What's new

Iranian president offers friendship to the USA

The hurt caused by the US to Iran pre-dates the hurt caused by Iran to the US. In a calm moment, please introspect.

I have on this subject, many times. The reality is that hatred of the USA is a critical political tool for the ruling mullahs to maintain national unity for their authoritarian rule in the face of an external threat (the USA). The Mossadeq "event" was almost 60 years ago. Hardly any Iranian alive today was politically conscious of it back then. The facts are not clear to open minded people. The memory is magnified, loved and embraced, today, by the Iranian regime as a political tool. Our memory of how our diplomats were treated is more recent but similarly ingrained in our feelings about the present regime in Iran. Remember, the USA government that participated in the Mossadeq affair is long gone, as is the Cold War context in which it occurred. On the other hand, the perpetrators of the Iranian and Lebanese hostage takings are still in power in Iran, even including its president and key figures in the IRG.

Also there is this:

In June 2009, the U.S. President Barack Obama in a speech in Cairo, Egypt, talked about the United States' relationship with Iran, mentioning the role of the U.S. in 1953 Iranian coup saying, "This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward."


The Iranian response? Nada.

Nevertheless, I believe I am a typical American. The only country on earth that I dislike, nearly to the level of hatred, is Iran. I even like North Korea more as I think the people there are hapless victims whereas Iranians seem to take pride in their hate-filled government.
 
No need to. YOUR Mullahs did it, not us:

When it comes to apologies intentions matter. It doesn't matter if you think the USA succeeded or failed; the fact was they actively tried. The fact that they failed (according to you) due to their incompetence is meaningless compared with interference in internal Iranian affairs. Morality and righteousness of an act is not judged solely by whether it succeeds or not.

And that's totally ignoring the active support of the Shah following the coup.
 
Nevertheless, I believe I am a typical American. The only country on earth that I dislike, nearly to the level of hatred, is Iran. I even like North Korea more as I think the people there are hapless victims whereas Iranians seem to take pride in their hate-filled government.

A "typical American" thinks that the poor of the world need not swamp American borders or the first world to suck or leech benefits and welfare but instead should stay in their countries and fight the oppressors like an American Revolution. The "typical American" views refugees as bloodsuckers and weaklings who should have stayed in their home country to fight the tyrants. But when the Iranians did it, Americans somehow hate it because it doesn't fit their preconceived notions of what is freedom or justice. Iranians took their destiny into their hands and Americans hate it because it isn't what they would have chosen. Make no mistake, the Shah was a tyrant, a King, exactly what Americans should hate.

Perhaps the "typical American" should examine his beliefs for hypocracy.

Iran is the one Islamic Republic whose student movement and reformers are powerful enough and strong enough to change the country within our lifetime without external interference. Yet for some reason Americans want to ruin it. My respect for the Iranian student goes far beyond that for the North Korean, who worships Kim Jong Il and desires nothing more than destruction of their own countrymen to the south. The North Korean citizen chooses to be brainwashed -- they are not victims and they love their god like all religious people. Only their god happens to be a fat man with wide rimmed glasses.
 
MOSSADEGH, Islam and Ayatollahs

The story behind the fall of democracy and rise of fundamentalism in Iran

by Ebrahim Norouzi, MD
The Mossadegh Project | November 24, 2009
"I am an Iranian and a Muslim and as long as I live I will fight against any threat to the Iranian nationality and Islam." -Mossadegh in the Majles, 1945

"He [Mossadegh] was also not a Muslim...and I said...he will be slapped and it did not take long that he was slapped [in the 1953 coup] and if he had lasted he would have slapped Islam". -Khomeini in a 1980 speech

Ayatollah Kashani and Dr. Mossadegh

Throughout his political life, Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh did his best to maintain a cordial relationship with the religious community in Iran. Though firmly secular, Mossadegh was keenly aware that in the composition of Iranian society, Islam and the Shi'ite faith had deep roots. He had witnessed its broad influence for himself, from clerical participation in the Constitutional revolution in the first decade of the 20th century, to their enduring following among Iran's conservatives, particularly in the low and middle class. For his efforts to bring independence and freedom to the country, Mossadegh received the support of many Ayatollahs and high ranking clerics. Several Ayatollahs went as far as declaring fatwas (religious proclamations) in support of his agenda; and many—among them Taliqani, Zanjani, Milani...even stood by him till the end.

In 1925, when Mossadegh was first elected to the Majles [lower house Parliament], he joined the constitutionalist cleric and Majles deputy, Hassan Modarres, in opposition to the establishment of the Pahlavi dynasty and the authoritarian rule of its founder, Reza Shah. Later, he received valuable cooperation from the influential political activist Ayatollah Kashani, particularly on the issues of oil nationalization and the effort to rid Iran of British control.

Kashani's help came with expectations, however. Kashani felt that he had earned the right to be involved in the important affairs of the government, such as the selection of cabinet members, and for his sons to receive preferential treatment in their bid for election to the Majles. As leader of the national Democratic front, Mossadegh opposed interference by Kashani or any other unelected and unaccountable individuals in governmental affairs, and considered Kashani's demands to be illegal, unethical and undemocratic.

Kashani's rivalry with Mossadegh came to a head in December 1952, when he strongly opposed Mossadegh's request for extra power from Majles. As the speaker of the Majles, Kashani was humiliated when they approved Mossadegh's request against his wishes. By this time, Kashani's long anti-imperialist stance had completely mutated into a personal battle for position of supremacy and national stature, leading ultimately to his cooperation with the Shah and the British-American plot to overthrow Mossadegh.

After the split, Kashani joined the pro-monarch Ayatollah Behbehani and diligently worked to unseat Mossadegh. He and his supporters, under the pretense of religion and in part to throw a monkey wrench into governmental operations, spearheaded the passage of an alcoholic prohibition resolution through the Majles. The loss of tax revenue from the domestic sale of alcoholic beverages created more difficulty for the government at a time of severe financial difficulty due to the British blocking the sale of Iranian oil on the international market. In addition to Kashani, two secular deputies, Baghai and Makki, previously staunch and effective supporters of Mossadegh, abandoned him over policy differences and personal ambition. The defection of Kashani, Baghai and Makki was a serious blow to Mossadegh's national agenda and the position of his government.
Kashani, Makki and Mossadegh

In late January 1953, a meeting between Mossadegh and Kashani arranged by intermediaries failed to reach the intended result of rapprochement between the two. Ayatollah Boroujerdi, the sole Marjae Taghlid (source of emulation) but to date non-political cleric, also began to oppose Mossadegh for reasons such as the government's proposal to reform election law by giving voting rights to women.

This coalition of oppositional clerics saw their livelihood more threatened within a progressive democratic regime than a monarchial system—even with the foreign presence in the country. To justify their acrimonious actions, they claimed that Mossadegh's government was anti-Islamic, threatened the legitimacy of the monarchy, and risked the Tudeh (communist) party takeover of the country. The distribution of CIA-provided "Behbehani dollars" among mullahs and knife wielding mobs, in addition to Kashani's ability to summon in a short time a large contingent of his supporters to the streets, helped to turn the tide against Mossadegh and his government.

Another religious element that Mossadegh had to contend with was the radical fundamentalist group Feday'ian-e Islam (Self-Sacrificers of Islam). Led by Navvab Safavi, a young and charismatic seminary student, Navvab Safavi this militant and cult-like organization had a history of using terror in order to pave the way for the establishment of an Islamic government in Iran. They had already assassinated several intellectual and political personalities whom they had found to be an anathema to their brand of Islam. They demanded that Mossadegh’s government apply Sharia Islamic law, starting with the imposition of a women's dress code (hijab), firing of all women working in the government, banning the production, sale and consumption of alcohol, and making public prayer mandatory for all government employees. Mossadegh, who was strongly against the establishment of a religious state, refused to heed any of their demands. Feday'ians then threatened him with assassination, which became a factor in Mossadegh’s decision to use his home as the office of the prime minister.

Unable to make good on their threat against Mossadegh, Feday'ian-e Islam attempted to assassinate his loyal and courageous assistant (and later his foreign minister), Dr. Hossein Fatemi, in February 1952. Fatemi was severely wounded and never fully recovered in his lifetime. For a time, Feday'ians even opposed Ayatollah Kashani for his initial support of Mossadegh and his belief that the time for founding an Islamic government had not yet come. Years later during the 1979 Iranian revolution, Faday’ian members assisted Khomeini in founding the Islamic regime and many served in the government. The Feday’ian member who had attempted to kill Dr. Fatemi served as a deputy in the first Majles following the revolution.

The truth about Mossadegh is that during his long career, he made it clear on numerous occasions that he had great respect for the religion of Islam and that he himself was a Muslim. However, he did not use religion for the sake of political gain, and he did not favor or oppose anyone on the basis of their faith. He believed making religion a political issue would not serve the interest of the country and its people, yet recognized its significance in society. Thus, Mossadegh aimed to create a peaceful coexistence between the religious order and his secular government.

The notion that Mossadegh was a threat to Islam was a baseless smear and nothing more, and there are many examples to support this.

While studying law in Switzerland, Mossadegh chose his doctorate thesis on the subject of "Wills and Testaments In Islamic Law". To confirm the accuracy of his writing, he traveled back to Iran from Europe to consult religious experts on the matter, writing it first in Persian before its translation to French in 1914.

In 1925, Mossadegh said in the 5th Majles:

"Last year in front of the respectable deputies I swore to the glorious words [Koran] that I will not betray my country and the people. At that moment, I swore I was a Muslim and I remain a Muslim, and I'm now requesting the deputies to rise in respect to this Koran [at this time he pulled out a Koran from his breast pocket and all the deputies rose in their place and called to witness in front of all the deputies by reciting the Arabic phrase that is required for the acceptance or reaffirmation of the Muslim faith]......If I witness anything against the interest of the country I am obligated to speak up in order to defend the country, protect the nation and for the permanence of Islam...."

In 1945, he famously proclaimed in Parliament that, "I am an Iranian and a Muslim and as long as I live I will fight against any threat to the Iranian nationality and Islam."

Mossadegh's mother and wife, whom he considered "the two most influential persons in my life" were both pious, faithful Muslims. In his own handwritten will, he allocated a sum of money to be spent towards "prayer, fasting and pilgrimage" and to be buried according to the Islamic faith.

Nevertheless, the antagonistic Islamic factions continued to resort to slander and lies about him, accusing him of harboring enmity towards Islam and lack of religious faith. The cooperation of the hostile Islamic factions with the royal court and the Shah's supporters as well as the British and American conspirators ultimately proved to be a lethal force for Mossadegh’s government. It ended with the CIA coup on August 19, 1953 that placed the final arrow in the heart of Iran’s young democracy.

One day after the August 1953 coup, Feday'ian-e Islam’s newsletter had this to say:

"Yesterday Tehran shook under the feet of Army personnel and anti-foreign Muslims. Mossadegh, the bloodthirsty old ghoul, resigned under the devastating blows of the Muslims....All the government centers were seized by the Muslims and the army of Islam".

Several days later, an Egyptian reporter asked Ayatollah Kashani about the kind of punishment Mossadegh would face. Kashani replied: “According to the honorable law of Islam, the penalty for the one who betrays the Jihad while in the position as commander of the country is death”.

Epilogue: The Islamic Revolution

A quarter century after the CIA coup, the popular 1979 Iranian revolution brought about the demise of the Pahlavi dynasty which some of its forebearers had conspired with in 1953. The revolution had the broadest support among people of all walks of society, both secular and religious.

On March 6, 1979, hundreds of thousands of people gathered at Mossadegh’s grave site in Ahmadabad, 65 miles outside of Tehran. Many had traveled on foot through the desert on the occasion of the 12th anniversary of Mossadegh's death (14 Esfand 1357) to honor and pay respect to this symbol of freedom and independence.

Ayatollah Taliqani, a Mossadegh loyalist, spoke in this gathering and praised Mossadegh, likening him to Moses. Ayatollah Khomenei This show of respect for Mossadegh and his ideals of democracy and human rights alarmed Ayatollah Khomeini, whose agenda was the establishment of an Islamic state, and not a representative democracy. The post-Shah mushrooming of a free press prompted Khomeini to fight back against what he considered "the false and perverted news that causes disunity among all classes". Democratic forces reacted by announcing that the upcoming birthday of Mossadegh on May 19, 1979 (29 Ordibehesht 1358) would be named "The Day of Free Speech and Free Press", and a large demonstration was held on that day. Five days later, Khomeini commanded in a speech that "demonstrating for any body's bones [meaning Mossadegh] and opposing Islam are not to be tolerated".

Later, Khomeini spoke more venomously: "He [Mossadegh] was also not a Muslim...and I said...he will be slapped and it did not take long that he was slapped [in the 1953 coup] and if he had lasted he would have slapped Islam".

For Khomenei, "[A]nybody not in the path of Islam is our enemy".

Ultimately, Khomeini and the religious fundamentalists succeeded in purging the secular and democratic forces from the body of the revolutionary leadership and establishing their version of an Islamic regime. The thirty year experiment with this regime has failed to bring freedom, prosperity and security to the country and has done incalcuable damage to the image of Iranians, Muslims and people of Middle Eastern origin around the world. The majority of Iranian people still hope for a time in their country that Mossadegh envisioned in a speech in the 14th Majles:

“We must reach such a degree of true independence that what should motivate us is the interest of Iran and protection of its national character and nothing else.....”

MOSSADEGH, Islam and Ayatollahs :: by Ebrahim Norouzi, MD :: Mohammad Mossadegh.com
 
Nevertheless, I believe I am a typical American. The only country on earth that I dislike, nearly to the level of hatred, is Iran. I even like North Korea more as I think the people there are hapless victims whereas Iranians seem to take pride in their hate-filled government.

I can't agree with you or support your position because it is entirely arbitrary to call the Mossadeq affair a "bygone" while setting the bar of relevance such that the hostage affair falls within. Iranians would tell you that the Mossadeq incident was, in fact, not an incident but a pattern of CIA intervention in Iran to support an unpopular ruler and an unpopular and very brutal secret police (the Saavak had serious connections with the CIA). And that this lasted till the day Khomeni took power.

But anyhow, I am no one to try and change your mind. Just offering my perspective. You are welcome to chuck it out the window.

I hope you have a pleasant evening.
 
They demanded that Mossadegh’s government apply Sharia Islamic law, starting with the imposition of a women's dress code (hijab), firing of all women working in the government, banning the production, sale and consumption of alcohol, and making public prayer mandatory for all government employees.

Since this is not the case in Iran now you can make the case that Iranian women are "victims" like you so arbitrarily declare North Koreans, and that the Islamic Republic never had the kind of support this article and you say it did from 50% of the population. You can claim the general population supported an Islamic government, but other measures like hijab are not intrinsic to Islam. If you think they should have "known better" well, perhaps they took a leap of faith just like the American revolutionaries took a leap of faith with George Washington and he turned out not to want to be a perpetual dictator. Women got the sore end of the deal in Iran.

No matter how you cut it Truthseeker your hatred of Iranians is illogical, incorrect and wrong.
 
But anyhow, I am no one to try and change your mind. Just offering my perspective. You are welcome to chuck it out the window.

I hope you have a pleasant evening.

Thank you for your advice. I understand the perspective you are offering. However, for the Iranians, it is akin to how the Israelis cling to the holocaust as the defining moment of their national identity. It gets old. At some point it's time to move on lest the ghosts of the past prevent the living to actually have a life. The Iranians deserve so much more. By dwelling on the CIA and Mossadeq, they mire themselves in an irrelevant past. Truth be told, the Iranian people were better off under the Shah than under Khomeini and Khamenei.

The Savak were pussycats compared to what they confront today. And the CIA isn't responsible for what they have now. (Or do you blame the USA for everything that is wrong with the world?)
 
^^ I thought you just said in your earlier post that you dislike Iran and Iranians because they support their government... and you are now saying that the Saavak were small fry compared to the present setup, thus implying that Iranians should/do hate the status quo more? While there is certainly some degree of opposition to the government - in which country is there not - I don't think you are accurately calculating its magnitude.

The Iranian people genuinely disliked the Saavak and the Shah's pursuit of American "suggestions" especially with regard to Israel. The revolution wouldn't have been possible otherwise. In contrast, there is nowhere near the cohesive opposition to the present setup. That would suggest to me that the Iranian people are more in tune with the present position (I mean this holistically, not just with regard to the US, but more importantly, with regard to sovereignty and posture viz Israel).

And as to your last question, I am very fond of the US. I don't at all blame it for everything that's wrong in the world. I sometimes wish you guys could see how much we *want* to be your friends, and have, consistently, since 1947. I just don't think we've ever been treated as friends. And after 63 years, that is just sad. Some people react with anger. Others, like myself, with a deep melancholic disappointment. We could have shaped the world into a much better place together.
 
Perhaps, as a show of goodwill, the US should also apologise for the assassination of the democratically-elected Iranian Prime-Minister Dr. Mossadegh and the sub-planting of his government by an unelected authoritarian Pahlavi monarchy, then we can talk of friendship.

Pasban jan PM Mossadegh wasn't assassinated but removed under a CIA coupe named Ajax. He was under house arrest until he died of natural causes. He was the best thing that ever happened to Iran. How things could have been different now....
 
Pasban jan PM Mossadegh wasn't assassinated but removed under a CIA coupe named Ajax. He was under house arrest until he died of natural causes. He was the best thing that ever happened to Iran. How things could have been different now....

I now well, Fedayeen. It was a mis-type. I wrote about the matter later in detail. See my previous post.
 
I think that it is a bit of an overstatement. Although the worst of the insurgency has been quelled it still posses a significant threat to the current Iraqi government, which is why most Iraqis want the U.S. to stay according to a recent poll.


The U.S. has stabilized Iraq as much as it needs to. Iraq has to learn to stand on it's own. If anything it should be the Muslim Ummah that helps Iraq now shouldn't it?
 
Thank you for your advice. I understand the perspective you are offering. However, for the Iranians, it is akin to how the Israelis cling to the holocaust as the defining moment of their national identity. It gets old. At some point it's time to move on lest the ghosts of the past prevent the living to actually have a life. The Iranians deserve so much more. By dwelling on the CIA and Mossadeq, they mire themselves in an irrelevant past. Truth be told, the Iranian people were better off under the Shah than under Khomeini and Khamenei.

The above only highlights your little understanding on Iranians so that you are forced to use generalization, which of course are inherently wrong as are all such groupings. Also, whereas the Holocaust does form a significant segment of it, the Israeli symbolism concerning their national identity goes beyond that and involves other matters as well.

As to, "they mire themselves in an irrelevant past," apart from the fact that I find the assessment incorrect, how can that not be said to your own statement regarding the hostage crisis which you were so keen to point out earlier? You have only broken your own argument as I see it.

As to the last bit, truth be told, the Iranian people would be been better off if Mossadegh had not been dislodged in such a fashion. What one sows, one reaps. In that sense it is not surprising what views many Iranians hold on the amount of trust they attribute to the United States.

Lastly, the Iranian shah was authoritarian in his governance and harsh in the implementation of his views. The only Iranians that had a semblance of rights were those that supported him or continued to accept their position without argument. His 'white revolution' was a failure from the onset and so were the economic policies he implemented which brought crisis to Iran in the 70s, much aided by his own lavishness as well. To add to this his land reforms were an equal disappointment. Apart from this the Shah had an excessive shopping list, especially concerning expensive foreign arms, which he arrived at by plundering the country's resource wealth whilst a large segment of the population continued to live in a poor state. The only real progress was in Iranian infrastructure, which cannot be attributed to him directly. On the whole, I cannot imagine any real leadership traits being attributed to him. Monarchies aren't earned and this one was no different. Moreover, Reza stood in contrast with his father, who arguably did more for Iran than he did whilst ruling longer and being better equipped. The only other defining matter concerning him was that he, from the American geo-strategic perspective, tied in positively with it and thus managed to receive such honors. I don't suppose you would wish to live under such a monarchy yourself but are more than willing to say that Iranians were better off under it.

The Savak were pussycats compared to what they confront today. And the CIA isn't responsible for what they have now. (Or do you blame the USA for everything that is wrong with the world?)

I don't blame the US for everything, quiet rather the opposite, I am very appreciative of Americans and there is much I admire about their country. As for the SAVAK, you obviously have no idea about their brutality and I am not purposely saying this because I have lost family to their menace. Compared to the civil abuse, the methodology and the sheer terror, the organs of the present setup are distant allusions at best.
 
I have on this subject, many times. The reality is that hatred of the USA is a critical political tool for the ruling mullahs to maintain national unity for their authoritarian rule in the face of an external threat (the USA).

This is an incorrect assessment. However, to further your own statement, creating hype about Iran is also utilized by the American administration to prevent public objection to foreign policy. There are historical examples of this in relation to other nations as well. Generally, Iranians like the the US and it's people and do not have the 'hatred' as you do for Iran (I know say that for you have stated it yourself). Their objections mainly lie in foreign policy alone.

The Mossadeq "event" was almost 60 years ago. Hardly any Iranian alive today was politically conscious of it back then. The facts are not clear to open minded people. The memory is magnified, loved and embraced, today, by the Iranian regime as a political tool.

Reminds me of the hostage crisis and it's enshrinement.

Our memory of how our diplomats were treated is more recent but similarly ingrained in our feelings about the present regime in Iran. Remember, the USA government that participated in the Mossadeq affair is long gone, as is the Cold War context in which it occurred.

I'll be honest, I did not expect it, but I'm glad you are able to see both sides of the coin to some extent and understand the larger complexities of the time period.

On the other hand, the perpetrators of the Iranian and Lebanese hostage takings are still in power in Iran, even including its president and key figures in the IRG.

That hasn't been substantiated really for knowing Ahmadinejad, if it were the case, he would have proudly come out with it. Also, do you understand why the crisis actually came into being?

Also there is this:

In June 2009, the U.S. President Barack Obama in a speech in Cairo, Egypt, talked about the United States' relationship with Iran, mentioning the role of the U.S. in 1953 Iranian coup saying, "This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government.

Apparently, Obama is admitting a US role in the overthrow of Mosaddegh, which you are denying and rather attributing it solely on the small conspiring conservative monarchist clerical establishment at the time and not on the main instigators and planners-- the CIA and the M16.

Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward."

I honestly have seen little constructive effort beyond this statement. Rather, the 'all options are on the table' has been lauded more than the willingness to move forward.


The Iranian response? Nada.

Very convenient of you to link two unrelated and distant events. Also, it's is Neda and not Nada.

Nevertheless, I believe I am a typical American. The only country on earth that I dislike, nearly to the level of hatred, is Iran.

There is an old quotation in Iran that for every person, there exists a mirror in this world. You'd indeed find your own mirrors in Iran.

I even like North Korea more as I think the people there are hapless victims whereas Iranians seem to take pride in their hate-filled government.

North Korea is on a very different playing field. As to Iranians, I'll admit, Iranians are a fiercely proud people, but they are not a hateful one. Also, they'll stand behind the government whenever they feel it is standing up for Iran or for it's legitimate rights. The fastest way for a government in Iran to lose all credibility and collapse is for it to appear as serving foreign interests over Iranian interests and not speaking up or taking a stand for Iran. To say that Iranians are proud to hate is quit nonsensical at best.
 
Last edited:
The U.S. has stabilized Iraq as much as it needs to. Iraq has to learn to stand on it's own. If anything it should be the Muslim Ummah that helps Iraq now shouldn't it?

Yes, it absolutely should. And I think it will, but there needs to be some political distance between the efforts invested by muslim countries and the occupation. My personal feeling is that once the US troops depart - the 50K or so remaining - you will find a fairly comprehensive re-engagement by the Arab and muslim world. For one, I think the fact that the Iraqi government is now representing the largest domestic group (shia), will mean that dealings with Iran will be eased considerably. For much of the past half century, Iran and Iraq have been at loggerheads and this may no longer be the case. I think SA and the Gulf countries are already engaging Iraq and its very natural for this engagement to grow.
 
TL dont you think Iraq will take years to be stabalized provided the Insurgency and the proxies being fueled by its neighbours particularly Iran and the Arab gulf States ..??

i am seeing a degree of parity between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Frankly i believe Iraq would continue to be home to a deadly voilance fueled by the proxies of Arabs and Iranians however not disrupting OIL Buisness and hence much of Iraqi petro dollars would go into fighting an open ended insurgency which could take years Plus it would keep the Arabs and Iranians busy for a while.. !!!!
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom