Clarifying the questions on Iran
First of all, I would like to thank everyone for their involvement as well as the exercise of my advice to question with boldness, everything, including me.
The second thing I would like to say is that it appears that there is much context that is missing when it comes to the situation with Iran. Being so, I would ask that you grant a little latitude during your exploration and reading of my interpretations. Without similar context, your reference points will more than likely be skewed.
I have written a few articles over the Iran deal and I have been provided some questions from viewers and readers over the last few days. I figure that if one person has questions, many others probably have the same questions. So, I have decided to answer these in a single post.
Here we go:
Don’t you think the United States should be trying to stop a nuclear armed Iran?
Why would we destroy something we started? The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program. This program was built upon and expanded to include a clandestine nuclear weapons research program, until it was banned because the Supreme Leader thought it didn’t fit with the Muslim prime directive. An IAEA report concluded that before 2003 Iran had likely undertaken research and experiments geared to developing a nuclear weapons capability. Iran’s first nuclear power plant, Bushehr I reactor was completed via the Russian government agency Rosatom, and officially opened in September of 2011. A nuclear Iran is the fault of both the US and Russia. Neither of which the US is prepared to REALLY deal with.
David, do you think that perhaps the administration lied for the sake of national security?
If they did, they should have let the Iranian know ahead of time so that Iranians would not panic when they discovered that what they agreed upon was not was going to be told to the American people. Furthermore, rather than asking about National Security, we should be looking at this as yet another example of how the Administration is more than willing to lie to the people over just about anything: healthcare, Benghazi, Iran, etc. And no, I think they lied because if the people knew just how screwed up the deal was, the intellectual class would be pissed.
What is worse, having pretty much zero relationship and diplomacy like we do with N. Korea, or the weary situation that we are trying to work out with Iran?
Which is worse? – That is a loaded question and the options are invalid because neither address the actual problem nor reflect the situation at hand. North Korea remains in a de-facto state of war because the United States couldn’t win or perhaps didn’t want to really engage with China. And we won’t engage them today because China wouldn’t allow it. Truth be told, I don’t think Russia will allow the US to engage with Iran either. Regardless, there are a couple things at play here. 1) Petro-Dollar 2) Israel – Neither of these situations will be “addressed” as far as Iran is concerned, hence the “problem” we face will not disappear. But to answer your question, it would be worse to continue to negotiate with a nation that both the state department has labeled an enemy, and a nation that addresses us in kind. I thought we didn’t deal with terrorist organizations? This is a mixed signal.
It is apparent that AAW doesn’t care too much about the Iran deal. So, does AAW believe there was a better option?
Yes – but the better (rational) option is not an option that the administration would be willing to abide by or even look at and the option would ultimately make the United States face their wickedness in regard to the Petro-Dollar. There are actually quite a few “better options”. Which is more important to Americans: Allies or Wealth? Answer that and I can provide the list, because freedom and democracy have nothing to do with it.
Should we have stayed out of Iran’s business completely? Or does AAW believe we should have went straight to military action as an attempt to deter the nuclear program?
Once again, we started all this business. Yes we should have stayed out of it back in the 40’s. Furthermore, their current nuclear program is being provided by Russia. If you want to stop a weed, do you not need to deal with the root? The US is not willing to deal with this root. Hence, many people will die in the long run because of this proxy policy. We are not trying to deter a nuclear program anyway. They already have it and the deal didn’t stop them from enriching uranium or building compenants anyway, so I guess I do not totally understand the question. That being said, the problem with our foreign policy (in my opinion) is that we say one thing and then do another. We do things to secure our own interests and piss all over our allies. Our allies are angry about this deal and rightfully so. I personally think we should stay out of everyone’s business, but since we are there now, we need to deal with it. But we won’t. Most people don’t understand the issue though. Why would a nuclear armed Iran be an issue anyway? Israel? Petro? Think about what a nation with the ability to retaliate against the Petro-Dollar could do. More reference to this in the book. My point is that is that this is all a direct result from our meddling… when will we learn?
Here is a quote from that article : “They say it is all for peaceful purposes but for just about as long, they have been saying they will wipe Israel off the map and that they wish Death to America. ” I’m by no means defending the Iranian government or disputing the “Death to America” mantra taking place… but the whole wiping Israel off the map bit is long proven false. Ahmadinejad never said any such thing. There was a Iranian military officer/official a year or so ago (can’t remember his name off the top of my head) who did say that… but it was years after the constant parading of such words supposedly coming from Ahmadinejad.
You may have noticed that NOTHING was actually said about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the article I wrote, and most of my followers pretty much know by now, that I would not put something out that was not at least researched or well cited. To tell me that I am – or something I’ve said has been “proven false” is a dangerous thing to do because most should know that I will come with a heavy bat.
Once again, I said nothing of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because that is NOT who I was referring to when it came to threatening rhetoric. To begin with, I said “they” in reference to an “official position” of the state. Second, Ahmadinejad was President from August 2005 to August 2013. Much of what I am alluding to in the article you are questioning, derives out of circumstance occurring from 1947–89.
For example: During Ayatollah Khomeini’s campaign to overthrow Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Israel, which had relatively warm relations with the Shah, became an issue. Khomeini declared Israel an “enemy of Islam” and ‘The Little Satan’ – the United States was called ‘The Great Satan’. This was in the 70’s. This began a series of events that would bring about what is now known as Operation Eagle Claw and eventually the Iran–Contra affair… a situation that could be argued that without Reagan’s act of treason, Iran would not be a problem anyway. The question you need to ask yourself is what has Islam demonstrated their task is in regard to enemies of their religion? Wipe them off the map right?
If we would like to explore recent rhetoric, we can do that as well. Five days ago, it was reported that in a meeting with the heads of Russia’s Jewish community, Netanyahu said, “The Iranians deny our past and repeat their commitment to wipe the State of Israel off the map. This reminds us of the dark regimes of the past that plotted against us first and then against all of humanity.”
“The real Iran is what the leader of Iran, Khamenei, said yesterday,” Netanyahu said. “He called Jews ‘rabid dogs’ and said that they were not human. The public responded to him with calls of ‘Death to America! Death to Israel!’ – Much like what has been happening in their city center for many years.
Here is the point though. You are focused too much on the statement of “wipe off the map”. I meant it not as a quote (which is why it wasn’t quoted – even though it has been said) but rather the implied nature of their direction. I could have written anything in there and I fear you would have tried to tear it apart regardless. That was not the point of the article and if that is your focus, you are missing the point. Try to find the spirit of the article. If I had to detail out every single point, no one would read it and few could follow. That would be an entire book. The point: Iran has HATED Israel and the US for over 60 years. This is not exactly a recent development. And the “problem” isn’t in the Middle East. The problem is at Lat: 38°53′42″ N – Long: 77°02′10″ W.
Whose side are you on – Iran’s or Israel’s?
Neither! Why are those my only two options? I prefer the Republic of the United States, and playing in this little game of Axis and Allies is going to hurt us in the long run, not help. It is my opinion that we should have commerce with all, entanglements with none. Pandering to either is a bad idea. Look at what it has done thus far.
What makes you an expert?
I have never claimed to be an “expert”. I do however, have an abundance of context and research and simply aim to provide a perspective other than what is being shoved down the throats by the mainstream media and the administration – BOTH of which have demonstrated their ability and willingness to lie to the people of this great nation. So, take it for what it’s worth.
I want to thank everyone for their questions and their participation. I hope this helps arm you with a bit more context to take away and use against those who aim to debate you!