Iranian Chill Thread

[sha ah]

Thank you for your thorough reply. In any case we can agree to disagree on this. I still believe that Iran's stringent and unrelenting support for the Palestinian cause is the driving force behinds Iran's current disputes with the west and the Zionists.

If Iran's government was more laser focused on achieving economic prosperity for the average Iranian as opposed to being pre-occupied with the Palestinians, who by the way who couldn't care less about Iran, then I highly doubt if the Zionists would be as pre-occupied with harming Iran. I also believe that Iran's support for the Palestinian cause is an outright inconsistent foreign policy when considering the plight of other Muslims throughout the world (Uighurs/Kashmir/Rohinga)

As you can see with recent polls conducted, the majority of Iranians are not happy with the current status quo / foreign policy. You can talk about self sufficiency, independence, etc but all of this is mere rhetoric in my eyes. The average Iranian is poor and Iran will never live up to its economic potential with the current policies in place, that's obvious.

No, that isn't the reason. At the end of the day, the zionists won't tolerate any potentially powerful nation-state in their neighborhood capable of challenging their hegemony. Heck, they don't have tolerance for any historically rooted nation and religious faith system outside the region either, hence why so many zionists can be found among the main influential advocates of pro-immigration policies in the west. And this is related to zionist messianism, which supposes the dissolution of all existing nation-states into a unitary one world regime as well as the replacement of every religion by ecumenical Noahidism.

When it comes more specifically to West Asia and North Africa, in fact the Islamic Revolution in Iran strongly cemented the already held belief among zionist decision makers that a local government (dictator back in the days) beholden to the zionists will not offer enough of a guarantee for continued loyalty, because such a regime may be overthrown and replaced by an adversarial one - which is exactly what happened in Iran in 1979.

That's why zionist pundits and think tanks firmly opted for a policy of methodical balkanization of regional nation-states, one by one. Hence why Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Somalia were split into separate parts. It's no accident that Oden Yinon published his infamous paper in that vein in the early 1980's, although Bernard Lewis had expressed similar views in the 1970's already (if I'm not mistaken).

"Greater Israel": The Zionist Plan for the Middle East - Global Research

When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria and Iraq, the war on Yemen, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East

www.globalresearch.ca

Also here's a simple question: in fixing their strategic objectives vis à vis Iran, why would they not settle for so-called "regime" change, to have someone like the shah back in power? Where does this blatantly obsessive focus on empowering "ethno"-separatist grouplets stem from, in addition to the massive cultural aggression and psy-ops taking aim at the foundations of the Iranian nation, as well as at Iran's societal cohesion (attempting to undermine the nuclear family structure, to turn generations against each other, females against males, etc)?

So I'd recommend parting with the erroneous notion that if Iran ended her support for the Palestinian cause, zionists would stop their plots against Iranian nationhood. They definitely wouldn't, and in fact they'd have it easier since a friendly regime can be infiltrated and made to implement their agenda more readily.



But this hardly disproves my point now, does it.



I'm perfectly confident that the Supreme Leader has laid down the rails for ensuring that after him Islamic Iran will stay the revolutionary, anti-imperial, anti-zionist and staunchly independence-oriented and self-sufficient course characteristic of her foreign policy to date.

No, that isn't the reason. At the end of the day, the zionists won't tolerate any potentially powerful nation-state in their neighborhood capable of challenging their hegemony. Heck, they don't have tolerance for any historically rooted nation and religious faith system outside the region either, hence why so many zionists can be found among the main influential advocates of pro-immigration policies in the west. And this is related to zionist messianism, which supposes the dissolution of all existing nation-states into a unitary one world regime as well as the replacement of every religion by ecumenical Noahidism.

When it comes more specifically to West Asia and North Africa, in fact the Islamic Revolution in Iran strongly cemented the already held belief among zionist decision makers that a local government (dictator back in the days) beholden to the zionists will not offer enough of a guarantee for continued loyalty, because such a regime may be overthrown and replaced by an adversarial one - which is exactly what happened in Iran in 1979.

That's why zionist pundits and think tanks firmly opted for a policy of methodical balkanization of regional nation-states, one by one. Hence why Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan and Somalia were split into separate parts. It's no accident that Oden Yinon published his infamous paper in that vein in the early 1980's, although Bernard Lewis had expressed similar views in the 1970's already (if I'm not mistaken).

"Greater Israel": The Zionist Plan for the Middle East - Global Research

When viewed in the current context, the war on Iraq, the 2006 war on Lebanon, the 2011 war on Libya, the ongoing wars on Syria and Iraq, the war on Yemen, must be understood in relation to the Zionist Plan for the Middle East

www.globalresearch.ca

Also here's a simple question: in fixing their strategic objectives vis à vis Iran, why would they not settle for so-called "regime" change, to have someone like the shah back in power? Where does this blatantly obsessive focus on empowering "ethno"-separatist grouplets stem from, in addition to the massive cultural aggression and psy-ops taking aim at the foundations of the Iranian nation, as well as at Iran's societal cohesion (attempting to undermine the nuclear family structure, to turn generations against each other, females against males, etc)?

So I'd recommend parting with the erroneous notion that if Iran ended her support for the Palestinian cause, zionists would stop their plots against Iranian nationhood. They definitely wouldn't, and in fact they'd have it easier since a friendly regime can be infiltrated and made to implement their agenda more readily.



But this hardly disproves my point now, does it.



I'm perfectly confident that the Supreme Leader has laid down the rails for ensuring that after him Islamic Iran will stay the revolutionary, anti-imperial, anti-zionist and staunchly independence-oriented and self-sufficient course characteristic of her foreign policy to date.

Yes after looking around a bit,

Iran's current minimum wage is $185 / month

Turkey's current minimum wage is $245 / month

Iraq current minimum wage is $171 / month

Just to put this in perspective,

Thailand's current minimum wage is $288 / month

Can you read and understand Farsi ?
View attachment 854358
For those who don't understand Farsi,last line is minimum wage 56,797,500 Rial for current year (1401).

View attachment 854361

320,220 Rial for 1 USD.


I'm glad you know Mr Khomeini and encourage you to know more about him.

 

[sha ah]

I'm sorry I'm not trying to frustrate you or anyone else here. I am just trying to learn more about my country. I realize that some of these questions can be tiresome or irritating for people that live inside Iran and have to deal with these realities on a daily basis.

If you don't live in Iran, you have no right to speak about this issue ... and im not in mood to answer you

Yeah you're right, Thailand's minimum wage is around $288 per month. Here this map should put things in perspective.

 

[Cancerous Tumor]

Few examples of Ship building companies
Japan
MHI with ~80K employees.

Korea
Hyundaiheavy with ~35K employees.

Russia
United Shipbuilding Corporation with ~80K employees.

9 billion for 230K employees for 10 years.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Thank you for your thorough reply. In any case we can agree to disagree on this. I still believe that Iran's stringent and unrelenting support for the Palestinian cause is the driving force behinds Iran's current disputes with the west and the Zionists.

Policy papers published by zionists themselves cannot and should not be ignored, especially since we have been witnessing their concrete implementation, not just in one but in several concrete cases across the region. Ignoring this reality would spell serious danger.

Libya was destroyed and as good as dismantled, despite the fact that several years earlier, Gaddafi had abandoned all support for groups opposed to the west and the zionists, had abandoned his nuclear program and basically acquiesced to the full list of demands put forth by the west as a condition for normalization of bilateral ties - a list similar to what they've been submitting to Iran.

Saddam's Iraq after 1991 posed no threat to anyone, its infrastructure was knocked out, its security and military apparatus severely shattered and its people starving. Baghdad no longer had the means to challenge the zionists nor to extend any meaningful assistance to the Palestinians, yet Iraq was destroyed nonetheless and effectively divided into two separate entities, with the Kurdish Regional Government selling its own oil and pocketing the benefits outside the central government's control.

These formerly functional states are located in the area of interest to Tel Aviv. And both had stopped any significant support for the Palestinian cause years before. This tells a lot about how safe countries are from zio-American aggression if they opt for non-involvement in the Palestinian issue.

If Iran's government was more laser focused on achieving economic prosperity for the average Iranian as opposed to being pre-occupied with the Palestinians, who by the way who couldn't care less about Iran, then I highly doubt if the Zionists would be as pre-occupied with harming Iran. I also believe that Iran's support for the Palestinian cause is an outright inconsistent foreign policy when considering the plight of other Muslims throughout the world (Uighurs/Kashmir/Rohinga)

This statement basically represents an endorsement of a typical and recurrent western and zionist talking point, echoed by their local apologists in Iran (reformists and moderates) as well as by the entire exiled opposition and "regime change" crowd.

The fact that zionists are pursuing an agenda of dismantling nation-states of the region irregardless of the Palestinian question was demonstrated above as well as in previous comments. The more potential a nation-state has to challenge zionist hegemony, the more Tel Aviv and NATO will be focused on provoking its demise.

Security precedes development and without security, sustained development can't be envisaged. Security challenges, existential ones at that, cannot be ignored for the sake of an abstract but unreal ideal form of governance focused essentially on increasing the economic prosperity of the people. The numerous countries in Iran's vicinity which NATO regimes and the zionists have left in ruins for generations to come, are there to illustrate it.

Even so, the Islamic Republic has actually excelled at developing Iran on the economic and human levels, including in international comparison. And despite, that's correct, despite Iran's massive oil reserves. Since the development-inhibiting nature of natural energy reserves is a well studied and documented phenomenon. GDP is not the same as development.

How come Turkey, which pretty much fulfills the criterion of sound governance defined in your above quoted statement (i.e. no support for an international cause susceptible of antagonizing major powers, considerable efforts to develop the economy), is the object of regular posts of yours in which you highlight Ankara's economic misfortunes? Why is it that Turkey's HDI is in the same range as Iran's in spite of the fact that Turkey is neither hostile to the zionists nor to the US regime, all the while being praised by many for the progress it registered on the economic front during the past four decades?

As you can see with recent polls conducted, the majority of Iranians are not happy with the current status quo / foreign policy. You can talk about self sufficiency, independence, etc but all of this is mere rhetoric in my eyes. The average Iranian is poor and Iran will never live up to its economic potential with the current policies in place, that's obvious.

First of all, I'd take any so-called poll conducted by Iran's existential enemies with a huge dose of salt.

Secondly, it's not as if the colossal zionist- and western-orchestrated propaganda / psy-ops campaign Iranians have been subjected to for decades in a row, a campaign historically unprecedented in scope, intensity and viciousness, isn't having any impact on the perceptions of numerous Iranians, nor skewing said perceptions to a large degree.

Thirdly, if Iran's self-sufficiency and independence are mere rhetoric, then the news we've been following over the years must not have related to the same country.

Fourthly, if Iran were to be fully integrated into the globalized economic system, then all things being equal the average Iranian citizen would not stand to gain much from it.

Fifth, Iran's potentials are best accomplished through maximum self-sufficiency rather than dependence on the outside world.

 

[Samar111]

is neither hostile to the zionists nor to the US regime

Why does every country need to be hostile to zionists for you? Turkey is a peaceful country that does not spread terror to other countries unlike Iran. You even the attacked the Israeli embassy in my country.

 

[sha ah]

I don't doubt the credibility of that poll because the results are all over the place. The west is opposed to China but it shows that people in China are happy with their government and economic situation. It also shows that people in Japan don't think Japan is as democratic and that they believe their government is more pre-occupied with enriching a small minority. In the 70's China was a poor, economically insignificant nation. Today they are about to surpass the USA, so the living standards of the average Chinese has increased exponentially in the last few decades, which helps to explain the generally positive sentiment among Chinese people.

In regards to Zionists, yes in some regards you're right. Libya was dismantled regardless and at the same time, even before it's anti Zionist, pro Palestinian leanings, the west still opposed an independent, sovereign government in Iran that didn't want to play ball or take orders. For example look at what happened to Mosadegh or how the British starved Iran in WW1. On the other hand, I think that the living standard of average Iranians would likely improve if Iran had more pragmatic, center leaning government. As the saving goes, sometimes you have to give a little to get alot.

Policy papers published by zionists themselves cannot and should not be ignored, especially since we have been witnessing their concrete implementation, not just in one but in several concrete cases across the region. Ignoring this reality would spell serious danger.

Libya was destroyed and as good as dismantled, despite the fact that several years earlier, Gaddafi had abandoned all support for groups opposed to the west and the zionists, had abandoned his nuclear program and basically acquiesced to the full list of demands put forth by the west as a condition for normalization of bilateral ties - a list similar to what they've been submitting to Iran.

Saddam's Iraq after 1991 posed no threat to anyone, its infrastructure was knocked out, its security apparatus severely shattered and its people starving. Baghdad no longer had the means to challenge the zionists nor to extend any meaningful assistance to the Palestinians, yet Iraq was destroyed nonetheless and effectively divided into two separate entities, with the Kurdish Regional Government selling its own oil and pocketing the benefits outside the central government's control.

These formerly functional states are located in the area of interest to Tel Aviv. And both had stopped any significant support for the Palestinian cause. This tells a lot about the validity of the idea that as long as nation-states of the region don't involve themselves with the Palestinian issue, the zionists will refrain from utilizing their influential lobbies in Washington and Brussels to bring about their destruction.



This statement basically represents an endorsement of western and zionist discourse, echoed by their local apologists in Iran (reformists and moderates) as well as by the entire exiled opposition.

The fact that the zionists are pursuing an agenda of dismantling nation-states of the region irregardless of the Palestinian question was demonstrated above as well as in previous comments. The more potential a nation-state has to challenge zionist hegemony, the more Tel Aviv and NATO will be focused on provoking its demise.

Security precedes development, and without security there cannot be sustained development. Security challenges, existential ones at that, cannot be ignored for the sake of an abstract but unreal ideal of a government focused primarily on increasing the economic prosperity of its people. The numerous countries in Iran's vicinity which NATO regimes and the zionists have left in ruins for generations to come, are there to illustrate it.

Even so, the Islamic Republic has actually excelled at the economic and human development of Iran, including in international comparison. And despite, that's correct, despite its massive oil reserves. Since the development-inhibiting nature of natural energy reserves is a well studied and documented phenomenon.

How come Turkey, a country that is pretty much fulfilling the criterion of good governance as defined in the above quoted comment (i.e. don't support any international cause that might antagonize major powers all too much and focus on the economy), is the object of regular posts by the same user highlighting Ankara's numerous economic misfortunes? Why is it that Turkey's HDI is in the same range as Iran's in spite of the fact that Turkey is neither hostile to the zionists nor to the US regime, all the while being praised by many for the progress it registered on he economic front over the past four decades?



First of all, I'd take any so-called poll conducted by Iran's existential enemies with some truck loads of salt.

Secondly, it's not as if the colossal zionist- and western-orchestrated propaganda / psy-ops campaign Iranians have been subjected to for decades non-stop, a campaign historically unprecedented in scope, intensity and viciousness, isn't having any impact on the perceptions of numerous Iranians, nor skewing said perceptions to a large degree.

Thirdly, if Iran's self-sufficiency and independence are mere rhetoric, then the news we've been following over the years must not have related to the same country.

Fourthly, if Iran were to be fully integrated into the globalized economic system, then all things being equal the average citizen in Iran would not draw many benefits from it.

Fifth, Iran's potentials are best accomplished through maximum self-sufficiency, not dependence on abroad.

Well if you look at what human rights groups like Amnesty international or human rights watch are saying, according to their extensive research, Israel is an apartheid state. Actually some Zionists even admit it. They're basically stealing land from Palestinians, Syria (Golan) where 1/3rd of Israel's fresh water comes from and now they're allowing western companies to drill the Golan. Also recently they've claimed gas fields that Lebanon claims as their own. Some Israeli's even admit that they're stealing land and proud of it. The pervasive sentiment is: "If I don't steal it someone else will"

Israel is a European colony state. The Israeli population is made up of majority European settlers from Eastern Europe. It's almost a continuation of the wests neo colonialist / neo imperialist policies of the previous century. Did you like it when the British colonized India for over 100 years and stole trillions from your country ? How did it feel ? Did they develop your country as much as they should have ? Even to this day 1/3rd of all Indians are illiterate. So the way I look at it you still haven't recovered from colonialism. China has but India surely has not and may never.

Why does every country need to be hostile to zionists for you? Turkey is a peaceful country that does not spread terror to other countries unlike Iran. You even the attacked the Israeli embassy in my country.

 

[SalarHaqq]

I don't doubt the credibility of that poll because the results are all over the place. The west is opposed to China but it shows that people in China are happy with their government and economic situation. It also shows that people in Japan don't think Japan is as democratic and that they believe their government is more pre-occupied with enriching a small minority. In the 70's China was a poor, economically insignificant nation. Today they are about to surpass the USA, so the living standards of the average Chinese has increased exponentially in the last few decades, which helps to explain the generally positive sentiment among Chinese people.

Almost every poll on Iran published by Iran's enemies is a propaganda tool, not a proper survey conducted according to rules.

Another element that helps explain the generally positive sentiment among Chinese people, is that they're not being bombarded night and day with zio-American propaganda and psy-ops to the extent that Iranians happen to be. Persian-language services of the BBC and other such media are far more prolific than their Chinese equivalents.

Besides, is there evidence that the Chinese were unhappy with their government prior to the economic boom? I think not.

Also no country can reproduce the Chinese experience, China having too many specificities which set it apart.

On the other hand, I think that the living standard of average Iranians would likely improve if Iran had more pragmatic, center leaning government. As the saving goes, sometimes you have to give a little to get alot.

Any decisive concession to the type of enemy Iran is facing will be bound to open the floodgates, because they aren't interested in recognizing Iran's status, peacefully coexisting with Iran and so on. They will merely use the opportunity to better infiltrate and set the country ablaze.

When it comes to the economy, as said I consider it unlikely that Iran, let alone the average (read working class) Iranian would benefit much from full fledged integration into the global economic system.

 

[mohsen]

Before the war:

 

[TheImmortal]

Fears Grow Over Iran’s Nuclear Program as Tehran Digs a New Tunnel Network (Published 2022)

The conflict over the program is about to flare again as President Biden travels next month to Israel and Saudi Arabia, Iran’s two biggest regional rivals.

www.nytimes.com

Article covers construction of new underground facility near Natanz. Will be very big and well protected (more than Fordow). Will likely house Iran’s most advanced centrifuges IR-6 (and eventually IR-9 and IR-10 once ready) and the centrifuge assembly faculties that Israel blew up in last couple years.

 

[Stryker1982]

Fears Grow Over Iran’s Nuclear Program as Tehran Digs a New Tunnel Network (Published 2022)

The conflict over the program is about to flare again as President Biden travels next month to Israel and Saudi Arabia, Iran’s two biggest regional rivals.

www.nytimes.com

Article covers construction of new underground facility near Natanz. Will be very big and well protected (more than Fordow). Will likely house Iran’s most advanced centrifuges IR-6 (and eventually IR-9 and IR-10 once ready) and the centrifuge assembly faculties that Israel blew up in last couple years.

What they hate the most is that their are intelligent and educated people in Iran that can create accomplishments. The added facility will be a major blow to the anti-nuclear Iran coalition.

 

[sha ah]

I won't be impressed until Iran goes nuclear ? Why not now ? I mean what do they have to lose ? For securities sake they might as well. Atleast then all these sacrifices will have been for something. Honestly no better time than now with Russia/China heavily antagonized by the west.

Fears Grow Over Iran’s Nuclear Program as Tehran Digs a New Tunnel Network (Published 2022)

The conflict over the program is about to flare again as President Biden travels next month to Israel and Saudi Arabia, Iran’s two biggest regional rivals.

www.nytimes.com

Article covers construction of new underground facility near Natanz. Will be very big and well protected (more than Fordow). Will likely house Iran’s most advanced centrifuges IR-6 (and eventually IR-9 and IR-10 once ready) and the centrifuge assembly faculties that Israel blew up in last couple years.

Well if you look at China, that's the main reason why their economy is doing so much better compared to a few decades back. Namely reforms under Deng XiaoPing and globalization, trade. You can't tell me that Iran's economy wouldn't be doing much better without the western backed sanctions in place. After the nuclear deal was signed, Iran was seeing double digit GDP growth as well as a much lower inflation rate.

The issue with the Rohani administration is that they put all their eggs in one basket without diversifying enough or having a proper contingency plan in place just incase the west decided to betray Iran, which they did. For example, in contrast look at how the Russians reacted to EU/US/NATO backed sanctions.

Immediately they banned the exchange of Rubles to Dollars for a limited time. They pegged Rubles to Gold for a limited time. They forced EU to pay for natural gas in Rubles. They passed a law so that any foreign business that leaves Russia losses all copyright protection under the law. At first the Russian Ruble lost half of its value but now as a result of everything Russia did, the Ruble is at a 5 year high.

The Rohani government on the other hand were taken by completely surprise when Trump left the deal and really had no decisive response. However it can be argued that the initial sting of sanctions after Crimea and Iran's experienced helped Russia better prepare for what happened, not to mention the fact that Iran simply does not have the options and leverage that Russia has. Anyways it is what it is.

Also I thought about Libya, which you mentioned earlier. Yes Libya was balkanized and raided by NATO but it's namely because Gaddafi gave up not only Libya's nuclear program but also Libya's missile program. With Libya's proximity to Europe, had Gaddafi kept Libya's missile program in place (and perhaps even expanded it) and invested significantly in defensive weapons like mobile SAM systems, modern ATGMs and the like, the way Iran has, surely the Europeans never would have attacked Libya.

I'm not saying that Iran should give up its sovereignty and independence or give up its missile program, air defenses or nuclear program. What I am advocating is that Iran take a more pragmatic approach. In my opinion, Iran has done more than enough for the Palestinians and should place more emphasis on economic prosperity.

Almost every poll on Iran published by Iran's enemies is a propaganda tool, not a proper survey conducted according to rules.

Another element that helps explain the generally positive sentiment among Chinese people, is that they're not being bombarded night and day with zio-American propaganda and psy-ops to the extent that Iranians happen to be. Persian-language services of the BBC and other such media are far more prolific than their Chinese equivalents.

Besides, is there evidence that the Chinese were unhappy with their government prior to the economic boom? I think not.

Also no country can reproduce the Chinese experience, China having too many specificities which set it apart.



Any decisive concession to the type of enemy Iran is facing will be bound to open the floodgates, because they aren't interested in recognizing Iran's status, peacefully coexisting with Iran and so on. They will merely use the opportunity to better infiltrate and set the country ablaze.

When it comes to the economy, as said I consider it unlikely that Iran, let alone the average (read working class) Iranian would benefit much from full fledged integration into the global economic system.

 

[sha ah]

So Russia is placing its military in Nicaragua.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/nicaragua-russia-troops-planes-1.6485691

Nicaragua authorizes entry of Russian troops, planes, ships​

Russia's foreign affairs ministry calls measure "routine"

The government of Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega has authorized Russian troops, planes and ships to deploy to his country for purposes of training, law enforcement or emergency response.

​

 

[lydian fall]

Before the war:

Blood sucker Westerns

 

[sha ah]

Ukraine is losing 1000 troops a day now. They're also very low on ammo and fuel to the point where its critical. They don't even care about Ukraine. They're just using Ukraine to harm Russia and as a test bed for their own weapons. That's why they're sending Ukraine 4x HiMARS and 6 of the French Caesar self propelled artillery. Even if they sent Ukraine more heavy weapons they would simply get destroyed like what happened to all of Ukraine's previous heavy weapons. Ukraine had 80x SMERCH launchers at the start of the war. Where are they now ?

Ukraine suffering up to 1,000 casualties per day in Donbas, MP says

Up to 1,000 Ukrainian soldiers are being killed or wounded each day in the Donbas, with 200 to 500 killed on average, and many more wounded, U.S. news outlet Axios quoted Ukrainian MP David Arakhamia, a member of the Ukrainian delegation at talks with Russia, as saying on June 15.

news.yahoo.com

Honestly the only reason Ukraine was able to give Russia a bloody nose / black eye at the start was because the Russians did not bomb the living sh#t out of Ukraine. Look at the shock and awe campaign before the Americans went in. It lasted for weeks. Russia merely bombed Ukraine for a few hours before sending in all their armor. It was a combination of overconfidence, underestimating the enemy, bad intel (Americans also believed that Kiev would fall in 72 hrs) and because Russians and Ukrainians have historical and cultural ties. Russia tried to take it easy on Ukrainians but now they're getting annihilated.

The reason why Russians are using so much artillery rather than air power is because it's much cheaper, much less risky, since fighter jets cost tens of millions of dollars and pilots take years to properly train. Also at this point Ukraine has lost most of its heavy weapons, so primarily Russia needs to target masses of infantry and artillery is arguably the most efficient and cost effective weapon when it comes to softening up and destroying entrenched infantry positions.

Blood sucker Westerns

 

[SalarHaqq]

Well if you look at China, that's the main reason why their economy is doing so much better compared to a few decades back. Namely reforms under Deng XiaoPing and globalization, trade. You can't tell me that Iran's economy wouldn't be doing much better without the western backed sanctions in place. After the nuclear deal was signed, Iran was seeing double digit GDP growth as well as a much lower inflation rate.

Politics, security and economy cannot be treated separately since they are interconnected dimensions of a same reality.

To begin with, China is operating under a fundamentally different geostrategic setting compared to Iran. It is not located in the vicinity of the zionist regime - whose influence upon Washington is unparalleled and which cannot tolerate rivals. Then, due to its sheer size, any neighbor will find it hard to impose its hegemony on China. So it's apples and oranges already.

Iran and China's economic outlooks are equally dissimilar due to a series of factors. One of the most important being that Iran unlike China is a country rich in energy resources, namely oil and gas. This alters the equation. In an open globalized economy, Iran would tend to experience deindustrialization as a consequence of the Dutch Disease.

As indicated before, GDP growth onto itself implies nothing much when it comes to economic development. An oil exporting country can benefit hugely in terms of hard currency income, which will boost its GDP figures but beneath the surface its fundamental economic structure will remain relatively underdeveloped. It will be economically dependent on the outside world (including politically) and vulnerable to oil price fluctuations.

Furthermore Iran's double digit GDP growth consecutive to the partial lifting of sanctions was largely a one-time short term effect triggered by the release of frozen funds, the easing of obstacles to Iran's crude oil exports as well as the concretization of previously concluded contracts. In other words, it's unlikely to have been a sustainable occurrence and would thus have dwindled quite rapidly.

Iran and China are also marked by contrasting economic cultures rooted in their respective historical trajectories.

So I will stay with my conclusion that for Iran to keep progressing along the path of both economic and human development, she'd better stay the self-sufficiency course rather than to pin vain hopes on free trade-centered approaches.

The issue with the Rohani administration is that they put all their eggs in one basket without diversifying enough or having a proper contingency plan in place just incase the west decided to betray Iran, which they did. For example, in contrast look at how the Russians reacted to EU/US/NATO backed
sanctions.
Immediately they banned the exchange of Rubles to Dollars for a limited time. They pegged Rubles to Gold for a limited time. They forced EU to pay for natural gas in Rubles. They passed a law so that any foreign business that leaves Russia losses all copyright protection under the law. At first the Russian Ruble lost half of its value but now as a result of everything Russia did, the Ruble is at a 5 year high.

The Rohani government on the other hand were taken by completely surprise when Trump left the deal and really had no decisive response. However it can be argued that the initial sting of sanctions after Crimea and Iran's experienced helped Russia better prepare for what happened, not to mention the fact that Iran simply does not have the options and leverage that Russia has. Anyways it is what it is.

And the west is bound to treat Iran in such a manner, because that's what their ultimate objective (i.e. outright annihilation of Iran) is dictating.

Now why do you think their strategic roadmap for détente with Iran includes not just the baseless imposition of special restrictions on Iran's peaceful nuclear program but beyond that, restrictions upon Iran's ballistic missile program as well as Iran's regional system of alliances (so-called JCPOA's II and III)? In recent years and based on the discourse coming out of Washington, this framework seems to have been augmented by a desire on their part to put caps on Iran's UAV arsenal too.

I hope everyone will realize that what they're taking aim at, are precisely Iran's main instruments of deterrence against major acts of military aggression (latent nuclear breakout capability, Axis of Resistance, missiles and UAV's which in terms of weaponry are forming the backbone of Iran's defence doctrine).

And that the reason they're pushing for what would amount to effective disarmament of Iran, is not that they're wishing to treat Iran as a peer, welcoming her with open arms into their so-called "international community" after Tehran stops supporting the Palestinians, Lebanon's Hezbollah, the Yemenis etc. No, what they would then proceed with, is large scale military aggression (whether directly or indirectly through proxies). Any other assumption in this regard would be naive and perilous at the same time.

Also I thought about Libya, which you mentioned earlier. Yes Libya was balkanized and raided by NATO but it's namely because Gaddafi gave up not only Libya's nuclear program but also Libya's missile program. With Libya's proximity to Europe, had Gaddafi kept Libya's missile program in place (and perhaps even expanded it) and invested significantly in defensive weapons like mobile SAM systems, modern ATGMs and the like, the way Iran has, surely the Europeans never would have attacked Libya.

It's simple: they would maintain heavy sanctions in place until Iran disarms like Libya. Or do you truly believe Gaddafi on his very own initiative offered to rid the Libyan army of all these assets in order to convince the westerners about his trustworthiness? These measures, of course, were among the west's non-negotiable preconditions for any supposed normalization - in reality, a trap though.

The writing's on the wall and the precedent right before our eyes, so falling for the same tricks wouldn't be excusable. In effect, it'd spell nothing but doom for Iran.

Western powers weren't going to be content with the sole nuclear deal, which was only ever seen by them as a stepping stone towards follow-on agreements on Iran's missiles and regional presence, the idea being that they would systematically refrain from keeping their end of each accord, so as to coerce Iran into acquiescing to the next one while dangling the illusional prospect of "sanctions relief". This is why the Obama regime began unilaterally violating the JCPOA right after it was concluded, and why Trump tore it up in the first place.

I'm not saying that Iran should give up its sovereignty and independence or give up its missile program, air defenses or nuclear program. What I am advocating is that Iran take a more pragmatic approach. In my opinion, Iran has done more than enough for the Palestinians and should place more emphasis on economic prosperity.

As long as Iran retains potent and functional means of retaliation against military aggression, sanctions won't be lifted. Foregoing one such instrument - whether it's the missiles, UAV's or support for anti-zionist Resistance groups will not lead to a real loosening of the sanctions regime.

Bottom line is that they're not willing to let Iran live, let alone to see Iran prosper. So Iran must stand on her own feet and be able to ward off aggression.