Iran – Iraq: The Cost of Meddling and the Price of Appeasement


The Cost of Meddling and the Price of Appeasement
by Mustang 
Some background
Iran is the seventeenth largest country in the world, encompassing just under one-million square miles of land—larger than the combined nations of Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain, and Portugal.  It is also the sixteenth largest country in terms of human population.  The size of the country, its terrain, weather patterns, shortage of water, and the distribution of human populations make Iran unsuitable for sustained land warfare. 

Reza Shah Pahlavi

Reza Shah Pahlavi (1878-1944) (also known as Reza Shah) was the Shah of Iran from December 1925 to September 1941, when a joint British-Soviet invasion forced his resignation.  Before leading Iran as its monarch, Pahlavi served as Iran’s prime minister.  He was appointed legal monarch by the Iranian Constituent Assembly, which deposed the previous shah, Ahmad Shah Qajar [1].  Reza Shah sought to restrict opposition to his regime by restricting freedom of the press, worker’s rights, and certain political freedoms.  Political parties were banned—including the party most loyal to Reza Shah—along with trade unions. 

He was also known for punishing through torture criminal elements, spies, and those accused of plotting regicide.  There are some today who accuse Reza Shah of suppressing religious expression, particularly those practicing the moslem faith and of suppressing the communist elements in Iran during his reign.  The confiscation of clerical land holdings did not endear him to a group of increasingly radical Iranian clerics—and the more these leaders protested Reza Shah’s policies, the more he cracked down on Islamic extremists.
In 1941, Nazi Germany began Operation Barbarossa—the invasion of the Soviet Union.  It was a direct violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.  That summer, Soviet and British diplomats sent a number of notes to the government of Iran, stating that they regarded the presence of Germans in Iran, such as those administering state rail systems, as a threat to the Soviet Union and United Kingdom.  The implication was that if Iran did not expel these German civil servants, a state of war might exist between Iran and the allied powers. 

It was the intent of the British to ship arms to the Soviets through Iran.  Iran, however, did not believe the British would declare war on Iran, particularly since Iran had declared its neutrality in the growing conflict.  However, on 25 August 1941, British and Australian forces attacked the Persian Gulf and Soviet land forces invaded Iran, which included the aerial bombing of Tehran.  It was not long before Iranian defense forces collapsed.  On 16 September, Reza Shah resigned and was replaced by his son, Mohammed Reza [2].
In 1953, the United States helped to orchestrate a coup d’ẻtat, which overthrew a popularly elected prime minister and strengthened the Iranian monarchy.  Despite his demonstrations of enlightenment in 1941, Shah Reza Pahlavi by 1971 had become increasingly authoritarian (and inept).  His domestic policies did as much to foment revolution as did the radical Islamist Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (who was working to achieve revolution in the background from Paris). 

One might argue that through their support of the Islamic Revolution, the Iranian people have suffered mightily of their own choosing.  It can also be argued that the policies toward Iran of the United Kingdom and United States have not served the interests of either country, or of Iran and its people [3].

More Recently


The United States eliminated through extreme prejudice Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, a thoroughly nasty fellow who commanded the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and the so-called Quds Force, an organization responsible for extraterritorial military and clandestine operations, which involved providing military assistance to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. 

Soleimani was sanctioned by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1747 due to his alleged involvement in providing material support to the Syrian government in its suppression of civil protests.  Owing to the fact that Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of more Americans than any other terrorist since Osama bin Laden, the United States listed him as a known terrorist.  At 0100 on 3 January 2020, a US drone strike introduced Soleimani to the afterworld.  This strike came as a consequence of Soleimani’s orchestration of the attack on the United States Embassy in Baghdad [4].
Shortly after the drone strike, President Donal J. Trump warned leaders in Iran against following through on their threats to avenge General Soleimani.  By now, all of Donald Trump’s “tweets” have become famous, but his communique via Twitter in the aftermath of Soleimani’s demise is particularly noteworthy. 
Mr. Trump wrote, “Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, and badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. 
“Let this serves as a warning that if Iran strikes any Americans or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level and important to Iran and the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, will be hit very fast and very hard.  The United States of America wants no more threats.”
President Trump made two important decisions: to kill Soleimani —and to do it publicly.  In making the act public, Mr. Trump left no doubt as to whom was responsible for Soleimani’s long-overdue death.  Trump in fact emphasized the direction of his administration when he also announced that there would be no more Benghazi’s.  Bravo, Mr. Trump!  But of course, the decision places Iran in the unenviable position of having to decide what to do about the drone strike. 
Currently, there is a lame duck government in Iraq, which Iran must see as an opportunity.  There is also an issue among some Afghanis who wonder why, if Mr. Trump can reach out and touch Soleimani, why can’t the United States reach out with equal precision and rid the world of a number of Pakistani thugs who fund or orchestrate Taliban anti-government campaigns.  It is an interesting question.
What the US government should keep in mind, in addition to the fact that Iran is unsuitable for a sustained land engagement, is that only 55% of the Iranian people are ethnic Persian; a large percentage of the Iranian population are minority Sunni moslems.  This is a fact that should lead US political leaders to avoid any policy or action that would serve to unite these disparate groups behind the Ayatollah or any of his henchmen [5]. 
With substantial American military forces to the east and west of Iran, the Iranian regime must have concerns that the United States is well-placed to foment rebellion inside Iran—and this may be the reason Iran is desperate to develop an offensive nuclear capability.  It may also explain their support of ideological extremism, which equates to cheap warfare for Iran, while remaining costly for everyone else.

The problem we have with Iran today is more than just a little of our own fault.  We need to stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs; it is a nasty habit we picked up from the British.  We also need to stop appeasing thugs and criminals.  There is no good reason for any American president to “understand the plight of Islamic freedom fighters.” 

What these Islamists do in their own country is none of our concern; it should only be a concern to us when their unseemly behaviors affect our (actual) national security, the safety of our people, and the protection of our property.  I support the concept of using our air forces to punish any Iranian revenge attack.  I do not care about any collateral damage that might result from it.

The Iranians opted for their plight in 1978-79; they continue to put up with radical regimes today.  The sooner Iran understands that western civilization will defend itself, that we (collectively) will not tolerate Islamic extremism (in any form), the quicker they learn that there are dangerous consequence to global extremism, the better for everyone.


Donald J. Trump is the only president we’ve had in the past 32 years with the courage to set Iran straight.  Not only should we (true) Americans be thankful for that, we should also demand it from all future presidents/presidential candidates.

  1. Buchan, J.  Days of God: The Revolution in Iran and Its Consequences.  Simon & Schuster, 2013.
  2. Abrahamian, E.  Tortured Confessions: Prisons and Public Recantations in Modern Iran.  University of California, 1999.
  3. Daniel, E. L.  The History of Iran.  Greenwood Press, 2000.
  4. United States Department of State, American Foreign Policy Basic Documents, 1977-80.  Washington, DC 1983.
  1. Ascended to the throne of Iran at the age of 11 years after his father was overthrown in 1909.  His reign was short lived, sent into exile in 1925.  He passed away at the age of 32 years in 1930.
  2. Mohammed Reza reigned until 1979 when he abdicated and went into exile.  The Iranian revolution was unusual in the sense that it occurred in a relatively prosperous nation, not the result of war, financial crisis, peasant rebellion, or a military coup d’ẻtat.  Rather than evolving as a single event, the revolution involved a series of incidents beginning in 1977 which culminated in wide-scale civil disobedience that included both secular and religious elements and university students.  Strikes and demonstrations paralyzed Iran between 1978-79.  On 16 January 1979, the Shah went into exile leaving the government in the hands of a regency council headed by an opposition prime minister  The council in turn invited Ayatollah Khomeini to return to Iran, thinking that he would serve the interests of secular government by maintaining the status of a religious figurehead.  That didn’t happen, of course.
  3. The Iranian Hostage event occurred in November 1979, lasting for 444 days, which proves beyond question that US elections have significant consequences to the safety and security of the American people, United States property, and our national prestige.  It is a shame that the American voter has never learned this important lesson of history, which is illustrated by their election of Barack Obama to the presidency, their continued and bewildering support of Hillary Rodham Clinton, and their jaw-dropping support of Marxist/globalist politicians.
  4. American diplomatic, economic, and military efforts to limit Iranian influence in the Middle East has had no impact on Iranian behavior since the Iranian Revolution in 1976.  In addition to murdering Americans, Soleimani was also responsible for the deaths of (estimated) thousands in Syria, but of course the American political left has condemned the attack, arguing that it violated international and human rights standards protecting known terrorists, murderers, and rapists generally, and Soleimani particularly.
  5. It is only through the fear and intimidation imposed on them by Iran’s revolutionary guard that keeps minority groups “in line.”  

For the best in news.

23 Responses to “Iran – Iraq: The Cost of Meddling and the Price of Appeasement”

  1. Bekah Kent Says:

    Some people think the CIA only wanted us to believe that Mossadegh was communist. But all signs point to north that we got involved with the wrong people, kids we’d to understand this in simple ways


  2. Political Chic Says:

    Trump said, and I agree..:

    “Qassem Soleimani has been killed and his bloody rampage is now, forever gone.”

    “He was plotting attacks Americans, but we’ve now insured his atrocities have been stopped for good”

    Liked by 2 people

  3. peter3nj Says:

    Thanks once again Mustang for filling in the holes. Many of us in adulthood in the late 70’s aware of the outside world kind of understood the peanut farmer was behind the Ayatollah’s takeover.
    I will repeat something I mentioned on this site some time ago: In 1978 working as a traffic manager for a transportation carrier that moved DOD members HHG to and from military bases around the globe It was almost exclusively a case that if x number of members were moved from an overseas facility back to the states an equal number were moved stateside to that overseas base. Beginning in January of 1978 I noticed that great numbers of military personnel were leaving air base Tehran for the US and less than a trickle deployments going from the US and Frankfort back to Tehran. I also recall the Shah being asked by BRbara Walters in an November 1978 interview if he felt he would be deposed as some were saying. He answered no. The rest is history.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. 1958usmc1993 Says:

    What great post BZ!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. markone1blog Says:

    What did these Democrats say when Obama sent drone missiles to kill an American (Anwar Al-Awlaki)? Both Solemani and Anwar Al-Awlaki were fighting against America. Both were responsible for the deaths of Americans. Why does Sanders defend the Iranians? Why does Omar call this an assassination? Someone on the left, please cogently explain it.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Linda Says:

    Reading the news, I have just had enough of the hate against Trump and if your against Trump then you are against America/Americans…all these so called politicans and movie stars, enough is enough. They are so mean and nasty spirited.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. markone1blog Says:

    Thanks for this outline of the issue with Iran.

    I have recently read the following from single sources and would like to pass these in front of you and your audience to see if these points are true:

    1. “Quds” translates to “Jerusalem.” The group is so named due to their dedication to eliminating Jews from Jerusalem.

    2. This general was responsible for the design of car bombs and the first IED’s; hence, he has the blood of at least thousands on his hands (including over 600 American soldiers).

    3. Since this enemy combatant and his underlings were in Iraq (arguably a field of conflict), he was less a victim of assassination (as assessed by some Democrats) and more just a victim of war.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Mustang Says:

      The Quds Force was created during the Iran-Iraq War, and you’re right about the “Jerusalem Force” designation. What I find amazing about that is the fact that Jerusalem has existed for about 3,000 years before the Moslem conquest of Persia, which tends to suggest that no one in the Moslem horde has a sense of history. In effect, Quds Force exists to “liberate Moslem land.” On its face, that’s rich, but I guess in the minds of the sandbox morons, anywhere they happen to be standing is “Moslem land.” If this is true, then I suppose we ought to re-think our immigration policies as they relate to Moslems. In any case, after Soleimani’s sudden exit into the afterworld, I’m guessing we only have another 2.5 billion more to go in restoring normalcy to planet earth.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. hocuspocus13 Says:

    I always wondered if what I read about Iran going back (if I remember correctly) 2 years ago was real news or fake

    When the Iranian Officials threatened to “snitch” the names of the American Politicians who (according to Iran) took bribes (during the Obama years in the WH) to get the Iran Deal through

    If true…

    It would explain (at least to me) why the DemoKKKrats and Left Wing Hollywood Elites took Iran’s side recently over the death and injury of Americans

    …and PS

    Were those names ever “snitched”

    Liked by 4 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      I can’t speak for Mustang.. but I do know we had Iranian born Valerie Jarrett and Kerry’s family married into an Iranian with in-laws there…I would start there and by the way Kerry is still involved with Iran and called out this week for it.
      I would put the potential black mail as part of it… who knows what Iran has on Congress… a swamp like no other.

      Liked by 3 people

      • hocuspocus13 Says:

        …and a pallet full of cash 💲💲💲

        Liked by 3 people

      • peter3nj Says:

        Simply put Kerry and Jarrett go to the same tailor as Biden for their teflon clothing.and the proof is in the pudding since neither of them are hammering out license plates alongside the greatest traitor of them all Barry O.

        Conversely, surely we all remember when the media assigned The Teflon Factor to President Reagen

        Ronald Reagan was often called the “Teflon President,” because criticism and blame never seemed to stick to him. His personal charm and style were said by many to form a protective covering that resisted public displeasure and explained his high popularity ratings. This article rejects the Teflon thesis, arguing that public affection for Reagan was governed by the normal laws of presidential popularity rightly understood. These laws, the author insists, are, first, the great advantages in popularity enjoyed by Republican Presidents in general and, second, the importance of short-term crises or “rally” events on public affection for chief executives. He examines presidential popularity from Dwight Eisenhower through Reagan, identifies patterns common to all, and concludes that there was really nothing that exceptional about President Reagan’s standing with the American people.
        David J Lanoue

        Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      I think it must be worse than anyone imagines. Beyond Jarrett (how she ever received a security clearance, I’ll never understand) and the low-lying-corrupt-miserable-Kerry, Hillary Rodham Clinton surrounded herself with a bevy of members in good standing of the Moslem Brotherhood. Nothing could go wrong with that, could it? Sort of puts into perspective the entire Benghazi thing … and then, of course, we had a president who thought the “call to prayer” was the most beautiful thing he’d ever seen (with the possible exception of watching Michael change into his jockey shorts).

      Liked by 2 people

      • bunkerville Says:

        I believe Jarrett got a waiver… I may be wrong, but it was someone at her level. Kerry is the one that never ever should have had clearance..


      • kidme37 Says:

        Imagine if the majority, as opposed to only a few, knew he damage the D☭mocrats have done to AMerica, especially over the obama years. Mind bending ignorance out there realted to this.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: