In 1953, at the behest of the British and, more importantly, British Petroleum (BP) the US CIA mounted a coup to topple the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran. The main reason for the coup was because Iran wanted to exert more control over its oil exports and expel foreign corporate representatives.
We put the Shah into power. The Iranians eventually toppled the Shah and things have never been the same. The Shah had relied heavily on US support to maintain his power, so logically the hatred for the Shah that led to his demise also fell on the US also.
The US embassy hostage-taking by the Iranians led to a logical hatred of Iran by most Americans. Hatred that still exists.
Despite economic sanctions, the US really hasn’t been able to topple Iran’s government. Iran remains a significant player in the Middle East. We’re at a point in the world where even historical enemies recognize that talking beats killing. Iraq and Iran are talking.
Yet, we want to double down and maintain animosity. After 25 years of diplomacy at the end of a gun, we’ve forgotten that sometimes people will say no and that actions have consequences. …
The Neos on both sides have pushed a policy of US antagonizing everyone for the past 25 years. Imagine the bully from high school who was never made to stop or to grow up. Now he’s the bully of the town.
In the discussion over whether the US will certify the Iran deal this month, most Americans don’t realize, or they forget, that the deal was between the US, China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the EU and Iran! The Neos would have us believe that this was merely between the US and Iran, but in reality it was an International deal.
The other parties to this deal maintain that Iran is complying with the deal. Heck, the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and our State Department say that Iran is complying.
The better question at this time is “what’s in the best interests of the United States” with this deal?
Short of an International condemnation of some breach on Iran’s part, if we breach this agreement, we will be seen as a country that doesn’t honor its word.
Why would any other country trust us again? Why would North Korea believe that we could be negotiated with? Would countries be unreasonable to develop and field more military assets to protect themselves in the light of America not honoring it’s word?
Neos are winning in the Swamp.…
Reading foreign country’s newspapers offer a perspective on what the leaders of the country think is important. I’ve long enjoyed reading the Tehran Times, not because I believe everything they say, but to try and get some perspective on what they think is important.
The articles and statements coming out over the Kurd independence movement is interesting. When Iran comes to Iraq’s aid on Kurdish independence, bells and whistles need to be going off in your head. Iraq and Iran are historically not good friends.
When no country except Israel has publicly endorsed the Kurdish movement, smart foreign policy folks need to take heed. Does anyone really think that the virtues of supporting the Kurds is worth the problems that Kurdish independence will cause to the region?
Kurdish independence might sound like a nice idea. Remember though that there is no “land” for them that they get to just become a country in. The land in question belongs to three countries. Three countries that don’t want an independent Kurdish state. This would be like if we somehow decided to support an independent Mexican state in the US with pieces of Texas. California, New Mexico and Arizona. …
I’m stunned. A US General who actually speaks with reason. “He said that if the U.S. were to withdrawal without first finding Iran in material breach of the deal, allies would likely question other American treaty obligations. And North Korea, for its part, would have little incentive to enter into talks over its own nuclear program if Washington were to tear up an agreement that, by all accounts, Iran is adhering to.”
…
The rest of the world learned a different lesson from the fall of the Soviet Union than the United States did. A huge military drained the wealth out of a country. While we’ve spent the years since then growing our military spending, they’ve concentrated on economic growth. And they are succeeding.
…
Rouhani is actually more “moderate” than previous Iranian leaders. Was reelected by the masses who want the history of Iranian craziness to stop and transition to a more open, Western society. Will he be successful?…
A prominent libertarian think tank is bashing U.S. ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley over “fundamentally misleading” remarks she made this week related to America’s ongoing participation in a nuclear non-proliferation agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
…
