the man was responsible for (an estimated) 100,000 dead Iranians in the last wave of dissent just two months ago.
The United States illegally (and under false and misleading pretenses) invaded Iraq back in 2003. Since then it is the U.S. that has been on Iran's doorstep and 10,000km away from theirs. Iranians have much more of a right to lets say get involved in Iraqi affairs for ethnic and religious reasons than the U.S. does (btw, why is the U.S. in Iraq anyways?). So you can't really blame them for getting involved in Iraq, on their doorstep with some similar interests, than the U.S. which is half a world away.
We can go further back to the 1950's when the United States started directly interefering in Iranian internal affairs and causing them a whole lot of hell.
Another history revision by a hater. Did history begin in 1950? No. Why did the US get involved in 1950? Because Europeans - including EXTENSIVE Russian interference - had screwed up the entire region (and more) for centuries before. But we probably won't be allowed to discuss that here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
1: Undershooting here. Not 100,000, but a million, or better, millions. And then don't forget to add "personally by xxxxxx". Heck just make a random 7-figure number up, nobody's gonna check anyways.
Don't make it so round though. Use something like 101,359.
2: Yes, during WW2 Russia and the UK did, in hindsight unjustifiably occupy Iran, which is a good reason Iranians don't really trust anyone than themselves, unlike other countries that are/were "swinging" between the powers.
Iran is just there on their own picking limited scenario based alliances when it suits them. I understand them and can't blame them. Neither can I blame them for desiring to get a nuke or two sooner than later. They really don't have any real friends and as far the interests of Iran and Iranian sovreingty go, not talking about the interests of U.S., Russia, other neighboring states and the the E.U.; cause none of the above want them with a bomb.
But it really is in Iran's interests to have something in their sleeve to be able to tell the U.S., Russia, Saudis and others to piss off when it comes to playing games with them again.
Just to do a reality check here - we all realise that nuclear weapons in the current scenario are a deterrent, right?
If someone thinks otherwise though, I'd be glad to hear an opinion on a possible first strike (aggression) by Iran, using a handfull of low yield nukes delivered by ballistic missiles a few thousand miles to (where). Then of course the response against Iran, and finally obviously the final outcome with the conclusion of what Iran had to gain in the first place from such actions... the "Iranian threat" everyone is so afraid about.
Seriously guys, if 10 years ago I believed in this boogeyman of "Iranian nuclear threat" (allright, was early 20's), now it just seems clear to me that these guys want, need and have a pretty good reason to develop such technology for self defence with the shit show thats being put on around them.
I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov