America's Iranophobia. By Uncle Monty.

America's Iranophobia

Story and Photos By Uncle Monty

--
At some point the United States will attack Islamic Iran. It’s

just in the cards, despite the statement today coming from out of

Iran by its Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini,
who declared that America’s Iraq situation and Washington’s pre-
sent domestic issues makes it unlikely the U.S. will strike Iran.
--
While Mohammad Hosseini’s official statement that an

American military attack on Tehran was now unlikely,
he didn’t spell out such in the kind of undiplomatic words

I use here that it is plainly due to the debilitating factors

like the American criminal insanity that is Iraq and

Afghanistan, the ongoing US presidential campaign, the

rotten economy, the fall out from the sub-prime fiasco,

and George W. Bush’s own deservedly lowest standing of

almost any US president since Richard M. Nixon accord-

ing to all of the professional media polls.
--
He is perhaps America’s most arrogant, cavalier,

and ignoramus president to date is mindless Bush. I

wouldn’t trust him with a ballyhoo banana boat. Yet,

such a man is not accountable, no matter what, for

any military actions he takes until disaster then

looks the world in the face like we continue to see in

Iraq and at else where from America’s murderous

military mindset and fighting might that endangers

the global peace of all the world’s humanity.
--
To attack or not to attack Iran could be one of the

world’s most disastrous disasters waiting to happen

depending upon what point of view one takes. If the

alleged Iranian nuclear threat is considered to be the

most important, then not stopping Iran by attacking

her would be seen as a disaster waiting to happen,

especially for such states as Israel who views Iran as

a mortal enemy just like Iran views them. While

those who, on the flip side of the coin, see the United

States and Israel as a far greater evil and threat than

Iran, then to attack the Shi'ite State would be seen as

a greater disaster for the world than by not attacking

her in the first place.
--
From what I saw and heard during my wonderful stay

inside Iran they seemed to be ready for just about

anything to be thrown at them by the Yanks and the

U.N. But today’s statement by Mohammad Hosseini

seems to now dilute such an “in-your-face” Iranian

posture toward the Bush Administration and The

West from when I was there of what I’m hearing

and reading right now from Iran.
-
:: My View I Took of Esfahan, Iran's Third Largest City ::

And when such a zealot and zombie like Bush is so low in the

polls and overwhelmingly disliked as the 43rd President
of the United States, both at home and abroad, he really

doesn’t have much to lose after all if he should then attack
Iran in the lame-duck days of his vicious Republican

presidency. In fact, he may gain much more politically

and nationalistically by taking on Iran more than not …

Such might well assure him of a Hero’s Farewell, instead

of a good riddance and a sure shirty goodbye from the

Oval Office by the American people and the world come

next January, 2oo9. Whatever he does, George Bush is

going to leave the present and diabolical military and

political mess he’s created for All America to clean up

long after his days are over in Washington and long

after he’s also dead and buried at Arlington National

Cemetery or at wherever they finally put

his presidential corpse.
-

:: While Out and About Inside Iran's Tehran ::

As I strolled out and about and around the thoroughfares

of Tehran late last year, I was struck by the vibrancy of the

capital city and the friendliness of the people I openly met

on the streets. Periodically, I would look upto the Islamic

sky to be sure I didn’t fail to dodge, if I could, those Yankee

cluster bombs if they should suddenly come from out of the

blue while I was there. For such will surely come as Bush’s

name is spelled much like an obscene four-letter word. If

not him, I think Hillary Clinton, if she’s elected as America's
first female president (and, hopefully not), will take the plunge

and attack Iran that’s if nasty Bush doesn’t do it before he

leaves office. Her very recent Iranophobic statement on Iran

during her presidential campaign trail sounded more like that

of the hideous Yankee ultrahawk and Republican neocon Vice

President Dick Cheney than a so-called “liberal” Democrat which

she switches on and switches off according to whatever she

wants to paint herself for political convenience at any given time

in her ferocious appetite to be America's first woman president.
--
She said in her ratcheted up threats against Iran: "In

the next 10 years, during which they (Iran) might foolishly

consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to

totally obliterate them. That's a terrible thing to say but those

people who run Iran need to understand that because that

perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be

reckless, foolish and tragic." And, please also note Hillary that

any pre-emptive American military strike on Iran would

also be "reckless, foolish and tragic."
--
Hilliary Rodham Clinton’s grandmother was after all Jewish

and The Clintons are themselves unadulteratedly pro-

Israel (and, what American politician isn't?) and pro-Jewish

and unreservedly anti-Iran and anti-Sharia. So where does

that leave Iran should The Clintons take over The White House

again in 2009 for the next four years? You see if Hillary gets in,

so also does her hubby ex-prez William Jefferson Clinton who

then gains unelected entré again to The Oval Office as the

husband of America’s would-be first elected woman president.

That’s not good news for Iran no matter how they see things

in Tehran right now ...
-

:: Iranian High School students greeting me at Persepolis, Iran ::

Inside Iran, the domestic elections take place Friday or the day after England’s own Mayoral Election of London is then held on May Day or The Ascension in the Church Calander.

--

I think all the more reason for the United States to attack Iran at some point, with Israel somewhere at play in all of it, is based on the past relationship since the fall of The Shah of Iran, who America supported no matter how brutal he was. It would give asinine George W. Bush a needed boost among those flag-waving Yanks who support anything that’s anti-Iranian. Since the hostage taking at the American Embassy in Tehran in 1979 at the rise of Ayatollah Khomeini and his Islamic Revolution against Shah Pavlavi’s absolute rule and vile tyranny, the majority of Americans not only feel uneasy about Iran but would almost feel relatively good, I suspect, to exact some kind of belated and pent-up revenge against The Ayatollah Nation.

--
Most Americans are totally ignorant, of course, about the whys and wherefores of Iran's place in the world after the fall of Pavlavi. The Shah's Coronation in 1967 also saw him proclaimed as Shahanshah or King of Kings. But less than 13 years later the same Shah had fled his country and then landed up finally dead in Egypt via his hospital treatment at Washington’s Walter Reed Medical Center.

I was there inside America when it all happened about the Shah and the hostage crisis was soon underway in 1979 and having met both Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter some three years earlier at the 1976 presidential debate held at the campus of William and Mary - I think I know the anger of many Americans then and now towards anything Iranian. Remember Americans, both collectively and individually, rarely forget and/or forgive those who they perceive have done them down. They still think Iran has done them down. They're an unforgiving bunch, if the truth be spoken about them. So America's Iranophobia isn't something new. It's been going on now for close to 30 years. The difference today is that America is almost ready to retaliate against Shi'ite Iran for its past grievances against her like the American hostage crisis and the rise of the Islamic Republic against all things Yankee. The nuclear issue is simply part of the cover and excuse for America to act and to teach Iran a lesson not to mess anymore with the Yanks ...

:: The Iranian Patriarch + Myself after Sunday Service ::

Who are the true foreigners in Iraq? The Yanks and Brits, of course. They’re the invading aliens who now complain of Iraq’s next door neighbour Iran for allegedly “interferring” in the American occupation and subjugation by the two and half trillion dollars its already spent and wasted on killing and displacing the indigenous people of Iraq for over five years now. Such a complaint is all part again of America's Iranophobia. How can America then complain about Iran's alleged involvement in helping the anti-American insurgency in Iraq, if the real foreigners and occupiers are themselves nothing more than alien invaders who have no right whatsoever to be in Iraq in the first place? So while the Yanks bitterly complain that their gruesome soldiers are being popped-off by IRB – improvised roadside bombs and manufactured they say by Iran - the real question is this: Now that America has lost the war and its way in Iraq, when will they bloody leave? The answer is not until they've also bombed Iran ... Such will then will be the ultimate act of America's Iranophobia for all the world to see.

-

Here then is the news report from Reuters on the latest thinking from Iran:

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said on Sunday a "disastrous situation" facing the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with Washington's domestic issues made any U.S. attack on the Islamic Republic unlikely. The Foreign Ministry comments came two days after the U.S. Navy said a cargo ship hired by the U.S. military fired warning shots at approaching boats in the Gulf, underscoring tension in an area vital to world oil shipments, and driving up crude prices. "We think it would be unlikely the Americans would take the decision to get themselves into a new fiasco, the consequences of which they themselves have acknowledged would be painful for the region and the world," spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said. "We hope those who think better in America view the realities more closely and manage to correct such approaches," he told a news conference. Relations between Washington and Tehran, which have not had diplomatic ties for nearly three decades, are tense over Iran's nuclear programme and over who is to blame for violence in Iraq. Hostile rhetoric between the two foes and close encounters in the Gulf have fuelled some speculation the United States may be planning some sort of military action against Tehran. However, a U.S. intelligence report in December that said Iran halted a nuclear weapons programme in 2003 made any U.S. attack very unlikely, analysts say. Iran denies ever having ambitions to build nuclear weapons. Last week, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said another Middle East war would be "disastrous on a number of levels". But he added the military option must be kept on the table "given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat -- either directly or through proliferation." But Hosseini dismissed the likelihood of any U.S. military strike "in view of the numerous problems the Americans are facing, along with the disastrous situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and (their) domestic problems." He did not specify what domestic U.S. problems he was referring to but the Bush administration is facing low approval ratings and an economic downturn during its last year in office. U.S. defence officials first said they suspected the approaching vessels in Thursday's incident were Iranian, but a navy spokeswoman later backed away from that charge. Iran denied any confrontation took place in the Gulf. In January, the United States said five small Iranian speed boats aggressively approached three U.S. Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical crude oil shipping route. Iran said its boats were simply trying to identify the U.S. vessels. April 27, 08.
(Reporting for Reuters by Hossein Jaseb; Writing by Fredrik Dahl; Editing by Myra MacDonald)

-

:: My great interpreter, guide + driver ::

As for America’s all out violence at wherever it takes its
"World Agenda," most Americans are always cocksure, gun
happy and war bent no matter what. Many are so blinded they’ll
allow their plutonic patriotism to rule their heady heads no matter
what their hearts are telling them or whatever the world begs of
them not to do. George Bush brings out the worst in such people
and not their best in the slaughterous slugfest called
“The Great Satan” or “God Bless America.”

While inside Iran, I took several hundreds of photographs openly. The only things
I didn’t photograph were military and governmental establishments for that would
endanger my safety as a Westerner. In America, when I once photographed by tele-
photo lens the notorious prison called Sing Sing, I was chased after by four burly New
York State troopers in their flashing state patrol cars at killer speed and who
stopped me and frisked me on the spot and wanted to know why I’d photographed the penitentiary from the interstate at perhaps at third of a mile away. Such was for innocently photographing Sing Sing. That was 25 years ago and long before 9/11, so today I’d probably be hauled in by the Nazi-sounding Department of Homeland Security and badly interrogated and then put on one of the hundreds of catch-all Watch Lists the U.S. now keeps on all manner of innocent people. So why shouldn’t the Iranians also wonder why I
was photographing their stuff, too, if it was military or governmental? I was very careful not to photograph such establishments for I could count on being in big trouble despite my fondness for the Iranians ...

Truly, Uncle Monty. +Rogation Sunday, 2oo8.

:: News Update :: Just three days after my story was posted here on "America's Iranophobia," the latest from Reuter's reporter David Morgan now reports a second U.S. aircraft carrier has been moved in position and is stationed "temporarily" in the Gulf as a "reminder" to Iran:

By David Morgan
MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - The U.S. Navy has temporarily added a second aircraft carrier in the Gulf as a "reminder" to Iran, but this was not an escalation of American forces in the region, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Tuesday.
Speaking to reporters during a trip to Mexico, Gates flatly denied a suggestion that the presence of two U.S. carriers in the Gulf could be a precursor to military action against Tehran.
"This deployment has been planned for a long time," Gates said. "I don't think we'll have two carriers there for a protracted period of time. So I don't see it as an escalation. I think it could be seen, though, as a reminder."
He declined to elaborate on his remarks and provided no details about the deployment.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said the second carrier arrived in the Gulf on Tuesday to replace one on duty that was expected to depart the region in two days.
U.S. Navy officials were not immediately available for comment.
News of the second carrier came amid simmering tension between the United States and Iran that has fed speculation about a possible U.S. military strike. (April 30th, 2008)