Communities - Latest Comments in A Thought Experiment on Iran: Why not try diplomacy

Re: A Thought Experiment on Iran: Why not try diplomacy

tatonkapark — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:55:57 -0000

They want to take over the banking system in Iran. Obviously, that would be the world bankers

Re: A Thought Experiment on Iran: Why not try diplomacy

Luke Montgomery — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:14:36 -0000

Dear Markinidaho,

You should have quit while you were behind. I said "Iranians are not "sons of Abraham". Persian is NOT a Semitic language. I have a Masters Degree in linguistics and this is one area in which I have expertise. What I said is incontrovertible fact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik... I'll let you educate yourself on the subject since my rebuttal was clearly too difficult for you to understand. You seem to think everyone in the Middle East is Semitic! Please do your research.

Re: A Thought Experiment on Iran: Why not try diplomacy

Pauldhaasbroek — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:03:18 -0000

I would be curious to hear both the author and previous poster's thoughts....
What has America gained from / contributed to Iran (i suppose you might need to include the whole region) by it's interventionism?
And at what cost?

Re: A Thought Experiment on Iran: Why not try diplomacy

markinidaho — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:00:06 -0000

Try again, Luke. The emnity that exists between Iran and Israel is not Indo-European in origin. It is Semetic, as you say. (The occupants of the current land of Iran are descendents of Shem, son of Noah, and are therefore Semetic. Europeans are the descendents of Japheth, not Shem. Your language analysis of Arab being related to Latin and Greek is laughable, at best. I don't know much about Sanskrit - and I am betting you know less than I.

You seem to make up "facts" as you go. I am done with you, you need not reply to me again, as I will not reply to you. Go back to school.

Re: A Thought Experiment on Iran: Why not try diplomacy

Luke Montgomery — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:50:58 -0000

Getting the facts straight as you say... First of all, the Iranians are not "sons of Abraham" as you suggest. They are an Indo-European people and their language is related to Latin, Greek and Sanskrit, not Arabic or Hebrew (Semitic languages). Secondly, they haven't been in the region for 4000 years (again you are confusing the sons of Abraham with the Persians). These two misunderstandings alone demonstrate the need for more informed discussion when it comes to Iran.

Re: A Thought Experiment on Iran: Why not try diplomacy

markinidaho — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:40:10 -0000

You need to get your facts straight. Cyrus and Persia are the names you used, but the nations originated with Issac and Ishmael, sons of Abraham. They have been at war for 4000 years, usually openly. What Cyrus the Persian did was well and good, but if you read Esther, you will find that there has been enmity between the descendents of Ishmael and the descendants of Issac for a lot longer than there has been a "Persia". It wasn't Cyrus then, it was Haman. The Mahdi is not going to save anyone supernaturally, but that nutcase President of Iran thinks he has to start the chaos before the Mahdi will show up. He knows without a nuke, Israel would wipe him off the map if he tried to attack them with pitchforks. No, he wants the nuke, and he wants to obliterate Israel. Diplomacy is a lost cause.

Just because there have been some leaders of Persia that were not enemies of Israel, and just because Jews and Israelites of all tribes have been dispersed all over the place, including Iran, doesn't erase the hostility. Esther was a Jew, and she was queen of Persia, but Jews have been the target of ancient hostility since the days of Abraham. No amount of re-writing history to fit your personal bias changes that. If you cannot write factually, and you cannot write without lying to yourself, you should not write.

Re: A Thought Experiment on Iran: Why not try diplomacy

Luke Montgomery — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:22:43 -0000

I am not trying to absolve Iran from any responsibility. It's leaders are clearly taking a belligerent stance in many ways and is responsible for much of the trouble. I was merely asking the question, "How did we get here?", Iran wasn't like this in the 1950s. And the foreign policies of western nations have certainly contributed to the problem.

Re: A Thought Experiment on Iran: Why not try diplomacy

Luke Montgomery — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:59:26 -0000

If they wanted to usher in chaos and believed that the Mahdi would save them, they wouldn't need a nuclear weapon. They could attack Israel with a pitchfork! (After all, the "all-powerful" Mahdi (twelfth Imam) would save them supernaturally). This sort of religiopolitics is dangerous fear mongering and it is irrational.

Iran has been fighting to annihilate Israel for 4000 years. That is absurd. The Persians have not even existed as a nation for 4000 years. Cyrus would have lived ca 2500 years ago and the Jews fared very well in the Persian Empire. In fact, in spite of the immigration of Persian Jews since the Islamic Revolution, Iran still has the second largest number of Jews in the Middle East.

Re: A Thought Experiment on Iran: Why not try diplomacy

Luke Montgomery — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 11:46:15 -0000

I agree with you. Iran is belligerent. Iran is not playing ball with the international community. My article is an attempt to get us to consider how we reached this point? Iran was not like that in the 1950's. What caused the change? Mostly Western intervention.

You refer to a Caliphate forming in the Middle East. Do you think Iran would be an equal partner in such a development? No, they would be oppressed by their Sunni neighbors as they have throughout history. Your understanding of the Arab spring seems very Western. Again, those places are
Sunni. You seem to think that Sunnis and Shiites get along and like each
other, that Iran is happy for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
I'm not so sure what you are saying is right.

My article is not a defense of Iran. It is an attempt to understand their mistrust of the West and their belligerence.

Re: A Thought Experiment on Iran: Why not try diplomacy

markinidaho — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 04:30:03 -0000

Not a very good thought experiment. It fails to take into consideration Iran desires to have utter chaos and war in order to usher in the 12th Imam. Insane? Sure. So are the leaders of Iran.

Iran has been fighting with and desired the annihilation of Israel for 4000 years. Your diplomatic experiment will no change that.

Re: A Thought Experiment on Iran: Why not try diplomacy

Ss — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 12:35:50 -0000

Good article. People tend to forget that history isn't just something sprung up in the past few years, but decades ago. Looking at what happened from the 50's onwards, its easy to understand how the the country becme so anti-west and why they have such a stance.

Re: A Thought Experiment on Iran: Why not try diplomacy

John Robinson — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 04:15:44 -0000

There are so many things wrong with this analysis, I don't even know where to begin.

1) Iran is NOT Persia, with a "rich and glorious past". Iran was created out of Persia to serve Hitler. The very name "Iran", means "Aryan" in Persian. When the Supreme clerics took control after Carter's blunder, what was left of Persia ceased to be. The current Iranian government is actually erasing Persia's historical landmarks; flooding precious temples and paving over historical sites. And Iran, unlike Persia, refuses to recognize the existence of Israel. Cyrus the Great repatriated jews to Jerusalem before Christ. Iran is NOT Persia; you are essentially romanticizing modern day Nazis.

2) Iran constantly and consistently states that it will "rid the world of the zionist nation". They have a Death To Israel (and America) holiday every year. The only evidence you have of their good intentions towards Israel is their own words... which, frankly, aren't worth the bag the s#it comes in.

3) The US isn't trying to make Iran "vassals" - they want them to enter the 21st century and play well with their neighbors. Iran is not making this easy. They don't want to become part of "the western world", they want to destroy it.

4) We HAVE been trying diplomacy. Remember Obama's "outstretched, hand, unclenched fist"? Obama also refused to help the Iranian opposition when they were being slaughtered after the elections in 2008, and when the Arab Spring rippled through the country in 2011. There were even signs in the streets saying, "where are you, Obama?" In addition, Obama DID help the resistance topple Egypt and Libya... and the loss of Egypt removed the security for Israel, and the loss of Libya removed the only other modern armed state in the region that could oppose Iran, as well as sent their arms to Hezbollah and AlQueda. Obama has virtually handed the middle east to Iran, and left Israel naked, for the taking. What else can we possibly give them?

You studiously ignore a few developments. There IS a caliphate forming. Pakistan, Turkey, Iran, and now Egypt are all vying to be the epicenter of the new state. Iran can earn the respect of the others and claim this prize by eliminating Israel - that is motivation enough to commit genocide.

You find it strange that we don't deal with NKorea, yet obsess about Iran, then ignore Pakistan - and it is - but that says more about Obama's erratic foreign policy than anything else. Perhaps you are looking for logic where there is none.

The game Iran is playing with Israel is common to any schoolyard bully. They already have nukes; but they need to provoke Israel into attacking them first, so they can be blameless while they set off the Second Holocaust. Iran is the big bully - pushing Israel, taunting, "what are gonna do? hit me? Well? You gonna hit me, jew?" We are watching the Second Holocaust unfold before our very eyes, and when future historians look back on this time, they will ask, "how could they not see it?"

Well, because of people like Mr. Montgomery, that refuse to see it all unfolding in realtime, looking for every reason to believe in Iran's goodwill - even when they offer none. Good luck with that.

If this is a "thought experiment", I think it failed. It's more of an exercise in denial.

Re: A Thought Experiment on Iran: Why not try diplomacy

Sid Harth — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 03:42:29 -0000

Israel is already complaining that the flurry of high ranking US officials to Tel Aviv and public statements against Israel's preemptive strike threat is making Iran more virulent.

Be that as it may, It is Iran, not the USA, who is to blame for this tragic episode. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is reportedly, eager to have talks, (friendly or not so friendly) with the USA (Imperialist Satan). It is the Ayatollah Seyed Ali Hoseyni Khāmene’i's firm belief that any relaxation on Iran's part would crumble the cookie.

maintain "the image of the Leader as 'guide', rather than
executive", Khamenei stays aloof from day-to-day politics. He gives no
press conferences or interviews, and, as noted in Hooman Majd's book:He speaks only at special gatherings, such as an occasional Friday prayer
or commemoration ceremonies of one sort or another. The Leader meets
with foreign dignitaries (almost exclusively Muslim) but limits any
televised and public words to generalities, such as Iran's support for
the country (or entity like Hamas or Hezbollah)
whose emissary he is meeting, Iran's peaceful and Islamic nature, and
Iran's eagerness to expand trade and contacts with the friendly country
in question. He pointedly does not meet with representatives of Western powers. The Leader does not travel overseas; if anyone wishes to see him, that person must travel to Iran.

Khamenei did travel outside Iran before he became Leader.[citation needed]

Despite this policy, as leader, Khamenei reserves the right to
"inject himself into the process and 'correct' a flawed policy or
decision."

One more thing. Why so much (historic) interpretation? Iran is not Persia of the past and thye hardly ever mention their origins to ancient Aryan tribal migration from Russian steppes. Indians do that.

...and I am Sid Harth@arabuhuru.com