EagleKeeper has an interesting view but quite incorrect viewpoint as, he states and asks, "Iran (government) is not interested in peace in that section of the world; they want to dominate like the Persia of yore.
If not, why would they continually be supporting terror groups overtly and backing Syria with arms?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry EK, IMHO, you have three totally historical unsupportable positions. So lets take them one by one with my response in parenthisies.
1. "Iran (government) is not interested in peace in that section of the world; they want to dominate like the Persia of yore." ( The last time the ethnic Persians had any military domination ambitions in the the mid-east area was about 2300 years ago. The first time Persia tried to militarily dominate in the mid-east region, was in the basic time of Socrates, and at time Greece was not a nation per say, and rather a collection of city States who united to repel the invading Persians. Hundred of years later a Macedonian king succeeded in miliraily uniting the Macadonian region to the North of Greece, and his son Alexander the Great, conquered Greece, present day Turkey, ethnically Persian Iran, dominating large parts of India, as Alexander's only notable failure was in failing to dominate what is now Afghanistan. Alexander untimelty death in his early 30's in a drunken binge not only ended Macadonian/Greek ambitions, it also set the stage for the subsequent rise of Rome. As ethnic Persians in Persain Iran have never had any ambitions for mid-east domination ever since. )
2. Then in another crock of revisionist history, " EK asks, If not, why would they ( they presumably being Iran ) continually be supporting terror groups overtly and backing Syria with arms? ( Maybe only partially true, but the real question has to go back to 1953 or earlier. As the newly minted State Israel in 1948 sided with the USA and the Western powers conspired to replace colonial domination with economic domination. Because post 1945, the combined nations of Saudi Arabia and Iran could suppy all world oil demand at the time. The " Western powers" still control Saudi Arabia, but when, in 1953, the people of Iran democratically elected a leader leader who wanted to Pursue a foreign policy driven by what's in the best interests Iran. Which didn't mean Iranian military domination of its neighbors in any way, and rather an Iranian declairation of independent from Western economic dominance. As history shows, the US and the Brits soon organized a military coup, placed a US Puppet Shah as the Iranian leader, and everyone outside the mid-east lived happily thereafter until 1979. It took over a decade while the West looted most of Iranian, but my 1979 the Shah had succeeded in alienating 99.99% of the Iranian people, And by the time the Shah and the West had woken up, it was all but over. The Shah looked for any remaining Iranian military support, found none, and took billions of dollars of portable Iranian assets and ran for his life. And as a long time Muslin cleric exciled to France, then flew to Iran, and united the Iranian people without firing a shot. The Shah did not have long to enjoy his stolen assets, as Cancer got him soon later. As for the West, it was time for plan B, as Iran again declaired their independence from Western economic domination. But in term of Iran finding any mid-east allies, Iran had two problems, first they were not ethnic Arabs and instead were ethically Persian. And instead of being grade A Muslims Sunni, Iran was brand X minority Shia Muslims. But in terms of the Western powers getting Iran back into their, plan B started with a big world PR campaign that the new Muslim Mullah leaders of Iran were backward and brutal louts who were. murdering their own poeple on large numbers. And in fact the first Iranian Ayotolla played into Western hands by foolishly allowing radical Iranian elements to take over the US embassy and hold the personell hostage for over a year. As for the rest of the Western plan B PR campaign, it went over like a lead balloon in Iran itself, as 99% of the Iranian people were thrilled to get rid of the Shah and his cia trained secret police. So it was time for a Western power plan C. And soon Reagan dispatched envoys to wisper sweet nothings to Saddam Huessein, to the effect we will arm you to the teeth, if you will just invade Iran and put Iran back into the Western Harem. As Saddam with visions of becoming the New Arab Nassar who could unite all the Arabs under his banner also double dealt with the Russians to supersize his mid-east domination plan. And then suddenly Israel woke up, when it got the intel that Saddam had nuclear weapons ambition and was building a nuclear reactor at about the Same time the Western powers were deciding Saddam and not Iran was public mid-east danger #1. As soon, Israeli war planes were trespassing across the air space of Jordan, and soon the Iraqi reactor was nothing but rubble. Iran barely surived as it ould not beg or borrow the arms to defend itself with, and then made sure to lean how to make many such modern defensive arms itself. Later came Gulf War 1&2, and finally the Saddam threat was ended at the end of a rope.
Which came at a price of a 2+ trillion US quagmire, that eroded US foreign policy support to near zero in the mid-east and especially in Iraq. Because the Iraqi people paid 99% of the Western fear of Saddam. As for Israel, they too were big losers, as they became especially fearful because, unlike all their hostile Arab neighbors, they had lost the ability to dominate Iran. As for Ek's idea that its only Iran that supports and suppies Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas, any Iranian support is drawfed by Saudi oil money. Nor is Israel or the USA innocent lambs who stand passively by, because both are actively supporting at far higher levels anti-Iranian terrorism, sabatoge, and acts of murder, not only inside only Iran, but all over the mid-east. As for the EK promoted myth that Iran is the only nation in the world to now support Syria and the fairly new brutality of Assad, the real villain is Russia and lack of Western support to unite with the Arabs and eliminate Assad. The US can't do the morally right thing, because it would promote the rising influence of Egypt and Turkey. )
Then EK really gets absurd by saying, " They ( presumably Iran ) want the influence that was lost when the dumped the Shah. Religion won, respect/influence was lost."
( What a stupid thing to say EK, everyone who had an iota of independent unbiased intelligence knew the Shah was nothing but a hired thief and a vicous thuggish mass murder of his own people. The Shah never had any real respect amoung Muslims and Christians. As for Iran, and other Muslims, Iran has not lost any religious Muslim cred inside or outside of Iran. And in fact shelters Sunni clerics like a Sunni Al-Sader. EK, you must be confusing the fact that a large part of world's 1.4 billion Muslims, think and with very good reasons, that the USA and the Western powers are engaging in a religious war with Islam. And INMO EK, what you just said ranks right up at the top of all the false propaganda you ever uttered.)
Facebook
Twitter