Iran Forced To Choose Lesser Of Two Evils

Tehran - US-led war threats against Iraq are facing Iran with a stark choice - accept the massive troop buildup on its borders of arch foe the United States or risk Iraq maintaining the capacity to repeat its chemical attacks of the 1980s.

As the question weighs heavily, Iran's influential former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani voiced the Islamic republic's dilemma on Friday in a sermon at Tehran university.

"We are clearly in favour of disarming Saddam of weapons of mass destruction and we are clearly opposed to US presence in the region," Rafsanjani said in a sermon to the faithful at the main weekly Muslim prayers.

But "the US presence is worse than Saddam's weapons of mass destruction," he charged, adding that Washington "is pressuring the countries in the region for cooperation (and) this is not acceptable from a civilised government."

Severely distrustful of US President George Bush However, Rafsanjani was still shaken by the atrocities of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war during which, Iran charges, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's troops gassed 100 000 Iranian soldiers.

"We believe that a regime like Iraq should not be allowed to have weapons of mass destruction, including chemical, biological and nuclear arms," said Rafsanjani, who heads the influential Expediency Council which arbitrates political disputes.

A high-ranking Iranian official also conceded his country "would be most happy" if Saddam falls. Nonetheless, the Islamic republic remains severely distrustful of US President George Bush, who grouped Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, in an "axis of evil" a year ago.

Iran has said it seeks an "active neutrality" concerning the Iraq crisis over Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction.

In line with this policy, Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi, on a visit to Britain, told reporters Thursday the world must push for a second UN Security Council resolution before an attack on Iraq.

US officials had quietly met with Iranian diplomats Kharazi said the situation was at a "crossroads and that a second resolution would be imminent in the Security Council, and in some sense probably would be helpful."

But he said the United States should not take unilateral action on Iraq, and stressed that "we have to do our best to resolve this crisis without necessity of using force".

Kharazi also emphasised his scepticism of US policy, saying he suspected the White House was coveting Iraq's oil, alluding to US relations with Iran ahead of the 1979 Islamic revolution, which ruptured diplomatic ties between the two nations.

Iran has its own fears about a war - the prospect of Iraq's northern Kurds trying to set up a breakaway state and inspiring unrest among Iran's own Kurdish population worries the authorities while Iran is also braced for the possibility of a massive exodus of Iraqi refugees.

Last Sunday, Iran's top naval officer warned Washington would pay a heavy price if it ever attacked the Islamic republic, voicing Iran's concern that it could be the next country in US sights.

"If the United States attacks Islamic Iran, it will suffer heavy losses... because we know its weak points," Rear Admiral Abbas Mohtaj was quoted as saying in the Kayhan newspaper.

But so far, Iran's policy of active neutrality has won out over anti-Americanism. The tacit cooperation has taken the form of allowing Iraq's Tehran-based Shiite Muslim opposition to participate in talks with Washington, as well as its own discussions with the European Union and Britain.

On Saturday, the Washington Post reported US officials had quietly met with Iranian diplomats in Europe seeking a pledge that Tehran would not interfere in any US-led war against Iraq.

US officials asked Iran to assist in search-and-rescue missions for any downed US air crews, and asked them to refuse to harbour any Iraqis who might cross into their territory to resist a US-supported government in Baghdad, the Post reported, quoting senior US officials. - Sapa-AFP

Iran won't get involved, because with all our troops there, it would be too convenient to kick their butts if they tried.

Iran is a couple of years away from developing a nuke. We can defer that issue for now.

Does anyone know what ever became of the Iraqi planes (and pilots) that bugged out to Iraq during the 1991 war?

"Does anyone know what ever became of the Iraqi planes (and pilots) that bugged out to Iraq during the 1991 war?"

Iran still has them. War reparations and all.

With even moderate success in rehabilitating and modernizing Iraq, the young dissident crowd in Iran will grow very powerful. A showdown is on the horizon in Iran, and the outlook is bleak for the aging mullah crowd. This may or may not happen before Iran develops a nuclear weapon, but it won't be in the hands of Islamic fundamentalists for long.

Pretty much the inverse of what is happening in Pakistan.

Certainly the hope is that a new Iraq will trigger the changes in Iran and a friendly government will emerge without a shot being fired.

If that happens, the entire dynamics of the Middle East will have been changed dramatically.

It might even have a beneficial on its neighbor, Pakistan.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.