lydian fall
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2022
- Messages
- 1,184
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Iranian Chill Thread
- Thread starter SOHEIL
- Start date
TheImmortal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 7,091
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
Searched for a source for his first claim and found nothing, waiting for him to answer the question
The initial discount was -18 percent (from the 2018 deal involving 400b on 40 years)
This is still better than massive discounts of Pahlavi to the UK for 60 years (which got deleted when he got ousted)
I also remind that Iran gave basically free oil to Israel, Israel had to deliver Iran the latest air-to-air and ground missiles/bombs at the time and other non-exportable weapons to Iran, in exchange of free oil. They never delivered anything of that but obsolete weapons they had left from the Kippur war during western replenishment operation to save Israel. such as obsolete versions of Aim-7 Sparrow and Aim-9, AGM Shrike.
Rockefeller also mocked Reza Pahlavi in his book because when he signed multiple contract to sell Iran oil at massive discount, according to the contract he was not able to quit the deal by himself and was forced to ask US ambassadors
He couldn't nationalize the oil even if he really wanted to, this alone confirms that the Shah was not a puppet, but a puppet attached leash with a lock on it, only the US knowing the code
You have seen a IFF transponder two weeks ago developed.... for UAVs. So, in this way IRGC UAVs are evolutioning.
aryobarzan
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2019
- Messages
- 4,586
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
If 40% discount is true then that means every day Iran is paying China around $50 million dollars discount just to buy our oil..so let me put it another way:
Iran pays $50 million dollars to China , every day , 365 day a year so that our foreign minister can go to Gollan heights border and point his finger at Israel.....Mullahs know how to make a deal as long as they themselves do not have to pay it..!!! Foreign policy Mullah style.
What a miracle!
There is no source or evidence for that, it is likely false. Regardless, I don't think you understand how discounts work.
STAFF
- Joined
- May 1, 2015
- Messages
- 3,786
- Reaction score
- 34
- Country
- Location
Sir, it has tribal, personal and communal aspects.Takfiri terrorists gun down 7 teachers in northwestern Pakistan
Takfiri terrorists gun down 7 teachers in northwestern Pakistan
Takfiri terrorists gun down at least seven teachers at a rural high school in northwestern Pakistan.www.presstv.ir
Six schoolteachers were killed in a shooting at a school in the Kurram district of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) shortly after another teacher was gunned down in a drive-by shooting in the upper Kurram area, officials and medics said on Thrusday.
Police sources said that Muhammad Sharif was killed after unknown persons opened fire on a moving vehicle on Solozan Road. After the attack, armed men entered the Teri Mangal High School and killed six schoolteachers and a staff member.
The deceased teachers were identified as Mir Hussain, Jawad Hussain, Naveed Hussain, Jawad Ali, Muhammad Ali and Ali Hussain, all of whom belonging to the Turi Bangash tribe. The teachers were performing examination duties at that time.
Contradictory accounts were given about the motive for the killings. A statement from the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa chief minister’s office said it involved a property dispute, but the regional commissioner said sectarian antagonism appeared to be the cause.
Eight teachers gunned down in Kurram | The Express Tribune
Armed men attack school after a man shot dead on a road near Parachinar
TheImmortal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 7,091
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
If Russia is giving China a discount then Iran has to give China and even steeper discount. Russian oil is less risky than Iranian oil to buy. Less headaches
Iran was the biggest loser during the Russian sanctions because Russia ended up selling more oil to China at expense of Iran.
China Is Importing Less Iranian Crude As It Buys More Russian Barrels | OilPrice.com
China has reduced its intake of Iranian crude as it is importing an increasing amount of discounted Russian oil.
oilprice.com
This was in July 2022, Iran matched Russian oil price. Who knows since then how much Iran has discounted their price vs Russian oil.
Iran Slashes the Cost of Its Oil to Compete With Russia in China
Iran is being forced to discount its already cheap crude even more as a top ally gains a bigger foothold in the key Chinese market.
www.bloomberg.com
lydian fall
BANNED
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2022
- Messages
- 1,184
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
oil tankers war between Iran and the us
It reminds me 1987
It reminds me 1987
jauk
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2016
- Messages
- 1,576
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Awesome. The best Iranian war movie I’ve seen. Realism to the highest degree.
I weep with pride that I share blood with these men and women.
Unfortunate there are an insignificant few Iran haters and traitors that have already been swept away by the winds of destiny like the dirt they are.
Is there an Iranian movie section, BTW.
We’re clearly not so dissimilar from the Japanese with our millennia old pomp and ceremony. But we’re different in two big ways:
- we’re simply better
- we have the bomb
I weep with pride that I share blood with these men and women.
Unfortunate there are an insignificant few Iran haters and traitors that have already been swept away by the winds of destiny like the dirt they are.
Is there an Iranian movie section, BTW.
We’re clearly not so dissimilar from the Japanese with our millennia old pomp and ceremony. But we’re different in two big ways:
- we’re simply better
- we have the bomb
Last edited:
TheImmortal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 7,091
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin launched a screaming, expletive-filled tirade at Putin's war chiefs as he stood next to dozens of his mens' corpses in Ukraine
"You animals are hanging out in expensive clubs!" a furious Prigozhin shouted, naming Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and General Valery Gerasimov.
CNN указал на потерю эффективности HIMARS из-за работы российских глушителей
На Украине американская реактивная система залпового огня HIMARS теряет эффективность из-за интенсивной работы систем электронного подавления со стороны российских войск. Об этом сообщает CNN со ссылкой на источники 5 мая.
iz.ru
CNN pointed to the loss of efficiency of HIMARS due to the work of Russian jammers
CNN: Russian electronic jamming systems reduce the effectiveness of HIMARS in UkraineMay 6, 2023, 02:10
2989
MILITARY EQUIPMENT
ARMY OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (RF ARMED FORCES)
USA
Photo: Global Look Press/AFLO
Read iz.ru in
In Ukraine , the American HIMARS multiple launch rocket system is losing effectiveness due to the intensive work of electronic suppression systems by Russian troops. It is reported by CNN , citing sources on May 5.
“The [HIMARS] system has become increasingly ineffective in recent months due to intense blocking by Russia. Russian forces are increasingly using silencers to counter HIMARS in Ukraine.
The TV channel quotes a Ukrainian drone operator who confirmed the situation with the use of American systems. The publication also quoted a British official as saying that since HIMARS were first introduced, requirements, training and additional equipment have changed as Russian electronic jamming systems have evolved.
Ad•16+
Mahjong Solitaire
Yandex Games
Rolled out a howitzer: our army has become more effective in suppressing the artillery of the VFU
How the destruction of Western-made gun mounts changes the situation at the front
Earlier, on January 15, one of the channel’s informants concluded that Ukraine is “an absolute weapons laboratory in every sense, because some types of equipment have never been used in an armed conflict between two industrialized countries.”
Moscow has repeatedly condemned the supply of weapons to Ukraine. Back in April 2022, the Russian Foreign Ministry sent a note to all NATO countries due to the supply of weapons to Kiev.
Western countries have increased military and financial support for Ukraine after the start of Russia's special operation to protect Donbass . The decision on the special operation was made by the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin against the background of the aggravation of the situation in the region due to the increased shelling by Ukrainian militants.
Muhammed45
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2015
- Messages
- 10,321
- Reaction score
- -18
- Country
- Location
SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
No such thing. Inflation reached some 30% under the previous administration, up from significantly lower levels.
And it's a fact well documented by economists, that most economic policies will show their impact after some time, usually a couple of years.
That the Rohani administration ruined the Iranian economy by putting all eggs into the JCPOA basket and having no plan B whatsoever is also well documented.
So this is neither an excuse nor a pretext but pure reality.
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution does not interfere in day to day governance. Not only can major economic decisions be taken without his approval, but plenty such decisions taken thus far have directly gone against his guidelines.
Only on major matters of national security could it be argued that the Leadership's approval would be required.
In Iran there's neither stagflation, nor recession nor really an economic depression. As I highlighted, most macro-economic indicators are favorable.
Inflation is the single major issue Iran needs to tackle as we speak. In order to comment on the Ra'isi administration's policies, one needs to be aware of the domestic debate in this regard. There's a struggle going on right now between broadly speaking two schools of thought as to how to fix inflation. It's the outcome of this struggle at the level of ideas which will shape the administration's policies.
As for foreign policy being the paramount cause behind Iran's economic challenges, I amply explained why this isn't the case. With the same foreign policy orientation, Iran has experienced periods of much lower inflation, so there's no causation here.
But more importantly, Iran did try to reduce tensions with western regimes under the previous administration. The result is before everyone's eyes: the west proved its genuine lack of interest in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement and began violating the terms of the deal right away in hopes of extorting further concessions from Iran. You keep ignoring this fact as if it never happened, and repeat the same thing over and over. Doesn't matter, facts are facts and I'll be reminding them as often as necessary.
In poverty. No need to target people's emotions by interjecting dramatizing adjectives.
And that's 30,5%, period. For it to be considered more, evidence will have to produced.
1) The west is not interested in finding a balanced modus vivendi with Iran. Their preconditions for so-called normalization of ties were spelled out by Pompeo, and they amount to Iran abandoning her sovereignty as well as her means of deterrence against military aggression. What this would ultimately lead to, is illustrated by the example of Libya, where Gaddafi followed the very same path you're advocating. The rest is history.
2) Iranian assistance to the Palestinians serves Iran's own national security against a regime which never accepted Iran as a sovereign nation (see influence of zionist lobbies prior to the Islamic Revolution) and is bent on dismantling Iran along "ethno"-linguistic lines.
3) Investment in the nuclear field is a long term endeavour. As additional power plants come online, their share of national electricity production will increase. Moreover, nuclear science is not merely aimed at generating power, it is useful in multiple other areas of activity (agriculture, medicine etc) in which Iran has now achieved self-sufficiency rather than depending on the non-existing goodwill of foreign suppliers. Last but not least, the potential break-out capability it provides is acting as a shield against military aggression.
It is a perfectly well calculated, rational and necessary approach for reasons explained above as well as in my previous comment.
The lifestyle of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution is a markedly simple, down to earth one deprived of material luxury.
Also, the bulk of the Islamic Republic's support base consists of popular, working class individuals. It's one of the rare systems in which the wealthier citizens are, the more inclined they will be identify with the enemy's culture and politics and will thus tend to oppose the very system in their own country, under which they rose to advantageous economic positions. A striking illustration thereof is furnished by show business figures (so-called "celebrities"), practically all of whom are both highly affluent and deeply antagonistic toward the Islamic Revolution and the principles it embodies.
I replied to this at least thrice, wonder why I have to do so again.
Try paying attention this time around: Turkish, Saudi or Emirati proxies have never been anything but auxiliaries to NATO policy. Neither of these countries can make effective use of their proxies for goals running counter to zionist and NATO interests. In short they cannot mobilize them without the west's implicit or explicit consent.
Also, Iran can neutralize the effects of sanctions through adequate economic policies.
Prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution Iran was conducting policies even friendlier than that vis à vis the zionist regime, by not just refraining from extending support to the Palestinians but by cooperating actively with Tel Aviv. The zionists however were not content with this. They had to encroach upon Iran's sovereignty by infiltrating key institutions including the security apparatus (SAVAK was partly set up by Mossad and Tel Aviv's men were placed at strategic positions in the agency) in order to influence Iranian decision-making.
So no, Isra"el" never accepted a sovereign, independent, powerful Iran. The Oded Yinon plan published in the early 1980's is explicit as to the goal of breaking apart nation-states of the region into smaller entities along "ethnic" and confessional lines.
If Iran was depriving that nation of its sovereignty and subjecting it to imperialist and neo-colonialist exploitation, I would understand it if people there reacted in such a manner.
This is a flawed line of thinking.
The very same could have been said about apartheid South Africa: a nuclear-armed regime with its own advanced defence industry, where the privileged minority was enjoying European- and North American-style living standards, which dominated its neighbors, and opposition to which consisted of strongly repressed movements from impoverished ghetto townships lacking the required prowess to defeat the regime militarily, aided by a minor party (the South African Communist Party) from the dominant minority.
And yet, their steadfast resistance proved instrumental in bringing down the apartheid regime when time was ripe. Likewise, the downfall of the zionist regime will not necessarily come about through military conquest. In the meantime however, continued resistance to its apartheid rule will be necessary to prevent it from strengthening and expanding its position.
1) As concerns the terms of a peace offer, there's a minimum threshold of acceptability for any party willing to safeguard its basic rights and its independence. Palestinian leaders could go for such skewed terms, but not only would their own people disown them, they would continue to live under oppression. If to you, living under the oppression of a colonial power is desirable then so be it, but do not expect others to share the same standpoint.
2) Go tell that to those who fought apartheid in South Africa. Go tell that to zionists, who conclude from Jewish history that one must never give up no matter how terribly dire the odds may seem.
Iran's latent nuclear break-out capability, like it or not, is a major deterrent factor. It has contributed to averting military aggression.
As for undeclared nuclear sites, look up what international contractual law actually stipulates: a nuclear site must only be declared to the IAEA a couple of weeks or months before it is activated. Prior to that, there is zero obligation to declare its existence to anyone. You can legally construct a nuclear site and refrain from informing the IAEA. Thence, Iran hasn't violated any rule here, and therefore this cannot possibly serve as a valid pretext to single out Iran's peaceful nuclear program.
The share of nuclear energy can and will be raised with time. Iran's in no hurry about this. What matters is that the necessary technical know-how has been acquired.
To repeat, neither China nor India nor south Korea are located in the vicinity of a domineering regime whose lobbies largely determine American policy in the region, and which has no tolerance for truly powerful neighbors.
And to repeat as well, the impact of sanctions can be overcome through adequate policies.
The Majles Research Center is no authoritative source for economic data. The SCI and the CBI are the two institutions tasked with this function, and the only ones endowed with the appropriate means to conduct corresponding nationwide studies. So figures such as 55% can safely be laid to rest. Want to talk about facts, the fact is that official data for 1400 put the poverty rate at 30,5%, and this is the reliable figure to go by.
Foreign policy wise, poverty in 1977 stood at 46%, in spite of an oil boom four years earlier. This was under the Pahlavi regime whose relations with the west could not have been any closer.
Conversely, this is how the Islamic Republic, a government resisting zio-American imperialism, successfully reduced poverty:
Iran Poverty Rate 1960-2024
Poverty headcount ratio at $5.50 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $5.50 a day at 2011 international prices. As a result of revisions in PPP exchange rates, poverty rates for individual countries cannot be compared with poverty rates reported in earlier editions.
In other words, the equation "relations with the west = economic prosperity" and "resisting zio-American imperialism = poverty and economic crisis" is decidedly inaccurate.
Poverty was reduced thrice under the Islamic Republic, and will be again.
Last edited:
That the Rohani administration ruined the Iranian economy by putting all eggs into the JCPOA basket and having no plan B whatsoever is also well documented.
So Raesi & his administration bare no responsibility for the current economic situation whatsoever ? It has been a year & 9 months since Raesi took office. You can't just blame the previous administration(s) & claim that neither Khamenei, who actually calls the shots, nor Raesi, bare any responsibility. The Iranian government could do alot of things to at least try & stabilize the economy. They could peg the Rial to commodities like Gold & OIl, they haven't done anything. I'm not saying that Rohani's government doesn't bare any responsibility either. They placed too much emphasis on the JCPOA, but when the JCPOA was implemented inflation in Iran plummeted & Iran's GDP had double digit growth.
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution does not interfere in day to day governance
He literally determines all of the Iran's core policies. These direct policies have a direct effect on everything, economy, culture, foreign relations. As we saw with the Ahmadinejad spat, Khamenei can do whatever he wants & he can easily over rule the president anytime he chooses.
In Iran there's neither stagflation, nor recession nor really an economic depression
The currency just went from 270,000 vs the USD to 550,000 in a few months. Anything & everything, well over 90% of everything Iran needs to import has to be paid for in US Dollars, the worlds reserve currency. The economic situation is extremely bleak. Peoples buying power & living standards are rapidly declining.
Turkish, Saudi or Emirati proxies have never been anything but auxiliaries to NATO policy. Neither of these countries can make effective use of their proxies for goals running counter to zionist and NATO interests. In short they cannot mobilize them without the west's consent.
That's partially true, but not really. Turkey deployed militants in Libya & Azerbaijan, despite the vehement disapproval of NATO & the USA.
So no, Isra"el" never accepted a sovereign, independent, powerful Iran. The Oded Yinon plan published in the early 1980's is explicit as to the goal of breaking apart nation-states of the region into smaller entities along "ethnic" and confessional lines.
Again Iran doesn't even share borders with Israel. If Iran simply boycotted them, they wouldn't care. Good diplomacy and a pragmatic approach to foreign policy can go a very long way. Recently about 30 Israeli MPs in the Knesset (Israeli parliament) openly signed a letter calling for the balkanization of Iran. After consultation by Iranian opposition groups about 20 of them reversed their stance. Diplomacy & communication can often times be more effective than hateful slogans & threats. Israel is only an enemy of Iran because the mullahs pose an existential threat to their existence & openly call for their annihilation. Any country in their situation would respond the same way.
Also, the bulk of the Islamic Republic's support base consists of popular, working class individuals
Tens of millions of people are living below the poverty line. Many of them being working class people. I think you're being overly optimistic about average peoples outlook towards the Islamic Republic. The country just went through 3 months of violent protests, which in some areas turned into armed uprisings. Recently there have been strikes/protests by teachers, pensioners & oil workers. The government is on the verge of firing a large number workers in the oil sector. Pensioners are saying that with the recent surge in inflation, their pensions only cover 10 days of their living expenses. I don't think that these people are too fond of the establishment.
If Iran was depriving that nation of its sovereignty and subjecting it to imperialist and neo-colonialist exploitation, I would understand it if people in that country reacted in such a manner.
Countless nations all across the world have been subjected to imperialist / colonialist ambitions. For example Vietnam. Yet they don't constantly burn flags & chant hateful slogans. Again this completely annihilates Iran's tourism industry & tarnishes Iran's image globally. Also you can't expect the nations that are the subject of these sort of hateful antics to not perceive Iran as a major threat to their existence. The mullahs should not whine about sanctions as long as they condone & encourage this sort of hatemongering. You can't have your cake & eat it too as the saying goes.
The very same could have been said about apartheid South Africa: a nuclear-armed regime with its own advanced defence industry, where the privileged minority was enjoying European- and North American-style living standards, which dominated its neighbors, and opposition to which consisted of strongly repressed
South Africa is a completely different situation. The sanctions were backed by the USA, EU, UN & basically entire world. Also the USA didn't impoverish itself trying to bring about change in South Africa like Iran has. America's stance on South Africa had very little to no effect on its economy. The same cannot be said about Iran.
1) As concerns the terms of a peace offer, there's a minimum threshold of acceptability for any party willing to safeguard its basic rights and its independence.
That should be left up to the Palestinians/Arabs & Israelis to resolve by themselves. There are several large Arab countries that actually share borders with Israel. Iran should just boycott Israel, stop threatening them & focus on domestic affairs. Again tens of millions of Iranians, over 25 million by your count are living below the poverty line. How many Palestinians are there 5 million ? And there are many who prefer being Israeli citizens. I've met them myself. Like I said, if the tables were turned the Palestinians wouldn't give Iranians a second though or even one penny. During the Iran-Iraq war they sided with Saddam. They're just getting what they can out of Iran. If tomorrow the Saudis made them a better offer, they would ditch Iran in a split second.
Also Apartheid South Africa in the end was brought down through diplomatic efforts & lobbying. Like I said, diplomacy can go a long way. Iran would be better off, ceasing its hateful rhetoric and using diplomacy & lobbying to bring about the desired results. Israel is not going anywhere as long as the USA & EU support them. Every time a rocket lands on Israelis, first of all the Israelis respond & kill 10 Palestinians for every 1 Israeli killed. Then the Israelis use the killing of their civilians to garner even more support from the west. The Israelis understand the value and power of image projection, diplomacy & lobbying. The people running the show in Iran don't seem to.
Iran hasn't violated any rule here, and therefore this cannot possibly serve as a valid pretext to single out Iran's peaceful nuclear program
If Iran's nuclear program were 100% peaceful with no intension to build weapons or acquire the capability for a breakout time, then Iran would not enrich above 5%. Furthermore if Iran would cease burning flags, uttering threats & hateful rhetoric on a regular basis, then tens of millions of Iranians would not be living below the poverty line.
To repeat, neither China nor India nor south Korea are located in the vicinity of a domineering regime whose lobbies largely determine American policy in the region, and which has no tolerance for truly powerful neighbors.
And to repeat as well, the impact of sanctions can be overcome through adequate policies.
I think that China, India & South Korea would beg to differ. China is surrounded by US bases & allies. India shares borders with China, whom they consider a belligerent, domineering power as well as a significant threat to their territorial integrity. South Korea, there's North Korea, backed by China
And no the impact of sanctions cannot be completely overcome with adequate policies. The impact can be lessened through adequate policies, but the people in charge in Iran are not implementing such policies and as you can see with the inflation rates & rapidly depreciating currency.
The Majles Research Center is no authoritative source for economic data
Like I said, even if we accept 30%, that means 25 million Iranians are living below the poverty line. At the same time, that doesn't mean that the other 70% are doing just fine either. A significant portion are likely just above the poverty line & others are still facing extremely challenging situation. Before the revolution the literacy rate was something like 65% so of course there was more poverty. but I wouldn't give the Islamic Republic all the credit for the increase either.
The literacy rate was already on an upward trajectory. Any graph showing Iran's literacy rate going going back 50 years clearly shows the upwards trend. Regardless, there has been progress made under the Islamic Republic, but that doesn't discount their current flaws or shortcomings either. Only through constructive criticism can human beings / institutions progress. And only by first taking responsibility for shortcomings or mistakes can changes be implemented. Unfortunately in Iran, there seems to be a trend among those in power to completely avoid all accountability in one way or another and people who criticize the powers that be often find themselves in difficult situations.
Poverty was reduced thrice under the Islamic Republic, and will be again.
They may be able to eventually reduce the poverty rate, although I don't see any indication of that now. However until the sanctions are removed Iran can never live up to its full economic potential. And the sanctions cannot be removed as long as the current core policies remain in place.
So Raesi & his administration bare no responsibility for the current economic situation whatsoever ? It has been a year & 9 months since Raesi took office. You can't just blame the previous administration(s) & claim that neither Khamenei, who actually calls the shots, nor Raesi, bare any responsibility. The Iranian government could do alot of things to at least try & stabilize the economy. They could peg the Rial to commodities like Gold & OIl, they haven't done anything. I'm not saying that Rohani's government doesn't bare any responsibility either. They placed too much emphasis on the JCPOA, but when the JCPOA was implemented inflation in Iran plummeted & Iran's GDP had double digit growth.
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution does not interfere in day to day governance
He literally determines all of the Iran's core policies. These direct policies have a direct effect on everything, economy, culture, foreign relations. As we saw with the Ahmadinejad spat, Khamenei can do whatever he wants & he can easily over rule the president anytime he chooses.
In Iran there's neither stagflation, nor recession nor really an economic depression
The currency just went from 270,000 vs the USD to 550,000 in a few months. Anything & everything, well over 90% of everything Iran needs to import has to be paid for in US Dollars, the worlds reserve currency. The economic situation is extremely bleak. Peoples buying power & living standards are rapidly declining.
Turkish, Saudi or Emirati proxies have never been anything but auxiliaries to NATO policy. Neither of these countries can make effective use of their proxies for goals running counter to zionist and NATO interests. In short they cannot mobilize them without the west's consent.
That's partially true, but not really. Turkey deployed militants in Libya & Azerbaijan, despite the vehement disapproval of NATO & the USA.
So no, Isra"el" never accepted a sovereign, independent, powerful Iran. The Oded Yinon plan published in the early 1980's is explicit as to the goal of breaking apart nation-states of the region into smaller entities along "ethnic" and confessional lines.
Again Iran doesn't even share borders with Israel. If Iran simply boycotted them, they wouldn't care. Good diplomacy and a pragmatic approach to foreign policy can go a very long way. Recently about 30 Israeli MPs in the Knesset (Israeli parliament) openly signed a letter calling for the balkanization of Iran. After consultation by Iranian opposition groups about 20 of them reversed their stance. Diplomacy & communication can often times be more effective than hateful slogans & threats. Israel is only an enemy of Iran because the mullahs pose an existential threat to their existence & openly call for their annihilation. Any country in their situation would respond the same way.
Also, the bulk of the Islamic Republic's support base consists of popular, working class individuals
Tens of millions of people are living below the poverty line. Many of them being working class people. I think you're being overly optimistic about average peoples outlook towards the Islamic Republic. The country just went through 3 months of violent protests, which in some areas turned into armed uprisings. Recently there have been strikes/protests by teachers, pensioners & oil workers. The government is on the verge of firing a large number workers in the oil sector. Pensioners are saying that with the recent surge in inflation, their pensions only cover 10 days of their living expenses. I don't think that these people are too fond of the establishment.
If Iran was depriving that nation of its sovereignty and subjecting it to imperialist and neo-colonialist exploitation, I would understand it if people in that country reacted in such a manner.
Countless nations all across the world have been subjected to imperialist / colonialist ambitions. For example Vietnam. Yet they don't constantly burn flags & chant hateful slogans. Again this completely annihilates Iran's tourism industry & tarnishes Iran's image globally. Also you can't expect the nations that are the subject of these sort of hateful antics to not perceive Iran as a major threat to their existence. The mullahs should not whine about sanctions as long as they condone & encourage this sort of hatemongering. You can't have your cake & eat it too as the saying goes.
The very same could have been said about apartheid South Africa: a nuclear-armed regime with its own advanced defence industry, where the privileged minority was enjoying European- and North American-style living standards, which dominated its neighbors, and opposition to which consisted of strongly repressed
South Africa is a completely different situation. The sanctions were backed by the USA, EU, UN & basically entire world. Also the USA didn't impoverish itself trying to bring about change in South Africa like Iran has. America's stance on South Africa had very little to no effect on its economy. The same cannot be said about Iran.
1) As concerns the terms of a peace offer, there's a minimum threshold of acceptability for any party willing to safeguard its basic rights and its independence.
That should be left up to the Palestinians/Arabs & Israelis to resolve by themselves. There are several large Arab countries that actually share borders with Israel. Iran should just boycott Israel, stop threatening them & focus on domestic affairs. Again tens of millions of Iranians, over 25 million by your count are living below the poverty line. How many Palestinians are there 5 million ? And there are many who prefer being Israeli citizens. I've met them myself. Like I said, if the tables were turned the Palestinians wouldn't give Iranians a second though or even one penny. During the Iran-Iraq war they sided with Saddam. They're just getting what they can out of Iran. If tomorrow the Saudis made them a better offer, they would ditch Iran in a split second.
Also Apartheid South Africa in the end was brought down through diplomatic efforts & lobbying. Like I said, diplomacy can go a long way. Iran would be better off, ceasing its hateful rhetoric and using diplomacy & lobbying to bring about the desired results. Israel is not going anywhere as long as the USA & EU support them. Every time a rocket lands on Israelis, first of all the Israelis respond & kill 10 Palestinians for every 1 Israeli killed. Then the Israelis use the killing of their civilians to garner even more support from the west. The Israelis understand the value and power of image projection, diplomacy & lobbying. The people running the show in Iran don't seem to.
Iran hasn't violated any rule here, and therefore this cannot possibly serve as a valid pretext to single out Iran's peaceful nuclear program
If Iran's nuclear program were 100% peaceful with no intension to build weapons or acquire the capability for a breakout time, then Iran would not enrich above 5%. Furthermore if Iran would cease burning flags, uttering threats & hateful rhetoric on a regular basis, then tens of millions of Iranians would not be living below the poverty line.
To repeat, neither China nor India nor south Korea are located in the vicinity of a domineering regime whose lobbies largely determine American policy in the region, and which has no tolerance for truly powerful neighbors.
And to repeat as well, the impact of sanctions can be overcome through adequate policies.
I think that China, India & South Korea would beg to differ. China is surrounded by US bases & allies. India shares borders with China, whom they consider a belligerent, domineering power as well as a significant threat to their territorial integrity. South Korea, there's North Korea, backed by China
And no the impact of sanctions cannot be completely overcome with adequate policies. The impact can be lessened through adequate policies, but the people in charge in Iran are not implementing such policies and as you can see with the inflation rates & rapidly depreciating currency.
The Majles Research Center is no authoritative source for economic data
Like I said, even if we accept 30%, that means 25 million Iranians are living below the poverty line. At the same time, that doesn't mean that the other 70% are doing just fine either. A significant portion are likely just above the poverty line & others are still facing extremely challenging situation. Before the revolution the literacy rate was something like 65% so of course there was more poverty. but I wouldn't give the Islamic Republic all the credit for the increase either.
The literacy rate was already on an upward trajectory. Any graph showing Iran's literacy rate going going back 50 years clearly shows the upwards trend. Regardless, there has been progress made under the Islamic Republic, but that doesn't discount their current flaws or shortcomings either. Only through constructive criticism can human beings / institutions progress. And only by first taking responsibility for shortcomings or mistakes can changes be implemented. Unfortunately in Iran, there seems to be a trend among those in power to completely avoid all accountability in one way or another and people who criticize the powers that be often find themselves in difficult situations.
Poverty was reduced thrice under the Islamic Republic, and will be again.
They may be able to eventually reduce the poverty rate, although I don't see any indication of that now. However until the sanctions are removed Iran can never live up to its full economic potential. And the sanctions cannot be removed as long as the current core policies remain in place.
No such thing. Inflation reached some 30% under the previous administration, up from significantly lower levels.
And it's a fact well documented by economists, that most economic policies will show their impact after some time, usually a couple of years.
That the Rohani administration ruined the Iranian economy by putting all eggs into the JCPOA basket and having no plan B whatsoever is also well documented.
So this is neither an excuse nor a pretext but pure reality.
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution does not interfere in day to day governance. Not only can major economic decisions be taken without his approval, but plenty such decisions taken thus far have directly gone against his guidelines.
Only on major matters of national security could it be argued that the Leadership approval would be required.
In Iran there's neither stagflation, nor recession nor really an economic depression. As I highlighted, most macro-economic indicators are favorable.
Inflation is the single major issue Iran needs to tackle as we speak. In order to comment on the Ra'isi administration's policies, one needs to be aware of the domestic debate in this regard. There's a struggle going on right now between broadly speaking two schools of thought as to how to fix inflation. It's the outcome of this struggle at the level of ideas which will shape the administration's policies.
As for foreign policy being the paramount cause for Iran's economic challenges, I amply explained why this isn't the case. With the same foreign policy orientation, Iran has experienced periods of much lower inflation, so there's no causation here.
But more importantly, Iran did try to reduce tensions with western regimes under the previous administration. The result is before everyone's eyes: the west proved its genuine lack of interest in reaching a mutually acceptable agreement and began violating the terms of the deal right away in hopes of extorting further concessions from Iran. You keep ignoring this fact as if it never happened, and repeat the same thing over and over. Doesn't matter, facts are facts and I'll be reminding them as often as necessary.
In poverty. No need to appeal to people's emotions by introducing dramatic adjectives.
And that's 30,5%, period. For it to be considered more, evidence will have to produced.
1) The west is not interested in finding a balanced modus vivendi with Iran. Their preconditions for so-called normalization of bilateral ties were spelled out by Pompeo, and they amount to Iran abandoning her sovereignty as well as her means of deterrence against military aggression. What this would ultimately lead to, is illustrated by the example of Libya, where Gaddafi followed the very same path you're advocating. The rest is history.
2) Iranian assistance to the Palestinians serves Iran's own national security against a regime which never accepted Iran as a sovereign nation (see influence of zionist lobbies prior to the Islamic Revolution) and is bent on dismantling Iran along "ethno"-linguistic lines.
3) Investment in the nuclear field is a long term endeavour. As additional power plants come online, their share of national electricity production will increase. Moreover, nuclear science is not merely aimed at generating power, it is useful in multiple other areas of activity (agriculture, medicine etc) in which Iran has now achieved self-sufficiency rather than depending on the non-existing goodwill of foreign suppliers. Last but not least, the potential break-out capability it provides functions as shield against military aggression.
It is a perfectly well calculated, rational and necessary approach for reasons explained above as well as in my previous comment.
The lifestyle of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution is a markedly simple, down to earth one deprived of material luxury.
Also, the bulk of the Islamic Republic's support base consists of popular, working class individuals. It's one of the rare systems where the wealthier citizens are, the more they tend to identify with the enemy's culture and politics and will thus tend to oppose the very system in their own country, under which they rose to advantageous economic positions. A striking illustration thereof is furnished by show business figures (so-called "celebrities"), practically all of whom are both affluent and antagonistic towards the Islamic Revolution and the principles it embodies.
I replied to this at least thrice, wonder why I have to do so again.
Try paying attention this time around: Turkish, Saudi or Emirati proxies have never been anything but auxiliaries to NATO policy. Neither of these countries can make effective use of their proxies for goals running counter to zionist and NATO interests. In short they cannot mobilize them without the west's consent.
Also, Iran can neutralize the effects of sanctions through adequate economic policies.
Prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution Iran was conducting policies even friendlier than that vis à vis the zionist regime, by not just refraining from extending support to the Palestinian cause but by cooperating actively with Tel Aviv. The zionists however were not content with this. They had to encroach upon Iran's sovereignty by infiltrating key institutions including the security apparatus (SAVAK was partly set up by Mossad and Tel Aviv's men were placed at strategic positions in the agency) in order to influence Iranian decision-making.
So no, Isra"el" never accepted a sovereign, independent, powerful Iran. The Oded Yinon plan published in the early 1980's is explicit as to the goal of breaking apart nation-states of the region into smaller entities along "ethnic" and confessional lines.
If Iran was depriving that nation of its sovereignty and subjecting it to imperialist and neo-colonialist exploitation, I would understand it if people in that country reacted in such a manner.
This is a flawed line of thinking.
The very same could have been said about apartheid South Africa: a nuclear-armed regime with its own advanced defence industry, where the privileged minority was enjoying European- and North American-style living standards, which dominated its neighbors, and opposition to which consisted of strongly repressed movements from impoverished ghetto townships lacking the required prowess to defeat the regime militarily, aided by a minor party (the South African Communist Party) from the dominant minority.
And yet, their steadfast resistance proved instrumental in bringing down the apartheid regime when time was ripe. Likewise, the downfall of the zionist regime will not necessarily come about through military conquest. In the meantime however, continued resistance to its apartheid rule will be necessary to prevent it from strengthening and expanding its position.
1) As concerns the terms of a peace offer, there's a minimum threshold of acceptability for any party willing to safeguard its basic rights and its independence. Palestinian leaders could go for such skewed terms, but not only would their own people not forgive them, they would continue to live under oppression. If to you, living under the oppression of a colonial power is desirable then so be it, but do not expect others to share that standpoint.
2) Go tell that to those who fought apartheid in South Africa. Go tell that to zionists, who conclude from Jewish history that one must never give up no matter how terribly dire the odds may seem.
Iran's latent nuclear break-out capability, like it or not, is acting as a heavy deterrent factor. It has contributed to averting military aggression.
As for undeclared nuclear sites, look up what international contractual law actually stipulates: a nuclear site must only be declared to the IAEA a couple of weeks or months before being activated. Prior to that, there is zero obligation to declare it to anyone. You can legally construct a nuclear site and refrain from informing the IAEA. Thence, Iran hasn't violated any rule here, and therefore this cannot possibly serve as a valid pretext to single out Iran's peaceful nuclear program.
The share of nuclear energy can and will be raised with time. Iran's in no hurry about this. What matters is that the necessary technical know-how has been acquired.
To repeat, neither China nor India nor south Korea are located in the vicinity of a domineering regime whose lobbies largely determine American policy in the region, and which has no tolerance for truly powerful neighbors.
And to repeat as well, the impact of sanctions can be overcome through adequate policies.
The Majles Research Center is no authoritative source for economic data. The SCI and the CBI are the two institutions tasked with this function, and the only ones endowed with the appropriate means to conduct corresponding nationwide studies. So figures such as 55% can safely be laid to rest. Want to talk about facts, the fact is that official data for 1400 put the poverty rate at 30,5%, and this is the reliable figure to go by.
Foreign policy wise, poverty in 1977 stood at 46%, in spite of an oil boom four years earlier. This was under the Pahlavi regime whose relations with the west could not have been any closer.
Conversely, this is how the Islamic Republic, a government resisting zio-American imperialism, successfully reduced poverty:
Iran Poverty Rate 1960-2024
Poverty headcount ratio at $5.50 a day is the percentage of the population living on less than $5.50 a day at 2011 international prices. As a result of revisions in PPP exchange rates, poverty rates for individual countries cannot be compared with poverty rates reported in earlier editions.www.macrotrends.net
In other words, the equation "relations with the west = economic prosperity" and "resisting zio-American imperialism = poverty and economic crisis" is decidedly inaccurate.
Poverty was reduced thrice under the Islamic Republic, and will be again.
Similar threads
- Article
- Locked
