Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Thread...
I guess Iranians must be watching the goings-on in the Trump administration right now wishing they had American-style democracy. So much more entertaining.
You obviously don't know much about how Iranian style theocracy works.
Long thread on Nasrallah's thoughts on recent and future events in the region:
That's correct. How is it inferior to the bigtop you call the White House?
Go have a read about the way the regime treats its people.
I suppose there's as many homeless victims of mass shootings in expensive schools without access to free medical attention as in the good ol' US of A?
It says how much you know about the regime that you immediately have to deflect to whataboutism.
I said I don't know much about it. I know they don't go surrounding foreign countries over the other side of the planet with military bases and then accusing them of stirring up trouble.
Comedy.
Iran arms proxies like Hezbollah and the Houthis, among others, instead.
Yes.
Hezbollah have been fighting Al Qaeda/ Al Nusra/ HTS/ ISIS in Syria.
Our politicians tell us that the Syrian government under Assad must be opposed. They are therefore siding with those fighting against the Syrian government and its allies - and that's primarily the same terrorists responsible for barbaric acts of terrorism in New York, Paris, Marseille, Berlin, London, Manchester and elsewhere. Hezbollah are sworn enemies of Israel though, and we have a special relationship with Israel, so when Israel assists Al Qaeda in illegally occupied Syrian territory we turn a blind eye. Never mind that Hezbollah are fighting Al Qaeda, they are Israel's enemies therefore ours.
The Houthis have been fighting Saudi Arabia in Yemen.
Some would say the Saudi government is a despotic regime with an appalling human rights record which has summarily arrested any potential political opponents and is responsible for the deaths of thousands of Yemeni civilians. It's hard to argue against that, imo.
Last edited:
I agree with most of your post. But the claim that Israel assists al-Qaeda sounds questionable.
There's also this on Israel's attitude to ISIS...
http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arc...l-chief-we-don-t-want-isis-defeated-in-syria/
Last edited:
There is no moral equivalence between providing arms to a specific group and providing medical treatment to anybody who needs it.
Moreover, Israel does not check the IDs of those it treats. If the injured is a five year old child or a rebel fighter, they all get medical treatment.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...sands-of-syrians-with-humanitarian-aid-215754
Well... You believe what you want to believe. I'd say the chances of Israeli officials not checking IDs are negligible. If that wounded fighter turned out to be Iranian or Hezbollah instead of Al Qaeda... I wouldn't rate his chances of humanitarian treatment highly.
https://thewire.in/210474/iran-protests-riots-seyed-mohammad-marandi-interview/
same caveats as any post, I guess: the guy being interviewed obviously has a strong allegiance to the Iranian state, no idea how true this is.
same caveats as any post, I guess: the guy being interviewed obviously has a strong allegiance to the Iranian state, no idea how true this is.
Sometimes it pays to treat your enemies with humanity. In my opinion treating Hezbollah fighters or Iranian soldiers would be an opportunity to make them rethink their pre-conceived notions. Unlike al-Nusra or al-Qaeda, Hezbollah are a direct threat to Israel, which makes taking the opportunity all the more important.
Last edited:
It's a little bit of white wash
Is it really whataboutism when you are praising USA democracy over theocracy.
First video DenisIrwin posted, @ 3:54.
It got so absurd actually that even France24 wrote an article about it yesterday. No investigastion about "collusion" or "meddling" this time though.
http://observers.france24.com/en/20...boy-who-still-alive-fake-images-iran-protests
I watched the interview with Efraim Halevy before posting my reply. I disagree with his reasoning for not treating Hezbollah fighters, and I explained above why fighters should be treated.
Last edited:
Ah, you were talking about your opinion. I agree with your opinion by the way, but the Israelis don't, and if you follow the fighting near the Israeli border, the Israeli support to Al-Nusra is much more than just 'treating' their fighters. They offer military and logistic support as well.
Hezbollah has been around for a lot longer than the Syrian conflict long before ISIS and AQ. They were created to engage in armed conflict against Israel .
What if it's the Russian bots spoofing via the US stirring things up in Iran just to cause trouble for the US?
Hang on, my tinfoil hat needs adjusting
Hang on, my tinfoil hat needs adjusting
Apologies for the lack of clarity in my post.
May I ask what source or sources this is based on? To my knowledge the IDF deny providing any military support.
Found on Facebook an interesting bit on Iran from a Russian guy who used to work there for quite some time, so I translated it into English. It would be interesting to hear from guys who know more about these issues, like , Danny1982, 2cents or Kaos and find out what's true and what isn't. Anyway, here it is.
I was in Iran on business 8 times from 2002 to 2015, once I was deported from there by order of a glorious organization called "Ministry of Culture and Islamic Orientation" for "incorrect coverage of events." So, here’s what I have to say here about Iran.
By now a good part of local population is pretty much fed up with the power of the mullahs, imams, and other clerics, that has been established as the "rule of Allah" for almost 40 years now (since 1979, when the Shah was overthrown) . The Islamic Republic in large cities is extremely unpopular. At all houses they've got whiskey in refrigerators, illegal alcohol trade is thriving (despite flogging punishment), and city folk by and large show no respect to the Sharia law. Among these citizens the authorities are simply despised, and there is a reason for that. Corruption in Iran is rampant. For example, I was allowed into Iran as a journalist only on the condition that I was to engage the services of the so-called "government escort agency" (nothing to do with adult companionship) for $ 250 per day (otherwise the visa was not given). What I did instead was on my arrival I said I didn’t have enough money, then just paid a hundred - since in fact, they were just demanding a bribe. The whole time I was there I haven't met a single (!) person in a major city who would have told me they were happy to live under Islamic republic.
On the other hand, the power of mullahs is very popular in small towns and rural areas. Here’s the deal - the government subsidizes costs for basic food products like rice, chicken, flour, butter, and the prices remain the same for decades. Now they decided to make changes to that system - that's the reason for the riots. The main supporters of the authorities are the "Guards of the Islamic Revolution, and "basij" , which is a militia. In 2009, during the "green revolution", it was the basijes that suppressed the students' protests , 72 people died. Also, in Iran they have excellent highways, make cars, build subways in many big cities, there is a social housing where young families pay a symbolic price for the rent, and subsequently have a chance to buy an apartment with a help from the government. Lots of money is being spent on social benefits for citizens.
So how is modern Iran ruled? At the head of Iran there is a spiritual leader - rahbar, and for the last 29 years it’s Khamenei, the successor to Ayatollah Khomeini. Rahbar can remove the president, cancel any of his decrees, and even the appointments of ministers go through him, and the laws cannot be passed without his approval. There are some extreme laws , among them public executions (witnessed myself), also for theft, first a finger is cut off, then an arm, for homosexuality people are executed, and unfaithful wives (albeit extremely rare) are stoned to death. And this is all in the 21st century, yes. On the other hand, the same laws apply to a big friend of the United States - Saudi Arabia, but in their case the US does not seem to care at all. Women in Iran hold positions in parliament, drive cars and don’t cover their faces. The president's elections in Iran are democratic and free, but the candidates must be first okeyed by the Rahbar, and thus a candidate must prove "adherence to Islam." If you are not “devoted enough” - goodbye, that’s why presidents often come from the clergy. Too many mosques are being built, and some remain empty. But, since "we are an Islamic republic," they just keep building new ones.
Many people remember with nostalgia the Shah deposed in 1979. Here is a fine fellow, who was all pro-American and pro-European, girls in mini skirts everywhere and whisky in bars. Yes it's true. What’s also true is that the Shah lived in luxury, and spent billions on himself: for example, in honor of the 2,500th anniversary of the monarchy back in 1971, he arranged a reception with a ton of sturgeon caviar for his guests while several regions of Iran were on the verge of starvation due to a drought. Over one year of protests, 2,700 people were killed by the Shah's troops, but the monarchy fell anyway. And so first, 2,700 demonstrators were killed, then the rebels executed 20,000 "servants of the regime", then the Islamists came to power, a war with Iraq began, and another million people died.
Current protests are anti-Islamist, and therefore Islamists, like after the "Arab spring", probably won’t come to power in the event of a possible collapse of the regime. But it could easily lead to war, because Kurdistan, Arabic regions, and Baluchi want to secede from Iran. And potential mess it may create would be just as bad as in Syria, only without ISIS . But the ruling regime won’t go away quietly, they have strong support, and won’t stop at using force to squash their enemies. Ayatollah Khamenei is a tough man, he was imprisoned five times during Shah’s rule, he won’t mess about and if the Basiji had already suppressed the rebels once, they’re confident they can do it again, if needed.
The US position in this case, as usual, is joy and ecstasy. Ah, people are drawn to freedom. Ah, those bastards shoot at the demonstrators. Horrible, horrible. Let's sanction them even more. When pro-US military suppressed Islamists in Egypt, having overthrown the legitimate President Mursi, and having shot 1,000 people from helicopters, they saw nothing. When the protesters against the king's authority were butchered in Bahrain, they similarly ignored it since there is a US base there, so let them do whatever they want, as long as status quo remains. Not to mention the Saudis. Absolutely despicable regime with medieval laws, but great friends of America.
What is surprising is the stupidity of the Iranian authorities. After all, it is clear that discontent is growing. That everyone is tired of the restrictions. The need for reforms is clear. But no. Mullahs believe if they crushed the opponents before, they can crush them again, so why change anything. Who wants reforms is automatically the agent for the USA and Israel, and is against Allah. Who is here against Allah? Who, come out here, now! Anybody? Well, just as we thought.
In short, there are two options, as to how it will end: either current regime overthrown (unlikely) which will lead to war and destruction, or opposition crushed once again which will result in continued stagnation. Both options are bad for different reasons.
By now a good part of local population is pretty much fed up with the power of the mullahs, imams, and other clerics, that has been established as the "rule of Allah" for almost 40 years now (since 1979, when the Shah was overthrown) . The Islamic Republic in large cities is extremely unpopular. At all houses they've got whiskey in refrigerators, illegal alcohol trade is thriving (despite flogging punishment), and city folk by and large show no respect to the Sharia law. Among these citizens the authorities are simply despised, and there is a reason for that. Corruption in Iran is rampant. For example, I was allowed into Iran as a journalist only on the condition that I was to engage the services of the so-called "government escort agency" (nothing to do with adult companionship) for $ 250 per day (otherwise the visa was not given). What I did instead was on my arrival I said I didn’t have enough money, then just paid a hundred - since in fact, they were just demanding a bribe. The whole time I was there I haven't met a single (!) person in a major city who would have told me they were happy to live under Islamic republic.
On the other hand, the power of mullahs is very popular in small towns and rural areas. Here’s the deal - the government subsidizes costs for basic food products like rice, chicken, flour, butter, and the prices remain the same for decades. Now they decided to make changes to that system - that's the reason for the riots. The main supporters of the authorities are the "Guards of the Islamic Revolution, and "basij" , which is a militia. In 2009, during the "green revolution", it was the basijes that suppressed the students' protests , 72 people died. Also, in Iran they have excellent highways, make cars, build subways in many big cities, there is a social housing where young families pay a symbolic price for the rent, and subsequently have a chance to buy an apartment with a help from the government. Lots of money is being spent on social benefits for citizens.
So how is modern Iran ruled? At the head of Iran there is a spiritual leader - rahbar, and for the last 29 years it’s Khamenei, the successor to Ayatollah Khomeini. Rahbar can remove the president, cancel any of his decrees, and even the appointments of ministers go through him, and the laws cannot be passed without his approval. There are some extreme laws , among them public executions (witnessed myself), also for theft, first a finger is cut off, then an arm, for homosexuality people are executed, and unfaithful wives (albeit extremely rare) are stoned to death. And this is all in the 21st century, yes. On the other hand, the same laws apply to a big friend of the United States - Saudi Arabia, but in their case the US does not seem to care at all. Women in Iran hold positions in parliament, drive cars and don’t cover their faces. The president's elections in Iran are democratic and free, but the candidates must be first okeyed by the Rahbar, and thus a candidate must prove "adherence to Islam." If you are not “devoted enough” - goodbye, that’s why presidents often come from the clergy. Too many mosques are being built, and some remain empty. But, since "we are an Islamic republic," they just keep building new ones.
Many people remember with nostalgia the Shah deposed in 1979. Here is a fine fellow, who was all pro-American and pro-European, girls in mini skirts everywhere and whisky in bars. Yes it's true. What’s also true is that the Shah lived in luxury, and spent billions on himself: for example, in honor of the 2,500th anniversary of the monarchy back in 1971, he arranged a reception with a ton of sturgeon caviar for his guests while several regions of Iran were on the verge of starvation due to a drought. Over one year of protests, 2,700 people were killed by the Shah's troops, but the monarchy fell anyway. And so first, 2,700 demonstrators were killed, then the rebels executed 20,000 "servants of the regime", then the Islamists came to power, a war with Iraq began, and another million people died.
Current protests are anti-Islamist, and therefore Islamists, like after the "Arab spring", probably won’t come to power in the event of a possible collapse of the regime. But it could easily lead to war, because Kurdistan, Arabic regions, and Baluchi want to secede from Iran. And potential mess it may create would be just as bad as in Syria, only without ISIS . But the ruling regime won’t go away quietly, they have strong support, and won’t stop at using force to squash their enemies. Ayatollah Khamenei is a tough man, he was imprisoned five times during Shah’s rule, he won’t mess about and if the Basiji had already suppressed the rebels once, they’re confident they can do it again, if needed.
The US position in this case, as usual, is joy and ecstasy. Ah, people are drawn to freedom. Ah, those bastards shoot at the demonstrators. Horrible, horrible. Let's sanction them even more. When pro-US military suppressed Islamists in Egypt, having overthrown the legitimate President Mursi, and having shot 1,000 people from helicopters, they saw nothing. When the protesters against the king's authority were butchered in Bahrain, they similarly ignored it since there is a US base there, so let them do whatever they want, as long as status quo remains. Not to mention the Saudis. Absolutely despicable regime with medieval laws, but great friends of America.
What is surprising is the stupidity of the Iranian authorities. After all, it is clear that discontent is growing. That everyone is tired of the restrictions. The need for reforms is clear. But no. Mullahs believe if they crushed the opponents before, they can crush them again, so why change anything. Who wants reforms is automatically the agent for the USA and Israel, and is against Allah. Who is here against Allah? Who, come out here, now! Anybody? Well, just as we thought.
In short, there are two options, as to how it will end: either current regime overthrown (unlikely) which will lead to war and destruction, or opposition crushed once again which will result in continued stagnation. Both options are bad for different reasons.
Last edited:
Or Palestinian.
@antihenry that pretty much captures my own (far less extensive) experiences visiting Iran. I've been there twice, first time just after Ahmadinejad's election in 2005, second time just after the 2009 protests. First time round, I found Iranians extremely talkative in terms of politics, very open. Didn't meet anyone who had a good word to say about the regime, the most common word I heard in relation to it was 'dictatorship'. Met more than one person who pined for the days of the Shah, and even one dude who told me he was hoping the Americans would invade.
Of course, although these people were all different age groups and included some women, they were all English-speakers so probably educated to a degree not typical of the more rural regions. Since I was just a tourist who doesn't speak Farsi, Azeri or any other Iranian language I wouldn't draw any hard conclusions from my experiences. Still, one impression I was left with is that Iranians are nowhere near as irreligious as some would like to think. I remember smoking nargileh (sheeshah) with a group of guys my age (21 at the time) in Tabriz who like everyone else told me they hated the clerics, but later told me the story of Karbala and about how much respect they had for Imam Hussein. I don't think opposition to the Islamic Republic has any necessary correlation with irreligiosity, you just have to visit Qom or Mashad to see that. Also it should be noted that many high-ranked Shi'i mujtahids are opposed to Khomeini's "rule by the clergy" doctrine on a religious basis, but have come to accept life in the Islamic Republic - kind of similar to how most ultra-orthodox Jews, who are not Zionists in any real sense, have made their peace with the state of Israel.
Had a very different experience in 2009, didn't talk politics with a single Iranian or indeed talk to many Iranians at all (went a full week without talking to anybody at all).
Of course, although these people were all different age groups and included some women, they were all English-speakers so probably educated to a degree not typical of the more rural regions. Since I was just a tourist who doesn't speak Farsi, Azeri or any other Iranian language I wouldn't draw any hard conclusions from my experiences. Still, one impression I was left with is that Iranians are nowhere near as irreligious as some would like to think. I remember smoking nargileh (sheeshah) with a group of guys my age (21 at the time) in Tabriz who like everyone else told me they hated the clerics, but later told me the story of Karbala and about how much respect they had for Imam Hussein. I don't think opposition to the Islamic Republic has any necessary correlation with irreligiosity, you just have to visit Qom or Mashad to see that. Also it should be noted that many high-ranked Shi'i mujtahids are opposed to Khomeini's "rule by the clergy" doctrine on a religious basis, but have come to accept life in the Islamic Republic - kind of similar to how most ultra-orthodox Jews, who are not Zionists in any real sense, have made their peace with the state of Israel.
Had a very different experience in 2009, didn't talk politics with a single Iranian or indeed talk to many Iranians at all (went a full week without talking to anybody at all).
Last edited:
Thanks for your reply. I'm very interested in Iran and what's really going on in this country.
I think it must be the least understood, most complex country in the region and probably the world.
Check out when and where israel allowed its air force to bomb syrian positions in the past couple of years. You'd notice an uncanny coincidence that whenever al-qaida was about to be routed syrian positions were bombed.
There's very little I'd disagree there. Seems like a good summary as ever. In short, the clergy are despised in urban areas, particularly the younger generations. Though they still enjoy substantial support amongst the rural and poorer Iranians because of their social welfare policies and general conservatism that still remains ramptant outside of the major hubs. The alcohol anecdote is also true - an Iranian friend of mine was there recently and recalled a story where his relative simply made a phone call and someone in revolutionary guard attire rocked up in a motorcycle to drop off a few bottles
I'll also add this though - despite there being considerable resentment towards the regime, the vast majority of Iranians - young, progressive, secular or otherwise still deeply distrust the United states and its allies. They're not a stupid people, and still remain bitter over when the US had essentially coerced Saddam into invading them, the sanctions and the double standards regarding Iran's alleged nuclear ambitions. That last one is also an interesting one actually, since almost every Iranian I've spoken to has supported their country pursuing a nuclear program.
Having said that, I do disagree with your friend's bleak take on the future of the country. The clergy are a reactionary bunch but they're not stupid, they know that to survive they'll have to carry out progressive reforms to appease not only their poor base, but also the younger generations. These reforms had actually been going on for decades, particularly during the term of the reformist President Mohammad Khatami who introduced widescale reforms such as local elections, more rights for religious minorities, more freedom of press and a host of other laws aiming to broaden civil rights. The current President Rouhani is also somewhat of a reformer (by Iran's standards) and has himself pushed for more progressive initiatives such as negotiating the nuclear deal to lift sanctions (which the Trump administration and his Israeli/Saudi bedfellows are desperately trying to sabotage), warming relations with Europe and very recently passed a law whereby Women are no longer arrested if they don't wear a headscarf. I'm not saying we can expect Iran to become a beacon of tolerance and liberalism in the short term, but the country will continue to modernise, and even if its current state will remain a much more tolerant society than the regional allies of the US.