Iran and Saudi Arabia reportedly agree to resume diplomatic ties and re-open embassies within two months

[etylo]

I never wrote anywhere, in this thread or elsewhere, that China wants to replace the US as the global policeman or sherif or whatever you call it. I wrote that some CHINESE people want that to be the case. Learn the difference between what individual Chinese nationalists online are saying or writing and China as a country/government/regime.

Firstly it is not in the nature of the Chinese civilization for the reasons that I stated and secondly China is incapable of having such a wide reach as the US for the reasons that I also wrote. This is my opinion at least.

As far as me thinking that China wants to overtake the military, economic and political influence of the US, is not necessarily the same thing as me thinking that China wants to be or can be the global sheriff.

You can be the largest economy of the world and the strongest military power on paper and being insular by large rather than seeking global dominance like the US has sought since WW2.

Who wrote that you are thinking anything about the West? You are the one that is putting words in my mouth that I have not uttered.

I never wrote anywhere, in this thread or elsewhere, that China wants to replace the US as the global policeman or sherif or whatever you call it. I wrote that some CHINESE people want that to be the case. Learn the difference between what individual Chinese nationalists online are saying or writing and China as a country/government/regime.

Firstly it is not in the nature of the Chinese civilization for the reasons that I stated and secondly China is incapable of having such a wide reach as the US for the reasons that I also wrote. This is my opinion at least.

As far as me thinking that China wants to overtake the military, economic and political influence of the US, is not necessarily the same thing as me thinking that China wants to be or can be the global sheriff.

You can be the largest economy of the world and the strongest military power on paper and being insular by large rather than seeking global dominance like the US has sought since WW2.

Who wrote that you are thinking anything about the West? You are the one that is putting words in my mouth that I have not uttered.

Your words:

The Chinese (at least many of them) want to replace the US as the main sheriff.

As far as I know, nonone serious of Chinese want China to replace the US as the main sheriff.

 

[Corruptistan]

Your words:

The Chinese (at least many of them) want to replace the US as the main sheriff.

As far as I know, nonone serious of Chinese want China to replace the US as the main sheriff.

As far as I know, I have seen otherwise on PDF and online. Are you trying to convince the world that there are no Chinese nationalists out there among 1.4 billion Chinese people or even nobody within the Chinese government or Chinese power circles, that have aspirations of China replacing the current US position as the main power in the world?

Let us agree to disagree.

Anyway this deal/agreement seems to be a big deal (at least looking at it online) in China due to China being the broker. I see many Chinese comments from high-position Chinese people (government figures) and others in the comment section on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1634180277764276227

I am afraid that the Chinese government is going to be disappointed by the outcome (actual changes on the ground) because this agreement or no-agreement, the likelihood of an Arab-Iranian (KSA in this case) conflict was always low. Which the past 43 years of no direct conflict also confirms.

 

[etylo]

As far as I know, I have seen otherwise on PDF and online. Are you trying to convince the world that there are no Chinese nationalists out there among 1.4 billion Chinese people or even nobody within the Chinese government or Chinese power circles, that have aspirations of China replacing the current US position as the main power in the world?

Let us agree to disagree.

Anyway this deal/agreement seems to be a big deal (at least looking at it online) in China due to China being the broker. I see many Chinese comments from high-position Chinese people (government figures) and others in the comment section on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1634180277764276227

I am afraid that the Chinese government is going to be disappointed by the outcome (actual changes on the ground) because this agreement or no-agreement, the likelihood of an Arab-Iranian (KSA in this case) conflict was always low. Which the past 43 years of no direct conflict also confirms.

As fas as I know, no one in Chinese gov and the Chinese media never talked and wanted to be the world sherrif. If few Chinese netizens said that, it doesnt count.

 

[Meengla]

Agree completely on this one. Iran during the Shah period was much more limited and inward looking. Since nationalist Iran of the shah era didnt have any persian takers regionally, so they couldn't use that to influence Arab states(who are all fervent islamic by nature). So the Islamic revolution of 1979 and the mullah hijacking the revolution actually helped shaped Iran's foreign policy to be much more aggresssive in expansion and exporting their version of Islam and influence thereafter. The shah by contrast never really engaged in such endeavours, I guess that was the reason why there wasnt much sectarian issues and fight for influence with KSA and other Arab countries in the region back then, if anything there was no issues between both sides.
In terms of gaining influence, leverage and proxies over neighbouring states in the region i will say the Mullahs have done a far better than the shah nationalistic Iran. So it depends on which angle we look at it. Some will argue that the Islamic revolution and rise of the Mullahs was the start of instability, wars and sectarian conflicts of influence in the region as well, depends on which angle we look at it.

Correct.

But under the Shah rule, there were more 'social' freedoms but also severe repression and amassing of wealth in a few hands. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran introduced an extreme religious fervor, not unlike the one in the nascent Soviet Union after 1917. And just like in the Soviet Union of its early days, the Iran under the revolutionaries was an aggressive power, seeking to extend its ideology. AND both the USSR and the revolutionary Iran had their future course greatly influenced by what the foreign powers did to oppose the rise of the revolutions. The USSR probably would not have been so cynical and brutal had there not been foreign aggression to support the Mensheviks. Similarly, the revolution in Iran took on a cynical, brutal and repressive course because it too, with good reasons, saw itself in an existential struggle against powerful foreign powers . We can fairly add the support to Chiang Kai by foreign powers against the Communists in China during the Chinese Civil War which led to the course of the Chinese history in a certain way.

Who were those foreign powers meddling in the affairs of nations thousands of miles away?? I don't think I need to tell anyone here. Follow the money and you will find them. War profiteers and enemies of humanity!

But I digressed! Here is a video which touches upon what could the order look like in the Middle East IF this new rapprochement succeeds. I didn't respect Alexander in this video much in his early videos--kind of sounded like on dope--but I was wrong. The guy even brought up the Tashkent Agreement between India-Pakistan after the 1965 war! He knows his stuff!!

 

[Corruptistan]

As fas as I know, no one in Chinese gov and the Chinese media never talked and wanted to be the world sherrif. If few Chinese netizens said that, it doesnt count.

Well, if you read what I actually wrote, this is all I wrote. I never claimed that China as an country or government wanted/said that. I even stated the reasons (historical and cultural) why I think that this will never be the case.

Correct.

But under the Shah rule, there were more 'social' freedoms but also severe repression and amassing of wealth in a few hands. The 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran introduced an extreme religious fervor, not unlike the one in the nascent Soviet Union after 1917. And just like in the Soviet Union of its early days, the Iran under the revolutionaries was an aggressive power, seeking to extend its ideology. AND both the USSR and the revolutionary Iran had their future course greatly influenced by what the foreign powers did to oppose the rise of the revolutions. The USSR probably would not have been so cynical and brutal had there not been foreign aggression to support the Mensheviks. Similarly, the revolution in Iran took on a cynical, brutal and repressive course because it too, with good reasons, saw itself in an existential struggle against powerful foreign powers . We can fairly add the support to Chiang Kai by foreign powers against the Communists in China during the Chinese Civil War which led to the course of the Chinese history in a certain way.

Who were those foreign powers meddling in the affairs of nations thousands of miles away?? I don't think I need to tell anyone here. Follow the money and you will find them. War profiteers and enemies of humanity!

But I digressed! Here is a video which touches upon what could the order look like in the Middle East IF this new rapprochement succeeds. I didn't respect Alexander in this video much in his early videos--kind of sounded like on dope--but I was wrong. The guy even brought up the Tashkent Agreement between India-Pakistan after the 1965 war! He knows his stuff!!

You seem rather well-informed as well, what is your take on this deal? Hot air/face saving in public from both, or the beginning of a genuine new era in relations and regional stability and cooperation? You are probably more optimistic than I am, I gather?

 

[Sineva]

Settle down my friend.

He cant help it,hes permanently stuck in full retard mode.

 

[Corruptistan]

He cant help it,hes permanently stuck in full retard mode.

Yes, everyone that is not an uncritical and blind Mullah shill while based in the "evil West" and who does not ignore 43 years of track record and ground realties, must be some kind of "retard" according to the hordes of Western-based Iranian Mullah supporters here..

Give it a rest, what I have written is an opinion shared by vast majority of Arabs, most Muslims (in particular Sunnis) and even neutral observers with no ties to the neighborhood.

That is why neutral users here tend to agree with many of my comments here while the Iranian Mullah shills are all crying, insulting, trolling, posting one-liners and unable to counter any of my arguments.

Anyway I guess the Iranian Mullah shills, as I wrote, need to change their propaganda/official scriptures now that KSA has suddenly become an Iranian ally or at least no longer an enemy.

Meanwhile I say things as I see them regardless of what regimes are telling or agreeing with or on. I guess this is the difference between mental slaves and independent thinkers.

 

[Zsari]

As far as I know, I have seen otherwise on PDF and online. Are you trying to convince the world that there are no Chinese nationalists out there among 1.4 billion Chinese people or even nobody within the Chinese government or Chinese power circles, that have aspirations of China replacing the current US position as the main power in the world?

Let us agree to disagree.

Anyway this deal/agreement seems to be a big deal (at least looking at it online) in China due to China being the broker. I see many Chinese comments from high-position Chinese people (government figures) and others in the comment section on Twitter.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1634180277764276227

I am afraid that the Chinese government is going to be disappointed by the outcome (actual changes on the ground) because this agreement or no-agreement, the likelihood of an Arab-Iranian (KSA in this case) conflict was always low. Which the past 43 years of no direct conflict also confirms.

Most Chinese would want their country to be more prosperous and powerful than the U.S. But that is not the same as to replace the US as a self appointed sheriff of the world, as very few if any Chinese is interested seeing China in that role.

And no, why would China be disappointed? A direct conflict is low, but a Saudi that’s less dependent upon the U.S. for its security is a great step forward for China.

 

[Corruptistan]

Most Chinese would want their country to be more prosperous and powerful than the U.S. But that is not the same as to replace the US as a self appointed sheriff of the world, as very few if any Chinese is interested seeing China in that role.

And no, why would China be disappointed? A direct conflict is low, but a Saudi that’s less dependent upon the U.S. for its security a great step forward for China.

Which is what I wrote all the time in this thread.

KSA is not dependent on the US for its security. No regional power can conquer KSA or is an existential threat for KSA other than theoretically Israel due to its nukes. But good luck nuking KSA (100 times the size of Israel if not more) when you are a small Israel just next door.

I don't get this "China is against the US" rhetoric when at the same time China is doing very little outside of Taiwan to threaten US hegemony and continues to be the largest trade partner of the US and vice versa. It does not add up in my eyes.

KSA is not going to cut ties with the US or West, KSA has since I remember, always aimed at having the best possible ties with every power whether it be West or East. KSA is not even a formal ally of US unlike say Egypt or others. Nor a NATO member (obviously) or part of any security coalition. Nor is there even US bases in KSA unlike elsewhere in the neighborhood.

 

[AmirPatriot]

Yes, everyone that is not an uncritical and blind Mullah shill while based in the "evil West" and who does not ignore 43 years of track record and ground realties, must be some kind of "retard" according to the hordes of Western-based Iranian Mullah supporters here..

Give it a rest, what I have written is an opinion shared by vast majority of Arabs, most Muslims (in particular Sunnis) and even neutral observers with no ties to the neighborhood.

That is why neutral users here tend to agree with many of my comments here while the Iranian Mullah shills are all crying, insulting, trolling, posting one-liners and unable to counter any of my arguments.

Anyway I guess the Iranian Mullah shills, as I wrote, need to change their propaganda/official scriptures now that KSA has suddenly become an Iranian ally or at least no longer an enemy.

Meanwhile I say things as I see them regardless of what regimes are telling or agreeing with or on. I guess this is the difference between mental slaves and independent thinkers.

Hasani is that you

 

[Meengla]

You seem rather well-informed as well, what is your take on this deal? Hot air/face saving in public from both, or the beginning of a genuine new era in relations and regional stability and cooperation? You are probably more optimistic than I am, I gather?

It is a 'real deal' in my opinion. The two sides had been negotiating for a while. The regional and even global geopolitics is changing fast. And people adapt and learn from their mistakes.

But of course there are serious differences between Iran and KSA AND there are very powerful forces (USA and Israel) which would do anything to sabotage this, including even killing MBS. The video I posted above (The Duran) even hints at the possibility of the removal of MBS.

 

[White and Green with M/S]

Yes, I am such a troll that I am having a conversation with @Jango (moderator) over several pages where we are mostly in agreement.

Try to act your age rather than posts like that. Argue why you disagree with my supposed trolling, rather than one-liners that are good for nothing in a discussion.

Tell me where I am wrong. Educate me. I would give you credit for that rather than posts like that.

Why are so mad at me you always blaming Irani Mullah govt, and think KSA government and its allies are angle lol

Yes, I am such a troll that I am having a conversation with @Jango (moderator) over several pages where we are mostly in agreement.

Try to act your age rather than posts like that. Argue why you disagree with my supposed trolling, rather than one-liners that are good for nothing in a discussion.

Tell me where I am wrong. Educate me. I would give you credit for that rather than posts like that.

Maybe I was too harsh in my criticism of the Iranian regime (Mullahs in power) and if somebody was offended by that I can only apologize, although I think it is absurd, that I am supposed to apologize for personal opinions and my own personal experiences and interactions and what I have seen online for years. But anyway I just did, I wonder if those that insulted me, make numerous fake accusations against me etc. are going to apologize? I don't believe that, it does not matter and I do not care, but no need for me to state the obvious here.

 

[Corruptistan]

It is a 'real deal' in my opinion. The two sides had been negotiating for a while. The regional and even global geopolitics is changing fast. And people adapt and learn from their mistakes.

But of course there are serious differences between Iran and KSA AND there are very powerful forces (USA and Israel) which would do anything to sabotage this, including even killing MBS. The video I posted above (The Duran) even hints at the possibility of the removal of MBS.

Sure, it is obviously the real deal by being signed by both parties and becoming official and everything. Only the Chinese guy in the middle (foreign minister I believe, I have seen him before) looked happy, lol.

I was more interested in whether you believe that the outcome of said deals will amount to concrete changes on the ground. This is what I am interested in seeing.

Why are so mad at me you always blaming Irani Mullah govt, and think KSA government and its allies are angle lol

Nonsense. In this thread alone I have criticized the KSA government plenty. By that logic you are anti-Arab and Irani Mullah's are angles.

If I was a blind KSA-regime shill I would be praising everything that MbS and their regime is doing like many Saudis online from what I see. Not much different from the usual blind nationalist of any nationality. So no, you are wrong.

I am not mad, this is a forum, not real life. We are just sharing our opinions here. You are the ones that is somehow "angry" about my opinion, lol, and name-calling as a consequence.

 

[ThunderCat]

You know what is the problem with this forum? Every criticism of Iran (read Iranian Mullah policies nobody is ever blaming the average Iranian or Iran as an historical entity or nation state) is given 100 different labels by the same horde of Mullah trolls who are more Mullah than the Supreme Ayatollah. Almost all of them are exclusively based in the West as well. You cannot make it up.

KSA has far better/less conservative laws than Iran, especially nowadays. Not even close.

Even a Christian Assyrian Iranian admits it openly in videos such as this one:

KSA (rulers) are a far more sane entity than Iran since 1979 which is also why Iran is the pariah state (in comparison) to KSA. Living standards, infrastructure etc. also lightyears apart from each other.

I will admit one thing though, Iranian propaganda is 100 times more effective than KSA one.

Mostly agreed. When I was condemning the regime on social media, my friend accused me of being a sectarian and so did his friend.

It was only his Indian Brahman friend that explained to him my concerns and it was not necessarily sectarian.

I find favoring Iran and Shia Islam can be a commonality for Sunni liberals, but it is mostly fallacious.

In the end I hope to see an end to both regimes. They're both tyrannical. Their people should have democracy.

 

[Corruptistan]

It is a 'real deal' in my opinion. The two sides had been negotiating for a while. The regional and even global geopolitics is changing fast. And people adapt and learn from their mistakes.

But of course there are serious differences between Iran and KSA AND there are very powerful forces (USA and Israel) which would do anything to sabotage this, including even killing MBS. The video I posted above (The Duran) even hints at the possibility of the removal of MBS.

But this is why I cannot take many of the Western analysts seriously. They have this ignorant or even racist view of non-Westerners as some drones that are blindly uncritical and following their rulers and have this idea of 1 man (the ruler) somehow controlling and deciding everything.

What MbS has been initiating in KSA of late in terms of the massive ongoing industrialization, indigenous military sector, social, economic, religious etc. reforms (for the better if you ask me), is not the work of MbS alone but the Saudi Arabian elites and those that make the country run on a daily basis. If MbS is somehow taken out (doubt it but always possible) he will just be replaced by a similar minded person with a similar policy. Why? Because the jin is out of the bottle, nobody wants a return to the old era nor is anyone in power (House of Saud at least) going to jeopardize the future of the country and their rule (the good thing about autocratic rule is that you are bound to mostly succeed otherwise you risk losing everything forever, especially in West Asia of all regions of the world) by applying policies that are counterproductive for KSA as a country.

A prime minister in say UK, if he ***** up, he at worst, risk losing his position and goes back to his everyday political life, if autocrats lose power, their entire existence/rule is over and unlikely ever to return. In other words, there is more at stake here.

I also believe that the power circles in Iran think similarly after the recent unrest. Hence the lessening of some of their laws as well. I also believe that they (at last) realize that they cannot have hostile ties to Arabs forever.