What's new

The end of the deal, hopes, delusions and treasons

Republicans push 'No Oil From Terrorists Act' to ban Biden from buying Iranian energy​





Ok, these slave owning, racist, backwards savage genocidal, hillbilly, lower than pig white trash muricans went completely mask off here calling us "Terrorists". The Vienna talks are just a fools play, When these guys get back in power, They will do what they say they are going to do and will pull out of the JCPOA, Again. Our Akhoonds need to wise up and develop nuclear weapons, We do that and will call it the 'Protection of Iranian cultural sites from the White Trash Act'
.
 
.

Republicans push 'No Oil From Terrorists Act' to ban Biden from buying Iranian energy​





Ok, these slave owning, racist, backwards savage genocidal, hillbilly, lower than pig white trash muricans went completely mask off here calling us "Terrorists". The Vienna talks are just a fools play, When these guys get back in power, They will do what they say they are going to do and will pull out of the JCPOA, Again. Our Akhoonds need to wise up and develop nuclear weapons, We do that and will call it the 'Protection of Iranian cultural sites from the White Trash Act'
.

we will loose our bargaining chips and end up arming our actual enemies in the region if we go nuclear.
 
. . . .
we will loose our bargaining chips and end up arming our actual enemies in the region if we go nuclear.

a naive man against 10 gang member thought : " if I arm myself, I will lose my security because they will might use weapon against their weapon against me "
 
Last edited:
.
a naive man against 10 gang member thought : " if I arm ourselves , I will lose our security because they will might use weapon against their weapon against me "

We will end up arming KSA, UAE, Egypt, Turkey with nukes. They will enjoy validation from west and we will still be under sanctions.
 
.
We will end up arming KSA, UAE, Egypt, Turkey with nukes. They will enjoy validation from west and we will still be under sanctions.

How does this work again?

Doesn't Iran claim to be an Islamic Republic?

How is it comfortable with Israel, United States, Russia, India, France, Britain with active nuclear warheads but have a problem with hypothetical Turkish, Saudi, Egyptian or Emirati nuclear warheads?

Are you implying Israel or United States are not your enemies although you have been regularly chanting Death to America, Death to Israel for decades now?

Now heres one that gave me a very good LAUGH for the most obvious of reasons
I`d love to know just what it is that hes been smoking/drinking/popping/injecting.....cause I want some!

They learnt Taqiya from Iranian regime officials, maybe?
;)

Republicans push 'No Oil From Terrorists Act' to ban Biden from buying Iranian energy​





Ok, these slave owning, racist, backwards savage genocidal, hillbilly, lower than pig white trash muricans went completely mask off here calling us "Terrorists". The Vienna talks are just a fools play, When these guys get back in power, They will do what they say they are going to do and will pull out of the JCPOA, Again. Our Akhoonds need to wise up and develop nuclear weapons, We do that and will call it the 'Protection of Iranian cultural sites from the White Trash Act'
.

Two immediate options come to mind.

1. Iran as a backward and primitive country is unable to build nuclear bombs that North Korea tested more than a decade ago. This seems like a reasonable option.

2. The other alternative is that Iranian elites can not overstep the red lines set by the West. That's all. In other words, there is truth to the popular conspiracy theory in the region that Americans used the Iranian sectarian regime as a dagger to stab the Muslims of the region in the back. They could have easily toppled the regime back in 2004 or earlier when it was labelled a member of the Axis of Evil.

But they didn't. Because then the other regional Muslim countries would have no regional enemy to focus their energy on apart from Israel.

You can see another Iranian member here indirectly affirm this thesis.

He believes Israel or America with nuclear weapons are not Iranian enemies. Iranian enemies are Turkey, Egypt, Saudi and UAE.
 
.
How does this work again?

Doesn't Iran claim to be an Islamic Republic?

How is it comfortable with Israel, United States, Russia, India, France, Britain with active nuclear warheads but have a problem with hypothetical Turkish, Saudi, Egyptian or Emirati nuclear warheads?

Are you implying Israel or United States are not your enemies although you have been regularly chanting Death to America, Death to Israel for decades now?



They learnt Taqiya from Iranian regime officials, maybe?
;)



Two immediate options come to mind.

1. Iran as a backward and primitive country is unable to build nuclear bombs that North Korea tested more than a decade ago. This seems like a reasonable option.

2. The other alternative is that Iranian elites can not overstep the red lines set by the West. That's all. In other words, there is truth to the popular conspiracy theory in the region that Americans used the Iranian sectarian regime as a dagger to stab the Muslims of the region in the back. They could have easily toppled the regime back in 2004 or earlier when it was labelled a member of the Axis of Evil.

But they didn't. Because then the other regional Muslim countries would have no regional enemy to focus their energy on apart from Israel.

You can see another Iranian member here indirectly affirm this thesis.

He believes Israel or America with nuclear weapons are not Iranian enemies. Iranian enemies are Turkey, Egypt, Saudi and UAE.
This was well known for decades that,
  1. Iran is a tool to threat SA/UEA/etc.
  2. Iran is a tool to create tension in the Gulf
  3. US hesitate to bomb Iran, otherwise they should have done it decades ago when it was much easier.
 
.
This was well known for decades that,
  1. Iran is a tool to threat SA/UEA/etc.
  2. Iran is a tool to create tension in the Gulf
  3. US hesitate to bomb Iran, otherwise they should have done it decades ago when it was much easier.

How does this work again?

Doesn't Iran claim to be an Islamic Republic?

How is it comfortable with Israel, United States, Russia, India, France, Britain with active nuclear warheads but have a problem with hypothetical Turkish, Saudi, Egyptian or Emirati nuclear warheads?

Are you implying Israel or United States are not your enemies although you have been regularly chanting Death to America, Death to Israel for decades now?



They learnt Taqiya from Iranian regime officials, maybe?
;)



Two immediate options come to mind.

1. Iran as a backward and primitive country is unable to build nuclear bombs that North Korea tested more than a decade ago. This seems like a reasonable option.

2. The other alternative is that Iranian elites can not overstep the red lines set by the West. That's all. In other words, there is truth to the popular conspiracy theory in the region that Americans used the Iranian sectarian regime as a dagger to stab the Muslims of the region in the back. They could have easily toppled the regime back in 2004 or earlier when it was labelled a member of the Axis of Evil.

But they didn't. Because then the other regional Muslim countries would have no regional enemy to focus their energy on apart from Israel.

You can see another Iranian member here indirectly affirm this thesis.

He believes Israel or America with nuclear weapons are not Iranian enemies. Iranian enemies are Turkey, Egypt, Saudi and UAE.
I find that usually people who believe these sort of conspiracies have a poor understanding of regional mechanics and the timeline of events that occurred from 2000 to today, and have resorted to silly ideas to plug the holes they don't understand. You think you've "Figured out the game plan" but you're actually just poorly educated and ignore evidence that goes contrary to your claims.
 
.
This was well known for decades that,
  1. Iran is a tool to threat SA/UEA/etc.
  2. Iran is a tool to create tension in the Gulf
  3. US hesitate to bomb Iran, otherwise they should have done it decades ago when it was much easier.

yes this theory was widely known in the region but dismissed as a conspiracy theory by Iranian apologists.

Now we see an Iranian member openly affirming this thesis to be true.

He does not consider Israel, American, Britain, French, Indian, even Russian nuclear bombs in the region to be threats but he sees American vassal states in Muslim countries like Turkey, Saudi, Egypt, UAE as threats or enemies.

I find that usually people who believe these sort of conspiracies have a poor understanding of regional mechanics and the timeline of events that occurred from 2000 to today, and have resorted to silly ideas to plug the holes they don't understand. You think you've "Figured out the game plan" but you're actually just poorly educated and ignore evidence that goes contrary to your claims.


You should have said that to your countryman who insists that Iran procuring nuclear warheads will only strengthen its regional adversaries like Turkey, Saudi, Egypt, UAE.

Meanwhile Israel, America, France, Britain, Russia, India has already had nuclear warheads for decades. Apparently that is not an issue.
 
.
This was well known for decades that,
  1. Iran is a tool to threat SA/UEA/etc.
  2. Iran is a tool to create tension in the Gulf
  3. US hesitate to bomb Iran, otherwise they should have done it decades ago when it was much easier.

Reason US didn’t attack Iran is quite simple from 1990-2010, it got bogged down in Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan (two easier targets). Then one of the worst financial recessions (2008) hit the world and it was focused on rebuilding its economy while funding its trillions for insurgency wars (Iraq & Afghanistan).

It’s credibility on the whole Iraq WMD scandal took a major hit thus its domestic audience (and the world) was not ready to entertain another US war if it decided to convince the war of the legality of Iranian regime change.

During this time, Iran went on the offensive and spread across the Middle East in order to move the focus away from its borders. If Iran sat and acted like a so called “responsible state” it would have zero proxies to cause pain points and would be more susceptible to attack.

Also I think the Russia/Ukraine showed that fighting a land war is tough against an opponent that while weaker and not as able in conventional aspects (Ukraine) can still deal heavy blows.

People like to think the 3 major world powers (US/Russia/China) are some amazing superhero’s that cannot be beat in military chess. Well if Russia can make blunders, I assure the U S of A can also make military blunders. So this conspiracy theory that US wants Iran to spread across the Middle East is for the less intelligent because they refuse to accept the more plausible reason that US failed containment.

The same happened with China in 60’s and 70’s, US failed containment and actively thought about nuking China as a way to win the hot and cold conflict. Ultimately it decided against that because Chinese deterrence was just enough to make each President kick the can to the next which ultimately let China pass the point of no return. Now someone back then might have made the same uneducated comment that “US wanted China to spread across Asia as a tool against the Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Philippines”, etc. Would be a comical analysis at best.

I should add the US likes quick easy wars with definable objectives. “Bombing” Iran wouldn’t remove the Mullahs and the “mow the grass” strategy does not work against a latent nuclear military power nor is there definable objectives.

Land invasion of Iran both politically, geographically, and military is a non starter. If the USA life depended on it sure it could invade Iran a la WW2 type scenario to save the world from a major global order change if Iran was blitzkreging across the world.

But for a regime change type scenario? No chance. Iran’s natural geography and land forces make a land war needing in excess off 500,000 troops to secure the territory as an invasion force. Plus another 100K+ for other theaters to face Iranian proxies across the rest of the Middle East. That would leave its Asia and Europe theater vulnerable for China or Russia counterattack as it would be drawing away troops and equipment towards Iran.

Ukraine conflict has shown you don’t even need to be good, you just need to be semi competent and as an defensive force you have the upper hand against the invasion force.


So no there isn’t secret alliance to make Iran the “boogeyman” of the region. In fact realpolitik and geopolitics calls for “balance order” in each region.

Russia vs NATO
Pakistan vs India
Iran vs Israel/Saudi Arabia
China vs ????

In areas when there are two like peers peace is more likely to be an outcome as both sides realize war would inflict too much damage to either side to be worth while.

China (Asia area) has no peer competitor and hence why US is trying to pivot before it’s too late (wether it is or not is a topic for another day).

So respectfully I disagree with your points. Wether we agree to disagree on that is fine by me.
 
Last edited:
.
This was well known for decades that,
  1. Iran is a tool to threat SA/UEA/etc.
  2. Iran is a tool to create tension in the Gulf
  3. US hesitate to bomb Iran, otherwise they should have done it decades ago when it was much easier.
Well 2 first are somehow the same and are indeed baseless, for example in no way Iran's interest is to create tensions in the Persian gulf in its own backyard as its vital economical connections and routes going through it .. no one like fire next door let alone to be a tool in the hand of its enemy to do such a stupid thing and take flame thorougher to its own house not to mentioned SA/UAE have been closest allies of the US in the region for the past several decades and are in american camp so in no way it would make any sense that american wanna threat their friends by Iran.
On the contrary Iran has been always and will be a heavy anchor of peace and stability in the region, Iran seeks no tension as they are amongst american justifications to be in the region which Iran opposes it strongly.
But kudos to american that despite occupying countries one after another in the region in the past 3 decades and creating mayhem, carrying out military coups in the region topplening democratic governments, supporting Mujahedin in Afghanistan which resulted in existence of ALQ, Taliban and then isis, supporting dictators and so on have managed to create such a notion to blame all of it on Iran, a country that has not attacked anyone in the past 3 centuries and its military budget is a fraction of others' expenditure.
 
.
Reason US didn’t attack Iran is quite simple from 1990-2010, it got bogged down in Iraq (twice) and Afghanistan (two easier targets). Then one of the worst financial recessions (2008) hit the world and it was focused on rebuilding its economy while funding its trillions for insurgency wars (Iraq & Afghanistan).

It’s credibility on the whole Iraq WMD scandal took a major hit thus its domestic audience (and the world) was not ready to entertain another US war if it decided to convince the war of the legality of Iranian regime change.

During this time, Iran went on the offensive and spread across the Middle East in order to move the focus away from its borders. If Iran sat and acted like a so called “responsible state” it would have zero proxies to cause pain points and would be more susceptible to attack.

Also I think the Russia/Ukraine showed that fighting a land war is tough against an opponent that while weaker and not as able in conventional aspects (Ukraine) can still deal heavy blows.

People like to think the 3 major world powers (US/Russia/China) are some amazing superhero’s that cannot be beat in military chess. Well if Russia can make blunders, I assure the U S of A can also make military blunders. So this conspiracy theory that US wants Iran to spread across the Middle East is for the less intelligent because they refuse to accept the more plausible reason that US failed containment.

The same happened with China in 60’s and 70’s, US failed containment and actively thought about nuking China as a way to win the hot and cold conflict. Ultimately it decided against that because Chinese deterrence was just enough to make each President kick the can to the next which ultimately let China pass the point of no return. Now someone back then might have made the same uneducated comment that “US wanted China to spread across Asia as a tool against the Japanese, Koreans, Vietnamese, Philippines”, etc. Would be a comical analysis at best.

I should add the US likes quick easy wars with definable objectives. “Bombing” Iran wouldn’t remove the Mullahs and the “mow the grass” strategy does not work against a latent nuclear military power nor is there definable objectives.

Land invasion of Iran both politically, geographically, and military is a non starter. If the USA life depended on it sure it could invade Iran a la WW2 type scenario to save the world from a major global order change if Iran was blitzkreging across the world.

But for a regime change type scenario? No chance. Iran’s natural geography and land forces make a land war needing in excess off 500,000 troops to secure the territory as an invasion force. Plus another 100K+ for other theaters to face Iranian proxies across the rest of the Middle East. That would leave its Asia and Europe theater vulnerable for China or Russia counterattack as it would be drawing away troops and equipment towards Iran.

Ukraine conflict has shown you don’t even need to be good, you just need to be semi competent and as an defensive force you have the upper hand against the invasion force.


So no there isn’t secret alliance to make Iran the “boogeyman” of the region. In fact realpolitik and geopolitics calls for “balance order” in each region.

Russia vs NATO
Pakistan vs India
Iran vs Israel/Saudi Arabia
China vs ????

In areas when there are two like peers peace is more likely to be an outcome as both sides realize war would inflict too much damage to either side to be worth while.

China (Asia area) has no peer competitor and hence why US is trying to pivot before it’s too late (wether it is or not is a topic for another day).

So respectfully I disagree with your points. Wether we agree to disagree on that is fine by me.

@raptor22 , @TheImmortal

My friend, I totally agree with your points, most of them. Your analysis is valuable and logically self-consistent.

But, let's go back to 90s, when there is no power to counterbalance US worldwide, what had US done in ME? US did little. Just keep embargoing Iraq, creating humanitarian crisis. I don't blame U.S., actually I think U.S. under Clinton is quite conservative and pro status quo.

What will Soviet do if Soviet was the sole hegemony, while US collapsed in 1990? Soviet may conquer as many countries in ME as possible by hard power permanently.

The ME geopolitical map is a legacy of colonial powers, British and France.
Both create their sphere of influence, by dividing ME into smaller countries.
  • Big ones were cut down into pieces.
  • Oil rich places were separated as individual countries, such as, Kuwait, the UAE, Qatar, Bahrain.
  • Some places were important due to location, such as Kuwait, UAE, Palestine, Yemen, Oman, Djibouti, Eritrea, and Somalia.

The balance of power in ME is crucial. There are 2 kinds of balance. Balance of power within each individual countries, and balance among countries/religions/race.

  • The balance within country, such as Iraq, Shia majority under Sunni rule.
  • The balance among countries, such as Iraq and Iran.
  • The balance between Shia and Sunni, such as Greater Iran and Arab.

Some nation/races were divided and distributed into several countries, such as Kurds were distributed into Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. Kurds were used as interference tool of foreign powers.

So, my conclusion is that Iran was/is/will be used as a counterbalance power in ME in the grand picture of geopolitics.
  • Conquering Iran will costly, politically, militarily and economically.
  • Destroying Iran will lose the balance of power.
  • Attacking Iran won't change anything but strengthen Iran conservative faction.

1647844342386.png
 
Last edited:
.
We will end up arming KSA, UAE, Egypt, Turkey with nukes. They will enjoy validation from west and we will still be under sanctions.

Well , Euro will be more afraid of a Turkey with nuke than an Iran with nuke ...
Maybe they spread miss information , but deep down they are afraid of Turkey , Egypt and KSA more than Iran ... because compare to these nation , Iran haven't been a extensioal thread to them for past 2000 years ...
 
.

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom