I am not sure that resulted in much animosity considering Britain went to war with them in 1956.
Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully and stay on topic
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
I am not sure that resulted in much animosity considering Britain went to war with them in 1956.
Suez was far more important than holding grudges. They went to war "with" Israel because it was convenient, not because they were particularly friendly.
What do you believe then? Iran to be a stabilizing force in the region and striving for a lasting peace deal?
I wonder if these politicians genuinely believe a fraction of the nonsense they routinely spout in regards to Israel/Iran.
I don't doubt it with the GOP types who clearly aren't the brightest peanuts in the turds, especially those who adhere to the dogmatic nonsense of this being a fast forward button for the rapture so Jesus can return and ascend them all.
But for someone clearly as intelligent as Harris, I do wonder if its a case of disconnecting reality from some sort of script she has to abide by for the sake of getting elected and not having her career ambitions essentially cancelled. I just don't know how they can seriously line up and roll out the virtue signalling and condemnations of Iran, after a whole year of mental gymnastics, convincing the world that Israel's genocide and relentless massacring of Palestinian and now Lebanese people is simply a country defending itself. Its the same when comparing Russia's aggression and the outspoken stance they have on Ukraine, surely they realise the hypocrisy is a little too obvious.
This is a silly comment. It's not a case of believing Iran to be innocent while Israel is guilty. But to ignore one side, giving them carte blanche while disparaging the other side while the other side is currently bombing the hell out of three regions doesn't make sense.
It has to be for domestic politics. That's the only explanation.
High-level Democratic politicians believe the same things re: Israel as their Republican counterparts and aren't substantially more 'intelligent' than them either.
Oh I have no doubt that when it comes down to it, there's little difference to each party's stance regarding Israel. I'm attempting to draw a distinction to how they get there - it does feel like the GOP types owe their almost submissive allegiance to Israel on the back of dogma, whereas with Dems its a case of towing the line for their own career ambitions, which to me comes across as more sinister as they're possibly self-aware of their own hypocrisy and the fact they're likely echoing nonsense which they themselves personally may not believe.
I think the UK is split between being completely neutral and appeasing the US. I am worried for the UK especially with all the poor investment in defence and counterterrorism and illegal immigration.
If I were Starmer I’d stay neutral(which in fact it is the noble thing to do) whilst dealing with issues around illegal immigration, economy and dermographic threats to the UK.
No one should be rejoicing at videos of people being killed or potentially killed, especially if they're not part of the conflict. If they do, they're not right in the head.
We're not in a cartoon or a Hollywood movie. "Evil for the lulz" ain't gonna fly and you know it.
You're an educated man and well informed about military and international matters. You've been in the region and on the front. You're not a @B. Munich, a @Traub or a @glazed. You're much better than that.
I always read your posts and have no problem being put back on track by posters I deem more knowledgeable on certain matters than I am. That includes you.
I've already written two lengthy posts in this thread about Iran's position since 1979 and why it acts the way it does.
Iran's been slapped with embargo, international sanctions and on the backfoot since 1979. Iraq invaded them a few months after the Islamic Republic was funded, with the massive backing of the US and Israel. The US never accepted that one of its most important allies in the region went rogue. You talked about Cuba although you know that Iran is exactly in the same situation.
The US will never rest unless either Iran comes back to the fold or is simply destroyed. The US just can't deal with any dissenting voice in the region, especially when this one has all the attributes to be a major obstacle to its policy. And the Sunni dictatorships were never going to let a declared Shia country become a major power in the region (they still don't).
Israel has always been an opportunist and a fervent adept of "divide et impera". Iran happened to not be entirely sold on Israel's policy in Palestine as well as the US' in the region, just like Iraq. For their own selfish reasons, mind you. The US' and Israel's most powerful opponents in the region hated each other, so they sold weapons to both, in the hope that they would kill each other. It worked, both countries were ruined after the Iran-Iraq war. Iraq has been dealt with in 1991 and then 2003. Only Iran remains.
Iran supported and carried out terrorist attacks but Khomeini's "Expansion of the Islamic Revolution" days are long gone. It's been longing for a normalization with the West as well as with the other Arab countries in the region for decades. Its rhetoric about the "Destruction of the Zionist Regime of Israel" is now nothing but hot air for domestic purposes. You know it and I know it.
Iran also sent forces and supported anyone who fought ISIS, the birth child of the US invasion of Iraq.
Things began to calm down until Trump came in, nuked the JCPOA in 2018, undoing all of Obama's work and brought in the Abraham Accords for good measure.
Netanyahu never made a mystery of his wish to destroy Iran for decades and always wanted to bring the US into a direct conflict.The US despite its desire to see Iran done and dusted, was wise enough to resist until now. This is not the case anymore. We're now very close to see this supremacist psychopath fulfilling his wet dream with the blessing and full support of another senile, racist psychopath on the other side of the world.
I actually can't believe you brought that up.
The Houthis are a Shia movement, that's the only reason Saudi Arabia, supported by the US, "intervened" there. You know how the Saudis behaved in Yemen and the amount of war crimes, including man-made famine, they committed there.
Last edited:
They are a stabilizing force. They prevented ISIS from taking over Syria and Iraq - look at what Turkey, the USA, EU and UAE did in Libya for comparison. If Iran and it's allies were strong enough to provide a viable conventional challenge to Israel, then Israel would not be committing genocide every few year and would curtail it's historical and ideological expansionist activities.
Absolute delusion.
It's as simple as strategy dictating the communication. They side with Israel so they won't say or do anything that weakens an important strategic ally. They believe they have to say what they say even if it's a blatant lie. I think that's mostly true of the republicans, they just have a more extreme spin.
There's sense in it I suppose but it's immoral and insulting to their domestic audience.
It also makes it far easier for countries to steer towards totalitarianism/fascism. We're globally in a position where blatant hypocrisy, doublespeak and defending the indefensible are normalised. It doesn't take a genius to see where that ends up if not corrected.
It does not matter whether the rest of the world believes in it. The UK and most of Europe stands with US. That's all that matters.
I have no doubt that they know they are lying. But they are politicians. Lying for personal gains is their bread and butter.
Paw paw lives in an alternative reality.
Internal Iranian politics is incredibly complex. The people are definitely begging for normalisation and the reformist faction was certainly keen on opening up (Khatami gave intel to the US on the Taliban in 2000, which was paving way for more normal ties) - but ever since Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech the reformists have lost pretty much all influence in the country.
The country is in effect a mafia state run by the IRGC. They control all aspects of the economy, run foreign policy (it wasn't the President who authorised the missile barrage) and the last thing they want is normalisation and/or liberalisation - because they'll be on the chopping block. Their power and existence is directly tied to confrontational policies with the west - they are deeply against the JCPOA (ironically hardliners in Israel, US and Iran all tend to agree on similar things).
I can't recommend "Revolutionary Iran" by Michael Axworthy enough - paints the politics around the revolution and the 1980s very well. At the end of the day Netanyahu and Khamanei are two sides of the same coin - total cnuts.
Well put.
One thing that doesn't get stressed enough is the ironic reliance both Netanyahu and the IRGC have on one another to consolidate their respective grips on power. By having this perpetual enemy they're able to galvanise their bases and harbour this rhetoric of fighting for survival/purging evil.
Take the IRGC and their proxies out of the equation then Israel no longer have tenuous excuses to absolve their crimes and colonial endeavours. Likewise if Israel/US hadn't been so hawkish with Iran, then they'd have no crutch to consolidate their position, and you'd expect there to be greater emphasis on the people's domestic grievances and desire for liberalisation.
on the radio last nite and this morning, keep hearing that Iran is an extremist theocractic state. not one person referred to Israel in those or similar terms. there was an even some professor of middle eastern studies on the beeb, saying how Israel must be defended from theorcractic extremists in Iran with their 'expansionist' aspirations. Irony has well and truly left the building. or been blown to pieces, along with all its family and neighbours. by a precise strike. with a big effin bomb.
IDF said 8 soldiers killed in Lebanon since 'limited incursion', in just over a day.
For reference, just over 300 casualties in a year across Gaza.
For reference, just over 300 casualties in a year across Gaza.
Last edited:
Iran's policy isn't "Evil for the lulz" but it made very little geo-political sense.
US always, despite it's loud rhetoric otherwise, tolerates all sorts of weird governmental structures, from Communists, theocratic dictatorships to Right wing fascist dictatorships as long as it serves its interests.
I'm not discussing Iran's response towards US foreign policy and its goals in the modern day, which more or less became a zero-sum game and a race to the bottom. I'm talking about the years during and directly after the revolution, which a lot of it was purposeful Iranian positioning with regards to the US and Israel.
First let's look at it's relationship with the USA:
After the Iranian Revolution, Carter's administration was still willing to deal with Iran on a normalized basis. The US National Security advisor went to Tehran three times in 1979 in order to try and facilitate some kind of common ground. This was rebuked by Iran who wanted to, ideologically, position themselves against USA. Part of this was due to immense paranoia that the CIA would attempt to completely destabilize the new regime (which may or may not have been true, declassified dossiers showed great caution and alarm by the CIA regarding the new regime but there was no formulated plan nor formulated strategy in any attempt to topple the new regime.) The Shah sought refuge in the states and Carter decided eventually to let him into USA (he was also dying at this point). The other major reason was the Ayatollah's person hatred towards USA, which was transparent well before he gained full power.
This was what ultimately was the catalyst towards the final erosion of the relationship. Internally, the US state department didn't see much use for the Shah, his wings were clipped and he was a dying old man. Internal memos showed the motivation for allowing the Shah into the United States was to primarily show allies that even if you're ousted we will still protect you. At this point the Americans already knew full well that the Shah was now a dead horse, both figuratively and quite literally. The Iranians interpreted this the complete other way, assuming that the Americans were protecting him so that he could come back after they had toppled the new regime and reignite the previous status-quo. Anger, fear, paranoia ran through the new regime and this culminated in the Iranian Hostage Crisis.
Despite all this, the Carter administration still tried to maintain a cordial relationship. It wasn't until almost a year into the Iranian Hostage crisis that the Americans decided enough was enough and severed diplomatic ties. But when I mean by "choice", there was a 2 year window with the Carter administration where Iran could have turned course and there would have been a distrusting, tentative, yet still functional relationship between the two states. After Ronald Raegan was elected that possibility flew out the window.
Raegan was an Iranian hawk, partly because of domestic politics, partly because of his own beliefs. Ultimately, Carter's presidency was hampered by what the US electorate perceived to be weakness and Raegan sought to compensate for that by being extremely hawkish. The rest, is history.
Ultimately the relationship broke down because of a combination of US not understanding the core beliefs of the new regime, and decisions made that resulted in paranoia across two sides. But ultimately, I'm of the opinion that had Iran positioned itself more open to Western conciliation, Iran and the whole middle-east would be a completely different landscape to what it is today. (Read, more American led, but more stable). More importantly, the lives of the average Iranian person would be exponentially better under this scenario.
It's easy to say all this with hindsight, and using CIA and State department declassified docs is hardly a sign that Iran would have understood US intentions at the time. But it's bitter for me because had the two parties come to an understanding in 1979, much of the bloodshed could have been avoided. I cannot blame the Iranian regime for being paranoid and suspicious of US intentions, but in hindsight understanding what the US intentions were with the regime in 1979 based on these said documents, it's hard to claim this is anything other than a completely wasted opportunity by both sides.
Iran's relationship with Israel:
I've gone into a lot of depth here already, but Israel tried very hard to reconcile. Read my earlier posts if you want to go into that further. A CIA Dossier I posted here even admits that Israel is trying to balance it's eagerness towards maintaining cordial relations with Iran during the early 80's, without pissing off the Raegan administration who were it's key allies. By the time the revolution happened, Israel were one of Iran's largest trading partners and for half a decade, it tried to go back to that position.
Iran's geopolitical suspicion with US was understood and potentially justified, Iran's position towards Israel during 79-85 was, in my opinion, not. The scale of economic and military integration prior to the revolution was huge, and from Israel's point of view, throwing all that away due to regime change was simply not worth it.
I can easily conclude that Iran's position on USA was harboured by genuine fears, suspicions and a mutual lack of understanding. With Israel, Iran's actions seem far more ideologically based and geopolitically and economically deterimental to all involved.
Israel Just attacked Damascus. 3 civilians dead.
It's where my friends family are....struck again.....4th time in 3 days.
Apparently ground clashes in southern Lebanon did not go well for the IDF today.
Yeah, hearing the same.
Which is odd that a full modern western armed fighting force cannot beat a militia group in open warfare.
Well, not that odd at all.
Hint: Conscripts in battle do not work.
What’s going on with all these battle fronts that Israel appears to be opening up?
You don’t hear a lot about it, but apparently more than 250 Israeli soldiers have been killed in Gaza since they invaded it. That was kind of a surprising number to me. Higher than I expected.
That isn’t that bad a casualty number, especially given it’s been almost a year of urban combat.
The biggest sign of IDF indiscipline and poor morale is the amount of stories we’ve seen of soldiers opening fire on civilians or others they should not be firing on. Itchy trigger finger basically and a huge feature of militaries that are heavily conscription based.
Or they’ve been ordered to shoot anything that moves. Wouldn’t surprise me either but I don’t even think IDF would go that far. Then again, I thought idf wouldn’t go that far on quite a few things.
Biden says he does not support an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites
Quality control
The latest I heard it’s now 14 of these Israeli state terrorists killed which is great news.
Cue Israel doing it anyway, Biden shocked pikachu face, followed by another billion dollar aid package rushed through congress and straight into Israel's coffers.
This reliance has led to more than enough popular conspiracy theories throughout the Arab world.
So with all the ballistic missiles fired at and impacted Israel yesterday, the only casualties were a couple Israeli's suffering minor shrapnel wounds and a poor Palestinian guy from Gaza, who just happened to be in Tel Aviv, being flattened by the booster section of a missile as if struck down by god in a 1 in 10,000,000 chance fatality straight out of final destination.
How do the many religious believers of the region interpret something like that?
How do the many religious believers of the region interpret something like that?
Well Iran did say they aren't targeting any densely populated areas and are strictly targeting military bases. Seems them crazy Iranians care more about human life than the light of all humanity Israel.So with all the ballistic missiles fired at and impacted Israel yesterday, the only casualties were a couple Israeli's suffering minor shrapnel wounds and a poor Palestinian guy from Gaza, who just happened to be in Tel Aviv, being flattened by the booster section of a missile as if struck down by god in a 1 in 10,000,000 chance fatality straight out of final destination.
How do the many religious believers of the region interpret something like that?
Given a school got blown up, I'm not sure that they were.
On the other side of the argument, Iranian ballistic missiles aren't exactly top notch in terms of guidance and sensors, so a slight miscalculation on trajectory could cause it to misshoot by hundreds of meters.