Iran and Israel? 'Constructive moderates v destructive hardliners' in each

You notice every time some progress is made in the relations between both countries, there is always some hardliner in either pouring cold water on that progress.

Today, for example, we saw moderate Israeli president Peres say he would have no problem meeting moderate Iranian president Rouhani. But, a hardliner from Iran (a woman!!! who should be working to resolve and roll back the discrimination that peasant gunman imposed on female Iranians in the past rather than making unhelpful comments about Israel) says this will not happen and Iran will never recognise Israel (despite the hardliners in both doing under the table deals all the time to keep the moderates in both down!).

A few weeks ago, it was hardliner Netanyahu who was opposing the nuclear deal between the West and Iran. One hardliner then helps another and it is all set up to conspire against democratic forces that are forming in both nations.

Iran has seen its 1979 revolution hijacked by 'Islamic' Khmer Rouge-style gunmen who imposed a set of peasant voodoo laws on a sophisticated people (facilitated by a weak central government and a war with Iraq back in 1979/80) while Israel has lived under the threat of suicide bombers and attacks from Arab states for decades. Surely, there is a better way and clearly Peres and Rouhani know this. Unfortunately, other players don't and want to continue war culture for their own selfish agendas.

What is blatantly obvious is how quick to capitulate Iran's and Israel's leaders are:

Israel: well, their moderate leader Rabin (I think was his name?) was gunned down in the 1990s when he attempted peace. We are lead to believe Yasser Arafat died naturally but now it apparently is not the case. See how quick his successor capitulated to Israeli demanded. Then, look at Ariel Sharon: he gets a stroke/coma just days after planning to make peace with Palestinians! Mossad it would seem?

Iran: Shah Pahlavi and his army just threw in the towel. Yes, the man was dying but he had a son and could have passed it to him? Who was he so afraid of? Then, mad gunmen ran amuck and the Iranian army just stood by and let them take over the country! The 'Islamic Khmer Rouge' (the worst 'Islamic' regime before the Taliban came along) introduced a reign of terror where women were forced to wear voodoo clothing from the stone age and men were encouraged to look beardy. A modern city like Tehran saw biblical stone age men with guns invading their city with NO ONE driving them back.

A weak, poorly functioning government was then created only after the Flintstone army was in place. Another poorly old man, Khomeini, was made Shah and a group of corrupt politicians mixed with some respected Mossadeq era veterans were then nominated to make it look ok. BUT none of these had any real power and they had to eat their own ideals and beliefs at the point of a machine gun handled by poorly educated peasants from Eastern Iran (who may as well have been living in the days of the old Testament, and believed stoning women to death and forcing their own culture on others was ok).

Of course, the Iranian state could have done more to nip these sc*mbags in the bud but didn't. Khomeini or other priests could have religiously discredited them, the army could have killed them, the government did not have to resign en masse after these stone age peasants took over the US embassy. Khomeini initially ordered them out but then capitulated and made the wrong decision and got a heart attack.

Khomeini was no Nelson Mandela. He was no dictator either. He was a weak, incompetent leader handicapped by age, poor health and depression. He was once a great priest and religious scholar, but by 1979 was a shell of his former self. His successor Khamenei was not much stronger and allowed the stone age peasants to progress into even higher offices and get rich and greedy to boot.

However, Khatami and current president Rouhani are moderate, intelligent presidents who seek change. But, they are often up against powerful enemies. Suppose the whole Iranian revolution was one big farce, an organised hoax fomented by Israel to cause trouble for communists to their North and Arabs to their West? Well, it destroyed Saddam and the USSR came down! Israel remains possibly the only country in the world that does not embrace change in Iran.

And why did the Iranian army, government and police all go along with stone age peasants? Sophisticated Western Iran (it may be hard to believe today but read about the Iran of the 1960s and 1970s and you will see) was about as much removed from what the regime imposed on them in 1979 as we are in the West. I'm sure if this was attempted in this country, the law would rise up and stamp them out. So, why didn't they in Iran?

-Ayatollahs in Qom who were learned and modern would consider the peasant voodoo 'Islam' of these uneducated stoneagers an insult to religion and as black magic akin to the devil. Yes, this would include Khomeini (a rich and educated man who read Greek philosophy and actually spoke out many times against 'stone age peasant religion' even in the 1980s).
-The army would not want to be replaced by a Khmer Rouge type riff raff.
-The then governments of Iran was made up of the likes of Bazargan (an educated, sophisticated veteran of the liberal and socialist Mossadeq era) and Bani Sadr (who sported an Elvis-like hairstyle and a clean shaven Western visage in general). Yet, these just resigned and handed in the towel to the extremists.

Were the extremist peasants organised by Mossad? Or other forces? US or Saudi even? More than likely (and all the players from Khomeini down were told to go along with it or die). Well, that's precisely what was done in Afghanistan with the even worse Taliban. Both projects went very wrong and I'm quite sure the Middle East would be a happier place only for the meddling of superpowers both capitalist and communist in the area.

Why is it that for decades, members of Khomeini's, Rafsanjani's and Khamenei's families have voiced extreme hatred for those who rule Iran and feel their revolution was hijacked? Bani Sadr, the first Iranian president, is exiled and his plan was to overthrow the regime. Bazargan was disgusted with it. Another president, Rajai, was assassinated. Anyone who attempted to speak out was killed or silenced.

Khomeini was a hostage himself during those infamous embassy seige 444 days. The gunmen held the entire country and regime hostage along with the relations with the West. Khomeini ordered them out first, they didn't obey; Khomeini capitulated and then the gunmen saw weakness and kept on ruining Iran as its central government got weaker and weaker. By 1981, all opponents of the gunmen were silenced, exiled or dead!! And Iran went from being a modern country to a wasteland and all for what?

Hardliners are a bunch of morons for the most part up to their neck in dark secrets inclusive of murders of innocent people, involvement in crime (drug dealing, arms dealing) and the like for the most part. They are hardline because they are protective of their darkest secrets that will ruin them. What Iran needed in 1979 was King Nidge to sort out all the other criminals!!

A real achievement is if moderates predominated in Iran AND Israel. And this keeping the hardliners out for good. Somehow, this will not be allowed at all in Israel at least. Iran and Israel may become friends out in the open eventually but only because Israel will have some new Arab enemy to do in!!