Res. 362: Iran War Threat »
Posted By Shankari25 3 months, 1 week ago in NewsWhereas Iran is a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), has foresworn the acquisition of nuclear weapons by ratification of the NPT, and is legally bound to declare and place all its nuclear activity under constant monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA);
Read Full Story at govtrack.us »
Submitted By:
Shankari25
During the day, I'm a psychologist and at night I'm a politics newshound. I like reading about psychology, philosophy, and religion as well.
Also submitted:
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 5
-
0%
rimbaud3 months, 1 week ago
And just a few weeks after Iran and the US had worked so closely over Afghanistan, Iran was described by President George W Bush as part of an "axis of evil" in his 2002 State of the Union address.
Javad Zarif, now Iran's ambassador to the United Nations, said this was a big surprise after the co-operation over the Afghan government.
"We were all shocked by the fact that the US had such a short memory and was so ungrateful about what had happened just a month ago," he said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/53...
Reply -
0%
rimbaud3 months, 1 week ago
An old Iranian man doesn't think Iranians want the turmoil of another regime change, but want reform within the existing form of government. They are happy to have had a period peace and progress, and are hopeful that reforms can come from within.
Hamid-Reza: 'Suffering from war'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4955702.stm
Amir: 'We don't want change'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/49...
Reply -
0%
rimbaud3 months, 1 week ago
For eight years, Iraq was our proxy in a war against Iran. Russia, too, was still allied with Iraq, so Iran stood alone. You can bet that they are concerned with the outcome in Iraq and will do whatever they can to protect themselves from another attack.
We reaped no long-term benefits from our adventures in "making the world safe for democracy": The Shah of Iran, Ngo Dinh Diem. Sometimes we backed ourselves into a corner of supporting ruthless dictators like Saddam Hussein, Augusto Pinochet and Pol Pot: any enemy of our former enemy would do. The world thinks "With a friend like the USA, who needs enemies."
http://politics.propeller.com/story/2007/08/25/...
http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html
Reply -
0%
rimbaud3 months, 1 week ago
Our objectives in the region, and Iran's, are not that far apart. We got rid of the Taliban for them (with their support) and we got rid of Saddam for them. They intercept AlQaeda on their way from Pakistan to Iraq. They offer rebuilding aid to Iraq (which we have begged the Europeans to do) and, until they made the grave mistake of provoking Israel, Hezbollah were on the right track of building an economic infrastructure in South Lebanon. The conflict is over who will have the greater residual influence in the region, and, in the long run, we will be better off if we ally with Iran: it will be a long time before we are trusted or liked in the region. (For one thing, if we ally with Iran, we can get hands-on their nuclear program and market safety technologies to them).
Reply -
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.