re: War Officially ERUPTS In Iran - Will The US and/or Israel Protect the PEOPLE?

But Americans are not New Zealanders so we don't think like you except for the little soy boys maybe

FACT 1979 ended up being a JV between communists and Shia Pet Mullahs. Even old lady moslems didn't want the mullahs in charge. That is NOT revisionist history and Google has been crap for 15 years at finding factual info especially if you don't use the exact correct keywords. AI is also crap

Guarantee you big dick Don isn't going to sit back and watch like Obama and his cucks. We are going to support the uprising 100%.

quote:

---

Iranians brought these mullahs to power. They did so consciously and with really no outside help at the time......let them get rid of the mullahs on their own

---

I agree with your larger point that this is a problem that Iranians must ultimately solve themselves; yet your secondary point is open to debate.

Declassified documents revealed that the Carter Administration was indirectly communicating with Khomeini and other opposition leaders, contradicting the widely disseminated narrative that the Carter Administration was wholly surprised by the Iranian Revolution.

Iran And The Shah. What Really Happened?

…Long regarded as a U.S. ally, the Shah was pro-Western and anti-communist, and he was aware that he posed the main barrier to Soviet ambitions in the Middle East. As distinguished foreign-affairs analyst Hilaire du Berrier noted: “He determined to make Iran capable of blocking a Russian advance until the West should realize to what extent her own interests were threatened and come to his aid…. It necessitated an army of 250,000 men.” The Shah’s air force ranked among the world’s five best. A voice for stability within the Middle East itself, he favored peace with Israel and supplied the beleaguered state with oil.

On the home front, the Shah protected minorities and permitted non-Muslims to practice their faiths. “All faith,” he wrote, “imposes respect upon the beholder.” The Shah also brought Iran into the 20th century by granting women equal rights. This was not to accommodate feminism, but to end archaic brutalization.

Yet, at the height of Iran’s prosperity, the Shah suddenly became the target of an ignoble campaign led by U.S. and British foreign policy makers. Bolstered by slander in the Western press, these forces, along with Soviet-inspired communist insurgents, and mullahs opposing the Shah’s progressiveness, combined to face him with overwhelming opposition. In three years he went from vibrant monarch to exile (on January 16, 1979), and ultimately death, while Iran fell to Ayatollah Khomeini’s terror.

Houchang Nahavandi, one of the Shah’s ministers and closest advisers, reveals in his book The Last Shah of Iran: “We now know that the idea of deposing the Shah was broached continually, from the mid-seventies on, in the National Security Council in Washington, by Henry Kissinger, whom the Shah thought of as a firm friend.”

Kissinger virtually epitomized the American establishment: before acting as Secretary of State under Republicans Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, he had been chief foreign-affairs adviser to Nelson Rockefeller, whom he called “the single most influential person in my life.” Jimmy Carter defeated Ford in the 1976 presidential election, but the switch to a Democratic administration did not change the new foreign policy tilt against the Shah.

Every presidential administration since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s has been dominated by members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the most visible manifestation of the establishment that dictates U.S. foreign policy along internationalist lines. The Carter administration was no exception.

What is the solution to modern Iran? Before listening to war drums, let us remember:

It was the CFR clique — the same establishment entrenched in the Bush and Obama administrations — that ousted the Shah, resulting in today’s Iran. That establishment also chanted for the six-year-old Iraq War over alleged weapons of mass destruction never found.

Therefore, instead of contemplating war with Iran, a nation four times Iraq’s size, let us demand that America shed its CFR hierarchy and their interventionist policy that has wrought decades of misery, and adopt a policy of avoiding foreign entanglements, and of minding our own business in international affairs.

quote:

---

this is bigger news than childish tantrums in minnesomalia

---

I do not understand. The people are rising up there to take back their freedom while the somalians of minnesota are trying to burden our freedom with debt.

Please ....cut the NZ shite. I was born there to an American father who was Navy and a mother who was half Greek.

So you are revising history. Do a little research and you won't find Communists working with Khomeini and others. The Russians were apprehensive about dealing with mullahs and Islamic types, because they couldn't control them.

Shah was very much the main architect of his demise and he sowed the seeds for it during the "White Revolution" when he took the mullahs land and began redistribution it to average Iranians. Khomeini had a personal beef with the House of Pahlavi....blamed the Pop for killing his dad.....then the Shah's PM in the 60's had Khomeini in custody and literally decided to slap him around in public. Then the Shah does something stupid and sends Khomeini into exile.....in Iraq. Then in the 70's the Baptists in Iraq (pre Saddam) offer to liquidate Khomeini for the Shah.....Pahlavi says nah, let him live.

I could tell you about all the missteps the Shah took as he was sick that led to making things worse. You can blame Carter, but he just says that he is concerned about human rights abuses as he continues aid to the Shah until almost the very end, when our own military intel guys said we should stop because 1) Shah is ate up with cancer 2) His government had lost control over the last 18 months . 3) Khomeini in particular had the support of the poor and working class as well as the students. I could tell you how the US inadvertently started this ball rolling during the Ford Administration

Stop reducing things to Communists against Republican Democrats.....Iran is not that.

Not the Western Hemisphere, not our issue.

quote:

---

Terrorism has been on a big rise since then.

---

Let’s don’t ignore Saudi Arabia’s global funding of madrasahs that promote Wahhabism, a medieval form of Islam that encourages violent jihadist movements.

quote:

---

Trump posts lots of stuff.

---

Unless you're telling me that the CIA posted that on Trump's account, this is the only statement you made that is relevant to the question you asked and the answer I gave.

The POTUS publicly announced that he would defend the citizens of Iran if they rebelled against the current government.

Did the president of Israel do that? Or Turkey? Or whoever else you asked about? If they did, I missed it.

And that is the answer to the question, "Why us and not them?" The leader of our country promised to do it. That's why.

Have we promised to defend/assist rebels before and reneged? Sure. Bay of Pigs. But even that was more of a miscalculation of how much force would be necessary and less of a complete, "Sure, go on down in that hole, I'll throw the rope down and pull you up...PSYCHE!"

As far as this goes:

quote:

---

This is all the more reason to remain skeptical of these repeated regime change operations which often end in unforeseen and disastrous outcomes.

---

The problem with armchair QBing foreign policy decisions isn't that hindsight is 20/20 (or 50-50 according to Pat Dye). It's that there's no way to know what you don't know, and there are two things that are always unknown to civilians when foreign policy decisions are made.

1. We don't know anything classified. The people making these decisions simply know information—and for all we know it might be information critical to the decision—that we will never know. That if we did know it, it might change our entire perception of the decision.

2. We also don't know what would have happend had we NOT done what we did.

So it's really easy for you or I to declare that regime changes "end in unforeseen and disastrous outcomes," but you don't know that something worse might have happend if the regime change hadn't. There's no way to know that.

I'm not saying that I think "they" always get it right. I'm sure they don't, in fact.

What I'm saying is that there's no way for you and I to be able to tell whether they got it right or not in most cases. Or even whether—had we known what they did—we would have done the same. So it's kind of pointless to armchair QB foreign policy IMO unless you're standing really far back and using a really wide lens.

For example, for about the first 150 years of our existence we adhered to an isolationist "Muh 'Merca 'Fust" ideology. It didn't keep us from having several foreign wars and military interventions (France 1798, Barbary Wars, War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, excursions into Mexico in 1914 and 1916, and two world wars: WWI and WWII. And the last one of those involved nuclear weapons. And all of those happened despite our isolationist philosophy.

Since then, since we've embraced American hegemony, yeah, we've fought a series of proxy wars and military interventions (Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Granada, Afghanistan) and we've sent troops to the ME to curtail terrorism that was growing and that ended in the last attack on Americans on our own soil, but we haven't had any more world wars, and we haven't had any more detonation of nuclear weapons on people.

We ended the greatest threat to not only the US, but all life on the planet by defeating the USSR, and we did it largely through those proxy wars.

And we have a lot greater lead on anybody else in the world now than we did back then in terms of military power and economic dominance.

So I would say that overall the strategy has worked pretty well. I like it a lot better than world wars and nuclear weapons, anyway.

Only soy boys find the Haka intimidating.

Louisiana says...