...so WHY is the U.S. closely allied with Saudi Arabia and demonizing and planning war against Iran?
And why should any independent country, like Venezuela, demonize and plan war against Iran, rather than treat Iran like any other sovereign country in the world as to trade and foreign relations?
The nuclear weapons issues is a total shibboleth, in my opinion. According to all objective authorities in the world, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons and is merely considering developing them for the very good reason that Israel has nuclear weapons and that the U.S., with more nuclear weapons than anybody in the world, has targeted Iran--and has just destroyed Iran's neighbor, Iraq, slaughtering over a hundred thousand innocent people. The only legal constraint on Iran is the nuclear arms treaty but Iran is a sovereign country that can break treaties if they decide to, especially with their national security at risk. WHO says they can't have nuclear weapons as a deterrent--like India, like Pakistan, like France, England, Israel and the U.S.?
Other deeper issues are at work in the U.S. targeting of Iran. I think they can be summed up with the word "independence." They have an independent oil bourse. They have lots of oil which gives them economic leverage. The government has been generous in benefits of that oil wealth to the people of Iran and they are what used to be called a "neutral country"--that is, they are self-governing and are not allied with U.S. or E.U. corporate/bankster/war profiteer interests. This is intolerable to those interests.
And when you look at what's happening to the people of the countries that ARE controlled by U.S. or E.U. corporate/bankster/war profiteer interests--both as to democracy and as to gross economic unfairness--who is to say that Iran's is a worse government--with the exception of its leaders' religious hatred of women and sexual freedom (which is actually far less bad than Saudi Arabia's). Give the fascists here time, and, believe me, they are fully capable of similar repression. The rightwing billionaire, Howard Ahmanson, who funded the private corporation that now controls 80% of the voting systems in the U.S. (ES&S/Diebold) also gave one million dollars to the nutball 'christian' Chalcedon foundation, which touts the death penalty for homosexuals, among other things. How far are WE from this kind of repression?
I don't have ANY sympathy whatever with rightwing Islam and its treatment of women--but I don't think war is the answer to such problems. But trade may be. Friendly relations may be. Cultural exchanges may be. How are women's rights going in Iraq, by the way? Very badly, is the truth of the matter. What a rotten dirty joke it is when "women's rights" are used as a front issue for war!
Women's rights, re Iran, is also a shibboleth, in my opinion. A false issue. Women have far more rights and status in Iran than they do in U.S. ally Saudi Arabia. Neither nuclear weapons, nor women's rights, nor democracy are the issue. These are all highly hypocritical excuses for punishing Iran for its independence and for seeking control of its oil to fuel the great U.S. war machine and the globalization plans of its corporate looters and exploiters.
And THAT is why both Venezuela and Brazil have invited Iran's president to their countries and opened trade relations with Iran. The new leftist leaders of South America see it as an independence issue--both their independence as sovereign countries in determining their own foreign and trade relations, and Iran's right to independence from U.S. and E.U. corporate interests.
If the goal is to change Iran in the interest of its peoples' freedom and well-being, the South American solution is potentially successful and the U.S. solution is horribly destructive.
When you look at the history of U.S. interference in Iran--Jeez!--all you see is destructiveness, including 25 years of torture and oppression by the U.S.-installed "Shah of Iran"! The U.S. supports democracy in Iran? Give me a break!
Trade, cultural relations, respect--these are the things that promote democracy and human rights--when you are dealing with a country that has not aggressed against anyone. The U.S. is the aggressor in the Middle East, now, and has been for the last half a century--including the installation and support of hideous dictators all over the landscape. I see nothing in Iranian foreign policy that is not a reaction to U.S. aggression and an attempt to defend Iran's independence and sovereignty.
= new reply since forum marked as read
