Why is Iran in the axis of evil?

[comradegonzo]

Iraq’s and N. Korea’s spots on the illustrious axis of evil are fairly understandable; what (if anything) has Iran done to have such company?

Thanks

[brandiwine]

Well, why does Dubya say “Nucular”?

I’d actually like to know who was clever enough to wack the term
“Axis of Evil” in the first place. Maybe they would have the most accurate answer to your question.

[Hail_Ants]

Because Iran is a radical muslum state which actively supports terrorism against the west.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/1809227.stm

Although moderate elements have emerged in Iran and there are some signs that Washington seeks a reappraisal of relations, deep hostility and suspicion between the two countries remains.

Iran remains on the US State Department list as a state sponsor of terrorism. And Washington is also concerned that Iran has regional ambitions.

The US believes Iran is developing long-range ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction and will probably have them by 2015.

President Mohammad Khatami’s support among moderates is strong, but hard-liners control the military, intelligence, judiciary and security forces.

Iran also has a strong enough navy to “stem the flow of oil from the Gulf for brief periods,” according to US Defence Intelligence Agency Chief Vice Admiral Thomas Wilson.

[Qwertyasdfg]

*Originally posted by Hail Ants *
**Because Iran is a radical muslum state which actively supports terrorism against the west. **

First, care to back that up with some cites? Second, care to learn the correct spelling of that which you’re claiming to have knowledge of?

[MEBuckner]

The official position of the U.S. government is that Iran was the “most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2001”. This seems to be primarily (though not entirely) related to Iranian support for militant Palestinian groups carrying out attacks against Israel. From the U.S. Department of State report, Patterns of Global Terrorism (2001), Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism:

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2001. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) continued to be involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and supported a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals. Although some within Iran would like to end this support, hardliners who hold the reins of power continue to thwart any efforts to moderate these policies. Since the outbreak of the intifadah, support has intensified for Palestinian groups that use violence against Israel. During the past year, however, Iran appears to have reduced its involvement in other forms of terrorist activity. There is no evidence of Iranian sponsorship or foreknowledge of the September 11 attacks in the United States. President Khatami condemned the attacks and offered condolences to the American people.

During 2001, Iran sought a high-profile role in encouraging anti-Israeli activity by way of increasing its support for anti-Israeli terrorist groups. Supreme Leader Khamenei continued to refer to Israel as a “cancerous tumor” that must be removed. Matching this rhetoric with action, Iran continued to provide Lebanese Hizballah and the Palestinian rejectionist groups—notably HAMAS, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the PFLP-GC—with varying amounts of funding, safehaven, training, and weapons. It also encouraged Hizballah and the rejectionist Palestinian groups to coordinate their planning and to escalate their activities.

In addition, Iran provided limited support to terrorist groups in the Gulf, Africa, Turkey, and Central Asia. This support is at a considerably lower level than that provided to the groups opposed to Israel and has been decreasing in recent years. The Iranian Government took no direct action in 2001 to implement Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie, but the decree has not been revoked nor has the $2.8 million bounty for his death been withdrawn. Moreover, on the anniversary of the fatwa in February, some hardline Iranians stressed again that the decree is irrevocable and should be carried out.

During Operation Enduring Freedom, Tehran informed the United States that, in the event US warplanes went down inside Iran, Iranian forces would assist downed air crews in accordance with international convention. Iran also worked with the United States and its allies at the Bonn Conference in late 2001 to help in the formation of the Afghan Interim Authority. Tehran pledged to close its borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan to prevent the infiltration of Taliban and al-Qaida escapees. There are, however, reports that Arab Afghans, including al-Qaida members, used Iran as a transit route to enter and leave from Afghanistan.

[Tamerlane]

Well, if one considers Israel part of the “west”, then it is a certainty that Iran is involved in supporting terrorism against it insomuch as Iran actively backs Hezbollah in southern Lebanon which has been known to use terrorist tactics on occasion ( cites on request ). There are also purported links to Hamas and the intercepted arms shipment to Gaza ( this last in fact being cited as the event that prompted Bush to include Iran in the ‘Axis’ ).

However I consider the ‘A of E’ silly for several reasons. First it implies a grand alliance, where one does not even remotely exist. Second they are not a geographical axis relative to anybody :D.

But most importantly Iran is a rather different case from the other two. It is only a radical Muslim state in the sense that the senior branch of government is radical - The weaker branch and a majority of the people are not. It is, in its own odd way, one of the more democratic nations in the Middle East. Unfortunately that democracy is choked by a ruling theocracy. But it is a mostly aging theocracy. In practical terms rapproachment with the west is much more dangerous fore them than hostility from the west. Threats just allow them to play the boogeyman card and use it to crack down on dissent and rally wounded nationalist pride. Whereas constructive engagement gives momentum to the reformers.

Not to say Iran isn’t a danger. But IMO it is best to play a realpolitik game of reaching out with one hand while very quietly whacking shins under the table with the other ( i.e. containing terrorist threats ). Iran has a thriving democratic opposition. In contrast the cowed and starving Iraqi and North Korean populaces lack a similar ability to put much pressure on their respective regimes.

Also, for what little it’s worth, though I think the Iranian theocrats are repressive bigots, I suspect many of them at least have a real human concern for their people. I don’t think one can say the same for the Iraqi ( certainly ) and NK ( probably ) regimes.

• Tamerlane

[Squink]

It’s personal
The Tehran Times took great exception to the U.S. claims

that Arab Afghans, including al-Qaida members, used Iran as a transit route to enter and leave from Afghanistan.

There’s been no similar denial of Iranian connections with palestinian groups.

[Hail_Ants]

First, care to back that up with some cites?

Sigh…

Is it really necessary to post a couple internet links for something that is blatantly obvious?! If I had, then you would have just believed me? Having an internet link makes something true?

Moslem, muslim, muslum, banana-mana-fofana, who cares?

[Tamerlane]

*Originally posted by Hail Ants *
Moslem, muslim, muslum, banana-mana-fofana, who cares?

Well, while I would assume it is obvious you just mistyped originally ( since the “u” is right next to the “i” ) and I assume you are now just being a little exasperatedly snarky, in general it is more respectful to try to get it right :).

• Tamerlane

[Hail_Ants]

I always try to spell-check my posts. More so than the average bear. That one just slipped by, and I was a little annoyed that Qwertyasdfg seemed to take it as a sign I was a brain-dead hick or something… :mad:

[Tamerlane]

No problem, Hail Ants, I regularly make more errors in spelling, syntax, logic, and general comprehensibility, than you can shake a stick at :).

• Tamerlane

[Muad_Dib]

I think that this explains it nicely.

[Nametag]

I was about to say, “who is that raving lunatic?” Then I saw the byline: Ayn Rand Institute. Ahhh.

[Balduran]

I’d actually like to know who was clever enough to wack the term
“Axis of Evil” in the first place. Apparently it was a Canadian speech-writer and the papers said he is pretty embarassed about it now.

Perhaps they were looking for a phrase like that to counter the “Great Satan” line. Hoping people would see how easy it is to hurl epithets like this around.

[Hail_Ants]

The terrorists [on Tuesday] . . . issued no demands, no ultimatums. They did it solely out of grievance and hatred—hatred for the values cherished in the West as freedom, tolerance, prosperity, religious pluralism and universal suffrage, but abhorred by religious fundamentalists (and not only Muslim fundamentalists) as licentiousness, corruption, greed and apostasy.

Iran, however, is the only major country in the region ruled by zealots dedicated not to material gain (such as more wealth or territory), but to the triumph by any means, however violent, of Islamic fundamentalism. This is why Iran manufactures the most terrorists.

Raving lunatic? He pretty much nailed it.

[ElwoodCuse]

I don’t know, with friends like Saudi Arabia, who needs enemies?

We would have been much better served to reach out to the moderates in Iran who think it’s wise to put the whole “Great Satan” thing behind us and normalize relations with them instead of calling them silly names.

[Captain_Lance_Murdoch]

It is worth noting that Iran’s “moderate” President Khatami responded to the “Axis of Evil” speech by strongly restating his support for Hizbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad (as quoted in the Tehran Times). He did condemn the attacks, but he always tempers his remarks by stating that he sympathizes with those who lash-out at America and that further attacks against America are inevitable as long as America continues to support the existence of the “Zionist State.”

Indecently, on Sept.11, The Tehran Times ran a celebratory-feeling, headline story on the attacks called “Fear and Terror in the White House.” As the scope of America’s anger over the attacks became more obvious, the paper scaled-down its euphoria into the more familiar condemnation-with-reservations that became Khatami’s position.

Iran’s Supreme Leader. the Ayatollah Khameni has publicly stated on several occasions that he believes the CIA destroyed the World Trade Center in an effort to frame Moslems. Almost all power in Iran today lies in Khameni’s hands. Khatami has been reduced to a figurehead.

Significantly improving relations between the U.S. and Iran are very unlikely in the near future, regardless of any rhetoric stemming from Pres. Bush.

The great irony of the “Axis of Evil” speech is that Iran actually wanted Bush to win the 2000 election. The Islamic Republic News Agency ran a story before the election in which it stated that having two oil men in the White House might lead to greater ties between the U.S. and Iran. Al Gore was totally unacceptable to Iran because of his running mate who was referred to in IRNA simply as “the Jew.”