Iran nuclear deal: Saudi Arabia warns it will strike out on its own

[al-Hasani]

Genetically there is no pure people on earth. And it were the Slavs that were influenced by Iranians. Some still claim Scythians and Sarmatians!

It is funny when you talk about "Iranians" like they were one ethnic group. That is a new invention as well. The Elamites whom you people regard as "Iranians" (and your little English Wikipedia article about "Iranian" history says on Wikipedia (edited by Iranians of course) here were NOT and did NOT call themselves Iranians. They were not even Indo-Iranian peoples or "Aryans". They were not related to any modern groups living in Iran. The only people who might claim them are those local and native people living in Southeastern Iran. Who again are not the same as Iranians living in Zahedan or Bandar Abbas, Tabriz or Mashhad. And that is even doubtful since we talk about a long extinct people whose numbers are unknown and immigration patterns etc. You name it.

Recorded Slavic history is less than 2000 years old……… Just saying.

And the invention of the Slavic people is also nonsense. Al the so-called "Slavic" people of the Balkans are native people to the Balkan region and many can trace their ancestry to the Paleolithic people of the Balkans who spread farming to Europe from the Middle East. Genetic tests confirm that. Long before any Indo-Iranians people or languages existed.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

No body ever said that an X or Y state is going to attack you, clam down, and be rational.

Saudis are welcome to attack it will be their end in fact one tribe shammar tribe it almost destroyed them without the British they fought and defeated shammar tribe without the British al rashid shammar would have been crushed al saud and their kingdom

Just for the record.

Actually, Ibn Rashid was defeated on two front with the help the British gave to him. He was the second strongest ally of Britin but it didn't save him.

 

[al-Hasani]

Scythians have been absorbed by Russians and Ukrainians, while Sarmatians have been absorbed by Poles, they indeed looked pretty close to Slavs.

Doubtful my friend. What is now Ukraine and Poland was inhabited by ancient Europeans (that lived in Europe before the Ice Age) and the Germanic groups who were not related to the Slavic people who came from what is the Steppes of Southern Ukraine if we believe the strongest theory of the Slavic "Urheimat". And all that are just theories. There is no written records proving that those Slavs are descendants of those nomadic civilizations/people.

The Polish nobility and its folklore indeed claimed an ancestry based on the Sarmatians but that has largely been debunked as nothing more than a fairytale. Ironically it coincided with the period in Polish history were Middle Eastern/Oriental ways were adopted by the nobility, probably due to Hungarian and Ottoman influences.

Read this:

Sarmatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

The Shah was a tyrant without a doubt. He oppressed his own people, but his foreign relations with every country used to be based on pragmatism.

Thanks man, finally someone sticking to topic haha

Yeah, I'm sure they had it before too. But what i read was that Relations never were as good as they were during King Faisals time. (Referring to Saudi Arabia-Iranian Relations, not Arabian-Iranian Relations)

UAE's foreign minister just visited Iran, what do you think about that?
UAE Foreign Minister To Make Rare Visit To Iran » Gulf Business

The UAE is a great country, and Iran can benefit economically a lot by working with them. Its influence is strong globally, and have been developing gradually.

I guess the core issue with them is the Islands dispute, this is all left in Iran's hand though for now.

 

[al-Hasani]

The Shah was a tyrant without a doubt. He oppressed his own people, but his foreign relations with every country used to be based on pragmatism.



The UAE is a great country, and Iran can benefit economically a lot by working with them. Its influence is strong globally, and have been developing gradually.

I guess the core issue with them is the Islands dispute, this is all left in Iran's hand though for now.

Man, I still don't understand how a son of a commoner that just happened to be an officer could proclaim himself as a Shah and get accepted. I want to rule my own country. Can I take the throne in KSA and proclaim myself as the Caliph? I prefer that title rather than King and Custodian of the Two Holy Sites.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

The throne of the Shah was passed to him by his father

The shah was installed once more after the CIA notorious coup in the 50s.

Man, I still don't understand how a son of a commoner that just happened to be an officer could proclaim himself as a Shah and get accepted. I want to rule my own country. Can I take the throne in KSA and proclaim myself as the Caliph? I prefer that title rather than King and Custodian of the Two Holy Sites.

 

[al-Hasani]

The throne of the Shah was passed to him by his father

The shah was installed once more after the CIA notorious coup in the 50s.

Yes I know that but his father was born as a commoner (officer) and he took the throne as an adult and proclaimed himself as the Shah. In the year 1925. Not in the year 1500 where the jungle law was the law mostly. And thus that stunt gave rise to the Pahlavi Dynasty.

I was referring to such a move.

It reminds me of Bokassa proclaiming himself as Emperor in Central African Republic. No wonder that this Shah was so happy for a lavish style. He had to make up for his humble and commoner origins. It all makes sense now!

BTW, read this. What an egomaniac.

Jean-Bédel Bokassa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't understand how that 1 single Pahlavi dude that is left can see himself in the mirror when he expects people to call him his "imperial highness" or "royal highness" or whatever he imagines. LOL. Your grandfather was a commoner and officer that proclaimed HIMSELF as the Shah as an adult in the year 1925. Give it a break!

So I am thinking about doing the same in year 2025. I want the title Caliph of all Caliphs. Throw the title of Pope in while we are at it and Emperor is not bad either.

So his Imperial Majesty the Emperor of the Universe, Pope of Popes, King of all Kings in the Universe and Caliph of all Caliphs and governor of Greenland.

I would appreciate if people addressed me with that title each time they wrote to me on this forum. Thank you. I will surely make the universe a pleasant place to live in.

LOL.

 

[Anaoshak]

The Shah was a tyrant without a doubt. He oppressed his own people, but his foreign relations with every country used to be based on pragmatism.



The UAE is a great country, and Iran can benefit economically a lot by working with them. Its influence is strong globally, and have been developing gradually.

I guess the core issue with them is the Islands dispute, this is all left in Iran's hand though for now.

I honestly don't understand the Island dispute to tell you the truth. I mean, when you read up on it, it seems that the Iranian claim makes more sense (i know its useless to say it but i'm saying this out of a non pan-iranian view.) Just a historical view and the population speaking Bandari Persian etc.
Anyone doing research on it will see it as so.

And the claiming of Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb islands are just even more ludicrous. Because it's history not only is Persian, its closer to Iran's shore.
This one is probably as dumb as Iran's claim on Bahrain before.
And this has all been agreed on before, and asking to get something or what not just wont happen when it wasn't someones in the first place.

What do you think?

One thing I don't understand is how a person, commoner and officer, can proclaim himself as a Shah and then suddenly rule a whole country through this "royal" legitimatize. I don't understand that. Or how all those Turkic dynasties could rule Iran for so long.

It happens, kings are not always kings at first. Look at Ibn Saud for instance. He conquered and unified central Arabia and in 1932, it was the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and he made himself king.

 

[Chak Bamu]

Man, I still don't understand how a son of a commoner that just happened to be an officer could proclaim himself as a Shah and get accepted. I want to rule my own country. Can I take the throne in KSA and proclaim myself as the Caliph? I prefer that title rather than King and Custodian of the Two Holy Sites.

Come now @al-Hasani it is not that difficult to understand. Notions of nobility are after all based on great deeds. Shah's father was key in turning the fortunes of war against Russia.

That Caliph thing would not go down well at all: too many differences and basically a Pandora's box. Better give OIC some teeth and confer honorary title of Caliph upon the Secretary General.

 

[al-Hasani]

I honestly don't understand the Island dispute to tell you the truth. I mean, when you read up on it, it seems that the Iranian claim makes more sense (i know its useless to say it but i'm saying this out of a non pan-iranian view.) Just a historical view and the population speaking Bandari Persian etc.
Anyone doing research on it will see it as so.

And the claiming of Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb islands are just even more ludicrous. Because it's history not only is Persian, its closer to Iran's shore.
This one is probably as dumb as Iran's claim on Bahrain before.
And this has all been agreed on before, and asking to get something or what not just wont happen when it wasn't someones in the first place.

What do you think?

Is most of Southern Iran not heavily influence by Arabs? Most of the people around the Gulf today are Arabs. The main port city in Southern Iran is called Bandar Abbas. Pure Arabic name. Anyway those are small useless islands. I have not read up about that dispute at all. Historically Persians were not living in those parts of Iran and you were never a marine nation or people. On the other hand the Arabs living along the Gulf were very much seafaring people.

Anyway I agree. Iran can claim those islands. UAE is a new entity and if Persians live there now or people speaking Persian then let them have those two tiny islands ffs.

The Iranian claim on Bahrain is indeed ludicrous. Or rather old claim I should say.

Anyway I don't see any problems with UAE and Iran otherwise. You don't have such a good ties with the people and rulers of any other Arab country I believe.

Come now @al-Hasani it is not that difficult to understand. Notions of nobility are after all based on great deeds. Shah's father was key in turning the fortunes of war against Russia.

That Caliph thing would not go down well at all: too many differences and basically a Pandora's box. Better give OIC some teeth and confer honorary title of Caliph upon the Secretary General.

For me it is very difficult to understand how a commoner and officer could proclaim himself as a "Shah" in the year 1925 and get accepted. If you look at coup d'etáts in the world in that same time period then none of those claimed royalty but were simply just dictators.

The only one I can think about is that Central African egomaniac called Bokassa.

The Caliph thing was a joke. No secretary of any organization should have such an title. Such a title is reserved for the actual Caliph in person.

Would totally devaluate this title.

 

[Yzd Khalifa]

Whatever your opinion might be I will still respect it as long as you and I maintain the civility of the debate.

My opinion is, that dispute is ought to be look-over by the Intl. community.

I still don't understand why did the Shah launch a full scale invasion on these two Islands though before the declaration of the UAE independence, and that's the point.

I honestly don't understand the Island dispute to tell you the truth. I mean, when you read up on it, it seems that the Iranian claim makes more sense (i know its useless to say it but i'm saying this out of a non pan-iranian view.) Just a historical view and the population speaking Bandari Persian etc.
Anyone doing research on it will see it as so.

And the claiming of Greater Tunb and Lesser Tunb islands are just even more ludicrous. Because it's history not only is Persian, its closer to Iran's shore.
This one is probably as dumb as Iran's claim on Bahrain before.
And this has all been agreed on before, and asking to get something or what not just wont happen when it wasn't someones in the first place.

What do you think?



It happens, kings are not always kings at first. Look at Ibn Saud for instance. He conquered and unified central Arabia and in 1932, it was the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and he made himself king.

 

[al-Hasani]

It happens, kings are not always kings at first. Look at Ibn Saud for instance. He conquered and unified central Arabia and in 1932, it was the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and he made himself king.

Wrong examples and not comparable at all. The House of Al-Saud were ruling Najd and large parts of KSA 200 years previously before the unification of KSA and the proclamation as the King. They were having their battles with the Ottomans, Egyptian state, local rival ruling families, the Al-Rasheed etc.

And he like all the other historical dynasties/rulers in the past actually CONQUERED his territory from other rulers and thus established his legitimacy not to mention that his family came from a long line of rulers. From rulers/emirs of the whole Najd to emirs of the city of Al-Diriyah which is today a World UNESCO Heritage site.

So I don't think that you can compare the two incidents.

I think what the father of the late Shah did was more comparable to what Bokassa did in the Central African Republic when he proclaimed himself as the Emperor. But his son never succeeded him since he only ruled for less than 3 years.

Anyway history is history it is just something that I always wondered about since it was not like we were talking about the first ruler of Iran. So I thought that there would be more rebellion from the people. Well before 1979 that is.

 

[al-Hasani]

Anyway to actually talk about the topic for once, which I already did but it was drowned in off-topic posts, then KSA has no interest of striking or attacking Iran or any other country for that matter. Why should we. Nor have we anything to do with Israel. The problem you have is an Iranian (rather Mullah) and Israel (Netanyahu) problem. We have nothing to do with it. Israel are not our allies nor are Iran under the Mullah's. If those two countries were located in Oceania we would not care just like we don't care about the conflicts between let us say Argentina and Bolivia.

But since both countries are located on each side of our country, both countries trying to create nuclear weapons, most say that Israel has this already, then obviously we are FORCED to take a stance.

Anyway I don't thnk that the international community would allow Iran to develop the bomb (if it ever happens) and if it does then they would open the pandora box and make the Middle East a place where a race for nuclear weapons would take place. KSA has already stated that this would mean a future nuclear KSA and that goes against the current principles of the country in not supporting a nuclear Middle East hence the demands to Israel.

So a very stupid thread and claim.

But I am sure that KSA will not sit back if her sovereignty and security will be threatened. But there is a long way from that and then to attack a foreign country.

The Israel rumors I don't even take seriously. If that is really the case then I would like the House of Saud ousted.

Yes, ousted. But I do not believe that as I said.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

If Israel already has the nuclear weapons, while Iran doesn't have yet, do you think KSA should go after it for the counter balance in Middle East?

 

[Anaoshak]

Is most of Southern Iran not heavily influence by Arabs? Most of the people around the Gulf today are Arabs. The main port city in Southern Iran is called Bandar Abbas. Pure Arabic name. Anyway those are small useless islands. I have not read up about that dispute at all. Historically Persians were not living in those parts of Iran and you were never a marine nation or people. On the other hand the Arabs living along the Gulf were very much seafaring people.

Anyway I agree. Iran can claim those islands. UAE is a new entity and if Persians live there now or people speaking Persian then let them have those two tiny islands ffs.

The Iranian claim on Bahrain is indeed ludicrous. Or rather old claim I should say.

Anyway I don't see any problems with UAE and Iran otherwise. You don't have such a good ties with the people and rulers of any other Arab country I believe.

Actually, i think the best ties Iran has with an Arab Sunni country is with Oman? Or maybe I'm wrong?

Yes, they are heavily influenced by Arabs but they speak Persian, enjoy Persian music, culture is Persian and etc. Persians was a marine nation. Not always. But to say it never were is just silly.
Anyway, the thing is the Southern Iranians, don't consider themselves Arab either. They consider themselves Iranian. Which is why Saddam made the mistake to think that they would join him when he invaded and when he started the whole Persians vs Arab thing. Which they didn't but instead fought against him. Because they were and are Iranians.

Wrong examples and not comparable at all. The House of Al-Saud were ruling Najd and large parts of KSA 200 years previously before the unification of KSA and the proclamation as the King. They were having their battles with the Ottomans, Egyptian state, local rival ruling families, the Al-Rasheed etc.

And he like all the other historical dynasties/rulers in the past actually CONQUERED his territory from other rulers and thus established his legitimacy not to mention that his family came from a long line of rulers. From rulers/emirs of the whole Najd to emirs of the city of Al-Diriyah which is today a World UNESCO Heritage site.

So I don't think that you can compare the two incidents.

I think what the father of the late Shah did was more comparable to what Bokassa did in the Central African Republic when he proclaimed himself as the Emperor. But his son never succeeded him since he only ruled for less than 3 years.

Anyway history is history it is just something that I always wondered about since it was not like we were talking about the first ruler of Iran. So I thought that there would be more rebellion from the people. Well before 1979 that is.

Yeah i guess, but still a lot of Arab countries have had leaders who were originally in the Military.
As did many around the world.

And i think Ibn Saud had to reconquer large parts of KSA from the Al Rashid, and consolidated his control over the Najd in 1922?

But as you say, history is history.