On that you're correct, Iran did back militias in Iraq (2003) that did kill coalition personnel. I'm not sure how that backs your argument Iran's been directly at war with Western nations since 1979 though, especially considering the Iran-Iraq war. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2...

And, as the original source I posted noted, Iran had backdoor support from Israel (corroboration below), while the US armed Iraq only after Reagan entered office (well after the war started). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...

This isn't downplaying the horrors that all Vets went through either. I didn't sit in with war Vets suffering with PTSD because of idle curiosity. But I'm not going to argue the US, Israel, or any number of other nations have been idle participants either. I mean: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2...

So taking American hostages, the Beirut bombings, the Tanker War, and Khobar Towers don’t count?

American Hostages: That's a complicated one, not the least because the US' support of the Shah (and his repression) isn't something that you can idly dismiss. Not condoning it, but, let's not pretend it came out of nowhere either.

Beirut: Also complicated, mostly because the US had formally backed Iraq as of 1982 and hadn't rebuked Saddam for chemical weapons use as of 1983. The Beirut Bombings happened after Iraq's WMD use. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Be... Again, not condoning, but you can see the chain of events.

Tanker War: I mean that's an extension of the Iraq-Iran war. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanker_... USS Stark was hit by Iraq, not Iran. Yes, US civilian vessels were struck, but I don't think that's who you were referencing. Not sure where this one fits in your argument.

Khobar Towers: ctc.westpoint.edu/deconstructi... Not likely Iran/IRGC directly, but more probably a rogue extremist group, Hizb Allah al-Hijaz (see within the link).

No. Not rogue.

My friend, I cited a West Point (American Military) analysis in 2008 with heavy citations and reviewing national defense questions. Your article is 2006 and using a source that's objectively happy to push any reason for toppling the current extremist Iranian regime.

I saw that. Freeh knows what he is talking about. Believe me or don’t.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_F... I'm not seeing a history replete with the best of ethics here. It's also notable that "within a few days we had confessions" in the Bush era of torture is not a convincing argument. I'll stick to a well cited West Point counter-terror analysis.

You kinda skipped over this.

Skipped, no. Missed, yes. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Sam... Whether the mines were targeted at military combat vessels or civilian, I don't think we can know. Glad there were no casualties. That said, again, Iran-Iraq war. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2...

If we're looking at this critically, while Iran was verbally antagonistic towards the US, the US acted as an ally to Saddam (the aggressor in the Iran-Iraq war), and from there we can see how that escalated into US casualties. I'd argue neither side holds the high ground here.

Iran took American hostages. Thats a bit more than antagonistic language.

Are we going back to 1979? Yes, we both agree that the hostage situation was definitely abusive. Much of that abuse on Khomenei's recommendation. The argument is not "was it abusive" but "why did the revolution target the US?" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAVAK

Iran admitted its complicity.

I never implied, much less stated, that they weren't culpable. I stated that the US backing Iraq directly, and not rebuking them for chemical weapons, probably lead Iran to treat the US as a legitimate target. This doesn't make what Iran did right, it just shows the chain of events.