Sure David, I mean it can't have anything whatsoever to do with the secret nuclear weapons program
Myths & Facts | Iran Intelligence a nation sitting on an ocean of oil has embedded into an unnecessary nuclear energy program.
Smoke a lot of dope lately David?
Why is it that of all the countries who have nuclear capability, none of them are opposed to the Western cabal of bankers? Do the Iranians run world finances or do the Americans, Israeli and British?
You know, when the Shah was in power and BP wasn't BP, and the British, Americans and Israelis had rights to rape Iran because of the agreements with the British government facilitated by the Rueter Agency early in the 20th century -- agreements allowing the British control of all Iran's valuable resources -- the Iranian people had a right to be aggrieved. They still have a right to be aggrieved, against both the British and the Americans.
Why in the name of goodness, would Iran and its people, after everything they've faced at the hands of the Americans and British who backed the Shah because of his willingness to throw out oil at a fraction of its worth, want to be in line with the American, Israeli and British controlled banking cartel?
The American problem with Middle Eastern foreign relations -- I say that as though there is just one -- is that they cannot, or will not, accept the decisions of less powerful nations to assert their own sovereign rights if those decisions contradict American financial and political interests -- they use military force to make sure it does not happen -- and the British are, at least regarding Iran and BP, much the same.
Khomeini was supported in his rise to power because he opposed the Shah, publicly and powerfully, and to the average, middle class Iranian he's hardly much better than the Shah, in that he is less for women's rights and less for equality than the Shah was -- he's more radically Islamic than the Shah was -- but Khomeini has this three important things going for him:
1. He does not bow to the American and British will, he opposes it.
2. He does not, to the degree of the Shah, murder and kill via SAVAK.
3. He understands, most pertinently, that the Iranian people view America and Britain as hypocrites who are willing to speak about freedom and democracy in their own countries -- particularly America, where many Iranians are educated, hence why you will often hear Iranians speaking fluent English with an American accent -- while they backed the horrid dictatorship of the Shah and demolished the only truly democratic government that Iran ever had, and they also have done similarly in other dictatorships when it suited their financial and political interests.
What America really need to do is address these mistakes.
Obama has done well recently with Cuba, he's done relatively well, compared to the President before him, with relations with Jordan, Egypt and such. Perhaps he might make strides with Iran, but at the minute, if I was Iranian, I'd be cheering Khomeini's decisions simply because of the historical significances surrounding them.
