Opinion: The myth of the Iranian threat

[All Along The Watchtower]

While this article is obviously pretty biased (not necessarily a bad thing - and inevitable tbh) there really needs to be some counterweight to the ridiculously one-sided, irresponsibly alarmist, yet deeply cynical and self-serving "consensus" of the US foreign policy establishment regarding Iran.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://registerguard.com/rg/opinion/35530479-78/the-anti-iran-bias.html.csp

[SATW]

Iran doesn't support International terrorism? really now? I guess its not terrorism if Jewish lives are lost Just because Iran specifically targets two or three countries does not negate the theory that they are a sponsor of terrorism.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/state-department-report-terrorism/
https://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/crt/2014/239410.htm
https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/state-sponsors-iran

And some specific examples of Iran's apparently "non-existent" sponsorship of terrorism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMIA_bombing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_attack_on_Israeli_embassy_in_Buenos_Aires

They have directly funding Hezbollah for decades while also providing key support to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (another terror group in Gaza).

Tehran's support for the vicious Houthis in Yemen is yet another example of terror sponsorship.

This forum's continued defense of rogue nations is despicable. This "fancy" idea that the "real" enemy is muh western imperialists and evil Israelis is ridiculous and extremely naive.

Also, clearly, it's not just "the gulf states, America and Israel" that has been targeted by Iran.

http://www.businessinsider.com/john-schindler-iran-espionage-center-bosnia-2014-10?utm_source=alerts&nr_email_referer=1

Last I checked, Bosnia is not an "imperialist war-monger."

[dead0man]

Most U.S. officials quietly acknowledge that Saudi Arabia and the Sunni-ruled Gulf monarchies are the major supporters of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, not Shi’ite Iran. Vice President Joseph Biden concluded just that during a foreign policy speech at Harvard in October of 2014. A recently released classified State Department cable dated Dec. 30, 2009, stated, “...donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide.”

The way all this is worded tells me all I want to know about how full of sh**t these people are.


Iran exports terrorism.  Period.  No, they don't support Sunni terrorist organizations.  Why would they ya idiots?  Just because you think they are perpetual victims and think Jews and Americans deserve to die while on vacation because of the evils they've done to the poor, downtrodden religious leaders or Iran doesn't mean it's not terrorist to the rest of us, non-horrible people.  They regularly hang homosexuals too, but I suppose that's pretty easy to ignore.


Yeah, the Arabs in charge around them suck too.  Perhaps more.  That's not an excuse.

[ApatheticAustrian]

iran is an empire and they try to kill israel.

saudi-arabia and its golf allies + pakistan have for years destabilized the west and funded religious madness on a global level, to guarantee their own surival.

[Kingpoleon]

Saudi Arabia is still better on human rights than Syria, Iran, and Pakistan, which is unfortunately but necessarily taken into account.

[All Along The Watchtower]

To be clear: I do not condone any terrorism or other human rights violations committed by Iran or its proxies, which they surely have done. I'm just pointing out the self-serving hypocrisy of the US, Israeli, and Saudi foreign policy elites in their persistent warmongering toward and demonization of Iran, while ignoring their own countries' crimes and abuses (which is especially relevant in the case of the Saudis, of course).

This is not about "opposing terrorism." This is geopolitics. Iran refuses to serve the interests of the US and its allies. And considering the history of the American-Iranian relationship from the 1950s onward, can you honestly blame them?

Let's have some intellectual (and moral!) honesty here, for once.

[ApatheticAustrian]

Saudi Arabia is still better on human rights than Syria, Iran, and Pakistan, which is unfortunately but necessarily taken into account.

may i ask you how you come to this conclusion?

just curious.

[Tintrlvr]

Saudi Arabia is still better on human rights than Syria, Iran, and Pakistan, which is unfortunately but necessarily taken into account.

This is... Not true? Saudi Arabia is indisputably worse than Iran or Pakistan on human rights by pretty much any human rights measure. Syria is not really comparable given that it is an active warzone and the others are not.

[dead0man]

To be clear: I do not condone any terrorism or other human rights violations committed by Iran or its proxies, which they surely have done. I'm just pointing out the self-serving hypocrisy of the US, Israeli, and Saudi foreign policy elites in their persistent warmongering toward and demonization of Iran, while ignoring their own countries' crimes and abuses (which is especially relevant in the case of the Saudis, of course).

This is not about "opposing terrorism." This is geopolitics. Iran refuses to serve the interests of the US and its allies. And considering the history of the American-Iranian relationship from the 1950s onward, can you honestly blame them?

Let's have some intellectual (and moral!) honesty here, for once.

100% agree.  Iran's sins aren't an excuse for the sins of the Saudis, the Israelis or the US either.

And yes, they have good excuses to be against us.  And actions on both sides makes sure nothing changes.


What are you looking for here?  Us to admit Iran isn't the only bastard in the region?  Done, they ain't the only bastard in the region.  Still bastards though.  Still hanging homosexuals, still blowing up buses full of tourists.

[All Along The Watchtower]

To be clear: I do not condone any terrorism or other human rights violations committed by Iran or its proxies, which they surely have done. I'm just pointing out the self-serving hypocrisy of the US, Israeli, and Saudi foreign policy elites in their persistent warmongering toward and demonization of Iran, while ignoring their own countries' crimes and abuses (which is especially relevant in the case of the Saudis, of course).

This is not about "opposing terrorism." This is geopolitics. Iran refuses to serve the interests of the US and its allies. And considering the history of the American-Iranian relationship from the 1950s onward, can you honestly blame them?

Let's have some intellectual (and moral!) honesty here, for once.

100% agree.  Iran's sins aren't an excuse for the sins of the Saudis, the Israelis or the US either.

And yes, they have good excuses to be against us.  And actions on both sides makes sure nothing changes.


What are you looking for here?  Us to admit Iran isn't the only bastard in the region?  Done, they ain't the only bastard in the region.  Still bastards though.  Still hanging homosexuals, still blowing up buses full of tourists.

Well I'm just glad that you agree. Carry on!

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

iran is an empire and they try to kill israel.

saudi-arabia and its golf allies + pakistan have for years destabilized the west and funded religious madness on a global level, to guarantee their own surival.

You mean this guy?

[Santander]

Saudi Arabia is still better on human rights than Syria, Iran, and Pakistan, which is unfortunately but necessarily taken into account.

may i ask you how you come to this conclusion?

[publicunofficial]

Threats to middle-east peace:

1) Saudi Arabia
2) Israel
3) Pakistan

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Threats to middle-east peace:

1) Saudi Arabia
2) Israel
3) Pakistan

Also Qatar

[publicunofficial]

Threats to middle-east peace:

1) Saudi Arabia
2) Israel
3) Pakistan

Also Qatar

I assure you, the first draft of this post had Qatar at 4 but Top 3 just fits better.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

AFAIK Pakistan has little to no influence in the Middle East, especially since the decline of AQ

[darklordoftech]

What I really don't agree with is the fearmongering over Iran having nukes. The USSR never used its nukes during the entire Cold War, nor has Putin ever used his many nukes, so why would Iran or North Korea use their nukes?

[ApatheticAustrian]

What I really don't agree with is the fearmongering over Iran having nukes. The USSR never used its nukes during the entire Cold War, nor has Putin ever used his many nukes, so why would Iran or North Korea use their nukes?

they would not but if the real power in a state regularily talks about israel's destruction, one has reasons to become wary.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Threats to middle-east peace:

1) Saudi Arabia
2) Israel
3) Pakistan

Also Qatar

I assure you, the first draft of this post had Qatar at 4 but Top 3 just fits better.

Speaking of Qatar... But you were correct to rank Saudi Arabia ahead of Qatar.

[SoLongAtlas]

It is a threat, the key here is that Iran is "tamer" by comparison to the Wahabbi/Salafi funding Sunni nations like, cough, KSA. If Iran really wanted to cause a ton of damage, they could. They could close the strait and really put the screws to Saudi in Yemen, Iraq, and elsewhere and have done/are doing that to a lesser extent now.

Some ok points in the article re reactionary policy under Carter, if we hadn't have backed the Shah and gave him aid, Iran would be more moderate, possibly democratic today. Blowback is a bi*** regardless of how these reporters spin it, I doubt Iran would have changed systems that quickly however, relatively speaking, with no shah.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

It is a threat, the key here is that Iran is "tamer" by comparison to the Wahabbi/Salafi funding Sunni nations like, cough, KSA. If Iran really wanted to cause a ton of damage, they could. They could close the strait and really put the screws to Saudi in Yemen, Iraq, and elsewhere and have done/are doing that to a lesser extent now.

Some ok points in the article re reactionary policy under Carter, if we hadn't have backed the Shah and gave him aid, Iran would be more moderate, possibly democratic today. Blowback is a bi*** regardless of how these reporters spin it, I doubt Iran would have changed systems that quickly however, relatively speaking, with no shah.

"Backed the Shah" is something of an understatement.

We (the US and Britain) overthrew the democratic populist and secular government of Iran in favor of a strong monarchy (but weak monarch) who would give us oil rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

[SoLongAtlas]

It is a threat, the key here is that Iran is "tamer" by comparison to the Wahabbi/Salafi funding Sunni nations like, cough, KSA. If Iran really wanted to cause a ton of damage, they could. They could close the strait and really put the screws to Saudi in Yemen, Iraq, and elsewhere and have done/are doing that to a lesser extent now.

Some ok points in the article re reactionary policy under Carter, if we hadn't have backed the Shah and gave him aid, Iran would be more moderate, possibly democratic today. Blowback is a bi*** regardless of how these reporters spin it, I doubt Iran would have changed systems that quickly however, relatively speaking, with no shah.

"Backed the Shah" is something of an understatement.

We (the US and Britain) overthrew the democratic populist and secular government of Iran in favor of a strong monarchy (but weak monarch) who would give us oil rights.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Yeah, true, was just trying to summarize it though. If I included comments on it all, it would be paragraphs of stuff.