Analysis : What used to attack saudi oil facilities?

[Blue In Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1178542106278793216

NICE SHOT!!!

 

[yavar]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1178346372551962625

soon Pakistan will pay price, as well
the time of having immunity is gone

 

[yavar]

Cbs news 60 minutes CCTV images cruise missile attack on Saudi Arabia Oil facility Aramco

 

[Sineva]

An interesting analysis of the possible long term political consequences of the us lack of reaction to the strike on the saudis.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/26/trump-is-giving-iran-more-than-it-ever-dreamed-of/

Trump Is Giving Iran More Than It Ever Dreamed of
Tehran’s retaliatory strategy was failing—until the United States started handing it a generational victory.
By Kenneth M. Pollack | September 26, 2019, 11:27 AM

For the past six months, there has been plenty of reason to believe that Iran has primarily been motivated by fear, even desperation, in its confrontation with the United States. Lately, however, there are signs that Tehran has shifted to a strategy driven instead by a sense of opportunity and advantage. The trigger for this shift has been the Trump administration, whose misguided approach to Iran is on the cusp of splitting the United States from its Sunni Arab allies—a monumental geostrategic victory that Tehran has sought for 40 years.

Initially, Iran’s attacks on Gulf oil exports were almost certainly driven by fear and anger over the impact of the reimposed U.S. sanctions, which are devastating Iran’s economy and inflicting real hardship on average Iranians. The regime, even its hard-line elements, probably feared this would generate public protests and other problems for it. Tehran’s attacks on Gulf oil exports were likely meant to drive up the price of oil (which would be good for Iran, bad for the United States) and to create a crisis that would energize other countries to demand that Washington ease off the pressure on Iran. Iran’s attacks on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries were initially intended as a form of indirect pressure on the United States to get it to alleviate, or even eliminate, the sanctions.

That Iranian strategy has failed miserably. While their attacks did create crises, only the recent strike on Abqaiq caused any significant jump in oil prices, and even that was probably less than the Iranians had hoped. Meanwhile, in part because the oil market has remained mostly placid, the Iranian strategy has had no impact on U.S. policy, either directly or indirectly by moving Arab, Asian, and European countries to persuade Washington to back off.

At the same time, however, the Iranian attacks have succeeded wildly in a way that Tehran probably never imagined. Because the United States has barely responded at all—only applying more fatuous sanctions and a single cyberattack that Iran seems to have shaken off—and because senior U.S. officials starting with the president have trumpeted that they will not employ force unless Iran attacks American citizens or property directly, the Iranian attacks have driven a lethal wedge between the United States and the GCC.

Although this has been part of a larger, longer process of the Sunni Arab states losing faith in their long-standing relationship with the United States, recent developments have had an outsized impact, dramatically accelerating that process. We may well have reached a tipping point, as Foreign Policy’s Steven A. Cook has insightfully argued.

Because the Iranians have been able to attack the GCC states with impunity—the Trump administration instead going out of its way to not respond to Iran, overturning at least 39 years of American policy—those governments are coming to the uncomfortable conclusion that they can no longer rely on the United States to protect them. Since that is the very foundation of the U.S.-GCC relationship, its fracturing is pushing Gulf leaders further and faster toward the realization that they need to solve their security issues themselves, with whatever means they have available.

The most visible manifestation of this trend has been the United Arab Emirates’ decisions to abandon the Yemen war and begin discussions with Iran over the tensions in the Persian Gulf. The UAE has been the first to recognize that because it can no longer count on the United States to protect it, it now has to find a way to peacefully resolve its differences with Tehran, even if that means bowing to Iranian wishes. It cannot afford to fight Tehran on its own. Although it is clearly not Abu Dhabi’s preference, without resolute U.S. backing, the Emirates have no choice but to try to reconcile with Tehran rather than oppose it.

Rumors from Saudi Arabia indicate that King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are both feeling the tug of this logic, but have been more reticent to follow the Emirati lead. Withdrawing from Yemen would be humiliating for Mohammed bin Salman. The Saudis detest the Iranians even more than the Emiratis do, and deferring to Iran means potentially giving up the Saudi bid to be the leaders of the Arab world. Yet they too increasingly feel that they are being left with no choice. They lack the strength to fight Iran on their own, especially in a protracted conflict. Moreover, if the Saudis don’t follow the Emirati lead and reconcile with Iran, Mohammed bin Salman might do the exact opposite and strike Iran anyway, hoping that this would force U.S. President Donald Trump to defend Saudi Arabia.

Again, it is impossible to know how much Iran’s leadership recognizes this, but it seems most likely that if we have noticed, they have too. Splitting the United States from its Sunni Arab allies has arguably been Iran’s preeminent foreign-policy goal since the 1979 revolution. Doing so would make it difficult for the United States to retain its military forces in the region. In that sense, it would also make it much easier for Tehran to dominate Arab governments—and potentially their oil resources. In short, Iran’s recent moves and Trump’s abandonment of four decades of U.S. policy have suddenly created the potential for Tehran to achieve one of its wildest dreams.

If the Iranians recognize this, the implications over the long term are profound. It suggests that the hard-liners who currently dominate Iranian foreign-policy making will see the potential geostrategic gains from their current approach as outweighing (in their minds) the economic costs of prolonged U.S. sanctions. That means that they will have even less interest or incentive to cut a new nuclear deal with Trump. It means that Iran will probably absorb whatever limited response Trump makes to the attack on Abqaiq and look for an opportunity to launch another attack of some kind on the GCC to accentuate their vulnerability and give Trump yet another opportunity to fail to do anything meaningful either to defend them or deter subsequent Iranian attacks.

If the Iranians believe, as they probably should, that they now have a path toward achieving their highest foreign-policy goal of the last four decades by destroying the U.S.-GCC alliance, they will make that—not Trump or the U.S. sanctions—their highest priority. Unless Trump is willing to radically change his approach, he may just hand them a victory for the ages.

 

[Kastor]

An interesting analysis of the possible long term political consequences of the us lack of reaction to the strike on the saudis.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/26/trump-is-giving-iran-more-than-it-ever-dreamed-of/

Trump Is Giving Iran More Than It Ever Dreamed of
Tehran’s retaliatory strategy was failing—until the United States started handing it a generational victory.
By Kenneth M. Pollack | September 26, 2019, 11:27 AM

For the past six months, there has been plenty of reason to believe that Iran has primarily been motivated by fear, even desperation, in its confrontation with the United States. Lately, however, there are signs that Tehran has shifted to a strategy driven instead by a sense of opportunity and advantage. The trigger for this shift has been the Trump administration, whose misguided approach to Iran is on the cusp of splitting the United States from its Sunni Arab allies—a monumental geostrategic victory that Tehran has sought for 40 years.

Initially, Iran’s attacks on Gulf oil exports were almost certainly driven by fear and anger over the impact of the reimposed U.S. sanctions, which are devastating Iran’s economy and inflicting real hardship on average Iranians. The regime, even its hard-line elements, probably feared this would generate public protests and other problems for it. Tehran’s attacks on Gulf oil exports were likely meant to drive up the price of oil (which would be good for Iran, bad for the United States) and to create a crisis that would energize other countries to demand that Washington ease off the pressure on Iran. Iran’s attacks on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries were initially intended as a form of indirect pressure on the United States to get it to alleviate, or even eliminate, the sanctions.

That Iranian strategy has failed miserably. While their attacks did create crises, only the recent strike on Abqaiq caused any significant jump in oil prices, and even that was probably less than the Iranians had hoped. Meanwhile, in part because the oil market has remained mostly placid, the Iranian strategy has had no impact on U.S. policy, either directly or indirectly by moving Arab, Asian, and European countries to persuade Washington to back off.

At the same time, however, the Iranian attacks have succeeded wildly in a way that Tehran probably never imagined. Because the United States has barely responded at all—only applying more fatuous sanctions and a single cyberattack that Iran seems to have shaken off—and because senior U.S. officials starting with the president have trumpeted that they will not employ force unless Iran attacks American citizens or property directly, the Iranian attacks have driven a lethal wedge between the United States and the GCC.

Although this has been part of a larger, longer process of the Sunni Arab states losing faith in their long-standing relationship with the United States, recent developments have had an outsized impact, dramatically accelerating that process. We may well have reached a tipping point, as Foreign Policy’s Steven A. Cook has insightfully argued.

Because the Iranians have been able to attack the GCC states with impunity—the Trump administration instead going out of its way to not respond to Iran, overturning at least 39 years of American policy—those governments are coming to the uncomfortable conclusion that they can no longer rely on the United States to protect them. Since that is the very foundation of the U.S.-GCC relationship, its fracturing is pushing Gulf leaders further and faster toward the realization that they need to solve their security issues themselves, with whatever means they have available.

The most visible manifestation of this trend has been the United Arab Emirates’ decisions to abandon the Yemen war and begin discussions with Iran over the tensions in the Persian Gulf. The UAE has been the first to recognize that because it can no longer count on the United States to protect it, it now has to find a way to peacefully resolve its differences with Tehran, even if that means bowing to Iranian wishes. It cannot afford to fight Tehran on its own. Although it is clearly not Abu Dhabi’s preference, without resolute U.S. backing, the Emirates have no choice but to try to reconcile with Tehran rather than oppose it.

Rumors from Saudi Arabia indicate that King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are both feeling the tug of this logic, but have been more reticent to follow the Emirati lead. Withdrawing from Yemen would be humiliating for Mohammed bin Salman. The Saudis detest the Iranians even more than the Emiratis do, and deferring to Iran means potentially giving up the Saudi bid to be the leaders of the Arab world. Yet they too increasingly feel that they are being left with no choice. They lack the strength to fight Iran on their own, especially in a protracted conflict. Moreover, if the Saudis don’t follow the Emirati lead and reconcile with Iran, Mohammed bin Salman might do the exact opposite and strike Iran anyway, hoping that this would force U.S. President Donald Trump to defend Saudi Arabia.

Again, it is impossible to know how much Iran’s leadership recognizes this, but it seems most likely that if we have noticed, they have too. Splitting the United States from its Sunni Arab allies has arguably been Iran’s preeminent foreign-policy goal since the 1979 revolution. Doing so would make it difficult for the United States to retain its military forces in the region. In that sense, it would also make it much easier for Tehran to dominate Arab governments—and potentially their oil resources. In short, Iran’s recent moves and Trump’s abandonment of four decades of U.S. policy have suddenly created the potential for Tehran to achieve one of its wildest dreams.

If the Iranians recognize this, the implications over the long term are profound. It suggests that the hard-liners who currently dominate Iranian foreign-policy making will see the potential geostrategic gains from their current approach as outweighing (in their minds) the economic costs of prolonged U.S. sanctions. That means that they will have even less interest or incentive to cut a new nuclear deal with Trump. It means that Iran will probably absorb whatever limited response Trump makes to the attack on Abqaiq and look for an opportunity to launch another attack of some kind on the GCC to accentuate their vulnerability and give Trump yet another opportunity to fail to do anything meaningful either to defend them or deter subsequent Iranian attacks.

If the Iranians believe, as they probably should, that they now have a path toward achieving their highest foreign-policy goal of the last four decades by destroying the U.S.-GCC alliance, they will make that—not Trump or the U.S. sanctions—their highest priority. Unless Trump is willing to radically change his approach, he may just hand them a victory for the ages.

Pollack, he along with Eli Lake, Brett Stephens, Reuel Marc Gerecht and the rest of the Zionists that keep writing pieces to embarrass Trump into striking Iran...So far it hasn't worked, but Iran needs to play the "hide the ball game" they should keep up the plausible deniability in anything they do......

 

[Sina-1]

An interesting analysis of the possible long term political consequences of the us lack of reaction to the strike on the saudis.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/26/trump-is-giving-iran-more-than-it-ever-dreamed-of/

Trump Is Giving Iran More Than It Ever Dreamed of
Tehran’s retaliatory strategy was failing—until the United States started handing it a generational victory.
By Kenneth M. Pollack | September 26, 2019, 11:27 AM

For the past six months, there has been plenty of reason to believe that Iran has primarily been motivated by fear, even desperation, in its confrontation with the United States. Lately, however, there are signs that Tehran has shifted to a strategy driven instead by a sense of opportunity and advantage. The trigger for this shift has been the Trump administration, whose misguided approach to Iran is on the cusp of splitting the United States from its Sunni Arab allies—a monumental geostrategic victory that Tehran has sought for 40 years.

Initially, Iran’s attacks on Gulf oil exports were almost certainly driven by fear and anger over the impact of the reimposed U.S. sanctions, which are devastating Iran’s economy and inflicting real hardship on average Iranians. The regime, even its hard-line elements, probably feared this would generate public protests and other problems for it. Tehran’s attacks on Gulf oil exports were likely meant to drive up the price of oil (which would be good for Iran, bad for the United States) and to create a crisis that would energize other countries to demand that Washington ease off the pressure on Iran. Iran’s attacks on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries were initially intended as a form of indirect pressure on the United States to get it to alleviate, or even eliminate, the sanctions.

That Iranian strategy has failed miserably. While their attacks did create crises, only the recent strike on Abqaiq caused any significant jump in oil prices, and even that was probably less than the Iranians had hoped. Meanwhile, in part because the oil market has remained mostly placid, the Iranian strategy has had no impact on U.S. policy, either directly or indirectly by moving Arab, Asian, and European countries to persuade Washington to back off.

At the same time, however, the Iranian attacks have succeeded wildly in a way that Tehran probably never imagined. Because the United States has barely responded at all—only applying more fatuous sanctions and a single cyberattack that Iran seems to have shaken off—and because senior U.S. officials starting with the president have trumpeted that they will not employ force unless Iran attacks American citizens or property directly, the Iranian attacks have driven a lethal wedge between the United States and the GCC.

Although this has been part of a larger, longer process of the Sunni Arab states losing faith in their long-standing relationship with the United States, recent developments have had an outsized impact, dramatically accelerating that process. We may well have reached a tipping point, as Foreign Policy’s Steven A. Cook has insightfully argued.

Because the Iranians have been able to attack the GCC states with impunity—the Trump administration instead going out of its way to not respond to Iran, overturning at least 39 years of American policy—those governments are coming to the uncomfortable conclusion that they can no longer rely on the United States to protect them. Since that is the very foundation of the U.S.-GCC relationship, its fracturing is pushing Gulf leaders further and faster toward the realization that they need to solve their security issues themselves, with whatever means they have available.

The most visible manifestation of this trend has been the United Arab Emirates’ decisions to abandon the Yemen war and begin discussions with Iran over the tensions in the Persian Gulf. The UAE has been the first to recognize that because it can no longer count on the United States to protect it, it now has to find a way to peacefully resolve its differences with Tehran, even if that means bowing to Iranian wishes. It cannot afford to fight Tehran on its own. Although it is clearly not Abu Dhabi’s preference, without resolute U.S. backing, the Emirates have no choice but to try to reconcile with Tehran rather than oppose it.

Rumors from Saudi Arabia indicate that King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are both feeling the tug of this logic, but have been more reticent to follow the Emirati lead. Withdrawing from Yemen would be humiliating for Mohammed bin Salman. The Saudis detest the Iranians even more than the Emiratis do, and deferring to Iran means potentially giving up the Saudi bid to be the leaders of the Arab world. Yet they too increasingly feel that they are being left with no choice. They lack the strength to fight Iran on their own, especially in a protracted conflict. Moreover, if the Saudis don’t follow the Emirati lead and reconcile with Iran, Mohammed bin Salman might do the exact opposite and strike Iran anyway, hoping that this would force U.S. President Donald Trump to defend Saudi Arabia.

Again, it is impossible to know how much Iran’s leadership recognizes this, but it seems most likely that if we have noticed, they have too. Splitting the United States from its Sunni Arab allies has arguably been Iran’s preeminent foreign-policy goal since the 1979 revolution. Doing so would make it difficult for the United States to retain its military forces in the region. In that sense, it would also make it much easier for Tehran to dominate Arab governments—and potentially their oil resources. In short, Iran’s recent moves and Trump’s abandonment of four decades of U.S. policy have suddenly created the potential for Tehran to achieve one of its wildest dreams.

If the Iranians recognize this, the implications over the long term are profound. It suggests that the hard-liners who currently dominate Iranian foreign-policy making will see the potential geostrategic gains from their current approach as outweighing (in their minds) the economic costs of prolonged U.S. sanctions. That means that they will have even less interest or incentive to cut a new nuclear deal with Trump. It means that Iran will probably absorb whatever limited response Trump makes to the attack on Abqaiq and look for an opportunity to launch another attack of some kind on the GCC to accentuate their vulnerability and give Trump yet another opportunity to fail to do anything meaningful either to defend them or deter subsequent Iranian attacks.

If the Iranians believe, as they probably should, that they now have a path toward achieving their highest foreign-policy goal of the last four decades by destroying the U.S.-GCC alliance, they will make that—not Trump or the U.S. sanctions—their highest priority. Unless Trump is willing to radically change his approach, he may just hand them a victory for the ages.

i know you’re cool dude. But, this is Zionist propaganda implying that Iran acts impulsive. What is complete BS! Iran’s strongest asset is strategic planning, which this article tries to undermine.

 

[Sineva]

i know you’re cool dude. But, this is Zionist propaganda implying that Iran acts impulsive. What is complete BS! Iran’s strongest asset is strategic planning, which this article tries to undermine.

Actually it was the part about the gulf states and the possibility that they may begin to doubt the strength of the continued us commitment to them that I found interesting,rather than the claims of iranian desperation.

 

[Arminkh]

Cbs news 60 minutes CCTV images cruise missile attack on Saudi Arabia Oil facility Aramco

The attack on spherical tank was not a suicide drone. It was definitely some kind of smart bomb.

An interesting analysis of the possible long term political consequences of the us lack of reaction to the strike on the saudis.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/26/trump-is-giving-iran-more-than-it-ever-dreamed-of/

Trump Is Giving Iran More Than It Ever Dreamed of
Tehran’s retaliatory strategy was failing—until the United States started handing it a generational victory.
By Kenneth M. Pollack | September 26, 2019, 11:27 AM

For the past six months, there has been plenty of reason to believe that Iran has primarily been motivated by fear, even desperation, in its confrontation with the United States. Lately, however, there are signs that Tehran has shifted to a strategy driven instead by a sense of opportunity and advantage. The trigger for this shift has been the Trump administration, whose misguided approach to Iran is on the cusp of splitting the United States from its Sunni Arab allies—a monumental geostrategic victory that Tehran has sought for 40 years.

Initially, Iran’s attacks on Gulf oil exports were almost certainly driven by fear and anger over the impact of the reimposed U.S. sanctions, which are devastating Iran’s economy and inflicting real hardship on average Iranians. The regime, even its hard-line elements, probably feared this would generate public protests and other problems for it. Tehran’s attacks on Gulf oil exports were likely meant to drive up the price of oil (which would be good for Iran, bad for the United States) and to create a crisis that would energize other countries to demand that Washington ease off the pressure on Iran. Iran’s attacks on the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries were initially intended as a form of indirect pressure on the United States to get it to alleviate, or even eliminate, the sanctions.

That Iranian strategy has failed miserably. While their attacks did create crises, only the recent strike on Abqaiq caused any significant jump in oil prices, and even that was probably less than the Iranians had hoped. Meanwhile, in part because the oil market has remained mostly placid, the Iranian strategy has had no impact on U.S. policy, either directly or indirectly by moving Arab, Asian, and European countries to persuade Washington to back off.

At the same time, however, the Iranian attacks have succeeded wildly in a way that Tehran probably never imagined. Because the United States has barely responded at all—only applying more fatuous sanctions and a single cyberattack that Iran seems to have shaken off—and because senior U.S. officials starting with the president have trumpeted that they will not employ force unless Iran attacks American citizens or property directly, the Iranian attacks have driven a lethal wedge between the United States and the GCC.

Although this has been part of a larger, longer process of the Sunni Arab states losing faith in their long-standing relationship with the United States, recent developments have had an outsized impact, dramatically accelerating that process. We may well have reached a tipping point, as Foreign Policy’s Steven A. Cook has insightfully argued.

Because the Iranians have been able to attack the GCC states with impunity—the Trump administration instead going out of its way to not respond to Iran, overturning at least 39 years of American policy—those governments are coming to the uncomfortable conclusion that they can no longer rely on the United States to protect them. Since that is the very foundation of the U.S.-GCC relationship, its fracturing is pushing Gulf leaders further and faster toward the realization that they need to solve their security issues themselves, with whatever means they have available.

The most visible manifestation of this trend has been the United Arab Emirates’ decisions to abandon the Yemen war and begin discussions with Iran over the tensions in the Persian Gulf. The UAE has been the first to recognize that because it can no longer count on the United States to protect it, it now has to find a way to peacefully resolve its differences with Tehran, even if that means bowing to Iranian wishes. It cannot afford to fight Tehran on its own. Although it is clearly not Abu Dhabi’s preference, without resolute U.S. backing, the Emirates have no choice but to try to reconcile with Tehran rather than oppose it.

Rumors from Saudi Arabia indicate that King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are both feeling the tug of this logic, but have been more reticent to follow the Emirati lead. Withdrawing from Yemen would be humiliating for Mohammed bin Salman. The Saudis detest the Iranians even more than the Emiratis do, and deferring to Iran means potentially giving up the Saudi bid to be the leaders of the Arab world. Yet they too increasingly feel that they are being left with no choice. They lack the strength to fight Iran on their own, especially in a protracted conflict. Moreover, if the Saudis don’t follow the Emirati lead and reconcile with Iran, Mohammed bin Salman might do the exact opposite and strike Iran anyway, hoping that this would force U.S. President Donald Trump to defend Saudi Arabia.

Again, it is impossible to know how much Iran’s leadership recognizes this, but it seems most likely that if we have noticed, they have too. Splitting the United States from its Sunni Arab allies has arguably been Iran’s preeminent foreign-policy goal since the 1979 revolution. Doing so would make it difficult for the United States to retain its military forces in the region. In that sense, it would also make it much easier for Tehran to dominate Arab governments—and potentially their oil resources. In short, Iran’s recent moves and Trump’s abandonment of four decades of U.S. policy have suddenly created the potential for Tehran to achieve one of its wildest dreams.

If the Iranians recognize this, the implications over the long term are profound. It suggests that the hard-liners who currently dominate Iranian foreign-policy making will see the potential geostrategic gains from their current approach as outweighing (in their minds) the economic costs of prolonged U.S. sanctions. That means that they will have even less interest or incentive to cut a new nuclear deal with Trump. It means that Iran will probably absorb whatever limited response Trump makes to the attack on Abqaiq and look for an opportunity to launch another attack of some kind on the GCC to accentuate their vulnerability and give Trump yet another opportunity to fail to do anything meaningful either to defend them or deter subsequent Iranian attacks.

If the Iranians believe, as they probably should, that they now have a path toward achieving their highest foreign-policy goal of the last four decades by destroying the U.S.-GCC alliance, they will make that—not Trump or the U.S. sanctions—their highest priority. Unless Trump is willing to radically change his approach, he may just hand them a victory for the ages.

Isn't it amazing that no matter what they do, it seem to eventually benefit Iran???!!! I mean how can this be?

i know you’re cool dude. But, this is Zionist propaganda implying that Iran acts impulsive. What is complete BS! Iran’s strongest asset is strategic planning, which this article tries to undermine.

I think the point remains: Iran is (even by chance as the author implies) is turning threat into opportunity as it has always done for the past 40 years. This is amazing.

And it is happening:

Saudi Arabia has sent messages to Iran's president: Iran government

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-aramco-iran-messages-idUSKBN1WF10D

 

[skyshadow]

The attack on spherical tank was not a suicide drone. It was definitely some kind of smart bomb.


Isn't it amazing that no matter what they do, it seem to eventually benefit Iran???!!! I mean how can this be?



I think the point remains: Iran is (even by chance as the author implies) is turning threat into opportunity as it has always done for the past 40 years. This is amazing.

And it is happening:

Saudi Arabia has sent messages to Iran's president: Iran government

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-saudi-aramco-iran-messages-idUSKBN1WF10D

smart bombs, agreed 10000%

 

[Kastor]

Isn't it amazing that no matter what they do, it seem to eventually benefit Iran???!!! I mean how can this be?

I agree, starting from the afghanistan invasion....then the Iraq invasion, The slap in the face of Netanyahu nuke deal. Now the loss of Yemen, and the utter failure of UAE and Saudi's multiyear anti-Iran campaign....all backfired.

With that said I hope the Iranian commanders don't get too cocky...and always try to get back to the diplomatic route with our neighbors...because if you plan out the next 20 years, we need to get along and bury the hatchet....it's beneficial to all of us.
https://en.trend.az/iran/3126233.html

PS: We can make peace with them but we should never stop watching SA and UAE, they are no friends of ours.

 

[Sineva]

Isn't it amazing that no matter what they do, it seem to eventually benefit Iran???!!! I mean how can this be?

I think the point remains: Iran is (even by chance as the author implies) is turning threat into opportunity as it has always done for the past 40 years. This is amazing.

You make an excellent point.I think that one of the biggest overall advantages that iran has had on its side has been the quality of its political leaders and their skills in comparison to the political leaders of irans enemies.By comparison the quality of the arab and israeli politicians has been at very best mediocre and usually far,far worse ie rabid right wing zionists like sharon and nuttyahoo,or the various arab vassal nonentities or worse such as saddam or mbs,I would argue that the same was mostly the case for the americans as well with the likes of cold war dinosaurs like reagan and bush snr and buffoons like bush jnr and chump,the only ones which were potentially problematic were clinton,who had his hands full elsewhere,and obama,tho in many ways the fact that he was the first black president and his resulting fixation on his political legacy and how history would see him limited what he could do,especially militarily,to some degree.Ultimately tho I think obama was potentially one of the more dangerous opponents iran faced,as unlike his arab and zionist counterparts,he did actually have some genuine political skill and ability,not to mention some popularity,and was able to work with others including the russians and chinese to achieve a consensus,and it was during the obama regime that many of the nastiest and most potentially damaging sanctions were applied to iran despite the high economic costs to many of the nations involved ie,eurovassals,russians etc.On the other hand tho I think he understood better than anyone that the western mantra of "zero enrichment" maximalist demands were just not going to work,at least at that point in time,and that if he wanted to do a deal then he would have to accept,or at least pretend to, publicly in principle and fact some degree of an indigenous iranian fuel cycle.
In some ways its a pity that the timing of the elections of the obama and rouhani regimes was just slightly off,as I think more could`ve possibly been achieved if their regimes had directly coincided with each other.
Ultimately I think that when it comes down to it regionally irans politicians and military leaders have just been very,very effective at taking advantage of the valuable opportunities that have been created because of some of the almost unbelievable mistakes and blunders that its enemies have inflicted upon themselves time and again either thru their arrogance or their stupidity or both.

 

[El Sidd]

soon Pakistan will pay price, as well
the time of having immunity is gone

I think it's time for your rhinoplasty

 

[DoubleYouSee]

I think it's time for your rhinoplasty

Bro no offence;but all your neighbours are suffering from the terrorism is being supported by pakistan...and it's time to chicken come home to roost.

 

[yavar]

 

[El Sidd]

Bro no offence;but all your neighbours are suffering from the terrorism is being supported by pakistan...and it's time to chicken come home to roost.

are you threatening Pakistan with Zainabyoon Brigade?