Sadr or no Sadr, Iran is not going anywhere

[Saddam Hussein]

Why do you wanna nuke a fellow muslim country?

To bring Sunnism

 

[Abid123]

To bring Sunnism

Sunni or Shia. We are all brothers. A real muslim does not divide on Shia/Sunni.

 

[Maula Jatt]

Sunni or Shia. We are all brothers. A real muslim does not divide on Shia/Sunni.

takfirism

 

[Falcon29]

After every Iraqi election first they say Iran is out, and then after two month or so exactly such articles appear with exactly the same content

Where? Show me examples. How is it different from Iran every week saying Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia are collapsing?

 

[Saddam Hussein]

Where? Show me examples. How is it different from Iran every week saying Israel, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia are collapsing?

Iraq's Shia love Iran too much, it's the only reason the Persians are able to spread their shit all over Iraq. Without our Shias granting them this ability it would not be happening.

Shroog ruling the country.

We know. You only care about your dead retarded goat ****er from Tikrit!

 

[QWECXZ]

If Saddam comes back from the dead, he should know who the real enemy is. If he is not stupid, he will support the unity of Islamic countries and the formation of the Islamic Economic Cooperation Organization. Similar to the European Union, ASEAN, the African Union. Unite against foreign invasion. There wouldn't be so many refugees in the Islamic world today.
View attachment 810383
France and Germany learned the lessons of the war and established the European Union. Why can't Islamic countries build economic alliances?

Dude, don't be misled by him. Saddam was a joke that was played by the West and even himself realized it right after the war.
Khomeini rightly predicted during the war that Saddam would be removed by the Westerners after he had finished doing their dirty works.

Unlike what these so called Pan Arab clowns in Iraq claim, Saddam himself had turned into the biggest a$$ kisser of Iran when he realized he was played by the Westerners and they had fooled him. The only winners of the Iraq-Iran war were the Westerners and Israel.

Right after the Iraq-Iran war, all their Arab "allies" asked Iraq to pay them back for their financial and military support during the war. Saddam didn't expect it because to him, they were all allies against "the Persians" for a new Qadisiyyah. Their Arab brothers also kept oil output high to prevent Iraq from recovering its annihilated economy after the war. At the end of the war with Iran, Iraq was the world's most in debt country in the world. People were suffering from the consequences of the war even before the US sanctions strangled them. That's when Saddam made his second stupidity: going against Arab Sheikdoms. You can't expect to be left alone when you have made two stupid disastrous mistakes in a row.

Before he attacks Kuwait (because he believed they were stealing money from Iraq), he asked Iran for peace and alliance against Kuwait, which was turned down by the Iranian leadership for obvious reasons.

After the US coalition attacked Iraq to liberate Kuwait, Iraqi jet fighters fled to Iran. Do you know why? Because even Saddam knew that Iran was the only country that was not under the control of the US. He later asked us to return those jet fighters, only to get rejected by the Iranian leadership for a second time. Where do you think we obtained our Mirage, Sukhoi and Mikoyan jet fighters from? We have never purchased jet fighters from France or Russia, not until today at least.

When his time came up and the Westerners wanted to throw him away like a used toilet paper, he again turned to Iran to help him fight against the evil Americans. Again, Iran, filled with joy because they were going to remove his loser a$$ and the Americans were entering a long-lasting trap, refused to do anything for Iraq and supported the US invasion of Iraq. Again, Iraqi pilots who wanted to escape found nowhere safer than Iran.

What happened after that? Nothing. History ran its natural course. Iran hosted a large population of Iraqi diaspora during Saddam's dictatorship. Today, most politicians and religious figures in Iraq that are in power, have lived in Iran or have been educated in Iran. This includes even Kurdish political figures like the Barzanis. It was only natural and predictable that Iran would gain tremendous soft power in Iraq after Saddam's removal. After all, read about all important religious figures in today's Iraq. Most of them are either of Iranian origin like Grand Ayatollah Sistani, or have familial links to Iran like al-Sadr (whose cousin Musa Al-Sadr is half-Iranian), or have spent most of their life in exile during Saddam in Iran and have studied here in Iran. Iraq is now ruled by people who are linked to Iran by birth, origin, family or religious studies and it's only natural that they are pro-Iran. It's not something that we imposed on them.

 

[Falcon29]

If not for Iran, Syria Iraq hell the whole Levant region would've been over run by salafi lunatics imposing their cut throat barbaric interpretation. People who argue that without Iranian intervention that region would've been a bed of roses are either fools or fooling others.

Syrian regime was losing to Syrian rebels, until Russian intervention. Has nothing to do with Iran. Same with Iraq. It's due to US-led coalition and Russian intervention. Iran couldn't change anything. It's made deal with the devil to retain influence in both these nations. While at same time chanting death to USA. It worked with USA in Afghanistan against Taliban too.

Assad regime and Iran militias are just as lunatics as those Salafi lunatics you talk about. Neither are acceptable. And then you also need to learn about Islam. Because it's not what Muslims following today. Muslims today wanting to live free and cool lifestyle. So, don't rush to dismiss everything as 'blah blah interpretation'. If you believe in God then you implement Islam by putting God fearing people in positions of influence(media, government, clergy, pop culture, military). There is no way whatever we have today is as a result of God fearing people. Simply put people not interested in God at this time. But, don't go around as a result and suggest whatever we have is representative of Islam. It's not.

Iraq's Shia love Iran too much, it's the only reason the Persians are able to spread their shit all over Iraq. Without our Shias granting them this ability it would not be happening.

Religious brainwashing. Iranian non-religious people spreading religious dogma to others in region to advance their interests. Same way Saudi non-religious regime was pushing religion in other areas.

 

[SalarHaqq]

Where do you think we obtained our Mirage, Sukhoi and Mikoyan jet fighters from? We have never purchased jet fighters from France or Russia, not until today at least.

From the west Iran never received any fighter jets after the 1979 Revolution, naturally, but from Russia some Mig-29 and Su-24 were purchased in 1991 - of course in token numbers, compared to the usual order volumes of neighboring states, since Iran's defence doctrine does not focus on the air force and more importantly, Iran believes in self-sufficiency, not dependence on any foreign power, be it a non-western even.

Again, Iran, filled with joy because they were going to remove his loser a$$ and the Americans were entering a long-lasting trap, refused to do anything for Iraq and supported the US invasion of Iraq. Again, Iraqi pilots who wanted to escape found nowhere safer than Iran.

Iran may not have assisted Saddam against invading US forces, but Iran most definitely did *not* lend the slightest support to the Americans either. Militarily, Iran refrained from intervening in that war in any way, shape or form. Whereas on the diplomatic front, Iran condemned the illegal US invasion in the strongest possible terms, and was actually the only country in the region brave enough to do so. PGCC regimes directly collaborated with the American assault, since it was bases they host on their territory that US forces bombed and then entered Iraq from. Turkey did express criticism and refused to allow Washington to use the Incirlik air base, but only Iran condemned America's illegal invasion in harsh terms.

Remember, Iran had been placed by US president George W. Bush on his so-called "axis of evil" along with Iraq, and just one year later, the latter was attacked... "Real men go to Tehran" was the motto of G.I.'s storming Iraq, and this is the sort of material that was coming out of America:

The Bush jr. regime had plainly rejected liberal president Khatami's attempts at scaling down tensions with the west, and the two sides were practically on war footing in March of 2003.

Iran then played it right and made sure Iraq would become the trap it was likely to turn into for the Americans. Namely by backing Iraqi Resistance factions that eliminated hundreds if not thousands of US occupation forces.

You might also want to note that during the Clinton years, when Iraq had been sanctioned into oblivion, with a total of 1.5 million Iraqis killed as a consequence of the embargo, including no less than 500.000 children, which former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright openly described as an "acceptable" price to pay, the Islamic Republic of Iran not only condemned the US-orchestrated, United Nations-imposed sanction regime imposed on Iraq, but also concretely assisted the Iraqis by helping them bypass these sanctions, so as to relieve the the Iraqi people from some of the pressure they had been subjected to.

Here's Supreme Leader seyyed Khamenei blasting the sanctions on Iraq, and former director of Iraq's Central Bank, Assam Al-Mulla Huwaysh revealing how Iran was helping Saddam's Iraq during the height of the sanctions period (1991-2003):

The scale of the crimes committed by the US regime against the people of Iraq is unprecedented and will likely remain so forever.

All your other points are correct including about Saddam's political foolishness, which the west constantly and unscrupulously took advantage from.

- - - - -

The record also needs be set straight with regards to some misinformation repeated elsewhere in this thread, concerning Iran's cooperation with other powers during her interventions in various theaters of conflict:

- In Syria, Iran single-handedly managed to prevent the insurgency from achieving its objective, that is to topple the government of President Al-Assad. It is largely thanks to Iran that the rebellion failed to take the inner city and administrative districts of Damascus as well as the entirety of Aleppo.

And let's not obfuscate that Iran achieved this feat, more than a thousand kilometers away in a country she shares no borders with, on a shoestring budget and with minimal casualties (some 2000 Iranians were martyred in the conflict), against terrorist armies that were enjoying all manner of support from some 80 countries around the world, including western regimes and their allies in West Asia - arms, logistics, intelligence, training and direct commandment by NATO officers based in Jordan and Turkey, tens of thousands of recruits from abroad etc. It would have been technically feasible for Iran to dispatch several hundreds of thousands of volunteer forces and even the Iranian Air Force to Syria, however this would have represented a political escalation which the opposing side would have met by a counter-escalation, and moreover, Iran being subjected to the most extensive US sanctions, allocating additional funds to saving her Syrian ally would have insurmountable economic hardship and provoked domestic backlash. So Iran did with just a couple thousand military advisers of her own as well as allied forces from Iraq and elsewhere.

This level of involvement by Iran was thus enough to neutralize the US-, zionist-, EU- and PGCC-backed "regime change" project in Syria. But not to drive the insurgents back from territories they had snatched. It is to this effect that Russia joined forces with Iran. Note that Russia, which since the fall of the Soviet Union no longer constitutes a force of evil, could not afford the cost of carrying this out alone either. It is clearly the combination of Russian air power and Iranian-led infantry which ensured the Syrian government's success, both sides' contribution was equally instrumental.

- In Afghanistan, as soon as the Taleban evolved enough to be able to find common ground with Iran, Tehran began backing them against US occupiers. Including militarily. Iran had many issues with the US-installed regime in Kabul, many of which were not often publicized, especially after Ashraf Ghani was put in charge of the presidency. The Americans used fake Afghan immigrants to Iran as spies, flew their RQ-170 and other reconnaissance drones from bases in Afghanistan to conduct missions over Iran, and towards the end of his rule, Ghani threatened to curtail the flow river Helmand into Iran, a policy which the Taleban reversed.

Since the Taleban take over in 2021, Afghanistan has experienced more friction with Pakistan than with Iran, relatively speaking. Apart from a minor, inconsequential, non-lethal incident that was solely due to the inexperience of Taleban border guards newly deployed to their country's western borders, Tehran-Kabul relations have been going very smoothly. Iran is hosting conferences on Afghanistan, the Taleban foreign minister visited Iran for talks with the Afghan opposition a couple of weeks ago. At the same time, there have been multiple reports about a certain ambiguity on the part of the Taleban when it comes to the terrorist activity in Waziristan carried out by Tehrike Taliban Pakistan (TTP) or so-called "Pakistani Taliban".

https://www.mei.edu/publications/iranian-support-taliban-alarms-afghan-officials

Death of Mullah Mansoor highlights Taliban's links with Iran

Shia state and hardline Sunni group have proved themselves willing to cooperate despite deep ideological antipathy

www.theguardian.com

https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/08/18/why-iran-will-welcome-the-taliban-takeover-in-afghanistan

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/iransource/iran-taliban-growing-ties-whats-different-this-time

- As for the suggestion that it was Iran which "asked" the US to intervene in Iraq against "I"SIS after the latter's 2014 offensive, this has to be the most outlandish of all these claims. Simply put, this is no more than a fabrication, and a bizarre one at that, since I have never come across any single source alleging such a thing anywhere, and since it is contradicted by all documented facts, in particular the long history of mutual hostility between Iran and the US regime over the Iraqi theater, which is ongoing now as we speak, with Washington actively sponsoring practically every anti-Iran current in Baghdad.

What happened is this: grand-ayatollah Sistani's fatwa, the creation of the PMU and Iranian assistance proved effective against "I"SIS terrorists, which were losing ground. "I"SIS had not been engineered and propped up by the zio-American empire to simply invade Syrian deserts and Sunni Arab areas of Iraq. The cynical stratagem had more far reaching objectives, including permanent revision of the region's borders, geographical separation and segregation of ethno-linguistic and confessional communities along with more massive population transfers, additional demonization of Islam, disruption of the Iran-led Axis of Resistance and spill over of these conflicts onto Iranian soil. When the Americans saw that the plan was compromised and that pro-Iranian forces might fill the void left by "I"SIS, they rushed in to make sure that the post-"I"SIS balance of power in Iraq will not take shape at the expense of their own Iraqi clients. So US intervention against "I"SIS was aimed at countering and keeping in check Iranian influence.