You dismiss actual physical evidence as nothing more propaganda and paint jobs.
It isn't actual physical evidence. Apart from the mentioned paint, there's nothing to discriminate between these and their equivalents in use by US-allied armies or by Ukraine itself.
You dismiss the US regime's incentive to wage psy-ops against the Iran-Russia partnership. You dismiss open calls by Washington think tanks for measures destined to undermine said partnership. Among other things, this is what such measures can be expected to look like. And you dismiss NATO regimes' extensive record of spreading fabrications with the express purpose of disturbing ties between Iran and her partners and allies (e.g. the Persian and Arabic services of the BBC spewing the exact same types of bogus stories to their respective audiences, about Iraqi / Iranian pilgrims abusing pilgrimage tours for temporary marriage with local females etc).
Your facts is your beyond optimistic interpretation of current Russian-Iranian relations
A description of a present state of affairs, not a forecast.
and “Ukraine hates Iran so they wouldn’t get Iranian arms”.
The norm is that antagonistic governments do not arm each other with weaponry. So yes, it's a weighty argument.
US and Israel were hated by Iran, that didn’t stop both supplying arms to Iran (and Iran accepting) during Iran-Iraq war. Geopolitics is complicated reality. Russia knows that quite well given how it has treated Iran since 1990’s.
The zionist regime did not supply weapons on its own initiative. Rather, Washington drew on Isra"el"i stockpiles and the services of some Isra"el"i arms dealer in order to cover its tracks, seeing how it was a secret operation which the US Congress was unlawfully being kept in the dark about.
Secondly, reasons for this rare exception to the rule are known: attacks on American interests and military by pro-Iranian groups in Lebanon, western hostages held over there and a subsequent desire by the USA regime to deescalate.
It's up to you to provide reasons as to why you're assuming the same sort of exception would apply in the present case. Simply citing extraordinary instances from the past will not suffice in the face of how regular foreign policy is conducted.
You remind me of the book 1987, with how quickly in your mind you can remake history to fit the current climate.
The book 1987? I guess that should be
1984. Also I'm at a loss as to what part of history I supposedly rewrote.
I learned long ago to not argue with you.
In that case you might want to refrain from tagging or quoting me.
Your type of optimistic thinking is highly dangerous to the Republic today, which has led to the worst riots since the start of the Republic.
One wonders what sort of optimism is meant here in relation to those riots, and how it relates to the topic at hand.
Facts are Iranian arms are somehow making it to the Ukraine battlefield.
Not a fact, rather something which western "Twitter" accounts dedicated to repeating NATO propaganda, are attempting to suggest with photographs of token amounts of munitions which Ukraine or other US-allied governments literally happen to own stockpiles of, and which can be made to look as Iranian copies by virtue of a simple paint job.
No amount of photoshop, propaganda, stolen from a Houthi boat or Mossad agents, can explain it. All just Foreign Ministry like plausible deniability.
Even if these were Iranian-made, for which there's no proof, the unsubstantiated assertion that Iran is arming Ukraine would remain a far-fetched one given the possibility of some former customer(s) of Iran supplying Kiev against Iran's will.
Not to mention the absence of complaints from Moscow, practically a year after pro-NATO users on "Twitter" started with these posts. The fact that there hasn't been any discernible downgrading of Russian ties with Iran (quite the contrary) is telling. Plausible deniability or not, if Iran was arming Ukraine then Moscow would know and mutual ties would find themselves considerably affected.
No, Russia would not take such a move lightly. Nor would it be comparable with Russian hesitation to down zionist fighter jets over Palestinian airspace. Actively arming a party Russia is in the process of fighting a high-intensity war against, viewed by Moscow as no less than existential in nature, is another pair of shoes altogether. It'd doubtlessly be met by a clear, visible reaction from Russia, however no such thing can be seen in current bilateral relations.
Some inconclusive photographs posted by biased "Twitter" users on the one hand, and a whole series of compelling geopolitical realities on the other. Seems obvious to me which hypothesis enjoys more credibility.
