Should the U.S Support Netanyahu?

[Zaras]

Iran is the only country that has planned to wipe another one off the map.

Ahmadinejad.

Not Iran.

Ahmadinejad is not the supreme leader of Iran.

Please keep that in mind whenever talking about Iran. Iran is a huge country after all.

[Tigeria]

I'm just worried that a nuclear middle east would bring Global nuclear exchange

Probably more limited than not. Unless Israel becomes the winy kid that threatens to nuke America if we don't support them or some crazy crap like that.

I don't believe Israel would do that

Would you trust an immature country like Iran with nuclear weapons, to never use them?

[Divair]

Probably more limited than not. Unless Israel becomes the winy kid that threatens to nuke America if we don't support them or some crazy crap like that.

I don't believe Israel would do that

Would you trust an immature country like Iran with nuclear weapons, to never use them?

Yes, because they would be instantly raped by the international community if they did.

[Tigeria]

I don't believe Israel would do that

Would you trust an immature country like Iran with nuclear weapons, to never use them?

Yes, because they would be instantly raped by the international community if they did.

They could be suicidal, you never know

[Divair]

Yes, because they would be instantly raped by the international community if they did.

They could be suicidal, you never know

Nations are not suicidal.

[Phocidaea]

The US, preferably, should get out of Israel-Islamic World politics and let them duke it out.

But since it won't do that, I'd definitely say it should support Netanyahu before his Iranian counterparts. The choice is between a mildly authoritarian Westernized democracy and a borderline dictatorship with Sharia and ceaseless hostility toward the modern Western world.

[Ralkovia]

They could be suicidal, you never know

Nations are not suicidal.

Nations aren't. Islamist Regimes run entirely by religion, tend to be a little different. At this point though, Iran hasn't gone full crazy. To be honest, I don't even think the Iranians even support the hardliners anymore.

[Divair]

Nations are not suicidal.

Nations aren't. Islamist Regimes run entirely by religion, tend to be a little different. At this point though, Iran hasn't gone full crazy. To be honest, I don't even think the Iranians even support the hardliners anymore.

The Iranians have never supported the government. There have been constant protests since the fundamentalists took over.

[Third Japanese Empire]

Mabye...

[Shaffey]

All means have been exhausted, and not for a short while either, they're very exhausted.

I myself have seen that the people of Iran are on the side of a war to topple the regime, most are hoping for something similar to the Yom Kippur war. Little civilian casualties and a swift attack. Really, a simple thing like that could simply break all the pillars the Mullahs have in Iran and completely cause them to fail. Through that, the people of Iran can stand up, and hopefully win this time, not like 2008 when the protesters were all mowed down like it's nothing.

I'll rephrase this: Contrary to what most may think, most of us are pretty happy about this. Although the future is uncertain, the chances of the Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi II returning - or a full secular democracy - coming to Iran are pretty high after this. So, in the end, most hope that although there will be casualties, we'll have a scenario that's similar to the Yom Kippur war (in length and civilian casualties) and we will possibly be freed from this regime.

And regarding the WWIII theories; So, you people honestly think that China and Russia (let's ignore Palestine, as they don't have the strength to wage WWIII) will side with Iran and continue to provide Iran with weaponry and training if such a sensitive conflict broke out? The US would have to provoke China and Russia big-time to make them do such a thing.

Yes, maybe you'll have a very long conflict in Iran, but a World War? The US would have to piss a fair share of people off in order for them to be shortsighted enough to side with an unstable country such as Iran. And, if you're going to look at the US/NATO side of the spectrum, something like that has happened before, twice.

And yes, I'm well-informed about the history of Persia and her relationship with Israel.

I'd be happy to debate with the senseless drivel people are posting regarding Israel being illegitimate and all that.

Iranians hate the regime with a passion, and most have since 1979. Every time you sit in a cab, go to a store or anything like that. People will talk about Ahmadinejad, Khamenei and all the Mullahs. Most hate them, but most have a family and it's really risking too much to go out and protest, with the chance of being banned from exiting the country, or being shot, or imprisoned.

God bless the Persian Empire, and may the Arab-loving Mullahs finally fall. At the hand of Israel or the Persian people, it does not matter.

Oh, and may I remind you, Iran before 1979 was pretty much what Israel is now. Especially the way people talk about Mossad, is exactly the same as when people talked about SAVAK in the 70's and 60's. Iran was the US-friendly non-Arab government in the Middle East, in a relatively hostile region to not fully Arab nations.

Iran's position was replaced with Israel after the fundamentalists took over.

[Inyourfaceistan]

Nations aren't. Islamist Regimes run entirely by religion, tend to be a little different. At this point though, Iran hasn't gone full crazy. To be honest, I don't even think the Iranians even support the hardliners anymore.

The Iranians have never supported the government. There have been constant protests since the fundamentalists took over.

Ahh so the people protest the government. That's going to make Khamenei and Ahmedinejiad care if they get leveled as a reproccusion...

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

All means have been exhausted, and not for a short while either, they're very exhausted.

I myself have seen that the people of Iran are on the side of a war to topple the regime, most are hoping for something similar to the Yom Kippur war. Little civilian casualties and a swift attack. Really, a simple thing like that could simply break all the pillars the Mullahs have in Iran and completely cause them to fail. Through that, the people of Iran can stand up, and hopefully win this time, not like 2008 when the protesters were all mowed down like it's nothing.

I'll rephrase this: Contrary to what most may think, most of us are pretty happy about this. Although the future is uncertain, the chances of the Prince of Iran Reza Pahlavi II returning - or a full secular democracy - coming to Iran are pretty high after this. So, in the end, most hope that although there will be casualties, we'll have a scenario that's similar to the Yom Kippur war (in length and civilian casualties) and we will possibly be freed from this regime.

And regarding the WWIII theories; So, you people honestly think that China and Russia (let's ignore Palestine, as they don't have the strength to wage WWIII) will side with Iran and continue to provide Iran with weaponry and training if such a sensitive conflict broke out? The US would have to provoke China and Russia big-time to make them do such a thing.

Yes, maybe you'll have a very long conflict in Iran, but a World War? The US would have to piss a fair share of people off in order for them to be shortsighted enough to side with an unstable country such as Iran. And, if you're going to look at the US/NATO side of the spectrum, something like that has happened before, twice.

And yes, I'm well-informed about the history of Persia and her relationship with Israel.

I'd be happy to debate with the senseless drivel people are posting regarding Israel being illegitimate and all that.

Iranians hate the regime with a passion, and most have since 1979. Every time you sit in a cab, go to a store or anything like that. People will talk about Ahmadinejad, Khamenei and all the Mullahs. Most hate them, but most have a family and it's really risking too much to go out and protest, with the chance of being banned from exiting the country, or being shot, or imprisoned.

God bless the Persian Empire, and may the Arab-loving Mullahs finally fall. At the hand of Israel or the Persian people, it does not matter.

Oh, and may I remind you, Iran before 1979 was pretty much what Israel is now. Especially the way people talk about Mossad, is exactly the same as when people talked about SAVAK in the 70's and 60's. Iran was the US-friendly non-Arab government in the Middle East, in a relatively hostile region to not fully Arab nations.

Iran's position was replaced with Israel after the fundamentalists took over.

Oh yeah...Savak is exactly like Mossad

Mind you I do agree that it does seem to be the case that a large part of the Iranian population are not entirely keen on the entire theocracy that came into existence post 1979. That is a good thing. However calling for the Peacock Throne to return for another Pahlevi to sit in is not a good thing. Open elections and establishing a secular government would be.

[Shaffey]

Oh yeah...Savak is exactly like Mossad

Mind you I do agree that it does seem to be the case that a large part of the Iranian population are not entirely keen on the entire theocracy that came into existence post 1979. That is a good thing. However calling for the Peacock Throne to return for another Pahlevi to sit in is not a good thing. Open elections and establishing a secular government would be.

SAVAK is extremely similar to Mossad, both trained by the US. Both employed torture etc.

SAVAK is known for pouring hot water into people's assholes, for example.

SAVAK was known for being ruthless and brutal just as Mossad is known for now. They were the so-called 'Middle-Eastern Elite Bunch of Murderers and Nationalists'.

On a coincidental note: Shin Bet, the Israeli Homeland Mossad, is a short from of SHABAK, which is again short for something else.

Mossad has engaged in joint operations with SAVAK over the years since the late 1950s.

Mossad aided SAVAK activities and supported the Kurds in Iraq.


Moving on, why do you believe the Pahlavis should not sit on the Peacock Throne? Muhammad Reza Pahlavi was pretty much the best thing that happened to Iran since his father Reza took over, and he was the best thing to happen to Iran since the Qajars were moved off the throne. The amount of progress Iran made during the rule of the last Pahlavi was amazing. I'm sure a secular democracy would do the country well. But you have the chance of Iran going into a Libyan kind of situation (although it's doubtful, because Iran is not in the same mood as Libya is when it comes to knowing freedom, but still, too possible for comfort). The Pahlavis have ruled, successfully, and Reza II can do much better than a secular democracy at the moment for Iran.

[Not Safe For Work]

Unfortunately that is not the case at the moment, which is why immidiate invasion of Iran is necessary.

We can't afford it.

If they had nukes AND they were about to use them against us or our allies - we might be able to justify the expense. As it is... no.

[Not Safe For Work]

A number of times. It's not like nations haven't threaten Iran and have idiotic polices towards it. Regardless, there is a difference between a threat and carrying out an attack on that nation. Many countries threaten each other, all the time.

Except, Iran is the only country that has planned to wipe another one off the map. There's a difference between threating a government and threatening to annihilate another people. The Jews already experienced it once, we're not going to experience it again.

Paranoia is not a sufficient casus belli.

[Zaras]

Moving on, why do you believe the Pahlavis should not sit on the Peacock Throne?

Monarchies suck and republics are better.

It's up to the Iranian people to decide. The Pahlavis shouldn't just be handed the throne like that, the Iranians should be asked in a referendum whether they want that.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Oh yeah...Savak is exactly like Mossad

Mind you I do agree that it does seem to be the case that a large part of the Iranian population are not entirely keen on the entire theocracy that came into existence post 1979. That is a good thing. However calling for the Peacock Throne to return for another Pahlevi to sit in is not a good thing. Open elections and establishing a secular government would be.

SAVAK is extremely similar to Mossad, both trained by the US. Both employed torture etc.

SAVAK is known for pouring hot water into people's assholes, for example.

SAVAK was known for being ruthless and brutal just as Mossad is known for now. They were the so-called 'Middle-Eastern Elite Bunch of Murderers and Nationalists'.

On a coincidental note: Shin Bet, the Israeli Homeland Mossad, is a short from of SHABAK, which is again short for something else.

Moving on, why do you believe the Pahlavis should not sit on the Peacock Throne? Muhammad Reza Pahlavi was pretty much the best thing that happened to Iran since his father Reza took over, and he was the best thing to happen to Iran since the Qajars were moved off the throne. The amount of progress Iran made during the rule of the last Pahlavi was amazing. I'm sure a secular democracy would do the country well. But you have the chance of Iran going into a Libyan kind of situation (although it's doubtful, because Iran is not in the same mood as Libya is when it comes to knowing freedom, but still, too possible for comfort). The Pahlavis have ruled, successfully, and Reza II can do much better than a secular democracy at the moment for Iran.

Mossad isn't used to oppress Israeli's. Mossad does not torture Israeli (read Jewish) citizens anywhere as much or as badly as SAVAK did. Still neither have anything on the Russians but that's a different thread.

Well I am not a fan monarchies and am more interested in seeing people have access to self determination. If they want Pahlavi back (unlikely) fair enough. I think they would rather have someone like Mosaddegh.

[Shaffey]

Moving on, why do you believe the Pahlavis should not sit on the Peacock Throne?

Monarchies suck and republics are better.

It's up to the Iranian people to decide. The Pahlavis shouldn't just be handed the throne like that, the Iranians should be asked in a referendum whether they want that.

Most do.

The amount of tears that come out of the eyes of the average Iranian when a documentary about the Pahlavi family is aired by a diaspora satellite channel is enough to make Kavir-e Lut look like a forest.

The Pahlavis loved Iran. They loved our heritage. The 'Light of Aryans' (put in apostrophes so I don't look like a nationalistic freak, with the negative image the word Aryan carries today, if you want to know more about the title, google 'Aryamehr') may have passed away, but there is still hope in his son.

In a way, you are correct. The throne must not be handed to Reza. But, the outcome of such a vote would be clear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF47rrHd7wo

I'll just leave that there, it shows Iran in the 70s.

[Ralkovia]

Iran of the 70's was a westernized heaven. Strong western values, a strong economy, and many freedoms. It was a beautiful place and had the potential to become a World player. The fundamentalists have raped that idea and stolen from the people.

[Zaras]

I'll just leave that there, it shows Iran in the 70s.

I don't think it's so clear-cut. Afghanistan under Mohammed Zahir Shah was also a Westernised heaven of sorts, but Afghanistan didn't restore the monarchy. (Well, it seems from Wikipedia that the USA meddled in the process because otherwise the Loya Jirga would've voted for Zahir Shah by a landslide over Karzai.)

Iran of the 70's was a westernized heaven. Strong western values, a strong economy, and many freedoms. It was a beautiful place and had the potential to become a World player. The fundamentalists have raped that idea and stolen from the people.

Stop slobbering so hard over a rose-tinted narrative. You're ignoring the overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953, the fact that the economy wasn't built on solid foundations, the SAVAK brutality, the lack of political freedoms, and the shocking disconnect from reality of the Shah, shown clearly by the money he wasted on the 1971 celebration of the Persian Empire. Iran never should've become a world player like that.

And funnily enough, you seem to be ignoring the way there was a power struggle after the 1979 revolution that ended with the fundamentalists repressing the socialists and every other faction. But, yeah, don't mind things like facts getting in the way of your simplistic "fundamentalists destroyed Iran!" narrative.

[Hippostania]

We can't afford it.

Yes you can. Cut medicare, cut medicaid, cut social security, cut down on useless government departments: boom. We can now easily afford it.

If they had nukes AND they were about to use them against us or our allies - we might be able to justify the expense. As it is... no.

Ah, so threatening to use conventional weapons against our allies and exterminate all jews is not enough, the threat has to be nuclear? I detect some anti-semitism, if Russia for example was behaving like this against our allies, we wouldn't tolerate it.. But when Israel is being threatened, it's alright.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

We can't afford it.

Yes you can. Cut medicare, cut medicaid, cut social security, cut down on useless government departments: boom. We can now easily afford it.

Healthcare is a right, as recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Depriving people of the right to healthcare when a few cruise missiles would do to remove Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah is just silly.

If they had nukes AND they were about to use them against us or our allies - we might be able to justify the expense. As it is... no.

Ah, so threatening to use conventional weapons against our allies and exterminate all jews is not enough, the threat has to be nuclear?

Threatening to do things is not the same as doing things.

I detect some anti-semitism,

Disliking Israel's foreign policy does not equate to hating all Jews, and to suggest so is a colossal strawman.

if Russia for example was behaving like this against our allies, we wouldn't tolerate it.. But when Israel is being threatened, it's alright.

Actually, we would tolerate Russia because it's too big for us not to tolerate its behaviour. It also has an SC veto.

[Choronzon]

Fuck the Israeli state, and fuck Netanyahu.

[Liriena]

Netanyahu is a warmonger and has shown to have not a single iota of respect for the rights of innocent Palestinian citizens.

He doesn't deserve anyone's support.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

We can't afford it.

Yes you can. Cut medicare, cut medicaid, cut social security, cut down on useless government departments: boom. We can now easily afford it.

If they had nukes AND they were about to use them against us or our allies - we might be able to justify the expense. As it is... no.

Ah, so threatening to use conventional weapons against our allies and exterminate all jews is not enough, the threat has to be nuclear? I detect some anti-semitism, if Russia for example was behaving like this against our allies, we wouldn't tolerate it.. But when Israel is being threatened, it's alright.

We? So Finland is going to invade Iran?