Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (84790)	3/22/2003 1:18:57 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Well, it is late at night but this is easier than terrorism debate, so here it goes. Shah had built Iranian military almost exclusively on American equipment. Iranian revolutionaries had the embassy hostages and would not let go of them unless Shah was to return for trial. There was still an outstanding order for 50 F16 that Iran had paid for during Shah and was suppose to be delivered. Carter was ok with this. But after hostages everything changed (of course). Anyway, at first Carter said that the relations may be severed if the hostage situation is not resolved fast (actually it was one of the senators, but I can't remember his name and for our purposes its the same). When that did not happen, the message was conveyed that Iran relies on US for some of its vital needs. And when that did not sink in, US put it bluntly that unless the hostages are freed, Iran will not get the necessary spare parts and may be left defenseless against outside aggression. Finally after Iraq attacked Iran, Carter wanted to negotiate an arms for hostages deal (which also went nowhere). All in all, it was not difficult to surmise Saddam did not invade Iran without US' blessing (to say the least)...but I don't have access to classified documents if that is what you're after :) BTW, along the saga of freeing hostages, Iranian embassy in London was taken hostage at some point in time too. Funny thing is that the hostage takers' were Palestinian but their demands included the release of American hostages <g> May be I'll bring that up when we discuss terrorism. Anyway, the Iranian foreign minister was in Kuwait at the time. When he heard the news he held a news conference with all foreign reporters invited. He called the London embassy and put the terrorists on speaker phone. Without letting them repeat their demands, he introduced himself and said not only he will not negotiate, but if any harm comes to the hostages he will blow up every airliner and every trade office of the country that has put them up to it. Then he hung up. The British managed to rescue the Iranian hostages but somehow every one of the terrorists died in the process. This brings us back to our talk that there is nothing short of direct action that US did not do to overthrow the Islamic regime. MEK, which you dismiss so readily, had been in armed conflict with Shah for a long time. It is a little known fact that even during Shah's regime, MEK had the support of UK and US. They were widely considered one of the main contributors to the revolution (though I personally think their role was exaggerated). After revolution they capitalized on a highly appealing "intellectual-Marxist-Islamic-militant" image (yup, they had all the bases covered and had something for everyone). They were astute enough to penetrate the universities (actually opening student offices). They were also smart enough to align themselves with one of the strongest figures in Iranian revolution, Ayatollah Taleghani, and thereby getting a jail free card for a long time. So all in all, considering them to be unimportant does not match the facts of the time...oh, and I forgot, they had ample weapons...and if you still think they were nothing, consider that Bani-Sadr, the first president of Iran who later turned against Khomeini, decided that MEK were the best option for over throwing the regime and married Rajavi's daughter (Rajavi is the MEK leader). And then there is the matter of failed coup d'eta just a month or two before Iraqi invasion. Given the massive extent of personnel involved, it is hard to believe US had nothing to do with it. And there is all those terrorist bombings in Tehran, from the one in Jomhuri Islami's head quarters that killed around 80 of the thinking heads of the regime, to the one planted inside the government session which no one took responsibility for, to assassination attempts at various heads, especially the more extremists. we should add these to the case for terrorism too :) later, Sun Tzu