Yup. It take a great president to undermine Iranian reformers, everytime he looked at Iran. Remember the pro american riots in Tehran? no? funny. did'nt fit your world view? Iran had a reformist governent until last year, with a moderate police force and army. The extremists are the hardline mullahs, and the revolutionary guard, who do not operate under the restraints of the state. Personally, I think party and SA thugs are a good comparison. The Iranian constitution is actually a good model, for an islamic democracy, but its being destroyed and discredited by corruption and mullahs. I think, again, personally, that embargo and sanctions, hurt the innocent more than the guilty. Covert support to the Army and police, might be a better option than going gung-ho to war. But I'd say they're not far off a bomb, if they've been getting support from NK or pakistan. and thats just about all we need! "Washington plays into Iranian clerics' hands By Hooman Peimani Increasing American pressure on Iran, as evident in the propaganda campaign on its alleged harboring of al-Qaeda members and its alleged nuclear weapons program, for which no evidence has been produced, will unlikely help the Americans with their regime change program. As a logical component of the seemingly irrational American government's design on Iran, its counterproductive policy towards the ongoing Iranian student pro-democracy movement, which is striving for democracy as envisaged by the Iranians, will only help Iran's ruling elite to suppress that indigenous movement as a Washington-inspired riot. American allegations on Tehran's pursuit of a nuclear weapons program are not something new. In fact they have been around since the early 1980s. Nor are the accusations of Tehran backing terrorists. What is new about them is Washington's trying so hard to create an unfounded sense of urgency to justify its regime change in Iran, just as it did in the months preceding its March attack on Iraq. This is notwithstanding the fact that factors such as Iran's social, economic and political developments as well as its strong military force benefiting from a home-grown military industry make any foreign-orchestrated plan for regime change unrealistic. Washington's policy towards the new wave of student protests in Iran has been equally unrealistic. Although they began last Tuesday as a move against the Iranian government's plan to privatize universities, the Tehran University student's protests turned political immediately. They have since expanded to other universities in Tehran and elsewhere in the country, such as in Shiraz, Isfahan and Ahwaz, the capitals of three major provinces, Fars, Isfahan and Khuzestan, respectively. Not only have there been efforts by ordinary citizens to support the students through various means, such as honking car horns, there are reports on the outbreak of non-student anti-government demonstrations in at least one city, Gohardasht, a Tehran suburb, in which a few hundred teenagers took part. There is not yet any strong evidence to suggest that this wave of protests - which have run for six days - could lead to a popular pro-democracy movement capable of replacing the existing theocracy with a democracy. In fact, the handling by the Iranian government of these demonstrations has suggested that the authorities are trying to contain them not through the use of force only, but also by eliminating factors, which could add fuel to fire. For instance, after a few attacks by pro-government vigilantes against student dormitories of at least two Tehran universities (Tarbiat-e Modarass and Tehran) in which many students were wounded while others kidnapped, the Tehran police announced the arrest of some of the assailants. By no means was that move enough to address the deep-rooted grievances of the Tehran students, such as those of Amirkabir and Alameh Tabatababie, who have refused to take exams in protest. Nevertheless, it indicated at least a government effort to appease some students in a bid to prevent the expansion of an anti-government movement. Given the depth of social discontent, student demonstrations will likely continue in any case, although it is a little early to suggest their ability to turn into something more than a student expression of discontent. The approach of the Bush administration towards these developments has raised questions about its objectives. Against a background of two years of anti-Iranian propaganda and a few months of talks of a regime change in Iran, Washington's clear expression of support for the Iranian students has only provided grounds for Tehran's suppression of their protests under the pretext of neutralizing an American plan to destabilize Iran. Last Thursday, US State Department spokesman Richard Boucher reacted to the Tehran demonstrations to say Washington "fully support [ed] their aspirations to live in freedom". He added, "We applaud th

Remember the pro american riots in Tehran? no? funny. did'nt fit your world view? Iran had a reformist governent until last year, with a moderate police force and army... Bombard - We are in complete agreement regarding the Mullahs - surprised? you miss the obvious sarcasm of my thread title. Ive been advocating the overthrow of those thugs for years. And have posted numerous posts regarding the behaviour of these thugs. Michael Ledeen has been one of the foremost supporters of active US aid in overthrowing these jerks. This is an absolutely repressive regime, using Stalinist tactics to try and control every aspect of life. Unfortunately, it appears that US policy toawrds Iran is being dictated by people such as underecreatary f State richard Armitage, who STILL claims Iran is a democracy, as if it really were. If the connections between 9/11 and Iran are verified - and George W is re-elected - I am pretty sure there will be regime change in Teheran in teh next 4 years- NOT by military invasion, but by covert and overt aid to those who want to take back their country from the mad mullahs. swhitebull

I do agree: I've actually some Iranian friends studying in Cork. And their comments make the national review look like the London Times. Stalin used to ensure that the communists got control of the interior ministry, in every country he took. Hitler replaced the security forces with his own, the SS and the SA, who I compare the revolutionary guards to. Since the police and army are apathetic towards the mullahs, they arm the revolutionary guards to control the country. The guards are recuited from conservative, desert families, and would be hard to break by invasion. they're the ones that went to fight the iraqis unarmed, hopeing to capture weapons. Fanatics. But with a hardline govt in power, its unlikly that the police and army will remain unpurged. Maybe they're the key: They know what'll happen to their families, and themselves. They must be afraid. Get to their leaders. Offer aid, offer money, offer arms. 4 Conditions: Iranian Islamic democracy remains. The revolution stands. The constitution is changed, removing veto power from the Mullahs, replaceing with something like the house of lords. (they can send legislation back to the commons three times, the third time, Commons passes it.) Remove the revolutionary guards, and have their role 'guardian of the constitution' taken by army. Remove the religous judicary and replace with civil courts. Religous influence over the government comes from the council of mullahs. Religious influence over the people, comes through preaching and mosque. But Iranian law must refer to all iranians, of all creeds. And immediate, unfettered elections. No military coup, no police state. I suspect that the police could be motivated more by fear for themselves rather than love of democracy.

>>...remove veto power from the Mullahs...Remove the revolutionary guards...Remove the religous judicary...Iranian law must refer to all iranians, of all creeds. -- bombbay<< REALITY: Iran?s hardline judiciary sentenced dissident academic Hashem Aghajari to five years in prison on Tuesday for saying Muslims should not blindly follow their clerical leaders like ?monkeys,? MORE REALITY: different trial, Speaking to government spokesman Abdollah Ramezanzadeh after his weekly press conference, several reporters said Tehran prosecutor Saeed Mortazavi called their offices and told them to not report on parts of the trial, which ended abruptly Sunday. One journalist said Mortazavi told him, ?It?s in your interest to consider the murder trial over and avoid publishing things that you should not.? A former judge, Mortazavi is widely seen as the man behind the closure of more than 100 pro-democracy publications the past four years. ------------------------------------- Hardliners in Iran need a makeover with a sledgehammer, a magic wand won't get it done! ON Watch - Let's Roll

No amount of covert aid by either a Bush or Kerry Administration could effect regime change before Iran acquires nuclear capability. Iran must NEVER possess nuclear capability, such possession would assure nuclear war in the ME. A second Bush Administration may, by the sheer weight of the election, prove to the world American resolve. The mad mullahs might cease or delay nuclear capability for 4 years. A Kerry victory would encourage (insure) completion of Iranian nuclear capability. Israel (and other ME States) would be forced into a decision: surrender their present nuclear advantage and rely on a Kerry Administration to insure Israel?s protection, or, overtly or covertly destroy Iran?s nuclear facilities, delivery systems, government, leaders, etc. IMO, Israel would have no choice but to effect regime change or military defeat of Iran if Kerry were elected. Could this explain the failure of the EU to negotiate Iran ending it?s nuclear program? Could this explain Europe?s support for Kerry? I am convinced that nuclear weapons in Iran guarantee disaster for the entire ME, and it is the responsibility of those nations that can affect the outcome to do so.

He illegally sold weapons to a regime that kidnapped US citizens and supported terrorism against the West. Is that not appeasing Iran? Ooopps, I forgot Ronald "I don't recall" Reagan is considered a saint by conservatives on these forums. However, I guess such people are not very intelligent since they like to forget about the Iran-Contra scam and instead falsely claim it was Reagan who caused the USSR to collapse. What a wonderful neo-conservative fantasy! Anyway, back to the original topic, I support a tough stance against Iran although I believe only the Iranians themselves can reform the current regime.

Again, from Michael Ledeen, National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200407230840.asp July 23, 2004, The 9/11 Vision Better, but not there yet. Well, it's better than the Intelligence Committee thing, anyway. You can actually read this one, sometimes with pleasure, which is a rarity for documents of the genre. And it's got lots of information, some of which is a mystery. To start with, this commission is explicit about Iran's ongoing intimate relationship with al Qaeda. We know ? and the report confirms ? that Iran was up to its neck in the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 in Saudi Arabia, and the report cryptically adds "there are also signs that al Qaeda played some role, as yet unknown." But the relationship goes back a good five years, as Sudan brokered an agreement whereby Iran would train al Qaeda terrorists for operations against Israel and the United States. This training took place first in Iran, and, in the fall of 1993, in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon. For those of us who have long argued that Iran, and Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah, provided much of the operational inspiration for Osama, it is gratifying to find forthright statements like "Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983. The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations...al Qaeda contacts with Iran continued for many years." The unsealed indictment of Osama bin Laden in the fall of 1998 charged that al Qaeda had allied itself with Iran, Sudan, and Hezbollah, and that there was an "understanding" between al Qaeda and Iraq, promising that al Qaeda would not attack Iraq and that the two sides would cooperate on various things, including weapons development. Richard Clarke suspected that chemical-weapons projects in Sudan were the result of that agreement. Recent leaks had already announced the commission's conclusion that many of the 9/11 terrorists had received favored treatment from Iranian border guards ? by granting them safe passage and declining to stamp their passports ? but the leaks were incomplete. In October 2000, we are told, a senior Hezbollah terrorist went to Saudi Arabia and "planned to assist individuals in Saudi Arabia in traveling to Iran during November.... In mid-November, we believe, three of the future muscle hijackers...traveled in a group from Saudi Arabia to Beirut and then onward to Iran. An associate of a senior Hizbollah operative was on the same flight...the travel of this group was important enough to merit the attention of senior figures in Hizbollah." And it goes on and on: "Later in November, two future muscle hijackers...flew into Iran from Bahrain. In February 2001, Khalid al Mihdhar may have taken a flight from Syria to Iran, and then traveled further within Iran to a point near the Afghan border." And there is another bombshell, quietly buried on page 149: Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's family lived in Iran for a while in the mid-90s, and KSM himself spent time there as well. All of this might lead a normal person to conclude the obvious: that Iran was helpful to the 9/11 conspiracy. But no, not really. First of all, the Hezbollah attention to the travelers might have been coincidental; they might have been tracking a different group. And despite the considerable evidence, the commission resorts to the usual CIA CYA language in such matters: "We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack." Pfui. I remember, back in the Eighties, an Arab terrorist flew from Damascus to Istanbul, and went directly to the synagogue there, where he killed many people. When some of us suggested we might find some appropriately mean thing to do to the Syrians, CIA was quick to say that there was no hard evidence linking the Syrian regime to the terrorist attack. By which they meant that we did not have either a tape recording of a conversation in which old man Assad authorized the attack, or a signed affidavit from the Syrian government admitting guilt. In the real world, it's very rare, verging on impossible, to have such "intelligence" or "evidence." The commission piled up an impressive quantity of it ? I should think quite enough to justify Iran's status as charter member in the Axis of Evil, and more than enough to compel deputy secretary of State Armitage to change his tune on the "democratic" nature of the mullahcracy. So what's the mystery? The mystery is where did the information come from about Iran training al Qaeda terrorists over a long period of time? I don't think that CIA believes that. Yet CIA is presumably the source. Ah, well, as the commission says, "this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government." Don't hold your breath. The weakest par

No one with knowledge of the situation would argue with you. The whole mess in the region is a result of greed, ignorance and mismanagement of the western powers in managing their affairs in the region. Now, with all disagreement and despise that I have always had for Mullahs and other religion extremist; I cannot deny their success in breaking spine of the western powers. As we still witness, Britain, France, and Germany Still keep dancing to their old music while the U.S. heading opposite direction, and mullahs of Iran (puppet masters of Tehran) play Al-Qaeda and Hezbullah game the away most favorable to prolong their grips in power in Iran and perhaps all over the Oil rich region. They have got the Bull in the balls.

the EU does not support iranian nuclear weapons. It is trying to put pressure on Putin not to supply some aspects of the nuclear reactor. Re: Dreams/reality. Yup, it is JUST an idea, that the armed forces and police might be presuaded to act against the mullahs, but if such an idea is possible, there must be limits on the coup. and constitutional reform, is one limit.

The EU also does not interfere in other nations sovreign affairs. It does not support Kerry, or Bush. However, europeans in general dont trust Bush. And they feel that Kerry might be more trustworthy But its not our election.