14 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Putin thanks you.

You're welcome Comrade Jingthing Jingthingovich.

KGB: Agent RED MARIONETTE is very frustrated. Wants to overthrow the election.

Mossad: Tell me about it.

GRIB: Uncle Donnie need to write another love letter.

IRG: The Marionette thinks we want to kill him, but why would we cancel #1 comedy TV show 🤩

20 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

What a lot of us are wondering is what has Russia brought to the table in the last 70 years in terms of its contribution to the world? Other than it's space program and mineral resources I can't think of a single thing that they've done to benefit mankind.

Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Baryshnikov, Rachmaninov, Ovechkin

• Periodic Table of Elements: Formulated by Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869 to organize chemical elements by atomic weight and properties.

• Tetris: Created by computer scientist Alexey Pajitnov in 1984, becoming one of the most popular puzzle video games of all time.

30 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Baryshnikov, Rachmaninov, Ovechkin

• Periodic Table of Elements: Formulated by Dmitri Mendeleev in 1869 to organize chemical elements by atomic weight and properties.

• Tetris: Created by computer scientist Alexey Pajitnov in 1984, becoming one of the most popular puzzle video games of all time.

None of us are debating what Russia has given the world historically as it used to be a cultural capital of the planet. I am referring to the last 70 years or so. One scientific discovery and a space program does not make a nation great.

18 hours ago, johng said:

Neither of them..the whole thing could have and should've been avoided at the beginning

if 'normal diplomacy' had been followed.

Have you been at the drugs cupboard? Russians are total liars its their default.

19 hours ago, johng said:

If you think destroying civilian targets is ok then don't complain when Russia retaliates in kind

and perhaps not just in Ukraine.

Most ridiculous comment ever posted on A.N. award goes to you.

2 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

You mean the same as Iran was doing before this conflict started? Funny how the US is doing less damage to civilian infrastructure than what Ukraine is doing to Russia but they're rewarded for their actions while the US is cursed.It's always best to look at what's actually happening than believing propaganda, opinions and hating on one side.

No idea what you're on about. You seem confused. The US and Israel started the war against Iran. If you can't agree to that fact then you're too far gone to be of interest.

Of course Russia is losing. You Commander and Chief and his apparatchiks say so!

Listen to Trump and he'll tell you the absolute truth, like the following.......
“As I said during my recent address at Mount Rushmore recently… such a beautiful place,”

“You know, the communists want to take it down.”

“Try taking Mount Rushmore down, they want to blow it up, they want to take it down!”

Of course you all believe in what your Commander and Chief tells you. Everything he says is 100% 'Truth.' Trump would never, ever lie to you, right!
Russia is losing. China is losing. Iran has lost. The Commies are coming to get you and they will blow up Mt. Rushmore All 'The Complete Truth.'

Scrub-a-dub-dub!

they will blow up Mt. Rushmore

Of course we will blow up the giant stupid Trump face that he will ILLEGALLY add in front of the other Big President Heads, DUH. 😄

13 minutes ago, BLMFem said:

No idea what you're on about. You seem confused. The US and Israel started the war against Iran. If you can't agree to that fact then you're too far gone to be of interest.

Guess you're the one confused, if you didn't understand my comment...................johng said...If you think destroying civilian targets is ok then don't complain when Russia retaliates in kind

and perhaps not just in Ukraine.

You said.............Actually, it was Russia that started this war and Russia that started hitting civilian targets from the get-go.

Go it?

Edited July 25Jul 25 by fredwiggy

2 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

You mean the same as Iran was doing before this conflict started? Funny how the US is doing less damage to civilian infrastructure than what Ukraine is doing to Russia but they're rewarded for their actions while the US is cursed.It's always best to look at what's actually happening than believing propaganda, opinions and hating on one side.

"It's always best to look at what's actually happening than believing propaganda, opinions and hating on one side."

Right! And that's why very few take your post seriously! 🤣

Just now, candide said:

"It's always best to look at what's actually happening than believing propaganda, opinions and hating on one side."

Right! And that's why very few take your post seriously! 🤣

Maybe because they do believe propaganda, opinions and hating, instead of waiting for the truth to appear.

4 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Maybe because they do believe propaganda, opinions and hating, instead of waiting for the truth to appear.

The truth is already known..

.https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2022/2/24/photos-russia-launches-full-scale-invasion-in-ukraine

14 minutes ago, candide said:

The truth is already known..

.https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2022/2/24/photos-russia-launches-full-scale-invasion-in-ukraine

The news is out every day, especially on US platforms, which some don't get right off. I was responding to the original OP, stating Ukraine is targeting Russia infrastructure, and it's applauded, but when the US hits some it's met with hostility.

37 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

The news is out every day, especially on US platforms, which some don't get right off. I was responding to the original OP, stating Ukraine is targeting Russia infrastructure, and it's applauded, but when the US hits some it's met with hostility.

Ukraine is defending itself.

Israel and the US.... no Sir.

Just now, Schoggibueb said:

Ukraine is defending itself.

Israel and the US.... no Sir.

Sure they are, and have been all along. Iran isn't sitting back without firing rockets and drone use. Seems a lot need a history lesson on what Iran's regime has done over the last 4 decades, unless of course they're terrorist sympathizers.

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Sure they are, and have been all along. Iran isn't sitting back without firing rockets and drone use. Seems a lot need a history lesson on what Iran's regime has done over the last 4 decades, unless of course they're terrorist sympathizers.

I think you need a history lesson on Iran, rather than your version with it's selective blindness.

Early Relations and the 1953 Coup

• Oil Nationalism: Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized Iran's oil industry in 1951, upsetting British economic control.

• Operation Ajax: The CIA and British intelligence orchestrated a coup in 1953 that removed Mossadegh and restored the pro-Western Shah.

• The Shah's Rule: The US backed the Shah for 25 years with military and police aid, while many Iranians suffered under his authoritarian rule.

Revolution and the Hostage Crisis

• 1979 Revolution: Public anger boiled over, forcing the Shah to flee and bringing Ayatollah Khomeini to power in an anti-Western theocracy.

• Embassy Takeover: Iranian students seized the US Embassy in Tehran and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days after the US admitted the exiled Shah for medical care.

• Severed Ties: Washington cut formal diplomatic relations in 1980, turning a close alliance into bitter enmity.

Proxy Wars and Regional Clashes

• Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988): The US provided economic and military intelligence support to Saddam Hussein’s Iraq during its invasion of Iran.

• Flight 655 (1988): The US Navy mistakenly shot down an Iranian civilian airliner, killing all 290 people on board.

Now...let's see your version.

Edited July 25Jul 25 by FigLeaf

48 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

The news is out every day, especially on US platforms, which some don't get right off. I was responding to the original OP, stating Ukraine is targeting Russia infrastructure, and it's applauded, but when the US hits some it's met with hostility.

Tell us about the attacks on the USA that pre-empted the USA attacking Iran.

The USA has no business attacking Iran in the first place. Not just that, but the USA is duty bound to stop giving aid to Israel if they have acquired nuclear weapons. Which is precisely why they don't confirm Israel has them.

Basically the USA bends the rules whenever it feels like it. But expects other to conform.

Funny how they come back with AI , things we already knew decades ago, thinking we didn't watch the news then. Forgetting of course what Iran's regime is responsible for these last 50 years, along with killing their own citizens by the thousands. Sympathizer it seems. Quite easy to use AI, without going to multiple links that say the same things. Some are simply too blind to see................https://2017-2021.state.gov/the-islamic-republic-of-iran-a-dangerous-regime/.

Since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran's regime has used state-sponsored terrorism and regional proxy warfare as central pillars of its foreign policy. Its primary actions include funding militant proxy groups, conducting direct international assassinations, and orchestrating large-scale bombings against foreign and domestic targets.

Proxy Warfare and Regional Militancy

• Hezbollah: Founded and heavily funded in Lebanon during the early 1980s through the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to carry out regional attacks.

• Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad: Provided extensive financial backing, weapons, and training to support attacks against Israel.

• Houthis: Armed and supported in Yemen, enabling missile and drone strikes on regional shipping lanes and neighboring countries.

Major Bombings and Direct Attacks

• 1983 US Embassy and Marine Barracks Bombings: Backed proxy operations in Beirut that killed over 300 American and French service members and diplomats.

• 1996 Khobar Towers Bombing: Directed the truck-bomb attack in Saudi Arabia via local proxies that killed 19 U.S. airmen.

• Global Assassination Campaigns: Hunted down and killed Iranian dissidents and political opponents across Europe and the Middle East throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

Maritime and Cyber Terrorism

• Shipping Sabotage: Seized commercial cargo ships and deployed naval mines in international waters around the Persian Gulf and Red Sea.

• Cyber Attacks: Launched disruptive cyber operations targeting critical infrastructure, government networks, and civilian targets globally. Here is only a partial record of the Iranian regime’s blood-soaked war on Americans:

  • November 1979: Iranian students, backed by the regime, seized  the U.S. Embassy in Tehran — taking 66 Americans hostage in a 444-day standoff .

  • April 1983: The Islamic Jihad, an Iran-backed terrorist group, carried out  a suicide car bombing at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 17 Americans.

  • October 1983: Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed  241 U.S. military personnel — including 220 U.S. Marines and 21 other service personnel — in a truck bombing at a Marine compound in Beirut.

  • March 1984: Iran-backed Islamic Jihad terrorists kidnapped  CIA station chief William Buckley on his way to work in Beirut, ultimately killing him the following year.

  • September 1984: Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed  23 innocent people — including  two American service members — in a car bomb attack at the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut.

  • December 1984: Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists hijacked  Kuwait Airways Flight 221 en route to Pakistan, diverting it to Tehran — where they brutally tortured and killed  two American officials.

  • June 1985: Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists hijacked  TWA Flight 847 on its way from Athens to Rome, torturing a U.S. Navy diver before shooting him point blank in the head and tossing his body onto the Beirut airport tarmac.

  • July 1989: Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed  U.S. Marine Col. William Higgins after kidnapping him the previous year while serving with a United Nations peacekeeping force in Lebanon.

  • April 1995: Iran-backed Islamic Jihad terrorists killed  eight people — including one American citizen — in a car bomb attack in the Gaza Strip.

  • August 1995: An Iran-backed Hamas suicide bomber blew up  a bus in Jerusalem, killing an American and three other passengers, and wounding more than 100 others.

  • February 1996: An Iran-backed Hamas suicide bomber blew up  another bus in Jerusalem, killing three Americans and wounding three other Americans.

  • March 1996: A suicide bomber linked to the Iran-backed Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist groups killed  20 people — including two Americans — in a suicide bombing at a Tel Aviv shopping center.

  • May 1996: Iran-backed terrorists killed  an American-Israeli dual citizen and wounded another American citizen in the West Bank.

  • June 1996: Iran-backed Hezbollah Al-Hijaz terrorists killed  19 U.S. Airmen and wounded nearly 500 others in a truck bombing at a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia.

  • September 1997: Iran-backed Hamas suicide bombers blew themselves up  at a shopping mall in Jerusalem, killing an American-Israeli dual citizen and wounding seven other American citizens.

  • August 1998: Al-Qaeda suicide bombers, facilitated  by Iran-backed Hezbollah, simultaneously bombed U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing  224 people — including a dozen American citizens.

  • August 2001: An Iran-backed Hamas terrorist blew up  a Jerusalem pizzeria, killing three Americans.

  • January 2002: An Iran-backed al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade terrorist killed  an American-Israeli dual citizen in the West Bank.

  • July 2002: An Iran-backed Hamas terrorist killed  five Americans in a bombing at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

  • June 2003: An Iran-backed Hamas suicide bomber killed  17 people — including an American citizen — on a bus in Jerusalem.

  • October 2003: Iran-backed Popular Resistance Committees terrorists killed  three U.S. diplomatic personnel in a bombing in Gaza.

  • Between 2003 and 2011: Iran-backed militias killed  at least 603 U.S. troops in Iraq — “roughly one in every six American combat fatalities in Iraq.”

  • August 2003: An Iran-backed Hamas terrorist blew up  a bus in Jerusalem, killing five Americans and wounding one other American.

  • August 2006: Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists killed  American citizen and Israel Defense Forces (IDF) soldier Michael Levin during the Second Lebanon War — the only American to die in the conflict.

  • January 2007: A dozen men affiliated with Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Quds Force killed  five U.S. soldiers and wounded three others in Karbala, Iraq, after disguising  themselves as U.S. soldiers and entering the Provincial Joint Coordination Center.

  • March 2007: Former FBI Agent Robert Levinson disappeared  in Iran, likely dying in an Iranian prison.

  • July 2014: Iran-backed Hamas terrorists killed  two American citizens serving in the IDF.

  • October 2015: Iran-backed Hamas terrorists killed  an American citizen and his wife in a drive-by shooting in the West Bank.

  • December 2019: Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah terrorists killed  an American civilian contractor and wounded several U.S. service members in a rocket attack at K1 Air Base in Kirkuk, Iraq.

  • January 2020: 109 U.S. troops suffered  traumatic brain injuries in an Iranian ballistic missile attack on the Ain al-Asad airbase in Iraq.

  • September 2020: U.S. intelligence indicated  the Iranian regime was considering a plot to assassinate the U.S. Ambassador to South Africa.

  • February 2021: An Iran-backed militia fired  a rocket at coalition forces in Erbil, Iraq, wounding a U.S. service member and four U.S. civilian contractors.

  • July 2021: Iranian-backed militias wounded  two U.S. service members in a series of rocket and drone attacks against U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria.

  • September 2022: An Iranian rocket attack killed  an American citizen in Iraqi Kurdistan.

  • November 2022: An IRGC captain orchestrated  the killing of an American citizen in Baghdad.

  • March 2023: An Iranian drone attack killed  an American contractor and wounded five U.S. service members and another contractor in a strike on a coalition base in Syria.

  • October 2023: Iran-backed Hamas terrorists killed  46 Americans and kidnapped at least 12 Americans in the October 7th massacre.

  • December 2023: Iran-backed militias wounded  three U.S. service members in an attack on Erbil Air Base in Iraq.

  • January 2024: Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah  terrorists killed  three U.S. service members and wounded more than 40 other service members in a drone attack against the Tower 22 military base in Jordan.

  • Between October 2023 and November 2024: Iran and its proxies conducted  more than 180 attacks against U.S. forces in the Middle East, wounding  more than 180 U.S. service members and killing three service members.

  • November 2024: An Iranian national and IRGC asset was charged  for plotting to assassinate President Trump.

  • June 2025: Iran-backed militias attacked  at least three U.S. bases in Syria and two U.S. bases  in Iraq. I'll add one link for those able to comprehend and not skim...............https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-iranian-revolution-and-its-legacy-of-terrorism/

Edited July 25Jul 25 by fredwiggy

3 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

unless of course they're terrorist sympathizers.

Seems you do cherry picking about terrorist sympathizers in history.

USA and their support of terrorists:

• The Mujahideen in Afghanistan (Operation Cyclone): Between 1979 and 1989, the CIA and Saudi Arabia financed Islamist "resistance fighters". Parts of these networks, and through the logistical "blowback," later gave rise to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

• The Contras in Nicaragua: In the 1980s, the Reagan administration funded and armed the "Contra rebels". The illegal continued funding led to the well-known Iran-Contra scandal.

• Cuban exile groups: During the Cold War, US intelligence agencies supported militant, anti-communist Cuban exiles. Among other actions, they carried out bombings targeting civilian passenger aircraft (such as Cubana Flight 455 in 1976) and hotels.

• Operation Timber Sycamore: This CIA program funneled billions of dollars to Syrian "rebel groups" for weapons and training. Much of this weapons and money ended up directly in the hands of jihadist terrorist groups like the al-Nusra Front (then al-Qaeda's Syrian branch) through desertion, theft, or alliances of convenience.

  International observers accuse the USA of selectively using the term "terrorism" as a foreign policy tool and labeling its own support for paramilitaries - which violates international law - as a "struggle for freedom."

2 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said:

Seems you do cherry picking about terrorist sympathizers in history.

USA and their support of terrorists:

• The Mujahideen in Afghanistan (Operation Cyclone): Between 1979 and 1989, the CIA and Saudi Arabia financed Islamist "resistance fighters". Parts of these networks, and through the logistical "blowback," later gave rise to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.

• The Contras in Nicaragua: In the 1980s, the Reagan administration funded and armed the "Contra rebels". The illegal continued funding led to the well-known Iran-Contra scandal.

• Cuban exile groups: During the Cold War, US intelligence agencies supported militant, anti-communist Cuban exiles. Among other actions, they carried out bombings targeting civilian passenger aircraft (such as Cubana Flight 455 in 1976) and hotels.

• Operation Timber Sycamore: This CIA program funneled billions of dollars to Syrian "rebel groups" for weapons and training. Much of this weapons and money ended up directly in the hands of jihadist terrorist groups like the al-Nusra Front (then al-Qaeda's Syrian branch) through desertion, theft, or alliances of convenience.

  International observers accuse the USA of selectively using the term "terrorism" as a foreign policy tool and labeling its own support for paramilitaries - which violates international law - as a "struggle for freedom."

Another one blind to the truth, so I'll add more of what Iran's done

Never a good idea to assume what Americans know about American things done over the centuries................

Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade

Following the Revolution

Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has employed terrorism as one of

its central strategic tools. Over the years, Iran has armed, trained, financed,

organized, and supported various terrorist organizations worldwide, in

addition to directly conducting terrorist operations through its agents. Iranian

support for terrorism has not been geographically limited to neighboring

states but extended globally—including the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and

South America. This chapter examines Iran’s use of terrorism during the

first decade of the Islamic Republic, highlighting the objectives it sought to

achieve. It is crucial to emphasize from the outset that Iran often employed

terrorism simultaneously with other, more legitimate methods, such as

diplomacy, to achieve its goals.

Iran’s objectives in employing terrorism are interconnected. These include

ideological-religious objectives and revolutionary zeal—for example, exporting

the Islamic Revolution and advancing Khomeini’s worldview, which placed

jihad and martyrdom at the ideological forefront; advancing Iranian foreign

policy objectives, especially when peaceful means failed; pursuing interests

against hostile regional and international states; and ensuring regime survival

and stability. These objectives frequently overlapped; for example, exporting

the Islamic Revolution often coincided with Iranian actions against neighboring

states, while ensuring regime stability involved confronting regional and

international adversaries.

Iran’s Use of Terrorism to Export the Revolution

Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran identified exporting the revolution

as a central goal of its foreign policy. Iran’s clerical leadership considered

22

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

supporting revolution in other countries as part of their revolutionary duty.

Terrorism became a convenient and effective tool for advancing revolutionary

Iranian interests, justified under the guise of support for liberation and

resistance movements. As Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini stated

shortly after ascending to power: “We must strive to export our revolution to

the world…we will confront the world through our ideology” (Byman, 2008,

p.170). The constitution of the Islamic Republic and the founding charter of

the Revolutionary Guards explicitly mandate the organization to support

“freedom-seeking movements” to export the Islamic Revolution beyond

Iran (Mansharof, 2019).

Raz Zimmt identifies three principal approaches in the 1980s regarding the

export of the revolution. The first argued for promoting revolutionary values

strictly within Iran’s national borders. A second supported the principle of

exporting the revolution, but advocated for achieving this by establishing

Iran as an exemplary state to serve as a model for others. A third approach,

predominantly supported by radical clerics, argued for exporting the revolution

beyond Iran through maintaining a continuous struggle against regional

“oppressive regimes,” employing all available means, including violence and

supplying weapons to Islamist liberation movements. Following the takeover

of the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979, the third approach gained

prominence, manifesting in the use and support of terrorism to export the

revolution (Zimmt, 2024a).

As noted, Iran employed various means to export its revolution, including

presenting itself as a model for emulation, employing extensive informational

and propaganda efforts, as well as supporting and even directly engaging in

terrorism. In addition to carrying out terrorist operations itself, Iran encouraged

radical movements, supported the establishment of revolutionary Islamist

groups, and deployed forces from the Revolutionary Guards to Lebanon to

form a local Shiite militia aligned with its ideology. Several obstacles prevented

Khomeini’s worldview from achieving significant influence or becoming a

23

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

dominant movement within Islam through informational and propaganda

methods. Among these obstacles were the revolutionary regime’s failure to

effectively address Iran’s economic and social issues, diminishing its appeal

as a model to emulate. Moreover, governments in Muslim-majority states

feared the rise of radical religious movements and thus actively suppressed

them. Additionally, the promotion of Khomeini’s ideology encountered

objective difficulties due to its adoption primarily by the Shiite minority

within the predominantly Sunni Muslim world. These challenges gradually

made clandestine activities to disseminate Khomeini’s ideology and the use

of terrorism central instruments for achieving the objectives of the Iranian

regime (Shay, 2001).

Khomeini’s worldview sought to disregard the religious differences between

Sunnis and Shiites as well as national distinctions, aspiring instead to create a

unified revolutionary Islamic force. In his view, this vision justified interference

in the internal affairs of other Muslim states and societies (Shay, 2001). While

publicly claiming to respect the sovereignty of Sunni regimes in the Middle

East, in practice, Iran actively sought their overthrow and replacement with

Islamist regimes, blatantly violating their sovereignty—as demonstrated by

the failed coup attempts in Bahrain in 1981 and Kuwait in 1985 (Mansharof,

2019). Additionally, Iran pursued the export of its revolution by establishing

Shiite militias in countries such as Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Afghanistan,

and Yemen (Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, 2012b).

Beyond the importance of exporting revolution through terrorism, it is crucial

to note that post-revolutionary Iran was deeply rooted in Khomeini’s Islamic

worldview and ideology. Beyond supporting and advocating for “revolutionary

violence,” this ideology placed jihad and martyrdom (Istishhadiya) at its

ideological forefront. Iran utilized this doctrine during the Iran-Iraq War and

continued to encourage and support suicide bombings, which became a

prominent feature of Iranian-inspired Shiite terrorism in Lebanon during

the 1980s (Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, 2003). Khomeini

24

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

strategically leveraged the Battle of Karbala and the legacy of Muhammad

Hussein ibn Ali—who holds a central position in Shiite tradition—to cultivate

a culture that sanctifies self-sacrifice in pursuit of its objectives. He seized

every available opportunity to glorify his death- and destruction-oriented

doctrine, using media platforms and Friday sermons to disseminate his

ideology. Consequently, suicide bombings became central to Iran’s strategic

approach, both in the context of the Iran-Iraq War and the terrorist campaigns

supported by Iran, notably the Shiite attacks in Lebanon (Zahed, 2017). Inspired

by Khomeini’s revolution, Hezbollah significantly contributed to the global

proliferation of modern suicide terrorism by becoming the first terrorist

organization to systematically integrate suicide attacks into its operations. Over

time, suicide terrorism became a model that was emulated and adopted by

other terrorist organizations worldwide (Schweitzer & Goldstein Ferber, 2005).

Iranian Use of Terrorism to Implement Foreign Policy

Alongside exporting the Islamic Revolution, Iran employed terrorism to advance

its foreign policy objectives, especially when it could not achieve its goals

through conventional diplomatic means. The timing of terrorist operations

was carefully chosen to influence political processes during negotiations or

to initiate or facilitate such negotiations. It is essential to emphasize that

although Iranian terrorist activities are frequently viewed as pragmatically

driven by specific Iranian interests, other significant factors have also played a

role in shaping these actions. The use of terrorism internationally has been a

significant source of contention among Iran’s leadership, particularly between

“moderates” and “radicals.” The radicals advocate for an uncompromising

stance against the regime’s enemies, supporting a broader and more extensive

use of terrorism. Consequently, the scope and objectives of terrorism have

often reflected internal power struggles within the Iranian regime. As a

result, Iran has frequently adopted an ambivalent policy wherein moderates

publicly supported negotiations and compromises, while radicals continued

25

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

to conduct terrorist operations, sometimes even undermining the moderates’

initiatives. This ambivalent approach has provided Iran with flexibility in

political maneuvers during negotiations, complicating its adversaries’ efforts

to justify hardline responses to Iranian terrorism (Shay, 2014).

Moreover, Iran has employed terrorism to pursue interests against hostile

states, both regionally and internationally, independently from diplomatic

negotiations. Immediately following the revolution, Iran prioritized cooperation

with Shiite movements globally. In many Muslim-majority states, Shiites

were marginalized and oppressed communities, and the Iranian revolution

inspired many to take action and seek Iranian support. Consequently, Iran

supported Shiite groups in Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait,

and other states (Byman, 2008). While not every instance of such support

involved terrorism, it often facilitated terrorist activities. Lebanon serves

as a prominent example, where Iran successfully established Hezbollah,

transforming it over the years from a marginal terrorist organization into a

semi-state military force with considerable capabilities against Israel on the

one hand, and significant influence within Lebanese domestic politics on the

other. Hezbollah also recruited, trained, and directed terrorist organizations in

Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Nigeria. Throughout the 1980s, Hezbollah perpetrated

numerous bombings in Lebanon, notably against the US Marine barracks

and the French military headquarters in Beirut (October 1983), as well as

kidnapping American civilians, all during its ongoing conflict with Israel and

the Israeli presence in Lebanon (Silinsky, 2021).

Iran’s actions naturally generated significant hostility among its neighbors,

who responded by condemning Tehran, restricting or suspending trade,

forming anti-Iranian alliances, and generally seeking to weaken and isolate

the new regime. This response was intensified by these states’ support

for Iraq during the Gulf conflict, creating a strategic rivalry between Iran

and many neighboring countries. In this context, terrorism and subversion

became primary instruments in Iran’s arsenal. At this stage, Iran supported

26

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

subversive movements not only for the ideological purpose of spreading the

Islamic Revolution or undermining illegitimate regimes but also strategically

as leverage in conflicts with neighboring states (Byman, 2008). Thus, terrorism

has served as a complementary tool alongside other measures available

to the Iranian regime to advance its interests—sometimes in tandem with

diplomatic actions, and in other cases, particularly against hostile regimes,

as an alternative to diplomacy.

Much of Iran’s terrorist activity in this context was directed against Saudi

Arabia and Kuwait, where numerous attacks were carried out by local Shiite

militants and against targets of these states worldwide. In many cases, direct

Iranian involvement could not be conclusively proven, enabling Iran to deny

involvement and formally maintain diplomatic relations while carrying out

covert operations. Examples include car bombings near the French and

American embassies in Kuwait, as well as bombings at Kuwaiti public facilities

in December 1983 (conducted with Hezbollah operatives’ involvement).

Another example is the hijacking of a Kuwaiti aircraft in December 1984 by

Hezbollah, who landed it in Tehran. Additional examples include a series

of bombings by Iranian agents operating under various aliases, just days

before the Islamic Conference convened in Kuwait in January 1987, and

the bombing of a vehicle belonging to the Saudi ambassador to Morocco in

1987, which Iranian agents openly claimed responsibility for. Other notable

incidents include the bombing of an Aramco gas facility in Saudi Arabia in

August 1987 and bomb attacks near the Saudi bank in Paris on September 8,

1987, and near the Kuwaiti-French bank on September 10, 1987. From March

to April 1988, there was a series of attacks targeting offices of Saudi airlines

across several countries in the Far East. These are a mere selection of the

many such examples (Shay, 2001).

It should also be mentioned that Iran used terrorism as an auxiliary tool in

its military struggle against Iraq and its allies. Here, terrorism served Iran on

two levels: first, by conducting terrorist acts against Iraqi targets both within

27

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

Iraq and globally; and second, by attacking countries identified as supporters

of the Iraqi war effort, such as France (Intelligence and Terrorism Information

Center, 2003). Furthermore, during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran engaged in what

could be defined as “maritime terrorism.” During the conflict, Iranian vessels

attacked commercial shipping in the Gulf. Iran also planted sea mines in

maritime trade routes. Usually, these tactics would be regarded as acts of war

rather than terrorism. Yet, such activities could still be classified as maritime

terrorism because they were conducted by individuals not in uniform and they

targeted civilian, unarmed nationals from states not directly involved in the

conflict. These actions demonstrate Iran’s willingness to use unconventional

methods to advance its political and military strategies (Sick, 2003).

Iranian terrorism against France did not solely stem from France’s support

for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War; additional sources of tension included France

hosting Iranian opposition groups, its support for Israel during the First Lebanon

War, France’s overall diplomatic and military involvement in Lebanon, and

its involvement in Chad against Libya, Iran’s ally during the war with Iraq.

Iranian activity against France operated across multiple arenas. In Lebanon,

it conducted terrorism through local Shiite proxies, primarily Hezbollah, with

support from the Revolutionary Guards, aiming to expel French forces from

Lebanon, diminish France’s influence there, and shift its stance regarding

Lebanese allies. A prominent example was the car bombing targeting the

French military headquarters in Beirut in October 1983. Another avenue was

the hijacking of French aircrafts worldwide, such as the hijacking of Air France

flights in August 1983 and July 1984. A third front comprised terrorist attacks

on French soil targeting Iranian exiles and opposition groups who sought

refuge there. Additional bombings against French targets were also carried

out both domestically and internationally. A notable example is the series of

bombings in France between 1985-1987, conducted by a pro-Iranian network

linked to Hezbollah, led by Fouad Ali Saleh (Shay, 2001). Kuwait, similarly,

28

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

was a target due to its position on the Iran-Iraq war and its assistance to Iraq

(Shay, 2014).

In this context, it is essential to note that terrorism was also a tool in Iran’s

struggle against perceived enemies of its regime, primarily the United States

and Israel (Byman, 2008). Khomeini famously labeled the U.S. as the “Great

Satan,” accusing it of seeking to destroy Islam and the Islamic Republic.

Meanwhile, Israel was branded the “Little Satan,” and calls for its destruction

have been recurrent themes among Iranian clerics and supporters (Silinsky,

2021). On November 1, 1979, Khomeini delivered a speech urging revolutionary

students to intensify demonstrations against the U.S. and marked November

4 as an appropriate day for such action. Accordingly, on that day, “Muslim

Student Followers of the Imam’s Line” seized the American Embassy in Tehran,

holding diplomats hostage. The crisis ended with a negotiated agreement

after over a year, but the Iranians had learnt an important lesson—the value

of terrorism to achieve political goals vis-à-vis the U.S.

One of Iran’s initial aims was the removal of American forces from Lebanon.

In 1983-1984, a series of suicide bombings against U.S. targets in Lebanon

and Kuwait indeed led to the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Lebanon. Even

after the withdrawal, the United States remained a primary target of Iranian

terrorism. In the absence of available American military targets in Lebanon,

Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah operations shifted toward attacking U.S.

embassies, kidnapping American citizens, and hijacking airplanes, such as

the TWA hijacking in June 1985. Relations significantly deteriorated during

the “Tanker War” in the Persian Gulf in 1987, when the deployment of the U.S.

Navy to ensure freedom of navigation led to confrontations between American

and Iranian forces, resulting in Iranian assets and vessels being damaged.

Iran, in turn, threatened and carried out retaliatory terrorist attacks against

American targets, including hostage-taking and attempts to bomb American

civilian aircraft (Shay, 2001).

29

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

Regarding Israel, from the outset, the Iranian regime identified it as a key

enemy. Iran’s steadfast opposition to Israel and its support for various terrorist

groups against Israel allowed Iran not only to project military strength but

also to brand itself and underscore its Islamic character, winning widespread

support even in unexpected quarters. While several Arab states signed peace

agreements with Israel, Iran consistently portrayed itself as resolute, defiant,

and powerful in opposition to Israel—strengthening its standing in the Arab

and Muslim world (Takeyh, 2006).

Since establishing the Islamic regime, Iranian leaders have never missed an

opportunity to condemn Israel and criticize most Muslim states for insufficient

determination against it. Khomeini promised assistance to anyone willing

to fight Israel. Besides deploying Revolutionary Guard units in Lebanon to

combat Israel and the U.S., Iranian actors strengthened the Amal militia and

established Hezbollah, using both to launch terrorist attacks against Israeli

and Western targets to advance Iranian interests in Lebanon. Despite Iran and

its Shiite proxies’ firm stance against Israel, during this period, they generally

avoided initiating attacks against Israeli targets worldwide or within Israeli

borders. However, Hezbollah kidnapped and killed several Lebanese Jews to

pressure Israel into releasing imprisoned Shiites. Additionally, kidnappings

of Western hostages and airplane hijackings occasionally included demands

to free Shiite detainees held by Israel (Shay, 2001; Takeyh, 2006).

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that besides weakening neighbors through

terrorism, Iran utilized terrorism to project power far beyond its borders.

Given Iran’s limited conventional economic and military capabilities—which

severely constrained its diplomatic options—terrorism became a tool of

influence and leverage in arenas where Iran would otherwise have struggled,

effectively supporting its broader foreign policy objectives (Byman, 200.

Edited July 25Jul 25 by fredwiggy

23 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Sure they are, and have been all along. Iran isn't sitting back without firing rockets and drone use. Seems a lot need a history lesson on what Iran's regime has done over the last 4 decades, unless of course they're terrorist sympathizers.

Of course, a lame false equivalence! Did Iran invade the US? 😃

1 minute ago, candide said:

Of course, a lame false equivalence! Did Iran invade the US? 😃

No, they killed many outside of the US, as you can read above. Also dismissing all of what Iran was preparing for and doing to it's own people all along. Nothing to do with lame but facts.

2 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Another one blind to the truth, so I'll add more of what Iran's done...............Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade

Following the Revolution

Since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Iran has employed terrorism as one of

its central strategic tools. Over the years, Iran has armed, trained, financed,

organized, and supported various terrorist organizations worldwide, in

addition to directly conducting terrorist operations through its agents. Iranian

support for terrorism has not been geographically limited to neighboring

states but extended globally—including the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and

South America. This chapter examines Iran’s use of terrorism during the

first decade of the Islamic Republic, highlighting the objectives it sought to

achieve. It is crucial to emphasize from the outset that Iran often employed

terrorism simultaneously with other, more legitimate methods, such as

diplomacy, to achieve its goals.

Iran’s objectives in employing terrorism are interconnected. These include

ideological-religious objectives and revolutionary zeal—for example, exporting

the Islamic Revolution and advancing Khomeini’s worldview, which placed

jihad and martyrdom at the ideological forefront; advancing Iranian foreign

policy objectives, especially when peaceful means failed; pursuing interests

against hostile regional and international states; and ensuring regime survival

and stability. These objectives frequently overlapped; for example, exporting

the Islamic Revolution often coincided with Iranian actions against neighboring

states, while ensuring regime stability involved confronting regional and

international adversaries.

Iran’s Use of Terrorism to Export the Revolution

Following the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran identified exporting the revolution

as a central goal of its foreign policy. Iran’s clerical leadership considered

22

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

supporting revolution in other countries as part of their revolutionary duty.

Terrorism became a convenient and effective tool for advancing revolutionary

Iranian interests, justified under the guise of support for liberation and

resistance movements. As Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini stated

shortly after ascending to power: “We must strive to export our revolution to

the world…we will confront the world through our ideology” (Byman, 2008,

p.170). The constitution of the Islamic Republic and the founding charter of

the Revolutionary Guards explicitly mandate the organization to support

“freedom-seeking movements” to export the Islamic Revolution beyond

Iran (Mansharof, 2019).

Raz Zimmt identifies three principal approaches in the 1980s regarding the

export of the revolution. The first argued for promoting revolutionary values

strictly within Iran’s national borders. A second supported the principle of

exporting the revolution, but advocated for achieving this by establishing

Iran as an exemplary state to serve as a model for others. A third approach,

predominantly supported by radical clerics, argued for exporting the revolution

beyond Iran through maintaining a continuous struggle against regional

“oppressive regimes,” employing all available means, including violence and

supplying weapons to Islamist liberation movements. Following the takeover

of the US embassy in Tehran in November 1979, the third approach gained

prominence, manifesting in the use and support of terrorism to export the

revolution (Zimmt, 2024a).

As noted, Iran employed various means to export its revolution, including

presenting itself as a model for emulation, employing extensive informational

and propaganda efforts, as well as supporting and even directly engaging in

terrorism. In addition to carrying out terrorist operations itself, Iran encouraged

radical movements, supported the establishment of revolutionary Islamist

groups, and deployed forces from the Revolutionary Guards to Lebanon to

form a local Shiite militia aligned with its ideology. Several obstacles prevented

Khomeini’s worldview from achieving significant influence or becoming a

23

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

dominant movement within Islam through informational and propaganda

methods. Among these obstacles were the revolutionary regime’s failure to

effectively address Iran’s economic and social issues, diminishing its appeal

as a model to emulate. Moreover, governments in Muslim-majority states

feared the rise of radical religious movements and thus actively suppressed

them. Additionally, the promotion of Khomeini’s ideology encountered

objective difficulties due to its adoption primarily by the Shiite minority

within the predominantly Sunni Muslim world. These challenges gradually

made clandestine activities to disseminate Khomeini’s ideology and the use

of terrorism central instruments for achieving the objectives of the Iranian

regime (Shay, 2001).

Khomeini’s worldview sought to disregard the religious differences between

Sunnis and Shiites as well as national distinctions, aspiring instead to create a

unified revolutionary Islamic force. In his view, this vision justified interference

in the internal affairs of other Muslim states and societies (Shay, 2001). While

publicly claiming to respect the sovereignty of Sunni regimes in the Middle

East, in practice, Iran actively sought their overthrow and replacement with

Islamist regimes, blatantly violating their sovereignty—as demonstrated by

the failed coup attempts in Bahrain in 1981 and Kuwait in 1985 (Mansharof,

2019). Additionally, Iran pursued the export of its revolution by establishing

Shiite militias in countries such as Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Pakistan, Afghanistan,

and Yemen (Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, 2012b).

Beyond the importance of exporting revolution through terrorism, it is crucial

to note that post-revolutionary Iran was deeply rooted in Khomeini’s Islamic

worldview and ideology. Beyond supporting and advocating for “revolutionary

violence,” this ideology placed jihad and martyrdom (Istishhadiya) at its

ideological forefront. Iran utilized this doctrine during the Iran-Iraq War and

continued to encourage and support suicide bombings, which became a

prominent feature of Iranian-inspired Shiite terrorism in Lebanon during

the 1980s (Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, 2003). Khomeini

24

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

strategically leveraged the Battle of Karbala and the legacy of Muhammad

Hussein ibn Ali—who holds a central position in Shiite tradition—to cultivate

a culture that sanctifies self-sacrifice in pursuit of its objectives. He seized

every available opportunity to glorify his death- and destruction-oriented

doctrine, using media platforms and Friday sermons to disseminate his

ideology. Consequently, suicide bombings became central to Iran’s strategic

approach, both in the context of the Iran-Iraq War and the terrorist campaigns

supported by Iran, notably the Shiite attacks in Lebanon (Zahed, 2017). Inspired

by Khomeini’s revolution, Hezbollah significantly contributed to the global

proliferation of modern suicide terrorism by becoming the first terrorist

organization to systematically integrate suicide attacks into its operations. Over

time, suicide terrorism became a model that was emulated and adopted by

other terrorist organizations worldwide (Schweitzer & Goldstein Ferber, 2005).

Iranian Use of Terrorism to Implement Foreign Policy

Alongside exporting the Islamic Revolution, Iran employed terrorism to advance

its foreign policy objectives, especially when it could not achieve its goals

through conventional diplomatic means. The timing of terrorist operations

was carefully chosen to influence political processes during negotiations or

to initiate or facilitate such negotiations. It is essential to emphasize that

although Iranian terrorist activities are frequently viewed as pragmatically

driven by specific Iranian interests, other significant factors have also played a

role in shaping these actions. The use of terrorism internationally has been a

significant source of contention among Iran’s leadership, particularly between

“moderates” and “radicals.” The radicals advocate for an uncompromising

stance against the regime’s enemies, supporting a broader and more extensive

use of terrorism. Consequently, the scope and objectives of terrorism have

often reflected internal power struggles within the Iranian regime. As a

result, Iran has frequently adopted an ambivalent policy wherein moderates

publicly supported negotiations and compromises, while radicals continued

25

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

to conduct terrorist operations, sometimes even undermining the moderates’

initiatives. This ambivalent approach has provided Iran with flexibility in

political maneuvers during negotiations, complicating its adversaries’ efforts

to justify hardline responses to Iranian terrorism (Shay, 2014).

Moreover, Iran has employed terrorism to pursue interests against hostile

states, both regionally and internationally, independently from diplomatic

negotiations. Immediately following the revolution, Iran prioritized cooperation

with Shiite movements globally. In many Muslim-majority states, Shiites

were marginalized and oppressed communities, and the Iranian revolution

inspired many to take action and seek Iranian support. Consequently, Iran

supported Shiite groups in Iraq, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Kuwait,

and other states (Byman, 2008). While not every instance of such support

involved terrorism, it often facilitated terrorist activities. Lebanon serves

as a prominent example, where Iran successfully established Hezbollah,

transforming it over the years from a marginal terrorist organization into a

semi-state military force with considerable capabilities against Israel on the

one hand, and significant influence within Lebanese domestic politics on the

other. Hezbollah also recruited, trained, and directed terrorist organizations in

Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Nigeria. Throughout the 1980s, Hezbollah perpetrated

numerous bombings in Lebanon, notably against the US Marine barracks

and the French military headquarters in Beirut (October 1983), as well as

kidnapping American civilians, all during its ongoing conflict with Israel and

the Israeli presence in Lebanon (Silinsky, 2021).

Iran’s actions naturally generated significant hostility among its neighbors,

who responded by condemning Tehran, restricting or suspending trade,

forming anti-Iranian alliances, and generally seeking to weaken and isolate

the new regime. This response was intensified by these states’ support

for Iraq during the Gulf conflict, creating a strategic rivalry between Iran

and many neighboring countries. In this context, terrorism and subversion

became primary instruments in Iran’s arsenal. At this stage, Iran supported

26

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

subversive movements not only for the ideological purpose of spreading the

Islamic Revolution or undermining illegitimate regimes but also strategically

as leverage in conflicts with neighboring states (Byman, 2008). Thus, terrorism

has served as a complementary tool alongside other measures available

to the Iranian regime to advance its interests—sometimes in tandem with

diplomatic actions, and in other cases, particularly against hostile regimes,

as an alternative to diplomacy.

Much of Iran’s terrorist activity in this context was directed against Saudi

Arabia and Kuwait, where numerous attacks were carried out by local Shiite

militants and against targets of these states worldwide. In many cases, direct

Iranian involvement could not be conclusively proven, enabling Iran to deny

involvement and formally maintain diplomatic relations while carrying out

covert operations. Examples include car bombings near the French and

American embassies in Kuwait, as well as bombings at Kuwaiti public facilities

in December 1983 (conducted with Hezbollah operatives’ involvement).

Another example is the hijacking of a Kuwaiti aircraft in December 1984 by

Hezbollah, who landed it in Tehran. Additional examples include a series

of bombings by Iranian agents operating under various aliases, just days

before the Islamic Conference convened in Kuwait in January 1987, and

the bombing of a vehicle belonging to the Saudi ambassador to Morocco in

1987, which Iranian agents openly claimed responsibility for. Other notable

incidents include the bombing of an Aramco gas facility in Saudi Arabia in

August 1987 and bomb attacks near the Saudi bank in Paris on September 8,

1987, and near the Kuwaiti-French bank on September 10, 1987. From March

to April 1988, there was a series of attacks targeting offices of Saudi airlines

across several countries in the Far East. These are a mere selection of the

many such examples (Shay, 2001).

It should also be mentioned that Iran used terrorism as an auxiliary tool in

its military struggle against Iraq and its allies. Here, terrorism served Iran on

two levels: first, by conducting terrorist acts against Iraqi targets both within

27

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

Iraq and globally; and second, by attacking countries identified as supporters

of the Iraqi war effort, such as France (Intelligence and Terrorism Information

Center, 2003). Furthermore, during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran engaged in what

could be defined as “maritime terrorism.” During the conflict, Iranian vessels

attacked commercial shipping in the Gulf. Iran also planted sea mines in

maritime trade routes. Usually, these tactics would be regarded as acts of war

rather than terrorism. Yet, such activities could still be classified as maritime

terrorism because they were conducted by individuals not in uniform and they

targeted civilian, unarmed nationals from states not directly involved in the

conflict. These actions demonstrate Iran’s willingness to use unconventional

methods to advance its political and military strategies (Sick, 2003).

Iranian terrorism against France did not solely stem from France’s support

for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War; additional sources of tension included France

hosting Iranian opposition groups, its support for Israel during the First Lebanon

War, France’s overall diplomatic and military involvement in Lebanon, and

its involvement in Chad against Libya, Iran’s ally during the war with Iraq.

Iranian activity against France operated across multiple arenas. In Lebanon,

it conducted terrorism through local Shiite proxies, primarily Hezbollah, with

support from the Revolutionary Guards, aiming to expel French forces from

Lebanon, diminish France’s influence there, and shift its stance regarding

Lebanese allies. A prominent example was the car bombing targeting the

French military headquarters in Beirut in October 1983. Another avenue was

the hijacking of French aircrafts worldwide, such as the hijacking of Air France

flights in August 1983 and July 1984. A third front comprised terrorist attacks

on French soil targeting Iranian exiles and opposition groups who sought

refuge there. Additional bombings against French targets were also carried

out both domestically and internationally. A notable example is the series of

bombings in France between 1985-1987, conducted by a pro-Iranian network

linked to Hezbollah, led by Fouad Ali Saleh (Shay, 2001). Kuwait, similarly,

28

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

was a target due to its position on the Iran-Iraq war and its assistance to Iraq

(Shay, 2014).

In this context, it is essential to note that terrorism was also a tool in Iran’s

struggle against perceived enemies of its regime, primarily the United States

and Israel (Byman, 2008). Khomeini famously labeled the U.S. as the “Great

Satan,” accusing it of seeking to destroy Islam and the Islamic Republic.

Meanwhile, Israel was branded the “Little Satan,” and calls for its destruction

have been recurrent themes among Iranian clerics and supporters (Silinsky,

2021). On November 1, 1979, Khomeini delivered a speech urging revolutionary

students to intensify demonstrations against the U.S. and marked November

4 as an appropriate day for such action. Accordingly, on that day, “Muslim

Student Followers of the Imam’s Line” seized the American Embassy in Tehran,

holding diplomats hostage. The crisis ended with a negotiated agreement

after over a year, but the Iranians had learnt an important lesson—the value

of terrorism to achieve political goals vis-à-vis the U.S.

One of Iran’s initial aims was the removal of American forces from Lebanon.

In 1983-1984, a series of suicide bombings against U.S. targets in Lebanon

and Kuwait indeed led to the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Lebanon. Even

after the withdrawal, the United States remained a primary target of Iranian

terrorism. In the absence of available American military targets in Lebanon,

Iranian-sponsored Hezbollah operations shifted toward attacking U.S.

embassies, kidnapping American citizens, and hijacking airplanes, such as

the TWA hijacking in June 1985. Relations significantly deteriorated during

the “Tanker War” in the Persian Gulf in 1987, when the deployment of the U.S.

Navy to ensure freedom of navigation led to confrontations between American

and Iranian forces, resulting in Iranian assets and vessels being damaged.

Iran, in turn, threatened and carried out retaliatory terrorist attacks against

American targets, including hostage-taking and attempts to bomb American

civilian aircraft (Shay, 2001).

29

Chapter 2: Evolution of Iranian Use of Terrorism in the Decade Following the Revolution

Regarding Israel, from the outset, the Iranian regime identified it as a key

enemy. Iran’s steadfast opposition to Israel and its support for various terrorist

groups against Israel allowed Iran not only to project military strength but

also to brand itself and underscore its Islamic character, winning widespread

support even in unexpected quarters. While several Arab states signed peace

agreements with Israel, Iran consistently portrayed itself as resolute, defiant,

and powerful in opposition to Israel—strengthening its standing in the Arab

and Muslim world (Takeyh, 2006).

Since establishing the Islamic regime, Iranian leaders have never missed an

opportunity to condemn Israel and criticize most Muslim states for insufficient

determination against it. Khomeini promised assistance to anyone willing

to fight Israel. Besides deploying Revolutionary Guard units in Lebanon to

combat Israel and the U.S., Iranian actors strengthened the Amal militia and

established Hezbollah, using both to launch terrorist attacks against Israeli

and Western targets to advance Iranian interests in Lebanon. Despite Iran and

its Shiite proxies’ firm stance against Israel, during this period, they generally

avoided initiating attacks against Israeli targets worldwide or within Israeli

borders. However, Hezbollah kidnapped and killed several Lebanese Jews to

pressure Israel into releasing imprisoned Shiites. Additionally, kidnappings

of Western hostages and airplane hijackings occasionally included demands

to free Shiite detainees held by Israel (Shay, 2001; Takeyh, 2006).

Finally, it’s worth mentioning that besides weakening neighbors through

terrorism, Iran utilized terrorism to project power far beyond its borders.

Given Iran’s limited conventional economic and military capabilities—which

severely constrained its diplomatic options—terrorism became a tool of

influence and leverage in arenas where Iran would otherwise have struggled,

effectively supporting its broader foreign policy objectives (Byman, 200.

So no answer on the support of the US to terrorist groups.

Quite a few show up in your "answer", just a copy of yours out of a - whatever - were you didn't even take the time to bring it to a readable format.

11 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

No, they killed many outside of the US, as you can read above. Also dismissing all of what Iran was preparing for and doing to it's own people all along. Nothing to do with lame but facts.

So, unlike Russia, they did not invade another country. You posted an obvious false equivalence!

BTW, as you mentioned them, how does the US bombing civilian infrastructure improve the situation of oppressed civilians in Iran?

29 minutes ago, candide said:

So, unlike Russia, they did not invade another country. You posted an obvious false equivalence!

BTW, as you mentioned them, how does the US bombing civilian infrastructure improve the situation of oppressed civilians in Iran?

Any civilian casualties are wrong, but they happen. Going back to what I originally said about the OP. The Ukraine is targeting Russian infrastructure and some are applauding it, while they are hard against when America does it. No one has said what can be done about Iran's citizens besides trying to stop Iran's terrorist regime. Things don't always go as planned in wars. Dismissing what Iran's done is turning a blind eye to terrorism. Live in Iran as a citizen, most of whom don't want the regime as it is. and you might change your thinking.

50 minutes ago, Schoggibueb said:

So no answer on the support of the US to terrorist groups.

Quite a few show up in your "answer", just a copy of yours out of a - whatever - were you didn't even take the time to bring it to a readable format.

It's readable if you take your time ,and want to know the truth. it's also available on multiple links online.

12 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

It's readable if you take your time ,and want to know the truth. it's also available on multiple links online.

No answer of yours on the support of the US to terrorist groups.

Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iran-Contra scandal, Operation Timber Sycamore: This CIA program funneled billions of dollars to Syrian "rebel groups" for weapons and training. Much of this weapons and money ended up directly in the hands of jihadist terrorist groups like the al-Nusra Front (then al-Qaeda's Syrian branch).

Your fantastic "history lessons" about Iran are whataboutism, so lets to come back to the origin...

---

The Ukraine is defending itself.

Russia is the agressor. Your - "we will see later if that is true " - is ridiculous.

20 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Any civilian casualties are wrong, but they happen. Going back to what I originally said about the OP. The Ukraine is targeting Russian infrastructure and some are applauding it, while they are hard against when America does it. No one has said what can be done about Iran's citizens besides trying to stop Iran's terrorist regime. Things don't always go as planned in wars. Dismissing what Iran's done is turning a blind eye to terrorism. Live in Iran as a citizen, most of whom don't want the regime as it is. and you might change your thinking.

20 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Any civilian casualties are wrong, but they happen. Going back to what I originally said about the OP. The Ukraine is targeting Russian infrastructure and some are applauding it, while they are hard against when America does it. No one has said what can be done about Iran's citizens besides trying to stop Iran's terrorist regime. Things don't always go as planned in wars. Dismissing what Iran's done is turning a blind eye to terrorism. Live in Iran as a citizen, most of whom don't want the regime as it is. and you might change your thinking.

20 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Any civilian casualties are wrong, but they happen. Going back to what I originally said about the OP. The Ukraine is targeting Russian infrastructure and some are applauding it, while they are hard against when America does it. No one has said what can be done about Iran's citizens besides trying to stop Iran's terrorist regime. Things don't always go as planned in wars. Dismissing what Iran's done is turning a blind eye to terrorism. Live in Iran as a citizen, most of whom don't want the regime as it is. and you might change your thinking.

And it's still a false equivalence. Ukraine is defending itself after four years of invasion and continuous bombing of civilians by Russia.

As if Trump cared about Iran oppressed citizen! 😂

Actually, he made their situation worse. He told them to keep protesting and the US would come to help them. He did nothing, apart from triggering an extended repression, and increasing the civilian's death count

https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/trump-tells-iranians-keep-protesting-says-help-is-its-way-2026-01-13/

2 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

The news is out every day, especially on US platforms, which some don't get right off. I was responding to the original OP, stating Ukraine is targeting Russia infrastructure, and it's applauded, but when the US hits some it's met with hostility.

Ukraine has sympathy from people throughout the world, there is very little sympathy for the US as Trump and his minions have done a great job of diminishing American influence, waging an incredibly ineffective and dumb war, and showing the general stupidity in Washington these days.

Zelenski likely outclasses Trump by 60 IQ points.