America is fine with propping up that regime, so why is Iran an issue, when from everything that I've read and experienced (12 years in the Middle East) there have been no implications of Iran in modern terrorist activities?
What moral have high ground can you take then?
- Iran does not recognize Israel.
- Iran supplies political support and weapons to Hamas,[14] an organization classified by Israel, the United States, Canada, the European Union and Japan as a terrorist organization. Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian National Authority, has said "Hamas is funded by Iran. It claims it is financed by donations, but the donations are nothing like what it receives from Iran".[15] From 2000 to 2004, Hamas was responsible for killing nearly 400 Israelis and wounding more than 2,000 in 425 attacks, according to the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From 2001 through May 2008, Hamas launched more than 3,000 Qassam rockets and 2,500 mortar attacks into Israel.[16]
- Iranian proxies killed an estimated 1,100 US troops in Iraq.[35] In addition, insurgents supported by Iran reportedly committed acts of terrorism.[34][36][37]
Lots more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terror...
I am not claiming these are all fact, but I think there is little doubt that they are at least "implications" as you put it.
(edited for formatting.)
Neither does Saudi Arabia! Why does it even matter, since 32 countries do not recognize Israel; including huge US beneficiaries like Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan?
> From 2000 to 2004, Hamas was responsible for killing nearly 400 Israelis and wounding more than 2,000 ...
... and in turn Israelis killed 4907 Palestinians and wounded 8611? If the number of killed is a factor in determining one's "terroristness", then surely you can't claim that Israel is a victim here! Just last year, in Operation Protective Edge, 73 Israelis were killed and 664 wounded; whereas 2100 Palestinians were killed and 11000 wounded: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/casualti...
> Iranian proxies killed an estimated 1,100 US troops in Iraq.
... and Saudi proxies killed nearly 4000 on 9/11 !
--And to get back to the topic of the parent post, yeah, this is exactly what the NSA is supposed to do. It is supposed to do two things: Secure the information of the USA and its citizens, and to undermine the security of everything else. A lot of US citizens were upset when they found out that the NSA vacuum had gotten their information as well, and rightfully so. But the NSA is still primarily focused on targeting external entities, and although those entities are well within their rights to complain, don't expect the NSA to stop just because someone didn't like it. Regardless of what a federal judge says about collecting on US citizens, no judge will EVER tell the NSA to stop its clandestine activities on foreign networks.
1. Iran isn't really different in stance from several other countries. You say that Iran calls for the death of Israel and America, but this isn't really true. The one quote from Ahmadinejad that gets thrown around turned out to be a mistranslation. And even if Iran's leadership did say such things, they are not even close to being alone in such heavy handed rhetoric. And anyway words shouldn't be enough to start trillion dollar wars. Otherwise Iran should have the right to attack the US for McCain and other American politicians' equivalently inflammatory speech.
2. Israel is as complicit in terror as other powers in the middle east, if not more so, but they never called out. The reasons are usually vague or fallacious, such as them being "friends" or "like us" or the only democracy in the middle east.
1. Iran's calling for the death of Israel and the USA is just a single missed translation? Give me a break. A news article from five days ago: "As usual, Iranians chanted "Death to America" and also denounced Israel." http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/11/385396449/on-.... It's a slogan over there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_to_America. And they aren't alone in their rhetoric. North Korea says it too. And guess what? We've isolated them as much as we can as well. The countries that are willing to openly say "Death to America" are ones that haven't matured enough on the world stage to realize that you should say one thing and do another. The rhetoric alone isn't enough to start a war, but their actions aren't that innocent. Iran's first "blue water navy" excursion was planned to sail all the way to the coast of the USA and enter our territorial waters, just to say that they could (but their ship didn't make it). They built a mock US aircraft carrier and practiced shooting anti-ship missiles at it. They aren't just talking big, they are actively posturing as the opposition to the US influence in the region.
2. Yeah, Israel does some stuff. The Jews have killed a lot of people (even going back to biblical times). They usually get a pass because they are seen as the "small fry" backed into a corner by all the Muslim countries surrounding them. It isn't true, but that is the story that is spun. Similar to how we treat the Saudis, we let Israel get away with a lot of things that we should probably put a stop to--seriously, pretty much anybody with sense can see that compromise is the best way to solve the Israel/Palestine issue, but when two peoples hate each other that much, sometimes it's easier to watch them punch it out. If you try to break up a fight, you risk getting punched yourself. And besides, we don't get along with the Israelis as much as most people think. Seriously, we share more intel with New Zealand than we do with Israel.
We get it, you (US) want influence there, because of oil. And because of... oil. You don't like that there is actually somebody who doesn't care that much and isn't afraid. A bit egoistic, and I don't get what do you expect to get in long term, except for keeping whole region unstable, with weak rulers who bow in front of you... ah wait
The "As usual" should tell you that it is nothing new. It started back in 1979 after their revolution; and you must admit that the US did some really shady things in Iran leading up to the revolution (including the overthrow of Mossadegh).
I would really recommend you watch Rick Steves' trip to Iran. The people there are much more liberal than almost any other middle-eastern country, and most don't harbor ill-will towards America; despite the fact that we did everything short of active combat for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war! No one can estimate the number of Iranians killed based on US intel and US support.
And while you do quote "death to america" repeatedly, how about all the threats that everyone from McCain to Bush to Obama have hurled at Iran? "All options are on the table" ... "military force can be used" ... etc. etc. And what about the sanctions? Nations would be within their rights to consider sanctions an "act of war". And Stuxnet? If Iran did the same to us? Obama has stated explicitly that a "cyberattack" would be considered an act of war!!
If you were to say "goddamn Iranians", the literal interpretation would be that you wish for Iranians to burn and suffer for eternity in the depths of hell. Of course, what you're actually saying is something much milder.
Or in other words - as a foreigner (would never want US citizenship exactly because of things like these) - we (in europe for example), for long thought we are friends. YOu helped us out in WW2, and it created special bond. Now it seems, you don't care anymore. Okay, we will try to find our own way. Things go both ways...
So what's the problem? You're using "implicated" as if it's a bad thing; by your own admission, even the US is "implicated" in such activities. The point was: even using your metrics, Saudi Arabia is a worse actor than Iran is.
"America is fine with propping up that regime, so why is Iran an issue, when from everything that I've read and experienced (12 years in the Middle East) there have been no implications of Iran in modern terrorist activities?"
My comment explains why Iran is an issue (from the U.S. perspective) due to being implicated in decades of terrorism. That is the only point I wanted to refute because it is silly to claim Iran is beyond reproach when it comes to terrorism given the facts I referenced. Regarding "implicated" being a bad thing: it is. In english it is usually used in reference to someone committing a crime or being involved in some other nefarious activity.
Your opinion on who is "worse" is not really something I am interested in because all terrorism is awful regardless of the perpetrator.
We all have blood and viscera and fragments of bone on our hands.