Nationalist, or Patriot, I think both have the same interests, but different ways of getting there.
Knowledge evolves, but, Truth is constant. The truth is; both sides (D and R) play political football with other country's- Iran officially became part of the game in 1953- that is the constant in this situation. So, was it a nationalist endeavor (America first), or was it a Patriotic endeavor (Iran first)? In reality it was an oligarch endeavor to wrest control of Iran's natural resources from one ruler of Iran and install a favorable ruler of Iran in his place- for what purpose? Favorable to who? Iran? Is Iran not a sovereign nation? Does the US nationalist, or patriot, recognize sovereignty as a viable being? Apparently not. The US uses the word sovereignty when it fits an agenda being used- the US doesn't even recognize sovereignty in the US- think about that.
Iran is not a threat to the US. The US is in the ME to allegedly protect Saudi interests- is that patriotic or is it nationalist? So, who is threatened by Iran? Saudi?
Pretentious finger pointing is useless political rhetoric which allows the US to continue it's immoral activity- in this case, in the ME- neither D, nor R, has the best interest of the US in mind, unless trillions of dollars and many, many lives are in its best interest. The trillions of dollars can be replaced and is (because the US hegemony has to be funded). Does not both sides (R and D) subscribe to the hegemony? So, just whose interests are best served by continuing to make Iran a problem? The best interest for the US is to mind its own business and stop trying to buy friendship with money or bullying- so, which path do Nationalist prefer? Patriots? The immoral initiation of force - or trade with all, ally with none? The recognition and respect of sovereignty even if there is no political benefit?
"The truth is; both sides (D and R) play political football with other country's- Iran
officially became part of the game in 1953-"
Wrong again.
Democrats fund the maniac Ayatollahs.
Democrats rubber stamp their plan to get nukes.
Democrats installed the rabid maniacs.
it was the Democrat Jimmy Carter.
It was almost as though the Democrats had a big meeting, decided that they hadn't done nearly enough damage to the world by supporting the homicidal psychopath Joseph Stalin......
....and said 'now.....how can we institute even more world conflagration.'
And Jimmy 'I will never lie to you' Carter said...'Hey....let's dump the moderate Shah, and put in power an insane Islamofascist!!!'
And, if that conversation had happened, Hussein Obama picked up on it and guaranteed nuclear weapons to the world's worst state sponsor of terrorism.
Those wacky Democrats, huh?
Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, (born October 26, 1919,
Tehrān, Iran—died July 27, 1980,
Cairo, Egypt), shah of
Iran from 1941 to 1979, who maintained a pro-Western
foreign policy and fostered economic development in Iran.
Not good for the Left's desires for world domination!!!
The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran has been compared in importance to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. “The central problems of world affairs today spring from the Iranian Revolution much as those of the 20th century sprang from the Russian Revolution.”
A Monarch Dethroned
"When the Iranian revolution came to power, with the help of Democratic President Jimmy Carter,
the Ayatollah Khomeini killed more human beings (about twenty thousand) in two weeks than had been killed by the Shah during his entire thirty-eight years. Khomeini followed this by sending hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die in the Iran-Iraq war, as martyrdom was needed to resurrect the Islamic Empire."
Paul Berman, “Terror and Liberalism,” p. 108
And it has been ever so.
