I've got to say, the Iranians have a point. Having fought a bloody war over 8 years with Iraq, I'd say they're in a good position to evaluate the threat.

Britain-Iran-Khatami
Khatami gives Straw a grilling over Iraq's chemical arms

TEHRAN, Oct 10 (AFP) - Iran's President Mohammad Khatami has voiced his
doubt over the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, and hit out at the West for
supplying Iraq with chemical arms in the first place, IRNA reported Thursday.
"There is talk of a foreign invasion of Iraq on the pretext of a campaign
against dictatoship and weapons of mass destruction," Khatami was quoted as
telling visiting British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
"But is the Baghdad government the only tyrannical government, and is there
a real threat of Iraq using chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction?"
"Why then then was Iraq supported the day it invaded our country? Which
powers equipped it with chemical weapons that were used against us and even
its own people?" the normally mild-mannered president was quoted as saying.
Khatami and Straw, who was on the final leg of a four-nation whirlwind
regional tour, met late on Wednesday.
Accusing United States leaders of "arrogance and haste", Khatami warned
Straw that Washington's "political conduct can only result in the
strengthening of extremist movements' activities in the Islamic world."
Straw arrived in Tehran on Wednesday, seeking to sound out Tehran over Iraq
but also getting a firm reprimand over US and Israeli policies.
sas/mb

I'm sure the US government is trying to get Iran and Iraq to turn against each other and go to war while the US strikes (when the UN and democrats finally give up after they see Bush is relentless), it would likely reduce US causalties (especially if it is a big war).

Bush also named Iran and North Korea as the 2 other countries in the axis of evil. He could say to Iran "look, if you help us fight Saddam, we'll remove you from the list and leave you alone"

The problem seems to be, the US wants to go in for a surgical strike to remove Saddam (and his army). They could just do the whole thing by air, via dropping a nuke on Baghdad, but that would lead to many many innocent civilian deaths, and then bush really would be in trouble with the UN.

I didn't read the article, but does Iran claim Iraq does have the stuff? Or are they saying Iraq does not?

Hear, hear, President Khatami. How right that man is.

Let's hope it'll help a little to make up bush's mind, which I can hardly imagine. Maybe, very maybe, it will dawn on him one of these days.

Well, you know, Khatami is just worried about all the bad press that comes when thousands of war refugees choose to so rudely cross your border and have a humanitarian crisis in your backyard.

Er ... actually, that's a great reason. (Um, excuse me, Mr. Bush? Would you please take these people and let them starve on your lawn? It would streamline aid distribution tremendously.)

Damn.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Yes, you are right. I would make a lousy politician, for I thought, for a brief moment, that there was actually someone (the neighbouring man in charge) caring for the people of Iraq. I guess I am looking for solutions from the most illogical persons at the moment.

How foolish of me to overlook something so obvious.

Actually, I'm behind Khatemi. It really does seem like a good reason. On the one hand is the human concern that people will suffer, while on the other is the political concern that they will do so in his country. I can't actually fault the position. After all, we (the US) stroked the Shah, we opposed Khomeni (and he us), and we funded Hussein. Khatemi has a bit on his hands; he's still cleaning up from the last round.

And, from that point, I'm not sure Iran's government has the actual real power to prevent atrocities against the fleeing Iraqis by his own people. There is some bad sectarian blood there. Thinking of that, I wonder how long it would take a bad situation on the Iran-Iraq border to develop into full-blown sectarian conflict. One of the big questions that came up when Israel was talking tough was Pakistan: what happens if the radicals there take the country? Suddenly radicals have nukes. It's a legitimate question here as well, if the sects begin fighting one another. How far would the infecton spread before containment?

I don't envy Khatemi.

In the meantime, I'll raise a glass to him. The British stroked the Shah, too. If Allah is truly merciful, then He will understand any moment of personal pleasure Khatemi took from laying it onto Straw.

I can't remember my original reason for sarcasm.

Oh, well.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Khatemi is my big hope for Iran, and Iran is my big hope for the Middle East.

I think the country represents the most forward of all in the region for this reason - they are further along what I believe to be a natural process of evolutionary democratic reform in an oil-rich, post-colonial Muslim state.

More simply put:

Start with US oil domination. Political instability- the US helps put a strongman in place to guard against oil nationalisation (Mossadeq, a socialist, was overthrown after being overwhelmingly elected because the US didn't want to lose its rediculously exploitative oil deals).

Back the strongman who can't have democracy because he's not popular and represents the interests of corrupt elite. Brutal repression with weapons and torture techniques with a 'Made in USA' stamp means America's reputation is pretty low. The systematic crushing of dissent means the only place opposition can officially turn is the church - no Muslim state can entirely suppress this. It is where all opposition naturally filters becuase there is nowhere else you can safely turn.

No surprise then when the level of anger reaches boiling point that its the clergy which leads the way and establishes a theocracy. US is, unsurprisingly, branded a devil.

But over 20 years the US cannot be blamed for economic woes and a dictatorship is, well, a dictatorship. Corruption - whether you're a devout Muslim or not - is fairly natural. So people ask for change.

Now the Iranian system does allow fro some opposition - the parliament and President, while lacking real power, are overwhelmingly liberal. This scares the clergy a lot. But they cling on.

Khatemi, after years of innefectual leadership (all reforms get blocked by the Council of Guardians - a body made up of appointees of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - which decides whether legislation conforms with Islam) is now fighting back. Things are coming to a head. He has put a bill through the Majlis (parliament) which will basically remove the Council of Guardians and strengthen Presidential powers. Of course, this will be blocked by the body he seeks to remove.

He will then most likely resign, and an increasingly unemployed (and young - they have no memeory of the Shah) will take to the streets. Revolution or counter-revolution? I cannot say - it's 50-50 now. But over the next decade the conservatives have had it. Iran will swing back to democratic, liberal yet Islamic. It will be the first. It is a powerhouse in the region - politically, economically and cutlurally.

I think the process could well be the same for Egypt, Saudi and the Gulf. Maybe they can find a better path to short-circuit the amount of time it has taken in Iran. An Iran that comes back into the fold through internal processes, with no US intervention, will be amodel to the Islamic world. They can find their own path that will satisfy human needs and religion. They can be frioends with the West, improve human rights, moderate Islam and yet be different.

I have hope.

I also love Iran.

It's nice to have hope, Captain Canada, but the U.S. has already stated numerous time that they are going to continue the war until they believe they have won it. They have already branded Iran and North Korea, so you can be sure those country will be some of the targets after Iraq, regardless of whether or not Iran got into another conflict with Irag or just stood idly by. The U.S. has a long history of using regimes and then turning on them when they feel the opportunity arises. There has been no regime in history that has started more wars in more places than has the U.S. Compared to the U.S., the Nazi's of WW11 era seem like the Keystone Kops of evil.

If the ability for the US to import oil from iran is caused from a liberal revolution the US will invade and put the revolution down. Your picture sounds great, captain, but we cannot forget about the great power to the west, who would defend its interests under the guise of its enemy being evil. Iran may be evil now, but once we get screwed over the people currently in power become the good guys and the liberal revolutionaries become the terrorists.

It's that one word...terrorist, that will turn the world and humanity against you.