Hysterical extremists seem to think we're declaring war on Iran. Are they lying or are they just unbelievably stupid?
Based on the recently submitted and very likely to pass House Resolution 362, many on the extremist fringes of both the right and the left are announcing in dire (or hysterical) tones that we're on the verge of war with Iran.…
Article comments
— go to most recent comments26 - Brad Forschner
More and more every day I am beginning to believe that the bill of rights in our constitution should be considered the rules in which our Government must treat all individuals. If these are rights inherent to us as individuals, and our govt is not allowed to infringe upon them, by what authority does our govt infringe upon those rights by individuals not considered citizens?
By the logic that allows such treatment, then why is it foreigners/illegals are afforded any of our privileges or given any recognition of rights under our justice system? Seems if they are foreigners, they have no grounds to even appeal to our court systems.
Or are these "rights" tied to the soil, so that our govt doesn't have to respect any of those rights unless you are on "American" soil? Does soil have the privilege or authority to grant or deny rights?
Until Iran petitions to join the US, there's not much we really have a right to force upon them.
27 - Cannonshop
Brad, with "Rights" come "Responsibilities"-whether you go the Canadian model and spell them out, or the American model that presumes the citizen already knows what they are (Unspoken cultural in other words). This is why Children don't have the right to vote, bear arms, and why their Free Speech and Assembly rights are somewhat more restricted than adults.
People whose answer to speech they don't like consists of car-bombings, riots, Clerical Death Sentences and Murder probably should NOT be treated with the same rights as people whose reaction to offense is to get a bit miffed, huff and hiff and maybe throw some insults back. Free Speech, like most of the others, depends on a level of reciprocity that is absent in the Middle East-In order for the Bill of Rights to mean anything to that culture, you'd have to first violate ALL their human rights by erasing the cultural norms that make Fatwas of Death-for-Heresy not an artifact of the past, but a current and accepted practice in the PRESENT. Otherwise, it's just showing weakness in the eyes of people whose cultural norm is to respect the intolerant strongman.
Generally, it's been found (from the British Empire's example) that you can't beat reason into someone, and offering it to them when their instinct is to reject it leads only to rejection OF reason. Without Reason, Rights become meaningless.
28 - troll
...typical nonsense of the Congress - sanctions (even those imposed by god) only serve to harden Pharaoh's heart
29 - troll
(G_d if you prefer)
30 - Michael
Lets substitute some words and see what you think about it...
"Resolved by the UN General Assembly, That the General Assembly... demands that the Secretary-General initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on the United States to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to the United States of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing the United States; and prohibiting the international movement of all US officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of United State's nuclear program..."
If that was a resolution before the UN General Assembly (or any government parliament), what would you think about that?
31 - El Bicho
"That's not what I get from the Hersh article."
The US is kidnapping Iranian soldiers to interrogate in Iraq. If the Iranians were kidnapping US soldiers and interrogating them in Russia or Syria, I have a suspicion the Bush Admin would consider that an act of war.
32 - Dan Miller
HR 362 is a strongly worded document. If passed, it will express the sense of the House of Representatives that U.S. policy toward Iran should be changed. As Dave notes, it will have no legal effect and the President is under no legal obligation to consider it.
However, it seems likely that the people in power in Iran have no better understanding of the way that the U.S. Government functions than we have of the way that the Iranian Government functions. The U.S. separation of powers is quite different from anything in Iran, and it may well be considered by Iran (and by its allies) that HR 362 is of much greater significance than it actually is. That seems to me to be unfortunate.
If the resolution is adopted, it may well be viewed as a statement of U.S. policy, rather than merely a statement of what a majority of the members of the House think. If it is not adopted, it may well stimulate the view in Iran that the U.S. is weak and is unwilling to do any of the things suggested in the resolution. Either result would be unfortunate.
Resolutions such as HR 362 diminish the ability of the President and other members of the Executive Branch to carry out their duties in the area of foreign policy. Matters such as those raised in HR 362 should be dealt with through informal consultations between members of the House, the President and the Secretary of State. They should not be reflected in publicly available documents likely to be misconstrued by other countries or intentionally used by them for propaganda purposes in their relations with others.
Dan
33 - Deano
Doc,
Re your comment#23: Wandering through Tokyo one late night, I encountered a nice little restaurant with big red neon flashing sign advertising "Severed Meat"...
34 - Dave Nalle
The US is kidnapping Iranian soldiers to interrogate in Iraq. If the Iranians were kidnapping US soldiers and interrogating them in Russia or Syria, I have a suspicion the Bush Admin would consider that an act of war.
Then perhaps the US should be at war as both our citizens, our soldiers and allied British soldiers have been seized from boats in Iraqi waters by the Iranians and interrogated and held prisoner for extended periods of time, in multiple instances stretching back 5 years.
The Hersh article does not specify where the al Quds soldiers were captured. It's entirely possible that they were camptured in Iraq or Afghanistan or even Pakistan, since they rergularly carry out commando/terrorist operations outside of Iranian territory, that itself being another act of war from the Iranians against their neighbors.
Dave
As for
35 - Michael
"demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program"
That is right from the site you have linked in your article!
Are you seriously going to say that Congress has not authorized, excuse me, DEMANDED the President implement a blockade of Iran?
36 - Dan Miller
Michael,
As I understand the situation, HR 362 has not been passed yet, and may never be. Hence, the Congress has neither authorized nor demanded anything, yet.
Should HR 362 pass the House, it still will not be an action by the Congress; there are two houses, the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Should HR 362 be adopted by both houses of Congress, it will certainly state what the Congress wishes. Still, it will have no legal effect authorizing or effectively demanding anything.
The Congress can "demand" anything it wishes, including the abolition of hurricanes and earthquakes with equal effect. Passage of a law, signed by the President or with his veto overridden, might have some legal effect on whether the things discussed in HR 362 become effective. Such a law probably would not, however, be effective with respect to hurricanes or earthquakes.
Dan
37 - bliffle
Geez, if I was POTUS I'd consider 362 a demand that I use my power as CinC to invade Iran.
Personally, I wouldn't do it. But if I wanted to I would, and later I'd point to 362 for justification. In addition to my absolute power as CinC, of course.
But that's just me, and I'm a nut. No reasonable POTUS would do that, would they?
38 - Dan Miller
Biffle,
In recent years, hasn't the phrase "reasonable POTUS" become rather an oxymoron?
Dan
39 - Lumpy
what is wrong with u oeople and your obsession with AIPAC? it's just another lobby just like the NRA or AARP who also have lots of influence. oh wait. AIPAC is different in one way. it's full of jews. never mind.
40 - Michael
"I suppose that by extension you could argue that the proposed sanctions could require the use of naval forces to inspect ships, but that's hardly an attack on Iran"
There are so many things wrong with this, I'm not sure where to begin...
First, the resolution calls to inspect all forms of cargo leaving Iran on ships, PLANES, TRAINS, etc... So, it would require more than 'naval forces'.
Second, would the United States allow a foreign government to inspect all cargo coming from/to the United States? How would we interpret such an act?
It is like someone blocking someone delivering heating oil to your house... Sure there is no authorization to 'attack' Iran, but again, I ask you, what would the United States do if someone threatened our supply of 'refined petroleum products'?
Hmmm, isn't that what we are saying Iran is doing? Threatening "America’s vital national security interests in the Middle East".
We take Iran's threatening of our oil supply as an 'attack' but when we do it back to Iran, it doesn't fall under that category?
Didn't we almost invade Saudi Arabia during the height of the first oil embargo?
41 - Ruvy
Dear Miriam,
I'm writing to you from Samaria, which as you may know is the mountain heartland of my country - Israel.
In all truth, I'd be very happy if
1. The Americans got their asses out of our affairs;
2. The Americans stayed out of our affairs;
3. The Americans cut off what they call "foreign aid" to this country, and pulled their money out of this country;
4. The Americans stopped pushing their "peace" process;
5. The Americans quit training killers of Jewish children;
6. The Americans stop pretending to be our friends - we know better, especially those of us born in the States
7. That the American Jewish blowhards at AIPAC would put their checkbooks away and leave America and come home - or leave us alone altogether. We do not need arrogant Americans Jews to tell us what to do, we need them to learn Torah, the Books of Prophecy and to bring themselves closer to G-d.
42 - Lumpy
michael. the key difference is that the US is not a rogue state that sponsors terrorism. once the entire internatiinal community starts condemning u it's reasonable to expect to put up with some indignities like searches.
43 - stevoi
"Now, if you cannot understand what it means to 'prohibit the export to Iran all refined petroleum products,' 'impose stringent inspection requirements' on goods going in or coming out of Iran, and to prohibit international movement of Iranian government officials, then you sir are a complete idiot."
ditto
44 - Dave Nalle
Now, if you cannot understand what it means to say "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran," then you are a complete idiot.
That goes for ditto boy too.
Dave
45 - El Bicho
"The Hersh article does not specify where the al Quds soldiers were captured."
Wrong. It clearly states "United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation...."
I am not absolving Iran for their actions, but like I said before "it sounds like we are already at war with Iran." It may be a cold one, but a rose by any other name.
46 - Pablo
Well Dave hypocrisy does seem to be your middle name. In your article you said quite emphatically, and I might add falsely:
"No one opposes the idea of war in Iran more than I do."
Then you go on to say in comment 34:
"Then perhaps the US should be at war as both our citizens, our soldiers and allied British soldiers have been seized from boats in Iraqi waters by the Iranians and interrogated and held prisoner for extended periods of time, in multiple instances stretching back 5 years."
Excuse me if I don't by your bullshit. The first quote is obviously untrue on its face. The second one contradicts the first. Your one confused politico brother. Smirk
47 - Lumpy
pablo. is it tht you are stupid, illiterate or just being deliberately dense? prefacing something with 'perhaps' does not mean you agree it means you're postulating.
48 - Lumpy
pablo. is it tht you are stupid, illiterate or just being deliberately dense? prefacing something with 'perhaps' does not mean you agree it means you're postulating.
49 - Pablo
Oh sweet Lumpy, how I love it when you criticize me, and how you attempt to portray yourself as semi-literate, but cannot seem to help duplicating your comments, and you are obviously in need of spelling lessons.
That being said Lumpy boy, I do find you adorable, in as much as your hatred for everything you cannot understand or tolerate is nevertheless very cute! I do understand how you have a difficult time seeing the hypocrisy in Dave's article and subsequent comment, I suggest that you take a reading comprehension course too; if you are interested I can provide you with a few urls that might assist you in that endeavor. Thanks again for your comment.
50 - bliffle
The POTUS doesn't need an authorization in 362, he has already said that if a US soldier is injured or killed by a foreign soldier that the POTUS is constitutionally allowed to invade as CinC.
51 - Dave Nalle
Pablo, Lumpy has you nailed dead to rights. You're manufacturing argument out of thin air. Go read #34 again. All I did was take the earlier claim that whatever the Iranians did was okay because we've interrogated their soldiers and turn the argument back on itself by pointing out the fact that the Iranians have seized and interrogated far more of our people.
They're trying to defend Iran by making them out to be the victims, when they have done exactly the same thing, and that's what I'm pointing out.
You're calling me a hypocrite for pointing out the hypocrisy in someone else's argument. Makes no sense at all.
dave
52 - bliffle
Like many others, I dread the idea that GWB will invade Iran before his term is up and thus doom us to more years of senseless war.
53 - Clavos
It DOES seem to be ramping up pretty quickly; especially today, with all the sabre rattling over the Strait of Hormuz.
54 - Dave Nalle
I still don't see it. Give me a scenario under which we could invade Iran and not get our asses completely kicked?
I could see some limited bombing and a blockade, but beyond that, no way.
Dave
55 - STM
There won't even be any limited bombing or a blockade unless Iran attacks first, and they're not that dumb.
And seriously, there is no way even this administration would be stupid enough to engage the United States in another mid-east conflagration while the other one is still raging.
Think things are bad now? If that cracker ever goes off, the ice cream will hit the fan big time.
Simply, it just won't happen.
The Iranians aren't Ahmajinedad. Most of them don't like him or his government. I'd suspect the average Iranian isn't that different to the average American and wants no part of anything that might see his or her country turned into a sheet of glass.
56 - bliffle
So, bombing Iran isn't war?
The POTUS has already indicated justification by saying Iranian soldiers in Iraq are killing Americans (even if they are American soldiers).
And now he blames all his failures on Iran, in that irresponsible way that he has.
What makes more sense than bombing Iran?
57 - Robert Maxwell
"I still don't see it. Give me a scenario under which we could invade Iran and not get our asses completely kicked?"
Define "our asses completely kicked."
Do you mean by the Iranian army? I would severely doubt it.
Do you mean that it would be near impossible to securely occupy the mountainous Persian interior and root out whatever partisan/loyalist forces might rest there in the aftermath of an American(-led?) invasion? Probably.
However, I'm relatively confident that the U.S. Military is privy to far more (vital) information, sc. the Iranian military, etc., than we are, and form their plans and estimations accordingly.
I would like to see citations on the claims that Iran has captured as many Americans as has been suggested here (no number given, but a fairly decent amount has been implied). But I should like to note that, as I've seen it, international relations very rarely take as linear a cause-and-effect step as we seem to be suggesting.
A violation of sovereignty doesn't necessarily lead to war if, in this case, the radically stronger of the two nations does not want a war. Similarly, the kidnapping of "citizens" (were they citizens? What was their status viz-a-viz the US Government?) will not lead to war if the center of power of the nation does not necessarily want it.
Rather, it seems to me that in most cases wherein a war is declared for whatever casus belli, the justification is not the true "case for war", but just that: a justification for a declaration of war at that moment in time, with the true case for war being in the more complex issues of economy, international relations, domestic situations, etc.. We might have had more justification in the past, just as some might argue that we had more solid justification (and international backing) during the First Gulf War to invade and occupy Iraq, as I seem to remember some politicians in the United States and abroad were pushing for.
In short, captured citizens or not, it will likely remain immaterial to the United States government until such a time as a) it's convenient for the United States to go to war, if it ever decides as such, b) there is resulted, whether through independent journalism or a formal government press releases, a strong enough public sentiment for war such as to influence the political platforms of a party.
Just my views on the issue.
58 - Lumpy
Iran is th preeminent terror sponsoring nation. if we were at all serious about making war on terror then we have to make war on iran. itls the nexus.
59 - Al Barger
Jew hatin' and self-righteous anti-war hysterics aside, what do we do about Iran? We essentially have a choice of US and/or Israel attacking them, or absolutely allowing them to get nuclear weapons. Which is more dangerous?
And as to the morality of such an attack, Ron Paul et al can seriously go fug themselves. The Iranian regime has no rights or legitimacy that any civilized human being is bound to respect. There might be some question as to our abilities or prudence in such a move, but denouncing the morality of attacking some of the very most dangerous and barbaric killers in the world today rather than letting them acquire nukes is just dumb.
60 - Robert Maxwell
Al -
I believe that's essentially a false choice. It does not out of necessity, in my opinion, follow that a failure to declare war or in some way attack Iran will result in their acquisition of nuclear weapons, or that, should they indeed do so, they would immediately use them in anything else than a defensive capacity.
We, of course, hear the belligerence of some of the members of the Iranian government, but it might be premature, and we must remember that the threats of Ahmadinejad do not necessarily equal the policy of the Iranian state, just like Wilson's creation and talk of a League of Nations did not translate into American policy due to Congress's resistance. Couple this with the fact that the Iranian government is essentially not stupid, as well as the fact that Ahmadinejad is not the power center of the country, and sets of Ayatollahs who are just as concerned about retaining their power as any other power center on the globe, and we have a situation wherein there is more than the false dichotomy of "bomb Iran" or "Israel will be glass."
I would prefer to leave the specifics to the professional diplomatists and policy makers, but I would argue that there is always the opportunity for peaceful diplomacy to reach a sustainable peace. I'm aware I might be accused of being a Chamberlain, but all it would require is the correct application of diplomatic, and perhaps economic, pressure, in concert with support from other nations.
I should also like to reject your claim that the Iranian Islamic Republic holds no legitimacy or rights. The Islamic Republic is legitimate in that: a) the Iranians themselves, by and large, either support the workings of Government, or at least do not obscure it. In other words, the Iranians accept the government (unless there are large areas of the country which no longer accept orders from Tehran, which would surprise me, b) the Islamic Republic is internationally recognized as the ruling government of Iran, and a representative thereof is present at the United Nations.
Therefore, the Iranian Islamic Republic holds both domestic and international acceptance, and from this, legitimacy.
Furthermore, Iran, as a member of the United Nations, benefits from the charter of that Body, not least in the first heading of Chapter One, Section Two of the UN Charter, which states the guarantee of "sovereign equality for all of its Members."
The Iranian government has the requisite legitimacy to garner international recognition and a seat at the United Nations, as well as enough to enforce their rule at home. They also have the rights of any other sovereign nation, as guaranteed by international law.
Unless, of course, we make a case of naming every single member of the modern international diplomatic community uncivilized.
We can argue on the justness of declaring war against a sovereign country due to any number of reasons previously stated, but we cannot discount their sovereign national status off-hand. Nor can we confine ourselves to only two choices when there are, in fact, innumerable others, and wiser choices at that, free from bayonet-bearing jingoism and fear-mongering.
61 - Dave Nalle
Robert, a legitimately constituted and elected government can still be a rogue nation. Hitler was elected and Germany was recognized as a legitimate nation by all of its neighbors.
As for seats at the UN, they let every tinhorn dictator and tyrant have a seat regardless of their crimes. Hell, most of the worst ones are on the Human Rights Commission, in fact. That certainly says nothing about the legitimacy of the government.
Do you think we should tolerate any attrocity because a country has a seat at the UN?
DAve
62 - Robert Maxwell
Dave -
I'm surprised we've Godwin'ed so quickly (and look, ye faithful! At the end, a strawman!), but just a quick bit of fact checking:
a) Hitler was not elected; he was appointed by Hindenburg. He gained dictatorial power via the Enabling Acts passed by the Reichstag in 1933, and later the office of President by his own decree after Hindenburg's death. His people, though they might have openly supported the National Socialists (who held a majority in the Reichstag, if I remember correctly), we cannot say that Hitler was ELECTED.
b) The Weimar government was barely legitimate. With the exception of some bright stars like Stresemann, Weimar Germany had poor leadership, combined with astronomical inflation and an inability to gain superior authority and recognition over groups such as the Spartacists and the Freikorps. Part of the reason for this must at least be that the Weimar Government was a foreign conception basically forced upon Germany in the face of the foreign diktat.
It barely even had foreign recognition, and joined the League of Nations only under Stresemann, some decade or so after the Weimar government was created by foreign impetus.
"As for seats at the UN, they let every tinhorn dictator and tyrant have a seat regardless of their crimes."
And due to their membership, their sovereignty is guaranteed by the charter, unless we decide out of thin air that, for some reason, the charter we [the United States and UK] basically authored does not apply.
"That certainly says nothing about the legitimacy of the government."
Yes it does. It says that they are recognized internationally to be the governing body of that particular nation.
"Do you think we should tolerate any atrocity because a country has a seat at the UN?"
Where are you reading this? First, if we're using some sort of atrocityometer to figure out if we're going to declare war, we should've invaded North Korea, Georgia [ethnic cleansing and basic genocide], Rwanda [genocide], Chad [genocide], the Congo [vast genocide, the most deadly war since WWII], etc.. Your argument about Iran's vast atrocities are immaterial and hypocritical - these nations have caused/are causing far more serious atrocities than the Islamic Republic ever has, relative to their scale, and yet I don't see anyone threatening war against them.
Second, the term "rogue state" is, by my opinion, a term suitably easy to apply arbitrarily to states against which we would like to justify military or economic action. To put it very plainly: the term "rogue state" is a bullshit political term, as is the term "War on Terror." The term doesn't even refer to any uniformity of action! Pakistan, called a "rogue state," was fervently supported by the United States during the reign of a military dictatorship, North Korea, the number one rogue state, faces basically no sort of American threat. Yet Iran, mystically, is condemned as a rogue state, and therefore action must be taken against them.
Third, accepting the term "rogue state," legitimacy does not preclude "rogue state" status. Nor does a state of legitimacy forbid preventative and/or defensive action in the occasion of a concrete and credible threat. And I never stated to the contrary - I merely noted that we cannot discount Iran's domestic and international legitimacy, and declare that their state has no rights. This does not mean that the Islamic Republic should be under no occasion overthrown, although I believe it's a monumentally stupid idea at this point.
63 - bliffle
Al is recycling the old anti-Saddam and anti-Iraq diatribes from 6 years ago.
64 - Michael
Al,
Let's just forget about the right/wrong arguments and let's look at the costs...
Almost 600 billion for the Iraq/Afghan wars ...
Almost 5,000 soldiers dead (thousands maimed?) ...
Oil, $35-ish a barrel before, $142-ish today ...
Was it worth it?
All this saber rattling is doing more harm then good...
Honestly, for 600 billion, we could have:
1. built a 25' high "Great Wall of America" around the whole country
2. inspect every individual/container coming into America
3. built a state of the art anti-missile system
4. built a state of the art fusion power plant
5. built a state of the art battery (100-200% capacity then currently available)
6. built a state of the art radiation detector
Yet as it stands:
1. our borders are wide open
2. we don't even know how many illegals are in the country or what is shipped in/out
3. we still don't have a working anti-missile system
4. we still rely on non-renewable energy supplies
5. we still have crappy batteries
6. and we can't detect radiation isotopes
I haven't even begun to mention what this war has done to the value of the dollar...
If we would have spent those 600 BILLION dollars just on fusion/battery technology, the Iranians wouldn't have the money from $142-ish a barrel oil...
I'm not saying sit around and do nothing, or roll over and play dead. Quite the contrary, let the Iranians know that if a wmd goes off they will be on the top of the list to be flattened...
65 - John Crowley
I think it is kind of naive to think that putting economic sanctions, and thus inhibiting their ability to function, to provide food their inhabitants, to take care of the needs of their people. By meddling with the internal politics of these countries and deploying troops onto their soul we only build natural human resentment to Unwelcome Occupation...
Take Granada for example. Reagan said, "Nutmeg is not the issue, which is Granada's biggest export, we can get perfectly good nutmeg from South Africa, we don't need Granada's nutmeg." We invaded Granada because we were serving notice to the people of Central and South America, and the Carribean that you cannot drop out of your client-based free market system. If you use your land, labor, and capital to benefit the needs of your people, rather than being milked like a cow by foreign investors. This is what will happen to you...
66 - bliffle
If someone blockaded and embargoed the USA we'd take it as an act of war.
67 - Robert Maxwell
If the person who blockaded us was significantly stronger, and war would almost certainly entail a forced change of government, I would expect the regime/government (depending on if you like the nation or not) would be far more open to solutions alternative to war or violence.
68 - Dave Nalle
If someone blockaded and embargoed the USA we'd take it as an act of war.
So, if rather than embargoing us absolutely, a group of nations colluded to rise the price of a vital commodity so high that it devastated our economy, would that be an act of war?
Dave
69 - Conrad Dalton
So, if rather than embargoing us absolutely, a group of nations colluded to rise the price of a vital commodity so high that it devastated our economy, would that be an act of war?
No.
70 - Conrad Dalton
The US embargo on oil to Japan was a vital commodity and was the reason Japan committed its act of war on December 7m 1941.
Was Japan justified?
71 - bliffle
"justified"? Justice has nothing to do with it.
"expected" might be a better word. And a word we should have paid attention to. Instead, many foolish people thought we could squeeze the Japanese without consequence, one of the results of which was the foolish massing of the fleet at Pearl. Another result of our foolish arrogance was the unguarded nature of our defenses. (Of course, the Japanese leadership was equally foolish in thinking that the US would not go to war after Pearl).
People commit provocative acts and then wonder that there is war.
One can argue that Japans situation was more sensitive because of their great dependency on trade, which doesn't affect Iran as much, and ought not affect the USA as much, except we've (foolishly?) volunteered to be dependent.
72 - Clavos
"...we've (foolishly?) volunteered to be dependent."
Definitely foolishly.
Imagine how much better off we'd be if we hadn't foolishly turned those oilfields (which we and the British discovered, developed and exploited) back to the Arabs.
73 - Conrad Dalton
“Why, then the world's mine oyster, Which I with sword will open."
-- William Shakespeare
74 - Conrad Dalton
Discovering oil on someone else’s land doesn’t entitle anyone to own it.
The Central Intelligence Agency's covert operation to overthrow Iran's government in 1953 was instigated by Britain which was fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, and came up with the idea for the 1952 coup and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove Mossadegh, the Iranian prime minister. The United States and Britain plotted the military coup that returned the shah of Iran to power and toppled Iran's elected prime minister. Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government.
The C.I.A. and the British intelligence service handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to Zahedi to accomplish the coup
This all came back to haunt the US when the shah‘s repressive regime was overturned by Iranian students in 1978 after Jimmy Carter refused to return the shah to Iran for trial by that country.
The Iran debacle is just one more example of the tangled web the US has woven in the Middle East since the end of WWII.
75 - Clavos
"Discovering oil on someone else's land doesn't entitle anyone to own it."
Didn't say it did.