Iran boosts budget for missiles, Revolutionary Guards

[Babak]

Iran's parliament has overwhelmingly voted to increase spending on Tehran's ballistic missile programme and the elite Revolutionary Guards in retaliation for new sanctions imposed by the United States.

In a session on Sunday, a total of 240 politicians out of 244 present voted to allocate $520m to develop the country's missile programme and boost foreign operations of the paramilitary troops, with only one abstention.

Parliamentarians approved the outlines of the bill to "counter America's terrorist and adventurist actions in the region" as some chanted "Death to America" after the vote results were announced.

READ MORE: Rouhani vows to end isolation amid fresh US sanctions

The vote came in reaction to legislation passed by the US Congress and signed by US President Donald Trump in early August to impose new sanctions on Iran over its missile programme.

The sanctions followed Iran successfully testing a rocket that can deliver satellites into orbit.

"The Americans should know that this was our first action," said speaker Ali Larijani after announcing the overwhelming majority vote for the package on Sunday.


Iran accuses US of undermining nuclear deal with sanctions
Iran denies its missile programme violates a UN resolution that endorsed Tehran's 2015 nuclear deal with world powers and calls upon the Islamic Republic not to conduct activities related to ballistic missiles designed to deliver nuclear weapons.

Tehran says it does not design such missiles.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, who was sworn in for a second term earlier this month, called the nuclear deal "a sign of Iran's goodwill on the international stage".

Iran has launched ballistic missiles in tests, something it is allowed to do under the deal, despite American criticism.

Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi told members of parliament the government and the foreign ministry backed the bill, which he said "was designed wisely so that it does not violate the nuclear deal and provide excuses for opposing sides".

READ MORE: 'It is in Trump's interest to keep the Iran deal alive'

"Iran boasts potential and actual options to confront hostile US actions," said Araqchi.

The Iranian plan would require Iran's government and armed forces to draw up a strategy to counter US violations of human rights around the world, and to support Iranian bodies and individuals affected by American sanctions.

The bill must now pass a second vote before being submitted to a clerical body for final approval and passage into law.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/iran-parliament-seeks-boost-missile-funding-170813085026024.html

[Böri]

Not as impressive as Kim Jong Un tho.

[Babak]

Not as impressive as Kim Jong Un tho.

True

[N1019]

There they go again, pushing the boundaries against an infinitely stronger opponent, inching ever closer to war, in typical Iranian fashion as we have seen throughout the last century.

They know the US is basically treating the ballistic missile programme as an extension of the nuclear programme, whether that is true or not, and that the nuclear programme will be used as a partial basis for a future war.

Oh well. I guess it's too late for them to change direction now.

[Pahli]

There they go again, pushing the boundaries against an infinitely stronger opponent, inching ever closer to war, in typical Iranian fashion as we have seen throughout the last century.

They know the US is basically treating the ballistic missile programme as an extension of the nuclear programme, whether that is true or not, and that the nuclear programme will be used as a partial basis for a future war.

Oh well. I guess it's too late for them to change direction now.

Thing is we don't even know if the Iranian government already got their hands on a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead, one thing is for sure, if they decide to launch it things are definitely going to go worse.

[Babak]

I dont understand why these fucking retarded mullahs have so much ego? For fucks sake

[N1019]

Thing is we don't even know if the Iranian government already got their hands on a ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead, one thing is for sure, if they decide to launch it things are definitely going to go worse.

I highly doubt they have a nuke, but it won't matter. The US will make the case that they either have a nuke or are still trying to get one. Even trying to get one is enough for them to strike.

[Pahli]

I highly doubt they have a nuke, but it won't matter. The US will make the case that they either have a nuke or are still trying to get one. Even trying to get one is enough for them to strike.

Yeah, tensions are very high unfortunately.

[N1019]

Yeah, tensions are very high unfortunately.

H.J. Res 10 makes it pretty clear. Iran does not need to actually have nukes in order for the POTUS to order military action against Iran. The idea is to take action to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Now, what Iran is doing here is playing right into the hands of the American warhawks. This can only go on for so long before things are brought to a head.

[Babak]

H.J. Res 10 makes it pretty clear. Iran does not need to actually have nukes in order for the POTUS to order military action against Iran. The idea is to take action to prevent Iran from getting nukes. Now, what Iran is doing here is playing right into the hands of the American warhawks. This can only go on for so long before things are brought to a head.

Pretty interesting. Lmk what you think http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/saudi-arabia-seeks-iraq-mend-ties-iran-170813151145632.html


The government of Saudi Arabia has sought the help of Iraq's prime minister to mend relations between Riyadh and Tehran, according to news reports.

Citing Qasim al-Araji, Iraq's interior minister, the Iraqi satellite channel Alghadeer reported that Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, has asked Haider al-Abadi to lead the mediation with Iran.

"During our visit to Saudi Arabia, they also asked us to do so, and we said that to [the] Iranian side. The Iranian side looked at this demand positively," Araji was quoted saying by Alghadeer on Sunday.

"After the victories that Iraq has achieved, it [Saudi Arabia] began looking to Iraq, at its true size and leading role.

"The calm and stability and the return of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have positive repercussions on the region as a whole."

Araji visited the Iranian capital, Tehran, on Saturday to discuss "several issues" with top Iranian officials, according to reports. He also visited Saudi Arabia in July.

The Iranian news agency ISNA quoted Araji in Farsi as saying that Mohammed bin Salman wanted to "ease tensions" with Iran.

Separately, Muqtada al-Sadr, the influential Iraqi Shia leader, announced on his website that he would be visiting the UAE on Sunday.

In July, Sadr made a rare visit to Saudi Arabia, where he met Mohammed bin Salman and other officials.

Sadr, an anti-American figure, commands a large following among the urban poor of Baghdad and the southern cities, including Saraya al-Salam, or Peace Brigades armed group.

He is now seen as a nationalist who has repeatedly called for protests against corruption in the Iraqi government, and his supporters have staged huge protests in Baghdad calling for electoral reform.

[Kamal900]

Pretty interesting. Lmk what you think http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/saudi-arabia-seeks-iraq-mend-ties-iran-170813151145632.html


The government of Saudi Arabia has sought the help of Iraq's prime minister to mend relations between Riyadh and Tehran, according to news reports.

Citing Qasim al-Araji, Iraq's interior minister, the Iraqi satellite channel Alghadeer reported that Mohammed bin Salman, the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, has asked Haider al-Abadi to lead the mediation with Iran.

"During our visit to Saudi Arabia, they also asked us to do so, and we said that to [the] Iranian side. The Iranian side looked at this demand positively," Araji was quoted saying by Alghadeer on Sunday.

"After the victories that Iraq has achieved, it [Saudi Arabia] began looking to Iraq, at its true size and leading role.

"The calm and stability and the return of relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia have positive repercussions on the region as a whole."

Araji visited the Iranian capital, Tehran, on Saturday to discuss "several issues" with top Iranian officials, according to reports. He also visited Saudi Arabia in July.

The Iranian news agency ISNA quoted Araji in Farsi as saying that Mohammed bin Salman wanted to "ease tensions" with Iran.

Separately, Muqtada al-Sadr, the influential Iraqi Shia leader, announced on his website that he would be visiting the UAE on Sunday.

In July, Sadr made a rare visit to Saudi Arabia, where he met Mohammed bin Salman and other officials.

Sadr, an anti-American figure, commands a large following among the urban poor of Baghdad and the southern cities, including Saraya al-Salam, or Peace Brigades armed group.

He is now seen as a nationalist who has repeatedly called for protests against corruption in the Iraqi government, and his supporters have staged huge protests in Baghdad calling for electoral reform.

I never trust the corrupt monarchy of Saudi Arabia that is under the thumb of the Zionist west. Strange, it seems that Iran is the only country that tries to bring stability to Syria while countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel are cheering for the terrorists that are wrecking havoc in the country. It's good that Trump ended the program in supporting the terrorists in Syria and Iraq really. I missed when the country was ruled by malek Faisal before his assassination.

[Pahli]

I never trust the corrupt monarchy of Saudi Arabia that is under the thumb of the Zionist west. Strange, it seems that Iran is the only country that tries to bring stability to Syria while countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel are cheering for the terrorists that are wrecking havoc in the country. It's good that Trump ended the program in supporting the terrorists in Syria and Iraq really. I missed when the country was ruled by malek Faisal before his assassination.

Just watch this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYY_ws6axKo

Saudis are talking shit, their king got triggered for real.

[N1019]

Pretty interesting. Lmk what you think http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/saudi-arabia-seeks-iraq-mend-ties-iran-170813151145632.html

The government of Saudi Arabia has sought the help of Iraq's prime minister to mend relations between Riyadh and Tehran, according to news reports.


Three possibilities:

1. It's genuine from the Saudis. I have to say I doubt that. Let's say Iran and KSA start talking. Do you really believe the Saudis are going to live and let live? They haven't done that so far, and I don't believe they can afford to. They will make demands like they did to Qatar.
2. The whole story is BS.
3. The story is true, but it's an act.

Without doing any further research, I'm going with 3, the reason being that if you are going to war, it is better if it looks like you tried to avoid it beforehand, even if you really didn't... if ya know what I mean. The Saudis can make demands that the Iranians consider unreasonable, then walk away and say, "we tried, but those guys are not willing to budge; it's hopeless".

Meanwhile, the US is conducting public surveys to determine how the people would respond to false flags against Iran.

[jingorex]

dear iran,

its not enough.

regards,
USA

[Kamal900]

Just watch this:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYY_ws6axKo

Saudis are talking shit, their king got triggered for real.

Because Qaddafi had said things that are very true, and this is one of the main reasons why the Americans decided to kill the man. I know many Saudis that are very ashamed on their current situation in their country, but they told me that they can't do anything about it for as long as the west keep supporting the oppressive regime in the country.

[Pahli]

Because Qaddafi had said things that are very true, and this is one of the main reasons why the Americans decided to kill the man. I know many Saudis that are very ashamed on their current situation in their country, but they told me that they can't do anything about it for as long as the west keep supporting the oppressive regime in the country.

I guess it goes both ways, for both Saudis and Iran.

[Kamal900]

I guess it goes both ways, for both Saudis and Iran.

It's funny because my Iranian friends told me that the revolution in Iran first started out as a pro-democracy and anti-corruption revolution against the king and his family before the Islamists took over the revolution and..well, this what happened.

[Pahli]

It's funny because my Iranian friends told me that the revolution in Iran first started out as a pro-democracy and anti-corruption revolution against the king and his family before the Islamists took over the revolution and..well, this what happened.

Like an Iranian cab driver told me; Those protesters were blind fools, they were fooled and got fucked over by the Ayatollah, so they allowed degenerate Ali worshippers to take over and now they make their kids beat themselves with chains til they get bloody. This is one of the reasons why I also hate my own people. How can you be fooled by a retard wearing a turban, he was already making statements against the Pahlavi government as "disbelievers, kuffars, celebrating Satans events". The younger generation had to pay for this, but I also blame those subhuman clerics for radicalizing the population. My only wish upon them is death, for every each of them. We don't need more radical people. The same needs to happen in Afghanistan.

[Kamal900]

Like an Iranian cab driver told me; Those protesters were blind fools, they were fooled and got fucked over by the Ayatollah, so they allowed degenerate Ali worshippers to take over and now they make their kids beat themselves with chains til they get bloody. This is one of the reasons why I also hate my own people. How can you be fooled by a retard wearing a turban, he was already making statements against the Pahlavi government as "disbelievers, kuffars, celebrating Satans events". The younger generation had to pay for this, but I also blame those subhuman clerics for radicalizing the population. My only wish upon them is death, for every each of them. We don't need more radical people. The same needs to happen in Afghanistan.

True, which can be said on what's going on in countries like Libya, Egypt, Syria and so on. Pahlavi was already showing the signs of rebellion against the western world when he made those politically incorrect statements in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsTxfH6tnww&t=2s

I mean, if the man was still ruling the nation, he would be like Bashar al-Assad who keeps giving the west the middle finger to them, and that's why the Americans supported Saddam into power to deal with the rogue in Iran. But like Stalin, Saddam rebelled against the Americans which is why they attacked his nation back in 2003. I have to tell to my peers and other peoples of the world that the American people are NOT doing all of this in their own accord.

[Babak]

Three possibilities:

1. It's genuine from the Saudis. I have to say I doubt that. Let's say Iran and KSA start talking. Do you really believe the Saudis are going to live and let live? They haven't done that so far, and I don't believe they can afford to. They will make demands like they did to Qatar.
2. The whole story is BS.
3. The story is true, but it's an act.

Without doing any further research, I'm going with 3, the reason being that if you are going to war, it is better if it looks like you tried to avoid it beforehand, even if you really didn't... if ya know what I mean. The Saudis can make demands that the Iranians consider unreasonable, then walk away and say, "we tried, but those guys are not willing to budge; it's hopeless".

Meanwhile, the US is conducting public surveys to determine how the people would respond to false flags against Iran.

Thought exactly the same thing.

[Pahli]

True, which can be said on what's going on in countries like Libya, Egypt, Syria and so on. Pahlavi was already showing the signs of rebellion against the western world when he made those politically incorrect statements in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsTxfH6tnww&t=2s

I mean, if the man was still ruling the nation, he would be like Bashar al-Assad who keeps giving the west the middle finger to them, and that's why the Americans supported Saddam into power to deal with the rogue in Iran. But like Stalin, Saddam rebelled against the Americans which is why they attacked his nation back in 2003. I have to tell to my peers and other peoples of the world that the American people are NOT doing all of this in their own accord.

There are few issues I'd like to address tho;

The problem right now is that people are making statements such as "go destroy Israel". Honestly, we know that won't happen, so instead of being Gültekinoids, they should work for a 2 state solution. I don't like the old men in the Israeli parliament and hopefully the younger generation will change Israels foreign policy too. Remember that there are tons of Kurdish and Iranian Jews in Israel, a war with Iran is not going to look good for the Israeli government for the Kurdish and especially the Persian Jews.

Most Israeli Jews I met here are positive of Palestinians, so retarded pan-muslims with their "muh fellow muslims, destroy Israel" are in no way helping out the situation. Palestinians sadly also suffer from radicalization, a lot of it. If they intended to shift towards secular movements and abandon Hamas (Hamas is also one of the reasons why Palestinians are in such bad conditions), I am sure they'd make a lot of progress, I've noticed less religious Palestinians are really nice people but they're sadly not many here. The ones who are religious are more troublesome tho.

Now, my focus as an Iranian would first of all be internal stability and removal of any degenerate Ali Manyuki worshippers and clerics.

[Kamal900]

There are few issues I'd like to address tho;

The problem right now is that people are making statements such as "go destroy Israel". Honestly, we know that won't happen, so instead of being Gültekinoids, they should work for a 2 state solution. I don't like the old men in the Israeli parliament and hopefully the younger generation will change Israels foreign policy too. Remember that there are tons of Kurdish and Iranian Jews in Israel, a war with Iran is not going to look good for the Israeli government for the Kurdish and especially the Persian Jews.

Most Israeli Jews I met here are positive of Palestinians, so retarded pan-muslims with their "muh fellow muslims, destroy Israel" are in no way helping out the situation. Palestinians sadly also suffer from radicalization, a lot of it. If they intended to shift towards secular movements and abandon Hamas (Hamas is also one of the reasons why Palestinians are in such bad conditions).

Now, my focus as an Iranian would first of all be internal stability and removal of any degenerate Ali Manyuki worshippers and clerics.

Like I said, I'm not saying that every Jew is part of this conspiracy really, and like what even the Israeli president himself was saying that Israel as a nation needs to change. It should be something like Denmark or America than countries like Turkey with it's nationalistic racism against minorities and so on. In other words, treat all people fairly and equally, and with that, you can have peace and tranquillity in the nation which unfortunately is something very alien in most middle eastern countries. If anything really, all of us needs to change.

[Pahli]

Like I said, I'm not saying that every Jew is part of this conspiracy really, and like what even the Israeli president himself was saying that Israel as a nation needs to change. It should be something like Denmark or America than countries like Turkey with it's nationalistic racism against minorities and so on. In other words, treat all people fairly and equally, and with that, you can have peace and tranquillity in the nation which unfortunately is something very alien in most middle eastern countries. If anything really, all of us needs to change.

Everyone needs to change but they don't want to because they're stubborn. I know its wrong to isolate people from each other but thats what Kurds are going to do with Iraq once they get independent. Turkey already build their wall lol, and Erdogan said he would even build a wall with Irans border lmao.

[Babak]

There are few issues I'd like to address tho;

The problem right now is that people are making statements such as "go destroy Israel". Honestly, we know that won't happen, so instead of being Gültekinoids, they should work for a 2 state solution. I don't like the old men in the Israeli parliament and hopefully the younger generation will change Israels foreign policy too. Remember that there are tons of Kurdish and Iranian Jews in Israel, a war with Iran is not going to look good for the Israeli government for the Kurdish and especially the Persian Jews.

Most Israeli Jews I met here are positive of Palestinians, so retarded pan-muslims with their "muh fellow muslims, destroy Israel" are in no way helping out the situation. Palestinians sadly also suffer from radicalization, a lot of it. If they intended to shift towards secular movements and abandon Hamas (Hamas is also one of the reasons why Palestinians are in such bad conditions), I am sure they'd make a lot of progress, I've noticed less religious Palestinians are really nice people but they're sadly not many here. The ones who are religious are more troublesome tho.

Now, my focus as an Iranian would first of all be internal stability and removal of any degenerate Ali Manyuki worshippers and clerics.

I agree, but I dont think American warhawks will care about Persian jews getting upset. Relations, however will intesify but right now, the U.S has a goal and thats to get Iran to give up.

[Pahli]

I agree, but I dont think American warhawks will care about Persian jews getting upset. Relations, however will intesify but right now, the U.S has a goal and thats to get Iran to give up.

Americans are not going to care but it will impact on the Israelis themselves and they are a part of this anti-Iran coalition.

[Kamal900]

Everyone needs to change but they don't want to because they're stubborn. I know its wrong to isolate people from each other but thats what Kurds are going to do with Iraq once they get independent. Turkey already build their wall lol, and Erdogan said he would even build a wall with Irans border lmao.

I wouldn't say simply because they're stubborn. It's more like narcissism to me. I mean, when a certain group of people, espicially the ones that are ruling a specific country, put themselves above others, and see the world in black and white where they portray themselves as pure innocent people and paint the other as the evil ones. Well, you'll deal with people who refuse to see the other side and try to deny their wrong doings. Look at Turkey as an example. Ataturk, while I praise that he given women's rights and so on, placed a foundation that is inherently racist against minorities who aren't Turkish or Turkic in general. And with that, Turks refuse to change them because they find it very heretical for anyone to change any law that was placed by Ataturk even if it's not good for all peoples. Kurds have been trying to deal with the situation with the Turks in a democratic and civilised manner. But of course, it didn't work, and their rights had become so marginalised that they have no choice but to be radical and join the ranks of the PKK. Look at how westerners deal in their own countries. You can't say that the laws in America back in the 1920's is the same as today since many laws and legislation have been changed for the better to create a more equal society for all Americans regardless of race, gender and so on. My views are indeed very radical for many MENA peoples, but these views are not new since they can be traced back all the way to the Achaemenid and even the Abbasid periods.

[Pahli]

I wouldn't say simply because they're stubborn. It's more like narcissism to me. I mean, when a certain group of people, espicially the ones that are ruling a specific country, put themselves above others, and see the world in black and white where they portray themselves as pure innocent people and paint the other as the evil ones. Well, you'll deal with people who refuse to see the other side and try to deny their wrong doings. Look at Turkey as an example. Ataturk, while I praise that he given women's rights and so on, placed a foundation that is inherently racist against minorities who aren't Turkish or Turkic in general. And with that, Turks refuse to change them because they find it very heretical for anyone to change any law that was placed by Ataturk even if it's not good for all peoples. Kurds have been trying to deal with the situation with the Turks in a democratic and civilised manner. But of course, it didn't work, and their rights had become so marginalised that they have no choice but to be radical and join the ranks of the PKK. Look at how westerners deal in their own countries. You can't say that the laws in America back in the 1920's is the same as today since many laws and legislation have been changed for the better to create a more equal society for all Americans regardless of race, gender and so on. My views are indeed very radical for many MENA peoples, but these views are not new since they can be traced back all the way to the Achaemenid and even the Abbasid periods.

The idea of a multicultural, multiethnic country / empire indeed dates back to the Achaemenid Empire, but times have changed, religions have emerged and oil is a must have for the super powers. So in the end political and religious differences are also one of the main reasons why people are split if we don't count ethnicity in.

[Babak]

The idea of a multicultural, multiethnic country / empire indeed dates back to the Achaemenid Empire, but times have changed, religions have emerged and oil is a must have for the super powers. So in the end political and religious differences are also one of the main reasons why people are split if we don't count ethnicity in.

Yea, its our fault for coming up with this idea. Nobody can live with each other in peace.

[Pahli]

Yea, its our fault for coming up with this idea. Nobody can live with each other in peace.

We need to stop messing with the other Middle Eastern countries (exception is Syria because they have been good allies of Iran).

Wadaad said the same, he had some good arguments for why Iran instead should expand to the East and get a hold of Central Asia and South Central Asia.

[Kamal900]

Yea, its our fault for coming up with this idea. Nobody can live with each other in peace.

It's certainly not a bad idea, but it's us that we don't know how to do it, and we get very weird and bad influences from the outside world. I mean, Cyrus didn't make an empire that was a poor man's copy of another civilisation where his prospects and ideology was very radical for his time to a point that the UN had placed his cylinder that he made as the earliest human rights record in history. I mean, Cyrus the great wasn't born in some noble and rich family or anything since his family and other Persians in his time were nomads in Iran, and yet, he managed to create an empire that Assyrians and other ancient peoples including the Romans didn't understand. All in all, technology and materialism doesn't bring happiness to people, and at times, they go at each other's throats for personal gains these days.

[Halgurd]

Yea, its our fault for coming up with this idea. Nobody can live with each other in peace.

However we do have the ability to. Just look at Rojava as an example, where Kurds, Turkmens, Arabs, Assyrians all coexist in harmony and peace. It's nationalism that is destroying our ability to coexist peacefully. We need radical ideological change.

[Pahli]

However we do have the ability to. Just look at Rojava as an example, where Kurds, Turkmens, Arabs, Assyrians all coexist in harmony and peace. It's nationalism that is destroying our ability to coexist peacefully. We need radical ideological change.

Lol, the funniest of it all is that Turkmens are fighting Turkey itself which really pisses the Turks off :lol:


However we do have the ability to. Just look at Rojava as an example, where Kurds, Turkmens, Arabs, Assyrians all coexist in harmony and peace. It's nationalism that is destroying our ability to coexist peacefully. We need radical ideological change.

It is nationalism that made the Kurds arrange the referendum, so you cannot get rid of nationalism, you just need a way to not go full retard with it, more casual nationalism without racism and discrimination could work.

[N1019]

We need to stop messing with the other Middle Eastern countries (exception is Syria because they have been good allies of Iran).

Wadaad said the same, he had some good arguments for why Iran instead should expand to the East and get a hold of Central Asia and South Central Asia.

Expanding to the east and "getting hold" of more foreign territory is another insane idea. How about keeping to itself? Can Iran possibly manage that? It doesn't look like it. Acting outside its own borders or even just talking about it causes big problems for the country because there are bigger and badder powers who don't want it. I'm sure Russia, Iran's so-called friend and partner, would just let Iran take over former Soviet territory. No freaking way.

Anyway, I think most of this talk is just wishful thinking. It's good to have dreams if they inspire some positive action, but we're not running this show. The people who are, are clearly nuts.

[Pahli]

Expanding to the east and "getting hold" of more foreign territory is another insane idea. How about keeping to itself? Can Iran possibly manage that? It doesn't look like it. Acting outside its own borders or even just talking about it causes big problems for the country because there are bigger and badder powers who don't want it. I'm sure Russia, Iran's so-called friend and partner, would just let Iran take over former Soviet territory. No freaking way.

Anyway, I think most of this talk is just wishful thinking. It's good to have dreams if they inspire some positive action, but we're not running this show. The people who are, are clearly nuts.

Well, if Iran can help stabilize Afghanistan then what would the problem be? The Afghan government is unable to control their own country and still have problems with Taliban and even ISIS now. Afghanistan is also the biggest supplier of opium and Iran has like 2 million heroin addicts last time I checked, so there is definitely a connection and a problem that needs to be dealt with. The Afghan politicians are not capable of running a country, Afghanistan right now is just a Lite version of the Talibani Afghanistan.

Oh and let me remind you of the Basmaci rebellion which sought to Turkify Iranian lands and I have a feeling some Turks want to try that again. If that happens Iran and other Iranian countries have their reasons to step in and stop it, even if they have to hold some territory.

[Babak]

Iran should've just kept to itself. It shouldn't expand, and really, shouldn't do anything. Especially with MENA nations.

It should just hault or "Pause". But we know this isn't going to happen.

[N1019]

Well, if Iran can help stabilize Afghanistan then what would the problem be? The Afghan government is unable to control their own country and still have problems with Taliban and even ISIS now. Afghanistan is also the biggest supplier of opium and Iran has like 2 million heroin addicts last time I checked, so there is definitely a connection and a problem that needs to be dealt with. The Afghan politicians are not capable of running a country, Afghanistan right now is just a Lite version of the Talibani Afghanistan.

Oh and let me remind you of the Basmaci rebellion which sought to Turkify Iranian lands and I have a feeling some Turks want to try that again. If that happens Iran and other Iranian countries have their reasons to step in and stop it, even if they have to hold some territory.

There is just no way that the US OR Russia will allow Iran to forge a new empire towards central Asia. It's not in either of their interests to allow that. And the last thing Russia would do would be to allow Iran to take hold of Russia's traditional sphere of influence, because if America ever attacked Iran and Iran were to fall, America would be on Russia's doorstep - even more than it already is. It would also increase the likelihood of direct conflict between the US and Russia. Iran is a liability for Russia, which is why Russia is reluctant to get too deeply entangled with Iran... it wouldn't even go all-out for Syria... No way in hell. Russia might allow Iran to boost trade relationships in the area but that's a very different thing.

If you're only talking about Afghanistan, which I didn't think you or Wadaad were, that's slightly different. However, as far as I can tell, the mess in Afghanistan is by design, not by accident. In case you haven't noticed, weak governments that cannot control their territory are a common theme wherever the US has been meddling in that part of the world, staunch allies excepted. Iran can go into Afghanistan but it would just be bleeding resources. The drug trade is also reportedly an important part of Anglo-American dark ops funding.

The Persian Empire is finished, and it's not coming back in any way, shape or form.

[Pahli]

There is just no way that the US OR Russia will allow Iran to forge a new empire towards central Asia. It's not in either of their interests to allow that. And the last thing Russia would do would be to allow Iran to take hold of Russia's traditional sphere of influence, because if America ever attacked Iran and Iran were to fall, America would be on Russia's doorstep - even more than it already is. It would also increase the likelihood of direct conflict between the US and Russia. Iran is a liability for Russia, which is why Russia is reluctant to get too deeply entangled with Iran... it wouldn't even go all-out for Syria... No way in hell. Russia might allow Iran to boost trade relationships in the area but that's a very different thing.

If you're only talking about Afghanistan, which I didn't think you or Wadaad were, that's slightly different. However, as far as I can tell, the mess in Afghanistan is by design, not by accident. In case you haven't noticed, weak governments that cannot control their territory are a common theme wherever the US has been meddling in that part of the world, staunch allies excepted. Iran can go into Afghanistan but it would just be bleeding resources. The drug trade is also reportedly an important part of Anglo-American dark ops funding.

I don't think its fair to assume that Afghanistan can just stay like it is while refugees and drugs roll into Iran. I agree that it will be costly to move into Afghanistan and that it has to be played smart, but its not unrealistic for Iran to make a positive impact on the region.

[N1019]

I don't think its fair to assume that Afghanistan can just stay like it is while refugees and drugs roll into Iran. I agree that it will be costly to move into Afghanistan and that it has to be played smart, but its not unrealistic for Iran to make a positive impact on the region.

Maybe it would be better if Iran bolstered its border controls and stopped recruiting Afghans and Pakis to fight in Syria.

This is the problem. Iran thinks it can play with the big boys and get a big slice of the pie for itself. It can't, and it is slowly heading towards being taught a nasty lesson.

[Pahli]

Maybe it would be better if Iran bolstered its border controls and stopped recruiting Afghans and Pakis to fight in Syria.

This is the problem. Iran thinks it can play with the big boys and get a big slice of the pie for itself. It can't, and it is slowly heading towards being taught a nasty lesson.

Thats true. The army is nowhere capable of handling either the Americans or Russians for a prolonged time, the Pahlavi army however was one of the worlds largest and we could argue that they could be capable of a lot more than the current government.

But otherwise you're right, Iran should rebuild the progress they lost because of the revolution and that fucker Khomeini. But there is one problem; If the current government is removed, will they go back to being pro-American? I am not sure Russia is too happy about that change too because then the U.S are going to become quite powerful.

[Babak]

Thats true. The army is nowhere capable of handling either the Americans or Russians for a prolonged time, the Pahlavi army however was one of the worlds largest and we could argue that they could be capable of a lot more than the current government.

But otherwise you're right, Iran should rebuild the progress they lost because of the revolution and that fucker Khomeini. But there is one problem; If the current government is removed, will they go back to being pro-American? I am not sure Russia is too happy about that change too because then the U.S are going to become quite powerful.

I think it would be probably in par with turkey minus the dictatorship. Obviously an Iranian leader. Russia would stay neutral.

The U.S could take over the entire world if it wanted to tbh lol. Nobody can get to its level and most likely, never will.

[Pahli]

I think it would be probably in par with turkey minus the dictatorship. Obviously an Iranian leader. Russia would stay neutral.

Russia isn't going to be happy about losing a possible friend / ally, especially if they become Pro-US.

[Babak]

Russia isn't going to be happy about losing a possible friend / ally, especially if they become Pro-US.

I think things are starting to change between trump and putin so that sort of thing doesn't happen.

[Pahli]

I think things are starting to change between trump and putin so that sort of thing doesn't happen.

Lets see, Syrian conflict isn't exactly the situation that makes them best friends but they are on better terms compared to former presidents.

[Babak]

Lets see, Syrian conflict isn't exactly the situation that makes them best friends but they are on better terms compared to former presidents.

Iran's been through a lot of shit. Sad to see it end this way. Our people might of been stupid, but they don't deserve any of this. We've been united for a long time with a rich beautiful culture; this is what I've least expected for Iran up until this point.

[Pahli]

Iran's been through a lot of shit. Sad to see it end this way. Our people might of been stupid, but they don't deserve any of this. We've been united for a long time with a rich beautiful culture; this is what I've least expected for Iran up until this point.

If they play it smart they might get away with it, but Trump is not one to mess with. You saw what he did to Syria? Even without legitimate proof that the Syrian Air Force actually bombed the Rebels with chemical bombs, he still chose to fucking fire missiles at the SAA.

[Babak]

If they play it smart they might get away with it, but Trump is not one to mess with. You saw what he did to Syria? Even without legitimate proof that the Syrian Air Force actually bombed the Rebels with chemical bombs, he still chose to fucking fire missiles at the SAA.

I thought that was stupid of him and pissed me the fuck off. Though, if something like that does happen to Iran, this time, Russia and china won't be just watching.

[Pahli]

I thought that was stupid of him and pissed me the fuck off. Though, if something like that does happen to Iran, this time, Russia an china won't be watching.

If he can do that to Syria, he can do that to Iran and North Korea too, this man doesn't give a shit about others than himself and his country.

[Babak]

If he can do that to Syria, he can do that to Iran and North Korea too, this man doesn't give a shit about others than himself and his country.

He did it to afghanistan too lmfao

[Pahli]

He did it to afghanistan too lmfao

Yeah, he dropped the MOAB and buttfucked the Afghani ISIS soldiers lmao, they lost 100 men or so.

[N1019]

Thats true. The army is nowhere capable of handling either the Americans or Russians for a prolonged time, the Pahlavi army however was one of the worlds largest and we could argue that they could be capable of a lot more than the current government.

But otherwise you're right, Iran should rebuild the progress they lost because of the revolution and that fucker Khomeini. But there is one problem; If the current government is removed, will they go back to being pro-American? I am not sure Russia is too happy about that change too because then the U.S are going to become quite powerful.

It's hard to say where Iran would end up were the current regime to be overthrown. It is likely that the US would want the replacement regime to be very weak as in Iraq, Afghanistan etc. Genuine democracy would not be allowed to flourish, at least not in key areas that are likely to conflict with imperial interests. It may not be possible to quickly rebuild any kind of social and economic progress from the Shah's era if the country has to be rebuilt due to bombing. Russia is not really interested in a strong Iran, although the Russians would publicly deny it.

[N1019]

Russia isn't going to be happy about losing a possible friend / ally, especially if they become Pro-US.

I think things are starting to change between trump and putin so that sort of thing doesn't happen.

Lets see, Syrian conflict isn't exactly the situation that makes them best friends but they are on better terms compared to former presidents.

I thought that was stupid of him and pissed me the fuck off. Though, if something like that does happen to Iran, this time, Russia and china won't be just watching.

Russia isn't going to save Iran. It didn't save Syria from destruction, and Syria is a long term ally of Russia. The Russia-Iran relationship is more recent and superficial, rooted in common opposition to American hegemony, they are both affected by sanctions, trade opportunities etc. They don't trust each other, Russia won't sell Iran the latest technology, they disagree on Israel, etc. The thing about Russia everyone needs to understand is that Russia takes care of Russia. They can't afford not to.

You have to take a step back and think about how other countries view Iran. It's not an easy country to deal with.

Significantly, Russia and Iran don't have a mutual defence pact, and I guarantee you they never will. That means if the US attacks Iran, Russia is under no obligation to do anything. There is no way Russia is going to lock itself into a possible war with the US by entering into such an arrangement. The Russians aren't crazy. They know the Iranians are dangerous, and that by pushing the boundaries of American tolerance it is risky to get into bed with them. Russia might provide Iran with equipment and intel, but that's about it. If Iran is torn apart from inside like Syria, they could do more, but we're not talking major troop deployments. Beyond that, they will be more or less on their own. As for China, forget it.

[Babak]

Russia isn't going to save Iran. It didn't save Syria from destruction, and Syria is a long term ally of Russia. The Russia-Iran relationship is more recent and superficial, rooted in common opposition to American hegemony, they are both affected by sanctions, trade opportunities etc. They don't trust each other, Russia won't sell Iran the latest technology, they disagree on Israel, etc. The thing about Russia everyone needs to understand is that Russia takes care of Russia. They can't afford not to.

You have to take a step back and think about how other countries view Iran. It's not an easy country to deal with.

Significantly, Russia and Iran don't have a mutual defence pact, and I guarantee you they never will. That means if the US attacks Iran, Russia is under no obligation to do anything. There is no way Russia is going to lock itself into a possible war with the US by entering into such an arrangement. The Russians aren't crazy. They know the Iranians are dangerous, and that by pushing the boundaries of American tolerance it is risky to get into bed with them. Russia might provide Iran with equipment and intel, but that's about it. Beyond that, they will be more or less on their own. As for China, forget it.

So really, this is a lose-lose situation lmao

[N1019]

So really, this is a lose-lose situation lmao

People just need to let go of the idea of Russia as saviour. Russia is always acting in its own interests, which don't necessarily have anything to do with helping other countries. The destruction of Syria is a good example of that. Russia was never going to stop it from happening, they just took the opportunity to apply pressure to the US, to make sure they didn't get a free ride, to get themselves a seat at the table and bargaining chip to use in negotations with the US. Russia also used its relationship with Iran as a bargaining chip with the US, but since the JCPOA Russia's relevance has faded in that area. Before the JCPOA, Iran needed Russia more than it does now, but Iran always needed Russia more than Russia needed Iran. It's all about what's in it for Russia. To be honest I can't blame the Russians for playing it that way.

[Babak]

People just need to let go of the idea of Russia as saviour. Russia is always acting in its own interests, which don't necessarily have anything to do with helping other countries. The destruction of Syria is a good example of that. Russia was never going to stop it from happening, they just took the opportunity to apply pressure to the US, to make sure they didn't get a free ride, to get themselves a seat at the table and bargaining chip to use in negotations with the US. Russia also used its relationship with Iran as a bargaining chip with the US, but since the JCPOA Russia's relevance has faded in that area. It's all about what's in it for Russia. To be honest I can't blame the Russians for doing it.

Putin's a good leader, i'll give you that

[N1019]

Putin's a good leader, i'll give you that

Russia is in a bad position due to the low oil price, sanctions from the West etc. They need to extract all the concessions they can to alleviate their hardship. Syria and Iran are bargaining chips to that end.

[N1019]

Not a good move, if you ask me.

This is what you might call dangerous resistance against a stronger opponent - the sort of thing that can see your testicles thrown in a vice.

They know Iran is not only KSA's and Israel's enemy no. 1 but also America's. Talk about pushing their luck. Sure, in itself, it might not amount to much. It could be more symbolic than anything else. Perhaps the aforementioned enemies of Iran will wait to see whether that is the case before responding.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/world/middleeast/qatar-iran-boycott-saudi-arabia.html

[Babak]

Not a good move, if you ask me.

This is what you might call dangerous resistance against a stronger opponent - the sort of thing that can see your testicles thrown in a vice.

They know Iran is not only KSA's and Israel's enemy no. 1 but also America's. Talk about pushing their luck. Sure, in itself, it might not amount to much. It could be more symbolic than anything else. Perhaps the aforementioned enemies of Iran will wait to see whether that is the case before responding.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/world/middleeast/qatar-iran-boycott-saudi-arabia.html

Yea, i saw this yesterday.

Not a good sign.

[N1019]

Oct. 15, 2017. Put it in your calendar.

By that date, President Donald Trump must yet again certify that Iran is in compliance with the terms of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

Indeed, owing to the infinite wisdom of the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” the U.S. Senate, the president must make such a certification every 90 days. Trump has done so twice, although each time at the last possible moment and only following a knock-down, drag-out fight in which a bunch of globalist cucks, also known as Trump’s national security team, implored him not to walk away from the agreement. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Trump said, “If it was up to me, I would have had them noncompliant 180 days ago.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-next-self-inflicted-crisis-140223140.html

Globalist cucks? lol.

So, supposedly, there is this struggle and debate going on within the Trump Administration about Iran (and other issues). We are being told that Trump and his warhawk associates constantly have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, back to a more reasonable position by people who supposedly know better.

But is there any evidence that this reported struggle is real?

Not much, I'd say. Too much of what we hear in that regard comprises of unverified, and unverifiable, reports. An unnamed White House official said this, an unnamed intelligence official said that... Combined with constant rhetoric about American weakness and incompetence, and very selective examination of facts, mainstream media reports on Iran just can't be taken seriously.

More likely, I suspect, is that the theatrics are a deliberate display for public consumption, and the US government's approach is more carefully co-ordinated out of public view.

So, while we should take the words of the media with a grain of salt, things of which we can be more confident are verified actions, like H.J. Res 10.

While all that BS is going on, who was it who put H.J. Res 10 on the table? You know, that document which, if passed into law, authorizes military action against Iran? It was a Democrat, Alcee Hastings, just before the end of Obama's second term. Hastings has a mixed record on war, but as an example of his past behaviour, he voted against the use of military force in Iraq and voted for the removal of American forces from Afghanistan.

How many other countries out there have an H.J. Res 10-like document applying to them? I haven't even seen one for North Korea. To me, it's clearly part of a long game.

[N1019]

According to John Bolton, former American Ambassador to the UN, the US should:



- End all landing and docking rights for all Iranian aircraft and ships at key allied ports;
- End all visas for Iranians, including so called “scholarly,” student, sports, or other exchanges;
- Demand payment with a set deadline on outstanding U.S. federal-court judgments against Iran for terrorism, including 9/11;
- Announce U.S. support for the democratic Iranian opposition;
- Expedite delivery of bunker-buster bombs;
- Announce U.S. support for Kurdish national aspirations, including Kurds in Iran, Iraq, and Syria;
- Provide assistance to Balochis, Khuzestan Arabs, Kurds, and others — also to internal resistance among labour unions, students, and women’s groups;
- Actively organize opposition to Iranian political objectives in the U.N.

IV. Conclusion This effort should be the Administration’s highest diplomatic priority, commanding all necessary time, attention, and resources. We can no longer wait to eliminate the threat posed by Iran. The Administration’s justification of its decision will demonstrate to the world that we understand the threat to our civilization; we must act and encourage others to meet their responsibilities as well.



More details.
According to Bolton, the US should:


bolster the case for abrogation by providing new, declassified information on Iran’s unacceptable behaviour around the world.
produce a white paper stressing the many dangerous concessions made to reach this deal, such as allowing Iran to continue to enrich uranium; allowing Iran to operate a heavy-water reactor; and allowing Iran to operate and develop advanced centrifuges while the JCPOA is in effect. Utterly inadequate verification and enforcement mechanisms and Iran’s refusal to allow inspections of military sites also provide important reasons for the Administration’s decision.
highlight Iran’s unacceptable behavior, such as its role as the world’s central banker for international terrorism, including its directions and control over Hezbollah and its actions in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon.



There are four basic elements to the development and implementation of the campaign plan to decertify and abrogate the Iran nuclear deal:
1. Early, quiet consultations with key players such as the U.K., France, Germany, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, to tell them we are going to abrogate the deal based on outright violations and other unacceptable Iranian behavior, and seek their input.
2. Prepare the documented strategic case for withdrawal through a detailed white paper (including declassified intelligence as appropriate) explaining why the deal is harmful to U.S. national interests, how Iran has violated it, and why Iran’s behavior more broadly has only worsened since the deal was agreed.
3. A greatly expanded diplomatic campaign should immediately follow the announcement, especially in Europe and the Middle East, and we should ensure continued emphasis on the Iran threat as a top diplomatic and strategic priority.
4. Develop and execute Congressional and public diplomacy efforts to build domestic and foreign support.


http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450890/iran-nuclear-deal-exit-strategy-john-bolton-memo-trump



Serious stuff. In conjunction with other material already in circulation, the above constitutes a comprehensive plan for abrogating the JCPOA and major destabilization of Iran as a prelude to war and regime change. It's reasonable to assume that there would be secret elements of the above plan that would not be released to the public, too. They never tell us everything.

Has anyone seen such comprehensive planning laid out for any other country lately?

[Babak]

According to John Bolton, former American Ambassador to the UN, the US should:




More details.
According to Bolton, the US should:




http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450890/iran-nuclear-deal-exit-strategy-john-bolton-memo-trump



Serious stuff. In conjunction with other material already in circulation, the above constitutes a comprehensive plan for abrogating the JCPOA and major destabilization of Iran as a prelude to war and regime change. It's reasonable to assume that there would be secret elements of the above plan that would not be released to the public, too. They never tell us everything.

Has anyone seen such comprehensive planning laid out for any other country lately?

Holy shit..