What you failed to understand is that this is not the right place for quoting someone like Omid Dana in a serious discussion about Iran. We are on a military forum. Nobody here buys ridiculous claims like Iran's hidden weapons, UFOs or our knowledge of undiscovered branches of physics, you know.
Except that I'm not quoting him on military matters, which aren't his strength. I'm posting his excellent work exposing oppositionist clowns and their 40-year old dreams about an imminent "downfall" of the IR.
Considering how I've seen some fill this topic with pages of predictions about the "upcoming end of the regime" (a non-military topic by nature) based on similarly debatable arguments and motivated by a comparable antagonism towards the IR, I think it was pretty much the right place to share those particular video compilations. As a matter of fact at least three users here enjoyed them.
Since we're at this game of shooting the messenger, perhaps you may want to practice what you preach and refrain from taking as gospel every claim made by the American regime, including when it comes to their casualties from the Ayn al-Assad strike (we remember how they went from "zero dead, zero injured" to ten, then twenty, then thirty... and finally some 100+ brain-injured troops). Seeing how unreliable their statements have been in this regard, who is to say they aren't hiding more severe types of casualties from the public?
It's funny that someone like you who has shown disrespect towards Iranian communities such as Zoroastrians, times and times again, dares to call others Takfiris. You are the very definition of a radical Muslim by all means.
You never correctly understood my posts about the Zoroastrians. That's not my fault. Fact is I didn't disrespect them, on the contrary, I care enough for their well-being (and continued existence, actually) to denounce the plots hatched by the globalist oligarchy against them (such as their liberal subversion, which might end up uprooting them and readying their religion for ultimate dissolution into the planned Noahide one-world faith), as well as the agents in their midst trying to abuse their religious congregations for nefarious ends in line with the zionist agenda.
You may choose to excuse the machinations of certain Indian-based Zoroastrian elites who are on the payroll of Iran's existential enemies (including their promotion of Kurdish separatism against Iran) merely because of their Zoroastrian background, but for my part, I am not going to idealize nominal affiliations to the point of blinding myself to political realities.
Which is why I have no problem denouncing Muslim Iranians, even Shia ones, who collaborate with the enemy or whose actions are benefitting the latter (such as proponents of the liberal 'American Islam' which Imam Khomeini used to condemn, or British turbans from the Shirazi and Hojjatieh circles and so on, all of which are representative of the enemy's attempts at infiltrating and subverting Shia Muslim communities). It doesn't mean that I show "disrespect" towards the Shia Muslim Iranian community as such.
Also, when did I excommunicate (exercice 'takfir' on) anyone?
I still maintain that the rhetoric you and few others here have been expressing, claiming that Iran's Resistance against zio-American imperialism is "fake" or purporting some sort of a "secret connivence" between the Iranian leadership and "Jews" (like "Dariush the Great" has been suggesting recently), is nearly identical to and just as detached from reality as the anti-Iran propanda we are used to hear from those radical so-called "jihadi" salafist groups. If you don't want to be in such debatable company, you can revise your discourse.
There's a huge difference between resisting against a greater power out of outdated ideology and stupidity and resisting against it with power and might.
So now you're backtracking on previous statements and conceding that the IR is in fact resisting the global empire. That's some marginal progress there.
As to whether the IR's ideology is "outdated" or not, you're free to believe it is, however others are witnessing the daily crumbling of the secular liberal order upon which western polities are based, and which they've been imposing on nations accross the world.
By the way, for as long as someone adheres to the principle of Resistance against this global order, they'd be well advised not to disparage fellow resisters because of manageable ideological differences. Here again the Islamic Republic is showing the way, hence its cooperation and alliance with secular nationalist governments such as Syria or even socialist or non-Muslim ones like the DPRK, Venezuela, Cuba and so on.
When Trump ordered the assassination of an Iranian general, informing Iraqis to warn the Americans before launching a revenge attack does not really signal might.
Iran never asked the Iraqis to warn the Americans, that's a myth. What Iran did was to stay true to its habit of respecting Iraqi sovereignty by informing Baghdad authorities shortly before the strikes and without naming the bases that would be targeted.
Iranian authorities, unlike US occupiers, do not look down on their partners and allies, please remember this (since you were using questionable semantics the other day in reference to the Iraqi people, suggesting they were at fault for welcoming US invaders - which they didn't, actually, or for allowing Iran to compromise Iraq's sovereignty, which again isn't factual, since Iran unlike the US is respectful of Iraqi sovereignty).
As I wrote before, when it comes to Iran's foreign policy, you seem to have this habit of cherry picking specific events from which you draw invalid conclusions about the big picture. The fact that a developing nation like Iran has managed to withstand 40+ years of non-stop plots of all sorts by the major "superpower" and its oligarchic infrastructure (international zionism, global bankster and industrial mafias, masonry etc), ranging from terrorism, sabotage, psy-ops and soft war in all its dimensions (in fact the largest and most comprehensive propaganda campaign ever witnessed in human history), economic warfare, intelligence operations, fifth column infiltration, the extensive use of state- (Saddam's Iraq) and non-state proxies (ISIS and other such groups) unleashed on Iran and her allies, basically every imaginable type of aggression short of all-out military invasion... and not only hit back at the opportune moment but grow stronger every day despite these challenges, does pretty much signal resilience, prowess, and might.
And there's primarily one reason Iran has not been subject to direct military aggression by the US regime, and that is the deterrence she has been able to establish. Nothing else.
Also, why should the Americans attack the Islamic Republic while they have successfully contained it after the JCPOA and they're using it as a boogeyman to milk the filthy rich Sheikhdoms like Saudi Arabia and the UAE? Do you know many billions of dollars of Iranian assets they have frozen worldwide since Trump pulled out of the JCPOA? Most estimates point to over 200 billion dollars.
Again you sound more and more like Falcon29. I gain the impression of having to reply to a copy-paste of his former arguments.
And you're mistaken just like he was.
First of all, how has the US regime "contained" Islamic Iran with the JCPOA? Did the JCPOA cause Iran to roll back her asymmetric deterrence capability, namely her ballistic missile program and arsenal, or were these significantly expanded including through new technologically advanced additions? Did the JCPOA lead Iran to cut off ties with her extensive network of allies accross the region, or did the Resistance Axis welcome an unexpected newcomer in the form of Yemen's Ansarallah-led government? Has Iran lost her deterrence against the zionist regime, now that Hezbollah is more powerful than ever, that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have proven they are no walkover, and that a third potential front has been established around the Golan?
So I can't really see what containment you're referring to. Iran wasn't going to rush into manufacturing nuclear weapons anyway, so the JCPOA did nothing much to deter Iran from a geostrategic and military standpoint.
Also, why should the Americans want to attack Iran? Maybe because their zionist masters have been dreaming of it since 9-11? Many of us here are old enough to remember the post-9-11 slogan "real men go to Tehran"...
Maybe because Iran is highest on the Bernard Lewis and Oded Yinon list of nations scheduled to be destroyed in order to guarantee Isra"el"'s regional hegemony, as confirmed by US general Wesley Clark's revelation about the seven nations designated to be attacked in confidental Pentagon meetings?
Maybe because the US regime and its underlying oligarchy constitute a totalitarian entity bent on total planetary domination, which therefore cannot tolerate even a semblance of insubordination?
Maybe because Western Asia, "pivot to the East" notwithstanding, is still a critical region concentrating considerable proportion of global energy resources, where thus the global hegemon cannot allow a revisionist regional power to emerge?
Maybe because the longer Iran manages to hold out, the more its model of resistance could spread outside its borders, as US power is declining to the benefit of Washington's emerging multi-lateral rivals?
Maybe because the much vaunted alternatives to military aggression have blatantly failed to reach their goal?
It's simple, the US regime would love to attack Iran directly. It's just that it knows the price it would have to pay for doing so would be unbearable. And it's Iran's deterrence power that is fixing the price at the level it now stands.
As for the reemergence of riots like the last year's October Riots, that's very likely to happen. The government's monetary policies, embezzlements, systematic corruption, the devaluation of the Iranian rial has diminished the minimum wage in Iran to 100 USD. That's unprecedented. Local statistics in Iran published in Iranian newspapers, even conservative newspapers like Mashreghnews, show that the minimum wage is barely enough for a hand-to-mouth life for 2 weeks. The GINI coefficient is rising. The government hasn't done enough to reduce the gap between annual salary increases and annual inflation. And the worst part is that the government doesn't even talk about the devaluation of the Iranian rial anymore. In less than 8 months, the Iranian rial has lost 60% of its value. In 7 years of the Rouhani administration, the Iranian rial has lost 90% of its value. If that's normal for you, let me tell you something: for most people, it's not.
"Normal" under what circumstances? When subjected to the harshest sanctions ever imposed on a country, and when on top of this, a western-apologetic administration practicing neoliberal economic policies is in charge, then yes, such developments are quite expectable. However, this administration is to be replaced pretty soon by a very different one which is most likely to increase welfare measures destined to cushion the adverse effects of sanctions on the economically vulnerable segments of society. Likewise, the war on corruption initiated by Ebrahim Raisi is going to bear more and more fruit as time passes, which the upcoming administration is equally going to benefit from.
As for those statistical reasonings you propose, it's surprising that you don't grasp their flawed nature. For according to this reasoning, a considerable proportion of the Iranian population, namely all those earning the minimum wage or less, are currently suffering from severe undernutrition (getting to eat half as much as necessary). How is it possible that you're living in Iran, yet won't realize how obviously false this assertion is? What more can one say, other than referring readers to the previously posted series of best-of videos showcasing exiled opposition figures who ecstatically tout the "soon-to-come downfall of the regime" based on out-of-touch assessments.
And also, isn't it peculiar that you'd suddenly evoke the plight of the financially destitute, when you're on the record for attacking forum user ashool for being poor (according to you)?
