Obama’s Courting of the Mullahs

It turns out that soon after taking office, President Obama tried to make friends—totally—with the mullahs’ regime in Iran.

The aim was to start with the opening of interest sections in Washington and Tehran, then progress to “full diplomatic ties, including U.S. and Iranian embassies and ambassadors in each other’s capitals, security cooperation…, [and] direct flights between the U.S. and Iran….” All this amity, it was presumed, would get Iran to give up its nuclear program.

So, at least, reports the Israeli daily Maariv (Hebrew original here; English report in The Times of Israel here), basing itself on “two Western diplomats very close to the administration.”

Maariv says that, beginning in summer 2009, there were at least two U.S.-Iranian diplomatic meetings in this context. The second was between Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili in Geneva in October 2009, on the sidelines of nuclear talks between Tehran and the P5+1 countries.

But Tehran, as they say, wasn’t into it. An Israeli source told Maariv that the regime “opposed any sign of normalization with the U.S., and refused to grant a ‘prize’ to the Americans.”

On Obama’s part, all this would have been in the spirit of his holiday video greeting to Iran in March 2009—and, more generally, his wooing of the Islamic world and apologizing for America’s supposed sins, most notably in his June 2009 Cairo speech.

In the mullahs’ case, Obama’s belief that he could talk them into friendship is particularly striking. U.S.-Iranian relations took something of a hit when the newly installed Ayatollah Khomeini regime seized 52 American diplomats as hostages at the U.S. embassy in Tehran in 1979, holding them for 444 days. Last week the Wall Street Journal’s Bret Stephens listed some additional “American victims of Iranian aggression” since that time:

The 17 Americans killed in April 1983 at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut by the Iranian-backed Islamic Jihad Organization, later known as Hezbollah. The 241 U.S. servicemen killed by Islamic Jihad at the Marine barracks in Beirut on Oct. 23, 1983. Master Chief Robert Dean Stethem, beaten to death in June 1985 by a Hezbollah terrorist in Beirut aboard TWA flight 847. William Francis Buckley, the CIA station chief in Beirut, tortured to death by Hezbollah that same month. Marine Col. William Higgins, taken hostage in 1988 while serving with U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon and hanged by Hezbollah sometime later. The 19 U.S. Air Force personnel killed in June 1996 in the Khobar Towers bombing, for which several members of Saudi Hezbollah were indicted in U.S. federal court.

And then there are the thousands of U.S. troops killed by improvised explosive devices in Iraq and Afghanistan. The most lethal IEDs were manufactured in Iran for the purpose of killing Americans.

Obama’s belief that America was at fault in having wronged and angered Iran must have been very strong to regard this record as something that could have been overcome between friends—to the extent that he was familiar with it.

The trouble is that, three years later, there are signs that Obama is still unable to grasp the fact that the Iranian regime is implacably hostile to America. It was last March, just as Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu was in Washington warning that Iran was closing in on the bomb, that Obama chose to renew diplomatic talks with Iran—talks that, as acknowledged by all, have been an empty sham that has merely bought Tehran time just as Israel had warned.

True, meanwhile Obama—under heavy pressure from Congress—has finally, along with other Western countries, imposed sanctions on Iran that are taking a real toll. Just two weeks ago, though, a report by the Congressional Research Service acknowledged a “consensus” that these have in no way slowed Iran’s march toward nukes.

And it was just last week that the New York Times reported that the U.S. and Iran had agreed to still more nuclear talks after November 6. The White House denied the specifics of the report—but, incorrigibly convinced of Tehran’s potential amicability, said it remained ready, as ever, to meet with the mullahs and hash out the differences.

In other words, there are worrisome indications that, when it comes to Iran’s Islamist regime, the U.S. chief executive remains dangerously delusive.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • http://www.facebook.com/mladen.andrijasevic Mladen Andrijasevic

    When will Americans start realizing the magnitude of the Iranian threat?

    Matthias Kuntzel – Antisemitism, Messianism and the Cult of Sacrifice:The Iranian Holy War http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2012/09/matth

    Netanyahu quoted Bernard Lewis in his speech to the UN General Assembly, which you can find here:
    Why are Bernard Lewis's views on MAD ignored? http://www.madisdead.blogspot.co.il/2012/05/why-a

  • Mary Sue

    Obama of course was bamboozled by his buddies on the extreme communist left, who, along with what he learned while living in Indonesia, convinced him that all he had to do was show the Mullahs (and everybody else) that the US didn't mean them any harm and that he was willing to be their friend and such. It's a sickeningly horrific naivete that has stricken the American Far Left, heck, the Far Left in General worldwide.

    Obama thinks he understands Islam but it is clear he truly does not. Otherwise he would know why his overtures to the Mullahs failed.

    Even worse, if he DOES actually understand Islam then he's merely going through the motions here for nothing but a show. Just to say he had done it, knowing full well it was futility dot com. At least he could say he tried, but heck *I* could have told him in advance he was wasting his breath!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Obama of course was bamboozled by his buddies on the extreme communist left, who, along with what he learned while living in Indonesia, convinced him that all he had to do…"

      This is why Obama is hopeless. He thinks his life experiences have validated theories taught from varied sources, but they all sprang from the same well of lies…two wells if you count Marxism separately.

      • Mary Sue

        and Marxism is actually pretty compatible with radical Islam, because both are collectivist and totalitarian. That's why a lot of Soviet cozying went on with some of them countries.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "and Marxism is actually pretty compatible with radical Islam, because both are collectivist and totalitarian. That's why a lot of Soviet cozying went on with some of them countries."

          They each expect to go a long way deceiving the other and fighting it out as last one standing after destroying the others first.

  • posse101

    there they are, not having bathed in 3 weeks… sitting there in their sheets, turbans, misery and hatred. this is what Islam does to people.

    • Mary Sue

      Well to be fair, in a culture coming from a place (and living in a place) where water is relatively scarce, bathing's not going to be a huge priority just on principle day-to-day.

      • posse 101

        Mary Sue Darling,

        if life were fair nobody on earth would get Leukemia. life is NOT fair and for you to offer that as a marginal defense of these slimy, vermin, fecal matter type cretins, who have been personally responsible for the myriad deaths of many non-Mudslimes and Mudslimes alike is simply… uh… uh… not fair.

  • devdeep

    real scums preaching hatred…desert cult that glorifies murder and mayhem

    • posse 101

      well said devdeep!

  • davarino

    We all know whats going on here. Its to arm Iran in order to level the playing field, except the field wont be level, the field will get leveled.

    • SAM000

      This makes sense.

      Obama is there to ARM IRAN.
      Pickering, the investigator who is charged by Obama for Benghazi is lobbying for the Mullahs from at least 20 years ago till now.

  • pierce

    Obama would court the DEVIL if he thought it would do him any good. He has not been truthful with the American people, nor with Israel. It just plain is not in his make up. Benghazi is an example of his truthfulness.

    • Mary Sue

      yeah, makes me wonder if that kind of "sociopathy" (and I use the term loosely, this guy seems absolutely shameless about lying) is inherited and how much his real dad (be it BHO sr or FMD) suffered from it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

    The fact that Obama is not willing to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities is placing America at risk.

    But what is deeply unsettling is that he is not willing to allow Israel to pull the chestnuts out of the fire: we are constantly gleaning info from the Press about Netanyahu’s (the Israeli Prime Minister) wish for Israel to undertake a military operation against the mullah’s soon-to-be-ready atomic bomb, and, yet, Obama does everything possible to discourage Netanyahu. Why does he so blatantly interfere with Israel’s right to self defense?

    Israelis today are united in seeing Iran as an existential threat, but are divided among those who want to proceed with a strike anyway, and those who don’t out of fear of displeasing Obama.

    Israel will have to strike on her own, sooner or later – at least I hope she will.

    But the fact that Obama seems preoccupied with averting an Israeli attack spells trouble for a post-strike Israel: How will Obama penalize her in such a scenario?

    May be by forcing Israel to absurd concessions to the Palestinian terrorists in the peace process?

    • Mary Sue

      well you have to remember: first and foremost, Obama seeks the approval and "friendship" of the Muslim World at large. Many of the, for example, Muslim Brotherhood based organizations (the PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah), and even some people that are just random and not actually associated with them but buy into their rhetoric like idiots, claim that the US would be loved by them if they threw Israel under the bus. NDP-types in Canada believe this with all their hearts. Not all of them, but a LOT of them. (If you want to know, the NDP was first called the CCF and was a near-communist party and is still pretty extreme left wing socialist to this day, think the Democrat Party on crack, with only the real whackos like Pelosi and Sheila Jackson Lee, Barney Frank, Kuchinich, and those kinds of dems.) They believe the rotgut about Israel practicing "apartheid" when in reality they're practicing practical self-preservation. There is no such thing as apartheid in Israel.

      Obama is cut from the same cloth and drinks the same koolaid. The Blame Israel First crowd, which is also the Blame America First Crowd, listens to the lies and taquiyya about "Palestinians" being "oppressed".

      There's also a bit of a double standard in their reasoning, as well as a weird cognitive dissonance. If you talk to some of those koolaid drinkers, they'll start to say crazy things like it's good to restrict free speech if the result is people don't get killed (versus the certainty of people being killed). It makes me wonder, if all it takes is to threaten to kill people (and large numbers at that), would they listen to Christians if they suddenly got as violent as Jihadists? I even saw idiots defending the inaction at Benghazi by claiming that flying some commandos in would have caused one or more of those countries to panic and declare war on USA. ROFL!

      • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

        Mary Sue i agree with everything.

        Thanks for the info on Canadian politics.

        The argument about justifiably shunning free speech occasionally, if lives are to be saved, would be convincing only if, after we indulged the one who threatened us, they would never do it again.

        But they are bound to do it again, because our capitulation will be seen as weakness.

        So we will end up abolishing free speech all together.

        Then they will start asking us for more: not just to abstain from criticizing their religion, but to accept their barbaric practices as legitimate traits of our culture.

        We are not supposed to give in to violent threats, even if the demands made upon us are justified. So long as the bullies do not realize that violence will not pay, we should not capitulate. After they shut up, and if their demands were indeed justified, we may oblige.

        Of course, Islamic demands are NOT justified – so my whole last argument is moot!

        • Mary Sue

          No problem, glad to be of help. I know, right!

    • 11bravo

      Isreal should nuke Tehran. That would let the mullahs know the Jews will not go quetly into the night. Bibi could then go on TV, give a speech declaring that never again means never again!! He could also say that any country feeling like coming after isreal can expect the same.
      The muslims would leave Isreal alone for decades. If the PLO and hamas-hezbollah start something bomb them for 30 days strait and defeat them unequivicably for the world to see.
      See, foreign policy is easy-just don't over-think it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

        11bravo, much as i sympathize with your sentiment, such a reaction from Israel would be disproportional.

        Israel has every right to defend herself from the barbarians, but she should not inflict more violence than necessary.

        Bombing the facilities of Iran is all that is required to stop the nuclear program, why go the extra mile of nuking Tehran?

        Besides, think of the hostility of the international community: they are already badmouthing Israel despite Israel's impeccable treatment of civilians ( a treatment that has set a precedent of respect for innocent lives that won't be easily surpassed).

        That hostility will translate to an economic boycott of Israel, since the international villains will find a pretext for sanctions in Israel's nuking Tehran and unnecessarily harming civilians.

        Israel doesn't need to endure such economic hardship.

        Of course, in case Iran hides atomic bombs among civilians, Israel will be justified to do as you suggest.

        • Drakken

          There is no such thing as disaportional, it's called defeat the enemy by any means neccessary, and if that means leaving their cities in ruins, so be it. It will also be a lesson to the rest of them.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

            Drakken, if there is no other way to defeat them, i'm all for it:

            Let's ruin their cities.

            But taking out the nuclear threat does not require such extreme measures. Bombing the facilities should suffice to annihilate the nuclear threat to us.

            We don't need to annihilate the Iranian people too.

  • Daphne

    When Obama lived in Kenya and Indonesia, it was somewhat before the Wahhabi impregnation and indoctrination programs. These diminished a somewhat comfortable folksy religion to the present-day more stringent Islam which we recognize now.
    Without wishing to excuse Obama, his recollection may well be more benign than today's situation warrants. So he can remain in his comfort zone by remaining unaware of these changes., perhaps by design, perhaps by denial.
    However for me, the bottom line is that Obama believes what he wants to believe.

    • Mary Sue

      yeah the wahhabis did get into Kenya though, where it infected the other side of his family.

  • Schlomotion

    Mr. Hornik may be surprised to learn that America is not like Israel. We don't declare people to be Amorites and Amalekites and refuse to have any dealings with them all throughout eternity. We do not worship a God that commands the genocide of our enemies. We do not select neighbors for which every man, woman, child and animal must be destroyed. We do not declare entire civilizations to be treif. And lastly, we do not look to Benjamin Netanyahu for approval on whom we might engage in foreign diplomacy.

    • Zionista


      • lillith

        And again Yawnnnn!

    • maherI

      Re Yawnnn!
      Schmucklotion at his best!!!
      If he didn't exist we should have invent him. To funny!!

    • Choi

      Schlo is a LYING SACK OF SHYYTTTT!

    • Mary Sue

      says the guy that has NO idea who the Amorites OR the Amalekites were or what they were about.

      News flash: The Amalekites were like the Sand People of Tattooine. Raiding people mindlessly, purposefully picking on the weak stragglers of the Children of Israel (and when you hear them complain to Moses, the moniker "children" is rather apt, btw), and were outright immoral theiving murdering savages. The Amorites weren't much better; while they weren't nomadic like the Amalekites, they were warlike and cruel.

      Also news flash, the Israelites were NOT passing through designated Amalekite territory. The Amalekites WENT OUT OF THEIR WAY to be a criminal problem to the Israelites during the Exodus.

      The Amalekites being such a problem, HAD to be destroyed, because their entire culture was made up of preying on human beings, particularly the WEAK. This is immoral to the extreme and it was a GOOD thing the Israelites were told to do this, because Israelites were not their only victims. So not only do you not know what you're talking about, you're engaging in mindless Argument by Outrage, where the context of which you speak has completely gone over your head.

      • Schlomotion

        Thanks for the Christian Zionist history lesson. Now talk about how the earth is only 6,000 years old for a while.

        • benduover

          shlomo you were the one who referenced the bible you dick.
          Why don't you go to Iran and criticize the Qur'an and lets see how long you last.

          • maher

            Are you kidding? Only in Iran? All over the cesspool so dear to our Schmuckolotion, you're dead on the spot!

          • Drakken

            I would pay good money to watch sub motion get his just deserts by the savages. Entertainment at it's finest.

          • Schlomotion

            Whom would you pay it to?

          • Drakken

            I would have the guys operating the drones make a nice recording of it.

          • Schlomotion

            Interesting point. You said that the savages in the desert operate drones.

        • Mary Sue

          Non Sequitur comment is non sequitur. You can't prove that I'm wrong about the Amorites/Amalekites, because what archaelogical evidence we have from the period confirms everything I'm saying. GoodGame no rematch, learn to play.

    • Chiggles

      All ancient history, literally. Your description fiits modern Israel far less than it does Arabs, Schmo.

    • Ghostwriter

      But,America and Israel DO have something in common,Schlomind. Both are hated by Islamic fundamentalists who want to destroy everyone and everything that ISN'T Islamic. When are you going to wake up and see that?

      • SAM000

        Schlomind has waked up from long time,
        Schlomind is a member of NIAC (National Iranian American Council) a lobbying group for the Mullahs in USA.

        This lobbying group is the most hated by the Iranians, they are the traitors.
        NIAC has the close ties with White House and State Dept.
        NIAC has access to USA key intelligences,
        You the Americans, you have the snack in your bed.
        Thomas Pickering who is charged by Obama to investigate the Benghazi clash is a NIAC member.

      • Schlomotion

        America is not marginalized by being disliked by Muslims in the same way that Israel is marginalized by their very existence. Zionists, Israelis, Militant Jews, Jewish Separatists, whatever you call them, have very little to do with America. They try to make America drink the same Kool Aid that they are drinking, try to make us think we are Masada and Muslims are the Romans. We have very little in common.

        • SAM000

          But you are using MOIS codes,

          Here the American readers don't decode you and your line, but, for us, you can not hidden yourself behind a Islamo Fascist MILITANT, You are the NIAC MEMBER, you copy point by point what they write and what they claim.
          Your Logic is the Regime's logic, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE?, the probability of having the same arguments with the same orders, and with the same numbers and with the same priorities of one American (of course not any American) with the Mullahs Propaganda organs is 1 over several BILLIONS, so, HOW IS IT POSSIBLE.

          You ask any Iranian, you will have a similar reaction regarding my reaction,
          Of Course you know all these things, and I know that you know, I'm writing these lines for the posters who do not know you.

          • Schlomotion

            "You ask any Iranian, you will have a similar reaction regarding my reaction."

            Yes. They make a cuckoobird twirly spiral with their finger next to their head. Good job, finding me out, Double-O Zero. I really work for Ahmadinejad. I am one of his female ninjas.

  • watsa46

    The Muslim part of his psyche and soul don't allow him to see what every body else (in the West) see. Unavoidable, fatal bias. Amb. Stevens may be one of the many victims (Soldiers killed in Afghanistan are others) of his faulty thought process.
    This could lead to major damage to the US if he is reelected. He does not want to be considered as a "traitor" to the Muslims "cause"!!!!

  • Glennd1

    It's interesting, this would explain a lot,including Obama's flatfooted reaction to the popular uprising in Tehran in June of '09. He couldn't very well be kissing up behind he scenes while going against them publicly. While this is an interesting point, the rest of the article is kind of laughable. While the author correctly catalogs the various attacks Iran has made against the U.S., he manages not to list our offenses against the Iranian people. Two major ones are the overthrow of their democratically elected leader, Mousadegh, in the early '50s to help British Petroleum and then by supporting the Shah who oppressed them via his vicious, U.S. trained secret police force, the Savak.

    Iran also clearly states that it acts against us based on our backing of Israel, in solidarity with the Palestinians. It has other reasons for hating us including our arming of Saddam Hussein against the Iranians, so there are a wide range of reasons why they hate us. Now don't get me wrong, I don't say that justifies what Iran does, but this author presents an incomplete balance sheet. He's counting on the fact that many Americans don't really understand how terribly we did trespass against the Iranian people. For people like me, who know the history, such an account is just more blatant propaganda.

    Or we could talk about today. The 18 U.S. military installations that surround Iran. Or our espionage, sabotage and assassination programs, run jointly with Israel, inside Iran's borders. Or the separatists we fund within Iran like the Jundah who have been categorized as terrorists by a number of internationals organizations. You see, what this author would have you believe is that the Iranians are crazed animals, setting out to kill us for no reason. We are like little lambs in the wilderness, set upon by the Iranian wolf without any provocation. But you guys aren't stupid enough to buy that, are you?

    • Drakken

      As far as the the bearded savages in Iran go, fk em! Our involvement kept Iran out of the hands of the soviets and kept our oil supply going. An added benefit until that idiot Carter threw the Shah under the bus, was to keep those bearded savages at bay. So no, we don't have anything to appologize for. So if you want to bow and an cry and whine about American and British involvement in Iran you go ahead, the rest of us won't.

      • Glennd1

        I'm not apologizing for a thing. What I said was that the author's account was incomplete – he only presents the Iranian side of the ledger. You can make what you want of it, but what you can't do is say a thing I said is inaccurate.

        • Drakken

          The bottom line Glen is, eliminate the mullahs and clerics and you have half the problem solved. The other half will have to be made too to adhere to civilizational codes of conduct.

    • SAM000

      Please separate the Iranian's account from the Mullah's account.

      You take a part of Iranian history about Mousadegh and you put it for the account of the Mullahs!
      Mousadegh was elected democratically, you are right, he was overthrown-ed out by a COUP D'Etat of SHAH and CIA, but you forget to mention that the Overthrown of Mousadegh was not possible without the help of the CLERICS and Communist party (Party Toudeh).
      Ayatollah KASHANI the Ideological father of Ayatollah Khomeini, who was paid by CIA, you have forgotten him!
      You should know that the current regime of the Mullahs hate Mousadegh, you should know that the followers of Mousadegh are jailed, and tortured and executed from the arrival of the Mullahs on power in Iran.
      You know that in our IRANIAN POPULAR CULTURE we call the BRITISH "AYATOLLAH BBC".

      In addition, you know that we hate the Mullahs and their APPEASERS included OBAMA and what ever power or politicians who appease the Mullahs.
      Here in this Forum, the Americans don't know the Iranian history, if you are not the Mullahs Lobby, why you divert our HISTORY?

      All my family was jailed during the SHAH, ALL MY FAMILY WERE KILLED BY THE MULLAHS.
      We do not hate the Americans, we have the very good friends among the Americans, THE PROBLEM is from ourselves, we should clean our nation from this shameful ISLAMISM, IF WE DIDN'T HAD AYATOLLAH KASHANI and Communist party, the money of CIA could not harm us.
      If now we remove the MULLAHS from POWER, OBAMA cannot install us another ISLAMISM REGIME.
      If removing Mousadegh was shameful (yes it was shameful) some 60 years ago, supporting the CRIMINAL MULLAHS who are very close to make a nuclear bomb is GENOCIDAL.
      OBAMA knowingly pushes the world to a lethal NUCLEAR CONFRONTATION.

      • Glennd1

        You prove my point. The Iranian people have their own complicated history and society. They are sophisticated and their govt acts in its interests and pursues its own ends. Iranians are not an animals. But please admit the truth. Many Iranians hate the Mullahs and also hate the U.S. Both can be true.

        Now let me ask you this. How many Iranians would support U.S. military action against the U.S.? What chance would the U.S. have to eliminate the IRG, Hezbollah and the Basiji militias? And the clerics? Are you suggesting the Iranians would "greet us as liberators"? Hmm, where have I heard that before.

        Here's my advice, sir. Overthrow the Shia madmen who've taken over your country, but don't dare assert that we haven't taken provocative actions against Iran and its interests. You know what I say is true.

        • SAM000

          You said;
          Many Iranians hate the Mullahs and also hate the U.S. Both can be true.

          My answer;
          Bush had a great sympathy when he said, “if the Iranians rise up, the Americans will support”
          For OBAMA, do you remember what the Iranians were chanting during the rise-up of 3 years ago? “OBAMA, are you with us or with them?”

          You said;
          Now let me ask you this. How many Iranians would support U.S. military action against the U.S.?

          My Answer;
          Unfortunately, there are so many persecutions and repressions that the normal Iranians pray GOD for ANHILIATION of their own country.
          EACH DAY the poor mothers are gathering in front of the Infamous prison of EWIN crying the halt of the executions of their sons, yesterday again 10 political young prisoners were hanged only in TEHRAN, every city has it’s daily executions.
          Put yourself on their shoes, if you have the kids, and you have to sell a part of your body to nourish your kids, A US BOMB or an Israeli BOMB cannot harm more.
          Dying in a second, or dying like a flame of a candle petit à petit, ,, I live you to chose.

          You said;

          What chance would the U.S. have to eliminate the IRG, Hezbollah and the Basiji militias? And the clerics?

          My answer;
          You know that USA will never, never attack the Mullahs, so why you are asking the questions that are not even imaginable.
          O.K. if you do not get the point I explain you by other words;
          Do you remember PRESIDENT REAGAN, which the most Americans admire for his BRAVENESS?!
          What he did after the USA Marin’s BARAK bombed at Beirut and 247 American soldiers killed (1982)? Your very BRAVE PRESIDENT REAGAN ESCAPED FROM LEBANON and offered LEBANON in a GOLDEN PLATE to the MULLAHS (Iran Gate and Colonel Oliver NORTH, the famous history of COLT and CAKE and Qoran).
          Do you want another example?
          My friend, the American Republican and Neo-Cons Presidents (Reagan, Bush Father and Son) bended and gave up for the Mullahs, the clueless democrat Presidents as (Carter, Clinton and Obama) are sleeping with the Mullahs and you are talking about US ATTACK and so on, WE THE IRANIANS ARE FED UP with your American empty “no war “ slogan, do not appease the Mullahs, that is all that we want.

        • SAM000

          Part 1
          You said;
          Many Iranians hate the Mullahs and also hate the U.S. Both can be true.

          My answer;
          Bush had a great sympathy when he said, “if the Iranians rise up, the Americans will support”
          For OBAMA, do you remember what the Iranians were chanting during the rise-up of 3 years ago? “OBAMA, are you with us or with them?”

          • Glennd1

            You demonstrate your simplemindedness with such a comment. But if you think the U.S. wasn't very unpopular with most Iranians under Bush, you are smoking dope.

        • SAM000

          part 2
          You said;
          Now let me ask you this. How many Iranians would support U.S. military action against the U.S.?

          My Answer;
          Unfortunately, there are so many persecutions and repressions that the normal Iranians pray GOD for ANHILIATION of their own country.
          EACH DAY the poor mothers are gathering in front of the Infamous prison of EWIN crying the halt of the executions of their sons, yesterday again 10 political young prisoners were hanged only in TEHRAN, every city has it’s daily executions.
          Put yourself on their shoes, if you have the kids, and you have to sell a part of your body to nourish your kids, A US BOMB or an Israeli BOMB cannot harm more.
          Dying in a second, or dying like a flame of a candle petit à petit, ,, I live you to chose.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

            Hey SAM000, i just saw your comments and i thought you are one of the good Iranians, seeing that you don't want a nuclear weapon.

            You live in Iran? Or in the USA?

          • SAM000

            we don't want the nuclear at all, CIVIL or Military, we don't want it,

            Glennd 1 has met the Iranians who hate USA, this kind of Iranian is the regime's sympathizer and is traitor to our nation.
            we never put Obama's appeasement of the mullahs on the Americans account, we know that this kind of shameful appeasement is far from to be the Americans behavior.

            I'm not in USA, you can understand that the people like me are the targets of the Islamists and their supporters.

            We don't want the foreign military intervention in IRAN, if USA of OBAMA do not persecute the Anti Mullahs Resistance of Iran, we will be able to overthrow the Mullahs with the minimum human cost.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

            SAM000 i wish you the best in overthrowing the mullahs.

            I want to ask you a question:

            A geostrategic analyst named David Goldman (aka Spengler) has argued that in case of a military strike against the nuclear facilities of Iran (either by the USA or by Israel), the regime will be humiliated and the people of Iran will find it more easy to overthrow the mullahs.

            What's your view on this?

          • SAM000

            These following statistics comes out from MOIS (Ministry Of Intelligence and Security) of the Mullahs regime;
            94% of the Iranians are for REGIME CHANGE.
            84% of the Iranians support the REGIME CHANGE by armed Resistance.
            any time the west menaces the regime by a military operation or air strike, we have ETAT DE SIEGE in the cities.
            I think that every thing is clear, you don't need my opinion here.
            IF one day, not more, even one day, the regime removes his repression forces from the streets, the day after ISLAMIC REGIME WILL NO LONGER EXIST.

            We don't need an external military intervention,
            IF THE WEST INTERVENE in IRAN, we will stopped to finish the job, we should exterminate the race of ISLAMISM and all the traitors who were with this REGIME.
            All the signs and traces of Islamism should be washed and cleared from the Iranian Society.
            Islamism is Anti Christ, it is SATANISM.

            Everybody is free to practice his religion, But, the state should be free of the religion. Democratic and secularism is what the Iranians are fighting for.
            120,000 of Martyrs is a huge price that we have payed for our freedom, we will no longer let the SHAMEFUL PERSONAGE AS OBAMA TO DESTROY THE FUTURE OF IRAN.
            What we are waiting from the Americans and all the free and democratic world is that, THEY DENOUNCE OBAMA's deal with the Mullahs of IRAN, this costs us more lives.

          • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

            SAM000 you are right that all the West and especially America, which is the leader, should denounce any cooperation with the regime.

            But Obama will not do anything of the sort and the regime is going to have the bomb (or be very close to it) very soon. Naturally, Israel will have to attack the nuclear facilities. I understand you are telling me that the regime uses the threat of a western or Israeli military strike as an excuse for maintaining a state of emergency, and that this somehow prevents the Iranian people from overthrowing the regime.

            But if the strike occurs, then this excuse of the regime goes out the window. AFTER the strike, if it is successful in taking out the nuclear facilities, the regime won't have any excuse, because the West or Israel won't need to attack again for a long time. Wouldn't that make it easier for Iranian people to revolt?

            A related point that i wanted to ask you is this: I have read in a 2010 poll that the Iranian people support almost unanimously the nuclear program (around 85% wanted to go on with it). Given that they know that the program aims at a weapon, isn't this a reason for the West to be alarmed and worry that even if there is regime change, the nuclear program will proceed as usual?

          • SAM000

            the poll that says that 85% of the Iranians are fore nuclear BOMB is a Mullah's paid poll,
            The people who know me from 2005 on FPM forum know very well my history and RESISTANCE and who disclosed for the first time the very secret nuclear program of the Mullahs.
            Some of the key sites (Site FARDOO of the Qom city) which was revealed at October 2009 by the USA intelligences were denounced at 2005 by the Iranian RESISTANCE at Brussels in Belgium.
            Iranian RESISTANCE is popular Resistance, we gather our efforts and intelligence in our RESISTANCE ORGANIZATION.
            Nuclear is not the will of the Iranians, we know that the nuclear weapon will serve only the Mullahs regime's interest;

            I'm not Jews, I'm not Christian, Every body knows that I'm Muslim, This is the reason why we should eradicate the race of Islamism from our country.
            This is the willing of all the Iranians.
            Did you know that Iran or the OLD PERSIA was the second country of the JEWS?
            We have the 4 important Jews Prophets Graves in IRAN.
            The Jews of Babylon were freed by GREAT KING KOUROSH of Persia at 535 B.J.
            The 4 Jews Prophets preferred to stay in Iran with other 40,000 Jews freed.
            We the Iranian Muslims, we go to pilgrimage to the 4 Jew Prophets Graves,
            ELIAS, EZRA, DANIAL, and HABGHOUGH have their Graves in 4 corners of IRAN.
            We believe that a good Muslim believe on MOSES and CHRIST.
            The Jews of Iran are the oldest Persians, they are pure Persians, The Iranian Jews who fled Iran to Israel, love IRAN.
            This Criminal Regime of the Mullahs is not IRANIAN, The Mullahs themselves admit that they don't care about IRAN.
            Israel is not our enemy, Israel needs to protect himself,
            glennd 1 has met and influenced by the anti Iranian traitors.
            His historic writings is based, while his appreciation from actual Iran is polluted.
            The Iranians don't want any type of nuclear, civil or Military, we don't want it,
            we have offered too many martyrs to disclose the mullahs nuclear programs.
            An external Military strike will never be helpful, USA of OBAMA supports the Mullahs to exterminate the Resistance, if USA stays inert, we will be able to overthrow the Mullahs,

          • http://www.facebook.com/dionissis.mitropoulos Dionissis Mitropoulos

            SAM000, i wish you good luck in your fight with the mullahs.

        • SAM000

          The other parts are deleted by the administrator

          • Glennd1

            And apparently you can't remain civil so the admin has to censor you. Have you considered stopping posting altogether? Maybe start reading more books instead? Why don't you start with a book on the history of the mideast? You would learn that Islam is a major organizing influence on civilization with a very complex history. It has its own arc through history, independent of the West, just as Christianity and the classical, liberal philosophies that gave rise the U.S. and other western democracies, have had their own arcs through history. People here talk about Islam as though it's some passing trend, or is only about Jihadis or political Islam, but it's implications are far deeper, particularly in the mideast.

          • SAM000

            You seem to be exalted by your own writings;
            The reason I was censured is that I write all, i don't care that it can hurt Dems or Rep.

            Now, I hope that you understand why I'm deleted.
            so, continue writing alone, you like too much the Echo.

          • Glennd1

            Seriously, do you realize how you come off? First you fill your commentary with all kinds of observations about contemporary, urban Iran – but ignore my historical account of the predations we've visited on the Iranian people. Again – both could be true. There is indeed a cosmopolitan, modern segment of Iranian society. Nothing I said contravenes that.

            Then you go on to claim that somehow Obama blew some negotiations 3 years ago, but whn pressed, you have no answers. But you never make your case – I mean, what is your case anyway?

            And nothing you've said here – NOTHING – that contravenes my point that the author of this piece of agit prop only shows half the Iranian ledger, leaving all that the U.S.. has done to Iran out of the account of history he presents.. That was my point. I'm not an Iranian apologist like you. I see clearly who the Mullahs are and find them loathsome. You have some other agenda that really isn't quite clear. Perhaps it's just as simple as you want to be seen as the smartest guy in the room, and can't get beyond that? Because I made no argument here about what we should do to Iran, but rather just exposed the author's omissions. Do you disagree with that? Do you think the author should just have ignored the U.S. side of the balance sheet?

    • nightspore

      I would suggest that anyone interested in the Mousadegh episode should read Daniel Yergin's The Prize. At the (exact) time of the overthrow, the CIA had already given up on the project, which they had funded but had not participated in directly. Mousadegh had already begun to show a tyrannical side, and popular opinion had turned against. The rally came when a general who had been gone missing appeared with a statement from the Shah. That was the event that turned the tide.

      So to say that this was an instance of American predation (as if the CIA had god-like powers to achieve its purposes), is, at the least, misleading.

      • Glennd1

        Indeed it was very complicated – as all such episodes are. In fact we actually were drawn in by the freaking Brits – to whom massive blame for the mess in the mideast can easily be attributed. But your statement is the one that's misleading (while technically correct), as the uninformed reader might conclude that Eisenhower and Churchill didn't actively conspire and act to overthrow Mousadegh – nothing could be farther from the truth. A basic account follows, for those who've never read anything about this.

        In 1951, Iran's oil industry was nationalized with near-unanimous support of Iran's parliament in a bill introduced by Mossadegh who led the nationalist parliamentarian faction. Iran's oil had been controlled by the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), now known as BP. Popular discontent with the AIOC began in the late 1940s, a large segment of Iran's public and a number of politicians saw the company as exploitative and a vestige of British imperialism. Despite Mosaddegh's popular support, Britain was unwilling to negotiate its single most valuable foreign asset, and instigated a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil to pressure Iran economically. Initially, Britain mobilized its military to seize control of the Abadan oil refinery, the world's largest, but Prime Minister Clement Attlee opted instead to tighten the economic boycott while using Iranian agents to undermine Mosaddegh's government. With a change to more conservative governments in both Britain and the United States, Churchill and the U.S. Eisenhower administration decided to overthrow Iran's government though the predecessor U.S. Truman administration had opposed a coup.Classified documents show British intelligence officials played a pivotal role in initiating and planning the coup, and that Washington and London shared an interest in maintaining control over Iranian oil.

        Britain and the U.S. selected Fazlollah Zahedi to be the prime minister of a military government that was to replace Mosaddegh's government. Subsequently, a royal decree dismissing Mosaddegh and appointing Zahedi was drawn up by the coup plotters and signed by the Shah. The Central Intelligence Agency had successfully pressured the weak monarch to participate in the coup, while bribing street thugs, clergy, politicians and Iranian army officers to take part in a propaganda campaign against Mosaddegh and his government. At first, the coup appeared to be a failure when on the night of 15–16 August, Imperial Guard Colonel Nematollah Nassiri was arrested while attempting to arrest Mosaddegh. The Shah fled the country the next day. On 19 August, a pro-Shah mob, paid by the CIA, marched on Mosaddegh's residence.According to the CIA's declassified documents and records, some of the most feared mobsters in Tehran were hired by the CIA to stage pro-Shah riots on 19 August. Other CIA-paid men were brought into Tehran in buses and trucks, and took over the streets of the city.Between 300 and 800 people were killed during and as a direct result of the conflict. Mosaddegh was arrested, tried and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court. On 21 December 1953, he was sentenced to three years in jail, then placed under house arrest for the remainder of his life.Mosaddegh's supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed.

        Just sayin… And again, my simple point is that the author of this article presented only one side of the ledger on Iran. I haven't said a single sympathetic thing about the Shia madmen who run Iran, in fact, I think they are one of the most repressive, despotic regimes on Earth. I just don't think going to war with them makes any sense FOR US. But you guys can't even hear that. Why? I'm in no need of lectures about abstruse details of Iranian history, and none of what has been said above contravenes a single thing I've said here.

        It's as though if I point out actual things that the U.S. has done, you guys seem to believe you have to lash out at me, regardless of my intent. Stop it, you are being anti-intellectual. If you can't grasp that our actions of against Iran over the years have been provocative – your are not dealing with reality. It's not debatable, it's a fact. Now, as far as Iran's actions against us, do we "deserve it"? Is it "our fault"? I'm not saying that at all and such "blame games" are the stuff of 9th graders, not serious talk about geo-politics. Wake up, please.

        • nightspore

          Now you're the one being very misleading. You refer to:

          … our offenses against the Iranian people. Two major ones are the overthrow of their democratically elected leader, Mousadegh, in the early '50s …

          My comment clearly shows that this is an overstatement, since the actual overthrow happened internally (according to Yergin's account), i.e. by people within Iran.

        • nightspore

          It seems clear to me that for all your plethora of facts you're pushing the usual anti-American narrative, the same one that people use to justify the 9/11 attacks. We "bullied" X (where "X" is the Arabs, the Iranians, or whomever), so they responded by attacking us (or threatening or whatever). And this narrative is always presented as if it is some kind of 'deeper' truth of the matter – when in fact in fundamental ways it's a comic-book distortion, and one that breeds complacency to boot. (In fact, I think that's why it's so appealing – with this narrative, you don't have to face the fact that there are deadly enemies who are not simply behaving in a rational defensive manner – and you may just have to fight them to survive. Not a pleasant thought for the modern suburban mind.)

      • SAM000

        You have to read the post of glennd 1, below, it is based, well documented and referenced,
        CIA never denied his implication in the 1953 Coup d'Etat against the democratic regime of Mossadeq.
        You are denying and transforming your own history.

        What glennd 1 refers as historic facts is exact,
        What I'm opposing is glennd 1's own conclusion,
        glennd 1 takes the mullahs anti-west and anti-Semite behavior as the Iranians behavior.
        We the Iranians, we know that 26 years of the dictatorship of the Shah and 33 years the of Islamism genocidal is the outcome of the 1953 coup of CIA and SHAH and the ISLAMIC Clerics,
        We look at the history as a lesson, and we should learn our own faults from our historic lessons.
        A part of this lesson which is very important for us is that, CIA or KGB or Intelligence SERVICE of her "Majesty", could never succeed a coup in any country without the help of the THUGS and occult forces.
        In our Iranian HISTORY, the CIA COUP of 1953 could never succeed without the help and participation of the AYATOLLAHS ( the Great Ayatollah KASHANI) leaded the thugs, glennd 1 says that some 800 thugs were brought by CIA to the cities, yes this is true, those thugs were the people who were under direct payment of the Ayatollahs.
        Of course party toudeh (Communist Party) had ordered to his members inside the army to stay inert and inactive, which is a treason.
        If the mullahs hate USA, it is not for the coup of 1953, because the Mullahs were with Shah and CIA against Mossadeq.
        the mullahs hate USA, because for other reasons that has nothing to do with the Iranians history;
        The mullahs hate Israel, because of their antisemitism.

        We do not hate Israel, we have no common borders with the Palestinians, we think that the two parties can negotiate for a stand able peace if the Mullahs do not interfere (Hamas and the Terrorist thugs who are funded by the Mullahs);

        glennd 1 thinks that we have to forget the present crimes of the mullahs and co voice the Mullahs against the Americans for what has been arrived 60 years ago.

        we hate Obama for his present appeasement and support of the Mullahs;
        We hate Obama for his active support of the Mullahs of 3 years ago.
        We sign and persist that 3 years ago, the Mullahs were 3 years behind the nuclear BOMB, now, we are at the threshold of a nuclear confrontation.

        So, there is nothing that we share with the Mullahs, we want the Mullahs exterminated, and we will do that, THIS IS OUR NATIONAL WILL.

        • Glennd1

          What you seem to miss are the geo-politics of all this, SAM. Without our interventions, Iran would not be acting against us in the ways that they do today. Me? I don't give a crap about Iran or any of the countries in the mid-east, including the Zionist occupiers of Palestine. None of it is of strategic interest to us. Idiots respond to this kind of statement with shock, making fumbling statements about "Israel being our closest ally in the region" – (not even true, that "honor" belongs to the Saudis) or about oil when in fact the oil producing countries in the region have no choice but to sell their oil, and actual U.S. dependence on Arab oil is much less than American's realize.

          You see SAM I think you should clean up your own people's messes. The Ayatollahs don't arise in a vacuum, and just like most Muslims, Iranians try to have it both ways. Here's the truth. The problem with Iran is that it's an Islamic Republic, based on Islamic law. If you are saying that you want a secular society and that the majority of Iranians agree with you, I say you are incorrect. While a minority of Iranians might want to, most Muslims in the region have been culturally trained to see a huge role for Islam in your society. We in the West already went through this with Christianity and we finally put religion in its place – a personal decision of conscience that has no business in politics or government. I laugh just writing such a statement – I wonder if even you, SAM, are willing to relegate Islam to such a trivial role?

          Or are you Jewish or Christian? You know I'm right. And that's why I say we do this. Leave and tell Iran quite simply if they attack us in any way again, we will decapitate the regime completely – utter destruction of the clerics, the govt, the IRG, Basijis, Hezbollah. And we won't occupy them afterwards. If the country descends into anarchy or another oppressive govt – I just don't care. You folks bring it all on yourselves and until you change your mindset you will not join the modern world. Me? If I never heard a thing about the mid-east again in my life I'd be happy. It's not our problem. We are creating our own messes. We should stop punching ourselves in the face and asking, "hey, who punched me?"

        • Glennd1

          And notice that NightSpore has no response. Just like so many of the vicious thugs on this site, he possesses no knowledge that didn't come from a politicized source. So many "web Islam experts" on this site, but they know so much less than they think. One wonders why, as if they took just some of the time they spend here jerking off over Zionist agit prop and instead spent it reading some actual history books on the region, like say A Concise History of the Mideast by Goldschmidt and Davidson, or one of the other many fine, apolitical books on the topic they could easily rid themselves of their ignorance. Most of these clowns would be embarrassed of the lies they repeat every day if they did, but they won't because most of the apes here don't care about the truth, they are just flacking for the U.S. and the Zionists.

          • nightspore

            Whoa, you're going off the rails! The intellectual facade is falling away. Unbelieveable.

            I think your problem is that you didn't expect any intelligent responses to your 'definitive' account. (And what's this nonsense about Yergin being a "politicized source"?)

            Verry interesting. Glennd1 you've made my day.

          • Glennd1

            Just one thing. You do realize you didn't contravene either my original point about the author's failure to present both sides of the ledger nor my last point about the coup that overthrew Mousadegh, yes? All that BS from you and in no way did you damage a thing I've said here. We even have an Iranian U.S. sympathizer on this thread who tells you my account is correct as well. You have been exposed for the fraud that you are, not me. My commentary and criticism is fact based and reasoned. Your's is spurious and chaotic, the sign of a poorly trained mind. Do yourself a favor, go learn some real mideast history and then how to argue, then come back here to the big boy pool. I know you don't see it, but trust me everyone else does. You are in very far over your head.

            What you also can't seem to digest is that I can look at the history objectively and not sympathize with or justify Iran's actions. I loathe the Islamists, but nothing about that requires me to pretend that the very recent history there hasn't happened. You look the fool and make Americans look stupid and vicious when you peddle such nonsense. You are actually ruining our society by unhinging your dialog from reality, just like the leftists. And you don't even see it. How utterly sad for you.

          • SAM000

            glennd 1;
            yes, you are honest about historic of the coup against Mossadeq,
            What I regret is your diverted mind and polluted conclusion about the present time.
            before arrival of Khomeini and the Islamism on power, we put USA for all our misery, but, now, our misery is from the Mullahs and the thugs on power, i have to write a small piece of before Khomeini historic, but, I'm afraid to be censured, as you said in one of your posts, I will be censured because I can not stay CIVIL by writing some truth about the American interference in IRAN.
            But, again, I repeat, the Mullahs oppose the west not for the USA's Interference in Iran.
            O.K. let's imagine that you are right here, what about the FRENCH?, FRANCE had welcomed Khomeini before the revolution, France had never interfered in Iran, the first BOMBS were exploded in France just after the seizure of the power by Khomeini in IRAN.
            And what about the IRELAND?, the Irish people and Irish government were the first to congratulate the Islamist replacing the SHAH.

          • SAM000

            Well, the first one was not deleted, I continue;
            I would like to continue to write and answer you, because at least you are honest on historic facts,
            glennd 1; our nation, our people; our youth are genocided every day by the Mullahs, we do not think about 60 years ago, we want first to remove this disguesting criminal power from Iran, we are in war, in a total war, every day we have the deaths, this is IRANIAN PEOPLE who talk, this is the RESISTANCE VOICE and message to the free world, we criticize US administration for their appeasement of the Mullahs, but, American people and congress and senate are supporting our resistance politically, USA is our friend, and this is natural and normal, the Americans are the freedom supporters, this is honorable.
            If I write the reason why the Mullahs hate you (love you) so much, I will be censured.

            Let's try later, but, please, we the Iranian people, we are not Islamist, we have learned our historic errors, somewhere, you said that the Ayatollahs do not come from VACUUM, from 300 years ago, the Mullahs were proliferated from Shiite institutions, the principal SHIITE INSTITUTIONS are based in IRAQ, the cities of NADJAF, Karbela, SAMARA host the tens of Islamic Shiite schools, all the students are granted, all the SHIITE institutions are funded by "HER MAJESTY" British KINGDOM.

          • SAM000

            glennd 1;
            I hope that this article will not be removed and you will see the answers;

            The mullahs love USA, USA is a country that had done too much favors for the Mullahs, USA removed Mossadeq and re installed SHAH, with Mossadeq, Iran would never fall in the Islamism trap.
            Then, USA removed SHAH and paved the road for Khomeini;
            Then Khomeini got the American Embassy on hostage, and USA thanked Khomeini by offering him 10 Billions and signing a protection pact for 20 years (Alger Pact of 1982).
            Khomeini understood that hostage taking and terrorism is the best business and the Americans appreciate this level of DIPLOMACY, that's why Khomeini BOMBED the US Marine's base at Lebanon and killed 241 American soldiers, USA answered by a significant RESPONSE, USA escaped from Lebanon and left it for Khomeini.
            USA thanked more and sent Khomeini a GOLDEN COLT, A CAKE, and a Qoran by a US PRESIDENTIAL envoy (COLONEL OLIVER NORTH and IRAN GATE).

            I hope that this first part will not be deleted, I was not so "CIVIL" here, as you said before.

  • riverboatbill

    Obama is an agent of the islamites.

    • Glennd1

      You are an agent of idiocy.

  • http://plus.google.com/u/0/118142902171808662382/ personals

    Great article.