Skip to comments.Iranian Alert - November 13, 2004 [EST]- IRAN LIVE THREAD - "Americans for Regime Change in Iran"
Posted on 11/12/2004 9:35:35 PM PST by DoctorZIn
The US media still largely ignores news regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran. As Tony Snow of the Fox News Network has put it, this is probably the most under-reported news story of the year. As a result, most Americans are unaware that the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT supported by the masses of Iranians today. Modern Iranians are among the most pro-American in the Middle East. In fact they were one of the first countries to have spontaneous candlelight vigils after the 911 tragedy (see photo).
There is a popular revolt against the Iranian regime brewing in Iran today. I began these daily threads June 10th 2003. On that date Iranians once again began taking to the streets to express their desire for a regime change. Today in Iran, most want to replace the regime with a secular democracy.
The regime is working hard to keep the news about the protest movement in Iran from being reported. Unfortunately, the regime has successfully prohibited western news reporters from covering the demonstrations. The voices of discontent within Iran are sometime murdered, more often imprisoned. Still the people continue to take to the streets to demonstrate against the regime.
In support of this revolt, Iranians in America have been broadcasting news stories by satellite into Iran. This 21st century news link has greatly encouraged these protests. The regime has been attempting to jam the signals, and locate the satellite dishes. Still the people violate the law and listen to these broadcasts. Iranians also use the Internet and the regime attempts to block their access to news against the regime. In spite of this, many Iranians inside of Iran read these posts daily to keep informed of the events in their own country.
This daily thread contains nearly all of the English news reports on Iran. It is thorough. If you follow this thread you will witness, I believe, the transformation of a nation. This daily thread provides a central place where those interested in the events in Iran can find the best news and commentary. The news stories and commentary will from time to time include material from the regime itself. But if you read the post you will discover for yourself, the real story of what is occurring in Iran and its effects on the war on terror.
I am not of Iranian heritage. I am an American committed to supporting the efforts of those in Iran seeking to replace their government with a secular democracy. I am in contact with leaders of the Iranian community here in the United States and in Iran itself.
If you read the daily posts you will gain a better understanding of the US war on terrorism, the Middle East and why we need to support a change of regime in Iran. Feel free to ask your questions and post news stories you discover in the weeks to come.
If all goes well Iran will be free soon and I am convinced become a major ally in the war on terrorism. The regime will fall. Iran will be free. It is just a matter of time.
TEHRAN - Iran vowed it would "resist" unfair demands to limit parts of its suspect nuclear programme, as talks with Britain, France and Germany on resolving the stand-off appeared to run into fresh difficulties.
Speaking in a Friday prayer sermon, the top advisor to Iran's supreme leader called for "resistance" and complained that Tehran was subject to "idiotic and childish" demands.
The Europeans "have told us to stop our nuclear programme and in return they will sell us commercial jets and trains", Ali Akbar Nateq Nuri said. "This is an idiotic and childish thing.
"Fortunately, the opinion polls show that 75 to 80 percent of Iranians want to resist, and that we continue our programme and reject humiliation."
He said supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on all matters of state, "has summed up our policy in one phrase -- if you (the Europeans) are reasonable, we will negotiate with you; if not, we have nothing to say to you.
"They tell us to suspend enrichment, but it is none of your business," said Nateq Nuri, noting that fuel cycle work was permitted under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
Powerful former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani said the talks were still "moving forward step by step", but added that "on one or two points, we are still far away from getting what we want".
"I think that we can reach a solution and that we can reach an accord if the Europeans prove their wisdom and do not make excessive demands," said the charismatic cleric, who now heads Iran's top political arbitration body.
Iran was this week supposed to give its response to demands it halt its uranium enrichment in order to avoid being taken before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions.
The terms of a preliminary accord were hammered out during two days of tough negotiations in Paris last week.
Fresh talks were held in Tehran Thursday and Friday, but sources close to the discussions said a final deal had yet to be reached.
"It requires a big effort from both sides," the source said.
The Europeans are pushing for Iran to accept a suspension of its work on the nuclear fuel cycle, including enrichment, to ease international alarm over what the United States alleges is a covert weapons drive.
In return, Europe's three major powers are offering Iran civilian nuclear technology, including access to nuclear fuel, increased trade and help with Tehran's regional security concerns.
The International Atomic Energy Agency, which has been probing Iran for nearly two years, has told the country it must respond this week in writing to the European deal if it wants its position included in a report for an IAEA meeting in Vienna on November 25.
That meeting will decide whether Iran has satisfied the IAEA. An opinion to the contrary could see Iran's referred to the Security Council.
|Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (file photo)|
Frame from NTV Channel
Created: 12.11.2004 14:47 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:47 MSK, 17 hours 5 minutes ago
MosNews Russias natural gas monopoly has cancelled plans to take part in a tender to construct facilities at the Iranian South Pars field, the Itar-Tass news agency reports. The agency quoted Sergey Kuznets, an official from Gazproms legal department, as saying that the company held preliminary talks and looked at the projects economics and decided not to send a binding application to take part in the tender.
However, Kuznets said that Gazprom was interested in Armenian energy projects. Gazprom is looking at the possibility of taking part in the construction of a gas pipeline from Iran to Armenia and in the privatization of Georgian pipelines linking Russia and Armenia.
Kuznets said that if privatization conditions in Georgia suit Gazprom, the company will consider participation in the privatization of a main gas pipeline and gas distribution organization as promising. For Gazprom this is important as these gas pipelines link Russia to Armenia.
France, Britain and Germany are trying to get Iran to agree to suspend sensitive nuclear work to avoid a referral to the United Nations Security Council for possible sanctions.
At a joint news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at the White House, Bush praised Blair's efforts to try to achieve a deal.
"We don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon and we're working toward that end," Bush said. "And the truth of the matter is the prime minister gets a lot of credit for working with France and Germany to convince the Iranians to get rid of the processes that would enable them to develop a nuclear weapon."
The United States accuses Iran of secretly trying to build nuclear weapons -- an accusation denied by Tehran.
PHILADELPHIA - A company that sells refurbished photo developing equipment pleaded guilty Friday to breaking a U.S. embargo barring American firms from doing business in Iran.
Prosecutors said the Allentown-based BEF Corp. sold 16 photo minilabs to an Iranian customer in 2001, then tried to hide the transaction by shipping the equipment through a middleman in the United Arab Emirates.
The U.S. State Department has listed Iran as a state sponsor of terrorism since the mid-1980s, and the embargo on exports to the country has been in place since 1995.
BEF's founder, Elward Brewer, entered the plea on behalf of the company in a hearing before a federal judge in Allentown. The firm also admitted that it falsified export papers to allow its foreign customers to cheat on import taxes.
Investigators linked the company to its Iranian customer with the help of internal company documents and e-mails, testimony from its business partners and telephone records, which showed that BEF workers made scores of calls to Iran in the months before and after the sale.
BEF and Brewer also pleaded guilty Friday to violating the federal Clean Water Act by dumping pollutants into several municipal sewer systems.
Prosecutors accused the company of using the sewers to illegally dispose of toxic silver solutions that it had cleaned from the inside of refurbished photo developing machines.
BEF has agreed to pay $555,600 in penalties and fines to resolve both sets of criminal charges. The company will also be on probation for five years.
Brewer's plea deal calls for him to pay a $100,000 fine and make a $50,000 contribution to Wildlands Conservancy Inc., a nonprofit Lehigh Valley environmental organization. He could also face a small amount of jail time when he is sentenced in February. The plea agreement left any term of imprisonment up to a judge.
The minilabs sold in Iran were worth about $300,000, the government said.
The charges were the culmination of a larger investigation, during which a BEF salesman was sentenced to federal prison for pocketing cash from a minilab sale and an administrative assistant was fined on a misdemeanor charge that she falsified records.
BEF Corp. officials and a lawyer for the company did not immediately return phone messages Friday.
|11/12/2004||Clip No. 347|
Palestinian Ambassador in Iran: Arafat fought the Jihad and the Palestinian State Is Our Plan
|The following is an excerpt with an interview with Palestinian Ambassador in Tehran, Salah Al-Zawawi on Al-Alam TV (Iran):
This man knew that this path is the path of martyrdom and Jihad He knew that this great cause requires martyrs, not leaders. Who look after their personal future and not the nation's future. He fought the Jihad and we saw him in many battles. Sometimes he was right and sometimes he erred. And whenever he erred, we would tell him: this is a mistake And whenever he was right we would praise him. And now he is gone If you ask me what will surely be the end of this Zionist entity, I will say to you that this entity will disappear one of these days. And its leaders, who can see what will be in the future, understand this. It's a matter of time. But we are not living in a jungle and we are not detached from what is going on in the world. We understand that the world is ruled by international forces, is ruled by international organizations We and the world's nations are subject to these organizations on many issues. We must adhere to the legitimate international decisions. Our phased plan, which I already mentioned, is to establish an independent sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital. As for deciding the conflict, that's a matter for history. It is up to the next generations. And whoever dreams of liberating Palestine tomorrow, he is indeed dreaming.
To view the clip click here.
The Iranians for freedom should be spending their energy convincing other Muslims. They need to get the Muslim world behind them. You sound like all the Iraqis who were on TV before the war, making it sound like the entire country of Iraq was behing them.
Saturday November 13, 09:40 AM
|Iran says nuke talks in final stages
By Paul Hughes
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's negotiations with the European Union over a deal which would spare Tehran from possible U.N. sanctions over its nuclear programme are in their final stages, Iran says.
"Negotiations with Europe were intense and important and... they are in their final stages," Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told state television on Saturday. "We have given them our final response and await their final decision and we hope to pass this stage smoothly."
Iran and the European Union's big three powers -- Britain, Germany and France -- have been negotiating a deal for the past few weeks under which Tehran would agree to freeze sensitive nuclear work such as uranium enrichment.
In return, the EU would not support U.S. calls for Iran's case to be sent to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions and would sit down with Iran to work out a lasting solution to the nuclear dispute.
Iran insists its nuclear ambitions are limited to generating electricity from atomic power plants, not making bombs.
Tehran gave its response to the EU deal on Thursday but there has been no announcement yet of a final agreement. EU diplomats say Iran has been trying to change some of the terms of the deal, including the scope of the enrichment suspension.
U.S. President George W. Bush, who has labelled Iran an "axis of evil" member, on Friday gave public backing to the EU initiative to try to resolve the dispute through talks.
"We don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon and we're working toward that end," Bush said at a joint news conference with Prime Minister Tony Blair at the White House.
"And the truth of the matter is the prime minister gets a lot of credit for working with France and Germany to convince the Iranians to get rid of the processes that would enable them to develop a nuclear weapon."
IAEA REPORT DELAYED AGAIN
The IAEA has delayed release of its of eagerly-awaited report summarising its two-year investigation of Iran to give the EU and Iran a chance to come to a final agreement.
"The stakes are very high on both sides," a Vienna-based Western diplomat who follows IAEA issues very closely told Reuters. The report was originally due Friday but will not likely reach Vienna diplomats until early next week.
The suspension of enrichment was demanded by the IAEA board of governors in September. Although the IAEA resolution called for an immediate freeze of all enrichment-related activities, Iran has continued producing centrifuge parts.
"They now have enough parts for 1100 to 1200 centrifuges," said one diplomat, adding that this was enough to make enough highly-enriched uranium for a weapon in two to three years.
Diplomats said IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei had told the Iranians that if the results of their negotiations with the EU were positive, he would be able to present a relatively upbeat report to the agency's 35-member board on November 25.
Unlike previous reports, which were technical updates about the investigation, this report will cover the entire probe.
Diplomats said that ElBaradei plans to say that while he has found no evidence Tehran diverted resources or materials to a weapons programme, Iran's nuclear fuel production capabilities are suspiciously far ahead of the rest of its atomic programme.
Kharrazi said it was time for Iran's case to be closed.
"We have done all we could to cooperate with the agency. Most of the questions are addressed now. There is nothing more Iran can do... We think it is time to close Iran's case with the agency," he said.
AS THE UNITED STATES and its allies give Tehran its fifth chance in nearly two years to suspend activities that could bring it within weeks of having enough enriched uranium for a large arsenal, the question arises: Isn't there a better way to prevent states from getting nuclear weapons? The answer is yes, but only if we and our partners are willing to be much more aggressive in adapting existing nonproliferation efforts to today's threats.
The key problem is that our current policy concedes too much. Iran, for instance, asserts that it has the right under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to come within weeks of building a bomb, and we do not publicly contest this. Instead, Britain, France, and Germany, in their latest one-last-chance offer, are pleading with Tehran not to exercise the right it claims. In exchange for an Iranian pledge to suspend certain nuclear fuel-making activities, the three propose to guarantee Tehran not only a supply of fresh light-water-reactor fuel for its just-completed power reactor at Bushehr, but also more such reactors and improved trade relations as well.
If this sounds like an invitation to nuclear mischief, it is. First, the fuel that the European Three would guarantee could itself be used to accelerate the making of a bomb. Fresh, lightly enriched light-water-reactor fuel is far closer to being bomb grade than is natural uranium. If Iran were to seize the fuel and divert it--as it probably could without IAEA inspectors' immediate knowledge--Iran could reduce five-fold the level of effort it would need to make bomb-grade material: With the centrifuges Iran admits having, it could make a bomb's worth of fuel in roughly nine weeks as opposed to a year. This suggests that the IAEA's current cycle of inspections at Bushehr--once every three months--is woefully inadequate.
Second, so long as Iran and other aspiring bomb-makers have a right to pursue all the activities necessary to get them within days of a bomb, they will have the upper hand in negotiations. Certainly, with Iran's enrichment facilities in place and its right to operate them uncontested, Tehran could suspend enrichment operations--as it has just agreed to do--and yet be free to resume them any time it wants. The worry now is that Iran will simply buy time with the European Three, to push for permission to exercise its right to enrich while building up its covert capabilities to do so.
This, in essence, is the fatal flaw in our approach to nonproliferation: We and our partners are still much more willing to defend the right to make nuclear weapons-usable materials than we are to read the rules so as to deny it.
This needs to change. Certainly, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which was negotiated in 1968, qualifies the right of non-weapons states to develop nuclear energy: They may not use nuclear-energy technology to make nuclear arms. This is forbidden by the treaty's stricture against non-weapons states' acquiring the bomb.
Nor is there a right under the treaty to develop and use civilian nuclear energy except for peaceful purposes. What is peaceful? First, the nuclear activity must be logically linked to the production of some good that is either technically necessary or economically beneficial. Enriching uranium or reprocessing spent fuel in nations that have few nuclear reactors (like Iran and North Korea) is neither necessary nor economical and, as such, should be suspect. Similarly, large reactors for nations that have easy access to less risky, more economical alternatives (such as cheap, natural-gas-fired power plants or zero-power research reactors) should raise alarm bells.
Second, any peaceful nuclear activity must be capable of being safeguarded as the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty defines the term. This casts suspicion on any activity that can quickly lead to the production of bomb fuel or bombs, since in such cases periodic inspections cannot prevent the diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful uses to weapons. By the time a nuclear theft were detected--and with high-volume facilities, it might never be--it would be too late to prevent the construction of a bomb.
Even light-water power reactors present a safeguard challenge. A lengthy technical study just released by my center details the proliferation risks these plants present. Written by three experts on power reactors, nuclear chemistry, and nuclear weapons design, it concludes that today, nations can build small, covert enrichment and reprocessing plants relatively easily. These plants could process fresh and spent light-water-reactor fuel into bomb material well within the time between IAEA inspectors' routine visits. As long as real-time surveillance of these reactors and this fuel is not required--and so far, it is not--aspiring bomb-makers will be able to divert it without tipping off the IAEA.
All of this suggests that we need to start insisting on what the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty already requires. A good place to begin would be to reject the claim of Germany, Iran, Brazil, South Africa, and others that the treaty gives members a right to the entire nuclear fuel cycle. This has become conventional wisdom. But historically and logically, it's wrong.
When the finishing touches were being put on the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Mexico and Spain separately attempted to modify it to require nuclear states to share civilian nuclear technology and assure members access to the entire technology of reactors and fuels. Both amendments were rejected, and with cause. What point would there be to a nonproliferation treaty if it encouraged states to acquire unnecessary, unsafeguardable nuclear technology that could bring them within days of possessing a nuclear arsenal? The question answers itself. That's why the United States and its key partners have always been concerned about the spread of reprocessing and enrichment plants and why they have worried about certain states' acquisition of power and large research reactors.
Now that these technologies are spreading to would-be bomb-makers, the challenge is to safeguard nuclear power where it makes sense and proscribe it where it does not. One useful approach is to apply market economics. Could Brazil, Algeria, Iran, or North Korea secure private funding for their nuclear projects? All of them claim that their nuclear programs are producing peaceful benefits. If so, shouldn't there be sufficient profit from them to attract private investors? The answer is no, since nonnuclear alternatives could produce the benefits sooner for far less cost. That these nations prefer nuclear projects to the safer, more economical alternatives is itself instructive.
Of course, whatever we ask of poorer nations, we should be willing to do ourselves. Germany and Britain have looked at the economics of their state-supported commercial nuclear programs and decided to phase them out. France and Japan should also reconsider what they are doing, especially with regard to their state-supported reprocessing programs (which President Bush has called totally unnecessary). Even the United States, which subsidizes nuclear power with government insurance and funding of commercial-sized nuclear facilities, export loan guarantees, and the like, would do well to cut the federal cord.
As for the nuclear facilities that remain, the IAEA needs to be much more watchful. At a minimum, to monitor large reactors, it should use full-time, on-site inspectors and real-time, wide-area cameras. This will cost money, but the agency could charge a reasonable user fee to raise the needed cash. In addition, the IAEA needs to reassess what is safeguardable under what circumstances. Any honest review should lead to a recommendation that for the next few decades no nation undertake to reprocess or to bring new enrichment plants on line. Beyond this, the United States and its partners should lead an effort to ban the redeployment of nuclear weapons from one country's soil onto another's in peacetime (notably from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia) and the international shipment of nuclear weapons-usable materials (including from North Korea to anyone) unless these shipments are necessary to dispose of the materials. President Bush's Proliferation Security Initiative could be adapted to enforce such bans.
Given the horrors of September 11, 2001, the danger of nuclear terrorism, and the prospect of numerous Irans just a screwdriver turn away from an arsenal of bombs, it's time the United States and its partners promoted a bolder deal than the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty of 35 years ago. Instead of trading peaceful nuclear technology for mere promises not to acquire nuclear weapons, the United States and like-minded nations should offer intelligence and advanced technology to help nations secure their borders against nuclear leakage and dangerous imports. They should also offer the developing world access to newer, safer nonnuclear energy alternatives.
In exchange, nations would be asked to back the nuclear restraints described, restraints that any sane reading of existing rules should require. Such a Nuclear Security Initiative might, in time, be formalized in a treaty. Until then, it ought to be promoted to give backbone and direction to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and its enforcement mechanisms--starting with Iran.
Henry Sokolski is executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center and editor of Getting MAD: Nuclear Mutual Assured Destruction, Its Origins and Practice (U.S. Army War College, 2004).
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Undersecretary John Bolton has pushed unsuccessfully for nearly two years to get the International Atomic Energy Agency Board of Governors to refer to the U.N. Security Council what he alleges are violations by Iran of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Unsuccessfully, because the IAEA has concluded after an exhaustive special inspection that there is no evidence that Iran has violated the NPT.
By signing the NPT, Iran had promised not to acquire or produce nukes. Under the Safeguards Agreement they signed with the IAEA, Iran was required to "declare" all their "nuclear materials," however acquired or produced. IAEA inspectors carry out periodic on-site inspections to ensure that there have been no diversions of nuclear materials from peaceful activities to the production of nukes.
Not declaring all "nuclear materials" is merely a violation of the Safeguards Agreement. Diverting "nuclear materials" to the production of nukes is a violation of the Treaty.
Sensing that the IAEA Board would not refer the matter to the Security Council absent a reported flagrant violation of the NPT last month Bolton got the G-8 Group of Industrialized Nations to try to intimidate the IAEA.
"We deplore Iran 's delays, deficiencies in cooperation and inadequate disclosures, as detailed in IAEA Director General reports. We therefore urge Iran promptly and fully to comply with its commitments and all IAEA Board requirements, including ratification and full implementation of the Additional Protocol, leading to resolution of all outstanding issues related to its nuclear program.
"We support the suspension of nuclear fuel cycle cooperation with states that violate their nuclear nonproliferation and safeguards obligations, recognizing that the responsibility and authority for such decisions rests with national governments or the Security Council."
But IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei will report that Iran has been fully cooperating and has made complete disclosures. Furthermore, Iran has essentially been operating as if the Additional Protocol had already been ratified. The IAEA uncovered some past failures of the sort it recently uncovered in South Korea to promptly and fully declare all "nuclear materials." But there are no outstanding issues to be resolved. The IAEA has found no indication that Iran has diverted or attempted to divert "nuclear materials" to the production of nukes. Therefore, there is no NPT violation for the IAEA Board to refer to the Security Council.
A senior U.S. diplomat who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity said that even if the IAEA Board balks, the United States will still seek a referral to the Security Council based on Iran's "past record of deception on its nuclear activities" and that the matter could be referred to the council "in different ways."
But, absent an NPT violation, it appears that Bolton will have to convince the Security Council that Iran's safeguarded nuclear programs constitute a "threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression." If he can do that, then it will be up to the Security Council to "make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Under Article 41, the Security Council may "call upon the members to impose complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations."
Under Article 42 the Security Council may conclude that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate. It may then call upon members to take "such action by air, sea or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security."
If Iran refuses to accede to U.S. demands that they "suspend" the nuclear energy programs which the NPT gives them an "inalienable right" to have Bolton has reportedly written his counterparts in Paris, London and Berlin that he "expects" them to back his request for "action by the Security Council."
Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said that Beijing believes Iran's nuclear issue should be resolved within the framework of the IAEA and would likely veto any action by the Security Council.
What to do? Well, apparently the neo-crazies are seriously considering launching or condoning a pre-emptive strike against Iran's safeguarded facilities, in flagrant violation of the U.N. Charter.
Perhaps that is what prompted British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to declare this week that such an attack was "inconceivable." "I don't see any circumstances in which military action would be justified against Iran, full stop."
"The Iranians for freedom should be spending their energy convincing other Muslims"
Convincing them of what?
"You sound like all the Iraqis who were on TV before the war, making it sound like the entire country of Iraq was behing them."
Are you trying to insinuate that the overwhelming majority of Iranians DON'T want change?
I have no idea what Iranians want. IMO they should be convincing fellow Muslims.
"they should be convincing fellow Muslims."
Convincing them of what? That the regime they live under is bad? You think there's a lot of muslims in the world flocking to Iran to live there?
"I have no idea what Iranians want."
Well, if you read this Thread regularly, you'll learn what they want.
U.S. strike on Iran really 'inconceivable'? - WND
A Must Read...
Read my comments on my blog:
What I'm trying to say is what happens if our young guys go into Iran, some of them get killed, then what???
Will Iran end up being another crazed butcherhouse?
Why aren't you out changing your fellow Muslims?
Why don't you get Muslims to go into Iran and change them?
"what happens if our young guys go into Iran, some of them get killed, then what???"
"Why don't you get Muslims to go into Iran and change them?"
Should we send Catholics into Cuba to get rid of Castro?
I don't think you understand what's going on in Iran.
If you read this thread, you'll learn a lot.
You want our soldiers, many of whom are jewish or christian to go into Iran, free it, so that Muslims can blame all their problems on jews and Americans, plot to butcher us all.
That is what I have learned.
Then you need to read a LOT More.
You don't have a clue who the Persian people are or what's going on in Iran.
Tkathy is another radical fundamentalist who wants all Muslims dead. With Osama, Hezbullah, etc on the Muslim side people like Tkathy on our side - the radical ideology continues.
I have never advocated military intervention in Iran unless our nations security is threatened.
I have been advocating support for a popular revolt against the regime or a national referendum on their form of government where an legitimate democracy is on the ballot.
Seventy per cent of Iranians are under 30.
The vast majority of those born since the Islamist revolution want to replace the current theocracy with secular democracy.
Iranian democracy advocates do not and have never desired military intervention, but rather solidarity expressed in official policy.
John Kerry promised the mullahs of Tehran he would "repair the damage done to relations by the Bush Administration since 9-11."
America rejected that and re-elected a president who publicly promises to promote democracy.
America defeated Communism without invasion; so let us defeat Islamist fascism.
We and the Israelis may have to do some surgical removal/destruction of their nuclear sites/personnel via air strikes. I guess that still would not be considered an invasion.