Iranian Experts Develop Second Humanoid Robot

[DesiGuy]

Great news. I would like to see iran sending robots on moon just like japan has planned.

We need Space Race once more. :Yahoo:

 

[Pasban]

It is all your thinking, dear friend. Iran has been a source of attraction to powers ranging from Russian empire to British and rest of Europeans as well as the Americans in new generation.

I already stated that Iran has been problematic for those vying for their own interests in Iran. The nation-states which you have mentioned are no exception to that rule. As to being a source of "attraction," the attribute of attraction varies from eye to eye. Not all the attraction that you speak of is necessarily positive/ well-intentioned and not all of it is beneficial for the people of Iran. To point one example, Iran was immensely "attractive" to both the rival British and Russian empires in the late 18th century, both as a prospective colony and a proxy against the other. Iran managed to maintain it's independence (at least on face) by playing both sides off although losing half of it's domain in the process. Iran never did sleep in a bed of roses for long and not all who are drawn to her have been romantics. Its all your thinking, dear friend.

I remain with my earlier statement.

We don't take sides with anyone and any problem that is between two countries is strictly kept between them as neither we have the military capacity to react nor we want to get involved in something that has an adverse affect on our nationals.

That would be a fair assessment of the foreign policy of Switzerland but we are off-topic here. If however you are making some form of comparison between the leaderships (past and present) of both nations, then there is a large void and this reflects the positioning and the different histories of both states. The two are not comparable hence. However, since we have mentioned Switzerland, I will say that I do appreciate their historical stance of neutrality (despite the controversy often surrounding it).

You say that your country is being pushed around. Basically the IAEA is demanding transparecy in your programme and has no problems, if it was not for your president who's created needless worries right from Riyadh to Abu Dhabi to Tel Aviv. There's been another thread where discussion regarding king Abdullah's apprehension over Iranian clerical regime is being discussed.

Iran was cooperative with the IAEA earlier and there were many detailed inspection runs. The IAEA reports themselves found no evidence of of a possible arms program. Political bickering has however set the program backwards and stalled relations as well. The nuclear program scandal, as I stated before, is a much, much smaller ordeal of a much larger Geo-strategic paradigm that is being played in the region. As for Riyadh and Abu Dhabi, the governments there would have "apprehensions" with or without nuclear power in Iran and even with or without the current government.

Iran won't have been even bothered by anyone if it was not this aggressive attitude of the clerical government threatening everyone around and in return take threats of strikes from other countries.

I don't approve of the stance of the government but to say that Iran would not be "bothered by anyone" if it weren't for the current regime is blatantly false and the history of Iran is a testament to this. I fail to understand why you have a romanticized notion of Iran's relations with foreign powers, and their views on Iran, prior to the Islamic Revolution.

While your cultural pride is really appreciable and IMO no country should be bullied needlessly, your president hasn't been speaking sugar tones either for others to sit calm.

Firstly, thank you for stating the obvious. Secondly, I don't see how I have shown by self to be the defender of every tenant of the Iranian leadership let alone Ahmadinejad. Iran too had dirty windows, but that does not mean that others facing Iran keep theirs clean.

The collapse of clerical regime would first signal a much better relationship between Tehran and rest of the world. When I say this, it is because of a few reasons:

1. Fundamentalism would be replaced with nationalism that would lead to improvement in your own countrymen's lifestyle.

It depends on what ideology or following takes hold afterwards, so it can't be said with any certainty. As to nationalism, as Socrates said, excess in everything is the undoing of man. Fundamentalism is not only religious or racial/ethnic, but can have a nationalist footing as well. I would not wish for a ultra-nationalistic leadership to find a basis in Iran and on a personal level I find myself in disagreement with it. I would expect much change in the internal governance though. One of the primary issues concerning the internal workings of Iran is the rampant corruption, which is something that should be tackled first and foremost.

2. Nationalism would further cool down the tensions between Arabs, Jews and Tehran. If no one is feeling threatened all this talk of striking your nuclear plants would automatically die down.

No Iranian government has ever had issues or tensions with Jews. Having issues with the Israeli government is a different matter. As for states westwards of the Persian gulf, in their perception Iran would remain a state to be suspicious and weary off regardless of governmental ideology and this would remain true irrespective of Iranian possession of nuclear technology or without it. I would predict the improvement in bilateral relations to be modest at best.

3. Much more liberal mentality and freedom will allow Iranians to better integrate with international community.

The issue is not with being conservative or liberal, but rather with having a closed mind. Iranians are not a closed-minded people and are readily able to adapt to changing circumstances. Even the present government understands the need for education and scientific progress (reform is a different matter though). What would result perhaps is that, given the restrictions placed on Iranian firms, institutes and scientists, these would be relaxed at the least which would be beneficial for Iran.

 

[gambit]

Having issues with the Israeli government is a different matter.

When and how did the Israeli government became a problem for Iran?

 

[Pasban]

When and how did the Israeli government became a problem for Iran?

We are really off-topic here for this thread. I'll rush with it....

The change in governmental policy towards Israel after the Revolution in 1979. This reflected the change in ideology, stance on geo-politics, strategic imperatives, and in objectives on part of the Iranian revolutionary government.

Prior to the revolution, Israel viewed having close ties with Iran as being pragmatic given the geographical position of Israel, it's limited recognition abroad and it's tribulations with other regional states (mainly Arab ones). In accordance to this, Ben Gurion's created the concept of an "alliance of the periphery," of which non-Arab Iran was an essential component alongside Turkey. In Pahlavi-Iran's view, Israel was a natural and an important partner in the region. Ties strengthened till the early 70s and included secret military links as well. By the mid-70s they were already beginning to wane.

The general public always had one primary issue with Israel since it's inception and this concerned the Palestinians and on three grounds. The first being the fact that the Iranian nation, being largely a Muslim and also a religious one, felt a common bond with the same-religion Palestinians. The second concerned the humanitarian strife and third was what the population saw as the visible uprooting of Palestinians from their homeland i.e control of and incursion into Palestinian areas. Whereas this issue discredited Israel abroad, in Iran it discredited both Israel and the ruling Pahlavis. As the political situation within Iran began to change in the mid-70s, the Pahlavi government felt more compelled to address this. In '75 the Pahlavi government voted at the UN in favor of equating Zionist to racism. Relations remained nominally warm though.

By the late 70s, the revolution was already nearing and the Pahlavis stance on Israel, and Israel's stance on the Palestinians, became a much exploited issue and provided further fuel for the revolution. The Palestinian struggle was reflected as Iran's own struggle and as being in the interests of Muslims at large. The stance of Israel's government became further inalienable with Zionism. After the revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini declared that Israel's government worked to counter Muslim interests. He said, "We argue amongst ourselves on the fold of our hands in prayers, while there are those that seek to cut them off." When the Islamic Republic became formalized, all official ties with Israel were cut. Some elements within the new republic are thought to have secretly kept ties with some Israeli contacts in the early years for they were deemed as a necessity. This is controversial though.

The revolution marked the primary shift. The revolutionary government aligned itself with the Palestinian cause and Iran-Israel ties steeped further downward only. Further worsening arrived with Israeli adventures in south Lebanon, whereby Iran went from being an ideologically-opposed nation rejecting Israeli policy to becoming a direct foe. Both Iran and Israel directly supported opposing groups within South Lebanon. Further complications emerged during this period.

Present contentious issues, from the IRI perspective, other than those already mentioned above almost mirror those that the Israeli government has of Iran-- includes Israel's possession of nuclear warheads, belief in Israeli backed efforts (with allies) to destabilize Iran, belief that Israel seeks to undo Iran/ Iranian efforts and belief in being threatened by Israel directly (includes militarily).

Hope it was helpful...

 

[gambit]

We are really off-topic here for this thread. I'll rush with it....

The change in governmental policy towards Israel after the Revolution in 1979. This reflected the change in ideology, stance on geo-politics, strategic imperatives, and in objectives on part of the Iranian revolutionary government.

Prior to the revolution, Israel viewed having close ties with Iran as being pragmatic given the geographical position of Israel, it's limited recognition abroad and it's tribulations with other regional states (mainly Arab ones). In accordance to this, Ben Gurion's created the concept of an "alliance of the periphery," of which non-Arab Iran was an essential component alongside Turkey. In Pahlavi-Iran's view, Israel was a natural and an important partner in the region. Ties strengthened till the early 70s and included secret military links as well. By the mid-70s they were already beginning to wane.

<snipped>

By the late 70s, the revolution was already nearing and the Pahlavis stance on Israel, and Israel's stance on the Palestinians, became a much exploited issue and provided further fuel for the revolution. The Palestinian struggle was reflected as Iran's own struggle and as being in the interests of Muslims at large. The stance of Israel's government became further inalienable with Zionism. After the revolution, Ayatollah Khomeini declared that Israel's government worked to counter Muslim interests. He said, "We argue amongst ourselves on the fold of our hands in prayers, while there are those that seek to cut them off." When the Islamic Republic became formalized, all official ties with Israel were cut. Some elements within the new republic are thought to have secretly kept ties with some Israeli contacts in the early years for they were deemed as a necessity. This is controversial though.

In other words, Israel as a political entity in the ME, was never a credible threat to Iran regarding inter-states relations. But the clerics, after the Islamic revolution, made Iran into Israel's enemy.

Thnx for the clarification.

 

[TechLahore]

In other words, Israel as a political entity in the ME, was never a credible threat to Iran regarding inter-states relations. But the clerics, after the Islamic revolution, made Iran into Israel's enemy.

Thnx for the clarification.

The truth is that the Iranian people always had a huge issue with the injustices Israel metes out to the Palestinians. The Shah, being a US ally, shaped a foreign policy which ran counter to the wishes of the Iranian people... and you saw what happened to him. Despite Carter's "Island of stability" characterization on the eve of the Shah's overthrow. When the Ayatollahs took over, they did give in to populist/democratic wishes and positioned Iran's foreign policy accordingly.

If you believe in democracy and also believe that governments should represent the will of their people, then you should not be surprised when every single muslim country stands against Israel. If you conduct a poll throughout the muslim world - including Iran - you will find that most people think that Israel is a brutal occupying power that is crushing the hopes and lives of millions of Palestinians.

I don't care whether you agree with these opinions or not, but please at least be intellectually honest and open your eyes to the fact that in the case of Iran it is not a question of the Iranian government being anti or pro Israel, but the Iranian people - and the populace of most muslim nations - recognizing Israel as an unjust occupier, tormentor of innocents and nothing short of an apartheid, terrorist state in every sense of those words.

You can disagree with 1.6 Billion people. But please don't blame the Iranian government for representing the democratic and popular wishes of the Iranian people in the matter of foreign policy.

 

[gambit]

The truth is that the Iranian people always had a huge issue with the injustices Israel metes out to the Palestinians. The Shah, being a US ally, shaped a foreign policy which ran counter to the wishes of the Iranian people... and you saw what happened to him. Despite Carter's "Island of stability" characterization on the eve of the Shah's overthrow. When the Ayatollahs took over, they did give in to populist/democratic wishes and positioned Iran's foreign policy accordingly.

If you believe in democracy and also believe that governments should represent the will of their people, then you should not be surprised when every single muslim country stands against Israel. If you conduct a poll throughout the muslim world - including Iran - you will find that most people think that Israel is a brutal occupying power that is crushing the hopes and lives of millions of Palestinians.

I don't care whether you agree with these opinions or not, but please at least be intellectually honest and open your eyes to the fact that in the case of Iran it is not a question of the Iranian government being anti or pro Israel, but the Iranian people - and the populace of most muslim nations - recognizing Israel as an unjust occupier, tormentor of innocents and nothing short of an apartheid, terrorist state in every sense of those words.

You can disagree with 1.6 Billion people. But please don't blame the Iranian government for representing the democratic and popular wishes of the Iranian people in the matter of foreign policy.

Fair enough. But a moral alliance is not the same as a geopolitical one. So if Iranians at large genuinely do feel an identification with the Palestinians and decide to turn that identification into an existential threat, one that compels Iranians to the belief that Iran must be a nuclear weapons state or else Iran will perish as a state, then Iran have no cause to blame Israel for any hostilities between the two states.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

Iran building Voltes V

 

[limp]

Just needs a mini gun.

 

[TechLahore]

Fair enough. But a moral alliance is not the same as a geopolitical one. So if Iranians at large genuinely do feel an identification with the Palestinians and decide to turn that identification into an existential threat, one that compels Iranians to the belief that Iran must be a nuclear weapons state or else Iran will perish as a state, then Iran have no cause to blame Israel for any hostilities between the two states.

Actually, Israel has shown that it will pre-emptively attack states and their interests even when those states are not posing a direct threat to Israel. It will violate the territorial sovereignty of friendly or neutral states to murder or abduct. Israel's compliance with any norm of international behaviour is non existent. And of course, a state as uncontrolled as Israel also poses an existential threat to many countries in the middle east. It introduced nuclear weapons to the region decades before Iran's eventual acquisition of the same capability. Iran, given its size, history, location, population and importance, is absolutely within its sovereign right to arm itself as it sees fit.

If Iran's exercise of sovereignty rubs Israel the wrong way, then too bad. You still can't transform this into "Iran's government made Iran into an existential threat for Israel". No, sir. Israel is merely being matched in a race it started itself...

Also, Iran has several potential enemies and unfortunately, US "interaction" with a variety of states over the past 65 years has shown that the US will willingly engage in military conflict with non-nuclear states, but will never attack a nuclear weapons state. When you put this in context, with the amount of "Bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran" being spewed in the media and from politician's mouths in the US, do you blame the Iranians for attempting to protect themselves? North Korea, which is far less powerful, is not being attacked on account of its 2 or 3 nuclear weapons. I am sure the Iranians want to buy themselves similar protection. Any logical government or country would.

I know you have your own perspective, but I think at the end of the day, it is quite difficult to argue for fundamentally undemocratic and apartheid like constructs such as the permanent members of the security council, the "nuclear club" and so on. Every country should have the right to fulfill its potential, and unfortunately, the nuclear weapons monkey on our collective back was let loose by none other than the US... I wish it hadn't happened, but despite Oppenheimer's poetic laments, it did. Now there is no use crying about other countries building for themselves what the US built for itself in the 40s, and what Israel was gifted in the late 60s and early 70s.

 

[Pasban]

In other words, Israel as a political entity in the ME, was never a credible threat to Iran regarding inter-states relations. But the clerics, after the Islamic revolution, made Iran into Israel's enemy.

Adopting a neutral standpoint, this is only partly truthful as it is quiet dismissive of the root causes or of later endeavors on part of the Israeli government. As such, it is unbalanced. You have conveniently under-valued the segment where I addressed the sentiments of the Iranian population on the issue, apart from the governmental stance. The change in relations with Israel was fueled by a readily-available populist notion to approve of it, otherwise it would not have developed so steadfastly-- the sentiment was present, the revolution only aligned itself with it. Also, you have similarly overlooked the part on the Israeli move into southern Lebanon, which, as I stated earlier, relegated Iran and Israel further on to a mutually-opposing footing.

Thnx for the clarification.

Your welcome sir -- though I do believe it was to little avail given the reply.

 

[gambit]

Adopting a neutral standpoint, this is only partly truthful as it is quiet dismissive of the root causes or of later endeavors on part of the Israeli government. As such, it is unbalanced. You have conveniently under-valued the segment where I addressed the sentiments of the Iranian population on the issue, apart from the governmental stance. The change in relations with Israel was fueled by a readily-available populist notion to approve of it, otherwise it would not have developed so steadfastly-- the sentiment was present, the revolution only aligned itself with it. Also, you have similarly overlooked the part on the Israeli move into southern Lebanon, which, as I stated earlier, relegated Iran and Israel further on to a mutually-opposing footing.

Not at all. I am saying that if there is a moral alliance with the Palestinians regarding their conflict with the Israelis, that alliance does not translate to any sort of existential threat against the Iranian nation and its political status among peers, meaning Iran as a political entity and member of the UN, was never threatened in any way. If there is a populist sentiment among Iranians, and am willing to grant that it exist, then Iran should be honest enough to admit that Iran is willing to go to war against Israel, NOT because Israel poses any sort of threat, but because Iran chose to adopt the Palestinian cause as its own. Of course, that populist sentiment must have a centralized authority to express and act upon what it want -- war.

But then again, it is somewhat amusing that on the one hand, I see arguments asserting how obedient the Iranian government is to the will of the people, on the other hand I see the Iranian government defy the same people when they demanded a change in leadership. Guess Neda Agha-Soltan was truly killed by a CIA bullet, eh?

Your welcome sir -- though I do believe it was to little avail given the reply.

The clarification was quite helpful, not just to me but to the silent majority, that Israel was never a threat to Iran.

 

[Pasban]

If there is a populist sentiment among Iranians, and am willing to grant that it exist, then Iran should be honest enough to admit that Iran is willing to go to war against Israel, NOT because Israel poses any sort of threat, but because Iran chose to adopt the Palestinian cause as its own.

It depends on the time frame one is referring to. In present times the case can be argued quiet differently for at the moment the Iran does see itself threatened indirectly (through allies, proxies, politics and etc) as well as directly (militarily) by the Israeli government. The same situation is mirrored upon Iran in Israel as well-- mutual resentment and distrust on account of both leaderships and both with sensitivities amongst its populace. The Palestinian cause, however, is no doubt the initiating root factor.

Of course, that populist sentiment must have a centralized authority to express and act upon what it want -- war.

But then again, it is somewhat amusing that on the one hand, I see arguments asserting how obedient the Iranian government is to the will of the people, on the other hand I see the Iranian government defy the same people when they demanded a change in leadership. Guess Neda Agha-Soltan was truly killed by a CIA bullet, eh?

Iran, like any other state, is full of contradictions of its own-- the government of Iran is no exception to the rule. Our government also speaks of on behalf of the rights of other peoples whereas you would see the curtailment of many within Iran. I will say though, for a foreign observer not well versed in the politics of Iran or even for a commoner Iranian, the internal makeup and intrigues of Iran are too bewildering to comprehend for for even logical groupings fail in conclusion i.e I simply do not know how to make you more aware of our national complexities. As to those demanding change in leadership, debate of this is endless and bases itself upon basically upon whom you speak to-- same with the Neda story. Personally from my observance within Iran, I feel a larger segment within Iran demands reform than a complete overt change of structure. My own views on how the governance should be however would not be accepted by either regime friendlies or its mortal enemies.

The clarification was quite helpful, not just to me but to the silent majority, that Israel was never a threat to Iran.

I intended to be brief and wanted to put it out being as impartial as I could leaving the opinion bit for you. As to the underlined bit, others would bring points to counter it, the best of which would be plausible at best (hence no clear end result) and you would have to debate it always depending which forum you are on.

TC

 

[Pasban]

Below is a video of the said humanoid robot. It doesn't site many details about the program or about the robot itself (in terms of technical detailing) but thus far it is the only video which I have found of Sourena-2.

 

[gambit]

It depends on the time frame one is referring to. In present times the case can be argued quiet differently for at the moment the Iran does see itself threatened indirectly (through allies, proxies, politics and etc) as well as directly (militarily) by the Israeli government. The same situation is mirrored upon Iran in Israel as well-- mutual resentment and distrust on account of both leaderships and both with sensitivities amongst its populace. The Palestinian cause, however, is no doubt the initiating root factor.

And it is that initiating root factor that should be presented to the interested readers. I have argued before that history is a chain of causes, effects and consequences. Nothing is uncaused. Even Saddam Hussein had to create a causus belli before he invaded Kuwait. So while yes, that we can take any point in this Israel-Iran hostility chain and point out how Iran perceive itself to be a 'victim' of Israeli 'aggression', intellectual honesty and interested readers demand that we should regress as far back in history as possible to search for each causus belli from Iran and Israel. In doing so, we see that at one point in history, Iran and Israel had at least a diplomatically cordial relationship until a theocracy came to power in Iran.

Iran, like any other state, is full of contradictions of its own-- the government of Iran is no exception to the rule. Our government also speaks of on behalf of the rights of other peoples whereas you would see the curtailment of many within Iran. I will say though, for a foreign observer not well versed in the politics of Iran or even for a commoner Iranian, the internal makeup and intrigues of Iran are too bewildering to comprehend for for even logical groupings fail in conclusion i.e I simply do not know how to make you more aware of our national complexities. As to those demanding change in leadership, debate of this is endless and bases itself upon basically upon whom you speak to-- same with the Neda story. Personally from my observance within Iran, I feel a larger segment within Iran demands reform than a complete overt change of structure. My own views on how the governance should be however would not be accepted by either regime friendlies or its mortal enemies.

Reforms are usually considered threats by the existing institution. That said, when there is violence to suppress demands for reforms, an observer cannot help but wonder about the degree of reforms demanded by the people that warranted such a harsh response.