The boy who cried wolf

There was never a census for Jewish numbers in 1945; so where you get the 3.5m figure from is a mystery. The 6 million figure also came out of nowhere. The only stats that can be reliably worked with is 9.5m before WW2 and ~1million people claiming to be holocaust survivors in the late 1990s. Can you tell me who came up with the 6 million figure? What census/documents was it based on? I dispute the 6 million figure based on evidence.

http://www.eutimes.net/2007/10/international-red-cross-holocaust-report-finally-released/

Aside from any bitching for and against the OP here are what I think the issues are:

1. The Iranian regime is not democratic and has a bad record on human rights. It would be better for all concerned, the Iranian people and stability in the Middle East, to see this regime removed and replaced by another one.
2. It would not be good for Iran to get nuclear weapons as it would prompt more proliferation in the region, and the greater the proliferation of nuclear weapon in unstable countries, the greater the risk of either a nuclear exchange in the region or the technology to deliver a dirty bomb nuclear attack falling in to the hands of terrorists who would use it in the West.

I think there is broad consensus around the world about these two points including probably from within Iran.

3. Iran is a security concern but it's not the most dangerous country in the region. The perma-unstable and nuclear-equipped Pakistan is a much bigger threat to security. Also the Iranian regime doesn't have the threat that Saddam posed in terms of having expansionist ideals. Iran is prickly and defensive on the international stage but it doesn't go round starting fights. The main problem from Iran is its support for pro-Iranian shia groups in other unstable countries where Iran is a destabilising force.

4. The direct threats against the West come from terrorist organisations, ISIS, Al Qaeda. Iran is generally an enemy of these groups. Iran is more of a friend of the Shia groups that fight Israel like Hezbollah so its understandable why Israel has concerns.

5. Attacking Iran is not a feasible option and would make things worse. Firstly you cannot ever sustain a ground war in Iran like in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would be 100 times more difficult. When Saddam attacked Iran in 1980 after the revolution, Iraq had a far more sophisticated military than Iran did but they met a wall of death inside Iran and had Saddam not then been bolstered by outside support the Iranians could well have counter-attacked through Iraq and overthrown him. All that outside powers could do with Iran is air strikes, but that will then drive Iran in to becoming a very hostile power against whoever attacks them and they will become a very dangerous enemy, likely operating through proxy powers.

The rest of the world has recognised this and is trying to deal with Iran by bringing them cautiously back in to the fold but with strings attached - which is limiting the risk of them developing nuclear weapons and also more likely to get them to be a constructive player in the Middle East.

The problem with Netanyahu is what the OP alluded to: he is hell bent on direct confrontation with Iran and he actively tries to oppose and disrupt efforts by the rest of teh world to contain Iran's nuclear programme. He wants to go down the path of air strikes on Iran. But this is a high stakes game which massively threatens the security of Israel which is why many Israelis are uncomfortable with it.

Israel doesn't have the capability to invade Iran, nobody does, so all Israel will do is air strike them. Iran will respond literally with the ultimate jihad on Israel and call for them to be destroyed, and that will mean the Iranians working full tilt to enable proxy groups like Hezbollah to get the technology to do it. Once we have started down that road there is literally nothing Israel can do to stop its own destruction, even if they nuke Iran, they will just make so many enemies all over the world they will focus all Islamic terrorist groups on Israel and even their relatively powerful defence and security forces will not be able to cope.

Where to begin...


Source? As far as I know this was in the 1930s, and quickly revoked (and you are getting confused - this was not during the time of the Shah installed in 1953 and overthrown in 1979 - this was during the time of the previous Shah in the 1930s).


Thus, during the (latter) Shah's time, the hijab was not banned. Yet now in Iran under the clerical fascists, women are forced to wear the hijab in public by so-called 'morality police'. They are also banned from attending male football matches. Just FYI. I could go on about the sexism of the current regime but I don't have the time, and I think you get the gist of it.


You say Westernise, I say modernise. Alas, it is clear that the Iranian population were not ready for such modernisation. Sad.


You are at least partially correct here. But to claim that the Shah was worse than the current Ayatollahs is ridiculous and an insult to those in Iran today.


Any sources for your point about Iran's economic woes under the Shah? Iran's currency (the rial) at the time hit record highs, and Iran in the 70s were predicted to have a GDP the size of Spain's by 2000. Compare that to Iran's economy now and, well, I think you get the idea.


SAVAK were brutal and silenced internal dissent, this cannot be denied. But every state needs a strong internal security system to maintain order, especially so if they are a developing state.


As far your latter point, the Iranian people did indeed protest against the perceived corruption and brutality of the Shah, but in search of democracy, not in search of a Sharia state that was imposed upon them by the clerical fascists through violence and subversion of anti-Shah rhetoric.


True: Saddam thought that because of the general chaos in Iran immediately after the revolution he could easily invade Iran and could declare victory within weeks. I actually think this was one of the main contributing factors to why the current regime has survived for so long. The regime used the war to unite the population against the invaders, to great effect. Iran, despite being in total chaos and having imprisoned their most skilled officers etc, successfully managed to completely drive Iraq out of Western Iran by 1982 and then began a counterattack.


I disagree. Rafsanjani stopped the use of human-wave attacks in 1986, yet the US only really got involved in a major way in 1988 with the 'Tanker Wars' (where Iran laid mines in the Persian Gulf and threatened any ships passing through).


Prior to that, they didn't really take a side until 1982 when Iran launched their counterattack into Iraq and it looked like they would win. The last thing the US (or the rest of the world) wanted was an Islamist Iran to defeat Iraq, thus they supplied Iraq with weapons, protection on the international stage (see: Iraqi chemical attacks on Iran during the latter stages of the war as Iraq became desperate to prevent Iran reaching Baghdad - the US actually blamed Iran for using the chemical weapons at first). Read. It is worth noting that despite the chemical attacks affecting over 100,000 Iranians, the Ayatollah, for all the evil he represents, forbade the reciprocal use of chemical/biological in return (despite Iran having a large stockpile at the time).


You are incorrect in saying the US did not provide Iraq with chemical weapons.


It is ironic that many of the sanctions the US has placed on Iran forbid the exportation of 'dual-use' material, yet they were more than happy to supply such material to Iraq.


Recent CIA files also show that the US helped Saddam use chemical weapons against Iran, helping the Iraqi army with surveillance and tactics, with full knowledge that chemical weapons were to be used against Iran.


Then, to top it all off, the US shot down an Iranian civilian airliner in 1988, killing all 300 civilians on-board (Iran Air Flight 655). They then awarded the man who ordered the shooting the Legion of Merit, and never actually apologised to Iran or recognised their culpability (though they did pay compensation to the victims after the ICJ ruled in Iran's favour).


When you look at all these incidents, and take into account how the US helped overthrow Iran's first democratically elected PM in 1953, imposing a Shah that brutally tortured his own citizens etc, can you see why Iranians might be somewhat hostile to America? I am not absolving Iran of any blame here, merely attempting to give a balanced portrayal but from Iran's eyes.


Apologies for digressing, but I think it is important to understand as much as possible about the war before conclusions are made about anything.

I think Saddam was alarmed at the Iranian Revolution on his border as he knew there were a lot of Shia in Iraq who he had been repressing and who would be dangerous if they were being supported from Iran. Khomenei also had anideology of exporting revolution: that the Iranian revolution should be followed by similar revolutions in other states and the Iranians would be likely to support these types of groups.

The border dispute was one thing but there was a bigger existential threat to Saddam's regime from the "Islamic Revolution" if it had got consolidated in Iran. The irony was that by invading Iran he actually consolidated Khomenei's regime amongst the Iranian people because fighting for the new regime became a great patriotic war against Saddam.

Anyway I think I am done with this "debate".