What's new

Khomeini's secret dialogue with America 'The Great Satan'

you can keep your ISIS with your petrol dollars.

you are no angel :lol:

stop insulting Shia sanctities.

Better clean your houses from monarchs and capitalists.

Are you ok? Where did Fahesh (ISIS) come from or petrol dollars? I don't own any oil and last time I saw Iran has nothing to envy KSA or the Arab world (of course the Arab world have many more resources overall which is only natural due to the sheer size of the Arab world) when it comes to resources.

Who am "I" and where did I say that anyone was an angel? Did you even read my posts in this thread and if you did, did you even understand the content of them? It seems to not be the case.

Which Shia "sanctities" did I exactly insult?

I see nothing wrong with well-functioning constitutional monarchies or capitalism as long as the latter does not go out of hand. Capitalism has played an enormous role in the technological and scientific progress of humanity.
 
.
I am by no means anti-Western and given my personal background this would be hypocritical but the US has likewise played a negative role in numerous Arab nations. The West as a whole (UK and France mainly previously) as well as USSR/Russia.

We should not forget that. Their silent support or outright poisonous involvement in several Arab countries has contributed to the hindrance of progress. For instance the US could do much, much more to pressure regimes in the GCC on fronts where this is needed. By not doing so they are ignoring the wishes of the majority of the population. Of course we cannot likewise deny the fact that the problems in the MENA region and Muslim world are largely an indigenous doing.

Also we could ask how KSA would look like today had Talal's fraction won the power struggle for instance? Probably much differently and in many ways better.

Anyway we should not expect much from nation states whether they are democratic or not as ultimately their interests evolve around their own first and foremost which is naturally.

And since the Muslim world has been weak and still is it's no surprise that the superpowers have used that in their favor. It's a dirty and brutal world and Arabs, being one of the foremost imperial powers in human history (3 of the 11 largest empires were created by Arabs more than any other ethnicity in the top 15) are guilty of similar policies in the past when we had the upper hand. Iranians likewise, Turks as well etc. We have a tendency to glorify our empires and conquests but we cry when others (West) surpasses us in our own previous disciplines. That is why we should not be relying on anyone but ourselves. It's time to look at ourselves in the mirror and change for the better. I see this will in the Arab youth today by large so I am very much hopeful. Similar can be seen in much of the Muslim and developing world.

The only thing that I like about the Iranian Mullah's regardless of them not really succeeding at this yet (the odds are also difficult), is their aim at becoming more independent. Imagine where the region would be if the GCC and Iran could work hand in hand and add Turkey to that list as well? Not to forget Egypt and numerous Arab states. We would not be in the mess we are today. Hell, I believe that we should try to work with Israel once the Palestinian conflict is solved. Even start direct talks now as the current policy of ignorance/no official relations has not worked one bit. Dialogue is the only option, I am afraid. Not only when it comes to Israel but most of the conflicts that trouble the region.
Great post all round! I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I'm also not anti-Western by the way. Although I'm very critical of the foreign policies of many Western countries, I do not consider myself to be anti-Western. Likewise, I'm very critical of the foreign policies of Iran, Turkey and many Arab states, but that doesn't mean I hate any of these countries, nor do I have anything personal against them.

People tend to mistakenly think I hate their countries because I have a habit of being too critical of their policies at times. It doesn't do me any favor because I end up being disliked by many people lol. But I digress.

I agree that, although the West could be blamed for contributing to the negative situation in the Middle East, a lot of our problems are our own fault. At the end of the day, we have the power to change our dire situation for the better.

I also agree that Iran should be given credit for trying to be independent and self-sufficient. That's about the only good thing the mullahs have ever done since coming to power, although we should bear in mind that they had no other choice but to pursue self-sufficiency since they brought the international sanctions on themselves.

As for Saudi Arabia, I think Mohammad bin Salman will change Saudi Arabia for the better if he becomes king. He may not come across as liberal as Al-Waleed Bin Talal at face value, but I think he's surrounded by a lot of well-meaning liberal advisers. He'll change Saudi Arabia slowly but surely, in my opinion.

In other news this relationship is hardly breaking news for any informed individual. Khomeini was after all in exile in France before he returned to Iran and the same West supported him against the communists and socialists which were the main catalysts behind the Iranian revolution that later was brutally hijacked by the Iranian Mullah's. All this occurred during the Cold War and before the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the Shah was a bulwark against communism due to his close ties to the West.

We should not forget Israel's support for Iran during the Iraq-Iran war either. Back then Israel saw Iraq as the greater danger so they picked the lesser evil in their eyes. Or the Iranian Mullah's cooperation with the US in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course all covertly as otherwise they would have lost their legitimacy in the Muslim world, even among Shias, as the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were both heavily condemned by the Muslim masses and most Muslim regimes.

So the Mullah's are more pragmatic than we give them credit for but ultimately they are bound by a ideology so they cannot step completely out of order. Likewise is the case with KSA but in a much lesser sense as the Saudi Arabian clergy (Hanbali Najdi-dominated) is not in power but have a lot to say. However there has only been one constant, when it comes to regimes, in the region in the modern era and that has been the House of Saud. I consider them the best strategists although they are in a challenging position currently. Anyway politics is poison. It really is. Especially in the MENA/Muslim world where the common man and woman has little say.

Anyway Israel is winning as usual in the region. More so after the "Arab Spring". I have lately been reading a few Hebrew forums and it became even more obvious after that if anyone was ever in doubt. However Israel would not survive without their nukes and unconditional support of the US in today's ME in case of an all-out war with regional powers. Not that any such war will ever occur.
Indeed, the mullahs of Iran are very pragmatic when it comes to geopolitics, even though they pretend to be unbending, but the irony is that their followers naively think that the mullahs are against realpolitik. That's the irony. As a case in point, I was banned by Iranian hardliners on IMF because I pragmatically suggested that nothing's constant in politics and that Iran and Israel can one day become friends/partners. They didn't like it at all, given their outright opposition to realpolitik. And yet, the irony is that their leaders are practicing realpolitik to this very day!

I agree that it appears that Israel is winning right now. After all, Israel is the only regional power that hasn't extensively exhausted itself since the advent of the Arab Spring. By contrast, all the other regional powers are exhausted right now, including countries that I never thought would ever get exhausted, such as Turkey.
 
.
Another rubbish news and people who get an emotional orgasm over it. Khomeini didn't write a letter to Carter, he simply replied to a letter that Carter had sent to him. Also Khomeini never wrote any letter to JFK, that's pure nonsense.

Even in past years, Iran's leader has replied to letters sent to him by Barack Obama and it's not even a secret. But, they only replied to letters and were not the first one to send a letter.
I don't see why you can't answer a letter and explain your own standpoint, even if the other side is your enemy.
 
.
Great post all round! I wholeheartedly agree with you.

I'm also not anti-Western by the way. Although I'm very critical of the foreign policies of many Western countries, I do not consider myself to be anti-Western. Likewise, I'm very critical of the foreign policies of Iran, Turkey and many Arab states, but that doesn't mean I hate any of these countries, nor do I have anything personal against them.

People tend to mistakenly think I hate their countries because I have a habit of being too critical of their policies at times. It doesn't do me any favor because I end up being disliked by many people lol. But I digress.

I agree that, although the West could be blamed for contributing to the negative situation in the Middle East, a lot of our problems are our own fault. At the end of the day, we have the power to change our dire situation for the better.

I also agree that Iran should be given credit for trying to be independent and self-sufficient. That's about the only good thing the mullahs have ever done since coming to power, although we should bear in mind that they had no other choice but to pursue self-sufficiency since they brought the international sanctions on themselves.

As for Saudi Arabia, I think Mohammad bin Salman will change Saudi Arabia for the better if he becomes king. He may not come across as liberal as Al-Waleed Bin Talal at face value, but I think he's surrounded by a lot of well-meaning liberal advisers. He'll change Saudi Arabia slowly but surely, in my opinion.

We are once again in complete agreement.:D

That's correct. Being as independent and self-sufficient as possible is always preferable however there are different kinds of "independent" and "self-sufficient". There is North Korea in East Asia and to a smaller degree Iran in West Asia. Countless of regimes from Africa (Eritrea for instance) to Asia have claimed to be such things and pursued such policies but the end result has more often than not been complete and utter failure. Iran is a failed state on many fronts as well mind you. On many fronts it has been their (the Mullah's) own doing.

One could also question whether there is even such a thing in today's globalized world as truly independent. I would claim that only superpowers such as the US, China and Russia can claim to be such a thing but even they are in many ways dependent on the outside world as well.

I was actually talking about the old Talal. The father of Waleed. "The Red Prince".

Well, I have high hopes for him due to his age and what he has so far shown however I am fully convinced that in order for KSA to truly take big steps in the right direction, the influence of the clergy must be reduced. Once that happens the percentage of locals who support their policies will decline as well. It is already going one way among the youth (2/3 of the population mind you) and that is down. Despite the enormous poisonous role that sectarianism has played and continues to play in the region. So that's a good sign.

Also from what I have read about KSA has the highest percentage of convinced atheists in the MENA region.

However my personal view is that history should have switched the ruling families, if you know what I mean here.:enjoy:

I will depart for now. Take care!
 
Last edited:
.
I admire your neutrality and critical outlook of arab societies. I have not seen this in either Iranian or Arab members for their own countries. The truth is people are not standing for Islam but their British imposed territories and boundaries. And patriotism has superseded religion.

What I would like would be a regime hostile to the west's arrogance and colonial attitude but liberal at home. Every regime that has fallen to America from Libya Syria Iraq to Afghanistan has had its internal divisions caused by autocratic rather than benevolent rule internally.. Assad nor Abdullah Saleh possess the undivided love of their people. I would request Iran not to become victim of the sectarian mindset and support a terrorist own people killing murderer like Assad.

These divisions have given America a chance to interfere. Iran does not have such divisions or Iran would have been dinner for the Americans. But since it has a policy against west and does not host American troops nor has the desire to become its client state it is being punished. In short there are things I like and dislike about Iran and the Arab world too.
Thank you for your kind words! :-)

I try my best to be fair and neutral, although I must admit that it can be a very lonely path to take lol. You don't get to make a lot of friends by criticizing everyone lol. I have a bad habit of being too critical of many countries all at the same time.

Anyway, I agree that it would be very nice to see an assertive, independent-minded and liberal regime in the Middle East.

Iran made a terrible mistake by stubbornly sticking with al-Assad. It should have found an alternative way to preserve its sphere of influence in the region. It could have used political reform as a tool to expand its sphere of influence, if anything. Instead, it foolishly decided to support the counterrevolutionary side in the Syrian conflict. History shows that counterrevolutionary movements rarely ever win in the long term, so I'm afraid Iran made a terrible mistake by deciding to prop up al-Assad. Had the Iranians been clever and less arrogant, they would've used "Islamic democracy" movements in Syria to their advantage.

We are once again in complete agreement.:D

That's correct. Being as independent and self-sufficient as possible is always preferable however there are different kinds of "independent" and "self-sufficient". There is North Korea in East Asia and to a smaller degree Iran in West Asia. Countless of regimes from Africa (Eritrea for instance) to Asia have claimed to be such things and pursued such policies but the end result has more often than not been complete and utter failure. Iran is a failed state on many fronts as well mind you. On many fronts it has been their (the Mullah's) own doing.

One could also question whether there is even such a thing in today's globalized world as truly independent. I would claim that only superpowers such as the US, China and Russia can claim to be such a thing but even they are in many ways dependent on the outside world as well.

I was actually talking about the old Talal. The father of Waleed. "The Red Prince".

Well, I have high hopes for him due to his age and what he has so far shown however I am fully convinced that in order for KSA to truly take big steps in the right direction, the influence of the clergy must be reduced. Once that happens the percentage of locals who support their policies will decline as well. It is already going one way among the youth (2/3 of the population mind you) and that is down. Despite the enormous poisonous role that sectarianism has played and continues to play in the region. So that's a good sign.

Also from what I have read about KSA has the highest percentage of convinced atheists in the MENA region.

However my personal view is that history should have switched the ruling families, if you know what I mean here.:enjoy:

I will depart for now. Take care!
True. In this day and age, there's really no such thing as a fully independent country.

Indeed, Saudi Arabia has the highest percentage of irreligious people in the Middle East.

Once Mohammad bin Salman becomes king, the changes should hopefully happen quicker. :agree:
 
.
I agree, but it's a real pity that Iran didn't go secular after the 1979 revolution instead.

I partly blame this on the United States.

The Americans indirectly helped the mullahs come to power in Iran because they saw them as reliable bulwarks against Soviet encroachment in the oil-rich Persian Gulf region.

Iran also needs to make up its mind about the Muslim Brotherhood. It supported the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt and Libya a few years ago and branded it as an "Islamic awakening", and yet it opposed the Muslim Brotherhood's attempt to take over secular Syria and described it as a "Wahhabi/takfiri invasion". It can't get more hypocritical than this.

This kind of hypocrisy is what destroyed the region in the first place. Of course, in fairness to the Iranians, other regional players have also contributed negatively to the region's stability. Nevertheless, none of this mess would exist today had the likes of Khomeini not come to power in 1979.

Imagine how different and better the Middle East would've been today had Iran become a secular liberal democracy instead of a theocracy.

Well, you might be right to some extent, buyt then again who said politics is a clear cut game? lol
What you hear some leaders saying in public fdoesnt always means that is what they do in private. lol Politics is just a game, you just have to understand it and know how to play it that's all. Tell the people/public what they want to hear while securing your position and making back deals with your adversaries when n necessary. That's exactly what Khomeini did and i dont blame him one bit for that. lol He gained power after all. lol Thats what matters at the end of the day. POWER. !!! The end always justifies the means at the end of the day.
Ever wondered why a western country allowed khomenei to stay in France before departing for Iran to gain power? Or why he even stayed in a evil western country for that matter? lol
nothing is ever black and white in politics. Lol
 
Last edited:
.
I agree, but it's a real pity that Iran didn't go secular after the 1979 revolution instead.

I partly blame this on the United States.

The Americans indirectly helped the mullahs come to power in Iran because they saw them as reliable bulwarks against Soviet encroachment in the oil-rich Persian Gulf region.

Iran also needs to make up its mind about the Muslim Brotherhood. It supported the Muslim Brotherhood takeover of Egypt and Libya a few years ago and branded it as an "Islamic awakening", and yet it opposed the Muslim Brotherhood's attempt to take over secular Syria and described it as a "Wahhabi/takfiri invasion". It can't get more hypocritical than this.

This kind of hypocrisy is what destroyed the region in the first place. Of course, in fairness to the Iranians, other regional players have also contributed negatively to the region's stability. Nevertheless, none of this mess would exist today had the likes of Khomeini not come to power in 1979.

Imagine how different and better the Middle East would've been today had Iran become a secular liberal democracy instead of a theocracy.

At least you cross out Iran as main reason behind global warming ....

what happened back in 1979 was a revolution resulted of more than a century of Iranians struggle for freedom that had been suppressed by military coup and dictatorship orchestrated by foreign powers .... after revolution the Monarchs in the region saw Iran as a threat in other words as a "virus" that might turned to a model and should be prevented from spreading amongst the nations in the region ... that's why all these kings started to support Saddam by their funds, soldiers , ports, airspace + political and intelligence .... Iraqi dictator used CW and killed and injured 100k Iranian civilians .... no one raised a finger ...
Eventually they succeeded to prevent it from spreading but couldn't destroy it .... but:
their strategy started to back fire when their beloved Sadam Hussain attacked Kuwait and invaded it (irony is Kuwait was of main supporters of saddam) , all sudden the so-called "Commander of Qadisiyyah" turned to a wild beast and needed to be punished and chained ....
All of those countries that were supporting Saddam for 8 years during Iran-Iraq war provided bases and let American coalition use their lands to invade Iraq ... American invaded and when they were 20kms away from Baghdad all the sudden they decided not to topple him ... and let him to use his chopper to start a genocide against Shia and Kurds in south and north of Iraq who were taking invasion as an opportunity to get rid of dictator ... many mass graves were found years later when American attacked Iraq in 2003 by the pretext of weapon of mass destruction as if they'd forgotten they provided Saddam by intelligence and satellite footage and were aware that Saddam using them for precise chemical attacks ....
During Saddam and despite all his crimes against Shia people non of these non sectarian kings protested why a minority Sunni was governing and oppressed a majority Shia in Iraq. not to mention oppressed Shia people in southern of Lebanon that had been kept in poverty for years ...as they have no problem that the majority people of Bahrain are Shia and are governed and oppressed by a minority Sunni ...
Again in 2003 the same countries which provided airspace and basis in 1991 for American coalition let American to use their lands to attack Iraq .. Iran in both cases closed its borders and didn't let them to use it ...
On the other hands during Iran-Iraq war Saudis+Americans were busy with Soviet Union in Afghanistan ... American funded and armed Mujaheddin and Saudis provided software aka "ideology" ended in Soviet uninon retreating from Afghanistan ... later on these Mujaheddin formed backbone of AQ ....
AQ , WMD and democracy were 3 main reasons that American used to justify their invasion against Iraq ...
During saddam all those Iraqi oppositions who'd fought Saddam for decades had no place except Iran to take refugee and continue their political movement ... dictator gone and only country supported political transition in Iraq was Iran we opened our embassy and tried to help Iraqis to form their own future ... all those oppositions now were Iranian friends and had major role in new Iraq ... it pissed Saudis off and they started to turn the situation back , they didn't recognize new Iraq for years and even didn't open their embassy in Iraq ... they created the phrase "crescent of Shia" which needed to be dealt .... and they did so ...
During israel-Lebanon war they sided israel:

"... The Kingdom would like to clearly announce that a difference should be drawn between legitimate resistance and rash adventures carried out by elements inside the state and those behind them without consultation with the legitimate authority in their state and without consultation or coordination with Arab countries, thus creating a gravely dangerous situation exposing all Arab countries and its achievements to destruction with those countries having no say.

The Kingdom views that it is time that these elements alone bear the full responsibility of these irresponsible acts and should alone shoulder the burden of ending the crisis they have created. .."
Source
moreover even their mofti issued a fatwa that praying for Shia is not ok:

11.jpg

What was wrong with Hezboallh back then? nothing it liberated and defended Lebanon and its only problem was being Shia ...
Saudi Grand Mofti : Shia people are Kafer and non Muslim:

Fatwa : Shias are kafer , kill them and go to paradise :


Sectarian war started from here:

Ibn Saud’s clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.

Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: “They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein... slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants ...”

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, “we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.’”
You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia
You might be able to blame Iran for Syria,Iraq, and Lebanon or even Yemen but what about AQ, Taliban,AL Shabab, Boko Haram and many other Sunni terrorist organizations? the only thing is balming Iran is easiest way. you need to find the roots of your problems within your countries ..not Iran ..
 
Last edited:
.
At least you cross out Iran as main reason behind global warming ....

what happened back in 1979 was a revolution resulted of more than a century of Iranians struggle for freedom that had been suppressed by military coup and dictatorship orchestrated by foreign powers .... after revolution the Monarchs in the region saw Iran as a threat in other words as a "virus" that might turned to a model and should be prevented from spreading amongst the nations in the region ... that's why all these kings started to support Saddam by their funds, soldiers , ports, airspace + political and intelligence .... Iraqi dictator used CW and killed and injured 100k Iranian civilians .... no one raised a finger ...
Eventually they succeeded to prevent it from spreading but couldn't destroy it .... but:
their strategy started to back fire when their beloved Sadam Hussain attacked Kuwait and invaded it (irony is Kuwait was of main supporters of saddam) , all sudden the so-called "Commander of Qadisiyyah" turned to a wild beast and needed to be punished and chained ....
All of those countries that were supporting Saddam for 8 years during Iran-Iraq war provided bases and let American coalition use their lands to invade Iraq ... American invaded and when they were 20kms away from Baghdad all the sudden they decided not to topple him ... and let him to use his chopper to start a genocide against Shia and Kurds in south and north of Iraq who were taking invasion as an opportunity to get rid of dictator ... many mass graves were found years later when American attacked Iraq in 2003 by the pretext of weapon of mass destruction as if they'd forgotten they provided Saddam by intelligence and satellite footage and were aware that Saddam using them for precise chemical attacks ....
During Saddam and despite all his crimes against Shia people non of these non sectarian kings protested why a minority Sunni was governing and oppressed a majority Shia in Iraq. not to mention oppressed Shia people in southern of Lebanon that had been kept in poverty for years ...as they have no problem that the majority people of Bahrain are Shia and are governed and oppressed by a minority Sunni ...
Again in 2003 the same countries which provided airspace and basis in 1991 for American coalition let American to use their lands to attack Iraq .. Iran in both cases closed its borders and didn't let them to use it ...
On the other hands during Iran-Iraq war Saudis+Americans were busy with Soviet Union in Afghanistan ... American funded and armed Mujaheddin and Saudis provided software aka "ideology" ended in Soviet uninon retreating from Afghanistan ... later on these Mujaheddin formed backbone of AQ ....
AQ , WMD and democracy were 3 main reasons that American used to justify their invasion against Iraq ...
During saddam all those Iraqi oppositions who'd fought Saddam for decades had no place except Iran to take refugee and continue their political movement ... dictator gone and only country supported political transition in Iraq was Iran we opened our embassy and tried to help Iraqis to form their own future ... all those oppositions now were Iranian friends and had major role in new Iraq ... it pissed Saudis off and they started to turn the situation back , they didn't recognize new Iraq for years and even didn't open their embassy in Iraq ... they created the phrase "crescent of Shia" which needed to be dealt .... and they did so ...
During israel-Lebanon war they sided israel:

"... The Kingdom would like to clearly announce that a difference should be drawn between legitimate resistance and rash adventures carried out by elements inside the state and those behind them without consultation with the legitimate authority in their state and without consultation or coordination with Arab countries, thus creating a gravely dangerous situation exposing all Arab countries and its achievements to destruction with those countries having no say.

The Kingdom views that it is time that these elements alone bear the full responsibility of these irresponsible acts and should alone shoulder the burden of ending the crisis they have created. .."
Source
moreover even their mofti issued a fatwa that praying for Shia is not ok:

What was wrong with Hezboallh back then? nothing it liberated and defended Lebanon and its only problem was being Shia ...
Saudi Grand Mofti : Shia people are Kafer and non Muslim:

Fatwa : Shias are kafer , kill them and go to paradise :


Sectarian war started from here:

Ibn Saud’s clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.

Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: “They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein... slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants ...”

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, “we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.’”
You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia

Arabs do not care about the causes of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 nor would anyone had cared if Iran had kept its hijacked (the Iranian Mullah's violently crushed the backbone of that revolution which was formed by the communists, socialists and nationalists) revolution for itself. Nor are Arabs to blame for anything that happened prior to 1979. First point.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704431804574539633865075864

Secondly obviously fellow regional and neighboring Arab countries will come to the aid of a fellow Arab country. Besides you have no clue about Saddam's relations with his Arab neighbors. Long before the Iraq-Iran war started Saddam Hussein was causing trouble and instability in the region.

"Beginning in late 1974, however, Iraq began to moderate its foreign policies, a change that significantly lessened tensions between Riyadh and Baghdad. It began at the Rabat Arab summit in October 1974, where Jordan invited Iraq to listen to proposals for how it could resolve differences with Iran, Egypt, and the Saudis. Iraq agreed.[1]Iraq responded with a "charm offensive" that resulted in better relations:

"High-level Iraqi officials, including Vice President Saddam Hussein and President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, visited the Kingdom, and ranking Saudis, like Crown Prince Fahd, paid return visits to Baghdad. Iraq ended propaganda efforts critical of the Saudi rulers and suspended covert activities in the Kingdom. In June 1975, the two states settled lingering border issues, agreeing to divide equally the diamond shaped 'neutral zone' carved out by the British in the 1920s."[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq–Saudi_Arabia_relations

Besides KSA had nothing to do with his rise to power nor did KSA provoke any war with anybody. The blame for the Iraq-Iran war lies entirely in the hands of those 2 warring parties. The Mullah's for provoking the war and Saddam for letting himself be provoked. Later the same Mullah's only a few years into the war refused a ceasefire and prolonged that war which ended up lasting 8 full years.

What does "raise a finger" mean here exactly? Did Iran prior to the Mullah's taking power or after "raise a finger" whenever there were conflicts or wars in the Arab world? Only in relation to Palestine which we all know why. I think that Iran's stance in Syria is a perfect example of that not being the case.

Also why are you crying about outside support? For God's sake even Israel and the US were selling weapons to you during the war among many other countries, including Arab ones such as Syria and Libya who despite staggering similarities with Saddam's rule and ideology, were at odds, hence the support for Iran which was crucial at times. Hence you have no point here at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair

Iran too supported the West/Muslims against USSR. Or at least claimed to do. Just like it claimed/did support the Bosnians during the Balkan War and Chechens against the Russians. Both in the 1990's. Speaking about that era, the Mullah's supported Armenia against Shia Muslim (the only out of 3 Shia-majority countries in the world) Azerbaijan.

My personal opinion in regards to the Afghan-Soviet war is that we should have kept FAR OUT. It was not our business or that of any Arab or Muslim country to meddle in a chronically failed country located thousands of km away. Our involvement in that war (due to probable US pressure) has had very negative effects for the country and certain elements within it.

Wrong. During the early 1990's during the Shia uprising, KSA welcomed thousands upon thousands of Shia Iraqi Arabs. Close to 100.000. We even have a user here Malik Alashter who was a refugee in KSA during that time period. Even the later Iraqi PM, Al-Maliki was a refugee in KSA. Prior to the Shia uprising in the early 1990's there were no massacres of Shias in Iraq. In fact the vast majority of the Iraqi soldiers who fought against Iran were Shia themselves.

Here is al-Maliki in Rafha refugee camp, KSA:

NoB4znZ.jpg


To this day some 50.000 Iraqi refugees, mostly from that era, remain in KSA.

Who are those same countries? Only Kuwait provided airspace and bases for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Alongside Jordan. Nobody else. Certainly not KSA. Besides why are you making it sound like the catastrophic American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a bad thing? For Iran this was a fantastic thing and that is why the same Mullah's cooperated with the "Great Satan". Just like in Afghanistan.

Complete and utter nonsense. Among the Iraqi opposition prior to 2003 only the Islamic Dawa Party was an ally of the Mullah's. They remain to this day alongside a few armed Shia militias the only outright allies of the Mullah's. There were several Iraqi exile politicians in the GCC and numerous Arab countries prior to 2003. Let alone the West where there is a very large Iraqi diaspora. Heck, even Saddam's own relatives escaped to Jordan long before the US invasion in 2003. KSA always had an embassy in Iraq since 2003. However due to the very poor security situation in Iraq and in particular Baghdad until very recently, the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Jordan acted as the ambassador to Iraq.
That phrase was created by the Jordanian king. Not KSA. Once again you are either ignorant or deliberately deceiving people here.

You have once again little clue about internal Arab relations. Long before the Israeli-Hezbollah war of 2006, Hezbollah and their regional affiliates had been targeting KSA and numerous Arab countries. Killing many people. During the Iraq-Iran war and afterwards. The bombing in Al-Khobar a clear example of this behavior. The same Hezbollah, who are mere puppets of the Iranian Mullah's and who have hijacked Southern Lebanon, pioneered suicide bombings. Killing numerous innocent Lebanese, Israelis and Arabs from Kuwait, Iraq to KSA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack#History

Also Hezbollah did not liberate anything as there was nothing to liberate. Israel left Southern Lebanon in 2000. Besides once again you showcase your ignorance when it comes to Arab affairs. Amal and Jammoul played an equal role if not a greater role in liberating Southern Lebanon in 2000 after 15 years of civil war. With KSA and Arab support.

In 2006 Hezbollah managed to kill in total 165 Israelis. 121 soldiers and 44 Israeli civilians. In return Hezbollah lost 500 fighters and 1200 Lebanese Shia Arabs (mostly) died. Much of Southern Lebanon was ruined as well. Is that victory? Of course Iran could not care less about civilian Arabs. We all know that. Hezbollah is just one of their many proxies who until now have served their role as told.


You are quoting some biased book. In 2006 almost everyone in KSA supported Hezbollah (myself included) as did the vast majority of Arabs. Including clerics in KSA as well. What one cleric supposedly said (I have never seen that comment anywhere, please find an Arabic, primary source of that being the case) plays no role whatsoever. Recently a cleric in KSA said that it was a waste of time to take photos with kittens or any animals. Do you think that 99,9% of all people care about such fatwas from individual clerics? They are to be found in every single Muslim country.

ALso do you know who helped rebuilt Southern Lebanon (after the reckless behavior of your proxy? Not Iran, who never donates anything but only supports their proxies, but KSA. Just as KSA has kept Lebanon afloat for years until the regime came to their senses after the Syrian civil war and the enormous corruption in the Lebanese government. KSA was dominating money to the Lebanese army which later disappeared or somehow ended up in Hezbollah's hands.

You quite clearly obviously do not understand Arabic. Or the individual who uploaded the first video. It appears to be an Iranian. Is that you?

If Shia's (Twelvers, Zaydis and Ismailis) in KSA are considered kuffar why are there 1000's of Shia mosques in KSA, why has 20% of the population (Shia's) never been attacked by anyone until 2-3 attacks in the past 1-2 years by ISIS, why are Shia clerics part of the ulama etc.? The Hanbali-domainted ulama in KSA does not agree with Shias theologically (fully) but neither does the Iranian ulama (Twelver dominated) agree with Sunnis theologically. Hence why the Supreme Leader cannot be a Sunni and hence why your country is ruled by Twelverism and the 37 year old Wilayat al-Faqih system.

The second video, which originates from the same source, I cannot somehow load. Only 2 seconds of it and in those two seconds the accent was Egyptian.

You are once again quoting a biased nonsense article posted by Alastair Crooke (anyone that know about his writings knows about his many fallacies, bias and outright historical lies) and using that as some undeniable truth when that is not the case.

There were no widespread massacres of any non-Hanbalis in KSA in the 1700's nor afterwards. If that was the case KSA would not be home to all major Sunni and Shia Islamic sects indigenously found in all 13 Provinces and historical regions. From Hanbalis, Shafi's, Malikis, Hanafis, Sufism to Twelvers, Zaydis and Ismailis to this very day. It was, like anywhere else in the Muslim world and world at that time, about power struggle between dynasties and ruling families who whenever it suited them used religion. Just like we unfortunately see to this very day in the region.

Wars between various local Arab kingdoms, emirates, sheikdoms, imamates, sultanates and attacks on cities, sometimes motivated by sect, sometimes not, was commonplace during those times all over the ME and Muslim world. Nor is there any historian by the name "Osman ibn Bishr Najdi".

You are really desperate if you need to look as far back as the 1700's.

Why don't you look "merely" 1 or 2 centuries back before that and talk about the forceful Safavid conversion of Iran from Sunni to Shia Islam which was 1000 times more bloody? Thousands of systematic massacres were committed in today's Iran, Azerbaijan and Iraq against local Sunnis. However such behavior was common back then by many rulers and has little or nothing to do with current events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_conversion_of_Iran_to_Shia_Islam

Fact of the matter is that anyone can see how the region looked liked prior to 1979 and how it looks like now. Especially when it comes to sectarianism. Prior to 1979 this was almost an foreign-word in the ME region. No sectarian conflicts took place at all. It was purely political conflicts more often than not with root in the Cold War.

Anyway as I wrote before no regime in the ME is innocent and I certainly do not support many of the policies of the House of Saud but it appears to me that most Iranians here are blind followers of their Mullah's and that they in their eyes are innocent angels. It's quite a sight.
 
Last edited:
.
At least you cross out Iran as main reason behind global warming ....

what happened back in 1979 was a revolution resulted of more than a century of Iranians struggle for freedom that had been suppressed by military coup and dictatorship orchestrated by foreign powers .... after revolution the Monarchs in the region saw Iran as a threat in other words as a "virus" that might turned to a model and should be prevented from spreading amongst the nations in the region ... that's why all these kings started to support Saddam by their funds, soldiers , ports, airspace + political and intelligence .... Iraqi dictator used CW and killed and injured 100k Iranian civilians .... no one raised a finger ...
Eventually they succeeded to prevent it from spreading but couldn't destroy it .... but:
their strategy started to back fire when their beloved Sadam Hussain attacked Kuwait and invaded it (irony is Kuwait was of main supporters of saddam) , all sudden the so-called "Commander of Qadisiyyah" turned to a wild beast and needed to be punished and chained ....
All of those countries that were supporting Saddam for 8 years during Iran-Iraq war provided bases and let American coalition use their lands to invade Iraq ... American invaded and when they were 20kms away from Baghdad all the sudden they decided not to topple him ... and let him to use his chopper to start a genocide against Shia and Kurds in south and north of Iraq who were taking invasion as an opportunity to get rid of dictator ... many mass graves were found years later when American attacked Iraq in 2003 by the pretext of weapon of mass destruction as if they'd forgotten they provided Saddam by intelligence and satellite footage and were aware that Saddam using them for precise chemical attacks ....
During Saddam and despite all his crimes against Shia people non of these non sectarian kings protested why a minority Sunni was governing and oppressed a majority Shia in Iraq. not to mention oppressed Shia people in southern of Lebanon that had been kept in poverty for years ...as they have no problem that the majority people of Bahrain are Shia and are governed and oppressed by a minority Sunni ...
Again in 2003 the same countries which provided airspace and basis in 1991 for American coalition let American to use their lands to attack Iraq .. Iran in both cases closed its borders and didn't let them to use it ...
On the other hands during Iran-Iraq war Saudis+Americans were busy with Soviet Union in Afghanistan ... American funded and armed Mujaheddin and Saudis provided software aka "ideology" ended in Soviet uninon retreating from Afghanistan ... later on these Mujaheddin formed backbone of AQ ....
AQ , WMD and democracy were 3 main reasons that American used to justify their invasion against Iraq ...
During saddam all those Iraqi oppositions who'd fought Saddam for decades had no place except Iran to take refugee and continue their political movement ... dictator gone and only country supported political transition in Iraq was Iran we opened our embassy and tried to help Iraqis to form their own future ... all those oppositions now were Iranian friends and had major role in new Iraq ... it pissed Saudis off and they started to turn the situation back , they didn't recognize new Iraq for years and even didn't open their embassy in Iraq ... they created the phrase "crescent of Shia" which needed to be dealt .... and they did so ...
During israel-Lebanon war they sided israel:

"... The Kingdom would like to clearly announce that a difference should be drawn between legitimate resistance and rash adventures carried out by elements inside the state and those behind them without consultation with the legitimate authority in their state and without consultation or coordination with Arab countries, thus creating a gravely dangerous situation exposing all Arab countries and its achievements to destruction with those countries having no say.

The Kingdom views that it is time that these elements alone bear the full responsibility of these irresponsible acts and should alone shoulder the burden of ending the crisis they have created. .."
Source
moreover even their mofti issued a fatwa that praying for Shia is not ok:

What was wrong with Hezboallh back then? nothing it liberated and defended Lebanon and its only problem was being Shia ...
Saudi Grand Mofti : Shia people are Kafer and non Muslim:

Fatwa : Shias are kafer , kill them and go to paradise :


Sectarian war started from here:

Ibn Saud’s clan, seizing on Abd al-Wahhab’s doctrine, now could do what they always did, which was raiding neighboring villages and robbing them of their possessions. Only now they were doing it not within the ambit of Arab tradition, but rather under the banner of jihad. Ibn Saud and Abd al-Wahhab also reintroduced the idea of martyrdom in the name of jihad, as it granted those martyred immediate entry into paradise.

In the beginning, they conquered a few local communities and imposed their rule over them. (The conquered inhabitants were given a limited choice: conversion to Wahhabism or death.) By 1790, the Alliance controlled most of the Arabian Peninsula and repeatedly raided Medina, Syria and Iraq.

Their strategy — like that of ISIS today — was to bring the peoples whom they conquered into submission. They aimed to instill fear. In 1801, the Allies attacked the Holy City of Karbala in Iraq. They massacred thousands of Shiites, including women and children. Many Shiite shrines were destroyed, including the shrine of Imam Hussein, the murdered grandson of Prophet Muhammad.

A British official, Lieutenant Francis Warden, observing the situation at the time, wrote: “They pillaged the whole of it [Karbala], and plundered the Tomb of Hussein... slaying in the course of the day, with circumstances of peculiar cruelty, above five thousand of the inhabitants ...”

Osman Ibn Bishr Najdi, the historian of the first Saudi state, wrote that Ibn Saud committed a massacre in Karbala in 1801. He proudly documented that massacre saying, “we took Karbala and slaughtered and took its people (as slaves), then praise be to Allah, Lord of the Worlds, and we do not apologize for that and say: ‘And to the unbelievers: the same treatment.’”
You Can’t Understand ISIS If You Don’t Know the History of Wahhabism in Saudi Arabia
You might be able to blame Iran for Syria,Iraq, and Lebanon or even Yemen but what about AQ, Taliban,AL Shabab, Boko Haram and many other Sunni terrorist organizations? the only thing is balming Iran is easiest way. you need to find the roots of your problems within your countries ..not Iran ..
Um, I think you'll find that I'm very critical of the Gulf Arab countries as well, including (and especially) Saudi Arabia. You obviously haven't read my other posts on this forum lol. I try my best to be as fair and as balanced as I possibly could.

As I see it, all Middle Eastern powers have contributed negatively to the region. Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and many other countries in the region, including lesser-known countries such as Qatar, are all guilty of destabilizing this part of the world. Some of them are more guilty than others, of course.

This thread isn't about Wahhabism, though. If it were, then you'd see me criticizing it (and its supporters) as well.

I'm not a fan of any Middle Eastern country, to be perfectly honest. And I'm certainly not a fan of the Sunni Arab takfiris. As far as I'm concerned, all religious fanatics in this godforsaken region are bad, irrespective of their nationality and sect. Shia Iranian fanatics are just as bad as Sunni Arab fanatics, albeit they have different ways to express and enforce their fanaticism. On the whole, they're equally dedicated to making our lives miserable.

As for the 1979 Iranian revolution, you ignored the irrefutable fact that the revolution was hijacked by Khomeini and his two-faced quasi-anti-Western cronies. The mullahs were never meant to take over Iran. Everyone and their dog knows that the 1979 Iranian revolution was led by the Iranian communists and nationalists. The Americans and British intervened because they were worried that Iran would be taken over by pro-Soviet leaders, so they ended up helping the anti-Soviet mullahs come to power, which is exactly what happened. They even ordered the Iranian military not to resist the mullahs' takeover of state institutions.

What kind of a pro-freedom revolution do you call that? Iran is one of the least free countries in the world today. Ironically, Iran competes with the likes of Saudi Arabia with regard to political freedom:

1280px-2015_Democracy_Index.svg.png


At least Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. Iran keeps clamoring on about being an "Islamic democracy", and yet its political system is ranked a little bit higher than Turkmenistan's. Even Zimbabwe is more free than Iran, and that's saying something!

Well, you might be right to some extent, buyt then again who said politics is a clear cut game? lol
What you hear some leaders saying in public fdoesnt always means that is what they do in private. lol Politics is just a game, you just have to understand it and know how to play it that's all. Tell the people/public what they want to hear while securing your position and making back deals with your adversaries when n necessary. That's exactly what Khomeini did and i dont blame him one bit for that. lol He gained power after all. lol Thats what matters at the end of the day. POWER. !!! The end always justifies the means at the end of the day.
Ever wondered why a western country allowed khomenei to stay in France before departing for Iran to gain power? Or why he even stayed in a evil western country for that matter? lol
nothing is ever black and white in politics. Lol
I never denied that, by the way.

What I find extremely annoying is that a lot of Iranian mullah lovers think that their leaders are pure, infallible and not guided by political pragmatism (i.e. realpolitik), which is complete and utter rubbish.

They need to stop naively thinking that the conflicts in the region are between good and evil.

Iran isn't fighting against evil in the region. It's simply fighting against its regional rivals/competitors.
 
.
Um, I think you'll find that I'm very critical of the Gulf Arab countries as well, including (and especially) Saudi Arabia. You obviously haven't read my other posts on this forum lol. I try my best to be as fair and as balanced as I possibly could.

As I see it, all Middle Eastern powers have contributed negatively to the region. Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and many other countries in the region, including lesser-known countries such as Qatar, are all guilty of destabilizing this part of the world. Some of them are more guilty than others, of course.

This thread isn't about Wahhabism, though. If it were, then you'd see me criticizing it (and its supporters) as well.

I'm not a fan of any Middle Eastern country, to be perfectly honest. And I'm certainly not a fan of the Sunni Arab takfiris. As far as I'm concerned, all religious fanatics in this godforsaken region are bad, irrespective of their nationality and sect. Shia Iranian fanatics are just as bad as Sunni Arab fanatics, albeit they have different ways to express and enforce their fanaticism. On the whole, they're equally dedicated to making our lives miserable.

As for the 1979 Iranian revolution, you ignored the irrefutable fact that the revolution was hijacked by Khomeini and his two-faced quasi-anti-Western cronies. The mullahs were never meant to take over Iran. Everyone and their dog knows that the 1979 Iranian revolution was led by the Iranian communists and nationalists. The Americans and British intervened because they were worried that Iran would be taken over by pro-Soviet leaders, so they ended up helping the anti-Soviet mullahs come to power, which is exactly what happened. They even ordered the Iranian military not to resist the mullahs' takeover of state institutions.

What kind of a pro-freedom revolution do you call that? Iran is one of the least free countries in the world today. Ironically, Iran competes with the likes of Saudi Arabia with regard to political freedom:

1280px-2015_Democracy_Index.svg.png


At least Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy. Iran keeps clamoring on about being an "Islamic democracy", and yet its political system is ranked a little bit higher than Turkmenistan's. Even Zimbabwe is more free than Iran, and that's saying something!

You should not forget that they pride themselves on "electing" their government. People in KSA have no such luxury thus the current rulers cannot represent the Saudi Arabian people. At least they are not their elected/chosen representatives. Similarly with all other GCC countries. Likewise KSA has never claimed to be a democracy or a perfect country. Nor is a single Saudi Arabian user, contrary to numerous Iranian users here, blindly following their regime. Other than that I will refer to post 23 in this thread that countered Raptor22's post.

Political opponents are overall treated better in KSA, despite an abysmal track record as well, but in Iran it is very common for enemies of the system to be outright executed based on numerous hoaxes such as "enemy of God", being a "Wahhabi" or drug-related convictions.

One might also compare how for instance the regular Pakistani/Indian residents (we have dozens on this forum alone, never heard about any complains from them) are treated in KSA and how Hazara migrants (the biggest migrant group in Iran) are treated in Iran. Once again both countries have abysmal records (by large) in this record but once again KSA is better.

KSA might score marginally worse on all kinds of democracy indexes but that is purely due to KSA not having a sham of an election (a few handpicked candidates already chosen and who have strict orders to follow the party line). Ironically the user that you answered (Raptor22) has in previous debates used this sham-election as some kind of argument of Iran being lightyears ahead of KSA.

Ironically he has forgotten that KSA is ahead of Iran (by a big margin) when it comes to economy (GDP per capita or overall economy), HDI index (by far), life expectancy, when it comes to having lower crime levels, much lower addiction to substances, literacy rate, infrastructure, media restrictions, restrictions when it comes to online activities, university rankings etc.

Anyway as written in this very thread and hundreds of times by now, I think, neither country is an angel (by far) or should I say regime.

However everyone can take a look at how the region looked like prior to 1979 in terms of sectarian-driven conflicts and overall instability and hatred. Or take a look at the non-hostile, even at times cordial, KSA-Iran relations prior to 1979.

Anyway to be honest with you, my primary focus and worry is about affairs in KSA and the Arab world (we have enough of problems, mainly why) first and foremost. I wish Iran and Iranians all the best (as their success and our success will ultimately improve the region in the future) as long as they do not act in a hostile manner towards Arabs and the Arab world. I firmly believe that we would not have much trouble with them at all had the Mullah's (who ironically are mostly of Arab descent or at least they claim to be) not been in power.
 
Last edited:
.
_89870738_topcompwotext.jpg


On 27 January, 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini - founder of Iran's Islamic Republic, the man who called the United States "the Great Satan" - sent a secret message to Washington.

From his home in exile outside Paris, the defiant leader of the Iranian revolution effectively offered the Carter administration a deal: Iranian military leaders listen to you, he said, but the Iranian people follow my orders.

If President Jimmy Carter could use his influence on the military to clear the way for his takeover, Khomeini suggested, he would calm the nation. Stability could be restored, America's interests and citizens in Iran would be protected.

At the time, the Iranian scene was chaotic. Protesters clashed with troops, shops were closed, public services suspended. Meanwhile, labour strikes had all but halted the flow of oil, jeopardising a vital Western interest.

Persuaded by Carter, Iran's autocratic ruler, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, known as the Shah, had finally departed on a "vacation" abroad, leaving behind an unpopular prime minister and a military in disarray - a force of 400,000 men with heavy dependence on American arms and advice.

Khomeini feared the nervous military: its royalist top brass hated him. Even more worrying, they were having daily meetings with a US Air Force General by the name of Robert E Huyser, whom President Carter had sent on a mysterious mission to Tehran.

The ayatollah was determined to return to Iran after 15 years in exile and make the Shah's "vacation" permanent. So he made a personal appeal.




In a first-person message, Khomeini told the White House not to panic at the prospect of losing a strategic ally of 37 years and assured them that he, too, would be a friend.

"You will see we are not in any particular animosity with the Americans," said Khomeini, pledging his Islamic Republic will be "a humanitarian one, which will benefit the cause of peace and tranquillity for all mankind".

Khomeini's message is part of a trove of newly declassified US government documents - diplomatic cables, policy memos, meeting records - that tell the largely unknown story of America's secret engagement with Khomeini, an enigmatic cleric who would soon inspire Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Americanism worldwide.

This story is a detailed account of how Khomeini brokered his return to Iran using a tone of deference and amenability towards the US that has never before been revealed.

The ayatollah's message was, in fact, the culmination of two weeks of direct talks between his de facto chief of staff and a representative of the US government in France - a quiet process that helped pave the way for Khomeini's safe return to Iran and rapid rise to power - and decades of high-stakes tension between Iran and America.

In the official Iranian narrative of the revolution, Khomeini bravely defied the United States and defeated "the Great Satan" in its desperate efforts to keep the Shah in power.

But the documents reveal that Khomeini was far more engaged with the US than either government has ever admitted. Far from defying America, the ayatollah courted the Carter administration, sending quiet signals that he wanted a dialogue and then portraying a potential Islamic Republic as amenable to US interests.


To this day, former Carter administration officials maintain that Washington - despite being sharply divided over the course of action - stood firm behind the Shah and his government.

But the documents show more nuanced US behaviour behind the scenes. Only two days after the Shah departed Tehran, the US told a Khomeini envoy that they were - in principle - open to the idea of changing the Iranian constitution, effectively abolishing the monarchy. And they gave the ayatollah a key piece of information - Iranian military leaders were flexible about their political future.

What transpired four decades ago between America and Khomeini is not just diplomatic history. The US desire to make deals with what it considers pragmatic elements within the Islamic Republic continues to this day. So does the staunchly anti-American legacy that Khomeini left for Iran.

Message to Kennedy
It wasn't the first time Khomeini had reached out to Washington.

In 1963, the ayatollah was just emerging as a vocal critic of the Shah. In June, he gave a blistering speech, furious that the Shah, pressed hard by the Kennedy administration, had launched a "White Revolution" - a major land reform programme and granted women the vote.

_89869180_shah-qom-landreform.jpg

Iranian newspaper covering land reforms of the Shah and opponents being arrested
Khomeini was arrested. Immediately, three days of violent protests broke out, which the military put down swiftly.

A recently declassified CIA document reveals that, in November 1963, Khomeini sent a rare message of support to the Kennedy administration while being held under house arrest in Tehran.

It was a few days after a military firing squad executed two alleged organisers of the protests and ahead of a landmark visit by the Soviet head of state to Iran, which played into US fears of Iran tilting towards a friendlier relationship with the USSR.



Khomeini wanted the Shah's chief benefactor to understand that he had no quarrel with America.

"Khomeini explained he was not opposed to American interests in Iran," according to a 1980 CIA analysis titled Islam in Iran, partially released to the public in 2008.

To the contrary, an American presence was necessary to counter the Soviet and British influence, Khomeini told the US.

The embassy cable containing the full text of Khomeini's message remains classified.

_89866041_1963treated.jpg


It's not clear if President Kennedy ever saw the message. Two weeks later, he would be assassinated in Texas.

A year later, Khomeini was expelled from Iran. He had launched a new attack on the Shah, this time over extending judicial immunity to US military personnel in Iran.

"The American president should know that he is the most hated person among our nation," Khomeini declared, shortly before going into exile.

Fifteen years later, Khomeini would end up in Paris. He was now the leader of a movement on the verge of ridding Iran of its monarchy. So close to victory, the ayatollah still needed America.

Key players
Iran

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini - Shia Muslim religious leader, living in exile in Paris in early 1979

Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti - Khomeini's second-in-command in Iran, a Shia cleric seen by the US as a pragmatist

Ebrahim Yazdi - Iranian-American physician living in Houston, Texas, who became a spokesman and advisor to Khomeini

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi - the last king of Iran, formerly backed by the US government

Shapour Bakhtiar - the Shah's last prime minister

Carter administration
William Sullivan - the US ambassador to Iran

Cyrus Vance - US Secretary of State

Warren Zimmermann - a political counsellor with the US embassy in France, used as a messenger for the US to Khomeini

Robert E Huyser - an US Air Force general sent by Carter on a secretive mission to Tehran in January 1979

By January 1979, Khomeini had the momentum, but he also deeply feared a last-minute American intervention - a repetition of the 1953 coup, when the CIA had helped put the Shah back in power.

The situation became explosive after the Shah's new prime minister, Shapour Bakhtiar, deployed troops and tanks to close the airport, disrupting Khomeini's planned return in late January.

It seemed Iran was on the brink of a civil war: the elite Imperial Guard divisions were ready to fight to the death for their king; the die-hard followers of the Imam were ready for armed struggle and martyrdom.

The White House feared an Iranian civil war that would have major implications for US strategic interests. At stake were the lives of thousands of US military advisors; the security of sophisticated American weapons systems in Iran, such as F-14 jets; a vital flow of oil; and the future of the most important institution of power in Iran, the military.

It was less alarmed by the rise of Khomeini, and the downfall of the Shah.


But President Carter had previously rejected a proposal to cut a deal between Khomeini and the military.

On 9 November 1978, in a now-famous cable, "Thinking the Unthinkable," the US ambassador to Iran, William Sullivan, warned that the Shah was doomed. He argued that Washington should get the Shah and his top generals out of Iran, and then make a deal between junior commanders and Khomeini.

Sullivan's bold proposal caught President Carter off-guard, and caused their relationship to go sour.

But by early January, the reluctant president concluded that the Shah's departure was necessary to calm the opposition.

Amid reports of an impending military coup, the president summoned his top advisors on 3 January. After a brief discussion, they decided to subtly encourage the Shah to leave, ostensibly for a vacation in California.

"A genuinely non-aligned Iran need not be viewed as a US setback," the president said, according to minutes of the meeting.

_89866613_f14c55db-89c8-4901-970f-0e1642eb2fb3.jpg


Sullivan's (right) attempt to get the US to consider removing support from the Shah in November 1978 soured his relationship with Carter
That day, Carter dispatched General Robert E Huyser, Deputy Commander of US Forces in Europe, to Tehran to tell the Shah's generals to sit tight and "not jump into a coup" against Prime Minister Bakhtiar.

But Bakhtiar had no real support among the opposition, who called him the Shah's agent.

Sullivan praised Bakhtiar's courage to his face, but behind his back, told Washington that the man was "quixotic", playing for high stakes, and would not take "guidance" from the US.

The state department saw his government as "not viable". The White House strongly backed him in public, but in private, explored ousting him in a coup.

"The best that can result, in my view, is a military coup against Bakhtiar and then a deal struck between the military and Khomeini that finally pushes the Shah out of power," wrote Deputy National Security Advisor David Aaron to his boss Zbigniew Brzezinski on 9 January 1979.

"Conceivably this deal could be struck without the military acting against Bakhtiar first," he added.

Two days later, President Carter finally told the depressed and cancer-stricken Shah to "leave promptly".

By then, a broad consensus had emerged within the US national security bureaucracy that they could do business with the ayatollah and his inner circle after all.

Khomeini had sent his own signals to Washington.

"There should be no fear about oil. It is not true that we wouldn't sell to the US," Khomeini told an American visitor in France on 5 January, urging him to convey his message to Washington. The visitor did, sharing the notes of the conversation with the US embassy.

_89869781_stoddard-quote.jpg


In a key meeting at the White House Situation Room on 11 January, the CIA predicted that Khomeini would sit back and let his moderate, Western-educated followers and his second-in-command, Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti, run the government.

Beheshti was considered by US officials to be a rare bird: a pragmatic, English-speaking cleric with a university education, experience of living in the West, and close ties to Khomeini. In short, he was someone with whom the Americans could reason.

"We would do a disservice to Khomeini to consider him simply as a symbol of segregated education and an opponent to women's rights," said the then-head of the State Department Intelligence Bureau, Philip Stoddard.

President Carter was relieved that General Huyser had now arrived in Tehran. Huyser was good at following orders, and had the confidence of the Iranian military leaders.

Once there, Huyser was tasked with taking the temperature of the military's top brass and convincing them to "swallow their prestige" and go to a meeting with Beheshti. The US believed such a meeting would lead to a military "accommodation" with Khomeini.

To help break the stalemate, President Carter swallowed his own prestige. On the evening of 14 January, US Secretary of State Cyrus Vance sent a cable to US embassies in Paris and Tehran: "We have decided that it is desirable to establish a direct American channel to Khomeini's entourage."


Secret meetings
Around noon on 15 January, political counsellor Warren Zimmermann of the US embassy in France arrived at a quiet inn at the small town of Neauphle-le-Château, outside Paris, where Khomeini lived. Zimmermann had borrowed his boss's private Peugeot, which didn't have diplomatic plates, to avoid being tracked.

"I go in and there was this large dining room empty except for this one guy sitting at a table, and that was Yazdi," recalled Zimmermann years later in his oral history.

This was Khomeini's de facto chief of staff, Ebrahim Yazdi, an Iranian-American physician.

A resident of Houston, Texas, Yazdi had already established ties with US officials in Washington through a former CIA operative who had turned into a liberal, anti-Shah scholar, Richard Cottam.

Establishing a direct link with Khomeini was a highly sensitive matter; if revealed, it would be interpreted as a shift in US policy, a clear signal to the entire world that Washington was dumping its old friend, the Shah.

Timeline


1953: Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (the Shah) is restored to power after a US and British-backed coup overthrows the prime minister of Iran

1963: Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini rises to prominence for denouncing the Shah

1964: Khomeini is arrested and expelled from Iran. He spends the next 15 years in Turkey and Iraq preaching against the Shah

15 January1979: Khomeini enters into a two-week dialogue from exile in France with the Carter administration

16 January 1979: The Shah flees Iran as the country inches towards civil war

1 February 1979: Khomeini returns to Tehran, where millions line the streets to welcome him as the leader of the Iranian revolution

Earlier in the day, Secretary Vance informed the French government that Washington urgently needed to be in direct contact with Khomeini's group. The reason: to obtain Khomeini's support for secret talks in Tehran between Beheshti, and the Shah's military and intelligence chiefs.

Beheshti had met Sullivan, but out of security concerns, refused to meet with the Iranian generals. So, Washington finally appealed to Khomeini to tell his deputy to show some flexibility "in working out a site for the meeting", wrote Vance.

A second meeting was quickly scheduled, and Zimmermann was told to pass along that the military had seriously discussed a coup plan upon the Shah's departure, but General Huyser talked them out of it. The army would "remain calm during that period, provided troops are not provoked," a cable from the US embassy in Tehran said.

On 17 January, President Carter wrote in his diary that he was pushing hard to keep Khomeini out of Iran. But the next day, his administration told Khomeini that it had no problem with his "orderly" homecoming.

The Carter administration began secret talks with Khomeini with the primary objective of making an elusive deal between the ayatollah and the military. It's also possible that they wanted to slow down Khomeini's momentum or read his intentions. But they ended up achieving none of those goals.

Khomeini wanted a decisive victory, not a deal. But a tactical engagement with Washington suited him well. Khomeini, in fact, had a set of key questions to determine Carter's commitment to the Shah's regime and the orientation of the Iranian military.

The ayatollah didn't have to try very hard. America would easily reveal its hand.

'Protect the constitution'?
By the third time Zimmermann and Yazdi met, they had good news for each other. It was the morning of 18 January 1979. The venue: the same quiet inn near Khomeini's compound outside Paris.

Khomeini had authorized Beheshti to meet with the generals, Yazdi confirmed. And Zimmermann had an important clarification for the ayatollah.

During their second meeting, Washington had warned Khomeini that his "sudden return" would lead to a disaster, as the Iranian military might react "to protect the constitution" which stated in no uncertain terms that the constitutional monarchy was "unchangeable for eternity".

But what did "to protect the constitution" mean? Did it mean preserving the institution of monarchy? Or saving the integrity of the military? Khomeini wanted a straight answer.

Put frankly, did the US think the Iranian military had given up on the Pahlavi regime and was "willing to work within the framework of a new democratic republic"?

It took two days for Washington to clarify. The answer, which was kept secret for 35 years, made clear to Khomeini that America was "flexible" about the Iranian political system.

_89866042_wedonotsaytreated.jpg


Like most official statements, it began with generalities. The main point was put at the end.

"We do not say that the constitution cannot be changed, but we do believe that the established, orderly procedures for making changes should be followed.

"If the integrity of the army can be preserved, we believe there is every prospect the leadership will support whatever political form is selected for Iran in the future."

In other words, Washington, in principle, was open to the idea of abolishing the monarchy, and the Shah's military, whose top brass met daily with General Huyser, would be willing to accept such an outcome provided the process was gradual and controlled.

Khomeini's biggest fear was that the all-powerful America was on the verge of staging a last-minute coup to save the Shah. Instead, he had just received a clear signal that the US considered the Shah finished, and in fact was looking for a face-saving way to protect the military and avoid a communist takeover.

As usual, Khomeini's chief of staff "took copious notes" in Persian to be delivered to the ayatollah.

The American diplomat wanted to make sure that the Iranian envoy understood what exactly the message entailed.



"While Zimmermann did cite the points on the constitution in the paragraph, he called Yazdi's primary attention to the last two sentences of it, which hopefully conveyed to Yazdi a sense of US flexibility on the constitution," said the US ambassador in France to Washington in a separate cable.

The US had effectively told Khomeini that the military had lost its nerve. "These officers fear the unknown; they fear an uncharted future," Zimmermann told Yazdi during the same meeting.

To Washington's relief, the ayatollah pledged not to destroy the military. His emissary urged America not to pull its sophisticated weapons systems out of Iran.

Yazdi also clarified an Islamic Republic would make a distinction between Israel and its own Jewish residents - which had begun fleeing Iran in droves.

"You can tell the American Jews not to worry about the Jewish future in Iran," he said.

Khomeini and Carter both wished to avoid a violent clash between the military and the opposition. But their aims were fundamentally different.

Carter wanted to preserve the military - which Sullivan once described as an unpredictable "wounded animal" - in order to use it as powerful leverage in the future.

But Khomeini wanted to trap the beast and finish it. The military was a long-term threat to his regime. Its decapitation and destruction was a top priority.

Washington had answered Khomeini's questions about the future of the monarchy and the orientation of the military. Now, it was the ayatollah's turn. The Carter administration wanted to know about the future of US core interests in Iran: American investments, oil flow, political-military relations, and views on the Soviet Union.

Khomeini answered the questions in writing the next day - sent back with Yazdi.

_89869176_khomeini-18-jan-1979.jpg



Khomeini calls on Iranians to expand their protests - on the same day Zimmermann told Yazdi the military was flexible about its future
It was an artfully-crafted portrait of an Islamic Republic, mirroring what Carter had sketched at a conference of world leaders on Guadeloupe Island earlier that month: an Iran free of Soviet domination, neutral, if not friendly to America, one that would not export revolution, or cut oil flow to the West.

"We will sell our oil to whoever purchases it at a just price," Khomeini wrote.

"The oil flow will continue after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, except for two countries: South Africa and Israel," he added.

To develop the country, Iran needed the assistance of others, "in particular the Americans", Khomeini wrote.

As for foreign investments, the US was likely to have a role. He implied that the Islamic Republic would be interested in buying tractors, not tanks, making it also clear that he had no "particular affinity" for the Russians.

"The Russian government is atheistic and anti-religion. We will definitely find it more difficult to have a deep understanding with the Russians," Yazdi added to Zimmermann as he delivered the answers.

"You are Christians and believe in God and they don't. We feel it easier to be closer to you than to Russians," Yazdi said.

Khomeini also vowed not to destabilise the region.

"Non-interference in other people's affairs", he wrote, would be the policy of the future government.

The Islamic Republic, unlike the Shah's regime, would not act as the policeman of the Gulf, but it would not get into the business of exporting the revolution either.

"We will not ask the people of Saudi, Kuwait, or Iraq to kick the foreigners out," Khomeini wrote.

The chaos in Iran had alarmed most of Iran's Arab neighbours, who feared that after the Shah's downfall armed Marxist groups would take over. A CIA assessment concluded Arab conservatives found it hard to believe Khomeini or a regime associated with his ideas could be a lasting government in Iran.

But the ayatollah would soon eliminate all the Marxist groups that had supported his struggle. Before liquidating the left, Khomeini and his radical followers would push out the moderates, including Yazdi, on the grounds that they were pro-American and not real revolutionaries.

'He was the calmest person I'd ever met': What the US knew about Iran's Khomeini in early 1979
On 24 January, key members of the secret Islamic Revolutionary Council, including a cleric by the name of Ayatollah Mousavi Ardebili - the future Chief Justice of the Islamic Republic who would play a major role in the executions of thousands of political opponents - met with the US ambassador, William Sullivan.

The cleric seemed reasonable. He was a more forceful type, reported Sullivan to Washington, but "no fanatic".

Three days later, Khomeini himself made a direct appeal to the White House.

"It is advisable that you recommend to the army not to follow Bakhtiar," wrote Khomeini in his "first first-person" message on 27 January.

Khomeini, in effect, had three requests: smooth the way for his return, press the constitutional government to resign, and force the military to capitulate.

The ayatollah also included a subtle warning that if the army cracked down, his followers would direct their violence against US citizens in Iran.

Still, he made sure to end on a positive note, emphasising the urgent need for a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

Cabled from the US embassy in France after being delivered by Yazdi, the message reached the highest levels of the US government.

_89859673_treatedfirstperson.jpg


In a phone conversation on 27 January, Defence Secretary Harold Brown told General Huyser about Khomeini's secret message and his discussion with President Carter about it. Brown made it clear to Huyser that Khomeini's return was a "tactical" matter that had to be left to the Iranian authorities.

The administration was pleased that the ayatollah had agreed to direct methods of communication and wished to continue the talks, according to the newly declassified version of Washington's draft response to Khomeini.

The proposed response warned Khomeini against setting up his own government, stressing the crisis should be resolved through dialogue with the Iranian authorities.

The text was sent to the US embassy in Tehran for feedback, where it ended up on the shelf, never making it to Khomeini in France.

But it didn't matter. Soon, the ayatollah would be on his way back to Iran.

Option C


Washington had already tacitly agreed to a key part of Khomeini's requests by telling the military leaders to stay put. General Huyser had told the military that Khomeini's return alone did not itself constitute a sufficient cause for implementing "Option C", a direct reference to the coup option.

On 29 January, Prime Minister Bakhtiar, under enormous domestic pressure, opened the Iranian airspace to Khomeini. Bakhtiar had fallen back to his plan B: Khomeini "should be drowned in mullahs" in the religious city of Qom near Tehran.

"This might make him more reasonable or at least less involved in political affairs," he told the American ambassador, two weeks before being swept away by the Khomeini wave.

Two days before the ayatollah's arrival, the Shah's top commander had given specific assurances to Khomeini representatives that the military in principle was no longer opposed to political changes, including in "the cabinet".

"Even changes in the constitution would be acceptable if done in accordance with constitutional law," the US embassy was told by a reliable source in the Khomeini camp, according to a cable declassified in November 2013.

The American ambassador was pleased. "Sounds like military have come around to accepting Khomeini arrival and are prepared to cooperate with Islamic movement as long as constitutional norms be respected," reported Sullivan to Washington.



Khomeini arrived at Tehran airport on the morning of 1 February, mobbed by thousands of supporters. In a few days, he had appointed a rival prime minister.

By then, the military had no fundamental problems with a change in the form of government, so long as change was done "legally and gradually", a CIA report, only declassified in 2016, concluded on 5 February, 1979.

At this point, the army's cohesion had significantly eroded. Many junior officers and conscript soldiers were now with Khomeini.

Soon a mutiny occurred in the air force. The opposition armed itself, and led by radical Marxist groups, attacked army bases and police stations across the capital.

The military leadership had no stomach for an all-out civil war. Behind the back of Bakhtiar, they convened an emergency meeting and declared neutrality. In effect, they surrendered. The Shah's prime minister ran for his life.

The day Khomeini won his first revolution, President Carter wasn't in Washington. Over the weekend, he had hit the slopes around Camp David. In the morning of Sunday, 11 February, Mr Carter and his Secretary of State were at a church, temporarily out of reach.

In their absence, the President's National Security Advisor convened an emergency meeting at the White House Situation Room.

The once-powerful Iranian armed forces had disintegrated, but Brzezinski, who had been among the most pro-Shah voices in the Carter administration, was thinking of Option C, but he was told it wouldn't be possible, given the state of the military.



Zbignew Brzezinski was among the staunchest Shah supporters in the Carter administration
Soon, General Huyser was connected to the Situation Room via a secure phone line from Europe. The general would soon face a barrage of public accusations that he went to Tehran to help neutralise the Shah's military and pave the way for Khomeini's victory, a charge that he strongly rejected. Most of his reports back to Washington remain classified.

But on 11 February, Huyser's tone was slightly different, expressing no surprise that the military had taken themselves out of the equation.

"We have always urged the military to make deals," said Huyser, according to the record of the phone conversation.

"They must have gone to [Mehdi] Bazargan directly," he said, a moderate Islamist who had already been named Khomeini's PM.

But all the concessions made by the military weren't enough for Khomeini. On 15 February four senior military generals were summarily executed on the rooftop of a high school. It was just the beginning of a slew of executions.

Many have come to believe that that the Carter administration - plagued by intelligence failures and internal division - was by and large a passive observer to the rapid demise of the Shah.

But it's now clear that, in the final stages of the crisis, America had in effect hedged its bet by keeping a firm foot in both camps in the hopes of a soft landing after the fall of the Shah's regime.

But Carter's gambit proved to be a massive blunder. The real danger was overlooked, Khomeini's ambitions were underestimated, and his moves were misread.

Unlike Carter, Khomeini pursued a consistent strategy and played his hand masterfully. Guided by a clear vision of establishing an Islamic republic, the ayatollah engaged America with empty promises, understood its intentions, and marched toward victory.

Less than a year later, Khomeini - while holding the US Charge d'Affaires and dozens of other Americans during the Iranian hostage crisis - declared: "America can't do a damn thing."

He then celebrated the first anniversary of his victory with a major proclamation: Iran was going to fight American Imperialism worldwide.

"We will export our revolution to the entire world," he said, once again asserting: "This is an Islamic revolution."

A British assessment



Sir Anthony Parsons in 1979

British ambassador to Iran Anthony Parsons wrote on 20 January 1979, that he had no doubt that the masses of people in Iran wanted "Khomeini's prescription of an Islamic Republic".

The problem was, Parsons explained, the military was not psychologically ready for the Khomeini package.

"The generals agreed to the Shah's withdrawal and to support Bakhtiar on condition that the 1906 constitution including the monarchy was retained," said Parsons in a cable declassified in November 2013.

"If a transition to a Khomeini dominated republic takes place within days of their attempting the Bakhtiar package, military might well try to react."

The British Ambassador thought that the sooner Khomeini and the generals got together, and the military transferred their allegiance, the better the chances of saving the country.

Parsons' frank assessment was also shared with the Carter administration.

US documents show that the cable was in fact on Vice President Walter Mondale's desk on 27 January 1979 - the same day that Khomeini's first-person message reached the White House.

BBC
this article is too long after two paras i lost it and please only write or copy which is important not any thing else

khominei was a hypocrite bastard every one knows it
 
.
Arabs do not care about the causes of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 nor would anyone had cared if Iran had kept its hijacked (the Iranian Mullah's violently crushed the backbone of that revolution which was formed by the communists, socialists and nationalists) revolution for itself. Nor are Arabs to blame for anything that happened prior to 1979. First point.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704431804574539633865075864

Secondly obviously fellow regional and neighboring Arab countries will come to the aid of a fellow Arab country. Besides you have no clue about Saddam's relations with his Arab neighbors. Long before the Iraq-Iran war started Saddam Hussein was causing trouble and instability in the region.

"Beginning in late 1974, however, Iraq began to moderate its foreign policies, a change that significantly lessened tensions between Riyadh and Baghdad. It began at the Rabat Arab summit in October 1974, where Jordan invited Iraq to listen to proposals for how it could resolve differences with Iran, Egypt, and the Saudis. Iraq agreed.[1]Iraq responded with a "charm offensive" that resulted in better relations:

"High-level Iraqi officials, including Vice President Saddam Hussein and President Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, visited the Kingdom, and ranking Saudis, like Crown Prince Fahd, paid return visits to Baghdad. Iraq ended propaganda efforts critical of the Saudi rulers and suspended covert activities in the Kingdom. In June 1975, the two states settled lingering border issues, agreeing to divide equally the diamond shaped 'neutral zone' carved out by the British in the 1920s."[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq–Saudi_Arabia_relations

Besides KSA had nothing to do with his rise to power nor did KSA provoke any war with anybody. The blame for the Iraq-Iran war lies entirely in the hands of those 2 warring parties. The Mullah's for provoking the war and Saddam for letting himself be provoked. Later the same Mullah's only a few years into the war refused a ceasefire and prolonged that war which ended up lasting 8 full years.

What does "raise a finger" mean here exactly? Did Iran prior to the Mullah's taking power or after "raise a finger" whenever there were conflicts or wars in the Arab world? Only in relation to Palestine which we all know why. I think that Iran's stance in Syria is a perfect example of that not being the case.

Also why are you crying about outside support? For God's sake even Israel and the US were selling weapons to you during the war among many other countries, including Arab ones such as Syria and Libya who despite staggering similarities with Saddam's rule and ideology, were at odds, hence the support for Iran which was crucial at times. Hence you have no point here at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran–Iraq_war

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Contra_affair

Iran too supported the West/Muslims against USSR. Or at least claimed to do. Just like it claimed/did support the Bosnians during the Balkan War and Chechens against the Russians. Both in the 1990's. Speaking about that era, the Mullah's supported Armenia against Shia Muslim (the only out of 3 Shia-majority countries in the world) Azerbaijan.

My personal opinion in regards to the Afghan-Soviet war is that we should have kept FAR OUT. It was not our business or that of any Arab or Muslim country to meddle in a chronically failed country located thousands of km away. Our involvement in that war (due to probable US pressure) has had very negative effects for the country and certain elements within it.

Wrong. During the early 1990's during the Shia uprising, KSA welcomed thousands upon thousands of Shia Iraqi Arabs. Close to 100.000. We even have a user here Malik Alashter who was a refugee in KSA during that time period. Even the later Iraqi PM, Al-Maliki was a refugee in KSA. Prior to the Shia uprising in the early 1990's there were no massacres of Shias in Iraq. In fact the vast majority of the Iraqi soldiers who fought against Iran were Shia themselves.

Here is al-Maliki in Rafha refugee camp, KSA:

NoB4znZ.jpg


To this day some 50.000 Iraqi refugees, mostly from that era, remain in KSA.

Who are those same countries? Only Kuwait provided airspace and bases for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Alongside Jordan. Nobody else. Certainly not KSA. Besides why are you making it sound like the catastrophic American invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a bad thing? For Iran this was a fantastic thing and that is why the same Mullah's cooperated with the "Great Satan". Just like in Afghanistan.

Complete and utter nonsense. Among the Iraqi opposition prior to 2003 only the Islamic Dawa Party was an ally of the Mullah's. They remain to this day alongside a few armed Shia militias the only outright allies of the Mullah's. There were several Iraqi exile politicians in the GCC and numerous Arab countries prior to 2003. Let alone the West where there is a very large Iraqi diaspora. Heck, even Saddam's own relatives escaped to Jordan long before the US invasion in 2003. KSA always had an embassy in Iraq since 2003. However due to the very poor security situation in Iraq and in particular Baghdad until very recently, the Saudi Arabian ambassador in Jordan acted as the ambassador to Iraq.
That phrase was created by the Jordanian king. Not KSA. Once again you are either ignorant or deliberately deceiving people here.

You have once again little clue about internal Arab relations. Long before the Israeli-Hezbollah war of 2006, Hezbollah and their regional affiliates had been targeting KSA and numerous Arab countries. Killing many people. During the Iraq-Iran war and afterwards. The bombing in Al-Khobar a clear example of this behavior. The same Hezbollah, who are mere puppets of the Iranian Mullah's and who have hijacked Southern Lebanon, pioneered suicide bombings. Killing numerous innocent Lebanese, Israelis and Arabs from Kuwait, Iraq to KSA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack#History

Also Hezbollah did not liberate anything as there was nothing to liberate. Israel left Southern Lebanon in 2000. Besides once again you showcase your ignorance when it comes to Arab affairs. Amal and Jammoul played an equal role if not a greater role in liberating Southern Lebanon in 2000 after 15 years of civil war. With KSA and Arab support.

In 2006 Hezbollah managed to kill in total 165 Israelis. 121 soldiers and 44 Israeli civilians. In return Hezbollah lost 500 fighters and 1200 Lebanese Shia Arabs (mostly) died. Much of Southern Lebanon was ruined as well. Is that victory? Of course Iran could not care less about civilian Arabs. We all know that. Hezbollah is just one of their many proxies who until now have served their role as told.


You are quoting some biased book. In 2006 almost everyone in KSA supported Hezbollah (myself included) as did the vast majority of Arabs. Including clerics in KSA as well. What one cleric supposedly said (I have never seen that comment anywhere, please find an Arabic, primary source of that being the case) plays no role whatsoever. Recently a cleric in KSA said that it was a waste of time to take photos with kittens or any animals. Do you think that 99,9% of all people care about such fatwas from individual clerics? They are to be found in every single Muslim country.

ALso do you know who helped rebuilt Southern Lebanon (after the reckless behavior of your proxy? Not Iran, who never donates anything but only supports their proxies, but KSA. Just as KSA has kept Lebanon afloat for years until the regime came to their senses after the Syrian civil war and the enormous corruption in the Lebanese government. KSA was dominating money to the Lebanese army which later disappeared or somehow ended up in Hezbollah's hands.

You quite clearly obviously do not understand Arabic. Or the individual who uploaded the first video. It appears to be an Iranian. Is that you?

If Shia's (Twelvers, Zaydis and Ismailis) in KSA are considered kuffar why are there 1000's of Shia mosques in KSA, why has 20% of the population (Shia's) never been attacked by anyone until 2-3 attacks in the past 1-2 years by ISIS, why are Shia clerics part of the ulama etc.? The Hanbali-domainted ulama in KSA does not agree with Shias theologically (fully) but neither does the Iranian ulama (Twelver dominated) agree with Sunnis theologically. Hence why the Supreme Leader cannot be a Sunni and hence why your country is ruled by Twelverism and the 37 year old Wilayat al-Faqih system.

The second video, which originates from the same source, I cannot somehow load. Only 2 seconds of it and in those two seconds the accent was Egyptian.

You are once again quoting a biased nonsense article posted by Alastair Crooke (anyone that know about his writings knows about his many fallacies, bias and outright historical lies) and using that as some undeniable truth when that is not the case.

There were no widespread massacres of any non-Hanbalis in KSA in the 1700's nor afterwards. If that was the case KSA would not be home to all major Sunni and Shia Islamic sects indigenously found in all 13 Provinces and historical regions. From Hanbalis, Shafi's, Malikis, Hanafis, Sufism to Twelvers, Zaydis and Ismailis to this very day. It was, like anywhere else in the Muslim world and world at that time, about power struggle between dynasties and ruling families who whenever it suited them used religion. Just like we unfortunately see to this very day in the region.

Wars between various local Arab kingdoms, emirates, sheikdoms, imamates, sultanates and attacks on cities, sometimes motivated by sect, sometimes not, was commonplace during those times all over the ME and Muslim world. Nor is there any historian by the name "Osman ibn Bishr Najdi".

You are really desperate if you need to look as far back as the 1700's.

Why don't you look "merely" 1 or 2 centuries back before that and talk about the forceful Safavid conversion of Iran from Sunni to Shia Islam which was 1000 times more bloody? Thousands of systematic massacres were committed in today's Iran, Azerbaijan and Iraq against local Sunnis. However such behavior was common back then by many rulers and has little or nothing to do with current events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safavid_conversion_of_Iran_to_Shia_Islam

Fact of the matter is that anyone can see how the region looked liked prior to 1979 and how it looks like now. Especially when it comes to sectarianism. Prior to 1979 this was almost an foreign-word in the ME region. No sectarian conflicts took place at all. It was purely political conflicts more often than not with root in the Cold War.

Anyway as I wrote before no regime in the ME is innocent and I certainly do not support many of the policies of the House of Saud but it appears to me that most Iranians here are blind followers of their Mullah's and that they in their eyes are innocent angels. It's quite a sight.
Iran didn't support Armenia
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom