Influential reformist activist: The failure of negotiations is due to Iran, Iran acted in a contrarian manner

[SalarHaqq]

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?

 

[makranman]

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.



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.



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



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.



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?

Thanks for the lengthy reply. I honestly have no arguments against your points worth mentioning.
The only points I want to add are:
1. I agree with your points about soviet policies towards the west... There can only be one king of the world. Right now the king is the US. The USSR tried to act like one. But there is a difference between acting like one and actually being one. In 50 years, it might be china? Nobody knows.

2. I am a pessimist. I think at our current pace, we will become another USSR. Why? Because we are trying to play a king. I believe we cannot win against the current king. I believe they will push us until we either become a North Korea or a USSR (Or we win the battle which is unlikely. unless we can solve our problems with the Zionists.)
2.1. I really hope there is a middle ground. which you believe is not really a thing. And I agree. With our current leaders and decision-makers, there can only be one way forward: Destruction.
2.2. Let's hope this pessimist is wrong and Raisi is the best president in the history of Iran. Good things happen when people like me are wrong.

3. About Dr. Abbasi's video. I used to follow his works. I learned a lot from him. But his way of representing things (and maybe analyzing them) is not good enough for large-scale problems and topics. This way is also used widely around the country.
as an example: They build large highways around Tehran to combat traffic. But the result is even more traffic. That is because they don't look at large-scale problems properly. Instead of viewing the problem and all of its aspects, they view the parts that fit their narrative and run away with it. In this case, one can follow the corruption around Mr. Ghalibaf and his friends.
Now I don't Believe Dr. Abbasi is a corrupt man. But I believe he does play with the facts and ignores some to fit his own narrative.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Thanks for the lengthy reply. I honestly have no arguments against your points worth mentioning.
The only points I want to add are:
1. I agree with your points about soviet policies towards the west... There can only be one king of the world. Right now the king is the US. The USSR tried to act like one. But there is a difference between acting like one and actually being one. In 50 years, it might be china? Nobody knows.

Sure, no exact timescale can be given for the downfall of the US empire, but that it will happen sooner or later is a given.

Another given is that US hegemony is going to face increasing challenges with the rise of China. In 20 years from now, let alone in 50, the world is no longer going to be a unipolar one like it still tends to be today.

2. I am a pessimist. I think at our current pace, we will become another USSR. Why? Because we are trying to play a king. I believe we cannot win against the current king. I believe they will push us until we either become a North Korea or a USSR (Or we win the battle which is unlikely. unless we can solve our problems with the Zionists.)

Here I will have to disagree. Iran isn't trying to play king as you put it. Nor is Iran trying to imitate the USSR in the way it confronts the US empire.

Because unlike Saddam's Iraq for example, Iran is smart enough to know that trying to match the US in its own areas of strength, i.e. trying to equal America conventionally is a hopeless strategy. Hence why the Islamic Republic adopted an asymmetrical approach, around which its entire anti-imperial Resistance is structured. And it has been successful to date. Was it not for this ingenuity and political intelligence of its decision makers, Iran would have faced defeat many years ago.

2.1. I really hope there is a middle ground. which you believe is not really a thing. And I agree. With our current leaders and decision-makers, there can only be one way forward: Destruction.

I would rather say: with the empire's leaders. Past, present and future leaders of the zio-American empire have not been and will not be content with anything but total submission of nations to their rule.

As far as Iran's concerned, they've taken their decision and aren't going to revise it. And it's not just about turning Iran into a vassal state of theirs, but to do so after dismantling Iran into five or six separate entities. I doubt a middle ground will be conceivable, to be honest, and trusting the enemy's promises will prove suicidal.

2.2. Let's hope this pessimist is wrong and Raisi is the best president in the history of Iran. Good things happen when people like me are wrong.

Do not expect Raisi to achieve superhuman feats. And do not forget that the Rohani administration messed up to such a degree - especially on the economic front, that Raisis first mandate will probably be focused on repairing the damage done by his predecessor.

However, one thing we can be sure about: the next government will do a better job than the current one. Which to be honest, is not particularly difficult. So rest assured!

3. About Dr. Abbasi's video. I used to follow his works. I learned a lot from him. But his way of representing things (and maybe analyzing them) is not good enough for large-scale problems and topics. This way is also used widely around the country.
as an example: They build large highways around Tehran to combat traffic. But the result is even more traffic. That is because they don't look at large-scale problems properly. Instead of viewing the problem and all of its aspects, they view the parts that fit their narrative and run away with it. In this case, one can follow the corruption around Mr. Ghalibaf and his friends.
Now I don't Believe Dr. Abbasi is a corrupt man. But I believe he does play with the facts and ignores some to fit his own narrative.

Some of his analyses certainly leave room for debate. But I think he's regularly making some good points, and, he is neither corrupt as you said, nor can one find fault with his loyalty to Islam and Iran.

 

[Stryker1982]

Sure, no exact timescale can be given for the downfall of the US empire, but that it will happen sooner or later is a given.

Another given is that US hegemony is going to face increasing challenges with the rise of China. In 20 years from now, let alone in 50, the world is no longer going to be a unipolar one like it still tends to be today.



Here I will have to disagree. Iran isn't trying to play king as you put it. Nor is Iran trying to imitate the USSR in the way it confronts the US empire.

Because unlike Saddam's Iraq for example, Iran is smart enough to know that trying to match the US in its own areas of strength, i.e. trying to equal America conventionally is a hopeless strategy. Hence why the Islamic Republic adopted an asymmetrical approach, around which its entire anti-imperial Resistance is structured. And it has been successful to date. Was it not for this ingenuity and political intelligence of its decision makers, Iran would have faced defeat many years ago.



I would rather say: with the empire's leaders. Past, present and future leaders of the zio-American empire have not been and will not be content with anything but total submission of nations to their rule.

As far as Iran's concerned, they've taken their decision and aren't going to revise it. And it's not just about turning Iran into a vassal state of theirs, but to do so after dismantling Iran into five or six separate entities. I doubt a middle ground will be conceivable, to be honest, and trusting the enemy's promises will prove suicidal.



Do not expect Raisi to achieve superhuman feats. And do not forget that the Rohani administration messed up to such a degree - especially on the economic front, that Raisis first mandate will probably be focused on repairing the damage done by his predecessor.

However, one thing we can be sure about: the next government will do a better job than the current one. Which to be honest, is not particularly difficult. So rest assured!



Some of his analyses certainly leave room for debate. But I think he's regularly making some good points, and, he is neither corrupt as you said, nor can one find fault with his loyalty to Islam and Iran.

How likely do you think It would be that Raisi would sign a new deal with the P5+1. I imagine that under certain restrictions he would have the approval of the supreme leader to sign an appropriate agreement. Do you think this is a blunder, or a trojan horse, or is this something that can be managed well by Iran, while reaping the economic benefits without threat.

The west has given up on Iran in my impression, they are learning to live with the IR, unthinkable 10 years ago. I can categorically confirm this based simply on this move

Pentagon pulls missile defense, other systems from Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries

The Pentagon is pulling missile defense systems and other military hardware and personnel from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East, according to a defense official, as it realigns its mission and forces to confront China and Russia.

www.cnn.com

Removed for maintenance, they say and only SOME will return (Allegedly ,remains to be seen). Pretty clear, this move indicates a shift to Russia and China. They are done with Iran after the deal is signed.

Khamenei is right. The US will be leaving this region sooner or later before they bury their whole empire there. $6.4 trillion spent in the middle east, which leads me to believe, that they will not leave without a deal signed.

 

[Dariush the Great]

How likely do you think It would be that Raisi would sign a new deal with the P5+1. I imagine that under certain restrictions he would have the approval of the supreme leader to sign an appropriate agreement. Do you think this is a blunder, or a trojan horse, or is this something that can be managed well by Iran, while reaping the economic benefits without threat.

The west has given up on Iran in my impression, they are learning to live with the IR, unthinkable 10 years ago. I can categorically confirm this based simply on this move

Pentagon pulls missile defense, other systems from Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries

The Pentagon is pulling missile defense systems and other military hardware and personnel from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East, according to a defense official, as it realigns its mission and forces to confront China and Russia.

www.cnn.com

Removed for maintenance, they say and only SOME will return (Allegedly ,remains to be seen). Pretty clear, this move indicates a shift to Russia and China. They are done with Iran after the deal is signed.

Khamenei is right. The US will be leaving this region sooner or later before they bury their whole empire there. $6.4 trillion spent in the middle east, which leads me to believe, that they will not leave without a deal signed.

US will not leave as long Iran is engaged in Anti zionist activities. It is a fairytale propagated by some claiming the US will leave the region. Thousands of troops and assets will remain in place. Nothing will change. However we can blunt the US by cooperating with neighbors, China etc. That is a different story.

 

[Stryker1982]

US will not leave as long Iran is engaged in Anti zionist activities. It is a fairytale propagated by some claiming the US will leave the region. Thousands of troops and assets will remain in place. Nothing will change. However we can blunt the US by cooperating with neighbors, China etc. That is a different story.

But the withdrawal of these batteries says the opposite, they are reducing their military posture in the region. Reduction of air defenses is something to be considered very serious especially against a country like Iran.

 

[Blue In Green]

But the withdrawal of these batteries says the opposite, they are reducing their military posture in the region. Reduction of air defenses is something to be considered very serious especially against a country like Iran.

I'd wager that the withdrawal of batteries can be offset with an increase in military weapon sales to satellite states in the region and cooperation in other areas to bolster their own capabilities in the absence of American AD installations.

Just because America is moving around equipment doesn't mean their resolve is going to diminish. We now know that Biden's gang is going to play hardball (no matter what anyone says) and Iran isn't going to get an easy deal.

 

[SalarHaqq]

How likely do you think It would be that Raisi would sign a new deal with the P5+1.

Just a quick reminder, since everyone commits this mistake from time to time, even close observers such as Trita Parsi: no document whatsoever was signed in the framework of the JCPOA. It was a purely political understanding, not a proper international treaty.

As for the likelihood of Raisi and Biden arriving at a reactivation of the JCPOA: while not completely nill, it is however low in my opinion. We shall see.

I imagine that under certain restrictions he would have the approval of the supreme leader to sign an appropriate agreement. Do you think this is a blunder, or a trojan horse, or is this something that can be managed well by Iran, while reaping the economic benefits without threat.

I do think the JCPOA is a trap of sorts, at least this is definitely what the west intends it to be.

Whether or not Iran would fall into the trap depends also on the domestic balance of power: if revolutionaries retain sufficient influence and backing from the population, then most of the negative developments aimed for by Iran's enemies might be averted. But if the liberals gain the upper hand for a longer period of time, then the risks are very real.

The main developments prejudicial to Iran which the west wanted the JCPOA to kick start, are limitations to Iran's missile program and to Iran's support for her regional allies, which JCPOA's II and III were supposed to .

But as the experience of the nuclear JCPOA under both Obama and Trump showed: the US will not even allow Iran to reap any meaningful economic benefits from the nuclear JCPOA, not even as a means to strengthen the hand of Iranian liberals so that they could use subsequent public satisfaction with their administration in order to successfully pressure the Leadership and the IRGC into giving in to the follow-on JCPOAs II and III.

And since Raisi clearly announced that there's not going to be any other JCPOA's under his administration even if the original one can be revived, I'm not sure the Biden regime will be very motivated to return to the deal.

The west has given up on Iran in my impression, they are learning to live with the IR, unthinkable 10 years ago. I can categorically confirm this based simply on this move

Pentagon pulls missile defense, other systems from Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries

The Pentagon is pulling missile defense systems and other military hardware and personnel from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the Middle East, according to a defense official, as it realigns its mission and forces to confront China and Russia.

www.cnn.com

Removed for maintenance, they say and only SOME will return (Allegedly ,remains to be seen). Pretty clear, this move indicates a shift to Russia and China. They are done with Iran after the deal is signed.

Here I'll join the two previous users who replied. These anti-aircraft batteries aren't the only aspect of America's regional presence dedicated to countering Iran. Also, these types of reports are often aimed at communicating political signals rather than actually reflecting major geostrategic developments.

Then there's also the massive arms sales by the US to their regional clients as well as to the zionist regime, as BlueInGreen correctly reminded. Plus all other, non-state proxies Washington has used in the past, sometimes in a covert manner - see the recent increase in "I"SIS terror attacks in northeastern Syria. Likewise, the US keeps backing all manner of anti-IR opposition, might at any moment try to plot another attempt at a "colored revolution" during Raisi's term(s), and so on. Key aspects of Trump's "maximum pressure" campaign, such as sanctions but also sabotage, assassinations, occasional air strikes on Iran's allies and so on, might go on more or less unabated under Biden.

You could argue that they are leaving in the sense that they no longer wish to directly involve their military. This shift had already been initiated under Obama though. And Trump didn't reverse it. What's new is that they may now pull out more equipment and troops from the area, given how much their multiple overseas bases cost them each year. But all this is not to say they abandoned their destructive goals vis à vis Iran, nor that they won't keep trying to push for these goals through indirect means.

Khamenei is right. The US will be leaving this region sooner or later before they bury their whole empire there. $6.4 trillion spent in the middle east, which leads me to believe, that they will not leave without a deal signed.

They will be us leaving alone sooner or later, but only once they are forced to concede defeat, at least implicitly.

 

[Stryker1982]

I'd wager that the withdrawal of batteries can be offset with an increase in military weapon sales to satellite states in the region and cooperation in other areas to bolster their own capabilities in the absence of American AD installations.

Just because America is moving around equipment doesn't mean their resolve is going to diminish. We now know that Biden's gang is going to play hardball (no matter what anyone says) and Iran isn't going to get an easy deal.

You could argue that they are leaving in the sense that they no longer wish to directly involve their military. This shift had already been initiated under Obama though. And Trump didn't reverse it. What's new is that they may now pull out more equipment and troops from the area, given how much their multiple overseas bases cost them each year. But all this is not to say they abandoned their destructive goals vis à vis Iran, nor that they won't keep trying to push for these goals through indirect means.

This is more along the lines of what I was trying to convey. Not a disappearance from involvement in the region, but less of a military footprint to focus on their allies in the pacific.