

I was going to write more, but changed my mind for obvious reasons...