بزرگترین اشتباه جمهوری اسلامی خاک بر سر قبول کردن استقلال این دو تا استان سابق ایران بود همون موقع که اون ایلچی‌بیگ حرومزاده اون زرهای مفت رو زد باید اینا لشکر کشی میکردن به اونجا شلوار ایلچی‌بیگ و همه دار و دسته شو رو سرشون می کشیدن اون دو تا استان رو دوباره ضمیمه خاک ایران می کردن حالا به خاطر اشتباه این خاک بر سرا ما تا ابد باید انگولک های دار و دسته پانترک ها تو یه استان سابق ایران به خودمون رو تحمل کنیم.
با شعار دادن 24 ساعته و حلوا حلوا کردن 365 روزه دهن شیرین نمیشه، این خاک بر سرایی که عرضه نداشتن جلوی ایجاد مشکل رو بگیرن عرضه جمع کردنش رو هم نخواهند داشت.
Now this is genuine BBC/VOA level ranting.
By the same standard the Pahlavi regime, by recognizing the USSR, "renounced":
- the southern Caucasus
- Turkmenistan
- parts of Uzbekistan
Recognizing Afghanistan the Pahlavis thus "gave away" Herat and south-western Afghanistan.
Being the first to recognize Pakistan, the shah "renounced" the better part of Baluchistan.
By recognizing Iraq, he "did away" with areas lost to the Ottomans under the Safavids.
Abandoning Iranian claims on Bahrein on top of it.
And the quoted member reserves his wrath for the sole Islamic Republic...!
This is beside the fact that withholding recognition of a neighboring state and laying claim to its entire territory for annexation following a hiatus of over 70 years is an unusual step in international politics. It comes at a cost, not the least of which is potential border flashpoints of instability and near absence of mutually beneficial relations.
Let's have a look around, is Turkey doing this? Or Russia?
While there have been certain points of contention with Azerbaijan Republic, this has hardly been the case with Armenia. Jeopardizing these relations (including Iranian exports to Armenia etc) for nothing (since an invasion of either Armenia or Azerbaijan would have come at too high a political cost for Iran), would have been silly.
Now mutual recognition in these scenarios does not preclude from making the right move when the context is right and an actual, realistic opportunity for reunification arises (as Russia vis a vis Crimea) but in the meantime Iran is conducting the correct policy.
Australia or the US can withhold recognition of the Turkish republic of northern Cyprus because it's of no consequence to them. They did not recognize the Serbian republic in Bosnia because that was the product of a war they were themselves involved and taking sides in. Cases like north/south Korea or China/Taiwan are a different pair of shoes because partition in these cases results from civil wars, not from independence consecutive to invasion and annexation by a neighboring power.
Didn't Iraqi Shia people fought against Iran ?
Saddam's regime would take it out on their relatives if they refused to. This wasn't revolutionary Iran, where the number of volunteers was so immense that even deserters didn't need to be prosecuted.
That said, there is no general rule according to which anyone who is Shia would necessarily side with Iran, nor any rule stipulating that a Sunni Muslim or a westerner or ... is bound to oppose Iran. Depends on various factors. Other things equal however, Iran obviously starts out with a natural advantage when it comes to gaining favor with Shia Muslim populations.
