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

The group was founded on a mixture of Islamic and Marxist doctrine and participated in the 1979 Iranian Revolution. But it fell out of favour with the new regime and sought refuge in Iraq. The biggest disagreement between the two U.S. departments centers on how to pressure Iran.

The Pentagon, buoyed by supporters in Congress, wants to sponsor the Mujahadeen Khalq opposition group, which appears on the State Department list of terrorist organizations.

Under the Pentagon plan, the Mujahadeen would be reconstituted under a different name to avoid the accusation that Washington was sponsoring a terrorist group. Pentagon officials, particularly Defense Undersecretary for Policy Douglas Feith, has deemed Mujahadeen the most effective Iranian opposition group, with excellent contacts within the Islamic regime.

The U.S. Army has disarmed thousands of Mujahadeen insurgents in Iraq. But the weapons have remained intact and are in military warehouses.

The State Department has opposed dealing with the Mujahadeen Khaq. The Mujahadeen was placed on the list of terrorist groups in 1994 amid a U.S. effort to reconcile with Tehran.

The dispute between the Pentagon and State Department has hampered an interagency effort to draft a series of recommendations to President George Bush. An interagency meeting scheduled to discuss Iran last week was indefinitely postponed amid the failure to bridge the gap between the Pentagon and State Department.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=32943

0 Replies

I wonder how many leaderships this administration is going to attempt kill, really kill? The people of Iran must be shivering in their sandals, while the leadership laughs. c.i.

0 Replies

Thank you, dys. New information for me. Appreciate the link.

<dys--wtf are you doing reading WorldNetDaily? There's just something wrong with that picture. Laughing

:wink:

0 Replies

As I mentioned a page or two back, the MEQ are on the FTO (Foreign Terrorist Orgs) list because they murdered 17 US citizens back in the 70s. Good chance they might kill a few more if they get the chance, a name change should take care of that possibility though.

0 Replies

Here's hoping the State Dept. can win this one. I don't want to do war no more, though, maybe if we called it something else... Hey! That's the ticket, yeah!

Shocked

0 Replies

Sofia dont let this get public, i have a reputation to maintain

0 Replies

What's all this tommyrot about . . .

Nuke all a them camel jockey s.o.b.'s, and pave the place for overflow parking from Europe . . . why is this such a problem?

0 Replies

First pragmatic thing that I've read on A2K for a long time, Setanta.

0 Replies

Personally, I believe the average American is happy just to be kicking Muslim buttes. I don't think they give a crap what the details are, so long as it does not inconvenience their going to Walmart and feeling good about being a winner.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I think Bush sincerely believes that by toppling enough Muslim governments the Middle East will become like American suburbs.

According to Cicero, L. Cassius Lohnginus Ravilla, who was Consul of the Roman Republic in 127 B.C., admonished judges involved in criminal trials to investigate the question to whose advantage a criminal act might have been committed. His famous question, which has had an influence on western juridical practice ever since, consisted of only two words: "Cui bono?"

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

...the Arab world justifiably sees Israel as a client state of the United States, (Arab) hatred, which i do not deny predates our support of Israel, is now pointed at us. And i see no good foreign policy justification for support of Israel which is not motivated by the political consideration of the likely reaction of American Jews, and others in this country who support the concept of the Israeli state. I'm not saying that the Israelis are worse than the Palestinians, simply that they are no better. Futher, i am pointing out that the governments of Israel have shamelessly taken advantage of their relationship with U.S. governments, and have consistently shown bad faith. Finally, i'm pointing out, which i did at the very outset of this diatribe, that American Presidents, with the exception of Carter, have been unwilling to put the screws to the Israelis to make them behave. In the eyes of the Arab world, we do nothing while Israel does as it pleases. Saying that contention is unjust, or that Israel has and continues to suffer itself means nothing to those who see the situation in those terms--Arabs specifically, and Muslims generally, do and will continue to hate us for it. Therefore, when i see Steissd come here, and complacently advocate a United States military intervention in Iran, which i see as basically a result of his desire to see someone "get" the long-term supporters of Hizbollah and the Intifada, i get rather sickened by it all. . . "

I should have read this thread more closely before posting the question Qui Bono?

After reading it more carefully I see that Setanta, in several very articulate posts has answered the question -the Israeli Radical Right.

The latter has been the 'tail' wagging the Israeli dog just as Israel (in middle Eastern affairs) has been the tail wagging the American dog.

IMO The Israeli regime , aided by influential pro-Israel advisors to Bush has sold him a bill of goods...ie. "We can't really make peace with the Palestinians until all of our surrounding enemies ie Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia have been neutralized" (or neutered)

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

From what i am reading it is The People's Mujahideen that are primarily responsible for the uprisings currently happening in Iran.

We must be reading different newspapers ...

From what I am reading the Mujahedeen has little if any support left in Iran itself at all. It remains in existence only in exile. In particular, its turn to Iraq for refuge and help during the Iran/Iraq war has done much to discredit them among Iranians inside Iran.

The students movement, from what I read, has hardly or no links whatsoever with this Mujahedeen. It is a students movement for democracy and freedom, of the kind that tends to come up when totalitarian systems start to leave enough space for dissent for such a movement to get a chance. They used to be more or less allied with the reformers within the government (Khatami and allies), but now seem to have lost patience with them.

Remember - these students will mostly not even have been born when the Mujahedeen went into exile.

Hence my take of how these students can hardly be compared to what we have seen in Afghanistan. (Well, other reasons, too. The comparison someone here made of these university students with the self-proclaimed religious "talib" in Afghanistan is just - way out of focus.) Tienanmen Square thus seems a lot more appropriate as parallel (though hopefully with a better ending).

0 Replies

Making the same distinction (bien etonne de se retrouver ensemble, on my part), the US government has cheered on the student protest, while applauding this week's French clampdown on the Mujahedeen (a clampdown that today provoked Mujahedeen supporters in cities across Europe to torch themselves in protest).

On the former, French newspaper Le Figaro quotes Colin Powell as saying, "if the people wish to pacibly demonstrate for their right to a better life, this seems to us a good thing".

But concerning the latter, Le Figaro writes: "The US has expressed its satisfaction, Tuesday night, after the operation France undertook against the Mujahedeen, recalling that this exile group is considered a terrorist organisation by Washington. "We congratulate ourselves with the efforts that are made across the world to undertake this kind of action against terrorist groups", a spokesperson for the US State Department declared".

0 Replies

Other news I read today included not just how a "massive deployment of police" has silenced the protests in Teheran again, but also, on the other hand, how "on Wednesday, the protests spread to other parts of the country" as well, with reports of "sometimes violent clashes between demonstrators and police". In Tabris, for example, "several hundred" people protested at the local university.

Faced with the over 420 arrests thus far, Khatami is still trying to play the middle ground. In a first official reaction, he spoke of "the good right" of the citizens to demonstrate, but added that it was also the right of the police to act against those, who tried to exploit such political gatherings.

(Quotes from the Frankfurter Rundschau and Neue Zuercher Zeitung)

0 Replies

The status of the MEK is that of one of the opposition groups suppressed by the pro-Khomeini after the revolution there. I think the most appropriate analogy is that of the state of the Russian Revolution after WW1, one particular group rides the crest of the wave and achieves supremacy.

Yes, Sofia they did want the 'nutbars' running Iran, but their nutbars. Think Lenin suppressing the other Soviets and then Trotsky v Stalin.

0 Replies

steissd wrote:

I would not advocate starting a terrestrial campaign prior to destroying all the infrastructure of Iran from the air, by means of bombers and missiles. This will minimize losses of the troops. If necessary, tactical or even strategic nuclear weapons should be used for further efficience and demoralizing of the enemy. If this worked against Japan, I do not see any reasons for its being inefficient against Iran and/or North Korea. I am not interested in high casualty level of the American/British troops either; frankly speaking, Iranian casualties are beyond my concern. They have deliberately toppled the progressive and enlightened monarch to replace him with rabid Mullahs, so they should pay the price.

Steissd, I am a new member of this forum, and I was interested in knowing what kind of debate there was about my homeland. There are many interesting replies here, but one of the replies that catched my attention was yours.

Your suggestion that the US should use strategic nuclear weapons on Iran is just frightening. It's sad that you see the solution of the Iranian problem so simple, and yet so devastating.

When you stated that Iranian deliberatley toppled the progressive and enlightened monarch to replace him with rabid Mullahs, did you then know the background of it? Did you know that it was the WEST (and the US in particular) that were responsible for the toppling of HIM Mohammed Reza Pahlavi? Crying or Very sad

Your solution to the problem is frightening and giving the Iranian people the blame for all that is wrong and is not right! Evil or Very Mad

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
From what i am reading it is The People's Mujahideen that are primarily responsible for the uprisings currently happening in Iran.

We must be reading different newspapers ...

From what I am reading the Mujahedeen has little if any support left in Iran itself at all. It remains in existence only in exile. In particular, its turn to Iraq for refuge and help during the Iran/Iraq war has done much to discredit them among Iranians inside Iran.

The students movement, from what I read, has hardly or no links whatsoever with this Mujahedeen. It is a students movement for democracy and freedom, of the kind that tends to come up when totalitarian systems start to leave enough space for dissent for such a movement to get a chance. They used to be more or less allied with the reformers within the government (Khatami and allies), but now seem to have lost patience with them.

Remember - these students will mostly not even have been born when the Mujahedeen went into exile.

Hence my take of how these students can hardly be compared to what we have seen in Afghanistan. (Well, other reasons, too. The comparison someone here made of these university students with the self-proclaimed religious "talib" in Afghanistan is just - way out of focus.) Tienanmen Square thus seems a lot more appropriate as parallel (though hopefully with a better ending).

You are absolutely right nimh Very Happy

The Mujahedin-e-Khalq are traitors. They are a bunch of marxist-islamist fundamentalists that won't bring any good to a democratic Iran.

Those who sold themselves to the Arabs will not be forgotten in the minds of us Persians.

0 Replies

Mamahani

Quote:

Did you know that it was the WEST (and the US in particular) that were responsible for the toppling of HIM Mohammed Reza Pahlavi?

I would like to hear your "take" on this. "Take" meaning thoughts and explanation

0 Replies

Mamhani

Welcome to A2K - glad to see the 'European fraction' growing :wink:

au

Reading mamhani's responses, I'm sure, his knowledge of English is sufficient to understand English vocabulary (his grammar seems to much better than those of some others), and he surely will answer by himself.

The pro-American Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi installed a puppet prime minister, reasserted his power and effectively ruled for decades. However, his regime was so brutal and unpopular that it is seen as a prime reason for Iran's vehemently anti-American Islamic revolution in 1979.
I would call this literally a scenario, where he was "toppled" by the West and the USA, but they gave enough reason, IMHO, for that. [And me the 'chance' of joining a couple of demonstrations - which started when I saw, how US military police was acting against demonstraters in Berlin and Berlin police shot dead a student at an anti-Sha demonstration.]

0 Replies

Thank you Walter Hinteler Very Happy

On the Iranian revolution issue, you are absolutely right in your description.

au1929 wrote:

Mamahani

Quote:

Did you know that it was the WEST (and the US in particular) that were responsible for the toppling of HIM Mohammed Reza Pahlavi?

I would like to hear your "take" on this. "Take" meaning thoughts and explanation

Sure au1929. It all dates back to 1953, with the democtratic elected prime minister Mossadeq. He was a nationalist who wanted to nationalize the Iranian oil industry, which at the time, was under the control of the British(!).
You can read more of this here; http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

A little slice of what this special report said:
- "Britain, fearful of Iran's plans to nationalize its oil industry, came up with the idea for the coup in 1952 and pressed the United States to mount a joint operation to remove the prime minister.

- The C.I.A. and S.I.S., the British intelligence service, handpicked Gen. Fazlollah Zahedi to succeed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh and covertly funneled $5 million to General Zahedi's regime two days after the coup prevailed.

- Iranians working for the C.I.A. and posing as Communists harassed religious leaders and staged the bombing of one cleric's home in a campaign to turn the country's Islamic religious community against Mossadegh's government."

One must understand that in the eyes of the people of Iran, this was a great evil done by hands of the Americans and the British.
The democratic aspirations of the Iranian people was crushed by this coup, and led to a general public suspicion against the puppet regime installed by the Americans and the British.

The fact is that this coup crushed the monarchy. Instead of turning Iran into a democratic constitutional monarchy, it led to the absolute rule of M. Reza Pahlavi, which then led to the famous "Islamic Revolution" in 1979 and the toppling of our proud monarchy. Crying or Very sad

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know