An artist's depiction of an Extended Unit Death
The rest of the history is quite well known. As the US became the world's pre-eminent superpower its interests became more important than Britain's in the area.
Really, it's not (at least not in the States). At least none of my history classes mentioned US intervention with Iran, and most people I talk to don't really know any history of Iran. Hell, I tell them that I'm half Persian and they don't connect that to Iran.
I mean if trace back the time when iran and usa relations were good was probably around the time Russian - British "Great game"
As far as I can tell, we had no
relation with Iran during the Great Game. Where did you get this information that we were on "good" terms, and how does this relate to the discussion about Iran gaining nuclear arms?
i mean the reason we had no negative involvement with iran is because they were thought of as small fish...
Is that also the reason we have no negative involvement in dozens of other countries, including ones which would definitely not be considered "small fish"?
now that oil is more important than ever iran is seen of as a threat... making it so the united states wants to destabilize the country or atleast desperate enough to sell of its assets at rock bottom prices.
That's not at all why Iran is seen as a threat. Since you're interested in doing your own research rather than read what's been presented in this thread, look up the history of U.S. involvement in Israel and Iran, and Iran-Israel relations.
I think it is FINE if Iran develops nuclear weapons. Well. I personally would prefer if all countries did not have nukes or weapons at all, but that's not going to happen, and it isn't my business nor anyone else's if Iran has nuclear weapons. Indeed, given that the USA has them and Iran doesn't, I'd say that to level the playing field Iran should get them.
I've actually been giving this a lot of thought. I'm really stuck in the middle of this decision:
1) We allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons. This scenario would be infinitely beneficial to Iran and potentially harmless to everyone else. If Iran had a nuclear weapon, foreign powers would be forced to back off (mutual assured destruction philosophy). Really, all this intervention is what's causing issues and hatred within the country, and if that were to stop, we would be able to start building relations with the country. Israel most likely has nuclear weapons already (though they won't comment on whether this is true or not), so why shouldn't Iran?
2) We don't allow Iran to gain nuclear weapons. If Iran had nuclear arms, it could essentially become another North Korea. There are also religious extremists in the area, and mutual assured destruction is completely void to them due to the idea of martyrdom. Now, obviously, the same could be said for many areas around the world, and it's essentially just buying into the fear campaign; just because the Iranian government has nuclear arms doesn't mean it will fall into the hands of extremists. However, as I mentioned earlier, if you increase the number of nuclear weapons around the world, you increase the chance of an extremist group getting hold of one.
Of course, in our politics, it won't be a question on whether or not Iran should have nuclear weapons; it will be how and when we should stop them from getting nuclear weapons.
- Roy Gallant