SalarHaqq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2019
- Messages
- 4,569
- Reaction score
- 2
- Country
- Location
@SalarHaqq I wanted to get your thoughts on this as well
Look... heart on my sleeve (meaning I'm being honest), I might lash out in anger from time to time due what America stupidly decides to do but I'm not personally in favor of a war erupting between The United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Fault lies on both sides (obviously) so I won't just bash America endlessly like a child, I'm old enough to realize that there are important nuances regarding relations between countries that can't be ignored all in the name of patriotism... there's always grey area wherever 'morality' is concerned, so arguing semantics on that point wont really get anyone anywhere (in my opinion).
If true diplomacy was an avenue that could be explored, then it should be the course of action both nations undertake in order to de-escalate the highly tense geopolitical showdown unfolding: it was during Obama's era and it ended in resounding success for international diplomacy. But Trump's Zionist/Neo-con administration is not allowing this sort of rapport to flourish. They knowingly torpedoed a working diplomatic accord for Israel's sake, and ISRAEL'S sake alone... Israel knew Iran was breathing lighter without those America/U.N. sanctions in place and knew that, eventually, America and Iran's relationship would come out of the cold and start to become more "normal" but they couldn't have that. So, with their hands so far up Trump's rear, they got Trump to destroy the deal, help them sabotage Natanz, reinstate the sanctions, seize (through proxies: U.K.) Iranian oil/Tankers, unjustly murder a highly revered military/political figure which almost plunged both nation into open-ended conflict and currently continues ratchet up the tensions in some vain hope Iran will just up and 'buckle' under all the pressure. If it were only so easy....
Him and his cohort of Israeli-loving bullies and PERSIAN Gulf-Arab panhandlers woefully decided to take the path of war just when Iranian-American relations were getting OBJECTIVELY better. This sort of reprehensibly reckless behavior from the self-proclaimed "leader of the free-world" is nothing short of terrifying and if allowed to continue, will lead to the deaths/suffers of millions more innocents who largely had nothing to do with it in the first-place. Iran is not an easy nation to beat down into submission (as America has learned the hard way thus far). What will we tell our kids when another war breaks out, this time with America taking heavy-losses well into tens-of-thousands? Are we gonna say that America and Iran went to war because our country couldn't stick to an international diplomatic accord? At some point we need to just say that America is the problem and not the other side...
Americans are the masters of ignoring the art of introspection (looking at oneself). Instead we are very good at projecting our American-centric world-view of "might makes right" and millions upon million of souls have perished because of it...
When does it end? Why can't it be another way?
I'll perhaps make two brief remarks in response:
1) I fully understand how you're somewhat torn between two nations you objectively share connections with, but which on the geopolitical, state level happen to be hostile to each other. I believe this dilemma to be reflected in the two closing questions of your post.
Not denying how difficult such opposite linkages can be to reconcile or to manage. Yet, it very much is what it is I'm afraid and neither of us will be able to change it. So best would be to learn to cope with it.
As long as there is no all out war (either between Iran and the US, or - God forbid - civil war in Iran with the US regime backing one of the two parties), you might want to concentrate your efforts on contributing what you can to avert such a scenario - and that would mostly imply communicating with fellow American citizens and explaining to them why such an event would neither be desirable on its own, nor in the actual interest of the American people.
For the fact remains that any such hypothetical war would not be initiated by Iran but, I am obliged to say, by the regime in Washington (as well as its underlying oligarchy).
2) I also understand how you might have tended to view the JCPOA in a favorable way because you hoped it might be the starting point for a peaceful resolution of the conflict between Iran and the US.
Personally though, I came to become far more sceptical towards that same JCPOA, because to me it represented a tool at the hands of the US regime aimed at neutralizing Iran "through the backdoor". A trap designed to fool the Iranian public by dangling empty promises in front of it, and thereby have it strengthen the hand of the liberal segment of the establishment, which in turn would lead Iran to capitualation and disarmament, which would end up inviting some form of aggression in the future.
In my opinion, had the JCPOA effectively remained in place, mid- to long-term chances for a war (particularly civil war in Iran) or at minimum a destabilization and weakening of the Iranian state (and its subsequent de facto balkanization / disintegration) would have increased rather than decreased, even if this might seem paradoxical at first glance.
Don't forget, a host of leading Democrats wrote an open letter to Trump in which they explicitly declared that they are pursuing the same goal vis a vis Iran as the current administration. What they differ in, is their respective appraisals of the productivity of the "soft" and "hard" approaches.
Of course, you might not consider this response to be particularly helpful in creating hope that a comprehensive, full scale resolution of all points of contention between Iran and the US will be envisageable anytime soon. But as explained above, there are ways to cope with such dilemmas.
Also, what is ultimately at stake here goes far beyond Iran and the US, in truth it's the future of the world and of mankind that the outcome of the Iran-US conflict will decisively impact. Beyond your feeling of connection to both nations, I'd invite you to ask yourself what direction you wish the world to evolve into, considering all the injustice, mishandling and calamities we're struggling with, and what the prospects are if the current global ruling oligarchy is allowed to have its way.
I would merely propose two slight variations to the above comment, which I believe to be very accurate otherwise:
1) Indeed, the Jewish public to a very large extent is brainwashed (much like non-Jews actually), and it is being held hostage by its ruling elites. These elites have it very easy when it comes to their own people, considering the prevalence of the historic victimhood discourse - partly factual, but partly biased and instrumentalized for more sinister political goals.
The Resistance however should not consider entire communities of civilians as a target. With the defeat of the zionist ruling oligarchy, ordinary Jews will also take their distance from the zionist project and many historic dilemmas they have been facing should start getting resolved.
2) On point 2, I would tend to be on the sceptical side of your equation. Have no doubt that in case of a regime change in Iran, your point 1 will still apply.
This is at the very core of the Oded Yinon doctrine, elaborated in the early 80's and in my opinion (I don't remember if the author himself mentioned this or not), largely as a consequence of the lessons zionist elites thought they must draw from the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran: they and their western allies used to have this client ruler, the shah Mohammad-Reza Pahlavi, on the throne of Iran (although they understood that this is a nagging client, who harbors grandiose dreams of breaking free from servitude after acquiring nuclear weapons), and they treated him like a subordinate indeed
But despite the embargo on key technologies, they did sell the shah an important amount of advanced weaponry, all of which were then inherited by an Islamic Republic that is antagonistic to them. In addition to that, Iran's basic potential and her enormous natural, geographic, demographic and civilization capital remained in place and was thenceforth freely available to the new revolutionary and anti-imperialist government of the Islamic Republic.
This is when zionist decision makers gradually moved away from the idea of relying on regional puppet dictators to guarantee their interests, and started engaging instead in a policy of methodic nationhood-dismantling against their neighbors. 9-11, 2001 was the opening salvo of this program. They began targeting their opponents first (Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Iran - the big stumbling block) and a later stage plan to submit their allies (Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia) to a similar treatment.
Given Isra"el"s inherent vulnerabilities due mainly to its reduced size, zionists no longer want to run the risk of seeing political power in large, potentially challenging neighbouring states fall into the hands of antagonistic forces like the Iranian revolutionaries led by Imam Khomeini. Hence the Oded Yinon project, itself a further elaboration of the Bernard Lewis plan.
I would also add a point "2B)" to your listing of hypothetical scenarios: in the event that the western-apologetic, liberal segment of the Iranian establishment managed to sideline the revolutionary core loyal to the anti-imperialist principles of 1979, and seize control over the entirety of power centers - particularly the Supreme Leadership, the judiciary, the IRGC and the military-industrial apparatus, as well as the network of revolutionary social institutions such as the Basij paramilitary, revolutionary foundations (Bonyads), revolutionary Friday prayer leaders and associated mosques etc, then they would, akin to Gorbachev, preside over a thorough revision of the Islamic Republic's very nature, a "regime change" from within that would not necessitate an actual overthrow.
However in this scenario 2B), point 1) is once more likely to apply. And it would be the liberal rulers themselves doing the enemy's dirty work by balkanizing Iran along so-called "ethnic" lines - that project is called "federalization" of Iran and is openly advocated by the exiled opposition but also, more discretely so, by in-house liberals (reformist / centrist parties) inside Iran. Even then, some bloodshed is likely to occur.
The only practical difference between the exiled anti-IR opposition and in-house reformists / centrists is about which one of these two groups will be allowed by the zio-Americans to preside over the reshaping of Iran along the guidelines defined by the imperialist agenda, namely:
- Dismantling of key deterrent aspects of Iran's national defence industries, particularly the ballistic missile and air defence programs, making Iran vulnerable to military aggression.
- Dissolution of Iran's network of allies accross the region, in particular the armed anti-zionist Resistance.
- Federalization of Iran along so-called "ethnic" lines, which will inevitably translate into a de facto end of Iran's territorial integrity and of the Iranian central state as a functional entity (much like Iraq or Afghanistan, which you correctly cited and which, despite retaining nominal national unity, no longer function as unified state entities with a competent central authority). This could then easily be followed by actual balkanization and independence of federate entities anytime in the future.
- Deindustrialization of Iran, with unrefined oil becoming the only major item produced and exported.
- Undermining of Iran's self-sufficiency in the agricultural sector, making her food security dependent on the goodwill of hostile foreign powers as well as on imports of GMO-ridden and other unhealthy industrial food products from abroad.
- Secularization of the state and watering down of the relevance of the nation's predominant, overwhelmingly majoritarian religion and its associated social traditions.
- The abandonment of any and all state-sponsored resistance against the total primacy of global consumerist gutter "culture" (such as zombifying hollywoodian entertainment programs, pornography, corporate-controlled music industry and so on).
- Destruction of the Iranian nuclear family structure (through LGBTism, legalization of same-sex marriage and commodification of newborn children to be bought / sold on markets for adoption, psychological and physical gender confusion etc),
Exiled oppositionists (monarchists, MKO sect, leftists, liberal republicans, "ethno"-separatists) are telling the Americans and the zionists: "look, we will implement this program for you, all you need to do is overthrow the Islamic Republic and then let us and our children pocket the crumbs you'll throw us after milking Iran dry of her resources. We beg you, let us be the lucky ones enjoying whatever privileged status you envisage for local administrators in your future one-world government" (such as being allowed to become "super-humans" through transhumanist technological applications, as opposed to the ordinary population set to be turned into chimeric human-animal slaves, once parenthood is definitely abolished, humanoids artificially bred in laboratories and the great anthropological twin-leap accomplished). The biggest backers of these exiled oppositionists are hawks within the US and zionist regimes (trumpists, neocons, lib-hawks, likudniks).
Iran's in-house liberal elites from the reformist and centrist currents are signaling to the US a similar desire to be left in charge as provincial governors, in exchange for making Iran submit to the zio-American empire. What they need is intelligence and propagandistic assistance to sideline the revolutionary core of the IR from within. Liberal factions of the western and zionist ruling oligarchy (dovish Democrats, liberals, Soros and his NGO's, Rockefeller foundations, the National Iranian-American Council (NIAC) etc) in turn are betting on these domestic counter-revolutionary forces inside Iran to achieve the exact same goal as that pursued by their hawkish colleagues and associates.
Last edited:
