What's new

Featured UNSC president dismisses US bid to renew all UN bans against Iran

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,007
-10
4,898
Country
United States
Location
United States
Now here is a question I have been thinking about...

Lets suppose that US after election wants to come back to JCPOA... then the question is what to do with the current stockpile of enriched Uranium that Iran has processed beyond the 300 kilo permitted under JCPOA....Also what to do with any non-R&D centrifuges that Iran has built since US quit the deal.

I have this bad feeling that Iran's "Traitor", "incompetent" ,"as*hole" president and his sidekick Zarif will volunteer to destroy any excess stockpiles if US comes back to the deal..

Considering that Iran has paid a heavy price to have these additional stockpiles in the past three years then what should be done...EU and Russia and China will not be happy with any excess stockpiles...
It would get shipped to Russia just like last time.

Returning to JCPOA like conditions is still a LOSS for Iran. Other than exporting oil it was still suffering from countries not investing in Iran and banks not facilitating transactions. So until Iran gets full Swift integration and removal from OFAC List, it’s stupid to return to JCPOA.

JCPOA was screwing Iran over.
 

QWECXZ

FULL MEMBER
Apr 28, 2010
1,556
-2
2,843
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Now here is a question I have been thinking about...

Lets suppose that US after election wants to come back to JCPOA... then the question is what to do with the current stockpile of enriched Uranium that Iran has processed beyond the 300 kilo permitted under JCPOA....Also what to do with any non-R&D centrifuges that Iran has built since US quit the deal.

I have this bad feeling that Iran's "Traitor", "incompetent" ,"as*hole" president and his sidekick Zarif will volunteer to destroy any excess stockpiles if US comes back to the deal..

Considering that Iran has paid a heavy price to have these additional stockpiles in the past three years then what should be done...EU and Russia and China will not be happy with any excess stockpiles...
Centrifuges can be uninstalled and kept for future use. Our current stockpile of uranium will probably get diluted to 3.5%. The excess can be turned into fuel rods. But let's hope that the parliament won't allow Rouhani to do that. If the parliament allows him to return to pre-JCPOA numbers, then Khamenei is the one to be blamed, not Rouhani.
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
369
2
683
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
Centrifuges can be uninstalled and kept for future use. Our current stockpile of uranium will probably get diluted to 3.5%. The excess can be turned into fuel rods. But let's hope that the parliament won't allow Rouhani to do that. If the parliament allows him to return to pre-JCPOA numbers, then Khamenei is the one to be blamed, not Rouhani.

No, he's not.

1) The Supreme Leader is not responsible for, nor can he give orders to individual Majles representatives.

2) If the liberal faction within the establishment, using threats to provoke another "Green Movement" fitna if ayatollah Khamenei does not give in to their demands, can successfully threaten and blackmail the Supreme Leader himself into acceptingt the JCPOA, then they can also threaten the Majles with ease.

3) Two main reasons why liberals have this blackmailing power, apart from their encroachment on national resources of power, are the following:

* They are directly and indirectly backed by the west (with anti-Iran satellite TV channels such as BBC Farsi systematically defending them vs their rivals, etc).

* The enjoy a varying degree of popular backing, with citizens voting for them and letting themselves get fooled by them into descending into the streets to exert pressure on the leadership and the IRGC.

With these factors in mind, when someone considers themself patriots / "eghtedaar garaa", but rather than investing their efforts into countering liberals and strengthening the actual "eghtedaar garaa" factions in power (i. e. Supreme Leader and IRGC), spend their time pointing fingers at the Leader and IRGC and thereby rallying the "barandaaz" / regime change crowd, they not only act in irrational and counterproductive ways but share a part of the responsability in limiting Iran's reaction to her existential foreign foes.

This type of narrative is in fact dangerous for Iran and her future, because its effects are no different from those of liberal nofoozis. It only contributes to destabilizing Iran and to feeding the zio-American "regime"-change agenda.
 
Last edited:

yavar

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 20, 2013
5,208
-4
9,872
Now here is a question I have been thinking about...

Lets suppose that US after election wants to come back to JCPOA...

the JCPOA already has expired it has only another 3 years limit after that all limits are expires, only mining left, the additional protocol is valentry so basically nothing

so even if U.S comes back to it it means nothing
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
369
2
683
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
Btw wat a great post Immortal. Absolutely agree with ur assessment in regards to how the approach shud be towards the JCPOA.
The post in question is advocating the negotiation of a JCPOA II on ballistic missiles and a JCPOA III on Iran's network of regional allies. In other words, the post is promoting Rohani's / Rafsanjani's agenda, while incorrectly assessing its implications:
Either Iran should become a nuclear power or it should go for a ultimate deal with US that will result in full embargo lift and sanctions in exchange for detente and a peace treaty. Yes, Iran May have to shelve it’s ICBM program and reign in its militias. But as Israel has shown Iran can merely “delay” its ultimate intentions for a period of time (5-10 years) and ultimately still become a nuclear power or ICBM (or both) as long as it can play nice for a while the West.
This is in addition to erroneous assessments contained in the post, aimed at making the capitulation option appear more attractive than it really is. Namely:

1) It is baseless to consider that in the context of a JPOA II on Iran's ballistic missiles, the zionist-controlled US will be content with Iran simply "shelving its ICBM program". No, they will insist on Iran limiting the range of her missiles to some 300 km, because Iranian missiles no longer being able to reach Occupied Palestine and no longer posing an acute threat to US bases in the region is their main goal.

But it goes farther than that: as with Iraq under Saddam, the west will require full access to Iran's missile production infrastructure and designs. Iran would have to trasmit all technical specifications and blueprints of her missiles to them, in addition to accepting inspections of production facilities.

Anything below that would make no sense from the west's perspective. What's the point of lifting all sanctions in exchange of Iran merely "shelving its ICBM program"? You think the west, which was not content with Iran largely neutralizing its nuclear program with the JCPOA I, will suddenly be satisfied with leaving intact Iran's regional missile deterrence? Of course not. The whole logic behind the planned JCPOA II is to make sure Iran is deprived of the deterrent power of her BM arsenal, so simply asking for a hypothetical ICBM program to be cancelled is not going to cut it in the eyes of the west.

Likewise, are we to assume they will simply take Iran's word when it comes to ascertaining any agreed-upon limitations of the missile program? Of course not! They will condition any agreement of this sort on Iran opening all her military production and research facilities to western inspectors. Meaning they will have access to all technical secrets of Iranian missiles, meaning in turn that they can adapt their missile defences to work more efficiently against Iran's BMs. Reducing thereby the deterrence value of Iranian missiles.

2) Same conclusions would apply to any JCPOA III on Iran's regional allies. The west is not going to strike any deal with Iran about her regional allies unless the terms of the deal make it impossible for Iran to count on her allies as potential means of deterrence against zio-American direct or indirect military aggression.

3) The idea that Iran will be able to "fool" the west by conceding to the full range of JCPOA deals I, II and III, and then suddenly reneging her obligations without the west reimposing sanctions is a fallacy.

It is telling that the post in question would draw an inapplicable comparison with Isra"el", as if the west had the same relationship with Tel Aviv as it does with Iran... As if Tel Aviv was not a vital ally of the west, in addition to actually exerting huge influence on western policy making; vs Iran which the modern west has always considered an enemy to contain and ultimately to destroy.

Also, we can be sure the west is not going to wait for Iran to violate the terms of any such comprehensive deal: once Iran is effectively deprived of both dimensions of her deterrence power (missiles + regional allies), the west will not hesitate a second and will move quickly to destroy Iran, with concrete planning starting right from the day the deal is struck. This destruction will either take the shape of direct military aggression (as with Iraq in 2003), or more probably of unleashing armed proxy forces against the Iranian central state (as with Syria in 2011). Remember how Libya was destroyed just a few years after agreeing to disarm. Iran's case would be no different.

4) The post you commend introduces an illogical alternative to such a comprehensive accord with the west, which contradicts its own premises:
So the ball is Iran’s court either become a nuclear power or negotiate. Because this current situation is not sustainable. Iran cannot survive in the 21st century cut off from the rest of the world forever.
* I explained how entering such a deal with the west is not going to secure Iran's survival, on the contrary it would lead to Iran's rapid destruction in the space of just a couple of years.

* If Iran "cannot survive" economically due to US-imposed sanctions, how exactly is developing nuclear weapons an alternative to a comprehensive deal with the west? It is not as if the west will remove sanctions once Iran develops nukes. So if Iran's economy can survive with nukes, it will also be able to do so without nukes. Nukes have no direct incidence on the economy.


In fact, the post's premises are exactly opposite to yours, when you write things like (and I agree with your assessment rather than with that other posts'):
US is now at its weakest than its ever been in history.

God is taking its revenge in America.
Iran had already won against them a long time ago
I bet is that attempt expand the arms embargo will fail. Iran shud make the most of the fruits Of their hard work and purchase great weaponries.
Contrary to you, the post you commend does not consider that the US is in a process of decline. Its author goes as far as claiming Russia and China "are in the "US's pocket" and insists predictions of American decline are nonsensical as they turned out wrong for over a decade (see the author's previous comments in this thread).

Contrary to you, the post does not believe Iran has won thanks to its determination to resist their bullying, their threats and their sanctions. On the contrary, it explicitly estimates that Iran "cannot" survive pressures from the west and will therefore have to give in to their demands (see above).

Contrary to you, the poster is of the opinion that Washington's attempt at reimposing arms sanctions upon Iran will ultimately succeed, when Niger will replace Indonesia at the head of the UN Security Council in a few months (see previous comments).

In reality your positions are irreconcilably divergent from to each other. That said I fully subscribe to your take.
 
Last edited:

QWECXZ

FULL MEMBER
Apr 28, 2010
1,556
-2
2,843
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
No, he's not.

1) The Supreme Leader is not responsible for, nor can he give orders to individual Majles representatives.

2) If the liberal faction within the establishment, using threats to provoke another "Green Movement" fitna if ayatollah Khamenei does not give in to their demands, can successfully threaten and blackmail the Supreme Leader himself into acceptingt the JCPOA, then they can also threaten the Majles with ease.

3) Two main reasons why liberals have this blackmailing power, apart from their encroachment on national resources of power, are the following:

* They are directly and indirectly backed by the west (with anti-Iran satellite TV channels such as BBC Farsi systematically defending them vs their rivals, etc).

* The enjoy a varying degree of popular backing, with citizens voting for them and letting themselves get fooled by them into decending into the streets to exert pressure on the leadership and the IRGC.

With these factors in mind, when someone calls themselves patriots / "eghtedaar garaa", but instead of investing their efforts into countering liberals and strengthening the actual "eghtedaar gara" factions in power (i. e. Supreme Leader and IRGC), spend their time pointing fingers at the Leader and IRGC and thereby rallying the "barandaaz" / regime change crowd, they not only act in irrational and counterproductive ways but share a part of the responsability in limiting Iran's reaction to her existential foreign foes.

This type of narrative is in fact most dangerous for Iran and her future, because its effects are no different from those of liberal nofoozis. It only contributes to destabilizing Iran and to pushing the zio-American "regime"-change agenda.
1) The Supreme Leader can nullify the membership of any parliament member he desires, according to the Iranian constitution. He can nullify the presidency of the President by a stroke of pen. The Supreme Leader can issue an executive order that can overturn any decision by any of the three main bodies of the Iranian system.

2) If the economic situation does not get better, a new movement much more destructive and dangerous than the Green Movement will emerge. The October Riot caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to public property. Green movement was more or less focused on peaceful protests only. I'd rather see peaceful protests like the Green Movement than riot.
 

Dariush the Great

FULL MEMBER
Jan 28, 2020
874
0
2,112
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
1) The Supreme Leader can nullify the membership of any parliament member he desires, according to the Iranian constitution. He can nullify the presidency of the President by a stroke of pen. The Supreme Leader can issue an executive order that can overturn any decision by any of the three main bodies of the Iranian system.

2) If the economic situation does not get better, a new movement much more destructive and dangerous than the Green Movement will emerge. The October Riot caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to public property. Green movement was more or less focused on peaceful protests only. I'd rather see peaceful protests like the Green Movement than riot.
According to the Iranian constitution the Supreme leader is the commander in chief of all armed Iranian forces. He has the power to unseat any president/parliament speaker etc.

The current supreme leader lacks the courage to take decisive actions. We have yet to see any meaningful response to the Natanz sabotage attempt or even a proper reply to the Soleimani assassination. It just emboldened Iran's enemy up to this point. What a sh.it show.
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
369
2
683
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
1) The Supreme Leader can nullify the membership of any parliament member he desires, according to the Iranian constitution. He can nullify the presidency of the President by a stroke of pen. The Supreme Leader can issue an executive order that can overturn any decision by any of the three main bodies of the Iranian system.
There's nominal constitutional powers on the one hand, and then there's sheer political feasability on the other.

The use of any of those powers by the Supreme Leader will cause the liberal fifth column within the establishment to strike back hard, threatening the overall stability of the political system. Already now, people like Tajzadeh are complaining that the Leadership is "interfering in all matters and preventing elected bodies from freely implementing their political program"... Imagine how they'd react if the Leader went even farther and made stronger moves to rein these people in.

Ayatollah Khamenei is wise enough not to risk such a major showdown, which might lead to Iran drowning in civil war and getting completely destroyed.

Outside of a military coup spearheaded by the Leader himself (not by some zio-American agent pretending to be a "nationalist") to eliminate the liberal fifth column from the ground up, careful maneuvering within certain limits imposed by the constraints of democracy and factionalism, is the only option at the Leader's disposal. A coup on the other hand, is fraught with many risks and dangers.

The Leader and "arzeshi" forces place hope in the people, calculating that Iranians will draw the necessary lessons from Rohani's failures and start lending their support to the revolutionary agenda, which will then be able to go full steam ahead. Let's hope at least patriotic Iranians will prove lucid enough to realize this.

2) If the economic situation does not get better, a new movement much more destructive and dangerous than the Green Movement will emerge. The October Riot caused hundreds of millions of dollars of damage to public property. Green movement was more or less focused on peaceful protests only. I'd rather see peaceful protests like the Green Movement than riot.
In my opinion the so-called "Green Movement" was more dangerous to Iran's stability than recent riots because it was directly triggered and led by parts of the establishment itself (with foreign help, of course).

40,000-50,000 rioters spread accross the country cannot seriously threaten the central state, the damage they cause to public and private property triggers a backlash from the middle class and as long as parts of the establishment are not openly coming out in their support, they will remain too isolated on the political chessboard to cause major change.

Had the "Green Movement" succeeded (and it was considerably closer to succeeding than the two recent series of riots), we would have had a silent "regime change" taking place with liberals being put in charge of all key decision making positions. The result would have been comparable to the fate of the USSR under Mikhail Gorbachev.


Finally, I want to insist on the fact that constantly focusing on the empty half of the glass while ignoring the full half, is what BBC/VOA/Manoto/Saudi International and the zio-American controlled exiled opposition usually do.

I can understand when it comes from those who listen 24/7 to these pro-western anti-Iran media, but it tends to surprise me when patriots engage in comparable sorts of negativity in their situational assessments.

It's not as if Iran is in such dire straits as foreign media make it appear at all. In fact, if one does a reality check, one will realize that all plots by Iran's enemies have failed to this day:

* The Axis of Resistance is stronger than ever and Iran's ability to project power accross the region at an all time high since the Safavid period (some would even argue since Sassanian times).

Lebanese Hezbollah is in a great shape, ready to teach zionist aggressors another 2006-style, tough lesson. Western plots aimed at having Hezbollah sidelined after strangulating Lebanon's economy and after blowing up the port of Beirut are bearing no decisive fruits.

Iraq's PMU and Iran-friendly groups in Baghdad and Erbil have successfully thwarted all US attempts, from "civil society" protests to political maneuverings at the top, to undercut Iran's presence and interests in meaningful ways.

Ansarallah in Yemen is doing just fine, with no end in sight to their valiant resistance against Saudi bombings.

The US is making no real progress in its attempt to ensure that any future Afghan government is going to be staunchly anti-Iranian.

* Iran is weathering the sanctions, despite resulting hardships for the population. If anything, this will help Iran move away from an oil-dependent economy and encourage domestic production.

The only two obstacles I see are economic corruption of certain elites and intentional obstruction / sabotage by liberal fifth columnists and nofoozis.

Which is why it's so important to vote these western-apologetic defeatists out of office at next year's presidential election. Iran's future will largely depend on it.

* Russia and China, despite being far from "dream allies" for Iran, are more inclined to extend a little help here and there in order to prevent state collapse in Iran, owing to mounting US hostility against them.

* Iranian military achievements and deterrence power are progressing at a satisfactory rate.

All of these were achieved thanks to ayatollah Khamenei's leadership.

To me there's no doubt that it requires extraordinary skills, knowledge, understanding of Iran and the world, clarity of vision and mind, as well as profound wisdom and faith to steer Iran towards the position it is enjoying today in spite of the tremendous pressures she is facing from all directions, and in spite of the extreme power differential between her and her global superpower enemies!

Practically any other nation would have buckled long ago under this much pressure and hostility. That we can rest assured of.
 
Last edited:

QWECXZ

FULL MEMBER
Apr 28, 2010
1,556
-2
2,843
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
There's nominal constitutional powers on the one hand, and then there's sheer political feasability on the other.

The use of any of those powers by the Supreme Leader will cause the liberal fifth column within the establishment to strike back hard, threatening the overall stability of the political system. Already now, people like Tajzadeh are complaining that the Leadership is "interfering in all matters and preventing elected bodies from freely implementing their political program"... Imagine how they'd react if the Leader went even farther and made stronger moves to rein these people in.

Ayatollah Khamenei is wise enough not to risk such a major showdown, which might lead to Iran drowning in civil war and getting completely destroyed.

Outside of a military coup spearheaded by the Leader himself (not by some zio-American agent pretending to be a "nationalist") to eliminate the liberal fifth column from the ground up, careful maneuvering within certain limits imposed by the constraints of democracy and factionalism, is the only option at the Leader's disposal. A coup on the other hand, is fraught with many risks and dangers.

The Leader and "arzeshi" forces place hope in the people, calculating that Iranians will draw the necessary lessons from Rohani's failures and start lending their support to the revolutionary agenda, which will then be able to go full steam ahead. Let's hope at least patriotic Iranians will prove lucid enough to realize this.



In my opinion the so-called "Green Movement" was more dangerous to Iran's stability than recent riots because it was directly triggered and led by parts of the establishment itself (with foreign help, of course).

40,000-50,000 rioters spread accross the country cannot seriously threaten the central state, the damage they cause to public and private property triggers a backlash from the middle class and as long as parts of the establishment are not openly coming out in their support, they will remain too isolated on the political chessboard to cause major change.

Had the "Green Movement" succeeded (and it was considerably closer to succeeding than the two recent series of riots), we would have had a silent "regime change" taking place with liberals being put in charge of all key decision making positions. The result would have been comparable to the fate of the USSR under Mikhail Gorbachev.


Finally, I want to insist on the fact that constantly focusing on the empty half of the glass while ignoring the full half, is what BBC/VOA/Manoto/Saudi International and the zio-American controlled exiled opposition usually do.

I can understand when it comes from those who listen 24/7 to these pro-western anti-Iran media, but it tends to surprise me when patriots engage in comparable sorts of negativity in their situational assessments.

It's not as if Iran is in such dire straits as foreign media make it appear at all. In fact, if one does a reality check, one will realize that all plots by Iran's enemies have failed to this day:

* The Axis of Resistance is stronger than ever and Iran's ability to project power accross the region at an all time high since the Safavid period (some would even argue since Sassanian times).

Lebanese Hezbollah is in a great shape, ready to teach zionist aggressors another 2006-style, tough lesson. Western plots aimed at having Hezbollah sidelined after strangulating Lebanon's economy and after blowing up the port of Beirut are bearing no decisive fruits.

Iraq's PMU and Iran-friendly groups in Baghdad and Erbil have successfully thwarted all US attempts, from "civil society" protests to political maneuverings at the top, to undercut Iran's presence and interests in meaningful ways.

Ansarallah in Yemen is doing just fine, with no end in sight to their valiant resistance against Saudi bombings.

The US is making no real progress in its attempt to ensure that any future Afghan government is going to be staunchly anti-Iranian.

* Iran is weathering the sanctions, despite resulting hardships for the population. If anything, this will help Iran move away from an oil-dependent economy and encourage domestic production.

The only two obstacles I see are economic corruption of certain elites and intentional obstruction / sabotage by liberal fifth columnists and nofoozis.

Which is why it's so important to vote these western-apologetic defeatists out of office at next year's presidential election. Iran's future will largely depend on it.

* Russia and China, despite being far from "dream allies" for Iran, are more inclined to extend a little help here and there in order to prevent state collapse in Iran, owing to mounting US hostility against them.

* Iranian military achievements and deterrence power are progressing at a satisfactory rate.

All of these were achieved thanks to ayatollah Khamenei's leadership.

To me there's no doubt that it requires extraordinary skills, knowledge, understanding of Iran and the world, clarity of vision and mind, as well as profound wisdom and faith to steer Iran towards the position it is enjoying today in spite of the tremendous pressures she is facing from all directions, and in spite of the extreme power differential between her and her global superpower enemies!

Practically any other nation would have buckled long ago under this much pressure and hostility. That we can rest assured of.
The reformists have completely lost the loyalty of their supporters. If Khamenei can't sideline them now, then he can never sideline them; which means that the reformists will continue to act as enemy's fifth column inside Iran. In that case, the blame will be on Khamenei, not anyone else.

Khamenei does not need a military coup to overthrow Rouhani. A stroke of pen is sufficient for that. And it is not unprecedented. Khomeini ousted Bani Sadr for much less than what Rouhani has done so far. What did Bani Sadr do that Rouhani hasn't done worse already?

The Green Movement consisted of millions of sentimental young people, mostly aged between 18 to 25, that wanted change. They did not attack public property, they did not burn the flag of Iran, they did not attack police stations, gas stations, fire departments, municipalities or hospitals. It surprises me that you are comparing the Green Movement with the October riots. On the other hand, some factions within the conservative party initially ignited the October riots, only to get surprised by how far it went.

These 40,000-50,000 rioters that you talk about set ablaze over 50 gas stations, and more than 100 banks. Some satellite cities of Tehran were destroyed like an urban war had hit them. Do you know how much time and money should be invested to rebuild those buildings that were burnt down?

What you are talking about is basically a long discussion that we have had before. Iran is no threat to Western countries or the United States. They are stealing our money and gold while we sit here and do nothing. And while we are making tremendous progress militarily, so are Turkey, UAE and Saudi Arabia. And the Unites States and Israel are making progress too. As I have said it times and times again, only a bold move like going fully nuclear can change the current status quo which is completely against our interests. And Khamenei doesn't seem interested in that.
 
Last edited:

925boy

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 10, 2016
3,927
-25
4,143
Country
United States
Location
United States
There's nominal constitutional powers on the one hand, and then there's sheer political feasability on the other.

The use of any of those powers by the Supreme Leader will cause the liberal fifth column within the establishment to strike back hard, threatening the overall stability of the political system. Already now, people like Tajzadeh are complaining that the Leadership is "interfering in all matters and preventing elected bodies from freely implementing their political program"... Imagine how they'd react if the Leader went even farther and made stronger moves to rein these people in.

Ayatollah Khamenei is wise enough not to risk such a major showdown, which might lead to Iran drowning in civil war and getting completely destroyed.

Outside of a military coup spearheaded by the Leader himself (not by some zio-American agent pretending to be a "nationalist") to eliminate the liberal fifth column from the ground up, careful maneuvering within certain limits imposed by the constraints of democracy and factionalism, is the only option at the Leader's disposal. A coup on the other hand, is fraught with many risks and dangers.

The Leader and "arzeshi" forces place hope in the people, calculating that Iranians will draw the necessary lessons from Rohani's failures and start lending their support to the revolutionary agenda, which will then be able to go full steam ahead. Let's hope at least patriotic Iranians will prove lucid enough to realize this.



In my opinion the so-called "Green Movement" was more dangerous to Iran's stability than recent riots because it was directly triggered and led by parts of the establishment itself (with foreign help, of course).

40,000-50,000 rioters spread accross the country cannot seriously threaten the central state, the damage they cause to public and private property triggers a backlash from the middle class and as long as parts of the establishment are not openly coming out in their support, they will remain too isolated on the political chessboard to cause major change.

Had the "Green Movement" succeeded (and it was considerably closer to succeeding than the two recent series of riots), we would have had a silent "regime change" taking place with liberals being put in charge of all key decision making positions. The result would have been comparable to the fate of the USSR under Mikhail Gorbachev.


Finally, I want to insist on the fact that constantly focusing on the empty half of the glass while ignoring the full half, is what BBC/VOA/Manoto/Saudi International and the zio-American controlled exiled opposition usually do.

I can understand when it comes from those who listen 24/7 to these pro-western anti-Iran media, but it tends to surprise me when patriots engage in comparable sorts of negativity in their situational assessments.

It's not as if Iran is in such dire straits as foreign media make it appear at all. In fact, if one does a reality check, one will realize that all plots by Iran's enemies have failed to this day:

* The Axis of Resistance is stronger than ever and Iran's ability to project power accross the region at an all time high since the Safavid period (some would even argue since Sassanian times).

Lebanese Hezbollah is in a great shape, ready to teach zionist aggressors another 2006-style, tough lesson. Western plots aimed at having Hezbollah sidelined after strangulating Lebanon's economy and after blowing up the port of Beirut are bearing no decisive fruits.

Iraq's PMU and Iran-friendly groups in Baghdad and Erbil have successfully thwarted all US attempts, from "civil society" protests to political maneuverings at the top, to undercut Iran's presence and interests in meaningful ways.

Ansarallah in Yemen is doing just fine, with no end in sight to their valiant resistance against Saudi bombings.

The US is making no real progress in its attempt to ensure that any future Afghan government is going to be staunchly anti-Iranian.

* Iran is weathering the sanctions, despite resulting hardships for the population. If anything, this will help Iran move away from an oil-dependent economy and encourage domestic production.

The only two obstacles I see are economic corruption of certain elites and intentional obstruction / sabotage by liberal fifth columnists and nofoozis.

Which is why it's so important to vote these western-apologetic defeatists out of office at next year's presidential election. Iran's future will largely depend on it.

* Russia and China, despite being far from "dream allies" for Iran, are more inclined to extend a little help here and there in order to prevent state collapse in Iran, owing to mounting US hostility against them.

* Iranian military achievements and deterrence power are progressing at a satisfactory rate.

All of these were achieved thanks to ayatollah Khamenei's leadership.

To me there's no doubt that it requires extraordinary skills, knowledge, understanding of Iran and the world, clarity of vision and mind, as well as profound wisdom and faith to steer Iran towards the position it is enjoying today in spite of the tremendous pressures she is facing from all directions, and in spite of the extreme power differential between her and her global superpower enemies!

Practically any other nation would have buckled long ago under this much pressure and hostility. That we can rest assured of.
This is a VERY accurate and good post. People will complain about IRanian sanctions and stress as if they live in Iran when thy are just Iranians used to the good western life. I dont believe Iranian today is very scared or destabilized...to be honest, i think its actually the best way IRan loves it - waiting patiently and getting the dividends for doing so....people who think Iran is weak should try a REAL test, and they will find out that fake weapons still hurt. NOBODY has tested Iran militarily directly, not even US, and that means alot. Iran doesnt have ability to just aggressively defeat any enemy, but i dont think there is 1 country that will test Iran militarily that Iran will not STRETCH...that country will fight and either have to run back, or their economy will bankrupt. screen shot that.If Iraq and Afghanistan war cost US over $3trillion dolars, that means an IRan war will probably cost double that, so $6trn....a new $6trn debt on BROKE US govt's coffin will collapse US economy..thats why bitcoin keeps up in price year over year..because dollar is a fake.
 

SalarHaqq

FULL MEMBER
Dec 29, 2019
369
2
683
Country
Belgium
Location
Pakistan
The reformists have completely lost the loyalty of their supporters. If Khamenei can't sideline them now, then he can never sideline them; which means that the reformists will continue to act as enemy's fifth column inside Iran. In that case, the blame will be on Khamenei, not anyone else.
Reformists - as well as the centrist pragmatists, whom are technically a distinct faction from the reformists, have lost the trust of "grey spectrum" voters, i. e. of voters with no specific party-political affiliation whom were fooled into electing them last time around with the false promise that improved relations with the west are going to solve all of Iran's economic woes.

But their engaged, ideological support base still remains. As well as their influence within the state apparatus, key stretches of the economy (including some of Iran's major industries and agricultural enterprises, the banking and finacial sector etc) and last but not least, the systematic backing they enjoy from western-based media religiously followed by a considerable segment of the Iranian population, with these media campaigning for reformist / centrist candidates at every election.

That still makes for a large amount of political capital, enough to turn the country upside down if they feel cornered too much, and enough to prevent the Supreme Leader from delivering them the coup de grace. But not enough to bring their agenda to the desired conclusion.

There's also another factor one needs to take into account: under certain circumstances, it might be more advisable to co-opt a rivalling established faction than to drive it outside of the system. As long as the liberals have their share of power, although never enough to fully have their way, they will not openly and directly call for popular upheaval aimed at "regime change" - and we all know how in case of such major instability gripping the country, Iran will be finished, since foreign enemies will jump in to exploit the opportunity by propping up all manner of armed revolt and separatism.

If liberals are ousted from the system altogether, chances are they will not just radicalize their positions but also their tactics: instead of trying to implement their agenda in a creeping and duplicitous manner - which so far the Supreme Leader has managed to prevent from reaching its ultimate goals, they'd take the system on frontally. And that in turn, might prove to be the straw that breaks the camel's back because it would array too large and too integrated of a coalition (in-house reformists + in-house centrists + exiled opposition + separatist terrorists acting in perfect alliance with each other) against the state.

Khamenei does not need a military coup to overthrow Rouhani. A stroke of pen is sufficient for that. And it is not unprecedented. Khomeini ousted Bani Sadr for much less than what Rouhani has done so far. What did Bani Sadr do that Rouhani hasn't done worse already?
Technically, a stroke of a pen would suffice but that stroke of a pen would engender heavy political consequences fraught with enormous risk for Iran's stability.

The Iran of the early revolutionary period and the Iran of today are considerably different places. Much has changed since then.

* Imam Khomeini was the one who led a successful Revolution, overthrowing the old political order and replacing it with a new one. This confers a leader immense legitimacy and popular support. As much as I hate to say it, the current Supreme Leader does not enjoy the same amount of popular backing (although contrary to anti-IR propagandist, I have no doubt a good majority are loyal to him).

* Every revolution is marked by much greater degrees of fervor and radicalism in its initial phase compared to later stages of its history. From a sociological point of view, this is verifiable in the case of other major revolutions accross the world, regardless of their ideological orientation. Iran's no exception. With the radicalism prevailing in the 80's, it was far more feasible for the Supreme Leader to oust the president by decree than it is for the present day Supreme Leader.

* Iranian society itself has changed. 24/7 propaganda from abroad on a scale unheard of in human history, as well as "tahaajome farhangi" by the west have resulted in a situation where liberal and western-apologetic thinking has spread far and wide in Iranian society.

We must realize that some 40% of Iranians (if I were to have a wild guess) do not even have real patriotic or Islamic revolutionary views. In the 80's however, maybe 10% of the population, at most, were liberals or apologetic of Iran's western enemies. Imagine the stakes of abruptly and comprehensively suppressing the liberal in-house faction under current social circumstances. These are just not comparable with the 80's.

Why did the IR allow some parts of the population to be brainwashed by western(-based) media? Simple, the alternative would have been to completely enforce the ban on satellite TV receivers and, more importantly, not to introduce the internet in Iran.

* What influence did Bani Sadr enjoy within the system? Was he linked to a major component of the establishment? Not really. At most, he was indirectly associated with the MKO and their minor allies (Jebheye Melliye Demokraat of Hedaayat Matin Daftari, Kurdish ethnicist parties and so on).

Well, not only could these not be considered real heavy weights within the system (they were actually located at the margins of the Islamic Republic, not sharing its predominant ideology and fielding their own referential leaders apart from Imam Khomeini), but even so it took a bloody albeit relatively small scale civil war (with tens of thousands of victims nonetheless) to defeat this block.

The present day reformists and centrists are a different pair of shoes. They alone represent half the establishment of the IR. Uprooting them will prove significantly harder than ousting Bani Sadr and the MKO. A leadership decree demanding the president to resign, would not be an ideal way to go about this anyway (especially since Rohani is already a sitting duck and is almost guaranteed to be succeeded by a principlist next year). The backlash that would ensue after a sidelining of contemporary establishment liberals would be more consequential by magnitudes than the reaction to Bani Sadr's ousting.

And then there was the imposed war against Saddam's Iraq, of course. Which acted as a hugely mobilizing and unifying factor. In the name of Iran's defence against a foreign invader, much more drastic measures could be taken domestically than would be the case today.

The Green Movement consisted of millions of sentimental young people, mostly aged between 18 to 25, that wanted change. They did not attack public property, they did not burn the flag of Iran, they did not attack police stations, gas stations, fire departments, municipalities or hospitals. It surprises me that you are comparing the Green Movement with the October riots. On the other hand, some factions within the conservative party initially ignited the October riots, only to get surprised by how far it went.

These 40,000-50,000 rioters that you talk about set ablaze over 50 gas stations, and more than 100 banks. Some satellite cities of Tehran were destroyed like an urban war had hit them. Do you know how much time and money should be invested to rebuild those buildings that were burnt down?
Riots cause greater material damage, no doubt. But nonetheless, they do not threaten the system to the same extent as a mass movement (several hundreds of thousands of protesters in Tehran alone) directly backed by almost half the establishment itself.

Just look at the number of political systems overthrown by so-called colored revolutions. Then look at how few, if any, were successfully overthrown by token amounts of rioters setting property ablaze.

And to link this up with the previous point: if the Leader takes extremely radical measures against establishment liberals, and if as a result, said liberals join the rioters... we may then see a combination of "Green Movement" fitna and riots. A recipe for disaster, to be sure.

Iran is no threat to Western countries or the United States.
I disagree. Iran is a major stumbling block to their global designs. Which is why they are concentrating such disproportionate efforts at countering Iran. Their goal is to completely obliterate Iran much like they destroyed Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen for many generations to come. But they've been faced with failure to this day.

Iran is also a roadblock for Isra"el", constantly forcing Tel Aviv to spend efforts and treasury into containing the ever expanding Resistance Axis. And Isra"el" is the centerpiece of the west.

They are stealing our money and gold while we sit here and do nothing.
Not sure how the west is stealing Iran's money at this time (other than the frozen and stolen funds in the US which date back to the very early days of the Revolution, and which, in other terms, were stolen in the 80's already).

As for gold, this was another "brilliant" achievement of Rohani's administration who had part of Iran's reserves sold (rather than stolen)... however, gold is flowing back in thanks to Iran's oil and gasoline sales to Venezuela.

And while we are making tremendous progress military, so are Turkey and Saudi Arabia. And the Unites States and Israel are making progress too. As I have said it times and times again, only a bold move like going fully nuclear can change the current status quo which is completely against our interests. And Khamenei doesn't seem interested in that.
As explained in my previous post, I don't quite assess the current status quo as being so unfavorable to Iran.

About nukes, remember Iran is not so much at risk of direct military aggression as she is exposed to the threat of engineered "regime" collapse using a combination of propaganda / psy-ops / soft power / cultural aggression, domestic fifth columnists / saboteurs / nofoozis, terrorist attacks, support for exiled opposition and for separatist groups, as well as economic warfare and sanctions in particular.

Just as nukes did not prevent the fall of the USSR, I doubt they'd save Iran from this sort of hybrid warfare all by themselves. Although I'd concede they might present some other, indirect advantages. These however would need to be weighed against the disadvantages they surely harbor too.

Iran survived the immense turmoils of the 80's and came out stronger. The same is happening today.

While in the 80's, Iran benefitted from certain advantages it presently lacks - like the aforementioned early revolutionary fervor, today it is making use of other advantages it then lacked - like its industrial, scientific and military development, or its much more extensive network of allies accross the neighborhood.

There will always be challenges and existential threats, from an Islamic perspective we would argue that this is actually not going to subside until the manifestation of our saviour hazrate Mahdi (ajjil farajahum).

As far as I'm concerned, there are legitimate causes for concern - as always, but no reason for such pessimism, specially when considering the history of the past four decades. Keep the faith and stand strong, as overall Iran is definitely on the right path.
 
Last edited:

Dariush the Great

FULL MEMBER
Jan 28, 2020
874
0
2,112
Country
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
Location
Iran, Islamic Republic Of
As much as I hate to say it, the current Supreme Leader does not enjoy the same amount of popular backing (although contrary to anti-IR propagandist, I have no doubt a good majority are loyal to him).
I think what you said sums up the entire situation. In the real world what matters is the end result and what we see now is a huge political mess caused by lack of a strong leadership and corruption that has nested even in the office of the leader himself (without his knowledge). Have no doubt that if Khomeini continued to rule up until the 2000's the situation would have been totally different.

Khomeini delivered a strong, united IR to Khamenei and the latter will deliver a divided system to his successor.
 

scimitar19

FULL MEMBER
Apr 25, 2011
211
-1
264
Now here is a question I have been thinking about...

Lets suppose that US after election wants to come back to JCPOA...
That would be suicidal for already retarded agreement that has been signed. Them coming back on the table is out of question. I bet Trump a potentially dead man as time goes by would certainly love to come back just to activate snapback mechanism and this time legally and then leave the JCPOA (joint cockroach plan of action).
 

TheImmortal

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 11, 2017
3,007
-10
4,898
Country
United States
Location
United States

Britain following in footsteps of Germany, approves of using arms embargo extension against Iran.

where are all the people saying the entire world is against the US?
 

Shams313

FULL MEMBER
Mar 27, 2014
640
0
1,056
Country
Bangladesh
Location
Bangladesh

Britain following in footsteps of Germany, approves of using arms embargo extension against Iran.

where are all the people saying the entire world is against the US?
but it doesn't matter whether they plan to do it.

they simply don't want Russians and Chinese to earn some money through weapon deal.

Iran neither gonna sell weapons to Europe nor buy from em. so their intension is clear.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom