Inside Iran’s Mission To Dominate The Middle East

[Babak]

https://www.buzzfeed.com/borzoudaragahi/irans-plan-to-run-the-middle-east?utm_term=.akqGPYdjl#.qlD5y1BeM

Iran has enlisted tens of thousands of young Shiite men into an armed network that is challenging the US across the Middle East. The Trump administration is not prepared.


BAGHDAD — Iran has built up a multinational network of tens of thousands of young men from across the Middle East, turning them into a well-drilled fighting machine that is outgunning the US on the battlefield, as Tehran outsmarts the White House in the corridors of power.

These men can be found leading the defense of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, recapturing land from ISIS in Iraq, and fighting for control of the Yemeni capital of Sanaa. The transnational militia of Shiite men — which has no official title — is now the dominant force in the region, enabling Iran to take full advantage in the absence of a coherent strategy from the Trump White House.

Over six months, BuzzFeed News spoke to researchers, officials, and militia fighters who described what they knew about the Iranian program, overseen by the secretive Quds Force of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and its infamous commander Qassem Suleimani — who often shows up on front lines in Iraq and Syria. Accounts by the fighters reveal the scale and structure of the program, and although many of the details could not be independently verified, BuzzFeed News was able to confirm all the fighters’ memberships in various armed groups. Their stories, collected independently, match one another — as well as accounts gathered by US military and intelligence officials.

Mustafa al-Freidawi is one of those men.

Freidawi, a compact man with a neatly trimmed black beard, fondly recalls his early days as a member of Iran’s militia. “It was a new adventure,” he said. “We were happy.” Speaking in a noisy restaurant in northern Baghdad earlier this year, Freidawi outlined how he was recruited, trained, and deployed to be part of a fighting force that aims to cement Iran’s influence in the Middle East, and beyond.

Freidawi grew up the son of a bus driver in the rundown neighborhood of Ur in northern Baghdad, before following in his father’s footsteps. But that was never going to be enough for a young man looking to find meaning in his life. In June 2013 he answered the call to join a Shiite militia group known as Asaheb ahl al-Haq — or the League of the Righteous — notorious in the 2000s for its roadside bomb attacks against US forces, and alleged human rights abuses against Iraq’s minority Sunni population.

Freidawi was given 10 days’ training at an Iraqi army base in the town of Abu Ghraib, west of Baghdad, before being dispatched to fight against Sunni insurgents. His first assignment was to join a team looking for three missing Iraqi soldiers in the town of Karma, east of Fallujah. Freidawi and his comrades stepped right into a terrible firefight. “I was so scared,” he said. “They were shooting at us like crazy. The other side believed we were broken. But we weren’t.”

Over the course of the next few months, Freidawi demonstrated his bravery and was quickly ushered up the chain of command. He soon adjusted to the long hours of waiting, punctuated by brief, intense moments of terror that characterize the life of a militiaman. What had started out as a volunteer effort to do some good for his “collapsing country,” as he described Iraq, was quickly evolving into a new career: professional gunman.

It was his talents on the battlefield that earned him the ultimate accolade for any young man fighting for the Shiite cause — he was recommended by his commanders for a 45-day military and ideological training program in Iran.

And so it was that on a cold January day in 2014, Freidawi found himself on a bus filled with fellow Shiite fighters, their spirits high, as it made its way along the highways and rural roads leading out of Baghdad. Heading southeast toward the long border with Iran, they dedicated songs to Zeinab, the sister of the martyred Imam Hussein. “For Zeinab, we became servants. With our chests, we welcome darts,” they sang.

It would be the first time many of these men had ever left Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis visit their wealthier, calmer neighbor each year to make the pilgrimage to its holy sites, or to access its health care. But instead of getting their passports stamped as they crossed the border in Shalamcheh, the men handed over their identification papers to Iranian authorities. They also gave in their cell phones — there would be no gleeful selfies on this trip.

Though they had entered Iran, there would be no official trace of their presence.

The men were then taken to the airport in Ahvaz, a city of 1 million in Iran’s furthermost southwestern corner, where they boarded an unmarked plane. Freidawi, then 23 years old, was excited — he had never flown before — and snagged a window seat. He watched in awe as snowcapped mountains appeared in the distance, perhaps on the outskirts of the Iranian capital, Tehran. To this day he’s not sure exactly where he was taken; no one told them and the men had been advised not to ask questions.

Military training began right away. “No sleep, two hours of running every day. They taught us to be very hard and very patient ... We survived on little food and water,” said Freidawi. Smoking was banned, as were phone calls to friends and relatives back home. But by the time the course was over, Freidawi was ready for the next step of his adventure: to fight for Assad in Syria.

[Babak]

What you guys think?

[Pahli]

Iran should NOT interfere with the Arab world, it will only cause more trouble. Iran should still, without doubt, support Syria because they supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, a good ally IMO.

[Kamal900]

Iran should NOT interfere with the Arab world, it will only cause more trouble. Iran should still, without doubt, support Syria because they supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, a good ally IMO.

The (((western media))) always tend to portray Iran as the enemy despite that the Iranians has not attacked anyone or any country for 200 years. I mean, I'm not a fan of the Mullahs either, but obviously they're not responsible for the shit that is going on in the middle east.

[zhaoyun]

Better Iran than Saudi Arabia IMO.

Iran should ditch its religious govt and focus on economic development IMO.

[Pahli]

The (((western media))) always tend to portray Iran as the enemy despite that the Iranians has not attacked anyone or any country for 200 years. I mean, I'm not a fan of the Mullahs either, but obviously they're not responsible for the shit that is going on in the middle east.

Iran should build a wall along the Iraqi border and not interfere with them either, their politicians are lunatics and complete idiots, banning alcohol because it "creates terrorism", is absolutely retarded.

[Babak]

Yea once Iran starts gets involved with arab states, it speeds up the process of the west attacking Iran

[zhaoyun]

Iran should build a wall along the Iraqi border and not interfere with them either, their politicians are lunatics and complete idiots, banning alcohol because it "creates terrorism", is absolutely retarded.

Iran's leaders are total fucking idiots imposing some medieval ass laws on a modern populace.

If Iran had secular, logical leaders like China has, it would quickly become the most developed, wealthy and powerful state in the ME. Iranians are pretty intelligent and resourceful people overall.

[Pahli]

Iran's leaders are total fucking idiots imposing some medieval ass laws on a modern populace.

If Iran had secular, logical leaders like China has, it would quickly become the most developed, wealthy and powerful state in the ME. Iranians are pretty intelligent and resourceful people overall.

Agreed. Don't forget that the Iranic countries + China could put a stop to some wet "muh turkistan" dreams from Siyendis dumb friends :laugh:

[Kamal900]

Iran should build a wall along the Iraqi border and not interfere with them either, their politicians are lunatics and complete idiots, banning alcohol because it "creates terrorism", is absolutely retarded.

Alcohol is very common sight to see in states like Dubai and Abu Dhabi, and I have yet to see any terrorist attacks, lol. I actually see more drunken people going to McDonalds and other fast food restaurants eating a lot after their clubbing.

[Halgurd]

Iran should build a wall along the Iraqi border and not interfere with them either, their politicians are lunatics and complete idiots, banning alcohol because it "creates terrorism", is absolutely retarded.

alcohol is banned in iran as well

[Babak]

alcohol is banned in iran as well

everything is banned in iran lmao

[N1019]

Iran should NOT interfere with the Arab world, it will only cause more trouble. Iran should still, without doubt, support Syria because they supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, a good ally IMO.

Iran should not interfere in the Arab world, and that includes Syria, if they want to avoid blowback and other consequences. Too late for that, though. Iran has been meddling non-stop since 1979.


The (((western media))) always tend to portray Iran as the enemy despite that the Iranians has not attacked anyone or any country for 200 years. I mean, I'm not a fan of the Mullahs either, but obviously they're not responsible for the shit that is going on in the middle east.

This 200 year story is another piece of mullah propaganda that needs to be dismissed. Iran might not have embarked on conventional warfare for that long but it has sure as hell been involved in other activities, and everyone knows it.


Yea once Iran starts gets involved with arab states, it speeds up the process of the west attacking Iran

Exactly. Iran has choices, and so far it has been making the wrong ones.

Iran is "allowed" to make the wrong choices, but other countries are allowed to respond with their own choices, the consequences of which might not be good for Iran.

It is no good for Iran to make bad choices, then play the victim when the US and allies respond, but that seems to be the only way the IRI knows how to operate. They just keep doing it.

[Babak]

Iran should not interfere in the Arab world, and that includes Syria, if they want to avoid blowback and other consequences. Too late for that, though. Iran has been meddling non-stop since 1979.



This 200 year story is another piece of mullah propaganda that needs to be dismissed. Iran might not have embarked on conventional warfare for that long but it has sure as hell been involved in other activities, and everyone knows it.



Exactly. Iran has choices, and so far it has been making the wrong ones.

Iran is "allowed" to make the wrong choices, but other countries are allowed to respond with their own choices, the consequences of which might not be good for Iran.

It is no good for Iran to make bad choices, then play the victim when the US and allies respond, but that seems to be the only way the IRI knows how to operate. They just keep doing it.

Aren't they somehow stopping ISIS in that shithole or what?

[N1019]

Aren't they somehow stopping ISIS in that shithole or what?

Yep, supposedly.

[N1019]

A recent poll found that 81 percent of Iranians believed it was “very important for Iran to develop its nuclear program” and 68 percent thought that Iran should “seek to increase the role it plays in the region.”

http://www.cissm.umd.edu/publications/iranian-public-opinion-one-year-after-nuclear-deal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/07/31/some-in-d-c-want-regime-change-in-iran-good-luck-with-that/


The results of this poll are alarming because such information is likely to encourage American policymakers to push for the complete dismantling of the Iranian state. It suggests that no matter who is in power, Iran will, if left unchecked, push for regional hegemony. It is consistent with the parallels between the Shah and the current regime.


Of particular interest is comment on the WP article:

Jay Rahmdel
1:31 AM EST

I don't believe in right or wrong. All countries around the world make decisions based on their own interests. Iran and USA are no exceptions.
As an Iranian, I prefer to knee in front of USA, follow their policies, and improve the quality of my life and the life of my children in the future.
Yet, the majority of Iranians disagree with the way I think. They value, what they call 'their right' above all.
So, I respected their way of thinking and left Iran to somewhere else. Somewhere that they share my ideologies.
My question to all Iranians who come accross this article: will you kneel and follow the strongest country in the world? So he wouldn't bully you, sanction you.
Or will you fight your way to freedom? Yes, you have the right to develop nuclear power. But is it worth all the sanctions, humiliations, economic disadvantages?
Kneel or fight?

It's proof that there are sensible minds out there, but are they in the upper echelons of government?

As a reply to the above comment, we have the following typically reckless anti-imperialist trash:

Rising China
3:02 AM EST
Iran/Persia is a great civilization and should not be kneeling to anybody. To deal with the US, Iran needs to strengthen its hand first. Iran needs to seek close ties with China, Russia, India, and any European country that is willing. Iran needs to carefully pick who are friends it can count on, and try to draw them close with economic ties. These ties are Iran's leverage. The next time Washington tries to bully Iran, those countries will need to ask whether they want their investments threatened. This way, Iran builds its own network of friends and allies against the US... ...As a Chinese, I recognize Iranians/Persians as heirs of a brother ancient civilization. Our history span millennia, and we always enjoyed economic ties, and have never warred. China should back Iran, with the help of Russia, and push back the frontline of US imperialism.

It's easy for people like "Rising China" to say Iran should not be kneeling to anybody; that arsehole won't be in the line of fire when America has had enough and decides to attack. I can't stand the way people around the world are cheering the mullahs on as they inch their country towards annihilation. Can they not see that they are encouraging Iranians to douse themselves in petrol and wait for the US to strike a match?

[Babak]

http://www.cissm.umd.edu/publications/iranian-public-opinion-one-year-after-nuclear-deal
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/07/31/some-in-d-c-want-regime-change-in-iran-good-luck-with-that/


The results of this poll are alarming because such information is likely to encourage American policymakers to push for the complete dismantling of the Iranian state. It suggests that no matter who is in power, Iran will, if left unchecked, push for regional hegemony. It is consistent with the parallels between the Shah and the current regime.


Of particular interest is comment on the WP article:


It's proof that there are sensible minds out there, but are they in the upper echelons of government?

As a reply to the above comment, we have the following typically reckless anti-imperialist trash:


It's easy for people like "Rising China" to say Iran should not be kneeling to anybody; that arsehole won't be in the line of fire when America has had enough and decides to attack. I can't stand the way people around the world are cheering the mullahs on as they inch their country towards annihilation. Can they not see that they are encouraging Iranians to douse themselves in petrol and wait for the US to strike a match?

man, who knows

[Kamal900]

Why Congress Hates Russia:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vupHJbXVSZc

[Drawing-slim]

Yea once Iran starts gets involved with arab states, it speeds up the process of the west attacking Iran

Now it would give Iran the advantage to get into a conflict with US. Russia would aprove too. So would china.
Iranians can move freely anywhere in iraq syria iran to cordinate attacks and trapp US in a conflict that would bring it down to its knees woth life loss and money.
It would be the end of a superpower

[StonyArabia]

Iran's power in the region is only because of the Shia proxies, otherwise it could not dominate any part of the Middle East. Also Iran is overhyped as powerful nation when clearly it's not, and has high unemployment rate, corrupt government, and ethnic tensions. Let's not forget Iran's real rival is Turkey. Turkey on the other hand is has much less unemployment, less corruption, the only thing in common they have is ethnic tensions in the region. Iran is also just controlled opposition, it was the Anglo-Americans who brought the mullahs to power. They also empowered Iran after 2003, for geopolitical interest in the region. The only advantage it has, is large land mass and population. As for the Shia proxies, that's what is pissing off many of the Iranians, who see their government spending more money on outsiders like Hezbollah, Bader brigades and such, well nothing remains to help it's people.

[N1019]

Now it would give Iran the advantage to get into a conflict with US. Russia would aprove too. So would china.
Iranians can move freely anywhere in iraq syria iran to cordinate attacks and trapp US in a conflict that would bring it down to its knees woth life loss and money.
It would be the end of a superpower

If the US and Iran go to war, the US would win and Russia and China would mostly just sit back and watch. The end of a superpower? No, that's just wishful thinking. It's only Iran. It's not a global power like Russia.


Also Iran is overhyped as powerful nation when clearly it's not, and has high unemployment rate, corrupt government, and ethnic tensions.

Yep. Way overhyped. It's propaganda, mostly from the anti-imperialist left and the mullah regime itself.


Iran is also just controlled opposition, it was the Anglo-Americans who brought the mullahs to power.

Yes, but that doesn't mean they won't be removed when it no longer serves the empire to keep them there. Puppets are installed and removed at will.



They also empowered Iran after 2003, for geopolitical interest in the region.

But it seems Iran is on the same list of countries earmarked for destruction as Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. anyway. Time will tell.



As for the Shia proxies, that's what is pissing off many of the Iranians, who see their government spending more money on outsiders like Hezbollah, Bader brigades and such, well nothing remains to help it's people.

But if we are to believe the survey, a large proportion of Iranians probably support meddling in the region. They can't have it both ways.

[N1019]

man, who knows

What annoys me about all the people who encourage Iran to resist the US is that they're not doing it because they care about Iran. They're doing it because they hate Saudi Arabia, Israel and the USA. Who in their right mind would push a loved one towards guaranteed destruction? In other words, they are just hoping Iran will continue to frustrate the efforts of countries they hate. But when the bombs start raining down on Tehran, where will they be? In the comfort of their own homes, thousands of miles away.

[Drawing-slim]

If the US and Iran go to war, the US would win and Russia and China would mostly just sit back and watch. The end of a superpower? No, that's just wishful thinking. It's only Iran. It's not a global .
Not a wishful thinking cuz i dont wish my suicide. But it will be the end. US cannot drop a nuclear bomb and they cannot win a ground war with iran. Theu can win the battle but never conquer it and ultiamtely lose the war.
China and russia will sit back but they will provide iran with intelligence, satellite spy images and secrets plus sophisticated weapons.

[Turkminator]

In a world without Turks, perhaps. As long as Turks snatch a breath, they will strive for power. Only Turkey is the regional power in the Middle East and in the Balkans since 1000 years. This situation will not be changed by any full-bearded mullahs from Iran.

[Ghazi]

awlad almutah

[N1019]

Not a wishful thinking cuz i dont wish my suicide. But it will be the end. US cannot drop a nuclear bomb and they cannot win a ground war with iran. Theu can win the battle but never conquer it and ultiamtely lose the war.
China and russia will sit back but they will provide iran with intelligence, satellite spy images and secrets plus sophisticated weapons.

The US already has plans for the use of tactical nukes on Iran, which no-one can stop them from using, but even if they didn't use nukes it wouldn't matter. Conventional weapons and stealth aircraft would quickly lay the key infrastructure of the country to waste. They don't necessarily need a conventional ground war for that, either.

If you consider turning Iran into another Iraq as a "loss" for America, well, that's your perspective. If you accept that ending functioning nation states was their real goal, it no longer seems like such a loss.

[Babak]

Now it would give Iran the advantage to get into a conflict with US. Russia would aprove too. So would china.
Iranians can move freely anywhere in iraq syria iran to cordinate attacks and trapp US in a conflict that would bring it down to its knees woth life loss and money.
It would be the end of a superpower

Thats underestimating the power of the U.S. The american military isn't stupid, they know exactly what they're doing. American can wipe anybody out in that region if she wanted to.

[Köstebek]

Iran cant dominate even Persian gulf... I mean Arabian gulf

[The Destroyer]

Iran is the most damaging force to Muslims across the world. It shoould be put into a quarantene state and Iraq and Afghanistan should build walls near it.

There is no difference between Shiite extremenist Hezbollah and Sunni extremist ISIS. If a Sunni population in Syria or Iraq is attacked by Hezbollah, it's a completely legimitate choice for them to join ISIS, even more so because of the fact that Assad and Iraq are allied to those animals.

Shiite militias have done the most war crimes after liberating areas from ISIS or FSA, thus, ironically, giving the Assad/Iraqi armies a bad reputation, since they take all the blame.

I'm not saying Sunni Muslims should invade Iran, I'm just saying that all Shiites outside of Iran's borders should either go to Iran or be put under heavy surveillance 24/7 due to them constantly starting wars against other Muslims (Yemen currently comes to mind).

[Loki]

What you guys think?

These Iranian men are the heroes of the Middle East of our day. They are liberating Iraq from ISIS, and liberating Syria from ISIS and other assorted terrorists. Russia knows to appreciate them. And I didn't see America complain about them defeating ISIS in Iraq, because it's convenient for them. Hail Iran! :)

[The Destroyer]

These Iranian men are the heroes of the Middle East of our day. They are liberating Iraq from ISIS, and liberating Syria from ISIS and other assorted terrorists. Russia knows to appreciate them. And I didn't see America complain about them defeating ISIS in Iraq, because it's convenient for them. Hail Iran! :)

Does the fact that most Christians and Westerners support Iran and most Muslims hate it tell you anything? What would you as a Christian and Westerner, think of one of your kind who was loved by Muslims but hated by his own? You'd call him a traitor, right?

[N1019]

Does the fact that most Christians and Westerners support Iran and most Muslims hate it tell you anything? What would you as a Christian and Westerner, think of one of your kind who was loved by Muslims but hated by his own? You'd call him a traitor, right?

It does seem that Iran is not overly popular in much of the Islamic world, but I doubt most Christians and Westerners positively support Iran.

The leftists in the West support Iran because they share opposition to the Anglo-American empire, Israel and Saudi Arabia, not because they really love or know anything about the country. Since Marxism is popular among young, impressionable and idealistic students with a lack of real life experience, you'll see a strong show of support for Iran on this forum, which is dominated by kids, and online generally, which also has a strong youth component and there's plenty of "leftist" media out there. They are Iran groupies. Blinded by their hatred of the Anglo-American Empire, Israel and Saudi Arabia, they champion Iran's efforts as resistance even if that policy of resistance is likely to see the country reduced to rubble, and they conveniently overlook Iran's own "malign activities" as the US puts it, human rights record etc.

[Egyptian]

I'm Glad Egypt doesn't interfere in any conflict till now (even though i wanted us to interfere in Syria ) , we build a power until the time we will use it .. most promising military so far.

[The Destroyer]

I'm Glad Egypt doesn't interfere in any conflict till now (even though i wanted us to interfere in Syria ) , we build a power until the time we will use it .. most promising military so far.

What do most Egyptians think of the war and who do they support? When I say most Egyptians I don't mean your government, but I mean what do ordinary people in the street think, what is the general feeling of the populace, etc.

[Egyptian]

What do most Egyptians think of the war and who do they support? When I say most Egyptians I don't mean your government, but I mean what do ordinary people in the street think, what is the general feeling of the populace, etc.

General feeling is = screw assad.

the government is something else , well we can't say it supports Assad 100% , it's a just a typical Egyptian government thing , let's take money from Gulf countries , lets take money from america , from europe , from russia etc and later they don't care about those countries lol

for example , there was a huge problem between Sisi regime and saudia .. you know that saudis support the coup in Egypt but later sisi refused to send forces to back saudis in Yemen or to be in syria , he did kinda send 2 or 3 f-16s as just a gratitude to saudis haha but refused to send thousands of troops to Yemen.

sisi is a loser no doubt , he is hated here more than any person but you know what comes around goes around , let the saudis taste what they have done.

[StonyArabia]

Yep. Way overhyped. It's propaganda, mostly from the anti-imperialist left and the mullah regime itself.

Of course it is. The Mullah regime wants to present itself as powerful, when actually it's not, and from the inside it's very weak. It only relies on proxies like Hezbollah, Bader brigades, and several others. The Mullah regime could not do anything against it's former enemies the Talibanic Afghanistan or Baathist Iraq. Ironically Iran's mullah aided with both the fall of Iraq in 2003, and in 2001 in Afghanistan. At the same time the Anglo-Americans after the Iraq war of 2003, helped empower Iran, especially allowing it's proxies o takeover in Iraq. These proxies created chaos and havoc in the region. At the same the central Iraqi government became a puppet of the Mullahs, it just can't enforce full Shitte laws, due to significant Sunni population in the Northwest and West, who are hostile to Iran. These people could not even be subdued by the Anglo-Americans, without advanced weaponry.




Yes, but that doesn't mean they won't be removed when it no longer serves the empire to keep them there. Puppets are installed and removed at will.

Well that's true, but the Anglo-Americans want the Mullahs in power to serve for their geopolitical interest, and this to keep pressure on the Arab Gulf nations. These puppets might serve, so well, that the transition from the Mullahs to another form of government can be peaceful and less chaotic. We saw how the Shah who was an Anglo-American puppet, bit back, and was replaced with the Mullahs in 1979. The Mullahs seem to be not biting back and actually are serving the geopolitical interest of the Anglo-Americans especially in Iraq and Syria .





But it seems Iran is on the same list of countries earmarked for destruction as Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. anyway. Time will tell.

Yes, but I doubt the U.S will invade Iran, it will not even use air strikes against it. Not to mention that both Russia and China will not come to Iran's aide, they will sit watching the war. If the U.S does decides to invade, Iran will lose, and there is strong ethnic tensions, which it can exploit especially in regions where separatism is common such as the Arab islands, Ahwaz, Baluchistan, and even the Kurdish region.



But if we are to believe the survey, a large proportion of Iranians probably support meddling in the region. They can't have it both ways.

Perhaps it's religious Iranians, but I believe these surveys are propaganda of the mullah regime. Iranians are sick of their nation meddling in Arab affairs, and spending large amounts of money on it's Shia Arab proxies like Hezbollah, Bader brigades, and so on, well the real fact is the economy is crippled, and the youth have such high unemployment rate. Of course Iran's mullah might be playing with fire, because blowback might happen if they are not careful, but I believe the the population will eventually revolt. However if the Anglo-Americans are to be involved, Iran might become indeed similar to Syria, Iraq, with both sectarian and ethnic tensions not ceasing to end.

[Babak]

Of course it is. The Mullah regime wants to present itself as powerful, when actually it's not, and from the inside it's very weak. It only relies on proxies like Hezbollah, Bader brigades, and several others. The Mullah regime could not do anything against it's former enemies the Talibanic Afghanistan or Baathist Iraq. Ironically Iran's mullah aided with both the fall of Iraq in 2003, and in 2001 in Afghanistan. At the same time the Anglo-Americans after the Iraq war of 2003, helped empower Iran, especially allowing it's proxies o takeover in Iraq. These proxies created chaos and havoc in the region. At the same the central Iraqi government became a puppet of the Mullahs, it just can't enforce full Shitte laws, due to significant Sunni population in the Northwest and West, who are hostile to Iran. These people could not even be subdued by the Anglo-Americans, without advanced weaponry.





Well that's true, but the Anglo-Americans want the Mullahs in power to serve for their geopolitical interest, and this to keep pressure on the Arab Gulf nations. These puppets might serve, so well, that the transition from the Mullahs to another form of government can be peaceful and less chaotic. We saw how the Shah who was an Anglo-American puppet, bit back, and was replaced with the Mullahs in 1979. The Mullahs seem to be not biting back and actually are serving the geopolitical interest of the Anglo-Americans especially in Iraq and Syria .






Yes, but I doubt the U.S will invade Iran, it will not even use air strikes against it. Not to mention that both Russia and China will not come to Iran's aide, they will sit watching the war. If the U.S does decides to invade, Iran will lose, and there is strong ethnic tensions, which it can exploit especially in regions where separatism is common such as the Arab islands, Ahwaz, Baluchistan, and even the Kurdish region.




Perhaps it's religious Iranians, but I believe these surveys are propaganda of the mullah regime. Iranians are sick of their nation meddling in Arab affairs, and spending large amounts of money on it's Shia Arab proxies like Hezbollah, Bader brigades, and so on, well the real fact is the economy is crippled, and the youth have such high unemployment rate. Of course Iran's mullah might be playing with fire, because blowback might happen if they are not careful, but I believe the the population will eventually revolt. However if the Anglo-Americans are to be involved, Iran might become indeed similar to Syria, Iraq, with both sectarian and ethnic tensions not ceasing to end.

Seperatism is more common in baluchistan than anywhere else in Iran i believe.

[N1019]

Ironically Iran's mullah aided with both the fall of Iraq in 2003, and in 2001 in Afghanistan.

The Iranian regime made written submissions to the Bush Administration because they were watching and knew if they were next, they were finished. The US government didn't even reply to Iran's advances. They were on the list of countries to be destroyed.



At the same time the Anglo-Americans after the Iraq war of 2003, helped empower Iran, especially allowing it's proxies o takeover in Iraq. These proxies created chaos and havoc in the region. At the same the central Iraqi government became a puppet of the Mullahs, it just can't enforce full Shitte laws, due to significant Sunni population in the Northwest and West, who are hostile to Iran.

Well, this is a popular analysis of the situation, but I think the US to a large degree still has Iraq where it wants it. It wanted to dismantle the powerful state and leave a very weakened regime that could not project power, lacked the ability to properly control its own territory and due to the lack of sovereignty would respect Anglo-American oil interests including selling oil mostly in US dollars.

At the same time, Iranian involvement in Iraq and Syria is costing Iran a lot of money for minimal return. It is no great honour to hold sway over two destroyed countries. It's not as though the Iranians are getting oil revenue from it. Iran has lost over a thousand men and spend God knows how much for little in return.




Well that's true, but the Anglo-Americans want the Mullahs in power to serve for their geopolitical interest, and this to keep pressure on the Arab Gulf nations. These puppets might serve, so well, that the transition from the Mullahs to another form of government can be peaceful and less chaotic. We saw how the Shah who was an Anglo-American puppet, bit back, and was replaced with the Mullahs in 1979. The Mullahs seem to be not biting back and actually are serving the geopolitical interest of the Anglo-Americans especially in Iraq and Syria.

I'm not convinced of that. I believe the Anglo-Americans put the Mullahs in power to serve that purpose originally but that all strong anti-American states in the middle east are now being eliminated. The thing is, Iran is now the only anti-American state left. There's no good reason why they won't also be taken out.

I also highly doubt the transition from mullahs to another form of government would be peaceful. If you look at the consolidation of power by the mullahs from 1979-1989 it involved tens of thousands of deaths. The regime change also probably caused the Iran-Iraq war, the death toll of which may exceed a million. There are powerful interests in Iran who benefit from the survival of the current regime, who will either fight to protect it or fight to secure power in the wake of its removal by the US. It will be a shitfight. I expect to see more civilians murdered on the streets along with the imprisonment, torture and execution of opposition political forces, not to mention increased activity from anti-government militias in the areas mentioned.


Yes, but I doubt the U.S will invade Iran, it will not even use air strikes against it. Not to mention that both Russia and China will not come to Iran's aide, they will sit watching the war. If the U.S does decides to invade, Iran will lose, and there is strong ethnic tensions, which it can exploit especially in regions where separatism is common such as the Arab islands, Ahwaz, Baluchistan, and even the Kurdish region.

Which is, as previously discussed, the whole idea, I believe. Iran is a patchwork quilt of ethno-sectarian tension waiting to be stirred and ignited. If the country could be set ablaze by those means, an Iraq-style invasion might not be necessary. Bombing, however, will be, and Iran's air defences would not be able to stop an American aerial bombardment.


Of course Iran's mullah might be playing with fire, because blowback might happen if they are not careful, but I believe the the population will eventually revolt. However if the Anglo-Americans are to be involved, Iran might become indeed similar to Syria, Iraq, with both sectarian and ethnic tensions not ceasing to end.

If you look at what General Wesley Clark said in 2007:
We’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.


Some people have said Clark was talking BS on a deliberate disinformation campaign, but if you put his words to the test you find that they were pretty accurate. In 2011, Libya was destroyed, and two years later, Syria was destroyed. Meanwhile, Sudan has been partitioned. Hezbollah is still in Lebanon but watch that space.

[Babak]

The Iranian regime made written submissions to the Bush Administration because they were watching and knew if they were next, they were finished. The US government didn't even reply to Iran's advances. They were on the list of countries to be destroyed.




Well, this is a popular analysis of the situation, but I think the US to a large degree still has Iraq where it wants it. It wanted to dismantle the powerful state and leave a very weakened regime that could not project power, lacked the ability to properly control its own territory and due to the lack of sovereignty would respect Anglo-American oil interests including selling oil mostly in US dollars.

At the same time, Iranian involvement in Iraq and Syria is costing Iran a lot of money for minimal return. It is no great honour to hold sway over two destroyed countries. It's not as though the Iranians are getting oil revenue from it. Iran has lost over a thousand men and spend God knows how much for little in return.





I'm not convinced of that. I believe the Anglo-Americans put the Mullahs in power to serve that purpose originally but that all strong anti-American states in the middle east are now being eliminated. The thing is, Iran is now the only anti-American state left. There's no good reason why they won't also be taken out.

I also highly doubt the transition from mullahs to another form of government would be peaceful. If you look at the consolidation of power by the mullahs from 1979-1989 it involved tens of thousands of deaths. The regime change also probably caused the Iran-Iraq war, the death toll of which may exceed a million. There are powerful interests in Iran who benefit from the survival of the current regime, who will either fight to protect it or fight to secure power in the wake of its removal by the US. It will be a shitfight. I expect to see more civilians murdered on the streets along with the imprisonment, torture and execution of opposition political forces, not to mention increased activity from anti-government militias in the areas mentioned.



Which is, as previously discussed, the whole idea, I believe. Iran is a patchwork quilt of ethno-sectarian tension waiting to be stirred and ignited. If the country could be set ablaze by those means, an Iraq-style invasion might not be necessary. Bombing, however, will be, and Iran's air defences would not be able to stop an American aerial bombardment.



If you look at what General Wesley Clark said in 2007:
We’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.


Some people have said Clark was talking BS on a deliberate disinformation campaign, but if you put his words to the test you find that they were pretty accurate. In 2011, Libya was destroyed, and two years later, Syria was destroyed. Meanwhile, Sudan has been partitioned. Hezbollah is still in Lebanon but watch that space.

I think it will be a similiar scenario from 1979. Could be wrong though, idk

[StonyArabia]

Seperatism is more common in baluchistan than anywhere else in Iran i believe.

Yes and Kurdistan, but also common among Ahwazis, but the strongest force is in Baluchistan, it's mainly because they are Sunni Muslims

[N1019]

I think it will be a similiar scenario from 1979. Could be wrong though, idk

It could be. That approach would obviate the need for an invasion.

The only thing is, if I am right about the US wanting to weaken all strong anti-American states, they will have to go further than a simple controlled revolution followed by a new puppet regime. Given Iran's history of resistance under the last two puppet Shahs and the mullahs, I'm pretty sure the US will want to leave Iran in a greatly weakened state to minimize its capacity to project power outside its borders and, ideally, to prevent future assertions of sovereignty. They learnt that Iranian puppets eventually spit on their masters and seek autonomy. I'm pretty sure the words "never again" will be applied to that outcome.

After the 1979 revolution, there were various acts of hostility perpetrated against the new regime, the biggest of which was of course the Iran-Iraq War, but ultimately the regime survived, not least because the war united the people with it against an external threat.

What will they do this time?

Well, the last thing the Anglo-Americans will want is for the Iranian people to unite with their regime against an external threat again, so I'd say an "internal" threat would be more likely. Something that shatters society from within, making a strong united response difficult. Unfortunately, the Saudi Prince Mbs's words are right on the money, whether it's his doing or not.

[N1019]

The only thing Iran has won from its activity in Iraq after the American invasion is a buffer zone against ISIS. Otherwise, I'm sure it is a net drain on resources and over a thousand Iranian lives have been lost. That's hardly empowerment. And, so much for controlling that territory, the US military could move through it with relative impunity if it so chose. All the Iranians would do is set up IEDs all over the place and maybe turn some foolish militiamen against them.

If Iran were getting billions worth of oil from Iraq every year, I'd call it a win. but all they got is a buffer zone that requires constant work to maintain, a zone containing a lot of people hostile to Iran. Their supply lines across Iraq, into Syria and Lebanon are far from secure. It's just a great big liability.

[N1019]

CIA Director Mike Pompeo:

“But I kind of think of Iranian compliance with the nuclear deal like a bad tenant. Have any of you ever had a bad tenant? You know, they don’t pay the rent, you call them, and then they send a cheque and it doesn’t clear, and then they send another one. And then the next day there’s this old, tired sofa in the front yard, and you tell them to take it away and, you know, they drag it to the back; this is Iranian compliance today.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/us/politics/mike-pompeo-cia.html

lol

Kissinger:

“In these circumstances, the traditional adage that the enemy of your enemy can be regarded as your friend no longer applies. In the contemporary Middle East, the enemy of your enemy may also be your enemy. The Middle East affects the world by the volatility of its ideologies as much as by its specific actions,” he wrote in an article last week for CapX.

“The outside world’s war with ISIS can serve as an illustration. Most non-ISIS powers—including Shia Iran and the leading Sunni states—agree on the need to destroy it. But which entity is supposed to inherit its territory? A coalition of Sunnis? Or a sphere of influence dominated by Iran?

“The answer is elusive because Russia and the Nato countries support opposing factions. If the ISIS territory is occupied by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards or Shia forces trained and directed by it, the result could be a territorial belt reaching from Tehran to Beirut, which could mark the emergence of an Iranian radical empire,” he wrote.
http://www.newsweek.com/kissinger-warns-trump-isis-keeping-iran-check-he-must-not-let-it-fill-void-647766

That's the most I've seen Kissinger say about anything for awhile.

[N1019]

Murican support for nuking Iran: 60%

Murican support for conventional warfare against Iran: 67%


“[In the study scenario,] Iran apparently violates the nuclear deal [aka the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA], and the marine corps sinks [an American] ship. The President calls for unconditional surrender, and after the initial fighting begins, we can: drop the bomb, or invade Tehran at a projected risk of 20,000 military casualties. The respondent is asked which of these options they prefer.”

In the study, American participants supported the choice of nuclear attack at 60%. There was also a few different controls, including one where conventional warfare was an option—essentially, bombing a populous city with non-nuclear armaments—and this option incurred a 67% approval response. Horrifying results to be sure.


https://iranian.com/2017/08/10/nuke-iran/


Gee... looks like the US deep state won't have to try too hard to win the consent of the people for war with Iran after all. It's not a bridge too far for the public, despite all the anti-war propaganda. Maybe the Murican people know war is just something that will happen, and in some cases needs to happen to keep them on top.

All that needs to happen is a false flag attack or two, blamed on Iran, and getting consent for war from the public will be a shoo-in for the deep state.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CmM2sNspUM

[Babak]

Murican support for nuking Iran: 60%

Murican support for conventional warfare against Iran: 67%




https://iranian.com/2017/08/10/nuke-iran/


Gee... looks like the US deep state won't have to try too hard to win the consent of the people for war with Iran after all. It's not a bridge too far for the public, despite all the anti-war propaganda. Maybe the Murican people know war is just something that will happen, and in some cases needs to happen to keep them on top.

All that needs to happen is a false flag attack or two, blamed on Iran, and getting consent for war from the public will be a shoo-in for the deep state.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CmM2sNspUM

'Murica. Proud to be an 'murican

What a fucking disgrace.

[N1019]

'Murica. Proud to be an 'murican

What a fucking disgrace.

This just demonstrates to me that the deep state is still positioning itself for war, and doing all the "market research" necessary to sell the agenda to the public - and, as usual, the public don't realize what is happening.

If the result of 60-67% in favour of war can be extrapolated to the entire population, then the job's done. They don't need any more support than that.

It's a pretty nasty false flag scenario - alleged violation of the JCPOA followed by the sinking of an American ship in the Persian Gulf - but it really fits in with recent events. We have seen multiple close calls between Iranian and American vessels in the Gulf. It fits perfectly. Then, we have H.J. Res 10 waiting to be passed to authorize the use of US military forces against Iran.

[Babak]

This just demonstrates to me that the deep state is still positioning itself for war, and doing all the "market research" necessary to sell the agenda to the public - and, as usual, the public don't realize what is happening.

If the result of 60-67% in favour of war can be extrapolated to the entire population, then the job's done. They don't need any more support than that.

It's a pretty nasty false flag scenario - alleged violation of the JCPOA followed by the sinking of an American ship in the Persian Gulf - but it really fits in with recent events. We have seen multiple close calls between Iranian and American vessels in the Gulf. It fits perfectly. Then, we have H.J. Res 10 waiting to be passed to authorize the use of US military forces against Iran.

Sad world man.

[Wadaad]

Iran should NOT interfere with the Arab world, it will only cause more trouble. Iran should still, without doubt, support Syria because they supported Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, a good ally IMO.

Iran's reach is not that big...Syria and Hezbollah of Lebanon are their only lock...even in Iraq there are pro-Iranian and nativist, anti-Iranian Shia factions. As for the Houthis in Yemen, the support they receive from Iran is minimal, Iran couldnt point out Houthis on the map, they have no regard for Yemenis. It's all a Saudi-Zionist bogey man machine. Iranians have little respect for peninsular Arabs, they call them all "Tazi" and Malakh-khor, and those slurs even reach Tang China. So Iranian involvement in Yemen is minimal to none-existant, and overhyped by Saudis to camouflage their failure there.

Iran sacrificed ALOT of 'soft power' they built up over the years...(there was a time from say 2005-2008) Ahmedinajad was the most popular and beloved leader in the MENA by Sunni and Shia alike. Iran to be a relevant power, can only rely on acceptance by the Sunni majority, right now their fall back on real-politik (tossing aside Arab street approval, for saving Assad and other shia interests) will back fire in the end because it will only fuel more sectarianism. Sectarianism is the ONLY way Saudi stays relevant. So they are falling in the Saudi hands...just like how the Saudis lied and said Houthis are hitting scuds to the holy Mecca to gain (vainly) Pakistani support.

Houthis are stupid to lob missiles into Saudi. If I was a Houthi commander, I'd focus more on UAE, particularly Dubai...I think that would be a more cost effective target for them rather than Jedda, Yanbu and Mecca. It would make more sense to push the offense by attacks on Dubai, Abu Dhabi tourist and commercial interests, as they are soft targets, as UAE supports al-qaeda factions in Hadramaut (Bin Laden's homeland)

[Wadaad]

The truth is...Iran could give a fuck about Houthis. And even if it did, it can't smuggle shit to them.

Who really supports the Houthis? USA ofcourse (via their base in Djibouti). This is Iran-Iraq (iran contra) all over again, but in the Saudi backyard. What a difficulty Saudi Arabia is in.

The positive outcome is that this war in Yemen will be the 'thing' that turns Saudis into a martial, efficient people instead of the stereotype.

[Babak]

Iran's reach is not that big...Syria and Hezbollah of Lebanon are their only lock...even in Iraq there are pro-Iranian and nativist, anti-Iranian Shia factions. As for the Houthis in Yemen, the support they receive from Iran is minimal, Iran couldnt point out Houthis on the map, they have no regard for Yemenis. It's all a Saudi-Zionist bogey man machine. Iranians have little respect for peninsular Arabs, they call them all "Tazi" and Malakh-khor, and those slurs even reach Tang China. So Iranian involvement in Yemen is minimal to none-existant, and overhyped by Saudis to camouflage their failure there.

Iran sacrificed ALOT of 'soft power' they built up over the years...(there was a time from say 2005-2008) Ahmedinajad was the most popular and beloved leader in the MENA by Sunni and Shia alike. Iran to be a relevant power, can only rely on acceptance by the Sunni majority, right now their fall back on real-politik (tossing aside Arab street approval, for saving Assad and other shia interests) will back fire in the end because it will only fuel more sectarianism. Sectarianism is the ONLY way Saudi stays relevant. So they are falling in the Saudi hands...just like how the Saudis lied and said Houthis are hitting scuds to the holy Mecca to gain (vainly) Pakistani support.

Houthis are stupid to lob missiles into Saudi. If I was a Houthi commander, I'd focus more on UAE, particularly Dubai...I think that would be a more cost effective target for them rather than Jedda, Yanbu and Mecca. It would make more sense to push the offense by attacks on Dubai, Abu Dhabi tourist and commercial interests, as they are soft targets, as UAE supports al-qaeda factions in Hadramaut (Bin Laden's homeland)

Yea now its too bad Irans going down in the next few years.

[Wadaad]

If I were Iran, I would abandon the Arab project, including Palestiinians and focus on the 'stans' and build a geostrategic alliance in Central Asia

[Babak]

If I were Iran, I would abandon the Arab project, including Palestiinians and focus on the 'stans' and build a geostrategic alliance in Central Asia

Lol no way, those countries are all corrupted man

[N1019]

Lol no way, those countries are all corrupted man

Iran's only realistic option was to keep its foreign relations to simple matters of trade and broad co-operation at the UN level. No anti-American alliances, no spheres of influence, no quasi empire.

Alas, it's too late for that now.

[Babak]

Iran's only realistic option was to keep its foreign relations to simple matters of trade and broad co-operation at the UN level. No anti-American alliances, no spheres of influence, no quasi empire.

Alas, it's too late for that now.

Mullahs man. Mullahs

[N1019]

Mullahs man. Mullahs

And the last two Shahs, too, in a slightly different way. Sadly, they didn't get it, either. I consider their misjudgement to be worse than that of the mullahs for the simple reason that they were achieving so much for the country and should have known better. But time and again they read the situation wrong and made disastrous choices. Look at what Reza Shah did, trying to play off Britain, Russia and Germany against each other. The damned fool. It cost him the throne. Mossadegh? Another bloody idiot for taking on the big boys. And MRP's downfall was the worst of them all in terms of national consequences. One of the British ambassadors even gave him a hint - that he was trying to develop his country too fast, relying too much on ever-increasing oil prices that the US/UK were not going to tolerate. But still, he pushed ahead. At one point, President Gerald Ford practically begged the Shah not to increase oil prices, but the Shah dismissed that request, responding with a strongly worded letter that was apparently not received well, particularly in London. How often does the POTUS say, "pretty please, with sugar on top, don't do this, don't fuck up this good thing we've got going here"? The Shah and his advisors should have seen these messages for what they were, i.e. final warnings.

I don't really expect a pack of mullahs to know better, because they belong in the mosque, not the majlis, but that might be why Khomeini was allowed to return to Iran in 1979 - specifically because he did not belong in government and would supposedly be different.

Iran just needs to understand its limitations and accept that it cannot take on the big boys and come out of it unscathed. There will be consequences. I'm still not seeing that they have learnt that lesson. Too much pride and ego. Can they just not see how much of a power imbalance there is between them and the modern world powers? I cannot fathom why they find it so hard to see.

[Wanderer]

[

Kissinger:
“In these circumstances, the traditional adage that the enemy of your enemy can be regarded as your friend no longer applies. In the contemporary Middle East, the enemy of your enemy may also be your enemy. The Middle East affects the world by the volatility of its ideologies as much as by its specific actions,” he wrote in an article last week for CapX.

“The outside world’s war with ISIS can serve as an illustration. Most non-ISIS powers—including Shia Iran and the leading Sunni states—agree on the need to destroy it. But which entity is supposed to inherit its territory? A coalition of Sunnis? Or a sphere of influence dominated by Iran?

“The answer is elusive because Russia and the Nato countries support opposing factions. If the ISIS territory is occupied by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards or Shia forces trained and directed by it, the result could be a territorial belt reaching from Tehran to Beirut, which could mark the emergence of an Iranian radical empire,” he wrote.

http://www.newsweek.com/kissinger-warns-trump-isis-keeping-iran-check-he-must-not-let-it-fill-void-647766

That's the most I've seen Kissinger say about anything for awhile.
Bad news for Israel, I guess, if that scenario materializes. :coffee: But despite clearly troubled history, I fail to see why we should regard Iran as a threat. Saudi Arabia is much worse. I think we made a grave error in 1953. At that time, our geopolitical competition with the Soviet Union guided our foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran. Nowadays, I think Saudi-exported Wahhabism is the more serious threat.

[N1019]

Bad news for Israel, I guess, if that scenario materializes.

Well, I think the context of the discussion was to make sure that "radical Iranian empire" is never allowed to materialise. I have no doubt that Iran will be nipped in the bud.


coffee: But despite clearly troubled history, I fail to see why we should regard Iran as a threat. Saudi Arabia is much worse. I think we made a grave error in 1953. At that time, our geopolitical competition with the Soviet Union guided our foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran. Nowadays, I think Saudi-exported Wahhabism is the more serious threat.

This idea that Iran is way better than Saudi Arabia is a myth pushed by the anti-imperialist left. They hate the American empire and Saudi Arabia so much, and put a huge amount of effort into demonizing both, that they overlook Iran or even cheer it on as the underdog. But in some respects Saudi Arabia and Iran aren't very different at all. The main difference is that Saudi Arabia has American backing for its "malign activities" whereas Iran doesn't. Iran executes more people than KSA. They both meddle in other countries. They both persecute/execute homosexuals and minorities, and treat women as second class citizens, and there's no point splitting hairs about how Iran is "less bad" than KSA in that regard. Iran is inherently more powerful than Saudi Arabia due to its size, and it has an agenda of resisting American hegemony, which is why it is rightly perceived as a threat to American imperial interests.

[Babak]

And the last two Shahs, too, in a slightly different way. Sadly, they didn't get it, either. I consider their misjudgement to be worse than that of the mullahs for the simple reason that they were achieving so much for the country and should have known better. But time and again they read the situation wrong and made disastrous choices. Look at what Reza Shah did, trying to play off Britain, Russia and Germany against each other. The damned fool. It cost him the throne. Mossadegh? Another bloody idiot for taking on the big boys. And MRP's downfall was the worst of them all in terms of national consequences. One of the British ambassadors even gave him a hint - that he was trying to develop his country too fast, relying too much on ever-increasing oil prices that the US/UK were not going to tolerate. But still, he pushed ahead. At one point, President Gerald Ford practically begged the Shah not to increase oil prices, but the Shah dismissed that request, responding with a strongly worded letter that was apparently not received well, particularly in London. How often does the POTUS say, "pretty please, with sugar on top, don't do this, don't fuck up this good thing we've got going here"? The Shah and his advisors should have seen these messages for what they were, i.e. final warnings.

I don't really expect a pack of mullahs to know better, because they belong in the mosque, not the majlis, but that might be why Khomeini was allowed to return to Iran in 1979 - specifically because he did not belong in government and would supposedly be different.

Iran just needs to understand its limitations and accept that it cannot take on the big boys and come out of it unscathed. There will be consequences. I'm still not seeing that they have learnt that lesson. Too much pride and ego. Can they just not see how much of a power imbalance there is between them and the modern world powers? I cannot fathom why they find it so hard to see.

I actually respect reza shah more than anybody else tbh.

[N1019]

I actually respect reza shah more than anybody else tbh.

That's a pretty common thing among Iranians, I've noticed. But he fucked up too. All those pre-mullah figures were admirable in their own way, they just misjudged their imperial opponents. You would think that an intelligent person would be able to learn from the hard lessons of others and not repeat their mistakes, but it hasn't happened.

[Babak]

That's a pretty common thing among Iranians, I've noticed. But he fucked up too. All those pre-mullah figures were admirable in their own way, they just misjudged their imperial opponents. You would think that an intelligent person would be able to learn from the hard lessons of others and not repeat their mistakes, but it hasn't happened.

Yea im not really looking at him in that perspective, but for what he accomplished in Iran. Creating universities and such etc. Although yes, he did fail on that part.

[N1019]

Yea im not really looking at him in that perspective, but for what he accomplished in Iran. Creating universities and such etc. Although yes, he did fail on that part.

He did well, he just had to understand there were limitations to how far he could push things. You would think his son would have learnt from it, but he didn't, and nor have the mullahs. It's really tragic and stupid.

[Babak]

He did well, he just had to understand there were limitations to how far he could push things. You would think his son would have learnt from it, but he didn't, and nor have the mullahs. It's really tragic and stupid.

:picard2: really is pathetic tbh

[N1019]

:picard2: really is pathetic tbh

The best way for the mullahs to stay in power would have been to sell out to the Anglo-American oil interests from day one, put Iran's development on the back burner, keep the people downtrodden and just chill on some flavoured tobacco, or perhaps some harder stuff. But look what they did. They went as far as they could in the opposite direction, hating on America and threatening to spread their revolution throughout the entire region. It was insanity and still is. I can't say for sure, but it is possible that the Iran-Iraq War never would have happened if the mullahs were more obedient and chilled. We're talking probably a million or more deaths that could have been prevented. Not a joke. But they were either too stupid or didn't care. They didn't need to care. They were safe.

[Babak]

The best way for the mullahs to stay in power would have been to sell out to the Anglo-American oil interests from day one, put Iran's development on the back burner, keep the people downtrodden and just chill on some flavoured tobacco, or perhaps some harder stuff. But look what they did. They went as far as they could in the opposite direction, hating on America and threatening to spread their revolution throughout the entire region. It was insanity and still is. I can't say for sure, but it is possible that the Iran-Iraq War never would have happened if the mullahs were more obedient and chilled. We're talking probably a million or more deaths that could have been prevented. Not a joke. But they were either too stupid or didn't care. They didn't need to care. They were safe.

Because of mullahs, our people are still suffering today. The only ones who aren't suffering is them.

[N1019]

Because of mullahs, our people are still suffering today. The only ones who aren't suffering is them.

Yep. They are the first to blame others for what happened to Iran. Do you ever see them accepting responsibility for anything? Do they ever admit that their obstinacy and recalcitrance contributed directly to the death or suffering of millions of Iranians? No way.

[Babak]

Yep. They are the first to blame others for what happened to Iran. Do you ever see them accepting responsibility for anything? Do they ever admit that their obstinacy and recalcitrance contributed directly to the death or suffering of millions of Iranians? No way.

If i had the power, I would go over there and kick them out of power. Not even joking