HESA is result of that , what's the result of Russia cooperation with Iran ?
The HESA we know is a result of the Islamic Republic's focus on self-sufficiency. There was none of that under the shah regime, and none of it would have been thinkable under the political conditions prevailing at the time.
Also see, here you are crediting the US regime for Islamic Iran's achievements.
I'm baffled why you worship Russia so much? isn't revolution slogan is "no to West, no to East , only Islamic Revolution "
No such thing on my part, I'm simply busy undercutting certain talking points against a strategic partner of Iran, talking points originating from quarters that long for a return to the pre-revolutionary status of subjugation to the west and the zionists.
"East" in the slogan "neither East nor West" was referencing the Soviet empire. It ceased to exist, and so will the US empire by God's grace.
Actually, Hezbollahis have always been the ones championing independence, including vis à vis Iran's strategic partners. Liberals however openly question the very concepts of independence and sovereignty, they gladly embrace vassalage, dissolution into the "universal community" and globalism.
you call me western apologist ,
The statement wasn't directed at you personally.
because i say instead of outdated Russians equipment we must to invest the money in our country in semi conductor field , and Metallurgy field so we can produce our equipment , and here what you promote is no we must not do that , we must go and hand over it to Russia and buy some monkey version of their outdated equipment .
Not at all. My problem isn't with this argument of yours. This should be apparent from the statements I quoted. The day you see me advocate the import of equipment from Russia
rather than production of domestically developed material at home, you'll be most welcome to level this kind of accusation against me.
What I have an issue with are implicit or indirect suggestions that Iran was better off as a downtrodden vassal of north American and zionist oppressors in comparison to her present day status, namely that of a fiercely independent nation benefiting from accessory partnerships with fellow adversaries of the empire, irregardless of the latters' level of assistance.
Why not simply remind that Iran's focus should remain on autonomous weapons development, and leave it at that? Why insinuate that Russia compares unfavorably to the US as far as their relations with pre- or post-Revolution Iran are concerned? Why applaud western propaganda about Russian weapons systems being massively inferior to western ones?
From a patriotic or revolutionary perspective, there's something wrong about narratives that bash Russia and China instead of Iran's actual existential enemy ie the USA regime. Unlike China and Russia, Washington is working around the clock to bring about Iran's definitive demise, whereas Moscow and Beijing happen to be partners to Iran, be they of minor relevance, of questionable reliability and of deep imperfection. By the way, someone in Iran should point Beijing and Moscow to all the trash talk Saudi International is spewing against them in Farsi.
Also, I should add that the reason I welcome strategic cooperation between Iran and Russia is merely because we share a common rabid enemy. It's simply a matter of strategic interests, that's it. Liberal and other western-apologetic Iranians however are ideologically attracted by the west, they view the western political order (secular liberal "democracy") as the only legitimate one and are desperate to implement it in Iran. Same goes for western "lifestyles" they are admiring of. That's yet another key difference between us and them.
which weapon transfer and what successful operation ? all the weapon we got from Russia was out dated watered down version that our technician had to fix and any think we didn't fix bit us back (Like Tor Fiasco) and last time checked Syria is still three part and Russia don't care at all because Latakia is safe
Multiple weapons systems or know-how obtained from Russia are of excellent quality. The T-72S MBT is an example, another is the Krasnopol laser-guided artillery round or at least samples thereof based upon which Iran is producing its own variant (Washington sanctioned a Russian firm for this), yet other examples include the Kilo submarines, AK-103 assault rifles, RPG-29's, RPO-A's, MRO-A's, and so on and so forth. The Tor-M1 is also a top of the line AD system and examples received by Iran had not been sabotaged by Russia.
If all of these proved to be such terribly catastrophic experiences, why was Iran willing to go for a repeat after the first couple of instances?
Let's put this straight:
* Does Iran owe her current military prowess to Russia? No, domestic efforts have been the single most important factor in this regard.
* Is Russia an enemy? Has it never sold Iran anything of worth? Wrong, they are a strategic partner and weapons systems they supplied Iran with have played their part, as modest as it may be, in boosting Iran's military power.
Systematic and organized blackening of Russia, characteristic of the western-apologetic reformist and moderate factions in Iran as well as of the US-backed opposition in exile is therefore decidedly disproportional and uncalled for. The agenda underlying these efforts should be plain obvious as well, I frankly don't know how there can be doubts about this.
what Mosaddeq must have learned , he didn't learn if he looked at history he had seen that at the time of WW2 when Russia and England attacked Iran when we announced neutrality , Iran government wrote a later to USA and asked for help and the answer they received was "to protect some freedom some sacrifice must be made"
its a lesson from history Mosaddeq failed to learn and it seems you also don't want to learn
you must rely on yourself , nobody will help you at the time of your need ,rely on yourself, stand on your foot.
some history lesson for you.
I didn't claim Mossadegh was right to speculate that the US might help. But that Mossadegh shouldn't have extrapolated on whatever constructive behaviour he thought the US had shown in the past, nor should he have consider such past behaviour by Washington as a rule of thumb applicable to every period of history.
at the time of WW1 Iran was neutral but get attacked ,who came to our help ?
at the time of WW2 Iran was neutral but get attacked ,who came to our help ?
when USA and England made a coupe against our elected government who came to our help ?
after the revolution when Iraq with the backing of..... (I'm sure you are well aware of the complete list) attacked us who came to our help ?
in UN when they voted against us based on fake evidence (which are not presented to anyone till this day only one member said we get our hand on a laptop that belong to an Iran official that shows Iran is making nuke and we can't show it to you) did, Russia , China , France , England or USA or any other member said WTH, stop this circus?
that's lessons from history for you , what you learn from them is up to you
As said, I am not trying to argue against self-reliance nor to suggest Iran should expect or count on decisive outside help during a major crisis situation. My point was rather that previous Russian regimes having been hostile towards Iran does not imply the same is holding true today.
