Supreme Leader: Iran's Moral Presence in Region Makes US Irate

[lydian fall]

• دیگر زبانها (Other Languages)
• Categories
• Home
• Politico-Defense
• Economy
• Society & Culture
• Sci-Tech
• World
• Interview
• Multimedia
• All Stories
• Archive

2023-September-20 15:21

Suprme Leader: Iran's Moral Presence in Region Makes US Irate​

TEHRAN (FNA)- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei deplored the presence of trans-regional troops in West Asia, and further said that Washington and its allies are furious at Tehran's moral presence in the region.
Ayatollah Khamenei made the remarks in a meeting with a number of war veterans and promoters of resistance in Tehran Wednesday, stating that the “the holy defense” of the nation during eight years of the Iraqi war under former dictator Saddam Hussein on Iran is a prominent moment in the history of the country.
"We must recognize this important moment and event and introduce it to the future generations," the Leader underlined.
“If our successive generations know the important and meaningful aspects of the holy defense and know how the Iranian nation was able to reach the victory platform and stand there with strength, there will be great lessons for them in this discernment and great tasks will be accomplished,” he added.
Ayatollah Khamenei recalled the years after the 1979 Islamic Revolution when all the big powers of the world, including the US, European countries and the East joined in the war against Iran.
"The achievements of the holy defense are not one or two. This will be a book with dozens of volumes. The whole world fought behind Saddam to break this border and tried for eight years, but not an inch of this country's soil was lost," he underscored.
"The Iranian nation discovered the greatness of its capacities in the holy defense. The Iranian nation recognized itself in the holy defense," the Supreme Leader added.
He explained that securing the country is one of the achievements of the holy defense, which kept the country from possible future aggression to a great extent.
"It showed that if the enemy initiates an offensive, it will not be the one to terminate it,” the Leader continued.
The holy defense, Ayatollah Khamenei said, expanded Iran’s borders.
“I don't mean geographical borders and we are not after that. It expanded other borders, including the border of resistance," he stressed.
Today, the element of resistance is rooted in the region, the Leader said, adding the holy defense also introduced, promoted and commonized the term of resistance in the world.
“It may be hard for us to believe, but the acts of the Iranian nation have had an impact in distant countries. We know about this. Both in East Asia, Africa and Latin America, the acts of the Iranian nation have became a model,” he noted
The Supreme Leader touched on Iran’s influence in the region, which has made the US uneasy.
“The issue of Iran's moral presence in the region has raised the exasperation of America and some countries, while we do not have a base in the regional countries except for a moral presence,” he stated.
The Leader described armed forces among the honors of the society, saying their presence is one of the main elements, without which a society cannot remain stable.
“We should appreciate the armed forces. The dignity and honor of the armed forces should be considered essential and we should consider it obligatory to honor them. The armed forces are security makers and the security of a country is everything,” he added.
Ayatollah Khamenei said the enemy counts on damaging the value, honor and dignity of the armed forces, which requires vigilance.

Iranian officials say the future of the world and region will be shaped by regional countries and organizations, as a growing number of states across the globe have rejected unilateralism and coercion. They asked independent states to challenge the US hegemony in the region and around the world, and stressed that domineering behavior is not just special to Democrats or Republicans but in the nature of American policies.

Iranian military officials have also stressed that Washington has weakened to the extent that it plays no role in the West Asia region’s geopolitical landscape. They stated that Iran has defeated the US which enjoyed unrivalled hegemony in the region and the whole world before the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but after the revolution they were forced to flee the region.

Officials in Iran believe that Washington cannot go ahead with its plan in the West Asia region as its schemes are doomed to fail, and add that Iran plays a key role in the political decisions of the United States and the fate of the White House is affected by Tehran's attitude.

Leader: Iran's Moral Presence in Region Makes US Irate | Farsnews Agency

 

[Muhammad Saftain Anjum]

The presence of Ayatollahs in Tehran indirectly benefits US.
To counter Iranian symmetric & asymetric threats, Saudi Arab alone has bought defence weapons worth 60+Billion US Dollars from America.

So US will never launch a full scale attack on Iran.It's simple math.By destroying Iran,they will lose the Billions of Dollars they earn by selling weapons to Arab countries.

 

[SalarHaqq]

The presence of Ayatollahs in Tehran indirectly benefits US.
To counter Iranian symmetric & asymetric threats, Saudi Arab alone has bought defence weapons worth 60+Billion US Dollars from America.

So US will never launch a full scale attack on Iran.It's simple math.By destroying Iran,they will lose the Billions of Dollars they earn by selling weapons to Arab countries.

Not really. PGCC regimes' weapons imports from the USA had been steadily rising prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution already. So the latter was not necessary to occur for Washington's PGCC clients to keep ordering American-made armaments.

Secondly, if they managed to destroy Iran and exploit her natural resources (among the richest in the world), the regime in Washington and American companies would furthermore stand to earn countless billions.

Thirdly, financial gain is not the only factor in the way a country shapes its foreign policy. Iran's resistance against USA hegemony has represented a serious challenge to the latter. For the sake of its hegemony alone, the presence of the Islamic Republic irks the regime in Washington.

Fourthly, Washington has tried about every tool in the "regime change" repertoire to topple the Islamic Republic, to no avail. Which proves that the USA wants the Islamic Republic gone.

Fifthly, there's a logical flaw in the quoted argument. Namely the following: if the theory were true, then PGCC leaders would either have to be complete idiots not to realize Washington is milking them, which means they'd have gained in operating a rapprochement with Iran in order to eliminate any rationale behind an arms race; or they cannot do otherwise because they are subordinated to American political overlordship. In the latter case however, relying on an Iranian bogeyman wouldn't be required - a simple request from Washington would suffice to make its clients comply and place those orders.

Finally, countries do not purchase weapons simply for defensive reasons. They can have proactive ambitions of their own, and PGCC regimes are far from exempt from this rule.

 

[Muhammed45]

The presence of Ayatollahs in Tehran indirectly benefits US.
To counter Iranian symmetric & asymetric threats, Saudi Arab alone has bought defence weapons worth 60+Billion US Dollars from America.

So US will never launch a full scale attack on Iran.It's simple math.By destroying Iran,they will lose the Billions of Dollars they earn by selling weapons to Arab countries.

Ever heard of American military industrial complex? They earn from war more than anything else. Problem is, USA cannot take on Iran militarily. Once Mubarak of Egypt asked Americans, why don't you rid us of Islamic revolutionaries in Iran? Sauds and others were disappointed with American inability against Iran and hence turned to eastern powers.

Today the front against Iran is smaller than ever before.

People are not blind and your sneaky quote doesn't change a thing.

Not really. PGCC regimes' weapons imports from the USA had been steadily rising prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution already. So the latter was not necessary to occur for Washington's PGCC clients to keep ordering American-made armaments.

Secondly, if they managed to destroy Iran and exploit her natural resources (among the richest in the world), the regime in Washington and American companies would furthermore stand to earn countless billions.

Thirdly, financial gain is not the only factor in the way a country shapes its foreign policy. Iran's resistance against USA hegemony has represented a serious challenge to the latter. For the sake of its hegemony alone, the presence of the Islamic Republic irks the regime in Washington.

Fourthly, Washington has tried about every tool in the "regime change" repertoire to topple the Islamic Republic, to no avail. Which proves that the USA wants the Islamic Republic gone.

Fifthly, there's a logical flaw in the quoted argument. Namely the following: if the theory were true, then PGCC leaders would either have to be complete idiots not to realize Washington is milking them, which means they'd have gained in operating a rapprochement with Iran in order to eliminate any rationale behind an arms race; or they cannot do otherwise because they are subordinated to American political overlordship. In the latter case however, relying on an Iranian bogeyman wouldn't be required - a simple request from Washington would suffice to make its clients comply and place those orders.

Finally, countries do not purchase weapons simply for defensive reasons. They can have proactive ambitions of their own, and PGCC regimes are far from exempt from this rule.

USA doesn't actually need a bogeyman to throw its outdated hardware at monarchy regimes. Arab momarchs sell oil to American companies, they are not allowed to spend it somewhere other than American approved markets. In fact they have no way other than buying American stuff, be it fighter jets or CocaCola. That's the definition of dependence.

 

[Muhammad Saftain Anjum]

Not really. PGCC regimes' weapons imports from the USA had been steadily rising prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution already. So the latter was not necessary to occur for Washington's PGCC clients to keep ordering American-made armaments.

Secondly, if they managed to destroy Iran and exploit her natural resources (among the richest in the world), the regime in Washington and American companies would furthermore stand to earn countless billions.

Thirdly, financial gain is not the only factor in the way a country shapes its foreign policy. Iran's resistance against USA hegemony has represented a serious challenge to the latter. For the sake of its hegemony alone, the presence of the Islamic Republic irks the regime in Washington.

Fourthly, Washington has tried about every tool in the "regime change" repertoire to topple the Islamic Republic, to no avail. Which proves that the USA wants the Islamic Republic gone.

Fifthly, there's a logical flaw in the quoted argument. Namely the following: if the theory were true, then PGCC leaders would either have to be complete idiots not to realize Washington is milking them, which means they'd have gained in operating a rapprochement with Iran in order to eliminate any rationale behind an arms race; or they cannot do otherwise because they are subordinated to American political overlordship. In the latter case however, relying on an Iranian bogeyman wouldn't be required - a simple request from Washington would suffice to make its clients comply and place those orders.

Finally, countries do not purchase weapons simply for defensive reasons. They can have proactive ambitions of their own, and PGCC regimes are far from exempt from this rule.

US has never took an out of box approach to deal with Iranian Regime
Regarding oil & minerals, US companies are already doing oil business in Iraq & Syria
In one report,they smuggled $150 Billion to US from Iraqi oil profit only.US companies own profits are other than that.
So what you think they can get by attacking Iran,they are already getting from Iraq & Syria and on bonus,selling weapons to S.Arab,UAE and others.

Regarding PGCC leaders, it's just that their Interests align with that of US.
https://nypost.com/2017/05/20/trump-signs-off-on-110b-arms-deal-in-saudi-arabia/
110 Billion US Dollars weapons deal was signed in Trump govt alone.Though that deal has earned US only 14B US Dollars
The point being,US is earning huge profit from Middle Eastern Arab-Iran conflicts.
So it's no brainer to attack Iran though that may change with time.

Two things are not in US interests :
Very weak Iran
or a very strong Iran
Iran being a mediocre military Power best suits US interests in Middle East.

Ever heard of American military industrial complex? They earn from war more than anything else.

Very Good spot on
Iran-Arab or Iran-US open war will continue for how long?? 1 month,2 months,maximum 5 months?
But think from another perspective
Iran-Arab cold war has spaned for Tens of Years so they thought with long term profit not a short term one.

 

[lydian fall]

The presence of Ayatollahs in Tehran indirectly benefits US.
To counter Iranian symmetric & asymetric threats, Saudi Arab alone has bought defence weapons worth 60+Billion US Dollars from America.

So US will never launch a full scale attack on Iran.It's simple math.By destroying Iran,they will lose the Billions of Dollars they earn by selling weapons to Arab countries.

Iran is as big as half of Europe and NOT a fake country created by britain devils

Whatever regime was in Iran PGCC regimes (mainly Ale Saud Clan) would spend billions dollars to buy weapons from angelo saxon brethren and their zionist forefathers

 

[SalarHaqq]

US has never took an out of box approach to deal with Iranian Regime

What do you call an out of the box approach and why should Washington resort to such with regards to Iran?

What Washington has proceeded with, is a classic so-called "regime change" policy comprising the entire range of relevant measures short of all out military aggression, which against Iran would exceed in terms of costs anything the USA experienced in recent times.

Regarding oil & minerals, US companies are already doing oil business in Iraq & Syria
In one report,they smuggled $150 Billion to US from Iraqi oil profit only.US companies own profits are other than that.
So what you think they can get by attacking Iran,they are already getting from Iraq & Syria and on bonus,selling weapons to S.Arab,UAE and others.

If profit is the driving force behind USA policy as your argument presupposes, then occupying Iran would yield more of it. Iranian oil and gas would make Washington reap greater sums than those you cited for Iraq, while at the same time the USA would be continuing to sell weapons to the Saudis, Emiratis and so on.

To illustrate this, let me add the following:

- Iraq's combined oil and gas reserves at current oil prices and 2021 average export prices for gas, are worth some $13,5 trillion ($12,6 trillion in oil and more or less $0,9 trillion in gas).
- Iran's combined oil and gas reserves are worth no less than $25,5 trillion ($7,5 trillion in oil and around $18 trillion in gas), in other terms almost twice as much.

So by invading Iran, the USA regime and American corporations would not only earn twice the amount they pocketed from Iraq if they stole Iranian energy reserves to the same tune, but moreover they'd still be making benefits from selling weapons to the PGCC.

Because their rivalry with Iran is not the only reason said regimes are importing weapons from the USA. Case in point, prior to the 1979 Islamic Revolution, when Iran was ruled by a pro-western monarchy that was much more to the liking of PGCC potentates, USA arms exports to these countries were still on the rise every year.

Regarding PGCC leaders, it's just that their Interests align with that of US.

Objectively speaking the interest of PGCC leaders resides in mending ties with Iran and shaking off USA imperial yoke, since Iran has no axe to grind with any country as long as they refrain from collaborating with American destabilization efforts.

110 Billion US Dollars weapons deal was signed in Trump govt alone.Though that deal has earned US only 14B US Dollars
The point being,US is earning huge profit from Middle Eastern Arab-Iran conflicts.

So it's no brainer to attack Iran though that may change with time.

If attacking Iraq and Libya wasn't absurd from the USA's own imperialist perspective, then attacking Iran would have been even less illogical. For Iran has challenged and harmed USA regime interests far more than Iraq and Libya. Whatever Baghdad and Tripoli did to warrant being bombed in the eyes of Washington, Iran did several fold more.

As long as the Islamic Republic is in place and keeps progressing on a daily basis Iran represents a significant challenge to USA hegemony, insofar as the alternate model she's offering could tempt others to follow in her footsteps, beyond the increasing number of movements and governments already in line with the Iranian approach. Witnessing how a country like Iran can manage to stand up to NATO could - and probably did - encourage Russia and China to be less hesitant in confronting their western adversaries.

This is something no amount of financial profit can make up for. It's something you must get rid off as soon as possible if you're keen on maintaining your global hegemony, hence why Washington has been so adamant to crush Iran.

Two things are not in US interests :
Very weak Iran
or a very strong Iran
Iran being a mediocre military Power best suits US interests in Middle East.

Iran isn't a mediocre military power. It's powerful enough to deter USA military aggression.

To Washington, Iran is the big prize in the region - not Iraq, nor Libya, nor any of the other countries they assaulted, because none is as large and resourceful as Iran.

---

USA doesn't actually need a bogeyman to throw its outdated hardware at monarchy regimes. Arab momarchs sell oil to American companies, they are not allowed to spend it somewhere other than American approved markets. In fact they have no way other than buying American stuff, be it fighter jets or CocaCola. That's the definition of dependence.

Absolutely. Which is why they were already purchasing quantities of weaponry from the Americans prior to the Islamic Revolution.

 

[Haldorss]

Ayatollah still hasn't a direct attack by NATO on them.

 

[Mehdipersian]

Ayatollah still hasn't a direct attack by NATO on them.

NATO don't have enough balls to attack Iran

 

[Deez Nutz]

---------------------------------YOUR ENEMY WITHIN ------------------------------

MEANWHILE HIJAB-BEATING DEATH OF YOUNG IRANIAN WOMEN AND GIRLS CONTINUES AT THE HANDS OF AZARI MULLAHS................

Such aggression against women specially muslim women, is straight out of MI-6 user guide.
These MI-6 azari-turk-clone morality police beat to death yet another Iranian 16 year old girl on a subway cart in Tehran for not wearing headscarf.

As these azari turk clone mullahz can't deal with Taliban on the east, or azar-isis-mossad-FSB axis up north, or pump hot air threats to Israel/US, they would not hesitate to beat to death a 16 year old Iranian girl without headscarf in a subway cart just last week again, thank you islam, thank you MI-6 azaris turk clones. Public should start beating back on these azari thugs claiming to be morality police or Iranian. Would you do this to your own kind, people?
Azaris clearly are not Iranian, they do not belong. They keep Iran down.

Now,you can talk all the malarkey you wish about your conventional capabilities, however, keep in mind at the end of the day, Israel and US(NUCLEAR ARMED SATES)are not a defenseless 16 year old Kurdish girl without head scarf trapped in a subway cart that you, MI-6 turker traitors, can beat to death. They hit back your woman-beating coward azari wet backs, and hit back hard, and when they do, among all the bad things in a war like that, one thing good will come out of, “You, your azari turk clones MI-6 assets, and your islam(another MI-6 asset) will be gone for good, never to return to Iran.”

- One more thing, to cope with this, don't forget to hold your azari opium pipe up to sky in direction of your azariturkclone Allah, then post a picture of it here claiming it was mine, OR post a picture of your new prescription psychotropic drugs your doc just wrote you azari psychopaths, the other day after celebrating the beating death of an innocent 16 year old Iranian Kurdish girl.

 

[BHAN85]

I think it's more likely a USA backstabbing against GCC than a USA vs Iran war.

USA wants oil and raw materials consumption decreasing, so their target is rich zones.