You believe everything Iranians say, verbatim. It is like talking to official IRG spokesperson.
Ok, please show what comment of mine was lifted from official Iranian statements. I never heard any IRGC person (or other Iranian official for that matter) make the specific points I made in my last post to be honest.
But more importantly, please show where I was wrong. I did my best to illustrate my argument with documentary evidence, much like you tried when posting that video.
Sad to see a Pakistani who takes Iranian propaganda more than Iranians themselves.
I'm not basing myself on official statements here, but on what I read, see and understand, as well as on extensive personal experience and research.
Situation on the ground is different than how you portray.
May I ask how you arrived at this conclusion? What are the sources of your data concerning the situation on the ground in Iran?
To support Armenia was against the national interest of Iran.
First I have yet to see proper evidence that Iran is supporting Armenia. Let's be honest, so far none was produced here.
Secondly Iran is threatened by a zio-American project to promote "ethnic" separatism among her population. This is well documented (in case you doubt it, evidence can be provided). Now if the government in Baku turns out to have any hand in this, then it will not be in Iran's national interest to side with the Republic of Azarbaijan.
If Pakistan and Iran go to war, who will you support. Will you still defend Iran?
No. But I also don't share your pessimism about the probability of such a war anytime in the near future (or even in the longer term).
KSA, UAE and Iran are equal partners in destruction of the Arab world on the basis of sectarianism. This poisonous curse which Rasulullah saws warned us about is national policy of both factions.
In this greater Middle East region, it is only Turkey, Azerbaycan, and Pakistan who have adopted a non-sectarian policy. This makes the three the only responsible states in the region.
Iran has directly caused misery, death, and dishonor to millions Syrians, Iraqis, and Afghans. Now it is trying to do the same to Azeris.
- Syria: Iran has come to the aid of her ally, the Syrian government. That's a politically motivated decision, not a sectarian one. And the main role Syria is playing in Iran's network of alliances, is to act as a land bridge between Tehran and the Mediterranean, where Iran's interests are twofold: to support and supply Lebanon's Hezbollah, as well as the Palestinian Resistance. The first is a Shia organization but has been formed with the goal of resisting zionist aggression and occupation. The second is Sunni. So yet again, not a sectarian policy by Iran.
Misery and death are unfortunately part of wars. But I have seen no evidence of the Iranian military directly killing, injuring or expelling millions of Syrians. The fact is that in the Syrian war, the military to civilian casualty rate is around 1:1. That's not a sign of targeted onslaught against civilians. Plus, Iran does not control every unit of the Syrian armed forces. And it's not as if their opponents were any less brutal in their ways.
When it comes to sectarianism in this war, clearly the Turkish- / Isra"el"i- / Saudi- / Qatari- and western-backed opposition has been those with the more sectarianist outlook. The Syrian government being secular it's by definition not a sectarianist entity. It's not interested in religious discussions to be sectarianist. Moreover the pro-government camp has a multi-confessional composition, as opposed to the anti-government forces.
- Iraq: Iraq was destabilized, invaded and destroyed by the zionist-controlled US regime, not by Iran. Iran played no role in the invasion. The Iraqi state was given a sectarian and ethnic make over not by Iran, but by US vice-regent Paul Bremer and the US-sponsored Iraqi constitution. Sectarian types of killings were triggered by IS and its bombing of the Al-Askari shrine, again not by Iran. Iran didn't encourage nor direct any of her Iraqi allies to engage in revenge killings against civilians.
But the war against IS and later ISIS had to be fought nonetheless. In this war, Iran was eager to welcome any and all Sunni Iraqis willing to join her side. As a matter of fact, the Iraqi PMU, which were established with Iran's help, include Sunni brigades. I posted a very comprehensive, high quality academic research paper on the PMU's Sunni units in the Middle East section, where the author demonstrates that these Sunni brigades aren't just "for show" but intended to facilitate national integration and inter-communal raprochment.
- Afghanistan: Iran and Pakistan weren't on the same sides of the civil war there so I'm not defending their choice, but to say they were pursuing a sectarianist policy in Afghanistan wouldn't be accurate since the majority of Iran's Afghan allies were and are Sunni Muslims.
Then over 70% of Azaris belong to the Shia denomination of Islam, if Iran sought to "cause misery, death and dishonor" on Azaris, as you claim, this would directly disprove your other accusation that Iran is pursuing sectarianist types of policies.