SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
There is no correlation between these propositions.
1) Politicians who turned their backs on the Revolution and are pursuing their own self-interest - mainly western-appeasing liberals, have no say when it comes to top level strategic decisions. It's not them who decide in what manner Iran is to confront the zio-American enemy. The present day Iranian Leadership however has no egoistic material interests and is as motivated and selfless as the 1980's Leadership.
2) It's enough to oppose US and Isra"el"i interests in a systematic fashion like the Islamic Republic is doing, and one will risk outright obliteration at the hands of said powers, which will attempt everything they deem affordable to reach bring about one's destruction. In other terms, this notion some users of this forum like to cultivate, that the Americans and zionists will let you live if you challenge them head on but refrain from escalating beyond a certain point, is genuinely delusional. They destroyed nations for much, much less than what Islamic Iran is currently undertaking to counter them.
3) I demonstrated with concrete, documented figures how Iran has been willing to confront them in a far more deadly manner during the 2000-2020 period than during the entire 1980's.
There's an inherent self-contradiction in assessments like this. Namely, if an attack on an outpost in the Golan will increase the security of Iranian officials by deterring the enemy from conducting further assassinations or acts of sabotage, then a leadership wary of losing its privileges will rush to order just that type of an attack. If however it will trigger more assassinations and sabotage without providing concrete gains, then the answer to the question is obvious.
Also about the alleged event at Parchin: a quadcopter, seriously? This cannot even destroy the content of a large room. It's a joke. And where's evidence that an actual attack took place? To my knowledge Iran hasn't confirmed such allegations, has it?
By the way, why did Iran not mount "tit for tat retaliation" on each of the following occasions during the 1980's, when the country was allegedly more willing to escalate in order to contain its enemies? :
* A President of the Islamic Republic, shahid Rajai was assassinated.
* A Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic, shahid Bahonar, was assassinated.
* The headquarters of the main political formation, the Islamic Republic Party, were bombed resulting in the martyrdom of dozens including key figures of the Revolution and founding architects of the IR such as shahid Beheshti.
* There was an attempt on the life of another President, namely current Supreme Leader Khamenei (h.a.).
* Other leading personalities such as shahid Qoddusi were martyred in separate attacks.
* An Iranian civilian airliner was shot down by the US Navy, killing all on board.
* Several coup attempts were made including with the involvement of members of the armed forces. In one case, the judiciary found that there was a plan to dig a tunnel toward the humble residence of Imam Khomeini (r.a.) and martyr the latter.
* Infiltrators inside the system tried to sabotage Iranian policy (Mehdi Hashemi etc).
* Daily attacks, sabotage, killings by foreign-backed terrorist groups (MKO, separatists etc) for multiple years after the victory of the Revolution.
Bottom line: this idea that Iran has become a toothless tiger because revolutionary fervor supposedly subsided is definitely an illusion. Iran is pursuing the same broad policies as back then, and in fact over the past two decades Iranian counter-strikes have taken a far greater toll on the zionists and Americans compared to the damage and casualties Iran herself has incurred.
Last edited:
