SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
IMO, we should also take Brezhnev and his awful policies into consideration. Think the troubles Iran is facing after Ahmadinejad... he @#$%ed up real bad...
When it comes to the USSR's relations with the US, what Brezhnev did in essence was to further expand Khrushchev's policy of detente.
As for Ahmadinejad, his record is not all negative. In my opinion he had a very good first term and a below average second one. Unlike the USSR in the late 60's and the 70's though, the overall gap between Iran and her enemies in terms of technology and economic development didn't increase during Ahmadinejad's presidency. On the contrary, Iran kept catching up on the US and the zionist regime. The continued development of industries (see the rise of Iran's steel output for instance), of Iran's military deterrence power and even of Iran's ability to project power outside her borders, are evidence to this.
I personally think USSR lost the war due to its own policies (communism & corruption) and not due to US being good at what it did.
Corruption on a systemic scale forms the very basis of western capitalism as well.
At the end of the day, the USSR's policy of detente with the USA did not end well for Moscow.
Alternatively, what we can infer from the experience of the USSR is that detente with America will not make up for domestic weaknesses. So at any rate, the least one can say is that rapprochement with Washington is not a solution to any of the troubles faced by Iran.
While I think Dr. Abbasi undoubtedly has a point when he insists that bilateral diplomacy between Moscow and Washington clearly ended in success for the latter and fatal defeat for the former, I might slightly differ with his analysis concerning Soviet-American rivalry on the ideological or rather soft war level: one might consider that in the ideological arena, until the very end of the Cold War and at least in the global south, people were still largely receptive to Soviet-style communism or at least to anti-imperialist movements advocating cooperation with Moscow, due to the extensive crimes committed by the US regime and its regional allies against developing nations, and even though ideologies conceived as alternatives to both eastern and western blocs (such as Chinese communism after the Sino-Soviet split, or revolutionary Islam as put forth by the Islamic Republic of Iran) had made their appearance; but as for the information war back home, in its Warsaw Pact backyard and in western Europe, I think it's safe to say that the USSR was no longer as effective as it used to be during the 1950's, when it managed to turn to its advantage major political phenomena such as the (anti-nuclear) Peace movement in the west, which ideologically speaking was not necessarily of communist obedience.
I hope you are wrong. IMO There is no winning against the US at our current situation. If Raisi is anything but the perfect person some people say he is, there will be no Iran in 20 years.
Holding out and continuing to challenge US and zionist hegemony is enough of a victory for Iran. The US regime will not be the sole superpower forever, and its dominance is going to falter sooner or later no matter what, not least thanks to Iran's spirited, principled and uninterrupted Resistance, considering how crucial the West Asian region is to American global hegemony. There'll be no need to land troops and invade the US.
My prospective view of Iran's future is very far from bleak, quite the opposite. There are still many, many policies Iran has yet to try out in order to fix domestic issues, and multiple options are at Iran's disposal. Furthermore, with each passing day, the world is moving further towards multipolarism thanks to China's rise. A China which is going to surpass the US in every aspect and will then make it increasingly difficult for Washington to impose its imperialist designs on nations.
Iranians should not allow their enemies' psychological operations to affect them too much. The imminent downfall of the Islamic Republic has been prophesized on a daily basis for the past 42+ years non-stop, and all these predictions proved false.
Hajj Raisi doesn't need to be perfect, no human is, but his presidency will put Iran on track for many additional achievements and successes, while strengthening the foundations of Iran's security to such an extent that toppling the Islamic Republic and destroying the Iranian nation will become practically impossible for the zio-American empire.
Here's an interesting piece recently published by The New York Times by the way (thanks to user Homajon for sharing it first), which expounds on the stark contrast between the perceived fragility of the Islamic Republic and its effective stability: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/20/world/middleeast/iran-revolutionary-election.html
as an example where he said "نرمش قهرمانانه" (?) was not done properly and Rouhani crossed the "اصول" (principles?). Well he is lucky no one asked him: Is the military nuclear program a principle of the System? Did we oust the shah to make Nuclear weapons?! since that is what they gave away in the deal.
After that, he says "نرمش قهرمانانه" supposed to be in "فروع" (minutiae?).
What do you mean? Any and all concessions made by Iran under the JCPOA have concerned Iran's civilian nuclear infrastructure, namely the heavy water reactor at Arak and Iran's uranium enrichment program.
There's no properly military item among these. The Arak reactor is meant to produce isotopes and to serve as a research project enabling Iran to gain experience in the indigeneous design and construction of nuclear reactors, since in this area too Iran intends to become independent of foreign partners at some point.
As for the enrichment capability, it's there to produce nuclear fuel for Iran's reactors.
Now, if Iran had gotten something tangible in return for these concessions, one might argue that the policy of "heroic flexibility" (نرمش قهرمانانه) was carried out properly by Rohani's negotiation team. But given that this isn't the case, obviously the administration didn't do a great job. It acquiesced to a deal that was pretty imbalanced in the west's favor to begin with, and which got violated by the US shortly after it was struck, with the American side never implementing it.
He also talks about Strategic and ideological fight... He conveniently ignores have a century of mismanagement and corruption that lead to Gorbachev becoming leader of USSR...
(See my point? I am a nobody and I found many problems with his arguments in 20 minutes...)
Well, that's possible, but to be fair internal politics of the USSR weren't exactly his topic. Even so, why would domestic corruption and mismanagement necessarily lead to the rise of a leader who gets tricked by the US and concedes a lot to Washington only to end up triggering his country's collapse and territorial disintegration?
Last edited: