Iran's concern over Taliban threat

[Muji.Iqbal]

I know everything about sunni islam but did you know anything about shia islam?

Iran was a sunni majority country in past but we don't think suuni islam is better than shia islam.

Also we don't speak about religion sects we speak about enemies of all muslims and puppet of western colonial powers.


Saudi Arabian dictators are worst government in modern history of islamic countries .

They create wahhabie islam, betrayed other Muslim countries and helped colonial powers in every direction.

Fall of their dictatorship in future it will be best thing in century for islam

Shias follow the Jafari school of thought or the 12er Imamiyah thing.

Wahabbis are Salafis, you little igonorant one.

 

[Mehdipersian]

Shias follow the Jafari school of thought or the 12er Imamiyah thing.

Wahabbis are Salafis, you little igonorant one.

So?!

 

[Hack-Hook]

As underscored, the Leader appoints liberals as well - not because they are aligned with his views (the opposite holds true), but because if he doesn't they will portray him as a "dictator" and they exert too much influence within the system.

Rohani and Shamkhani for instance were appointed by the Leader to various positions, including as his personal representatives or advisers. Are Rohani and Shamkhani principlists?

"Jomhurie Eslami" is not a principlist paper, what it does is to oppose principlist and revolutionary administrations.

Last but not least, this has next to no bearing on the points at hand.

What you are arguing
Jomhurieh-eslami never considered liberal
Period

In this article they pointed a valid concern
The number of Afghans in Iran capital is dangerously high specially as many of them are illegals ND government do nothing about them

 

[SalarHaqq]

What you are arguing
Jomhurieh-eslami never considered liberal
Period

This has been the newspaper's stance towards principlist and like-minded administrations:

در دوران احمدی نژاد و دوران رئیسی این روزنامه مکررا سرمقاله های انتقادی نسبت به سیاست های دولت، به قلم مدیر مسئول نوشته است.

So it's not pro-principlist.

In this article they pointed a valid concern
The number of Afghans in Iran capital is dangerously high specially as many of them are illegals ND government do nothing about them

Here's the issue: liberals who think Iranian civilization is "inferior" to Jewish and western culture, and that Iranian nationalism equals supremacist racism - statements from leading reformist public figure Zibakalam, suddenly turn super-nationalist when it comes to Afghan immigrants. Strangely self-contradicting.

That's because what they aim for, is mass-immigration from other continents and regions seeing how they dream of a dilution of Iranian culture into a global mishmash. Whereas Afghans are culturally quasi identical to Iranians and moreover, they tend to be highly religious individuals, thus their presence will reverse the societal-cultural liberalization and relative decline of religiosity among specific strata of Iranian society experienced in recent decades.

Moreover, immigration into Iran has been made inevitable due precisely to the liberal-sponsored, extreme denatalist policies that were inaugurated by the Hashemi administration and then pursued by Khatami's and Rohani's cabinets. These policies have now resulted in a below-generational-replacement fertility rate and an inverted age pyramid i.e. too many old and too few young people, a recipe for disaster including from the economic point of view.

Reformists and moderates killed natality in Iran and western-style, uncontrolled mass immigration from far away places would seal the fate of Iranian civilization and thereby conform to the globalist ideology of those same liberals. However, as so often things did not turn out according to globalist plots, seeing how young migrants settling in Islamic Iran are for the most part deeply religious, practicing Moslems and moreover they hail from the Iranian civilizational realm, so this type of immigration is not conducive enough to the globalist agenda.

 

[Muhammed45]

What you are arguing
Jomhurieh-eslami never considered liberal
Period

In this article they pointed a valid concern
The number of Afghans in Iran capital is dangerously high specially as many of them are illegals ND government do nothing about them

Jomhuriye Eslami Paper is worse than liberals. They are damn hypocrites.

 

[Communism]

This has been the newspaper's stance towards principlist and like-minded administrations:



So it's not pro-principlist.



Here's the issue: liberals who think Iranian civilization is "inferior" to Jewish and western culture, and that Iranian nationalism equals supremacist racism - statements from leading reformist public figure Zibakalam, suddenly turn super-nationalist when it comes to Afghan immigrants. Strangely self-contradicting.

That's because what they aim for, is mass-immigration from other continents and regions seeing how they dream of a dilution of Iranian culture into a global mishmash. Whereas Afghans are culturally quasi identical to Iranians and moreover, they tend to be highly religious individuals, thus their presence will reverse the societal-cultural liberalization and relative decline of religiosity among specific strata of Iranian society experienced in recent decades.

Moreover, immigration into Iran has been made inevitable due precisely to the liberal-sponsored, extreme denatalist policies that were inaugurated by the Hashemi administration and then pursued by Khatami's and Rohani's cabinets. These policies have now resulted in a below-generational-replacement fertility rate and an inverted age pyramid i.e. too many old and too few young people, a recipe for disaster including from the economic point of view.

Reformists and moderates killed natality in Iran and western-style, uncontrolled mass immigration from far away places would seal the fate of Iranian civilization and thereby conform to the globalist ideology of those same liberals. However, as so often things did not turn out according to globalist plots, seeing how young migrants settling in Islamic Iran are for the most part deeply religious, practicing Moslems and moreover they hail from the Iranian civilizational realm, so this type of immigration is not conducive enough to the globalist agenda.

Iran is extremely overpopulated already.


A Pariah state that has to import food and water is just asking to collapse.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Iran is extremely overpopulated already.


A Pariah state that has to import food and water is just asking to collapse.

This is actually incorrect. As per serious studies conducted by non-biased environmental experts, Islamic Iran has enough natural resources to sustain several times the current population. Degree of self-sufficiency in agricultural products is comparatively high.

Also this is not about increasing in a substantial manner but about maintaining population levels i.e. ensuring generational renewal. The Iranian fertility rate stands at 1,6 in other terms far below the generational renewal threshold of 2,1. If this is not addressed then tremendous issues will ensue including unbearable stress on the economy.

There only exist two ways of fixing this: successful natalist policies - mission impossible after a certain while, if the experience of developed nations from Europe to south Korea is an indicator, and for Iran the time window has closed already or is in the process of closing; or mass immigration of young foreign citizens.

As for the designation "pariah state", it may considered appropriate from the perspective of the imperialist USA regime, perspective you obviously subscribe to, however independent minded people the world over tend to hold widely different views of Iran.

 

[Communism]

This is actually incorrect. As per serious studies conducted by non-biased environmental experts, Islamic Iran has enough natural resources to sustain several times the current population.

Also this is not about increasing in a substantial manner but about maintaining population levels i.e. ensuring generational renewal. The Iranian fertility rate stands at 1,6 i.e. far below generational renewal threshold. If this is not addressed then tremendous issues will ensue including unbearable stress on the economy.

As for the designation "pariah state", it may considered appropriate from the perspective of the imperialist USA regime, perspective you obviously subscribe to, however independent minded people the world over tend to hold widely different views of Iran.

My response was on a purely practical matter.


Not being able to sustain the population without imports is a huge weakness for a state that is very vulnerable to U.S. interference, such as a blockade.


If you want to be like Egypt and be a complete slave to the West due to its massive overpopulation, then be my guest.


The current situation in Pakistan, where the Pakistani Military Establishment had to cave to U.S. demands was due to a similar reason.


If Pakistan had implemented serious population controls a decade or more ago, it wouldn't be sending weapons/ammo to Ukraine just to get an IMF bailout.

 

[SalarHaqq]

y response was on a purely practical matter.


Not being able to sustain the population without imports is a huge weakness for a state that is very vulnerable to U.S. interference, such as a blockade.


If you want to be like Egypt and be a complete slave to the West due to its massive overpopulation, then be my guest.

Where are you getting the notion from that Iran is dependent on food imports?

Iran self-sufficient in wheat production: Minister​

Iranian agricultural minister Mohammad Ali Nikbakht has said that the country has become self-sufficient in production of wheat and does not need it import the staple grain in the coming year.

13 September 2023

https://en.otaghiranonline.ir/news/44997

Also should the currently moderate share of imports increase, then you can be sure Iran won't be turning towards the west to meet her demand. Already, Iran has secured arable land she's leasing in Bashkortostan, which is part of the Russian Federation (which NATO can't blockade either, given that Iran and Russia have a maritime border at the Caspian Sea).

There's a thread dedicated to Iran's food security in this section of the forum, you can have a look at it for more information.

 

[Communism]

Where are you getting the notion from that Iran is dependent on food imports?

Iran self-sufficient in wheat production: Minister​

Iranian agricultural minister Mohammad Ali Nikbakht has said that the country has become self-sufficient in production of wheat and does not need it import the staple grain in the coming year.

13 September 2023

https://en.otaghiranonline.ir/news/44997

Also should the currently moderate share of imports increase, then you can be sure Iran won't be turning towards the west to meet her demand. Already, Iran has secured arable land she's leasing in Bashkortostan, which is part of the Russian Federation (which NATO can't blockade either, given that Iran and Russia have a maritime border at the Caspian Sea).

There's a thread dedicated to Iran's food security in this section of the forum, you can have a look at it for more information.

Let's put a scenario together of what the U.S. can (relatively easily) do to contain Iran.


1: Naval blockade.


2: Cut off Iran's trade with Russia through ordering the U.S. puppets in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey to stop it.


3: Retaking Afghanistan with ISIS-K through providing air support in a similar operation to what took out Ghaddafi in Libya.


4: Stopping the flow of water from Afghanistan to Iran.


Checkmate.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Let's put a scenario together of what the U.S. can (relatively easily) do to contain Iran.


1: Naval blockade.

A naval blockade, especially if it covers food imports, is an act of war. You don't think Iran will sit still in such an event, do you?

2: Cut off Iran's trade with Russia through ordering the U.S. puppets in Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey to stop it.

Read again. Iran and Russia share a direct common border.

3: Retaking Afghanistan with ISIS-K through providing air support in a similar operation to what took out Ghaddafi in Libya.

The USA regime cannot openly associate with "I"SIS. Backing can only be covert, which excludes this level of air support.

4: Stopping the flow of water from Afghanistan to Iran

You haven't been following the news it seems, that flow has stopped for quite a while, hence Iran's protests to Afghan authorities.

Iran as a whole never depended on water supply from the Helmand river, the consequences have been limited to bottlenecks for some local farmers in one or two close-by Iranian provinces. Moreover the issue is in the process of being fixed thanks to the construction of desalination plants on the Makran coast, the first of which has already been completed and is sending water to the affected areas.

 

[Communism]

A naval blockade, especially if it covers food imports, is an act of war. You don't think Iran will sit still in such an event, do you?



Read again. Iran and Russia share a direct common border.



The USA regime cannot openly associate with "I"SIS. Backing can only be covert, which excludes this level of air support.



You haven't been following the news it seems, that flow has stopped for quite a while, hence Iran's protests to Afghan authorities.

Iran as a whole never depended on water supply from the Helmand river, the consequences have been limited to bottlenecks for some local farmers in one or two close-by Iranian provinces. Moreover the issue is in the process of being fixed thanks to the construction of desalination plants on the Makran coast, the first of which has already been completed and is sending water to the affected areas.

International laws only apply to vassals.


The U.S. does not need to follow any of them.


This means the U.S. can simply blockade the Caspian as well.


The U.S. population can be convinced to support nearly anything.


The "moderate rebels" that took out Ghaddafi in Libya were not so different from ISIS-K.


The reason why Iran was not attacked was due to the U.S. focusing on China, not due to Iran being impossible to crack.

 

[SalarHaqq]

International laws only apply to vassals.


The U.S. does not need to follow any of them.

You misunderstood: Iran follows international law. Meaning that to an act of war, an existentially perilous one at that, Iran will retaliate with force.

This means the U.S. can simply blockade the Caspian as well.

Errr... have you looked at the map of the Caspian? Is the USA going to parachute its navy onto those waters?

Moreover, littoral states signed a treaty by which they agree to bar access to the Caspian Sea to military vessels of third parties.

Last but not least, to blockade the Iranian-Russian border on the Caspian, Washington would have to successfully war wage on Russia first.

The U.S. population can be convinced to support nearly anything.

It's a tad more complicated than that. Persuasion operations require certain conditions to be met, in this case they aren't.

For instance, the USA establishment needed the 9/11 attacks to convince the American public that Afghanistan and Iraq had to be invaded. Remember Rumsfeld's statement that a "second Pearl Harbor" would have to take place for the neocons to be able to put into practice their plans?

The "moderate rebels" that took out Ghaddafi in Libya were not so different from ISIS-K.

They have no equivalent in Afghanistan.

The reason why Iran was not attacked was due to the U.S. focusing on China, not due to Iran being impossible to crack.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been challenging USA regime interests for 44 long years in a row, long before Washington turned its attention to China. Regional countries were invaded and destroyed for far less than what Iran achieved versus the USA.

The logical conclusion is that lack of military aggression against Iran is due to Iran's capability to inflict a serious enough cost to the attacking American regime.

 

[Communism]

You misunderstood: Iran follows international law. Meaning that to an act of war, an existentially perilous one at that, Iran will retaliate with force.



Errr... have you looked at the map of the Caspian? Is the USA going to parachute its navy onto those waters?

Moreover, littoral states signed a treaty by which they agree to bar access to the Caspian Sea to military vessels of third parties.

Last but not least, to blockade the Iranian-Russian border on the Caspian, Washington would have to successfully war wage on Russia first.



It's a tad more complicated than that. Persuasion operations require certain conditions to be met, in this case they aren't.



They have no equivalent in Afghanistan.



The Islamic Republic of Iran has been challenging USA regime interests for 44 long years in a row, long before Washington turned its attention to China. Regional countries were invaded and destroyed for far less than what Iran achieved versus the USA.

The logical conclusion is that lack of military aggression against Iran is due to Iran's capability to inflict a serious enough cost to the attacking American regime.

The U.S. needs to save up it's forces for the war with China.


This is why the U.S. is making sure not to deplete its arsenal in Ukraine.


The U.S. shift to focusing on China started in the late Bush and early Obama administrations.


Iraq and Afghanistan were not in a sufficiently good place yet by then to make a major move on Iran.


Iran was obviously one of the next countries on the chopping block had that shift in focus not happened.

 

[SalarHaqq]

The U.S. needs to save up it's forces for the war with China.


This is why the U.S. is making sure not to deplete its arsenal in Ukraine.


The U.S. shift to focusing on China started in the late Bush and early Obama administrations.

The Iranian Revolution happened in 1979. The late Bush era corresponds to the late 2000's. There's nearly thirty years in between.

Iraq and Afghanistan were not in a sufficiently good place yet by then to make a major move on Iran.

Not least because of Iran making sure American occupation forces will have a rather hard time in those countries.

Iran was obviously one of the next countries on the chopping block had that shift in focus not happened.

Besides the fact that, as pointed out above, at least some three decades passed between the Islamic Revolution that saw Iran engage in an principled anti-imperialist policy and the USA's strategic shift towards containing China, all this means is that Washington does not have a military option against Iran. The USA regime always has other concerns in addition to Iran, so that isn't really a valid contention.