Iran will rule the ME w/o firing a single shot

[Two Thumbs]

Get elected into power...

You have a problem with democracy?

Of course not. Don't be silly.

But you have to admit it's a great way to run the show.

Using Democracy, something Iran only pays lip service to, they now control the Pals and Lebanon.

Israel is nearly surrounded by people fully loyal to Iran. It's only a matter of time before they start to issue ultimatums.

The ultimatums would probably go along the lines of leave the land or pay us money, leave or die, surrender to our authority, etc, etc,,,
Like what "ultimatum?"

If any country is prepared to receive ultimatums, I'd expect Israel would be at the top of the list.

One of Irans goals has been to either destroy Israel or push it into the sea. (same thing, but you get the picture)

If Iran proxy controls all of Israel flanks. what keeps them for pushing for that ultimate goal?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Back in the day when Persia was under the influence of the US that was what we wanted from them. What is our reason for being in the area. There is only one thing we want from there and that is oil. A Muslim Middle east will still sell oil because without money they would revert to the desert nomacdic economy which existed before the oil boom. Sure they had an embargo back in the early 70's but they are more dependent on oil now than they were back then. If we packed up and left the region nothing would change as to the availabilty of oil.

Of course the dispute with Israel may cause complications and that has always been the main point of contention between the middle eastern countries and the US. Solve that problem (if it can ever be solved) and everything else will fall into place.

"Solve that problem (if it can ever be solved) ..."

Of course, they will never solve the problem....start from that premise.

Z, one regularly hears of the time "Back in the day when Persia was under the influence of the US..."
but how many know of the day when 'Persia' was under the influence of the Nazis?

The name Iran means ‘Aryan,’ and was chosen to support a massive Nazi-dominated infrastructure which was ready to provide oil to the Nazis. By the early 1930s, Reza Pahlavi's close ties with Nazi Germany began worrying the Allied states.[8] Germany's modern state and economy highly impressed the Shah, and there were hundreds of Germans involved in every aspect of the state, from setting up factories to building roads, railroads and bridges.[9] German?Iranian relations - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geopolitics often means more than 'follow the money.'

And Israel was originally supported by diplomatic means and weapons by Russia. A few laters we were the backers and Russia was backing their enemies. Geopolitical relationships can be turned upside down in a minute depending on the "flavor of the day'"

Sorry that I neglected to make myself clear....the import of my note was that the inveterate hatred of the Jews by Moslems, rather than petrodollars, is the reason that the Persians changed their name to Iran, and were working to aid the Nazi efforts...

From "Farhud," by Edwin Black:

1. The Farhud, in this case, means the June 1941 Nazi-style pogrom in Baghdad that set the stage for the devastation and expulsion of the Iraqi Jews and ultimately almost a million Jews across the Arab world. But it also means, in the larger sense, the Nazia-Arab alliance, the mutual attempts at genocide of the Jews.

a. When the progrom did not accomplish the extermination of Iraq’s Jews, the Arabs joined with the Iranians.

2. Jews had lived in Iraq for some 2600 years, but the origin of this mass Muslim movement was in 627. At that time, Mohammed, defending Medina, judged the Jewish tribe to be guilty of aiding the Meccan attackers, and oversaw such acts as the beheading of 900 captives of the Banu Qurayzah tribe, he watched the bodies thrown into a pit.(… in his 1895 biography of Muhammad ("Mahomet and Islam", London, 1895, p. 151), which relied entirely on the original Muslim sources, the scholar Sir William Muir observed:
"The massacre of the Banu Coreiza was a barbarous deed which cannot be justified by any reason of political necessity the indiscriminate slaughter of the whole tribe cannot be recognized otherwise than as an act of monstrous cruelty?")
The Legacy of Jihad [Andrew G. Bostom] - Muhammad, the Qurayza Massacre, and PBS

a. The extermination of the Jews of Medina represents the iconic moment in Islam, just as the Sermon on the Mount is the iconic moment of Christianity, or the parting of the Red Sea is for the Jews.

b. “Our hatred for the Jews dates from God's condemnation of them for their persecution and rejection of Isa (Jesus) and their subsequent rejection of His chosen Prophet." He added "that for a Muslim to kill a Jew, or for him to be killed by a Jew ensures him an immediate entry into Heaven and into the august presence of God Almighty." November 23, 1937, Saudi Arabia's King Ibn Saud told British Colonel H.R.P. Dickson. Official British document, Foreign Office File No. 371/20822 E 7201/22/31; Elie Kedourie, Islam in the Modern World, (London: Mansell, 1980), pp. 69-72.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Hezbollah, Hamas and several other Islamic groups have central offices in Syria. Not to mention numerous Iraqi insurgent groups.

Looking at the map, I need to adjust who I think is next.

Controlling the West Bank and Lebenon, the next best place would be Egypt. That would surround Israel with Iranian puppets.

Jordon would be very helpfull but Syria isn't actually needed.

Jordan would be tough, the Jordan Intelligence are ruthless and don't fuck around.

So true! 'else there would have been no Black September, and Jordan would be called Palestine.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You do have to give our government's p-r campaign a lot of credit. Some of our closest allies in the middle east are a religious military dictatorship (King Abdullah in Saudi Arabia) and a man who admitted to having a sham election and then won by a higher percentage in the next election after that one (President Mu'barak in Egypt). All the while preaching how important democracy is and how we want to bring it to the Middle East, yet when they have elections we don't have a hand in we freak out.

 

[BlackAsCoal]

get elected into power...

You have a problem with democracy?

Bingo !!!

WE HAVE A WINNER

 

[LibocalypseNow]

Good for them. They can have it. We should dramatically scale back our presence in the Middle East. It's an insane & dangerous Hellhole. If Iran wants it,they can have it.

 

[High_Gravity]

wow, just saw this.

this was set up 3 years ago when the leb army caved and let hezzby shut them and Beirut down over the airport smuggling issues and telecommunications networks infrastructure dust up.

Result? Hezzby owned the streets....

then the UN indictments for the Rafik Hariri assassination...they have been sitting on it..Hezzby sent a warning shot across their bow last month, the UN sat on it...and now Hezzby in a brilliant move looking ahead of the UN et al has preempted them by just flexing its muscle, and they caved again, they, the UN, EU and US have been presented with a fait accompli, the indictments would be even more worthless now.

So this certainly follows....we live a fools life, we meet a fools end.

As much as it pains me to say it; Iran, well done. They played us, along with Syria ( who has played us too) , they took advantage of every angle, between our complete ineptitude and blundering ala the Palestinian-Jewish issues, and in the region overall, along with craven UN and Euro leadership….

last port of call for this ship of fools, all ashore that’s going ashore.

You are right, but the US never had enough leverage in Lebanon to begin with. Iran always had Hezbollah and a sympathetic Shite Arab community there, I gave up on Lebanon years ago. R.I.P Lebanon

 

[Sallow]

And that would be?

The United States..

We've fought plenty of Proxy wars..and heck..we overthrew the elected government of Iran using spook methods.

Wrong.

Mossadegh himself was appointed prime minister by the parliament upon recommendation of the Shah himself.

Parliament did not change. Only Mossadegh, the prime minister, was deposed. He was elected by parliament (which remained after he was deposed), not by any popular vote. And constitutionally, his dismissal was arguably within the Shah's power anyways.

"On March 15, the Majlis voted to nationalize the oil industry. In April the shah yielded to Majlis pressure and demonstrations in the streets by naming Mossadeq prime minister."
Iran - MOSSADEQ AND OIL NATIONALIZATION


"The plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, as he had attempted some months earlier."
Mohammed Mossadeq - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is Mohammed Mossadeq? What is Mohammed Mossadeq? Where is Mohammed Mossadeq? Definition of Mohammed Mossadeq. Meaning of Mohammed Mossadeq.


But one can always count on folks like you, Sal, to promote the 'Blame America First' perspective.

One can only marvel at your consistency, as the above information will, I am certain, have absolutely no effect on your future dissemination of misinformation.

Carry on.

Sorry..but Operation Ajax was outside meddling.

The Central Intelligence Agency pressured the weak monarch while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government.[10] At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of August 15–16, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On August 19, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence.[11] According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Teheran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on the 19th. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city.[12] Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On December 21, 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.[13][14][15] Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You seem to know very little about the spook world.

 

[PoliticalChic]

They're running in democratic elections and winning. I see nothing that concerns me here.

I believe it is a mistake, although we generally all do it, to assume that terms have an absolute meaning and do not require definition or elucidation.

Democracy is one of those terms...as it may not mean the same thing in every context.

Rather than provide it here, if you have the time and/or interest, I wrote a thread 'Free Markets and Democracy' in Economy Forum in which I gave examples of what happens when nations invest in democracy but may not be ready for it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Hezbollah, Hamas and several other Islamic groups have central offices in Syria. Not to mention numerous Iraqi insurgent groups.

Looking at the map, I need to adjust who I think is next.

Controlling the West Bank and Lebenon, the next best place would be Egypt. That would surround Israel with Iranian puppets.

Jordon would be very helpfull but Syria isn't actually needed.

Jordan would be tough, the Jordan Intelligence are ruthless and don't fuck around.

Jordon is not needed with the West Bank. It would be helpfull as it would shut Israel off to anything but the sea.

And the Jordon intellegence can't stop votes, unless they murder the opposition. And that's totally unheard of over there[dripping with sarcasm]

 

[ekrem]

It's everyone's turn once in a while, so it has to be for a representative democracy.
Words like 'takeover' don't describe the situation as they imply being deprived of a natural right for government.
Lebanon's population also consists of Shiites, if they assemble a government, then we can say, that Lebanon's democracy has matured.
'I rule or democracy I don't like' isn't really a democracy.

 

[Trajan]

It's everyone's turn once in a while, so it has to be for a representative democracy.
Words like 'takeover' don't describe the situation as they imply being deprived of a natural right for government.
Lebanon's population also consists of Shiites, if they assemble a government, then we can say, that Lebanon's democracy has matured.
'I rule or democracy I don't like' isn't really a democracy.

good one.

 

[Sallow]

Looking at the map, I need to adjust who I think is next.

Controlling the West Bank and Lebenon, the next best place would be Egypt. That would surround Israel with Iranian puppets.

Jordon would be very helpfull but Syria isn't actually needed.

Jordan would be tough, the Jordan Intelligence are ruthless and don't fuck around.

Jordon is not needed with the West Bank. It would be helpfull as it would shut Israel off to anything but the sea.

And the Jordon intellegence can't stop votes, unless they murder the opposition. And that's totally unheard of over there[dripping with sarcasm]

Jordan, from what I understand (Never been there), is a pretty modern and reasonable country.

 

[High_Gravity]

Looking at the map, I need to adjust who I think is next.

Controlling the West Bank and Lebenon, the next best place would be Egypt. That would surround Israel with Iranian puppets.

Jordon would be very helpfull but Syria isn't actually needed.

Jordan would be tough, the Jordan Intelligence are ruthless and don't fuck around.

Jordon is not needed with the West Bank. It would be helpfull as it would shut Israel off to anything but the sea.

And the Jordon intellegence can't stop votes, unless they murder the opposition. And that's totally unheard of over there[dripping with sarcasm]

Well Jordan has a King, so I don't see them having elections anytime soon.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Good for them. They can have it. We should dramatically scale back our presence in the Middle East. It's an insane & dangerous Hellhole. If Iran wants it,they can have it.

Let them go back to killing each other?

Not a bad idea

 

[PoliticalChic]

The United States..

We've fought plenty of Proxy wars..and heck..we overthrew the elected government of Iran using spook methods.

Wrong.

Mossadegh himself was appointed prime minister by the parliament upon recommendation of the Shah himself.

Parliament did not change. Only Mossadegh, the prime minister, was deposed. He was elected by parliament (which remained after he was deposed), not by any popular vote. And constitutionally, his dismissal was arguably within the Shah's power anyways.

"On March 15, the Majlis voted to nationalize the oil industry. In April the shah yielded to Majlis pressure and demonstrations in the streets by naming Mossadeq prime minister."
Iran - MOSSADEQ AND OIL NATIONALIZATION


"The plot, known as Operation Ajax, centered around convincing Iran's monarch to use his constitutional authority to dismiss Mossadegh from office, as he had attempted some months earlier."
Mohammed Mossadeq - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is Mohammed Mossadeq? What is Mohammed Mossadeq? Where is Mohammed Mossadeq? Definition of Mohammed Mossadeq. Meaning of Mohammed Mossadeq.


But one can always count on folks like you, Sal, to promote the 'Blame America First' perspective.

One can only marvel at your consistency, as the above information will, I am certain, have absolutely no effect on your future dissemination of misinformation.

Carry on.

Sorry..but Operation Ajax was outside meddling.

The Central Intelligence Agency pressured the weak monarch while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government.[10] At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of August 15–16, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On August 19, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence.[11] According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Teheran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on the 19th. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city.[12] Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On December 21, 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.[13][14][15] Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You seem to know very little about the spook world.

What I said was totally accurate.

What ever form of diplomacy used, meaning pressure short of warfare, the United States did not do as you stated, i.e. "we overthrew the elected government."

Your statement is untrue and you should retract it.

The only way you can support that point of view is to reduce all of the events of history to a bumper sticker.

As a side note, the Democrat Party has made it its policy to force the United States in the direction of war, much as they will - and, I'm sure you will- deny it.
This is the result of seeing to it that covert opperations and the use of spy networks is curtailed...again by the Democrat Party.

“…Congress moved in the mid-1970s to “reassert” its role in shaping American foreign policy, including the most controversial tool of that policy, covert action. Secrecy was seen as antithetical to the American way, and there was widespread agreement that “rogue” agencies such as the CIA were a threat to liberty. Proponents of congressional intelligence oversight argued that openness and accountability were the cornerstone of a legitimate foreign policy, and it was believed that Congress, due to its diversity of opinion, possessed greater wisdom than the executive branch.

Senator Frank Church and his allies claimed that an assertive legislative role would bring the United States “back to the genius of the Founding Fathers.” This assertion was made despite the fact that American presidents from 1789 to 1974 were given wide latitude to conduct clandestine operations they believed were in the national interest.

[A]s Henry Kissinger once observed about the Church Committee, that it is an illusion that “tranquility can be achieved by an abstract purity of motive for which history offers no example.” It is precisely this illusion which has prevailed in congressional circles since the heyday of [Democrats]Frank Church and Otis Pike. As Church himself once argued, the United States should not “fight fire with fire . . . evil with evil.”

[Democrat]Senator Robert Torricelli of New Jersey, who led the charge in the mid-1990s to prevent the CIA from hiring unsavory characters."
Congressional Oversight and the Crippling of the CIA


So, friend Sally, it appears that it is you who 'seem to know very little about the spook world' and the world in general.

 

[Dr.Drock]

Good for them. They can have it. We should dramatically scale back our presence in the Middle East. It's an insane & dangerous Hellhole. If Iran wants it,they can have it.

Let them go back to killing each other?

Not a bad idea

It's this whole notion of us "letting them" do something that's the problem. Why the assumption that we are and should be the world's hall monitor?

If 10,000 miles away they ignorantly elect leaders who kill them why should my taxdollars be the remedy?

 

[Two Thumbs]

Jordan would be tough, the Jordan Intelligence are ruthless and don't fuck around.

Jordon is not needed with the West Bank. It would be helpfull as it would shut Israel off to anything but the sea.

And the Jordon intellegence can't stop votes, unless they murder the opposition. And that's totally unheard of over there[dripping with sarcasm]

Jordan, from what I understand (Never been there), is a pretty modern and reasonable country.

Jordon is ruled by a king that will pass on most of the power in that country to one of his sons (as H_G points out. I forgot).

But since Hezbolla is a terror org, they have no issue taking it to the streets where they can rally the poor.

But like I said, Jordon is not 'needed' to be able to put pressure on Israel.

 

[uptownlivin90]

Good for them. They can have it. We should dramatically scale back our presence in the Middle East. It's an insane & dangerous Hellhole. If Iran wants it,they can have it.

Let them go back to killing each other?

Not a bad idea

I always just wanted to build one big impenetrable wall around that whole region and just let it be. Maybe check on it every one and a while but for the most point just let them have at it. It'd cost us ALOT less as a nation.

 

[ekrem]

good one.

Based on 2009 election results, Shiites can't form a government.
If they can achieve to get support to be able to form a government with a Shiite as Prime Minister, then I don't see a problem.
Parties in Lebanon having a problem with being ruled by a Shiite Prime Minister haven't really internalized the concept of inclusive democracy.

The Arab dictatorships and what they think about Shiites forming a government isn't really something that should concern us.
They are dictatorships and represent the will of USA rather then the will of their own population.
Off course, they are free to stop economical aid to Lebanon which is currently flowing to Lebanon.