Al Queda in Iran?/ U.S. Considering Toppling Iranian Gov.

Which part of the Iranian leadership do you mean, steissd? Last I heard, they were pretty divided among themselves.

When the Cruise missiles start striking Tehran, those divisions will disappear PDQ.

Shields up, number One.

Security to the bridge . . . open up a channel to the Mullahs . . .

"This is captain Pickayune . . . we know you're harboring Democrats and other terrorists, this is your last opportunity to avoid destruction . . . "

steissd, are the Iranians, Syrians and North Koreans working together on something? I hadn't realized that.

stasia

"There were conspiracies, and rumors of conspiracies"

And when is a terrorist, not a terrorist? When he's one of our terrorists.


The idea of arming and using opposition groups in Iran to topple their govt is underway. One popular lot are the MEK (Mojahedin Khalq), but there's one tiny problem. Back in the 70s they murdered 17 US citizens and are considered 'terrorists'.

Now, the USA has a war on terror, the USA has no truck with terrorists, the USA has zero tolerance for terrorists. So; 'You need money, weapons, safe places and some latitude in your narcotics trading? Fine, but could you just lose the name guys?'.

Good Point Mr. Stillwater,
...How many deaths, have been justified through semantics? South Vietnamese, and South Koreans, were freedom seeking revolutionaries. The states of the Confederacy were rebel separatists.

They are divided on the internal policy problems, but both "liberals" and "conservatives" of the Iranian breed are unanimous in their support they provide to terror.

Both Syrian and Iranian short and medium-range ballistic missiles have N. Korean origin. Iranians just prefer the term "Shihab" to the original brand name "No Dong".

Only in the USA revolution brought freedom; majority of the revolutions in other countries (France, Russia, Iran, Cambodia, China, Cuba) brought increased level of oppression, labor camps and mass murder of citizens.

You are re-writing history?

OHMIGAWD..Streissd!....Do you really think that hasn't happened in the U.S? Ask a Native-American, African-American, or Japanese-American about that! ...Just for starters.

Yeah, Steissd, you obviously haven't read our constitution, or you'd know that blacks were granted three/fifths of their freedom, the ass and the mind being excluded, and requiring them to keep that ass on the plantation . . .

If one is going to blow smoke up someone's ass, they'd better stop smoking weed or they'll get us all high.

Revolt!

Great, current Iranian news.

One article says Khatami is giving the 'imperialists and Zionists' credit for the strength of the current uprising. (You know who you are.) :wink:

Did we do this, or didn't we? (We translates to Americans.)
If we did, do you agree with our alleged behind the scenes intervention or not?

Well, we might very well be involved not unlike our involvement in the Afghani revolt against the USSR. The problem is, just like then, we tend to aid and abet those that we will have to fight again in the future. We don't have a good track record of picking "freedom fighters" that don't turn on us.

Could we be "turned on" for a good reason?
I wish we could have helped in China, but I guess we'd be living on a piece of charcoal if we had....


I think we are behind the scenes. Hate to read of those kids getting their heads bashed in. Such bravery!

it's possible that america is working behind the scenes, of course, but hardly necessary - trouble's been brewing, anyway, and lord knows these people've got enough to go on to the street for.

remember they were there in 1999 already, in similar protests, when america did not have its men at the border. reason they were eventually persuaded to tone down then was that khatami promised them change would come with graduality; they were bound to lose patience about that some time.

considering that, in contrast with the eu, the us has taken an absolute-isolation line on anything iranian for quite a while now, it also seems unlikely that the americans would actually have the contacts inside to work with like that.

still, to your second question: whether one should agree with such suggested covert actions ... tricky.

it might well backfire on you, in the sense that american involvement could simply discredit the student opposition movement or provide a good excuse to the hardliners to clamp down. then again, theres been too pessimistic predictions about how americans would (at first, at least) be greeted when appearing in kabul or baghdad as well; the iranian population is young (large majority is under 30, i believe), so historical resentments/animosities may actually play a much smaller role than we tend to assume, and considering the second question, if the hardliners want to clampdown, they'll always find an excuse.

i myself greatly propone [word?] material and organisational support (financial support, even, if it comes without demands of loyalty to the funder) to democratic-minded opposition movements (and media!). so to the iranian students, too. (and no, dys, these are no afghani-style warlords and fundamentalists).

i would strongly hesitate about support to military groups, though, and would definitively object to such support when the guerilla groups in question are fighting a government that actually posesses some democratic legitimacy, like khatami & his parliamentarians do. and sending in secret agents to stir things up is, err, usually bound to get both you and the people you're purporting to help into trouble. i mean, smuggling in printing presses and broadcasting stations for the opposition and the like, sure, but political agitation, better not.

there - a whole set of standards, dont know whether thats quite what you were going for! ;-)

Errr, they're already onto it..

Do you know if the bill was passed, buzzkill?

_______
Thanks, Stillwater.


nimh-- Yeah, exactly what I was looking for. You never disappoint. I do think, though, that we have peeps deep into Iran.

From what i am reading it is The People's Mujahideen that are primarily responsible for the uprisings currently happening in Iran. Its also my understanding that The People's Mujahideen are the same "freedom fighters" that were responsible for the siege on the US Embassy and the subsequent taking of the hostages as well as the over-throw of the Shah. While they may not in any way be similar to Afghanistani war lords, they certainly do not show any indications of democratizing Iran. The deal the US made with them at the close of the latest Iraq invasion was that we would essentially ignore them and allow them to maintain their weaponry as long as they didn't direct it towards us. The suggestion that we are aiding/abetting the Mujahideen in an effort to effect another over-throw of the current Iran government is hardly far-fetched and would be consistent with our lack of forethought.

Little help, please.

If the P's Mujahadeen ousted the Shah--and helped install the nutbar Ayatollahs-- Then, what stake would they have in ousting the Ayatollahs? What form of govt do they want? And-- the students are pushing for increased democratization. So, you're saying the Mujahadeen is behind the scenes helping the revolt, but the students would seem directly opposed to the goals of the Mujahadeen... who seem to like cutting off people's heads when they are inappropriately attired. (I may have my Mujahadeens confused.)

Do you have a link, dys, to this info?

...and a pre-emptive strike from Britain...
10.45am update

Straw warns against interference in Iran Tom Happold and agencies
Tuesday June 17, 2003

The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, today gave Washington's hawks notice that Britain would not back interference in Iran, but also urged the Iranian government to let weapons inspectors investigate suspicions that it is developing nuclear weapons.
Mr Straw told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the government's approach to Iran was different from the US administration in that "it is one of constructive and conditional engagement with the government of Iran".

Mr Straw's comments come after the US president, George Bush, praised recent anti-government demonstrations in Iran's capital Tehran.

However, Mr Straw also said that EU ministers were prepared to "park" negotiations on a trade agreement with Iran if there was insufficient progress on inspections. Iran has recently refused to sign up to a tougher inspection regime by the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA).

"On this issue of the Iranians' possible nuclear systems, what we have said to the Iranians is 'Look, if it is correct that you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear by the kind of enhanced inspections which now the whole world wishes you to undertake,' he said.

"Iran wants a trade and cooperation agreement which would give much better trade arrangements between Iran and the EU. We have linked that very closely to progress on human rights and, for example, to progress on the kind of weapons inspections which they are going to allow under the International Atomic Energy Authority.

"We had an interim review of progress. It has not been satisfactory. We will look again following negotiations with Iran in the autumn to see how far they have got.

"It is inevitable from Iran's point of view that, if they are not making progress on each of these tracks, on human rights and cooperation with the IAEA as well as progress on the trade negotiations, then it is highly probable that European ministers will decide to have to park the negotiations on the trade and cooperation agreement."

Mr Straw also expressed optimism about the prospects of reform in Iran. "Iran is a country undergoing major demographic transition, because so many of their population, 70% at the latest estimate, is under 30, and that in itself is going to push Iran towards the process of reform and greater liberalisation."

But he stressed that the impetus for reform had to come from within the country.

"Given the long history of Iran, they have to be allowed to sort out their opposition internally, and the thing that would most derail the process towards the establishment of a better democracy in Iran would be suggestions that the opposition there was being orchestrated from the outside, which happily so far it has not been."
______________________