The notion that Iran is any kind of a military threat to anyone is just bullshit

[eridani]

Keeping everyone guessing is much cheaper than actually pursuing nuclear weapons. The US, Saudis and Israel whining about that remind me of burglars whining about homeowners who "attack" them by installing burglar alarms.

Israel and the US are real nuclear powers that represent a considerable threat to Iran.

http://www.thenation.com/article/iran-is-not-the-greatest-threat-to-world-peace/

Turning to the next obvious question, what in fact is the Iranian threat? Why, for example, are Israel and Saudi Arabia trembling in fear over that country? Whatever the threat is, it can hardly be military. Years ago, US intelligence informed Congress that Iran has very low military expenditures by the standards of the region and that its strategic doctrines are defensive—designed, that is, to deter aggression. The US intelligence community has also reported that it has no evidence Iran is pursuing an actual nuclear weapons program and that “Iran’s nuclear program and its willingness to keep open the possibility of developing nuclear weapons is a central part of its deterrent strategy.”

The authoritative SIPRI review of global armaments ranks the United States, as usual, way in the lead in military expenditures. China comes in second with about one-third of US expenditures. Far below are Russia and Saudi Arabia, which are nonetheless well above any western European state. Iran is scarcely mentioned. Full details are provided in an April report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which finds “a conclusive case that the Arab Gulf states have…an overwhelming advantage of Iran in both military spending and access to modern arms.”

Iran’s military spending, for instance, is a fraction of Saudi Arabia’s and far below even the spending of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Altogether, the Gulf Cooperation Council states—Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE—outspend Iran on arms by a factor of eight, an imbalance that goes back decades. The CSIS report adds: “The Arab Gulf states have acquired and are acquiring some of the most advanced and effective weapons in the world [while] Iran has essentially been forced to live in the past, often relying on systems originally delivered at the time of the Shah.” In other words, they are virtually obsolete. When it comes to Israel, of course, the imbalance is even greater. Possessing the most advanced US weaponry and a virtual offshore military base for the global superpower, it also has a huge stock of nuclear weapons.

[brer cat]

1. The truth doesn't fit the neocons vision.

Keep telling it! K&R

[leftynyc]

2. Are you (and the Nation)

ignoring the FACT that Iran is the financial money pit where hamas, hezbollah, islamic jihad - and probably other - get their money to do the damage they do? You're talking about their military - they don't need their military to spread terrorism. Just money - which they're about to get a huge pile of.

[nationalize the fed]

4. How dare they locate their country so close to OUR bases

When was the last time Iran attacked another country?

Bonus question: What did the US and Britain do to Iran in 1953, and why was it classified (Ted Koppel couldn't talk about it for 444 nights) until the late '90s?

[leftynyc]

5. Pretending that not attacking

another country because they don't use their military and instead use their proxies in terrorist organizations is the most blatantly dishonest bullshit I've seen here in quite a while. I asked you a direct question - do you deny Iran are the financial backers of hamas, hezbollah and islamic jihad? Do you also deny these are terrorist organizations? You can deflect with maps about US military bases all you want - it just makes you look like you're ignoring reality. That's certainly your choice but it's not going to go unnoticed. When was the last time Iran attacked another country? It was the last time hamas in Gaza or hezbollah in Lebanon attacked - probably within the last month or so.

[leveymg]

7. Attacked whom? The US? Not since the idiocy in Lebanon three decades ago. This is Israel's obession

and the Sunni Arab's holy war. And, they have a marriage of hate against Iran.

If we want to stop the flow of funds to the most dangerous terrorists in the world, we should be renditioning and seizing the assets of billionaires in Riyadh, Doha and Abu Dhabi. But, we won't because they own huge tracts of commercial real estate, corporations, and politicians in the West. Google "al-Yamamah"

[leftynyc]

10. Oooohhhhh

I didn't understand that if they weren't attacking the US and merely attacking Israel that it meant they were innocent little kittens who spread nothing but sunshine and rainbows around the world. You don't have to convince me that Saudi Arabia is nothing but a bank account for terrorists. I've been saying that for years. I don't need to google a thing. So as long as they're ONLY attacking Israel, we should put our heads in the sand and call them peaceful. If I actually cared to use those juvenile smilies, here's where I would use the rolling eyes one.

I'll point out one more thing - if Russia (or anyone else) attacked one of our allies in Europe, you can bet we would stand right by our allies with weapons, money and our military personnel and I doubt anyone here would have an issue with that. As much as it seems to pain so many here, Israel is one of our allies.

[leveymg]

14. At this point, neither KSA nor Israel is a US ally.

They are both foreign powers that actively meddle in American politics, carry out espionage, and subvert American policy to their own ends to the detriment of US interests. I know that under Citizens United buying American politicians and parties has been legalized, regardless of the source of the money, but it is a hostile action. There is a line that has been crossed by Netanyahu and AIPAC, and Israel will eventually pay for it in loss of US support.

The Sunni Arabs and Saudis and Qataris, in particular, have also crossed a line by continuing to operate and expand ISIS/AQ and other terrorist organizations. They get a pass because they could badly damage the US economy and cause enormous harm by again directing their assets to attack U.S. targets globally. But, some of us still care about what happened on 9/11, and there will eventually be hell to pay for those who operated and funded that attack, as well.

[leftynyc]

15. Internet posters don't get

to decide who our allies are (thank heaven). All the gulf nations have been financing isis for almost a decade already (and al queda before them) but our oil interests don't seem to care about that. What any of that has to do with the FACT that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism is beyond me. Perhaps you think deflection is a replacement for argument?

[leveymg]

21. As an active force, ISIS has been around for about 4 years, and is a result of neocon regime change

operations in Libya, Syria, and Iraq. Some of its current leadership sprang out of the Iraqi military, but the original militias that initially gained territory for IS were splinters of al-Nusra and other AQ affiliates in Syria that had absorbed Libyan arms and Jihadi fighters who were transported to Syria by the Qataris by way of Turkey with Petraeus CIA and HRC State Department coordination. You are correct that the source of funding include state and private donors in virtually all the KSA/GCC countries.

Iran is not among the sponsors of either ISIS or Al-Qaeda or the Taliban, or any of the Sunni militias that have been killing US troops and attacking American targets worldwide during the last 15 years.

Get your history and facts and players straight if you're going to argue policy.

[leftynyc]

22. LOL

This OP is about IRAN. And you want to deflect from the FACT that Iran is a state sponsor for hamas, hezbollah, islamic jihad and others while preaching about the difference between sunni terorists and shiite terrorists when nowhere did I say Iran was a sponsor of isis - but I understand you wanting to shove words into my mouth when it's all you have. I don't need history lessons from you.

[leveymg]

25. You have nothing of substance to say beyond neocon talking points

I'm under no obligation to address your AIPAC line of the day according to the dead end route you desire.

Good day

[leftynyc]

27. Awwwww

don't like that somebody points out the truth about Iran's sponsoring terrorism for decades? Tough. Now the truth is neocon talking points. Only on freeking du and other far left sites.

[LanternWaste]

42. Is the corollary also true?

Is the corollary also true (i.e,, internet posters don't get to pretend who the threats are... as you did)?

[leftynyc]

50. I don't have to pretend anything

hamas and hezbollah do their own convincing.

[Rex]

16. Very good points that fall on deaf ears.

Oh well you tried. Some people will always hate on Iran, because it is the republican thing to do!

[oberliner]

64. Israel isn’t just an ally, it’s not just a friend — it’s family

The relationships between our peoples, the shared values, the shared commitment to democracy — those things are so deep that they have survived arguments in the past and they will survive this argument.

http://forward.com/news/320091/read-the-transcript-of-forward-editor-in-chiefs-interview-with-barack-obama/#ixzz3lQKaePn7

[stevenleser]

70. First site I checked, Prince Sultan Air Base, no longer has a US presence there. This map is

outdated, FYI. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Sultan_Air_Base

Several of the Iraqi area bases not only no longer have a US presence, they are in ISIS held territory.

[leveymg]

6. It astonishes me that after 9/11 we attacked the wrong country, and are doing it again. Wonder why?

Follow the money.

[leftynyc]

19. Who are we attacking?

Pointing out the iran is a state sponsor of terrorism - and has been for decades - is merely the truth. You call that an attack?

[6chars]

76. Too coy for me

Do you mean saudi Arabia?

[Martin Eden]

9. Here's what The Nation has to say:

From the article:

 Other concerns about the Iranian threat include its role as “the world’s leading supporter of terrorism,” which primarily refers to its support for Hezbollah and Hamas. Both of those movements emerged in resistance to US-backed Israeli violence and aggression, which vastly exceeds anything attributed to these villains, let alone the normal practice of the hegemonic power whose global drone assassination campaign alone dominates (and helps to foster) international terrorism.

Those two villainous Iranian clients also share the crime of winning the popular vote in the only free elections in the Arab world. Hezbollah is guilty of the even more heinous crime of compelling Israel to withdraw from its occupation of southern Lebanon, which took place in violation of UN Security Council orders dating back decades and involved an illegal regime of terror and sometimes extreme violence. Whatever one thinks of Hezbollah, Hamas, or other beneficiaries of Iranian support, Iran hardly ranks high in support of terror worldwide.

That assessment may or may not be a bit biased, but so is the notion that Iran poses a major terrorist threat against the United States. Most of it has to do with the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and without a doubt Israel has wreaked considerably more death and destruction on civilians. When it comes to our own history with Iran, the US has been the worse villain. In 1953 we helped overthrow their democratically elected government, imposing a quarter century of oppressive rule by the Shah. After he was overthrown in the Islamic revolution, we backed Saddam Hussein in his bloody 8 year war against Iran. They have less reason to trust us than we them.

Which is the more logical path towards a peaceful future -- keep Iran isolated with sanctions and give them every reason to believe they need nukes as a deterrent, then bomb them -- or proceed with this nuclear treaty that is the best chance to ensure they don't develop a nuclear weapon, and let them become more engaged economically with the rest of the world? Iran has a history of democracy and a large population of young people who are enamored of Western products & culture mostly reject the old conservative Islamists.

The biggest threat to peace are the warmongers in our own country and Likud in Israel.

[CanSocDem]

12. Indeed! (eom)

[leftynyc]

20. Yawn

Yeah - the US and Israel are the axis of evil in the eyes of many. That Iran has been giving money to terrorists is something that has thousands of excuses - none of which mean a fucking thing and for the simple reason that Israel has never attacked Iran. So watching the far left excuse them for giving money to terrorists to wreak death and destruction to Israel is repulsive.

[Martin Eden]

24. No excuses.

Just pointing out the reality of the situation with a perspective not skewed by those who are blind to the plank in our own eye. Both sides have done wrong, and both have legitimate concerns. Failure to acknowledge this and move forward based on common interests is a recipe for more war and civilian deaths.

Terms like "axis of evil" are a construct of those who are blind or want the public to follow their drumbeats for war.

If you find all this boring (Yawn) then go ahead and pull the sheet over your head while the killings go on.

[leftynyc]

26. You ARE making excuses

when you feel the need to embark on the magical balance fairy bullshit. The only ones saying that only one side is ALWAYS wrong is the far left when it comes to Israel so watching you post about how both sides have done wrong and how that needs to be acknowledged (but only when it's iran being discussed) is pretty hilarious.

[Martin Eden]

30. "magical balance fairy bullshit"

When you resort to terms like that and "axis of evil" you show just how confused your thinking is.

Also, you are not responding to what I actually wrote, but rather are projecting onto me your perception of all the previous arguments you've heard when others point out the US and Israel share the blame in these conflicts.

The painful truth of the matter is that the US has indeed done worse to Iran than they have ever done to us; that we continue to fund Israel while they build on Palestinian lands in defiance of the UN; and that we supply Israel with arms that have been used in killing thousands of civilians. It is also a fact that Iran funds Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations which have committed acts of terrorism and are classified as such.

Those are facts, not "magical balance fairy bullshit."

There is a difference between "making excuses" and taking a realistic look at the history to understand the situation and why the parties acted as they did. Those who willfully blind themselves to that are unable to make wise decisions for their own best interests, and are definitely a big part of the problem.

I'm very critical of the actions of my own government because I demand much better from those who act in my name.

[leftynyc]

31. Funny how history only comes

into play when one of the players is Israel. And spare me - every single time anything bad comes up about ANYTHING in a Muslim country - DU does its level best to deflect and use the magical balance fairy to point out either the US or Israel isn't perfect. EVERY SINGLE TIME.

And really? Blowing up 241 marines in Lebanon wasn't nasty enough for you? Or do you think Iran is not responsible for the people they finance?

[Martin Eden]

38. Utter Bullshit

I'm referring to your first sentence that concluded your subject title. The rest of that paragraph is broad brush bullshit. DU is not a monolithic entity, and you can always find some extremists or kooks for constructing a strawman to flail at.

The questions in your 2nd paragraph are rhetorical bullshit. Is the US responsible for all the actions of every group we ever funded? If so, you wouldn't like the magical fairy balance sheet.

All of which is besides the point, which I suspect you'd rather ignore.

[leftynyc]

32. One more thing

I hold Iran completely responsible for the fact ronald reagan got elected so I'll hate them for that until I die.

[Martin Eden]

39. I share your antipathy for Ronald Reagan

But hating an entire country in perpetuity for what their leaders did 35 years ago is irrational and will blind you to what is best for our own country.

[Rex]

45. Well some people replace common sense with emotional replies.

They seem to be brainwashed into thinking everything is black & white and when you talk to them it only confuses them further. Iran exists as it does now, thanks to the GOP interfering with Iranian politics.

To blame a country for another countries election outcome is as childish as it gets.

[leftynyc]

49. When they give me reason

to no longer hate them, I'll consider my options. So far they have not done so and I doubt a few more choruses of Death to America is going to help.

[rusty fender]

92. I'm sure that the feeling is mutual considering

That we overthrew Mossadegh and installed the Shah

[leftynyc]

95. I was a child at the time

And now I'm a middle aged woman. That excuse doesn't move me in the slightest. I couldn't possibly care less.

[rusty fender]

97. I wasn't even born then but

what does that have to do with how the Iranians feel about the U.S.? Fact is that our CIA overthrew their duly elected president/pm and they've hated us ever since. You hate Iran because they gave the 1980 election to Reagan. Your hatred for Iran doesn't prove that Iran is a military threat to the U.S.

[Mosby]

37. Iran has it's proxy fighters in Iraq (Hezbollah) but also it's elite fighters Quds Force

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/22/leader-of-iranian-force-fighting-isis-is-complicating-us-efforts-says-cia-chief

They are all there supporting the dictator Assad.

So Iran has it's own troops in a foreign country.

[Martin Eden]

40. And your point is ...?

Iran is fighting ISIS there, which puts us on the same side regardless of whether that "complicates" matters for us.

I see your last sentence, but you're going to have to explain to how that's relevant in terms of Iran being a threat to us and the larger debate prompted by the OP in this thread.

[Mosby]

41. What is the title of the original post?

The notion that Iran is any kind of a military threat to anyone is just bullshit

Iran is a current and serious threat to Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

They also threaten Israel with complete destruction every day.

[Martin Eden]

43. The example you brought up shows they're a threat to ISIS

I agree the OP title is wrong, because it deals in the absolute of white/black. The truth contains shades of gray, and Iran isn't much of a threat to the US or relative to what the Republicans have conjured up.

Your 2nd sentence is debatable reagarding shades of gray and relevance. Iran is an ally of the Iraqi regime fighting ISIS.

Your last sentence is false.

[Mosby]

44. Iran is trying to spread shia influence throughout the ME

Iran repeatedly calls for the destruction of Israel, this is from LAST WEEK:

Iran official: We’ll bolster our military until Israel is overthrown

Escalating Iran’s rhetoric against Israel, a senior commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps vowed Wednesday that the regime would boost its military capabilities relentlessly until Israel was destroyed.

“The Islamic Revolution will continue enhancing its preparedness until it overthrows Israel and liberates Palestine,” the IRGC’s Tehran province commander, Brigadier General Mohsen Kazzemeini, said in an address in Tehran, the semi-state Fars news agency reported.

He also vowed that Iran would maintain its aid to those who fight Israel. “We will continue defending not just our own country, but also all the oppressed people of the world, specially those countries that are standing on the forefront of confrontation with the Zionists,” Kazzemeini said.

Kazzemeini was speaking as Iran started two days of major drills in the capital, involving 250,000 personnel, designed to “practice fighting against security threats,” Fars said.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-official-well-bolster-our-military-until-israel-is-overthrown/


This is from YESTERDAY:

Iran’s Supreme Leader Says Israel Won’t Exist in 25 Years

Source: NY Times

TEHRAN — Iran’s supreme leader predicted Wednesday that Israel would not exist in 25 years, and ruled out any new negotiations with the “Satan,” the United States, beyond the recently completed nuclear accord.

In remarks published Wednesday on his personal website and in posts on Twitter, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, responded to what he said were claims that Israel would be safe for that period under the nuclear agreement reached in July.

“After nuclear negotiations, the Zionist regime said that they will not be worried about Iran in the next 25 years,” Ayatollah Khamenei wrote. “I am telling you, first, you will not be around in 25 years’ time, and God willing, there will be no Zionist regime in 25 years. Second, during this period, the spirit of fighting, heroism and jihad will keep you worried every moment.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/world/middleeast/iran-ayatollah-khamenei-israel-will-not-exist.html?_r=0


eta - I read through your posts again and think the mistake you're making re Iran is that you're assuming they are rational actors. The leadership in Iran subscribe to hard core right wing religious fundamentalism, that includes the Revolutionary guard and the Mullahs, what the US did 60 plus years ago is completely irrelevant.

[Martin Eden]

54. I disagree with your assessment in your last paragraph

I think you're confusing rhetoric with actual threats.

Iran will be submitting to very intrusive long term inspections with this nuclear deal, to the extent it is a very hard for the hardliners to accept and looks like a capitualtion on their part. This latest tough talk is just that -- talk. Where's the real evidence that Iran has actually built up its military forces to compare with Israel and other powerful states in the region, or that they're an irrational actor willing to commit national suicide by launching wars against its neighbors? The battle against ISIS doesn't qualify as that.

Listen to Republican politicians in the US long enough and equate their rhetoric with actions, it's easy to believe America is an irrational actor. Given the 2003 invasion of Iraq, that's not too much of a stretch.

While most Americans might not know or care that we helped to overthrow Iran's democratically eleceted government in 1953 and subjected the Iranian people to a quarter century of oppression under the Shah, you can rest assured it has a prominent place in how Iranians perceive the United States -- and that is anything but irrelevant.

We have to change our own mindset. Do we continue with the military adventurism of the Cheney/Bush administration and do we continue to demonize nations of people halfway around the world and sabotage any chance for peace?

What's needed is sober, realistic assessment of our own actions and interests and that of the nations we have to deal with. The old Soviet Union was our implacable enemy for generations with orders of magnitude more military capability than Iran, yet we negotiated arms control agreements with the Soviets while today our politicians are portraying Iran as an existential threat to us.

I don't see that as a sign of strength, but of cowardice. We are the world's only superpower, unassailable by military invasion, yet we feel the need to launch military attacks at any perceived threat. That falls right in line with Dick Cheney's One Percent doctrine to take military action if there's a 1% chance of a real threat.

Yes, there are real threats in this world, mostly by stateless terrorist organizations which have grown considerably since GW Bush launched his "war on terror." The law of unintended consequences unfolds before our eyes, but too many of us lack the vision to see how our own actions have played a role in these developments.

The way to take this to the next level and make the situation even worse is to start a war with Iran.

A I said before, Iran has a large population of young people who believe in democracy and are enamored of Western products and culture. They are much closer to being our natural allies than our good friends the Saudis, an autocratic royal regime that spreads the fundamentalist Wahhabi version of Islam with its funding of madrassahs around the world.

Time is on our side with Iran, unless WE become the irrational actor and destroy any chance of peace.

Yes, the age-old conflict between Shia & Sunni islam continues and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict has no end in sight with us funding Israel with its militray superiority and Iran (among others) funding guerilla groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

The mistake would be to refuse progress in other areas while these problems persist. This nuclear accord with Iran is a very good start. We (including the other 5 powers) bargained from a position of strength, and while we act in good faith with our allies together we can hold Iran to its part of the deal. Any other course of action would indeed be irrational, inflammatory rhetoric notwithstanding.

[6chars]

78. Magical balance fairy!

Perfect.

[yeoman6987]

53. What counties call us evil? Ones we probably don't mind.

We give more humanitarian aid then all others combined. Who gets called when there is a big natural disaster? Who pays majority of the UN? Seriously I really doubt we have many real enemies in the world. I imagine North Korea, Iran, Russia don't like us but most countries rely on us.

[treestar]

69. 1953 is over 60 years ago

We can't give them a free pass for what they do now.

[Martin Eden]

71. 1979

That was the year the Iranian people finally ousted the Shah we had helped put in place. Don't think for one minute that isn't fresh in their minds when they chant Death to America.

The Iranians don't get a "free pass" for what they do today any more than we should get a free pass for what we do and have done. We need to have our eyes wide open and tread carefully.

The critically important lesson from all this -- which Americans in general and the politicians in Washington repeatedly fail to learn -- is that in order to act responsibly and wisely in our own best interests we need to fully understand the people and the nations we deal with. This includes the history of how the current situation developed and how our own actions played a role. The Iranian Revolution was an unintended consequence of our 1953 coup.

One needs look no further than the rise of ISIS to see the unintended consequences of our criminally stupid 2003 invasion of Iraq.

After 9/11 (to some degree another consequence) Cheney/Bush conjured up the "Axis of Evil" to demonize Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. It's much easier to launch a war against Evil than against nations of people, most of whom are ordinary folks trying to live their lives and raise families in often difficult circumstances. How many Iraqi civilians were killed, maimed, or displaced from their homes as a result the neocon's war of choice? The carnage continues with no end in sight.

What does Iraq have to do with Iran?

The same mindset is being applied to Iran with many of the same neocons painting Iran as an Evil menace that would launch the ultimate weapon of mass destruction against Israel and America if it could.

More drumbeats for the next catastrophically stupid war.

I ain't buying it. Iran would not commit national suicide with such an attack, but WE are committing slow national suicide bleeding ourselves dry with endless wars that diminish us in the eyes of the rest of the world while at home our infrastructure crumbles and our people grow poorer.

The Iranians don't get a free pass for their support of Hamas and Hezbollah, which are classified as terrorist organizations but were popularly elected by people in extremely difficult circumstances we've played a role in making. If we want better behavior from our adversaries we need to behave better and smarter ourselves. The nuclear accord agreed to by us, Iran, and 5 other nations is a very good first step in a long and difficult process that will require vigilance and a better understanding of the people and political realities of the Middle East than we've exhibited so far.

The worst thing we can do for ourselves and the unfortunate people trying to survive a horrible situation would be to listen once again to the fearmongering neocons & righting politicians, and get into a war with Iran.

Make no mistake -- that is where they would mislead us, and for that they need us to buy into their evil narrative about Iran.

[NCarolinawoman]

81. Well said.

[6chars]

77. I keep hearing about the shah

Ar e Iranians today generally glad that the Islamic Revolution gave them their current government?

[EX500rider]

91. Crap, in a choice between the modern & secular dictator (Shah) or..

........a fundy Islamic one I know who'd i pick....(admittedly both choices would suck)

[eridani]

56. Hezbollah and Hamas are political parties started by Israel

Hezbollah started in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1980, because the regular army was completely ineffectual in protecting its citizens. I don't think there is any other Islamic party anywhere that shows Sunday Mass on its TV station for the benefit of its Christian allies. It has no ambitions whatsoever outside of Lebanon.

Hamas was funded by Israel as a religious alternative to the secular PLO in order to divide Palestinians along religious lines.

If we get to fund politics in other countries, why is it bad that Iran does likewise? You are a citizen of the country that has spread the most terrorism in the world. Iran hasn't invaded a neighbor for a few hundred years. Can the US say the same?

[leftynyc]

59. Well, if Israel created them

it must be up to them to eliminate them. Right? Would you be satisfied with that outcome? Because I sure would be.

[eridani]

60. Israel has turned into a nasty imperial state based on ethnic cleansing

They invaded Lebanon, not the other way around. Lebanese have a right to defend themselves.

[leftynyc]

61. I know it pains you to admit

that hezbollah is a terrorist group but they are and if you want to blame Israel for their creation, then it MUST be up to to Israel to get rid of them. I'm sure Israel is fine with that as am I. Just like it was the republicans that created the Frankenstein monster of the tea party and donald trump - it will be up to the republicans to take them down.

[eridani]

62. Who do they terrorize? Their Christian allies? Did they invade Israel?

If Israel had not invaded Lebanon, there would be no Hezbollah, which, BTW, has no branches anywhere but in Lebanon.

[oberliner]

65. Doesn't Lebanon have an army?

Why is Hezbollah still operating as an independent militia force?

[eridani]

66. Because the regular army refused to defend Lebanon

Lebanon's shock resistance went beyond protest. It was also expressed through a far-reaching parallel reconstruction effort. Within days of the cease-fire, Hezbollah's neighborhood committees had visited many of the homes hit by the air attacks, assessed the damage and were already handing out $12,000 in cash to displaced families to cover a year's worth of rent and furnishings. As the independent journalists Ana Nogueira and Saseen Kawzally observed from Beirut, "That is six times the dollar amount that survivors of Hurricane Katrina received from FEMA." And in what would have been music to the ears of Katrina survivors, the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, promised the country in a televised address, "You won't need to ask a favor of anyone, queue up anywhere." Hezbollah's version of aid did not filter through the government or foreign NGOs. It did not go to build five-star hotels, as in Kabul, or Olympic swimming pools for police trainers, as in Iraq. Instead, Hezbollah did what Renuka, the Sri Lankan tsunami survivor, told me she wished someone would do for her family: put the help in their hands. Hezbollah also included community members in the reconstruction—it hired local construction crews (working in exchange for the scrap metal they collected), mobilized fifteen hundred engineers and organized teams of volunteers. All that help meant that a week after the bombing stopped, the reconstruction was already well under way.

In the U.S. press, these initiatives were almost universally derided as bribery or clientelism—Hezbollah's attempt to purchase popular support after it had provoked the attack from which the country was reeling (David Frum even suggested that the bills Hezbollah was handing out were counterfeit). There is no question that Hezbollah is engaged in politics as well as charity, and that Iranian funds made Hezbollah's generosity possible. Equally important to its efficiency, however, was Hezbollah's status as a local, indigenous organization, one that rose up from the neighborhoods being rebuilt. Unlike the alien corporate reconstruction agencies imposing their designs from far-off bureaucracies via imported management, private security and translators, Hezbollah could act fast because it knew every back alley and every jury-rigged transmitter, as well as who could be trusted to get the work done. If the residents of Lebanon were grateful for the results, it was also because they knew the alternative. The alternative was Solidere.

pp 460-62 in the hardcover edition of Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine.

[leftynyc]

67. Do you really think

a progressive board is the place to defend a terrorist organization? al queda and the taliban were also quite good at helping their populations - right up until the moment they killed them for not doing what they wanted. Thankfully you've gotten past the nonsense that Iran isn't a state sponsor of terrorism.

[eridani]

73. It isn't a terrorist organization--it is a political party that doesn't kill any Lebanese

If you are fighting an army that has invaded your country, naturally you will kill some of them. Hezbollah is not a bunch of fundies--if they were, they wouldn't have Catholic Mass on their TV station every Sunday.

Iran is fighting terrorism (ISIS), not sponsoring it. It's our noble ally Saudi Arabia that sponsors terrorism, including the 9/11 hijackers as well as ISIS.

[leftynyc]

74. Let me get this straight

According to you, Hezbollah is not a terrorist organization even though the entire west considers them terrorist scum and we're to forget that Iran finances them, Hamas and Islamic jihad because a group of medieval scum is making Islam look bad and even though Sunni and Shia have been killing each other for over a thousand years so this isn't anything new. Ok - your position is quite clear and we're done here.

[eridani]

75. The entire west has been fucking with people in the ME for far too long.

Lebanese consider Hezbollah the organization which will fight for their survival--which they are. If you don't like Hamas, take that up with Israel, which wanted a religious antidote to the secular PLO. Hamas only has support because PLO is pretty corrupt.

[leftynyc]

82. And terrorist hamas

Is oh so not corrupt . Even though they Will Not Allow another election in gaza. And use all international aid for weapons and to build tunnels to deliver death. You're like a 50 year old who continues to blame his parents for their sucky lives. Time to Grow the fuck up and stop blaming others when the people in gaza voted in these criminals. And NONE of this changes the fact they're financed by Iran. And so are the repulsive hezbollah..

[eridani]

83. The perception of the electorate was that Hamas was less corrupt.

If you don't like people voting for Hamas, blame Israel for supporting them as a counterweight to PLO.

[6chars]

79. Not to mention Israel withdrew completely from lebanon

Hizbollah is just one of Iran's frontlines against Israel. They are hugely funded by Iran for just that purpose, although when theiraymaster says to help Assad in Syria, they do that too.

[eridani]

84. So/ That makes invading a country and destroying a lot of its infrastructure just peachy keen?

The invaded again in 2006, and it was Hezbollah the led the defense and reconstruction efforts.

Lebanon's shock resistance went beyond protest. It was also expressed through a far-reaching parallel reconstruction effort. Within days of the cease-fire, Hezbollah's neighborhood committees had visited many of the homes hit by the air attacks, assessed the damage and were already handing out $12,000 in cash to displaced families to cover a year's worth of rent and furnishings. As the independent journalists Ana Nogueira and Saseen Kawzally observed from Beirut, "That is six times the dollar amount that survivors of Hurricane Katrina received from FEMA." And in what would have been music to the ears of Katrina survivors, the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, promised the country in a televised address, "You won't need to ask a favor of anyone, queue up anywhere." Hezbollah's version of aid did not filter through the government or foreign NGOs. It did not go to build five-star hotels, as in Kabul, or Olympic swimming pools for police trainers, as in Iraq. Instead, Hezbollah did what Renuka, the Sri Lankan tsunami survivor, told me she wished someone would do for her family: put the help in their hands. Hezbollah also included community members in the reconstruction—it hired local construction crews (working in exchange for the scrap metal they collected), mobilized fifteen hundred engineers and organized teams of volunteers. All that help meant that a week after the bombing stopped, the reconstruction was already well under way.

In the U.S. press, these initiatives were almost universally derided as bribery or clientelism—Hezbollah's attempt to purchase popular support after it had provoked the attack from which the country was reeling (David Frum even suggested that the bills Hezbollah was handing out were counterfeit). There is no question that Hezbollah is engaged in politics as well as charity, and that Iranian funds made Hezbollah's generosity possible. Equally important to its efficiency, however, was Hezbollah's status as a local, indigenous organization, one that rose up from the neighborhoods being rebuilt. Unlike the alien corporate reconstruction agencies imposing their designs from far-off bureaucracies via imported management, private security and translators, Hezbollah could act fast because it knew every back alley and every jury-rigged transmitter, as well as who could be trusted to get the work done. If the residents of Lebanon were grateful for the results, it was also because they knew the alternative. The alternative was Solidere.

pp 460-62 in the hardcover edition of Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine.

[6chars]

87. Do you support Hizbollah?

I don't

[eridani]

88. They've got plenty of faults, but they are defending Lebanon, which is something--

--tht other parties seem to have trouble doing.

[Travis_0004]

101. The PLO in Lebanon was launching rockets into Isreal

and they tried to assassinate Israeli ambassadors.

So I would argue Israel also has the right to defend themselves.

[eridani]

106. That must be why in 2006 people in northern Israel couldn't find the keys to their bomb shelters

--given that they had been in disuse for so long.

[dzhuboi]

85. Not Our Problem

Let those affected by it deal with it!

[leftynyc]

96. So you're another that's

fuzzy on the concept of allies. Whatever.

[PoliticAverse]

3. I hear Iran has weapons-grade Photoshop. n/t

[ileus]

8. Exactly....why even waste time working on a nuke deal.

[underpants]

52. 2 reasons I see

1. The P5+1 wanted to get a look inside to make sure.

2. The Iranian leadership knows that their population is craving being a part of the world - the young and the middle aged who never really bought into the revolution. They could rule autocratically but it's muchbeasier to slowly open their country up (as the old hard liners die off).

[Scuba]

11. How are we supposed to keep everyone afraid if you keep posting articles like these?

[KG]

13. Iran - latest fake enemy for latest fake war.

[Rex]

17. The hawks don't care, as long as they have another war and huge numbers of people die

and a huge profit is made - they are happy.

[ancianita]

18. Total, absolute Pentagon narrative bullshit! Woo-ers of the Pentagon always make this dog whistle.

All the Pentagon's narratives -- from Domino Theory, Containment, Regime Change and Terrorism -- have been the causes of civilian subsidizing of their wars.

WE CIVILIANS AND OUR WASHINGTON LEADERSHIP HAVE LOST CONTROL OF THE U.S. MILITARY.

Instead, with Vietnam, the Patriot Act and NDAA 2013, the Military Industrial Complex have gained control of US.

[GreatGazoo]

23. "seven countries in five years"

Iran has always been on the list, as is Assad:

[Throd]

28. What about Khameini's little "Israel won't exist in 25 years" screed?

[geek tragedy]

33. they've been saying "death to America" for 35 years.

America is not dead.

[Throd]

35. Israel is not the USA

Israel can be destroyed with a few nuclear explosions.

[geek tragedy]

36. If only someone would do something to get Iran to reduce its nuclear stockpiles

and permit intrusive inspections.

Oh wait, that's the United States. Israel opposes that happening, even though they're purportedly so concerned about nukes. Of course, when a deal is cut to take nukes off the table, the next excuse for wanting a war of regime change is Hezbollah and Hamas.

[Rex]

47. Already seen in this very thread. Someone has a sadz over peace with Iran.

Because, Reagan...

[davidn3600]

58. Because no one trusts that country

And this deal doesn't really accomplish much. They are still chanting death to America and death to Israel.

Ultimately what I see happening is Iran not fully complying. There will be sites and times that they won't allow inspectors in. And the US will start thinking about sanctions again. We will continue to see them supplying Hezbollah and attacking Israel through proxy.

If this government was serious about peace and serious about turning a page, they wouldnt still be chanting for our destruction.

[Rex]

46. So can Iran, but that is obvious right?

[eridani]

57. Right--like Israel wouldn't instantly use its own nukes in retaliation

Nukes that, unlike those of Iran, actually exist.

[Lancero]

93. I hear that Iran has as many nukes as Iraq does.

And according to the people who got us into Iraq, they had - Correction, were supposed to have - bunches of em.

[eridani]

105. Really? Well I heard that Rush Limbaugh is a pedpphile junkie. Has to be true if--

--it's on those internets tubes.

[underpants]

51. Internal consumption mostly

Their old guard wants to hear that and the population has heard it so much they are deaf to it.

As with Ahmadinejad, the more they draw criticism from the U.S. the more popular they are there. Iranians are very educated and the have a patriotism that requires they support their own....unlike Repubs here.

[kelliekat44]

29. Especially based on their history for attacking other countries...unlike US, Israel, UK history.

Really, Israel is not so much afraid of a suicidal attack from Iran on Israel or any other nation in the region. It's all about the economic competition that will be unleashed once Iran gets their OWN money back from the western allied banks now using it for their own purposes. An economically stable and viable Iran combined with a newly economically stable Egypt since the discovery of their natural gas reserves is the biggest threat to Israel. Iranians are not stupid and the funds released will better serve them and their national interest if used to build up their economy and their citizens...not for nukes or other weapons of mass destruction. Yes, and they may well fund or support militia in other areas of the ME but so do we and Israel and we don't even live in the region.

[FlatBaroque]

55. The American narrative is so completely devoid from reality

Thankfully, the civilized world has learned the hard way that American values begin and end with self interest of the US and Israel.

[hifiguy]

34. Does Iran have

a deepwater, long-range navy? No
bomber aircraft with intercontinental range? No
contiguous ground access to any place in North America? Obviously not.
intercontinental ballistic missiles? No
the suicidal impulse to let loose a nuke with an obvious "made in Tehran" return address? No

Iran is no threat to the United States.

If the Israelis and Saudis want to beef with Iran, let them do it on their own goddamn dime.

[MisterP]

48. deterring aggression IS the biggest threat to Washington

[oasis]

63. Bring on the debates. Perceived Iranian apologists will sink

like a rock in the polls.

[Martin Eden]

72. "Perceived" being the operative word

As long as there is a political price to pay for speaking the truth to better understand the dangerous world we must naviagte, the United States will continue to conduct catastrophically stupid and costly foreign policy.

[davidpdx]

68. I believe there are a lot of good people in Iran and unfortuantely like many other countries

extremists are running the show. The same thing can be said for Israel, Russia, Japan, etc. Every country has their share of extremists and the hope has to be that eventually that will change. IMHO Israel, Russia, and Japan have gone back and forth. Even here in Korea we now have an extremist president who is the daughter of a dictator from the 60's and 70's who killed thousands of people.

I have a friend on Facebook from Iran who I took a MOOC class with. Also one of my RA's in college was from Iran and was a cool guy. It really helps to get to know the people rather than fearing the government.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

80. Pakistan has nuclear weapons

[LeftOfWest]

86. Voice of reason with facts.

important post.

[AngryAmish]

89. The idea tbat Iran cannot fight a war is kinda racist.

Iran is an ancient and sublime culture. The Iranian people are the equal of any folks on earth, and more sophisticated than most. The bomb is the 1940s technology, within the means nowadays of any Big Ten engineering school. In fact the Hiroshima gun type bomb wohld be doable to hobbyists, but for enriched uranium.

Also war fighting wise, ask Daesh how they faired in the field against Iran. Iran has not lost yet.

[eridani]

90. They could wage an aggessive war if they were willing to spend the money--

--to get their military up to snuff. They aren't.

[jfern]

94. House of Saud is the state sponsor of terrorism

Most terrorists are Wabbists, and not Shia. It doesn't take rocket science to see where they're coming from.

[Nye Bevan]

98. Amid nuke talks, Ayatollah says 'death to America'

http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2015/03/23/tsr-acosta-iran-ayatollah-nuke-talks.cnn

But he most probably didn't really mean it. Why are some so concerned about the Ayatollahs getting nukes?

[treestar]

99. I dunno I'm starting to see that

"Death to America" is their language's way of saying "America sucks." I think they are merely complaining. They know they cannot destroy America.

[Atman]

100. On the most elemental level...

Iran hasn't yet developed a weapon. In order to do so, they must test it, some way, somehow. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Israel have enough weapons to destroy the entire planet. What can Iran possibly do to hurt us? The moment they launch their first test vehicle, we obliterate them (with conventional weapons, because even the United States isn't stupid enough to start a full-scale nuclear war). There is simply nothing in it for Iran. Saddam knew this, too. Bluster and bluffing is a much better strategy -- if you actually believe Saddam was blustering and bluffing. The CIA is everywhere. We have operatives in every hidey-hole. That is why Colin Powell's blurry black and white photos of a trailer were so laughable at a time when we all knew that our satellites photos have the resolution to count your ear hairs.

There is no freakin' way Iran get to develop a nuke without us knowing, if not down-right HELPING, in order to help the bottom line of the MI Complex.

They count on us being stupid and we play along every damned time.

[6chars]

102. In order to do so they must test it?

How can you say Israel has a nuclear weapon then?

[Atman]

104. Because Israel is our 51st (or 52nd, 53rd) state.

Puh-leeze. You can't possibly be that ignorant. We are the military centipede. We feed off of each other, our faced stitched to their asses. Our MI Complexes are totally intertwined. We know Israel has nuke because we helped them make them. We are being gamed, period. Keep the perpetual war going. In a capitalist economy it is more important to return quarterly results. If we stop warring, then Raytheon and Halliburton et al get hit in the balls...and all of our war mongering Congress-critters take a hit as well. We can't have that! Might as well keep the war(s) going.

[MADem]

103. Iran has a great military, for the region. It is not technologically astute nor is it sophisticated.

It's full of cannon fodder and people who would willingly fight an unceasing insurgency should their homeland suffer invasion.

Do they have decent aircraft? Hell no. Pilots? Again, no. People who can do reliable repairs? Naaah. High tech weaponry and equipment? Again, no.

They'd have no hope of overpowering an enemy in the sky. They'd have no hope of prevailing upon a battlefield.

But if they were invaded, I'd say they could inflict a lot of hurt. They understand insurgency. They understand "He who fights, and runs away, lives to fight another day."

The lessons of the Iran-Iraq War are not soon forgotten. The graveyards are full of people who helped teach these lessons.

Persians can disagree among themselves--often vigorously. But if someone ELSE comes in and tries to kick them around, you'll see unity like nobody's business.