It looks like the friends of the MEK have decided to try and take their shot,interesting timing tho,isnt it?.
I think the israelis are literally sh!tting bricks at even the thought of a jcpoa revival,I think that they`re pulling out all the stops and calling in every favor to try and derail it.
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/middleeast/top-stories/dozens-of-former-un-officials-call-for-inquiry-into-1988-iran-massacre/ar-BB1gmQjm
https://thehill.com/policy/international/middle-east-north-africa/551719-dozens-of-former-un-officials-human-rights
Say
thanks to the Democrat Biden regime, which some Iranians (mainly reformist supporters) seem to believe is somehow "less" accomodating of the zionist entity and more lenient towards Iran than a Republic regime would have been.
There appears to be this incorrect assumption among various forum users that a Democrat US administration will be less inclined to harm Iran compared to a Republican one. Likewise, they seem to believe that Democrat US administrations are worse for Isra"el".
Nothing could be farther from the truth though. Historically, one might even argue that Democrat US presidents assisted Tel Aviv more than their Republican counterparts - either way, the difference between the two, in terms of subservience to the zionists has been minimal. I am by no means trying to exonerate the Republican crazies here, but simply formulating a wake up call, that
both ruling cliques of the US regime are equally interested in destroying Iran. US hostility towards Iran is bipartisan, and both parties constitute existential threats to Iran. Such broad foreign policy goals are
determined by the US regime's deep state anyway, which is entirely beholden to global zionism, and not by this or that president.
So everyone, stop falling for this misleading idea, peddled by the likes of the NIAC (National Iranian-American Council), its former head Trita Parsi (now working for sort of a think tank funded by messianist globalist
George Soros, who was backing the 2009 Green Movement in Iran and is on the record for predicting (read: wishing) the imminent downfall" of the Islamic Republic),
as well as their reformist and moderate friends in Iran.
Also, it was the administration of
probable child molester William Clinton (a Democrat not a Republican), that is responsible for the infamous
Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) or D'Amato law, one of the centerpieces of the inhumane US sanctions regime against Iran. It was
under Barack Obama, another Democrat, that
Syria was assaulted by NATO regimes with their all-out backing of the sectarianist terrorist insurgency there, with the goal of disrupting the Iranian-led Resistance Axis to the benefit of Isra"el".
Iranians need to dispel these notions as quickly as possible, since they will only lead to two things: one, erroneous geostrategic assessment, and two,
favoring the election of another liberal at Iran's presidential election to succeed Rohani, and resulting in more of the same for another 8 years.
Speaking of which, even if one might argue that Zarif is not the same as Rohani or other arch-liberals:
please have no illusions whatsoever that a future Zarif administration, or an administration led by some liberal candidate
backed by Zarif, is going to be staffed by the exact same people who made up the Rohani cabinet, and is going to pursue the exact same policies. This would result in
JCPOAs II and III, which would see Iran
open up her ballistic missiles program to western and zionist spies, limit the range of her missiles to a few hundred kilometers, and have Iran
stop supporting her allies in the region militarily, thus losing any and all influence outside of its borders.
I hope users who have been supporting Zarif on this forum over the past few days are well aware of this fact, and that they will advise Iranians against voting for either Zarif or another liberal coming June, their position on Zarif himself notwithstanding. Unless of course, they are themselves bona fide liberals (we have a few of those here too).
_____
100% as you say, it's the normalization they fear the most, Iran-Saudi Rapprochement Iran must remain an outcast for them to be happy. Albeit, we have many in the Iran camp that prefer NO deal, and prefer this position because it does allow the opportunity for nuclear breakout.
Unfortunately I must take issue with this statement. It all depends what you can normalization: if you have an Iran-Saudi raprochment
not accompanied by wholesome Iranian retreat from the region (retreat that Iranian liberals like the Rohani gang, and that includes Zarif, are willing to carry out) in mind, then yes. But
any other notion of a normalization, namely integration into the nation-eroding globalist system
is not feared by Isra"el" at all. On the contrary, this sort of a normalization
is exactly what the likes of Pompeo, no less, have been demanding. Never forget that Mike
Pompeo very explicitly called for the "normalization" of Iran (he used that exact word).
Please understand that
no US administration is going to conduct a policy that will result in Iran overtaking the Arab regimes, let alone Isra"el". The
US regime's condition for "reintegrating" Iran back into the so-called "international community" is precisely that Iran stops its struggle against the zionist entity, if not outright recognition of the latter by Iran,
and also that Iran agrees to rolling back its main assets of deterrence, i.e. one its regional presence and two its ballistic missile (and even UAV) power. Hence all the talk of a
JCPOA II and III, explicitly anounced both by the US regime - whether led by Obama, Trump or Biden, and also by Rohani himself in his televized Noruz address to the nation right after the nuclear JCPOA was implemented (not "signed" by the way, I see everyone, including Zarif himself, commit this mistake - when it comes to the JCPOA, no document was signed by anybody, as this deal was not an international treaty, only a political understanding).
Please understand that
the JCPOA, from a US perspective, was never meant to strengthen Iran economically -
in fact we clearly witnessed how little the JCPOA benefited Iran economically speaking, and we also witnessed
how Obama immediately proceeded to imposing new sanctions on Iran after the JCPOA was implemented. No,
to Washington, the JCPOA's exclusive purpose is to serve as a stepping stone for similar deals limiting Iran's ballistic missile power and its reach in the region. After which, they will do to Iran what they did to
Ghadafi's Libya, or, alternatively, use an Iranian Gorbachev to bring about Iran's collapse and "ethnic" balkanization from within
similar to the USSR.
____
China and US killed each other in Korea, both when they were nuclear weapons powers and neither umbrellas helped the other in that war. Stop promoting Western propaganda.
But China wasn't a nuclear weapons power during the Korean war. It acquired such weapons in 1964 only, that is years after the end of the Korean war (1950-1953).
Also, the Korean war is quite telling in this regard. Indeed, we know that US general
McArthur seriously considered employing nuclear weapons after China entered the war and managed to give the Americans more than a bloody nose. Sure, in the end the Americans didn't go so far, but if China was already in possession of a nuclear deterrent back then, the risk would have been averted completely, since in that case neither McArthur nor any other maniac in Washington would have even remotely considered nuclear strikes on North Korea.
You guys are in a rude awakening thinking nuclear weapons will prevent Iran from getting attacked in other countries. Russia got attacked by Turkey. US got attacked by Iran (Iran-Iraq war and 2003 Iraq war).
Nuclear weapons prevent the fall of ones territorial integrity to ones enemy as a desperate last measure. It doesn’t prevent conventional conflicts with your enemy (see Pakistan and India) nor does it prevent extra territorial or proxy war conflicts far away from ones borders.
So this thinking that if iran had nukes, israel would be afraid to attack it in Syria because of some “escalation ladder” is nonsense. What is Iran going to say, “you better stop attacking me in Syria or I will nuke you?” Israel will respond “you nuke me and I’ll nuke Tehran, Isfahan, and Qom”.
There is no escalation ladder in a minor conventional conflict or shadow war (which is what Syria is) that would lead to nuclear war that Iran would employ because the situation doesn’t warrant such a escalation.
If Iran became a declared nuclear armed state, in case of Isra"el"i strikes in Syria, sabotage actions on Iranian soil etc, Iran could very well move a few steps up the escalation ladder using conventional means. There are many, many steps on this ladder prior to reaching the stage of an full out nuclear exchange.
Iran is not going to say "you better stop attacking me in Syria or I will nuke you", no. But, if Iran was a declared nuclear power, she is very much going to say: "you better stop attacking me in Syria or I will lob a few ballistic missiles onto zionist military targets in Occupied Palestine". What would Isra"el" do about it? Threaten Iran with nuclear strikes? No chance, since Iran will then respond: "you dare use nukes on us, we will nuke Tel Aviv and Haifa in return".
But either way, given that recent zionist actions against Iran are nowhere near enough to tip the strategic balance, Iran can also do without nuclear weapons. Only all out US-led aggression could theoretically neutralize Iran, but that happens to be sufficiently deterred by Iran's conventional ballistic missile force as well as Iran's regional allies, which by themselves are enough to wreck absolute havoc on the zionist entity.
So again the fallacy that if Iran gets a nuclear bomb it will be untouchable and can stream roll thru the Middle East is a a lie promoted by the West to justify sanctions regime and containment protocol. Has no basis in reality or historical precedent.
Iran is already deterring her enemies efficiently enough through her conventional military means. Which is why to this day, Iran has not rushed to acquire the bomb (or to openly admit being a nuclear armed state).
That said, with a declared Iranian nuclear weapons arsenal, the rules of engagement would change nonetheless and Tel Aviv and Washington would additionally be deterred from some of the
non-game changing, symbolic acts of aggression they've been conducting against Iran as of late. Not that this would change the equation in any meaningful way, since those actions against Iran have been largely inefficient in the big picture anyway. But if Iran were to be able to deter these minor jabs as well, she would score some additional little psy-ops points (as in, no more Iranian users on PDF getting demoralized or letting their imaginations run wild about how "weak", "miserable", "incapable" the Islamic Republic has supposedly become).
It is not concerned about mid tier powers (Iran/Turkey)
Concerned enough, otherwise the US regime wouldn't be as powerless as it is against an otherwise minor actor such as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. And there are no valid excuses for the US, such as postulating that North Korea is somehow "useful" to Washington - just as Iran is not "useful" to either Isra"el" or the US; if the US has failed to "regime change" North Korea so far, it is because it has been incapable to do so at an acceptable cost.
In Iran's case, since the Iranian ballistic missile force offers quasi-equivalent deterrence to a nuclear arsenal (especially considering the lack of geographic depth of Iran's main adversary, Isra"el", an entity that the US is never going sacrifice), it causes the west as much headache if not more than Korea's nuclear arms. Else they wouldn't be spending this much effort on trying to contain and in effect, on trying to destroy and balkanize Iran through the use of "ethno"-separarist groups, through their massive propaganda and psy-ops war against the Iranian nation (unprecedented in human history), through the toughest sanctions regime imposed on any country in the world, etc.
