Iran: A Lost Potential

[Babak]

By taking the west as an example of running things than being like Turkey or Iraq and Syria under the Ba3ath regime that oppresses minorities. You need to set up a constitution that respects the rights for all Iranians regardless of race, gender, ethnicity and etc. Turkey had never changed it's laws that was implemented by Kemal Ataturk in the 1920's while the west kept on changing laws throughout the generations to give more equality and justice for all peoples.

Even once the mullahs are gone, this is unlikely.

[Kamal900]

Even once the mullahs are gone, this is unlikely.

Which is one of the main reasons on why the middle east and north Africa are so fucked up really. While I see Islam as a bad religion really, but I do agree on some points regarding nationalism and racism which the religion is very much against and called for the Ummah for all Muslims of the world regardless of race and etc. Strangely, the Arabs and the Iranians or Indians and Pakistanis here get along much more better than they do in the north of the middle east and etc.

[N1019]

So what do you think should be done?

I think it's too late to do anything. There are a few possible alternatives to utter catastrophe, but I'm not optimistic about them. Those who can leave probably should start making plans to do so, and be prepared for a lengthy stay away. There's no point getting caught up in circumstances totally beyond their control.

[Babak]

I think it's too late to do anything. There are a few possible alternatives to utter catastrophe, but I'm not optimistic about them. Those who can leave probably should start making plans to do so, and be prepared for a lengthy stay away. There's no point getting caught up in circumstances totally beyond their control.

hmmm

[Demon Revival]

I think it's too late to do anything. There are a few possible alternatives to utter catastrophe, but I'm not optimistic about them. Those who can leave probably should start making plans to do so, and be prepared for a lengthy stay away. There's no point getting caught up in circumstances totally beyond their control.

And now we're going with apocalypse fanfics. Sassy!

[N1019]

And now we're going with apocalypse fanfics. Sassy!

It's just honesty. But please continue with the worthless ad hominem trollery if you like. I know you're itching to let off a few more three round bursts. Every time I reply to you, it invites you to blow your load again. Go for it. Oh, and teach me a few more things about Iran, if you have anything else to add.

[Babak]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/o...war-iran-.html

The last thing the United States needs is another war in the Middle East. Yet a drumbeat of provocative words, outright threats and actions — from President Trump and some of his top aides as well as Sunni Arab leaders and American activists — is raising tensions that could lead to armed conflict with Iran.

Tehran invites some of this hostility with moves like detaining Xiyue Wang, a Princeton scholar, and supporting the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. And for many American politicians, Iran — estranged from the United States since 1979 — deserves only punishment and isolation. But Iran and the United States also share some interests, like fighting the Islamic State. So why not take advantage of all the diplomatic tools, including opening a dialogue, used before to manage difficult and even hostile governments?

It is useful to recall the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, arguably America’s biggest strategic blunder in modern times. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the country was riveted on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But in Washington, the talk turned almost immediately to Iraq and the chance to overthrow Saddam Hussein, even though he had nothing to do with Sept. 11 and had no nuclear weapons, as President George W. Bush alleged. Mr. Bush decided to fight a pre-emptive war without a solid justification or strategy.

Such a stumble into war could happen again. Here are some reasons to be concerned:

■ President Trump campaigned on a pledge to tear up the 2015 seven-nation nuclear pact under which Iran rolled back its nuclear program in exchange for a lifting of sanctions. Although he twice certified to Congress, most recently on Monday, that Iran remains in compliance with the deal, he did so grudgingly and with the subsequent imposition of new sanctions related to Iran’s ballistic missile tests. The Iranians say Mr. Trump is in danger of violating the agreement, especially after urging European leaders not to do business with Iran. A central promise of the deal was that Tehran would benefit economically in exchange for its nuclear restraint. Instead of taking advantage of this diplomatic breakthrough, Mr. Trump seems intent on reversing it by provoking Iran to renege or reneging himself, in much the way he rejected the Paris climate accord.

■ Congress, which was overwhelmingly opposed to the nuclear deal when it was signed, is working on new sanctions. Republicans in particular have pressed Mr. Trump to toughen his approach. In a recent letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, four senators said Iran continues to wage “regional aggression, sponsor international terrorism, develop ballistic missile technology and oppress the Iranian people.” There’s truth in that. But the nuclear deal was intended to alleviate only the nuclear threat, and they, like other critics, fail to acknowledge that it represented important progress toward decreasing the risk of war in the region.

■ Top American officials have turned up their rhetoric and have hinted at support for regime change, despite the dismal record in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Mr. Tillerson accused Iran of seeking regional hegemony at the expense of American allies like Saudi Arabia. “Our policy toward Iran is to push back on this hegemony … and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government,” he told a congressional committee. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis recently called Iran “ the most destabilizing influence in the Middle East.”

■ Since the 1979 revolution that installed a theocracy in Iran, American leaders have periodically toyed with regime change. But some experts say this time is more serious, because Mr. Trump accepts the simplistic view of Sunni-led Saudi Arabia that Shiite-led Iran is to blame for all that’s wrong in the region, taking sides in the feud between two branches of Islam.

[N1019]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/20/o...war-iran-.html

This is a more typical piece, what I'd expect from the NYT and have been seeing since 2015.

Tehran invites some of this hostility with moves like detaining Xiyue Wang, a Princeton scholar, and supporting the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad.

True. Arresting and imprisoning American citizens will never go down well, although America typically does very little about it. As for supporting Assad, if Iran gets involved in conflicts outside its borders, it runs the risk of pissing off America, which in turn opens up the possibility of a response.

But Iran and the United States also share some interests, like fighting the Islamic State.

The pseudo-analysts love throwing that one in there. That's fake news, and we all know it. If the US is happy to watch ISIS plough through countries, murdering, raping and pillaging, then it hardly shares any interests there with Iran, for which ISIS poses a direct threat.

So why not take advantage of all the diplomatic tools, including opening a dialogue, used before to manage difficult and even hostile governments?

Because it was never their intention, perhaps?

It is useful to recall the lead-up to the 2003 Iraq War, arguably America’s biggest strategic blunder in modern times. After the Sept. 11 attacks, the country was riveted on Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But in Washington, the talk turned almost immediately to Iraq and the chance to overthrow Saddam Hussein, even though he had nothing to do with Sept. 11 and had no nuclear weapons, as President George W. Bush alleged. Mr. Bush decided to fight a pre-emptive war without a solid justification or strategy.

And it seems the plan to go to war with Iran was devised at the same time. It was a plan to remodel the entire MENA region, and it is being implemented. I like the way they try to make the US look incompetent and like a failure, when total destruction of entire nations seems to have been the plan. More fake news.

■ Top American officials have turned up their rhetoric and have hinted at support for regime change, despite the dismal record in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Mr. Tillerson accused Iran of seeking regional hegemony at the expense of American allies like Saudi Arabia. “Our policy toward Iran is to push back on this hegemony … and to work toward support of those elements inside of Iran that would lead to a peaceful transition of that government,” he told a congressional committee. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis recently called Iran “ the most destabilizing influence in the Middle East.”

Trump is surrounded by not just war hawks, but Iran war hawks. It seems deliberate. Again, due to the plan that was laid out years ago. They said they were not going to leave the job of dealing with Iran to a future administration.

■ Since the 1979 revolution that installed a theocracy in Iran, American leaders have periodically toyed with regime change. But some experts say this time is more serious, because Mr. Trump accepts the simplistic view of Sunni-led Saudi Arabia that Shiite-led Iran is to blame for all that’s wrong in the region, taking sides in the feud between two branches of Islam.

It is more serious now for the simple reason that it's getting closer, not because of Trump's accepting a simplistic sectarian view. It wouldn't matter who was in the White House. The plan is in action.