A Completely Different Point of View on the Iran Situation

The view is questionable; however the following are my observations:

- Media can be(is) used to implant thoughts, opinions, even demonize perfectly normal humans.
- Countries (including the US) use their intelligence agencies to support/sponsor anti-government groups (one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist) in countries posing threats to them. Some of these decisions have failed; like in Srilanka, Afghanistan, Pakistan, etc.
- On reading BBC's profile on Ahmadinejad & Mousavi; Ahmadinejad appears to be having the support of an average Iranian citizen.

The above makes me think some of the points in the article could be true; again it’s my personal inference.

Alexander Sandler said: “Once I saw the word Israel in the article, I stopped reading it. [...] I am an Israeli citizen.”

Hmm… perhaps you might find this more interesting then: http://bit.ly/puvIM

“A key point that I did know, that most don’t, is that Iran had a real democracy back in the 50’s, and it is widely known that the United States over-through it.

Daniel, attack yourself.

1.”A key point that I did know,”
2.”that most don’t,”
3.”is that Iran had a real democracy back in the 50’s,”
4.”and it is widely known”
5.”that the United States over-through it.”

Segments 2 and 4 contradict each other.

To your credit, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran#Recent_histor… corroborates your statement concerning US involvement, though the level of impact of events almost 60 years ago are hard to gauge. In one sense, Iran was another Cold War battleground.

“In 1925, Reza Khan overthrew the weakening Qajar Dynasty and became Shah. Reza Shah initiated industrialization, railroad construction, and the establishment of a national education system. Reza Shah sought to balance Russian and British influence, but when World War II started, his nascent ties to Germany alarmed Britain and Russia. In 1941, Britain and the USSR invaded Iran to use Iranian railroad capacity during World War II. The Shah was forced to abdicate in favour of his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

“In 1951 Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh was elected prime minister. As prime minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran after he nationalized Iran's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and, amidst Cold War fears, invited the United States to join in a plot to depose Mossadegh, and in 1953 President Dwight D. Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax. The operation was successful, and Mossadegh was arrested on 19 August 1953. After Operation Ajax, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's rule became increasingly autocratic. With American support, the Shah was able to rapidly modernize Iranian infrastructure, but he simultaneously crushed all forms of political opposition with his intelligence agency”

(This circumstance sets up the current official power of Iranian hardline rule, the Ayatollas.)

“SAVAK. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini became an active critic of the Shah's White Revolution and publicly denounced the government. Khomeini was arrested and imprisoned for 18 months. After his release in 1964 Khomeini publicly criticized the United States government. The Shah was persuaded to send him into exile by General Hassan Pakravan. Khomeini was sent first to Turkey, then to Iraq and finally to France. While in exile, he continued to denounce the Shah.

The Iranian Revolution, also known as the Islamic Revolution, began in January 1978 with the first major demonstrations against the Shah. After strikes and demonstrations paralysed the country and its economy, the Shah fled the country in January 1979 and Ayatollah Khomeini returned from exile to Tehran. The Pahlavi Dynasty collapsed ten days later, on 11 February, when Iran's military declared itself “neutral” after guerrillas and rebel troops overwhelmed troops loyal to the Shah in armed street fighting. Iran officially became an Islamic Republic on 1 April 1979 when Iranians overwhelmingly approved a national referendum to make it so. In December 1979, the country approved a theocratic constitution, whereby Khomeini became Supreme Leader of the country. The speed and success of the revolution surprised many throughout the world, as it had not been precipitated by a military defeat, a financial crisis, or a peasant rebellion. Although both nationalists and Marxists joined with Islamic traditionalists to overthrow the Shah, tens of thousands were killed and executed by the Islamic regime afterward, the revolution ultimately resulted in an Islamic Republic under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.”

The rest is still interesting reading, but drifts off into other subjects.

So, considering the 56 years since our involvement, how responsible for the current state of Iranian politics is the US? We've been a scapegoat, as has Israel, simply put.

Besides, being that Iran is a theocracy, I find it curious that an atheist takes the “blame America first” stance, siding with a purely religious government. It suggests a level of priority.

-=T=-

> So, considering the 56 years since our involvement, how responsible for the current state of Iranian politics is the US? We've been a scapegoat, as has Israel, simply put.

Yep, the U.S. and Israel–the poor victims in the whole mess.

“… and the fact that Ahamadinejad threatened Israel with extinction.”

False.

I'm only really concerned with the state becoming less religious.

We both know that Iran using a nuclear weapon against Israel is a terrible scenario, but an extremely unlikely one, even with A'ejad at the helm. The citizens would never go for any military aggression, and even most Israelis consider their gov's claimed threat as exaggerated. (I hope HTML works in Disqus)

Iranian gov supporting terrorist groups is another matter :/

You are right. It is extremely unlikely. The reason U.S and Israel trying to stop Iran's nuclear program is because Iran's possession of nuclear weapons will change strategic balance in the area.

What I am going to say now is strictly hypothetical and a plot of my sick imagination.
Lets say, Hezbollah launches a major rocket attack on Tel-Aviv, tomorrow morning. Iran controls Hezbollah and therefore such an attack can only become a reality with Iran's leadership approval. Today, Tehran is one of the retaliation targets for Israel. Iran's leadership fully aware of that. Because of that, such an attack is very unlikely at the moment.
But what if Ahmadinejad will make a statement threatening to retaliate with nuclear weapon on any attack on Iran's soil? This would significantly change the state of affairs. If this would happen, Israel's government will have to rethink its retaliation targets. It will become much easier to run major attacks on Israel.

Finally, I must say that, although it is very unlikely, Iran attacking Israel with nuclear weapon is such a horrible scenario, that it is worth putting as much effort as possible to prevent it.