The CIA would probably love to have my friend “Nikita” working for them. She’s a workaholic, she’s cultured, sharp, very good with computers and systems-integration, and speaks Farsi (though I might be mistaken, it could be Arabic. I’ll get corrected or confirmed soon enough). As far as I know, she has no great love for the current Iranian government, partly because her family left Iran shortly after the Ayatollah overthrew the Shah.

A few years ago, I was instant-messaging “Nikita” and summoned the courage to ask her what she thought of the War in Iraq. I know, Iran is not Iraq, but it was still close to home for her, so her response would be interesting. That it was: “I think the US is god and the soldiers are angels. I hope they do Iran next.”

I supposed that if Iraq was anything like the Iran she remembered, she’d be glad we went in, but I was surprised at the enthusiasm and patriotism of her response. It’s one thing to say that you support the troops and/or the mission, but alluding to “god” and “angels”? That’s something.

I wonder whether she still feels the same way, because it’s looking more and more like we just might “do Iran next.” Hopefully there would be more international support and assistance for an invasion of Iran than there was for the invasion of Iraq. The world as a whole seems more concerned about the wacko leading Iran than the one who was leading Iraq—partly becauseAhmadinejad doesn’t have Oil-for-Food funds to bribe foreign leaders with like Saddam did.

And hopefully, a few years after any potential action against Iran, people won’t conveniently forget about Ahmadinejad’s refusal to cooperate with the IAEA, his threats against Israel and others, and that the whole world thought he was trying to build a bomb.

P.S. That lawyer Cheney shot was probably a terrorist.

This entry was posted on Sunday, February 12th, 2006 at 6:17 PM.

9 Responses to “On Iran.”

1. aabrock Says:
   February 12th, 2006 at 10:25 PM

This is a comment from Nikita, or is it? I am wondering, dear handsome Dom, if it is me, Aabrock’s beloved little one, that you are referencing in such high regard. If it is, although I vaguely do remember the subject we talked about, I do not recall the exact words. I am surprised you remember them so well. This is a very nice blog. Aabrock showed it to me tonight. You asked if I feel the same way today. Only stronger.
Take care,
“Nikita” (?) !

1. nikita Says:
   February 12th, 2006 at 11:07 PM

Another comment, after I “registered” as me, so I don’t abuse another’s identity [Moderator comments: That’s okay, aabrock probably deserves to be abused]. I wanted to tell you that I am flattered you wrote about me here. I am now remembering the conversation well – and this is a sensitive one for me. I’ll keep an eye on the blogs, and mine is here … as you can tell, I have so far one I want to talk about …. maybe things change later.

1. scrappy Says:
   February 13th, 2006 at 12:43 AM

It seems that the United States has a question for itself, this being: Would we rather allow Iran to manufacture nuclear arms or to stomp on Iran right now?
It seems that Iran has a question for itself as well: Would we rather not manufacture nuclear arms and be vulnerable to stomping later, or keep doing what were doing in hopes that the upcoming stomping won’t be too bad.

Is the U.S. a “benign hegemony” or a “reckless rogue state”? (quoted from some University of Chicago politcal scientist whose speech I attended last week… I forgot his name but I can find out if you’d like to know. The speech wasn’t that great, but those two terms stuck with me.)

1. Vincent Viscariello Says:
   February 13th, 2006 at 1:50 AM

According to the Preamble of the Constitution, the U.S. is a “benignly reckless rogue hegemony.” That’s a quote.

If you can find the guy’s name, pass it along so I can report him to the– errr, so I can look up some of his work.

1. PaxonGator Says:
   February 13th, 2006 at 8:03 PM

Problems of invading Iran
1.It is about 4x the size of Iraq
2. Relative military strengths are not as in the US’s favor as they were in Iraq
3. Russia and China pissed to no end considering they have deals with Iran for oil

1. Vincent Viscariello Says:
   February 14th, 2006 at 12:42 AM

I think that’s why the most likely action will be sanctions and strikes against Iran’s nuke facilities; then we’ll McDonaldize ‘em and “hope for” a democratic revolution.

1. The Questioner Says:
   February 14th, 2006 at 2:47 PM

Nuclear “accidents” can happen…so let us help these assholes have an accident…or several…

There is no way that any Muslim oriented state deserves the chance to be required to be that responsible.

(Joining the nuclear club) http://www.nti.org/index.html

I use the (cosmically blown out of proportion) reactions to the recent Mohammed cartoons as the permanent example of why this area of the world is best left using diesel fuel for electricity.

Anyone care to imagine what things will be like (there) when there is no more oil and (hopefully) the industrialized world has moved onto the next primary energy source.

1. PaxonGator Says:
   February 14th, 2006 at 8:28 PM

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b180/katamari_jason/CopyofMRVFLASHBACKS.jpg

I just found this highly amusing. I say you look good as a blonde.

1. MyCreativeAlias Says:
   February 15th, 2006 at 10:32 AM

So needless to say
I’m odds and ends
But that’s me
Stumbling away
Slowly learning that life is okay
Say after me
It’s no better to be safe than sorry

Take on me…