Yeah, that's the logic some posters are defending, and they don't see anything wrong with that. And generally, it looks like it boils down to "them" being less of humans than "we" are, so we ought to do with them as we please.
Israel - Iran and regional players | Please post respectfully and stay on topic
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Yeah, that's the logic some posters are defending, and they don't see anything wrong with that. And generally, it looks like it boils down to "them" being less of humans than "we" are, so we ought to do with them as we please.
Everyone who is not blessed to be living in the West? So you expect the West to apologize because power-hungry people/factions have shown time and time again to be too immature to make their own non-Western countries grow or be sustainable in a peaceful manner for starters? I have seen very bad takes before, but this has to be among the very worst of the lot.
Your bullshit is quite very rich, especially considering that you would not have a country today if it wasn't for the West.
By the way, The Islamic Republic have such a low regard for human life, even their own most ardent supporters, that they knew of an upcoming Terrorist attack on Soleimani's death anniversary, yet they didn't cancel the event...but they made sure none of Suleimani's family or top ranking regime and IRGC officials were in attendance so they'll remain unharmed, while 84 of their own supporters (anyone who goes to a Soleimani memorial event is a regime supporter) were killed.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics/us-warned-iran-isis-terror-attack/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics/us-warned-iran-isis-terror-attack/index.html
I wouldn't have country if it wasn't for the west. Sure about that?
It has been a bit scary to witness how much of the understandable and justified outrage over the treatment of the civilian Palestinians has been mixed with an apologetic, if not straight-up sympathetic, attitude towards terrorist organisations and tyrannical regimes. There’s just no room for nuance.
America's presence in Jordan is no business of Islamic Republic regime in Iran. If Jordan gov't wants American troops to be there, they can be there. If Jordan gov't complains, then US should leave. Every country's sovereignty must be respected.
This lumping the entire Middle East region into "one" collective is hilarious, considering the hundreds of different belief systems, factions, and rivalries not just between the nations, but among the factors within each nation.
Imperialism isn't just an American thing. Islamic Regime militias and Ummah-imperialistic mindset has its. tentacles on Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen via their terrorist militias. If you demand US to f*ck off and leave the countries there alone, demand the same for the other powers to do so as well.
I absolutely agree. However, that's my point exactly, that western world is chasing it's own agenda there, the same as Iran and others, which kind of makes them two different sides of the same coin. Nobody contributes to peace or stability nor wants it. I'm not apologetic of Iran's regime, people of Iran should be the only ones to have say in it, and it's clear for everyone to see where they stand.
However, stopping current conflict should be rather easy for USA. Stop Israeli genocide in Gaza, and that's it. Then you can see what happens with Houthis, Hezbollah and other factions. But first stop genocide in Gaza. If you are going to let Israel carry out genocide, and you are also supplying them with weapons, while blaming others for destabilizing the region, then you are merely spewing bullshit.
Everything I have seen of people's attitude towards Hamas since October 7 is outright the same as if masses of Westerners openly showed public support for Soviet-backed terrorist movements like the Red Army Faction (West Germany), the Italian Red Brigades, the Official IRA, the Organization 17 November (Greece), Action Directe (France), the Communist Combatant Cells (Belgium), the Japanese Red Army, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, the Shining Path (Peru) or the FARC (Colombia) at the height of the Cold War. I'm utterly disgusted at the current ignorance of history by those people, who don't have a clue as to where the world would be now if we let those groups have their way in the 1970s and 1980s.
Last edited:
Yeah. That would have been bad if people supported FARC (responsible for 21% of casualties) in the Colombian civil war. They should have supported the U.S. backed Colombian military (12% of casualties) and the right-wing paramilitary groups they collaborated with (45% of casualties) instead.
Instead we let Kissinger predominately bomb the crap out them, whilst the CIA did their thing.
What?
Were there Western apologists and sympathizers for those Cold War-era factions in those decades? Only few and far between, and there were plenty of good reasons as to why support for those groups was very low back then. Those who did were abject cnuts.
A good chunk of the current crop of Westerners, who have zero knowledge of the Cold War, don't have a clue that showing the same sympathy to Hamas is the same as if they supported those groups with zero nuance at the peak of the Cold War. Is that clear enough?
Yes and it's precisely as moronic and one eyed as I thought it was. The vast majority of folk aghast at the horror continuing to develop in Gaza are not sympathetic to Hamas or their goal of wiping out Israel or their methods of blowing up marketplaces or terrorizing Kibbutz.
Trying to equate the two seems like something an, to use your words, abject cnut might do.
Are they? I have not seen enough people going out of their way to call out Hamas and demand that they feck off with the same energy from when they call Israel out. And those who do have been drowned out by pro-Hamas assholes both in public spaces and on social media.
Nobody has to dance to your tune, nor begin every sentence declaring that they denounce Hamas. You don't start every sentence denouncing the deaths of thousands of Palestinian kids. Should I take it from this that you are sympathetic to seeing the obliteration of babies?
Probably not.
You're basically employing a double standard by requiring of your interlocutor something you do not require of yourself.
How do most experts explain the arms shipments?
What do you mean?
You had to be an abject cnut to think maybe FARC had the moral high ground over the Colombian death squads? I think you're the one displaying some historical ignorance here.
And yes, obviously there were quite a lot of Western sympathizers for some of those very different groups you just listed. A lot of it was wrong and naive, but it most certainly existed.
They do have a lot of autonomy, which is the entire point of being a proxy - to behave autonomously towards a shared goal with the originating country (here, Iran); where the originating country can provide funding and weapons while shielding themselves with plausible deniability from any geopolitical culpability. This has been post 1979 theocratic Iran's MO in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, and Yemen over the past two decades.
Wow, this particular page in this thread is eye opening as to the level of western apologia active on this site. How dare the people at the bottom of the pile try and upset the order that has them at the bottom of the pile?!
That’s pretty much what I was trying to say, but you still have the US and Israeli intelligence services suggesting the Iran-backed militias are operating under direct orders from Iran.
Yeah that's rarely the case. The Iranians usually fund, equip, and provide some degree of technical expertise and/or fighters to embed with less sophisticated proxy units (Kat'aib Hezbollah in Iraq is an example of this). In other situations where the fighters are more experienced, they simply fund/equip, and act as logistical hub to make sure their proxies are well armed (Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Houthis etc). Assad's Syria is an important transit point to facilitate the weapons movements, which is one of the reasons Tehran worked to support him remaining in power during the Arab Spring and subject Syrian civil war.
Last edited:
Iraq and it's government have asked America countless times to leave.
Arabs and Persians have had problems for around 2000 years mate. The last time Iran had as much influence in the middle East was around 300 bc with the Achaemenid empire. Before the US invaded Iraq there was next to no Iranian influence in Iraq, before the US and Russia got involved in Syria there was next to no Iranian influence in Syria and before the US and the UK backed the Saudi/Emirati war in Yemen there was next to no Iranian influence in Yemen.
You think Arabs want Iranian influence in their region ? Iran is feeding on the general population that is tired of the US and foreign occupations of their land. Literally in the 80s Arabs fought and backed Saddam in his war with Iran. You guys think you're helping when you're making it even worse. As usual, Americans think they know better than the people of the region and you won't find one person in Iraq or Syria today that wants the US or Russia or Iran in their land.
Hanks is Iranian.
In recent period too? The US and Iraq are in talks about the future but up until then, it seems US presence was tolerated or supported by Iraqi government.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/01/24/iraq-new-prime-minister-sudani-us-troops/
Iran has been allied with Syria since 1980, and Iranian influence there grew considerably during the 90s and 00s.
Most of the Arab states did, but Syria, Libya, and South Yemen all supported Iran.
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/06/middleeast/iraq-us-troops-explainer-intl/index.html
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/us-...withdrawal-american-troops/story?id=106683179
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/01...wont-likely-leave-iraq-anytime-soon-analysts/
The majority of the Iraqi population also want the US gone and Iran gone. You can want the US out of Iraq and also want Iran out, they aren't mutually exclusive.
South Yemens support was irrelevant as they weren't in control of a building never mind the whole of Sana'a as they are now. Libya/Algeria were neutral and not involved.
My point was contrary to the popular belief in here the people of Iraq and Syria can want the US out and Iran out at the same time. Just because the population wants the US out doesn't mean they support Iran and vice versa. At the end of the day their land is home to a proxy war between plenty of foreign forces and they are the ones who pay for it with the most blood.
Iran and the US need to get out of the Middle East if there is to be lasting peace.
Last edited:
South Yemen was an independent state with its capital in Aden, and very much in control of all its territory as it had been since evicting the British in 1967. It ceased to exist in 1990, so I’m not sure where you have the idea it now controls Sana’a (that would be the Huthis).
And Qadhafi’s Libya was absolutely involved in supporting Iran during the war, both diplomatically and militarily. To the extent that Saddam denounced Libya as a non-Arab state and Qadhafi as a traitor. I didn’t mention Algeria, but they remained somewhat neutral throughout.
Interesting, I've never heard that please show me where Ghaddafi helped militarily. From what I know Libya/Algeria were neutral (with a small lean to the Iranian cause but preferred a peace treaty) and tried to mediate. Saddam denounced anyone that didn't support his war as non Arabs or fake Arabs, he even (allegedly) shot down a plane carrying Algerian diplomat Ben Yahia that was trying to mediate.
If I remember correctly even Israel sold weapons to Iran during the war, I wouldn't say that Israel supported Iran though.
From this book:
"Muammar Gaddafi , the leader of the Libyan revolution, had long been waiting for his chance to take revenge on Saddam Hussein, who had always treated him contemptuously and considered him a lunatic. Colonel Gaddafi reproached Saddam Hussein for reinforcing Israel by adopting a hostile attitude toward Syria. He also reproached him for supporting Yasser Arafat when several Arab capitals had dropped the PLO leader, accusing him of destabilizing Lebanon. But Gaddafi ’s position was primarily determined by his rivalry with the Iraqi dictator...Starting in 1981, cargo ships and airplanes shuttled back and forth between Libya and Iran delivering T-55, T-62, and T-72 tanks, BTR-60 and BMP-1 armored vehicles, antitank and anti- air weapons, and several million shells and various munitions."
From this:
"Although Iran and Iraq had traded attacks on each other's city centres in the course of the war, beginning in 1984, these had not reached the intensity of the exchanges witnessed in the revived 'war of the cities' in early 1988. In earlier years Iraq had used its air superiority to bring the war home to Iran by bombing Tehran (e.g., in the spring of 1985) in order to raise the political and economic costs of continuing the war. Though this had had some political effect, it had not been sustained enough' to produce more than occasional panic and resentment. Iran had responded by proclaiming a programme for building air shelters and by acquiring Soviet bloc SSMs from Syria, Libya and possibly China."
From this:
"The Kremlin...approved the shipment of Soviet-made arms from Syria, Libya and other countries to Iran. Subsequently, Iranian military transport planes began continuous flights to Syria and Libya, carrying Soviet-made weapons back to Iran. Iranian air force Boeing 707s, 727s, 747s, and Lockheed C-130s flew to Damascus and Tripoli carrying arms and ammunition back to Iran."
From this:
"The Iraqi leader was so incensed with the 'traitor' and 'opportunist' states of Syria and Libya that he severed diplomatic ties with them in October 1980. To a lesser extent he was unhappy with Algeria and South Yemen for maintaining cordial relations with Tehran...
...The other Arab country which airlifted Soviet-made weapons to Iran in October 1980 was Libya. Its leader, Muammar al Qadhafi, was an admirer of the Islamic revolution in Iran and saw the hand of the US in the Iraqi invasion. In a cable to other members of the Arab League he stated, 'Islamic duty dictates that we ally ourselves with the Muslims in Iran in this crusade instead of fighting them on behalf of America...
...Tehran combined its efforts to refurbish its stocks of Western-made weapons and ammunition with purchases from non-Western sources. It built up its stores of Soviet- manufactured arms and ammunition from its Arab allies - Syria and Libya - as well as North Korea, East Germany and Cuba, which were eager to buy Iranian oil...
...Links between Iran, Libya and Syria were fortified in January 1983 with a conference of their foreign ministers in Damascus. In a joint communique issued by the Syrian and Libyan ministers they condemned Iraq for its invasion of Iran and pledged to stand by Iran against 'hostile forces'."
the_cliff said:
Not sure why you wouldn't say that, Israeli support for Iran is a matter of record. Not just by selling weapons, but also offering technical expertise and, most famously, by bombing the Osirak reactor in 1981.
Like, if these experts don't believe Iran don't exert much control and influence over these groups I'm just wondering why they think Iran arms them so comprehensively. What's the point?
The point is to have "troops on the ground" able to cause nuisance to your enemies without being directly involved. You can back groups which largely operate independently simply because it also serves to your interests. The more the better, and it's not like it's a wholly new strategy. It can blow back from time to time, but it's efficient and the current and only way for Iran regime to protect itself, the latter being in the crosshair of basically everyone and under siege since 1979.
The level of control depends on how strategically important the proxy is. The more valuable the proxy the tighter the control. Note that the Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran's most important piece in the region, didn't move a finger these last four months other than firing some rockets to keep Israel somewhat busy, but without crossing their mutual, tacite RoE. They didn't even really react when a Hamas offcial was killed on their turf. And it was the proxy everyone thought would be involved in the aftermath. Instead, surprise, surprise it's the Houthis who are causing damage.
The Hamas attacks were so tightly kept secret that it bypassed some of the highest-ranking members of their own organization. Israel literally got caught its pants down despite having all eyes on Gaza. Everything indicates that neither Iran nor Hezbollah were informed. Hezbollah had no interest in that operation which definitely could spill over Lebanon, neither does Iran because if the latter gets involved it means they will too. But the Hamas attacks were somehow beneficial because it stopped dead the Abraham Accords, in which Iran and the Palestinians were the biggest losers. It caused havoc in Israel who wanted the Mullahs dead and destroy the last big (hostile) player in the region for a very long time.
The US can't afford an open war with Iran, not with what's happening in Ukraine and China eyeing Taiwan. Everyone involved knows that it could spiral completely out of control. But the tensions have been growing and the powder keg just needs a misplaced match. It can be defused by a cease-fire in Gaza and that's a decision no one's willing to make. But if you want to play "Might is right" and "Who will have the last word, wins", it's at your own risk.
Last edited:
I mean ignoring the fact this is sheer nonsense. The West is precisely to blame for several people not having nations. The Palestinians for one have had to be condemned for 76 years and counting of being a stateless people, millions of whom are refugees because the West wanted to outsource their very own problems with antisemitism. Then there's the Kurds who got shafted by Sykes-Picot, and continue to get shafted today by being left out to dry in Syria despite doing the brunt of the work fighting ISIS. And that's not even going into the countless democracies overthrown (Iran, Congo) and countries obliterated beyond repair (Iraq, Libya, Yemen). So maybe park the sanctimonious, neoliberal posturing.
30 years of studying History and experience speaking, ladies and gentlemen.
Thank you for proving my point about the blatant lack of maturity in some people or factions talking of certain non-Western nations.
Plenty of countries in Asia and a few in the Middle East have found the recipe and the right amount of maturity for making peaceful growth a reality. South Korea and Taiwan are arguably my prime cases as they ditched their own dictatorships in the 1980s/1990s to become vibrant democracies and top-tier economic powers. Those countries are everything except "Western" by any stretch. You don't have to like it, but it is what it is.
How would you explain the west undermining the secular pan Arab movement in the 50s-70s in favour of Islamists to help bolster their regional goals, or funding Islamist factions to combat the Soviets (Mujahedeen) or their toppling of democratic regimes to instill their own autocratic puppets (Congo, Iran), or even supporting despotic autocrats crush pro democracy movements within their own country (Bahrain).
It's not as simple or reductive as adhering to the West's global order is to champion stability, democracy and prosperity. On the contrary there are countless examples where Western meddling has left behind nothing but a pressure cooker of instability, regional violence and war.
I absolutely love your tales and find them quite enlightening.
Please tell us more about these immature peoples.
Last edited: