TCS Daily

How to Get Justice for Ahmadinejad

By Michael Rosen - January 12, 2007 12:00 AM

The situation in Iran seems to be rapidly spiraling out of control. On top of everything that's taken place there since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ascended to power in 2005, consider the following events from just the past month:

* Ahmadinejad hosted a conference dedicated to denying the Holocaust that attracted the likes of David Duke and Robert Faurisson but barred a prominent Israeli Arab scholar who dissented from their orthodoxy.

* The Tehran tyrant's top aide claimed that Hitler himself was Jewish and that his ambivalent feelings about his Judaism informed his "treatment" of the Jews (but there was no Holocaust, of course).

* Israeli military sources apparently leaked a plan to the Times of London that, if diplomacy fails, the IDF is prepared to drop tactical nuclear (bunker-busting) bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities in Natanz and Bushehr.

* Ahmadinejad is planning a victory tour through the Latin American countries whose leaders, including the newly elected Hugo "Smell of Sulfur" Chavez, have "defied" the United States.

So what is to be done?

I have little doubt that, ultimately, we are headed toward a bloody confrontation with Iran that will result in significant loss of life: Iranian, American, and Israeli. Such a skirmish, horrifying as it will likely be, will still prove more palatable than allowing the lunatic Shia messianists in Tehran to control the Middle East through nuclear blackmail. Only a second Iranian revolution can forestall such a conflagration.

But short of that, I believe that we must exhaust every possible diplomatic and international legal option before - as Rocky Balboa's corner man Duke instructs him in the latest film - we "build some hurtin' bombs."

Still, we have little reason to hope for success in the current effort to isolate Iran as a country through economic sanctions at the UN Security Council. The current sanctions, toothless as they are, took more than a year to be implemented, and only after major concessions on the part of the United States.

Instead, a few legal scholars have begun pushing a promising new approach: try Ahmedinejad and his ilk on charges of inciting genocide.

Article III of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, which has been in force since 1951, deems punishable the "direct and public incitement to commit genocide."

This provision has been applied to numerous conflicts, including the notorious Rwandan genocide, where 800,000 Tutsi were murdered at the hands of the Hutu. In that tragedy, Hutu-operated media outlets like the Radio Television Libre des Milles Collines repeatedly called for the murder of Tutsi neighbors. Numerous radio station executives were convicted of public incitement to genocide in the International Criminal Tribunal in Arusha, Tanzania. Similar stories will undoubtedly emerge from the gruesome genocide unfolding in slow motion in Darfur.

In this case, Ahmadinejad has made no secret of his desire to wipe the Jewish State off the map. On numerous occasions, he has directly and publicly presented this threat. The maniacal mechanical engineer (as Michael Savage has dubbed him) was only echoing similar statements by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ("there is only one solution to the Middle East problem, namely the annihilation and destruction of the Jewish state") and Ahmadinejad's "moderate" rival Hasehmi Rafsanjani ("The use of a nuclear bomb against Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas [any Israeli retaliation] would only damage the world of Islam."). Incidentally, Rafsanjani has an outstanding arrest warrant in Argentina for spearheading the bombing of the Buenos Aires Jewish Community Center in 1994, an act of terror that killed 85 and wounded 300.

The provisions of the Genocide Convention extend to heads-of-state, run-of-the-mill politicians, and private citizens alike: "Persons committing genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III shall be punished, whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers, public officials or private individuals." Thus, all three of these evil individuals are subject to its strictures.

And according to the Convention, "any Contracting Party may call upon the competent organs of the United Nations to take such action under the Charter of the United Nations as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide or any of the other acts enumerated in article III." Thus, the United States or any of its allies could initiate proceedings before the International Criminal Court (ICC).

This is exactly the strategy taken by former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler, Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, an Israeli think-tank. On December 14, the group held a symposium in New York dedicated to referring Ahmadinejad to the ICC.

There are, of course, pitfalls to this approach. Many of the Tehran tyrant's apologists claim that he's advocating the destruction of the Israeli state, not the Jewish people; policide, not genocide. After all, they say, plenty of countries, including the United States, have called for the overthrow of a hostile state's regime.

This is balderdash. It's unquestionably clear that the Iranians intend to "wipe out" all of the Jewish people living in Israel, not merely to topple Ehud Olmert's coalition. The language they use ("annihilate," "destroy," "leave nothing on the ground"), their stated development of nukes, and their past actions (including Rafsanjani's in Argentina, thousands of miles from the Zionist regime) unmistakably evince their desire to launch a second Holocaust, even as they abjure the existence of the first.

This isn't a matter of freedom of speech, either. Not even the ACLU could argue with a straight face that the words emanating from Ahmadinejad's mouth are anything but incitement to violent action.

Prosecuting the Iranian inciters has little downside: either it will result in a successful conviction of the evildoers, or it will give the lie to the international community's professed concern for legality and prevention of mass killing. If the UN and its minions can't right this wrong, they will have shown themselves to be demonstrably useless, thus paving the way for more drastic action against Tehran.

As UN Ambassador John Bolton put it at the JCPA symposium: "How was it that [the international community in the past] missed...clear signals from the people who were about to commit acts of great barbarity and atrocity - who never made any effort to conceal what their intentions were?"

How indeed? If we want to avoid the coming firestorm, we have no choice but to take Ahmadinejad and his retinue at their word - and punish them for it.

Michael M. Rosen, TCS Daily's Intellectual Property columnist, is an attorney in San Diego.



Or, how to cause global recession in one easy step
Please do bear in mind the nifty Russian missile technology Iran is believed to possess and for which the US Navy has no defence - making it an easy target in what would become a very small pond.

Then, there's the closure of the Persian Gulf to oil, not to mention the possible destruction of gas facilities in Qatar - that's one-third of the world's gas supply suddenly gone and Russia propelled to super-super energy power status as a result. Maybe Chavez will limit oil supplies to the US, too. After all, it will be worth many, many times what it is today and oil sellers will be able to pick and choose their customers.

And that's before you factor in the many thousands of casualties caused in any actual attack on Iran, not to mention the effect on global opinion. Nato would fall apart, too. Say bye-bye to those useful bases in Turkey and Central Asia, forever. Likewise many other places around the world.

This article is just the moronic final dribblings of discredited neo-conism. Mad, bad and stupid. Thoroughly lacking in wisdom and merit. Sounds right up GW's alley.....

And, therefore,
we should just stand by and watch nuclear Iran annihilate Israel; and, then, listen respectfully while the UN Secretary General wags his finger at Iran.

Maybe we need to be nice to the maniac, in the hopes that he will kill us last, despite the fact that we are second on his list.

Or, maybe the world would be a better place if we let Iran strike first and then reduce its entire land mass to a very large piece of irregular, multi-colored glass.

Or, perhaps we should just convert to Islam and hope for the coming of the Mahdi.


Not Practical
Well apart from the obvious point that a "trial" which doesn't end with a war to invade Iran & arrest him wouls be a token (& one that did would hardly be an alterbative to war we have the question of the justice of any western trial. Bill Clinton not only advocated the genocide of the Krajina republic he sent US soldiers to organise it. All the NATO leaders advocated & indeed practiced the mass murder of civilians to assist a KLA whose commitment to genocide was undisputable (NATO is still employing KLA members shown to have practiced atrocities within the "Kosovo Protection Corps"). President Bush's war against Iraq certainly breached international law.

Perhaps if Ahmadinejad brought all currently living US & Israeli leaders (maybe excluding Carter) to trial it would ensure peace but I somehow doubt it.

How Do We Get Justice For The Biggest Mass Murderer George W. Bush?? Ahmad...Is Just A Big Mouth
Ahmadinejad is just a fundamentalist with a big mouth. What has he really done that's illegal by anybody's standards except the warped and twisted mentality of the current NeoCon Nutcases running our country?


Nothing Iran is doing is not in compliance with international laws; we (America) are the ones that are the international law breakers, the immoral racist invaders and occupiers of Iraq, killing 655,000 plus, not to mention the even high number of wounded innocent Iraqi civilians.

America is the sickest nation on this planet, bar none, not that the fundamentalists in Israel aren't just as sick and the fundamentalists in Iran aren't sick either, but Iran has invaded no one. We have and are, Israel has and is.

You NeoCons are so retarded and selfish and warped I'll be glad when all you dinosaurs have passed on into the dustbin of history. You've destroyed America and what we used to stand for, and now you want to destroy the world.
How much hatred of yourself and humanity does it take to want that?
You are SICK!!, very SICK!!

Get in therapy you wacko people!!
Become human beings for the first time in your life.

Here's my idea...
Beatles1 should be placed in a medium security mental health facility. His psychological rehabilitation is the responsibility of our liberal society.

Re: And, therefore, how about thinking first?
Or perhaps is all just been over-blown by people with an agenda and a desire to do in Iran what has so successfully been achieved in Iraq.

Or, at the very least, thinking more than one-ply before acting.

President Mad of Iran is not so very popular. Nor is he so very powerful or representative.

He was elected on a ticket to help the poor - of which there are so many in Iran - yet he's just gone off on one repeatedly on foreign affairs that the Iranian populace really don't care about.

Why are there so many poor in this oil-rich country? Because everything's controlled by the state, which really means the rich friends of the mullahs who stitch everything up in their favour - pious vicars they ain't. It's thoroughly corrupt.

Working with the opposition in the country in some capacity (covert) would be a far more realistic move. But the West may also have to face the fact that it's hard to protect knowledge indefinitely. Uncomfortable, but increasingly likely.

Remember the breathing exercises!
Just hold your hands together and say it over and over: "I am calm, calm, calm. I am calm, calm, calm"

Can you see the sea before you? Can you hear the waves? Can you feel the warm sun on your skin. Good. Just relax. Reeelaaaaaxxx.

That's better.

Iranian missile 'defence'
On the subject of Iranian missile defence:
The Sunburn missiles that Iran is believed to have travel at Mach 2+ and are therefore too fast for anti-missile missile to intercept.

Ukraine is believed to have sold a bundle of them in the mid-1990s and Russia, likewise, more recently - in addition to the anti-aircraft technology that has been sold by Russia to protect Iran's nuclear facilities from aerial attack by either the US or Israel.

Hello my neo-con friends! Ever feel that you're being manipulated? If so, by who? Bush and friends or Putin?

The second time this will have been justified...
In 1945 we dropped two atomic weapons on an enemy when the alternative (invading the Japanese Mainland) seemed unthinkable if it could have been avoided.

Under the circumstance that the government of Israel faces an imminent threat to its existance as a sovereign state and to the survival of its people such as is now clearly developing, it would be unreasonable and imprudent for them to wait one moment past the decision that such an eventuality was unavoidable. Iran has absolutely put herself clearly at the mercy of Israel's sense of hope that this might still not be necessary.

This task is not for the United States to execute. We have had our chance to keep matters from developing this far. We have failed to protect Israel. We could only legitimately come to the aid of our ally (Israel) after the fact. Our unprovoked attack on Iran prior to that event and only because they are arming themselves as many others have done before them would be overreaching past the point that diplomacy would ever be an option for us again. We simply cannot. And we will not. And Iran knows it.

We did not stop North Korea. That problem is within the overlapping spheres of influence of China and Japan. Korea has always served as their buffer state. China must solve this and given enough provocation Japan will rearm and immediately (within 6 months) join the nuclear club. We failed to protect Japan (and South Korea) and now it is out of our hands.

We must impose the rule that sovereign states no longer have annexation (military imperialism) as an option. But we have not yet declared any such rule regarding nations defending themselves. (Don't defend yourselves in any sort of preemptive manner. It is our job to defend you. Kind of the same thing the government says to us in our American neighborhoods.)

If we go that far, then we own the world. In that case we must rule the world. We then become the sovereign who has a tacit contract to provide life, liberty, health and property to all her citizens. (According to John Locke and our own founding fathers.) Or they have the legitimate right of rebellion. We don't want to own the world.

It is possible that the Mullahs will sack Ahmadinejad as he starts to outlive his usefulness to their long term agenda. They had better hurry.

Not a winning move
"Working with the opposition in the country in some capacity (covert) would be a far more realistic move."

There would be no quicker, more certain way for any reformist or opposition member to commit suicide than to accept help or funding from the Americans. And there is also zero chance that such help could be kept secret.

Therefore the most certain way we could strengthen Ahmedinejad's hold on power would be to help any faction in Iranian politics. All of a sudden everyone would see what the fuss was about, and support him against the foreign devils operating within their midst.

It's odd that so few people (other than the Baker-Hamilton group) have advocated being reasonable and talking with Iran. Are they going to somehow cease to exist if we don't talk to them?

They are major players in a region where we have tilted the board in favor of a general Shiite resurgence. I think the smart money would be on trying to craft win-win outcomes with Iran, in preference to the other kind of outcomes. The more we antagonize them the more we are put in the untenable position of adding a third country in the area where our military is tied down, and which we have no hope of controlling.

Israel Is An Immoral & Illegal Apartheid Racist State: There Is No Threat Except Their Aggression
Israel is the aggressor in the middle east with several hundred or several thousand nuke warheads on various delivery packages. Iran is no threat to them and they know it and they also know Iran is a decade away from the 1st simple nuke.

Israel is no different than South Africa was a short time; the racist minority oppressing the majority.

Americans that defend this rationale of Israel or the U.S. attacking Iran just because they have some pompass fool fundamentalist talking his own racist/religious bigotry; are sick, just plain sick.

You should check yourself in to a psych facility for even suggesting an attack on Iran, dude. You are one sick racist and evil man.

Jimmy Carter is posting as beatles
Congrats to TCS Daily to have an ex-president posting on your site. Unfortunately it is about 10-15 years after he went crazy.

Hey, Jimmy are you still crying over Arafat's death every day?

Imperial overstretch
I like your scenario where we own the world, and so get to police it. I think there are a few kinks in the scheme, though.

For one, the most powerful force the world has ever known, so mighty that strong nations shudder as we strut past, can't even begin to police two small nations of 25 million. Any notion that we are in shape to take on Iran, Syria and North Korea is insanity. All we have done is to create destructive power vacuums in Afghanistan and Iraq, where there is no regnant force.

So all we have to do is to beef up our military, which is now already costing us exactly our federal deficit. And the calls are out to stop the butter, we need all the money for more guns. Meanwhile the nation's confidence level in where the president is leading us is dropping closer and closer to single digits.

There is no stomach in America for this mad campaign to conquer the world. Wait until he announces it will be necessary to bring back the draft. He won't possibly be able to accomplish all this in two years, so he'll have to declare a state of emergency and suspend elections-- otherwise the next guy will trash the entire program.

I'm only wondering whether this will end up in impeachment proceedings or whether he's going to be hung upside down from a lamp post. It's an attempted national suicide.

re: Posing As Carter - At Least I'm Not Worshipping At The Feet Of Pedophile/Rapist/Murderer George
Bush's own family (sister in law) says he raped his own young male cousins repeatedly.

It's also well known in public that he's been accused of raping a black woman and her husband while high on a cocaine/alcohol binge/rage. I lean towards believing it's true, after researching the low morals of this creature and learning how many thousands of lies he told that directly resulted in the death of 2300, serious wounding of 60,000+ Americans, deaths of 200,000 of Innocent Iraqis and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis wounded. What's raping a woman and man compared to what we know he's done, as a matter of public record???? It wouldn't surprise me to find out she and he (that were raped) were not the only victims of Bush's sexual abuses. Would it surprise you?

To begin with, the man is a extreme zealot of a small cult group of bizarre Christianity, a form of "Christianity" that has nothing to do with the teachings of Christ or following in Christ's footsteps promoting, love, tolerance, understanding and caring. Rather it's a cult of people who believe that "these are the last days" a non-sequitur extrapolation from some of the bizarre writings in the bible; they teach and believe: soon the "devil" will take over our beautiful planet Earth and the "true few" real Christians will all go to Israel to watch the Jews all die at once (source of death not mentioned) then these "true few" Christians who've already managed the deaths of millions, will suddenly leave their bodies and rise to heaven (the so-called "rapture"). They want to bring on "Armagedon"; kill all the non-cult Christians and all us "Sinners and Pagans and Buddhists and Catholics and Hindus and Muslims and Jews" and "go off to Heaven" by themselves. (source: Bill Moyers study on this particular Cult including Bush and his close buddies at the Whitehouse). Like God is going to let a bunch of bigot, racist, homophobic, sexist, mass murderers and supporters of mass murder.....into "Heaven". No, she's not. No, she's not. There is no "God" of that type to welcome cruel, vicious, aggressive, UltraViolent, and violence supporters into any "Heaven". If it came to "Judgement Day"; these people would go straight to "Hell", do not pass go, do not collect $200. Go straight to "Hell". God wouldn't waste her time pretending to Judge People like these, she/he is a God Of Love, and when they have already sentenced themselves to hell by creating hell on earth for themselves and many hundreds of millions of innocent people. As commander in chief, Bush's own orders to repeatedly sexually abuse, torture, waterboard, and murder innocent prisoners, including children, that lead to the rape of many thousands of young Iraqi children means legally, he is guilty of raping children.
It's a matter of public record that he gave the orders, it's a matter of public record the orders were carried out and that means it's a matter of public record he's a criminal rapist of children, women, and men. By his own words and written signed orders. It has already been established that Bush planned his Racist War by issuing directives to the American Govt and Military Establishment to create the false reasons necessary to go to war to murder innocent people in Iraq and elsewhere. He then lied thousands of times about it, and continues to lie today, further condemning himself by his own words and deeds that are a matter of record.

Not to mention that Bush is a public figure and anyone can say anything about him, including that he is a mass murderer, war criminal scumbay degenerate, shame to America that belongs under the prison for being one of the worst perverted human beings that ever walked the earth. He can be made fun of, used to illustrate the depths of human cruelty and stupidity and racism and it would all be true and voluntarily making himself a Public Figure entitles him to complete scrutiny and anybody is right to ridicule him and point out his crimes against all of us and all of humanity. As an American Citizen and Veteran he has involved me and my society with deliberative massive racist campaigns of lies; all to enable him to order the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people for the color of their skin and the choice of their religion. I resent that, don't you? He should be in prison right now, and someday soon will be because there are hundreds of his war crimes that are a matter of public record. It's coming, it might have to wait till he's out of power, but once he's no longer president there are tens of thousands who are going after him legally for his perversions and crimes. We'll all enjoy seeing him pay the price for what he's done so blatantly and arrogantly.

Plus, who's gonna sue anybody for repeating the truth???

Why hasn't he sued Kitty Kelley after she exposed him for being a child rapist and brutal womanizing cocaine addict who repeatedly beat up the bimbos he picked up in cheap bars and brought home while Laura and he were still married?
Why hasn't he sued any of the millions of people that have described his disgusting habits and behaviors publicly in Newspapers, Magazines, TV shows and Movies; and in emails to the Whitehouse, including myself?

Why????? Because he knows it's all true and he'd get wiped out financially if he did sue anyone. They'd own everything he owns now or ever will own.

Bush is going to prison. Soon. People that supported him will be seen and ridiculed as a disgrace to humanity. As they should be, because that's what they are.

Iran, Venezuela etc
Hey guys! What's your problem with democracy? Ahmadinejad was voted in. Hugo Chavez got 60% of the votes. Respect the people. Respect their votes. And that goes for Hamas too. If you prefer rule by secret cabals, or by dictators (that means someone like Franco who seize power, not elected Presidents who exercise it), then say so. But spare me the canting hypocrisy.

Justice for Ahmadinejad
Personally I have no expertize as to how this guy should be brought to justice. However, may I ask of any of you what kind of guy Saddam was when Rumsfeld was in bed with him, as pictures dated Dec. 19-20, 1983 show him shaking hands with Saddam? Secondly, what kind of a guy was the Sha of Iran when he was the oil boy for America? A nation that goes to bed with hoodlums when expedient, in the interest of oil for example, disqualifies this Nation under God, to pass judgement upon hoodlums it does not like, or so it seems to me! Yes, most recently Condolezza Rice is shown in Newsweek Magazine shaking hands with the dictator of Equatiorial Guinea, another friend of America in the interest of oil?

The Plan
The gambit now seems to be to provoke some incident, so Iran will be seen as the aggressor. Starting something with them would be very counterproductive, either for us or for Israel. So we need to get them angry enough to strike out.

That's why we've raided their consulate in Kurdistan and arrested embassy personnel. Just let them react, and we can let them have it with both barrels.

Are they that dumb? I don't know... they did invent chess. Maybe they won't go for this obvious ploy.

Game time...
This war is over as of the next election. Nothing in this world could keep us policing the streets of Baghdad past that or any other urban area anywhere outside the United States ever again. That lesson is well and finally learned. If the current administration needs to try one more time or stay the course...nevertheless...Colin Powell was correct. And he did the right thing to simply walk away when they stopped listening to him.

Just as the new Congress has no chance to change very much in the next year before the Presidential Primaries start or in the next two years before the new President is sworn in we can hold our breath from right now and before we turn blue this will be behind us.

Remember The Maine!
I think, if Iran were invaded. The resulting insurgency among the general population would not be nearly as severe as the problems currently existent in Iraq. My hunch is: it's a bet with favorable odds. Although anyone with common sense knows, at least 500,000 occupation troops are required.

Buh-bye Charles!
Let he (or she) who advocates war with Iran be the first not only to sign up for army, but to 'go over the top' as well.

So off you go Charles! If you're so confident that it will be such a doddle, what have you got to be afraid of?

And I won't tolerate any flimsy excuses, such as you're 58 with a gammy leg.....

" Iran will be seen as the aggressor."
They have already demonstrated thier aggressive actions.

What was the strategy behind attacking the USA in 1979?

The Iranian opposition
Reluctantly - and this doesn't come easily to me - I will have to say that I was wroo. wro.wr. nnnggg - sorry, just can't type the word - not right to suggest that working with any Iranian opposition would be the best move.

Either way, however, there's an awful lot of disgruntled people in Iran (see CIA World Factbook for background on Iran's disfunctional economy). Mr Mad promised to help the average Iranian, but instead spends money on nukes and blathering on about Israel*.

But Iranians ain't Arabs and most don't care about Israel either. Most look to Europe and America, rather than the mullahs who they see for what they are: a self-serving, grasping clique only out to enrich themselves.

For goodness sake, any action that swings the average Iranian behind that lot would be an insane policy.

Re: Iran etc
And, err, what's that got to do with it, eh?

My Current Position
I'm still only 56, and not advocating the invasion of Iran- only studying the subject.

The great American military now accepts enlistments as old as age 42. Seriously, the U.S. Armed Forces could encourage and accept recruits as old as 60. The older recruits would be given less strenuous training, and placed in jobs suitable for their physical ability.

The U.S. is learning an important lesson in Iraq. The volunteer Army can't get nearly big enough to win a war. Four or five times as many occupation troops are required to win in Iraq. Although I'm a neo-con, I agree with Congressman Charles Rangel (Dem, NY). The U.S. government should reinstate the draft.

The next two paragraphs are an excerpt from an e-mail I've sent to some members of the U.S. House of Representatives, and the U.S. Senate. I've already posted the information about UAV's a couple of times, but I'm posting it again because it pertains to the capabilities of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The unmanned aerial vehicles currently used in Iraq and Afghanistan are effective armnaments, but very expensive. Smaller UAV's can be mass produced by machines. UAV's consisting of composite materials, aluminum motors; and partially filled with hydrogen or helium can improve the capability of the coalition forces in Iraq. These unmanned drones can remain in flight for long periods of time, since lighter than air gases add lift.

Mass producing UAV's with fully-automated machines is not as difficult as people might think. All of the parts required to build a UAV can be made from raw materials with the exception of purchased electronic parts. New machines are built to make the fabricated parts from raw materials. A series of machines can assemble the plane from fabricated and purchased parts. The planes are combat-ready right off the assembly line. This system of fully-automated mass production can produce high quantities of electromechanical assemblies very quickly, and very economically.

You're Right, Wayne...
The average person in Iran wants to live in a normal democratic country. Iranians want a good country at peace with the rest of the world. They don't like being told how to think by a small group of fundamentalist mullahs. They resent the fact the mullahs control the Iranian military and the money supply.

Only Deranged Racists Forget That We Overthrew Their Democratically Elected Government!!
How racist and stupid can NeoCons be??? To claim Iran is the aggressor towards us or Israel or anybody is the ultimate in self-righteous sick racism.

We got hundreds of thousands of Iranians murdered under our dog boy dictator the Shah of Iran. We deposed the democratically elected President and his government to stick the shah in power. We did that, not the devil, not the communists or socialists but good ole freedom loving U.S.A. (except we don't have freedom here and haven't for my lifetime).

For you brainwashed NeoCons, why don't you look at the history of Iran and the U.S.; we are the racist dictators living next door now, if they have a lick of sense of course they would want a nuke or two to keep us out of their homeland. Not to mention Israel with a few hundred or more nukes on various delivery packages.

You racists must really be in the low IQ range; otherwise any person of average intelligence would at least be historically accurate with the details.

But racist NeoCons are all brainwashed zombies, so I guess not huh Marjon and the rest of you racists?

Attacking the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979 was not an aggressive action?
So that has nothing to do with current US/Iran relations?

So when Iran or Hamas attacks...
the response should be total war?

Since the leaders were democratically elected, and if the leaders attack other people, then an appropriate response is to attack civilian populations as well as military targets?

After all, in a democracy, the leaders are just carrying out the will of the people.

Re: Attacking the US Embassy
No, it was in 1979, you deranged neocon loony - more than 25 years ago. The time for retaliation for that is long gone.

Our enemies don't believe so
Muslims remember defeats hundreds of years ago.

What has changed in Iran since 1979?

They have ballistic missiles and are trying to put nuclear weapons on them.

And they have announced to the world they will wipe Isreal off of the map.

A few decades ago, that would justify an immediate retaliatory response.

Can't take a joke?

Truman didn't want to overthrow the government and install the Shah, but UK and Eisenhower did for US and UK national security interests: free flow of oil and USSR.

That happened in the early 50s. They shouldn't still hate us for what happened over 50 years ago.

Re: You're Right, Wayne...
I'll repeat your subject line for the pure pleasure of seeing it, thank you!

I *know* people from parts of the world that some TCS contributors would dearly love to bomb to pieces. I know that's what most people want (to live in a normal democratic country).

Helping them to achieve that is in everybody's best interests, but it will take patience and subtlety, perhaps. I don't think the writer of the original TCS article is in touch with reality.

Re: Jokes
A joke, by definition, ought to be funny.....

The lessons of war
"This war is over as of the next election. Nothing in this world could keep us policing the streets of Baghdad past that or any other urban area anywhere outside the United States ever again. That lesson is well and finally learned."

I wish I had your faith. The lesson was well and finally learned back in 1975, when we ignominiously departed Saigon, under the same circumstances. I think each new generation, thanks to their habit of not reading newspapers or books, has to learn the lesson anew.

The superior person would think it was time to build something into the Constitution about this, adding an extra hurdle to be jumped if some future president wants to embark on freshly concocted optional foreign adventures. Then the pundits of the day could debate what makes this windmill different from the last one we tilted at.

The part about only Congress being authorized to take the nation to war obviously wasn't sufficient. Maybe if a mandatory death penalty is indicated for the authors of losing wars.

The Democratic Congress can't do much to decisively put a stop to the war because then they own the defeat. By only standing on the sidelines and being forthright in their opinions, the parties responsible will own the defeat.

Sorry about the extra lives lost, I really am. But it's an expensive lesson this country needs to learn. Never let them start something they don't know how to finish.

A better way to engage Iran
"They [Iranians] don't like being told how to think by a small group of fundamentalist mullahs. They resent the fact the mullahs control the Iranian military and the money supply."

Good point. If this is the case, all we have to do is to stand back and watch while the economy sinks into the hopper and they take control of their own politics.

If instead we start funding clandestine groups like the MEK (terrorists by anyone's definition) or worse, boming them, I think we can see them put their differences with the mullahs aside and present a united front against outside aggression. In their place, isn't that what we would do?

At the moment it looks like we engineered that raid on the Iranian consulate in Irbil just as a provocation. The idea was to push them into retaliating-- in which event we could then march off to war against them without being seen as the aggressor.

Such a move is to me immensely counterproductive. Let's let Iran evolve out of their political morass by natural processes.

They need nuclear power for domestic energy uses. Let's stay constructively engaged by telling them we will work with them on their program if we just get to keep track of every gram of enriched fuel. If there is no other option, they'll have to go for it.

Note that "trust" plays no part in any of this. We will share expertise and whatever else we can provide. They have to admit our scientists and techs on the basis of unlimited access. Leave that on the table and give them some time to think about it.

Invading Iran
It's a moot point. Iran can't be invaded because we don't have the invasion force. Iran can only be bombed.

And if we were to bomb Iran, or facilitate Israel's bombing Iran, the result would be absolutely nothing like Iraq. There would be unanimity against the foreign aggressor. All political groups would set aside their differences to protect the homeland.

Then, after the threat had been dealt with, they could resume their dialog on governance.

My sense is that the country is split between urban, educated, upper income reformists and working class, lower income conservatives and fundamentalists.

In the first round the three reformist candidates together (Moeen, Mehralizadeh and Karroubi) polled 10.3 million votes. The three conservatives (Ghalibaf, Larijani and Ahmedinejad) polled 11.5 million votes. That's as close as an American election.

The only reason Ahmedinejad won is due to their runoff system. The three reformists split that ticket, and all were knocked out of the final round. The maverick Rafsanjani just didn't have the votes.,_2005

It is the very strong opinion of virtually everyone not on the far right that Iran is not a bubbling pot of discontent, just waiting for a spark to ignite the dry tinder of revolution. Ain't gonna happen.

What a question!
"What was the strategy behind attacking the USA in 1979?"

I don't believe you said that! The strategy was to rid themselves of foreign influence.

The Shah was widely seen as being an American stooge, which in large part he was, who squandered the entire national resource on expensive weapons and palaces instead of improving the lives of the people. He was overthrown for being unpopular, and for handing over too great a share of their oil proceeds to foreign companies.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Disgruntled Iranians
To be sure. In the expensive zip codes of northern Tehran there are a lot of people who don't like the mullahs. They'd just as soon be a European nation.

And in the downscale neighborhoods of southern Tehran, there are just as many that don't think that way. The best way I can quantify the national mood there is to look at the 2005 election results. The vote wasn't quite as close as recent US elections, but it was mighty close.

So IMO some Iranians are disgruntled. Others are still gruntled.

See my comment below, "Invading Iran". for some election analysis. I think the vote then was pretty evenly split. Since then, Ahmedinejad has acted like such a clown the reformists have probably added some votes. And with the economy floundering, the conservatives have probably lost votes. But I don't think the place is a tinderbox waiting for the spark.

They are especially not waiting for a spark to come from the Americans. Our telling them to rise up against their government would go over about as well as Hugo Chavez telling the liberals it was time to overthrow the US government, and come to the Light.

Why **** off a super power?
Oh, that's right, Carter was President and the USA ran away from Vietnam and was trying real hard to surrender around the world.

But if what you suggest is true, the people wanted a better economy, why **** off the world's largest economy?

I don't buy your arguement.

Iranian Natural Gas
Doesn't Iran have enough natural gas to generate ample electricity? I don't know, but I think I've heard Iran has surplus natural gas, and does not have valid justification for using nuclear power.

but seriously, folks - - - -
The article makes a serious proposition and deserves a serious response. The mullahs have been at war with US since they took over, it's time we accommodated them. People, and nations, of good will should set about getting rid of the mullahs before they can do more, possibly, a lot more, damage.

1) We should declare ourselves in favor of Irani regime change, and support democratic dissidents inside and outside Iran, with political backing, training, logistics, arming them when and where appropriate. We should recognize a government-in-exile; to take over when the mullahs fall.

2) We should send a fleet (hopefully including NATO, but not necessarily) into the gulf and to make obvious preparations for blockading Iran's ports. We should send our Air Force back to the Arabian Peninsula, as in Desert Storm. The Saudis and friends should approve, since they are in the gun sights of the mullahs as well.

3) With any luck, the mullahs will attack our fleet, and the air-naval war will be on. If so, we should have complete air and sea supremacy in about a week. If they don't attack, we can easily mine their ports and control all imports and exports, while providing military escorts for shipping thru Hormoz. This should get their attention, then maybe we could "talk".

4) All this can be done using assets that won't put more strain on our ground forces, at a relatively low cost in blood and treasure. We can then pulverize their nuclear facilities at leisure, if required. We might even get another velvet revolution out of it.

U.S. Doesn't Allow Input About Our Power Sources: Only Racists Want To Control Iran's Power Sources
America would murder half the globe before we'd let the rest of the world tell us what kind of power sources we will use. Not to mention whether or not we will have nuclear weapons.

It's NeoCon ugly racism to claim somehow we have the right to tell whether or not they can use nuke power or gas or coal or whatever.

We should negotiate the reduction of our own nuclear wastes and nuclear weapons with the Irans and the Cubans and the rest of the world.

We are morally bankrupt to claim we are the "righteous" who determines the energy policies of other nations.

Racists and their ugly racism, their ugly Christian vs. the world religious bigotry, our ugly corporate profiteers just wanting to get in their and make the big profits off that Iran oil.

America is sick.
NeoCons and their racist/colonialist/religious hatred toward the rest of the world, is very ample proof of how dis-eased America is. (I'm not leaving fools; I'm watching you dinosaurs pass on into the dustbin of history).

There is no statute of limitations for war crimes.
Attacking an embassy is an act of war.
Holding diplomats hostage is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
The President of Iran has been accused by the illegally held diplomats of being one of their guards.
The President of Iran has denied taking part in the takeover the of the US embassy. Give him the benefit of the doubt and he is still a war criminal for being a guard (accessory after the fact; perpetuating the crime. etc.).

President Bush was a wimp for not taking him into custody when he visited the United Nations.

Definition of Racist
A racist is someone who views everything in terms (good or bad) of race.

Weird logic
You are really turned around. The United States was responsible for their situation. So if they revolted in order to better their condition, who else would they revolt against?

By your logic we should not have annoyed the British. After all, were they not the world's mightiest superpower?

Who are we to say?
The United States has lots of coal. What justification does the US have for pursuing nuclear power?

Re: Why **** off a super power?
Because a critical mass of people see little or no benefit from it - because they see it as supporting an elite few, a leader and his friends, rather than the people at large.

Resentment therefore builds up, Western powers increase their support for the incumbant leader/dictator, they increase repression, resentment increases. Repeat to bloody conclusion.

Unfortunately - and this is especially true in Asia and the Middle East - economic policy is specifically geared towards the enrichment of the president and his mates. A minority of people are 'bought in' to the system in true trickle-down style. The rest seethe - at their own government for its corruption; and at those foreign governments who, rightly or wrongly, are blamed for helping to keep their own government in power.

Does that answer your question?

Re: Our enemies don't believe so
* "Muslims remember defeats hundreds of years ago."
So do certain Irish people (Orange march anyone?), many black people (slavery) and Serbs (Battle of Kosovo, c13XX)

* "What has changed in Iran since 1979?"
Err, no one expects pure, uncorrupt government from a bunch of raving mullahs for a start.

* "They have ballistic missiles and are trying to put nuclear weapons on them."
Who doesn't? And if they really do have some of the nifty Russian and Chinese missile technology that some people say they have, then the US Navy won't be safe anywhere near the Persian Gulf.....

* "And they have announced to the world they will wipe Israel off of the map."
Correction: Their president, Mr Mad, has said something to that effect. He also has very little actual power to make that happen.

* "A few decades ago, that would justify an immediate retaliatory response."
You should hear what that Mr H. Chavez of Venezuala has been saying, then.

Re: So when Iran or Hamas attacks...
1) What is your objective?
2) What actions will help you achieve that objective?
3) Different situations demand different responses, depending on points 1) and 2);
4) War is always a last resort, not the first resort.

James Stavridis, Admiral, USN, Commander, U.S. Southern Command
Notice who the president picked to replace an Army General.

TCS Daily Archives