Iran's top leader says hatred for U.S. runs deep

I see the US is strictly responsible for almost all the world's problems these days based on historically what they did via the CIA (which could be fact or could be speculation and conspiracy theory...but doesn't really matter if proof is available if the USA is the cause of this bad situation according to the theories.)

Well, plenty of proof IS available of the CIA's role in the overthrow of Iran's democratically-elected government in the early 50's. And there is no doubt that the US helped and supported the Shah for decades, with his brutal prison and torture regime, conducted through Savak.

The additional irony is that in order to counteract democratic forces in Iran, the Shah turned to helping build up the hardline religious segment of Iranian society, via the mullahs. Isn't this the way right-wingers work with religious fundamentalists everywhere?

The main problem with many right-wingers in the US is that they are so completely devoid of any real knowledge of history.

I hope Obama wins because I really want to see who the lefties blame for any continued hate. I can see it: "...the irreversible damage caused by the Bush regime...blah blah blah...". And those kinds of things. I see the US is strictly responsible for almost all the world's problems these days based on historically what they did via the CIA (which could be fact or could be speculation and conspiracy theory...but doesn't really matter if proof is available if the USA is the cause of this bad situation according to the theories.). I can see Iran telling how much they hate the USA to Obama and the excuses coming out of the left's keyboards. And I believe that deep rooted hate to be only the really "religious" dudes that like to declare fatwahs all over the place. If only the USA had those each time a flag were burned.

Ayatolla Khomeini put a fatwa on Salman Rushdie for a work of fiction.

Yeah, but if you ignore things like this then technically you can blame the US for everything. Just like how some people ignore the fact that Iran is a gay killing holocaust denying terrorist/genocide supporting hardline theocracy. Once you take that off the table you can operate from a revised reality where Iran is a peaceful and loving nation being harrassed for no reason.

ptolemy,

The Iranians don't have their military stationed all over the world. It only takes one to be peace but it still takes two to make peace.

The Iranian nation could do with some therapy. To try and work out the material value of this hate they carry for America. To understand the destructive nature of long term hate and its potential for cardiac disease and blind projection. I wonder if we could arrange some kind of mass intervention?

I guess what taikan said above rings true on both sides of the fence. The ones on our side of the fence that spew hate like this are seen as a weird bunch that will never hold power. Unfortunately for us and the world the ones who spew it on the other side are the ones who hold power. That is the dangerous fact in this equation. Who was the last government leader to put a bounty on a head that wasn't already a terrorist. George Bush put a bounty on Bin Laden but Binney was a proven mass murderer. Ayatolla Khomeini put a fatwa on Salman Rushdie for a work of fiction. But some will come here telling us how safe Iran is in possession of nuclear technology that has the potential to make that fatwa come true 100s of 1000s of times. In all the arsenal the USA has I haven't heard of any being used to threaten or intimidate anyone directly.

Who actually cares what countries like Iran and other despotic nations think of the US? As SuperLib so aptly stated, "they're a gay killing holocaust denying terrorist/genocide supporting hardline theocracy."

The libs ask, "why don't they like us?" The answer, "who cares." Now, get over it.

The poetry the radical left pens in support of Iran can be incredibly eloquent at times. It has the ability to make me temporarily forget that they're a gay killing holocaust denying terrorist/genocide supporting hardline theocracy. For others it's more of a permanent thing, I suppose.

Except when prodded by their leaders, most people don't have the time or the energy to "hate" the people of another country unless the countries are neighbors that previously have been involved in one or more wars against each other (and the atrocities that so commonly are perpetrated in connection with a war). It's likely that the vast majority of Iranians are more concerned with earning a living and providing for their families than they are with "hating" the US.

Who was that last leader that spewed hate in such a fashion? Oh wasn't his name Adolf? What a parallel universe.

Excuse me Mr. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, but I don't think the USA loves you and the other mullahs too much either. So why don't you and the next president put on a great record and listen to the words real close, it's a song by Cat Stevens, a fellow Muslim:

"...Oh peace train sounding louder. Glide on the peace train. Come on now peace train. Yes, peace train holy roller. Everyone jump upon the peace train. Come on now peace train..."

You boys play nice now.

Hatred runs deep among the Mullahs and aging fundies who supproted the revolution. Young people in Iran would like to see their country open up and do not as a rule "hate America"

Just another quick point, leaving a debate about the current Teheran regime aside for the moment, it is rather easy to understand why the United States makes Teheran nervous. Namely, a large part of the US military is deployed in Iraq. Moreover, the current administration in Washington has shown its willingness to invade and occupy other nations (Iraq) at the slightest provocation (on the flimsiest of evidence). Before the current malaise in Iraq, there were calls among the more hawkish chickenhawks of the US establishment to "turn right and invade Iran." Whether or not such a strategy is realistic is besides the point, such beating of chests just helps jack up Teheran's paranoia that much more. I often wonder if US policy vis-a-vis Iran is somewhat misguided, perhaps the way to remove the Iranian threat to the region is to unleash market forces rather than treat them as a non-existent entity. Just an idea.

On the other hand, talking tough to Iran isn't going to get very far. The US has this historical trait of beating its chest only to retreat when the going gets tough. How many dead in Iraq, less than 10,000 but the US is already talking about "Vietnamisation" of the war (handing control back to a clique who understand little about the common people in Iraq). This reminds me of Vietnam, and the long succession of elitist fools that Washington parachuted into the South Vietnamese presidency. If you are going to make threats on the world stage, you have to be willing to take your opponent to the mat, and not start bitching because a few of your boys are coming home in body bags. If America is not willing to take the casualties, it should not allow its leaders to beat their chests and led the country into ill-considered conflicts. Then again, as they say in the army, "the price of democracy is free when somebody else is doing the dying."

We still haven't received an apology for the taking of our citizens hostage in 1979.

It would be hypocritical to expect an apology without first offering one for helping overthrow a freely elected government in the 1950s and then holding millions in the country hostage to a brutal dictator for over 20 years.

Then again, such is the craven hypocrisy of some Americans.

You know there has been other countries that we've had dislike and hatred and even had wars with and we have become trade partners, equals in certain venues and even friends again.

Yes, we have a deep hatred for Iran and they have a deep hate for us. That doesn't mean that things can't be changed for the better of both our interest.

Take a look at the election that we're going through. I remember when it would never be dreamed of when I was a child. Separate restrooms, separate drinking fountains and the blacks were required to sit in a separate area of the movie threates. But this year we have a black man who is a serious contender for president of these United States.

Just because things used to be...... Doesn't mean they have to stay that way. < :-)

And I am sure the feeling is mutual. The brand of radical islam preached by Iran is not merely religion, rather it is a strategy that Teheran uses to blackmail and distabilize its neighbors and other nation states. Also, its harping on about Israel wins it few friends on the world stage. That's all it is really, harping. Luckily, Teheran is big on noise, small on action. Actually, I thought at Iran was heading bit-by-bit towards some form of reconcilliation with the West. Then they turned around and voted in Ahmadinejad. At the same time, however, much of the historical references made by Teheran in the above article, do have some truth in them.

I don't know why McCain doesn't like Iran. He's got these ties that won't be forgotten. < :-)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_iran_contra

Time cures everything. If both sides let the wounds to heal. But in place of waith a few decades more, can be faster, correct and convenient if the US can make a public apology for support a coup de etat against a democracy. The US can give the first step because, in my humble opinion the US started the US-Iran bad relationship. That can really start to end the Iran backlash for the US intervention. If the US can negotiate with ultra-rethoric NK for de-nuke the Korean peninsula, Bush made deals with ex-Sunnies insurgents (AKA awakening councils) that killed americans soldiers and Petraeus say that can be wise to make deals with the talibans in Afganistan. I dont see why the next US president cant visit Iran like Nixon visited China and close a deal with Iran against Al-Quaida, try to make of Irak a neutral zone and provide political and economic incentives for give up the nuclear program like Libya. The main concern of the war on terror, is destroy Al-Qaida, stop the development of WMDs programs and halt the govs support to terrorists. These is just about make the US safer, not about regimes changes and/or retribution for old offenses. Just an opinion, sorry for the wall of text.

"Is this the same Iranian leader who told us there are no homosexuals in his country?"

No, that was Mahmoud I'minaJihad.

"hatred for U.S. runs deep"

Feeling's mutual. We still haven't received an apology for the taking of our citizens hostage in 1979.

Is this the same Iranian leader who told us there are no homosexuals in his country?

and a garden of opportunity will bloom." Not as long as religion is alive!

I don't know if he reads JT, but.....

Iran’s supreme leader said Wednesday that his country’s hatred for the United States runs deep and differences between the two nations go beyond a “few political issues.”

Nothing of great benefit in the long run comes from hatred. But, on the other side of the coin, great hatred evokes great love - it would be better to nourish that which is loved and cherished, and a garden of opportunity will bloom.

it has become clear iran realizes that despite being a repressive, paranoid, murderous theocracy it's nonetheless become a new hope for a lot of the self-loathing patsies of the left.

this is particularly the case in places like europe.

clerics such as khameini hate mccain because he wants a strong America.

but they also hate obama.

he became a threat after his hero's welcome in berlin.

Oh, and I also think the women, once the let their hair down... are some of the finest.

Be careful what you say about the Iranian people as your maid is in control of what you eat." No, she is not. But, I, along with my wife are pretty strict about what we eat and I would actually welcome a kosher/Islamic meal. Hey, she doesn't have a whole lot of great things to talk about the leaders of Iran and that includes a few who were over at my house from the embassy. I personally think Iranians are some of the greatest people on earth - its that religious led government thing I have a problem with.

I agree. Obama will have no problem being a friend to Ahmadinejad and every other third-world tinpot dictator. That's really his comfort zone. And after a few years of Obama, we'll be at one with the third-world, on their level...literally. It's a beautiful thing. Kumbaya, my Lord, kumbaya...

just like the left these islamic fanatics have nothing but their hatred.

And can we suppose that the right has something more than its paranoia?

skipthesong,

I think one of the reasons that so many Iranians come to the States is the nature of revolutions in general. Some are more popular than others. I've heard the figure, for example, that nearly a third of the American population moved to Canada during the period from 1770 to 1790 or so. The American revolution was not necessarily popular.

As for the Shah and all that, what happened in the 50s was a proxy war with the Soviets, very similar to in the 70s. The difference, as I see it, was that the Iranian government of the 50s was more or less freely elected but it was one which was more and more under the influence of "communists". It was a domino that was about to fall. That we installed--and continuously supported, don't forget--the Shah was a threat and a challenge to the Soviets. The current Islamic movement is not a Russian inventiion.

What always amazes me about comments like this is how quick many Americans are to reject out of hand this kind of comment from Khamenei or others. It doesn't much matter what the Soviets did if our interference for the last 50 years was and is largely unwanted. Just the idea of someone trying to interfere with "the American way" throws many in the US into a tizzy. Look at all the money Joe McCarthy spent and wasted and look at all the grief he caused to no clear constructive end.

just like the left these islamic fanatics have nothing but their hatred.

skipthesong: Be careful what you say about the Iranian people as your maid is in control of what you eat.

sure this guy harbors the same feelings http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/10/29/amir.fakhravar.iran.torture/index.html

right, and so the Soviet assisted election, which knocked the Shah from his family's dynasty was completely ok? Smitty, you should really say the "re-installment of the Shah". And since he pretty much tried to put an end to religious power, I wonder why you wouldn't be more supportive at least that idea.

Good thing Obama wants to hold dialogue instead of simply dropping bombs like McCain hasn't ruled out; they might actually thaw relations a little and get on with things. McCain, on the other hand, might actually desire a 'regime change' like the one the US helped push in the 50s and which led to the installment of the Shah.

overweight gun toting fast food eating loud mouths." I am by far not overweight nor do even eat fast food. I guess you never know. As for gun totting loud mouths, who the hell of are ones shooting AK-47s into the air and screaming death to the west?

Pot, meet kettle.

Let us hope that Americans will stop being so ignorant in the future and accept that other peoples have different opinions and heaven forbid different cultures to that of overweight gun toting fast food eating loud mouths.

If hatred runs so deep with the people of Iran, why do so many immigrate to the US? Yabits, it is a fact that the CIA did help topple Masaddeq, but the key word there is help. According to a lot of Iranian friends that I have, and my maid who is from Iran says that many there at that time welcomed that topple. I guess we all should have been there at that time.

a brutal dictatorship under the Shah." And they, accordingly, have been been replaced with a just as brutal group dictatorship run by religious nuts. When was the last time you heard of a government being run by religious decree and passes out fatwas on common folk?

I'd talk to the Iranian people, not the leaders as guess what, they weren't elected either and if you want to really get down to it, while the CIA did help with getting the Shah in, who do you think helped the religious right wingers get in?

Iran blames the CIA for helping topple the elected government of Mohammad Mosaddeq in the 1950s and blames the United States for openly supporting the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi..."

It's one of the most shameful chapters in American history: the toppling of a freely elected government and installing a brutal dictatorship under the Shah. I do not believe this Iranian leader, however. There is a lot of latent goodwill by ordinary Iranians towards ordinary American people. Understandably, they have reason to feel otherwise towards the US government.

Let us hope that a President Obama will work to improve relations by meeting with the Iranian leaders.