Iran to react if US prevents lifting arms embargo as per nuclear deal: President Rouhani

[mangekyo]

Good point about the Shah's precarious view of the west, as always we played for time, and that's what he was doing. However, his ego got in the way, he started talking about distancing himself from the West and that's when they caught on that he was becoming too powerful. He was a sad and lost man at the end, as if knowing what a mistake he had made....he could not be consoled. In any case, I've been saying we live in a rough neighborhood, and our amateur politicians are learning that these western powers have written the rule book that the world plays with. So as long as they don't remedy this, we will be under sanctions.....the west hasn't lost anything in the last 40 yrs but we have lost quite a lot.

Problem is, the system the Islamic Republic is built on has bottlenecked. Yes we have progressed a lot and become independent. Islamic Republic deserves praise for this. But from now on and out, we need fundamental change. We need to change direction, thats why I believe the clergy should step down from politics and return to their more traditional rule in our society. It is time for nationalists ie. Sepah to rule the country.

 

[QWECXZ]

He is saying that the Shah feared the British and Americans, and he would leave if they asked him. I think Homayoon is talking about Shahs earlier days. The Shah realized that the Americans and British wanted him gone, and he wasn't planning to go anywhere.

Look at this interview from 12:33-13:37

No, he is talking about his last years when the Western media wrote about human rights abuses in Iran. He says that the Shah could never understand the concept of democracy and he ridiculed the Westerners for that. He took the articles written in Western media as the official stances of their respective countries against him and felt offended by them. He feared the Brits because they had forced his father to leave the country and he thought that they could control the Americans. That's why whenever Westerners put pressure on him for human rights, he thought they wanted him to leave the country and said "If they don't want me, I will leave. When should I leave?". And that's exactly what he did in 1979. The 1979 revolution would've never succeeded had he not left the country voluntarily.

Don't whitewash it or try to change Homayoon's words. They are quite clear and Persian is my native language.

I don't know if the Shah had love for the west in his earlier days, or if he was acting because he had no other choice. But I am sure he had deep hatred for them in the end. Whether he hated them from the beginning, or if it was because they didn't accept him in their club, I don't know. If I were to guess, I would guess he hated them from the beginning. You really need to watch his interviews and you will understand why I say this.

Look at this interview from 0:37-1:37

I never listen to shah lovers because they have no idea about politics in general and know even less about Iran. They just support the Shah because they hate Islam, they don't even know that the Shah was a Muslim himself. Why listen to Shah lovers, Shah haters? What better evidence can there be than the mans own words?

I will watch this interview later as I don't have a VPN at the moment, but there's a good chance I have watched it before as I have watched possibly all of his interviews on YouTube.

The Shah continued to maintain good relations with the Americans. If you don't believe me, look at how he welcomed Carter in Iran during that famous Island of Stability speech by Jimmy. Shahbanoo and Rosalynn were so close that Carter famously said that when he asked Rosalynn about New Year's holidays in 1977, Rosalynn said that she would really love to spend it with the Pahlavis.

The interviews of the Shah cannot be taken as evidence because he was under pressure by the Iranians as people rightfully called him a Western stooge and his narcissist personality threw temper tantrums and wanted to compensate for that by talking tough and pretending to be powerful. So much that he himself even believed his own propaganda. The majority of his words about the Westerns like you guys are lazy, you guys don't work, your democracy is a joke, blah blah blah, were stupid words that even Ahmadinejad didn't make such stupid remarks. Otherwise, even until his last days, he continued to cooperate with the Americans and the Brits and protected their interests in Iran and the Middle East.

I have probably seen all his interviews, even those who are banned from youtube. When I say there were hostilities between him and the US, I am basing it on his own words. Not on anything I have heard from anyone. How can you say there were no hostilities between him and the US, when the Shah literally talks about war between US/West and Iran?

Are there any Shah interviews that are banned on YouTube?
When did the Shah talk about war with the US? Particularly knowing that he feared a Soviet invasion as much as the British and the Jews conspiring against him.

Sometimes I wonder if Shah deliberately left Iran, because he had cancer and knew he had little time left, he didn't believe a Woman/Farah was fit to rule Iran, and knew they would eat and spit out his son, so he let Khomeini and Islamists take over in order for the country not to fall in the hands of the imperialists which was his biggest fear.

So you're basically saying that he screwed Iran over because he was a weak, selfish narcissist. Finally something we agree on.

 

[QWECXZ]

Update:

I watched both videos. I see nothing wrong with what he says in the second video, but I can't see that as a sign of diverging from the interests of the US or Europe for the reasons I told you before. Only about 20% of our oil revenue belonged to us. The rest of it belonged to private companies mainly from the US, and the British Petroleum. Hence, rising oil prices cannot be used as an argument for the Shah working against their interests. The idea of establishing OPEC is a better argument.

You can't judge history based on few seconds or minutes of an interview. The US and Saudi Arabia have disagreements over oil prices right now. Trump said a few weeks ago that Saudi Arabia betrayed them when Texas oil prices had become negative. Does that mean Saudi Arabia is working against the US interests? I don't think so.

As for the first video, you can clearly see how childish he was. He tried to sound smart and said that he was the King of Kings but his palace was not as luxurious as the Buckingham Palace. He was then outsmarted by the British journalist, noting that he had more than one palace. Then he lost his temper and the rest of it were the temper tantrums of a child trying to sound sharp and smart to win back the argument.

The truth is that he wasn't the King of Kings to begin with. Did the King of Spain consider the Shah his King? Did the King of Saudi Arabia consider him his King? And yes, he did have more than one palace and he did live a luxurious life. All he was at the time was a king in a then undeveloped region of the world. Not that I'm against his luxurious life style though. He deserved such a life as a princess and a king.

 

[Surenas]

Wall Street Journal exclusively reports that Europe is trying to forge a compromise over the oncoming diplomatic clash over US' attempt to extend the arms embargo. The European proposal includes:

* Extension of restriction on Iran's imports for 12 months with exceptions
* Extension of restriction on Iran's exports for 12 months with increased oversight/interdiction
* No US snapback

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe...plomatic-clash-with-u-s-over-iran-11592400215

 

[hussainb72]

Wall Street Journal exclusively reports that Europe is trying to forge a compromise over the oncoming diplomatic clash over US' attempt to extend the arms embargo. The European proposal includes:

* Extension of restriction on Iran's imports for 12 months with exceptions
* Extension of restriction on Iran's exports for 12 months with increased oversight/interdiction
* No US snapback

https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe...plomatic-clash-with-u-s-over-iran-11592400215

That's just some nonesense which Iran should'nt even care about. Why do they even mention the snapback if the US is already out of the deal? Also there is no reason as why the sanctions and restrictions should be increased. They are just showing the world that they agree with the US and that they dont want to give Iran its own rights.

 

[Sineva]

That's just some nonesense which Iran should'nt even care about. Why do they even mention the snapback if the US is already out of the deal? Also there is no reason as why the sanctions and restrictions should be increased. They are just showing the world that they agree with the US and that they dont want to give Iran its own rights.

Yes,it now seems pretty clear that the eurotrash,despite their claims to the contrary,are now at a bare minimum working hand and glove with the neo fascist chump regime to try and extend the arms embargo,indeed they are trying to force a vote at the iaea on a resolution demanding access to two sites,tho this is only intended as a prelude to referring iran to the unsc over supposed non compliance over iaea demands to inspect 2 sites.
This also shows that amanos replacement as iaea head,rafael grossi,is just as much the wests creature as amano was,tho this should not come as a surprise.