QWECXZ
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,150
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
What's your solution? To sit idle and see how things develop against our interests?So if Pashinyan conducts some move against Iran, it's the Islamic Republic's fault? What exactly did you expect Iran to do, prevent the CIA's "color revolution" in Yerevan? Invade Armenia and Azarbaijan Republic at once, duplicating the utter stupidity of a Saddam Tikriti?
It doesn't work that way. Iran has set a red line which is politically legitimate and practically viable, whereas the sort of over-the-top actions some seem to have in mind wouldn't have been. And legitimacy as well as cost-effectiveness are paramount in international politics. Should the announced red line be crossed, adequate action (which doesn't boil down to offensive military operation but encompasses a broad spectrum of options) will follow suit. Until then, nobody will be in a position to accuse Iran of passivity on this dossier.
As for pan-Turkists being influential in Iran, could you explain how exactly? Are you truly imagining that in the absence of these insignificant clowns, Iran would've bombed Baku by now? The comparison with Iran's policy vis à vis the USA is way off. Or could you name an instance in which Iran initiated military action against the Americans, the kind of which you appear to be defining as some sort of a yardstick for gauging whether or not Iran's doing the right thing about the antics coming out of Baku? Moreover, western-absolving liberals weigh "slightly" more than pan-Turkists ever will. Yet the system is robust and well designed enough to systematically prevent them from having their way. Last but not least, Iran prioritizing the USA and zionist regimes in her hierarchy of enemies is precisely the correct thing to do, including with regards to possible threats emanating out of Baku, because these do not arise in a vacuum, they are a consequence of and entirely stemming from zio-American schemes against Iran.
When it comes to the Qajars, this sort of rhetoric is so comical, normally it wouldn't deserve to be addressed. But let's still throw in a couple of reminders, no-brainers to be honest: under the Qajars, Iran lost a large chunk of her territory to imperial powers, under the Islamic Republic she's never conceded a single inch. This is while Islamic Iran's immediate reach today is stretching from the Levant and the Mediterranean to the Red Sea and Horn of Africa, from Afghanistan to every Shia community further East, for the first time in around 500 years. Not to mention entrenched Iranian presence in far away lands such as Venezuela. Qajars? The same dynasty whose weakness reached such depths that 9 out of 20 million Iranians could be subjected to genocide at the hands of the British empire. And you're serious about drawing analogies with the Iran of today? Non-existent arms industries under not only the Qajars but the Pahlavis as well, versus the Islamic Republic's vast and self-sufficient defence sector, doesn't ring a bell? The level of independence and sovereignty of present day Iran versus an era (again, both applying to the Qajars and Pahlavis) where Iran's general policy orientation not to mention key decisions were directly dictated from London, Moscow, and then Washington D.C. and Tel Aviv. And so on, and so forth.
Let's not lose touch with reality.
I don't think you're offering a solution at all, let alone an optimal solution.