Azerbaijan, Turkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, all of which have been Iran’s “frenemies” since 1979 and whose military-strategic interests are increasingly converging, are expected to exploit any large-scale instability that could follow another potential round of US strikes if Trump changes his mind.
From a historical perspective, Iran has been impossible to defeat.
Given today's geopolitical situation, it is even more difficult to defeat.
Kurds are urged by Kurdish media to have their own country, but they can forget that.
Iran, as I mentioned earlier in other contexts, is very infected by external influences, can suffer damage because of it, but being defeated is not on the map.
The biggest problem between Iran and Turkey in my opinion is that one is Sunni and the other Shia.
Iran (Persia) has been conquered *many* times: by Alexander the Great, the Arabs, the Mongols, Timur, and some foreign dynasties, among others, not to mention European imperial powers (notably Russia and Britain); the same goes for other ‘invincible’ lands such as Afghanistan. No one is invulnerable to historical vicissitudes. The ongoing Anglo–Israeli onslaught, if kept at its current level, is unlikely to shatter the regime, but not for the truism you voiced. There are many internal faults that can be utilized, but only if backed by capable land proxies like Turkey, Azerbaijan, and/or Pakistan. (A repeat of the June war, by contrast, will only end in more ignominy for the attackers.)
Yes exactly, been defeated many times, but each time became stronger from the misery.
I am not an Iran fanatic, but Iran is strong and has many supporters around it.
just like you say that an attack by attackers will end in fiasco for the attackers.
Muslim countries regardless of rivalry, their enemy number 1 is Israel. Likewise the USA which is for NATO Muslims but when the body ends up under the water surface, their loyalty number one is to Israel.
Pakistan and Iran hate Israel, but Pakistan and Turkey wanted to rule and possibly war against Iran.
what is worst for Pakistan? a lost Iran and a strong Israel or vice versa?
what is worst for Turkey? a weak Iran and a strong Israel or vice versa?
I mean that the U.S. and Co. will fail if it merely repeats the tactics used in the recent Iran–Israel war. If it *does* adapt, however, it might have a better shot. During the war Israel did not make a real effort to disrupt Iranian infrastructure on a wide scale, and its bombing campaign, though intense, was limited; the U.S. role was even smaller. (Plus, Iranian intelligence had already infiltrated Israel and thus was able to secure nuclear material in time, hence Iran’s firm stance in talks with the U.S.) The Iranian leadership, moreover, is, like much of the people, firmly loyal to the state, so the U.S. and Israel were naïve in awaiting an internal rupture; even the ‘reformists’ oppose the Anglo–Israelis.
In fact, Iran is so well guarded that I believe it inflates the threat level it faces from Israel and its patron(s), given the many advantages it has—geographic, demographic, ideological, and otherwise—over *the West* in general. Trump and Co. want cheap victories, but are not ready to tell their people that defeating Iran would require a world war-type effort, including mass ground forces, coalition troops, aerial attacks, amphibious landings, and so on. Even then the U.S. might not win (as war-games suggest), but it would have a much better chance than with the pitiable PR show in June. Yet Anglo–Israeli ‘leadership’ is so paltry that it probably thinks a repeat would suffice, without a serious investment.
(Of course, we see the same errors at work in Ukraine and elsewhere.)
Yes, you are absolutely right. You write so well that you almost want to pop popcorn:)
jokes aside.
Well, both Israel and Iran have infiltrated each other. I know Nahum Manbar who sold/gave various chemicals to Iran.
However, he became an X prisoner, i.e. people who disappear without anyone knowing anything after a period of anything from 1 month to several years has passed.
Didn't they go into the June war fully because they knew the response would be different perhaps?
I'm sure that the covert diplomacy is unknown to us. I'm neither rooting for Israel or Iran, but Iran didn't go all out and bomb Israel either.
The US's role may be that they didn't dare due to various factors
1- Russia was in the way if there was to be a big war.
2- The US has Israel as priority 1, but there are conflicts between the clans in the US that determine how much help it would be.
3- Trump is running an invisible game against his own ranks to trap them, deceive them.
For the infiltration of Iran, the US should have known that the bombs they dropped were not enough to reach the bunkers in Iran where they handle their chemical weapons.
when the opposition were promised first iran, 10 years ago, they were bragging in foreign newspapers they were also promised to reconstitute cyrus' empire. there will be no balkanization of iran, even kurds admitted that, only an imperial project lead by hunno-turks, part of the project of genocide against the global south. the current iranian leadership, both religious enough to feel close to the muslims world and civilized enough to be open to the western world, is the only barrier against this regional phase of the project.
Iran’s deep ties to the Muslim Brothers (MB) and hence the globalists, including the Turkic ‘Huns’ you mention, date back to the Revolution, which was aided, ironically, by the Soviets, who used their clients to infiltrate the U.S. government, including the Carter administration, and destabilize Iran. Saddam’s Iraq was a Soviet proxy that used anti-Shah Marxists, the Shia Islamists, and Arafat’s PLO to oust the Shah, with U.S. complicity. The Soviets even enlisted former fascists to help the MB–leftist coalition gain power, while selling itself to the West as ‘anticommunist’.
(The Soviet-backed MB also endorsed General Zia’s coup in Pakistan, while hiding their anti-Western priorities, but Zia’s purge of their leftist allies led the Soviets to reverse course.) Brzezinski’s “(Islamist) Green Belt” was a Soviet–MB boomerang designed, along with synchronous Soviet-tied revolts elsewhere, to distract NATO and Israel from Soviet plans to attack Europe, while subtly aiding a Red–Brown–Green axis (Molotov–Ribbentrop replay) vs. the West. The Soviets built up their armed forces on NATO’s flank, ready to assail Europe. Afghanistan was Korea/Vietnam 2.0.
The CIA and its allies thought using Islamism was *their* plan, but it was, in truth, a Soviet–MB Trojan horse. And the Red–Brown–Green axis antedates the 1970s by far: the Soviets secretly backed mufti Amin al-Husseini’s assaults on Jews, while polishing his ‘pro-British’ façade. In 1929 the Soviets worked with his men to spread false and/or unproven rumors of Jewish attacks to enable would-be massacres. Later on the Soviets would demonize Husseini as a Nazi agent, but in fact he was funded by the Comintern as part of Soviet ’anti-Zionism’. (Hitler’s regime not only distrusted Arabs, but also helped Jews migrate to Palestine, contrary to British wishes.)
Iran, therefore, has long been a part of the globalist web, as 7 Oct 2023 further shows (along with the anti-Israel agitprop you condemn). So how and why are you praising Iran now?
So how and why are you praising Iran now? because the current regime, specifically this supreme leader and this military leadership, and even more those killed in the strikes few weeks ago, are some of the most lucid and benign regional players for anyone, including israel. who says "khamenei does" or "netanyahu does" clearly ignores the strong hands that pushed them to action, then scapegoated them. please read my other comments in the last months (it seems much, but they are really grouped around the middle east articles) to understand the whole logic. the true divide is not globalists-statalists, it's liniar players-subversives, and the subversives usually belong to the same circles and are connected to the same few countries (and no, israel is not among them). all the anti-israeli internal strikes were favored, usually even produced, by these circles and israel itself walks a very thin line, with likud the only remaining "normal" party, while the others became empty shells handled by subversives. i am usually left wing, but in some cases the last survivors are right wing, like in brazil. even ideology is irrelevant, a surviving right wing party is more social than a captured socialist one, because the former tries to increase the national resistance, the later to annihilate it. if you have specific questions after reading my points, i am here, but please read them first.
I sought your old posts, but could not find a tool to do so. At any rate, I agree with much of your logic—you are uncommonly lucid indeed!—but differ on the Gaza war. Your claim that Iran was ‘pushed’ to act belies the many times it admitted its role in planning 7 October (just look up Persian IRGC outlets), Biden-era U.S. denials notwithstanding. If Hamas was/is part of the ‘subversive’ orbit, then Iran by its allowance was/is as well—as can be seen in its (semi-)official support for Soros-backed actions in the West, e.g., anti-Trump protests, illicit migration, and so on. Please explain further; I am interested in hearing your reasoning.
it's hard to replay all the nuances of my perception; in the exact moments when these things happened, i was posting heavily on some israeli comment sections and luckily, both israel and iran watched these sections closely and were desperately looking for ideas to avoid this conflict. so this is one of the things it would be impossible to explain, because no one would believe simple comments in a newspaper made history, then and later - remember (if you knew) that, when covid (still called corona back then) erupted, israel "received confidentially" breathing machines from an undisclosed middle eastern country and i think we can agree iran is the only possible producer after the arab countries spent so much on war (the poorer ones) or avoided complications by not industrializing (the richer ones) and the later ones aren't "undisclosed countries", anyway. now your points: Iran was indeed involved with Hamas, feeling themselves pressured; they were also ready to offer more support to them, until they weren't, because they saw themselves (or with a bit of help) the provocations that hamas were making to show iran as the single perpetrator. irgc are ideologically more aligned with islamism, that's why sometimes they have a hee-haw attitude, but they aren't really subversives, that's why the subversives (like ahmadinejad) always tried to instigate them, sometimes with threats, sometimes with favors (like the bunch of companies transferred to them); it worked as a general attitude, but not as far as treason is involved, and without their loyalty the country could have been destroyed already. on the other hand, al quds (their underground network in the middle east) was always lead by subversives - soleimani, now qani (which strangely sounds like cananites, isn't it?), and they always worked against the current, and the ultimate test of patience with such dudes is to not give up to them, even when they offer you things, because any deal with them will have as result the strengthening of their positions in their own country, quickly followed by the same strengthening of their positions in your own country. also, the ultimate test of perception is to understand which trends are temporary or forced and which are permanent, and lucidity comes from keeping your eyes on the unredeemable evil while trying to understand the motivations - some are forced, some are stuck in the rut of the positions they took for years, others won't change their stinky habit to tell even the truth in deceptive ways - and if possible, help those only temporarily associated with it. soros couldn't be pro-hamas, because he is jew, and the hamas strike was started exactly by the subversive underground to take money and power from the jews (although his son might be dumb enough to do it). it was a dark maga act at that moment, supported by the pentagon (see the number of palestinian-american veterans planning it from the field), while now we see that dark maga were in fact rinos like ellison and they try to get rid of trump himself, and the main hand became cia, with pentagon even opposing some of these enormities etc. as for how do you see exactly these things, it's complicated - sometimes you need to understand that generalizations hide the truth, sometimes that they promote it, to not be afraid of unpleasant explanations (like someone's motivations) and obviously see the authentic connections, not the fake ones, like in a true reasoning (which is not always easy in dissimulative environments like this one, where deep allies fake conflicts and sworn enemies constantly compliment each other). so opening your mind and heart instead of repeating your own mantras is only the first step, for the next ones you need dedication and special conditions, like exclusive loyalty to the cause of bettering things instead of personal interests. that's why conclusions which i sometimes voice, like "that person is bad" aren't simple feelings, they always have entire deductions behind them - i even test logically my intuition, to be sure. unfortunately, reproducing each detail would be like telling what i did in the last 15 years, the question being "where should i begin?", but i would be ready to offer alternative opinions where i find them necessary and, when i find the strength, even detail the logical mechanism behind them.
Saddam's arrival was America's plan to overthrow Khomeini who had deceived the US after they helped Khomeini take power in Iran through a revolution.
This history I mention cannot be contradicted and lives in the spine of everyone who lived during that time in Iran and Iraq and who is still alive to a large extent today.
I was not referring to the invasion of 1980, but to actions undertaken by Saddam in the late 1970s, just after gaining power. Iraq had many disputes with the Shah, territorial and otherwise, hence Iraq’s Soviet-aided military buildup *before* the Revolution. Plus, the Soviets wanted to use Saddam as a tool to undermine the U.S. (and Israel) in Iran, hence the latter’s support for all anti-Shah groups, including the Islamists, Marxists, and ethnic separatists, e.g., Arab nationalists in Khuzestan.
After a failed coup d'état by Saddam in the early 60s, he fled to Egypt.
In 1979, he staged a coup against his cousin, who was president. Three uncles were in the war at the time and my father was imprisoned for 12 years in Iran.
So the problem with the Shah was before Saddam, Saddam wanted to change but had to flee at the time you are talking about.
Then he got help to take power from his cousin at the end of 1979, a few months later the war started.
Saddam was Iraq’s vice president from 1968–79 (the time of the coup you mention), after a brief sojourn in Egypt, so he was definitely in Iraq at the time. Also, by 1976 Saddam already headed the Iraqi armed forces, so he was quite involved in policy even then, given President Bakr’s ailing health.
Baluchistan is 2% of the population. They are not getting independence. Kurds are 10% of the pop on the border with Iraq and Turkey, if the gov doesn't collapse, geography is against them. Azeri are a big minority, but have the following problem, they occupy a very mountainous area and many of them are in Teheran. They are also the most integrated into the gov. The Ayatolah is Azeri. Will Turkey go to war against Iran? No way. Will Azerbadjan? Absolutly not, since it's a small country, and even 1000 shahed drones would turn its economy back to the stone age. They cannot sustain military operations for more than a couple month. The azeris are not suicidal, they are mostly clan based mafia run country.
If Trump were serious, I think this setup would make the most sense. Due to geography and other factors, Iran is immune to a bombing-and-assassination ‘thrust’ (which, as in Venezuela, is more like useful PR for the regime than a real war effort). Any chance of regime change would depend on nearby land forces, which Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan amply supply. The U.S., Israel, and the EU would need to initiate a much wider campaign, involving the aforementioned states as well as their GCC overseers. However, right now the U.S. is invested in prioritizing other theaters, while joining regional forces in such a way that gives it room to maneuver. The TRIPP concept, which melds with the “Islamic NATO”, suits multiple aims at once, and is a precondition for effective action on more fronts than one (i.e., Russia vis-à-vis Ukraine, the South Caucasus, and South-Central Asia). It is a ‘dual-use’ project.
However, at this stage U.S.–Israel ties are quite strained, owing in part to Trump’s siding with the Qataris and their Saudi-fronted, Turkish-led “Islamic NATO” in Gaza, Syria, and the Red Sea littoral. The U.S. is pressing Netanyahu and Israeli defense officials to accept the dissolution of the SDF, a move that would cede Israeli strategic parity to Turkish–Arab (read: Islamist) interests. Trump’s advisers heavily back the “Islamic NATO” in the Horn of Africa and Yemen as well, while doing little or nothing to help Israel resume its anti-Houthi war effort. Also, the current unfolding of affairs widens the preexistent Iran–Russia cleft, a reality visible in the media sphere due to Muslim clout favoring pan-Islamic causes (i.e., Palestine) over Russian policies on Israel. Historic Iranian, as well as pan-Turkic, nationalism could thus be redirected against Russia in response, suiting U.S. interests (as part of Brzezinski’s “Green Arc”).
"..To be clear, this isn’t likely, just possible, but it can’t be ruled out..." Maybe, yet I will not be the least bit surprised when the jackals attack the wounded lamb.
USA is Isreals supporter Russia is Irans neighbor & friend. Russia will support Iran for Russias own concerns about having enemies on it's borders. All the other countries in the region know that Israel comes first and everybody is second or of no concern. Where do they look to? Russia, who else, not USA.
Andrew,are you saying conditions between Iran and it's neighbors are the same now since previous disputes, conflicts that happened 30-40 years ago? Pakistan supports Iran against Israel. Turkey likes to stay neutral. And what about the people who live in these areas of Iran? Are they dissatisfied with the Iranian regime or is this all conjecture and "fantasy thinking"?
What I'm saying is that the four neighboring countries that I mentioned (I consider Saudi Arabia to be a neighbor of Iran) are all opportunistic, have each had very serious disputes with it since 1979, and their strategic interests are increasingly aligning through the "Islamic NATO" format.
Pakistan's support for Iran over Israel is purely rhetorical. The country has a long-documented history of resorting to anti-Zionist rhetoric for rallying the masses around the ruling military (nowadays de facto) leadership. Turkiye is pro-Turkic, thus pro-Azeri, over pro-Iranian by a long shot.
I don't consider average people as having much agency in terms of influencing international affairs. That doesn't mean that I don't wish it was different, I just expect that while there might be some resistance if this worst-case scenario unfolds, the locals wouldn't be able to stop it. In fact, at least a minority of the Turkic/Azeri ones might welcome it.
My assessment from afar but after consuming lots of information from pro- and anti-government activists alike, including among minority communities, is that the general sense is that people don't want to "Balkanize" their country even if they have (whether legitimate or illegitimate) grievances against it, but again, I don't believe that average people have much agency in terms of influencing international affairs.
It has long been abundantly obvious that Israel and the US intend to turn Iran into another failed state.
You are Just peddling western propaganda Iran didnt lost the war Itis Israel who begged for ceasefire
i assume with increased overt support from Russia and China, Iran regional positions just got 3x
Alastair Crooke has quite a different interpretation based on Shia unity and recent proclamations:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l9zAReJI8-I
From a historical perspective, Iran has been impossible to defeat.
Given today's geopolitical situation, it is even more difficult to defeat.
Kurds are urged by Kurdish media to have their own country, but they can forget that.
Iran, as I mentioned earlier in other contexts, is very infected by external influences, can suffer damage because of it, but being defeated is not on the map.
The biggest problem between Iran and Turkey in my opinion is that one is Sunni and the other Shia.
Iran (Persia) has been conquered *many* times: by Alexander the Great, the Arabs, the Mongols, Timur, and some foreign dynasties, among others, not to mention European imperial powers (notably Russia and Britain); the same goes for other ‘invincible’ lands such as Afghanistan. No one is invulnerable to historical vicissitudes. The ongoing Anglo–Israeli onslaught, if kept at its current level, is unlikely to shatter the regime, but not for the truism you voiced. There are many internal faults that can be utilized, but only if backed by capable land proxies like Turkey, Azerbaijan, and/or Pakistan. (A repeat of the June war, by contrast, will only end in more ignominy for the attackers.)
Yes exactly, been defeated many times, but each time became stronger from the misery.
I am not an Iran fanatic, but Iran is strong and has many supporters around it.
just like you say that an attack by attackers will end in fiasco for the attackers.
Muslim countries regardless of rivalry, their enemy number 1 is Israel. Likewise the USA which is for NATO Muslims but when the body ends up under the water surface, their loyalty number one is to Israel.
Pakistan and Iran hate Israel, but Pakistan and Turkey wanted to rule and possibly war against Iran.
what is worst for Pakistan? a lost Iran and a strong Israel or vice versa?
what is worst for Turkey? a weak Iran and a strong Israel or vice versa?
I mean that the U.S. and Co. will fail if it merely repeats the tactics used in the recent Iran–Israel war. If it *does* adapt, however, it might have a better shot. During the war Israel did not make a real effort to disrupt Iranian infrastructure on a wide scale, and its bombing campaign, though intense, was limited; the U.S. role was even smaller. (Plus, Iranian intelligence had already infiltrated Israel and thus was able to secure nuclear material in time, hence Iran’s firm stance in talks with the U.S.) The Iranian leadership, moreover, is, like much of the people, firmly loyal to the state, so the U.S. and Israel were naïve in awaiting an internal rupture; even the ‘reformists’ oppose the Anglo–Israelis.
In fact, Iran is so well guarded that I believe it inflates the threat level it faces from Israel and its patron(s), given the many advantages it has—geographic, demographic, ideological, and otherwise—over *the West* in general. Trump and Co. want cheap victories, but are not ready to tell their people that defeating Iran would require a world war-type effort, including mass ground forces, coalition troops, aerial attacks, amphibious landings, and so on. Even then the U.S. might not win (as war-games suggest), but it would have a much better chance than with the pitiable PR show in June. Yet Anglo–Israeli ‘leadership’ is so paltry that it probably thinks a repeat would suffice, without a serious investment.
(Of course, we see the same errors at work in Ukraine and elsewhere.)
Yes, you are absolutely right. You write so well that you almost want to pop popcorn:)
jokes aside.
Well, both Israel and Iran have infiltrated each other. I know Nahum Manbar who sold/gave various chemicals to Iran.
However, he became an X prisoner, i.e. people who disappear without anyone knowing anything after a period of anything from 1 month to several years has passed.
Didn't they go into the June war fully because they knew the response would be different perhaps?
I'm sure that the covert diplomacy is unknown to us. I'm neither rooting for Israel or Iran, but Iran didn't go all out and bomb Israel either.
The US's role may be that they didn't dare due to various factors
1- Russia was in the way if there was to be a big war.
2- The US has Israel as priority 1, but there are conflicts between the clans in the US that determine how much help it would be.
3- Trump is running an invisible game against his own ranks to trap them, deceive them.
For the infiltration of Iran, the US should have known that the bombs they dropped were not enough to reach the bunkers in Iran where they handle their chemical weapons.
when the opposition were promised first iran, 10 years ago, they were bragging in foreign newspapers they were also promised to reconstitute cyrus' empire. there will be no balkanization of iran, even kurds admitted that, only an imperial project lead by hunno-turks, part of the project of genocide against the global south. the current iranian leadership, both religious enough to feel close to the muslims world and civilized enough to be open to the western world, is the only barrier against this regional phase of the project.
Iran’s deep ties to the Muslim Brothers (MB) and hence the globalists, including the Turkic ‘Huns’ you mention, date back to the Revolution, which was aided, ironically, by the Soviets, who used their clients to infiltrate the U.S. government, including the Carter administration, and destabilize Iran. Saddam’s Iraq was a Soviet proxy that used anti-Shah Marxists, the Shia Islamists, and Arafat’s PLO to oust the Shah, with U.S. complicity. The Soviets even enlisted former fascists to help the MB–leftist coalition gain power, while selling itself to the West as ‘anticommunist’.
(The Soviet-backed MB also endorsed General Zia’s coup in Pakistan, while hiding their anti-Western priorities, but Zia’s purge of their leftist allies led the Soviets to reverse course.) Brzezinski’s “(Islamist) Green Belt” was a Soviet–MB boomerang designed, along with synchronous Soviet-tied revolts elsewhere, to distract NATO and Israel from Soviet plans to attack Europe, while subtly aiding a Red–Brown–Green axis (Molotov–Ribbentrop replay) vs. the West. The Soviets built up their armed forces on NATO’s flank, ready to assail Europe. Afghanistan was Korea/Vietnam 2.0.
The CIA and its allies thought using Islamism was *their* plan, but it was, in truth, a Soviet–MB Trojan horse. And the Red–Brown–Green axis antedates the 1970s by far: the Soviets secretly backed mufti Amin al-Husseini’s assaults on Jews, while polishing his ‘pro-British’ façade. In 1929 the Soviets worked with his men to spread false and/or unproven rumors of Jewish attacks to enable would-be massacres. Later on the Soviets would demonize Husseini as a Nazi agent, but in fact he was funded by the Comintern as part of Soviet ’anti-Zionism’. (Hitler’s regime not only distrusted Arabs, but also helped Jews migrate to Palestine, contrary to British wishes.)
Iran, therefore, has long been a part of the globalist web, as 7 Oct 2023 further shows (along with the anti-Israel agitprop you condemn). So how and why are you praising Iran now?
So how and why are you praising Iran now? because the current regime, specifically this supreme leader and this military leadership, and even more those killed in the strikes few weeks ago, are some of the most lucid and benign regional players for anyone, including israel. who says "khamenei does" or "netanyahu does" clearly ignores the strong hands that pushed them to action, then scapegoated them. please read my other comments in the last months (it seems much, but they are really grouped around the middle east articles) to understand the whole logic. the true divide is not globalists-statalists, it's liniar players-subversives, and the subversives usually belong to the same circles and are connected to the same few countries (and no, israel is not among them). all the anti-israeli internal strikes were favored, usually even produced, by these circles and israel itself walks a very thin line, with likud the only remaining "normal" party, while the others became empty shells handled by subversives. i am usually left wing, but in some cases the last survivors are right wing, like in brazil. even ideology is irrelevant, a surviving right wing party is more social than a captured socialist one, because the former tries to increase the national resistance, the later to annihilate it. if you have specific questions after reading my points, i am here, but please read them first.
I sought your old posts, but could not find a tool to do so. At any rate, I agree with much of your logic—you are uncommonly lucid indeed!—but differ on the Gaza war. Your claim that Iran was ‘pushed’ to act belies the many times it admitted its role in planning 7 October (just look up Persian IRGC outlets), Biden-era U.S. denials notwithstanding. If Hamas was/is part of the ‘subversive’ orbit, then Iran by its allowance was/is as well—as can be seen in its (semi-)official support for Soros-backed actions in the West, e.g., anti-Trump protests, illicit migration, and so on. Please explain further; I am interested in hearing your reasoning.
it's hard to replay all the nuances of my perception; in the exact moments when these things happened, i was posting heavily on some israeli comment sections and luckily, both israel and iran watched these sections closely and were desperately looking for ideas to avoid this conflict. so this is one of the things it would be impossible to explain, because no one would believe simple comments in a newspaper made history, then and later - remember (if you knew) that, when covid (still called corona back then) erupted, israel "received confidentially" breathing machines from an undisclosed middle eastern country and i think we can agree iran is the only possible producer after the arab countries spent so much on war (the poorer ones) or avoided complications by not industrializing (the richer ones) and the later ones aren't "undisclosed countries", anyway. now your points: Iran was indeed involved with Hamas, feeling themselves pressured; they were also ready to offer more support to them, until they weren't, because they saw themselves (or with a bit of help) the provocations that hamas were making to show iran as the single perpetrator. irgc are ideologically more aligned with islamism, that's why sometimes they have a hee-haw attitude, but they aren't really subversives, that's why the subversives (like ahmadinejad) always tried to instigate them, sometimes with threats, sometimes with favors (like the bunch of companies transferred to them); it worked as a general attitude, but not as far as treason is involved, and without their loyalty the country could have been destroyed already. on the other hand, al quds (their underground network in the middle east) was always lead by subversives - soleimani, now qani (which strangely sounds like cananites, isn't it?), and they always worked against the current, and the ultimate test of patience with such dudes is to not give up to them, even when they offer you things, because any deal with them will have as result the strengthening of their positions in their own country, quickly followed by the same strengthening of their positions in your own country. also, the ultimate test of perception is to understand which trends are temporary or forced and which are permanent, and lucidity comes from keeping your eyes on the unredeemable evil while trying to understand the motivations - some are forced, some are stuck in the rut of the positions they took for years, others won't change their stinky habit to tell even the truth in deceptive ways - and if possible, help those only temporarily associated with it. soros couldn't be pro-hamas, because he is jew, and the hamas strike was started exactly by the subversive underground to take money and power from the jews (although his son might be dumb enough to do it). it was a dark maga act at that moment, supported by the pentagon (see the number of palestinian-american veterans planning it from the field), while now we see that dark maga were in fact rinos like ellison and they try to get rid of trump himself, and the main hand became cia, with pentagon even opposing some of these enormities etc. as for how do you see exactly these things, it's complicated - sometimes you need to understand that generalizations hide the truth, sometimes that they promote it, to not be afraid of unpleasant explanations (like someone's motivations) and obviously see the authentic connections, not the fake ones, like in a true reasoning (which is not always easy in dissimulative environments like this one, where deep allies fake conflicts and sworn enemies constantly compliment each other). so opening your mind and heart instead of repeating your own mantras is only the first step, for the next ones you need dedication and special conditions, like exclusive loyalty to the cause of bettering things instead of personal interests. that's why conclusions which i sometimes voice, like "that person is bad" aren't simple feelings, they always have entire deductions behind them - i even test logically my intuition, to be sure. unfortunately, reproducing each detail would be like telling what i did in the last 15 years, the question being "where should i begin?", but i would be ready to offer alternative opinions where i find them necessary and, when i find the strength, even detail the logical mechanism behind them.
The Shah fell before Saddam's arrival.
Saddam's arrival was America's plan to overthrow Khomeini who had deceived the US after they helped Khomeini take power in Iran through a revolution.
This history I mention cannot be contradicted and lives in the spine of everyone who lived during that time in Iran and Iraq and who is still alive to a large extent today.
I was not referring to the invasion of 1980, but to actions undertaken by Saddam in the late 1970s, just after gaining power. Iraq had many disputes with the Shah, territorial and otherwise, hence Iraq’s Soviet-aided military buildup *before* the Revolution. Plus, the Soviets wanted to use Saddam as a tool to undermine the U.S. (and Israel) in Iran, hence the latter’s support for all anti-Shah groups, including the Islamists, Marxists, and ethnic separatists, e.g., Arab nationalists in Khuzestan.
After a failed coup d'état by Saddam in the early 60s, he fled to Egypt.
In 1979, he staged a coup against his cousin, who was president. Three uncles were in the war at the time and my father was imprisoned for 12 years in Iran.
So the problem with the Shah was before Saddam, Saddam wanted to change but had to flee at the time you are talking about.
Then he got help to take power from his cousin at the end of 1979, a few months later the war started.
Saddam was Iraq’s vice president from 1968–79 (the time of the coup you mention), after a brief sojourn in Egypt, so he was definitely in Iraq at the time. Also, by 1976 Saddam already headed the Iraqi armed forces, so he was quite involved in policy even then, given President Bakr’s ailing health.
yes , you are right.
well it is the baath party he led.
They say however that bakr's health was the reason, but both you and I know that was not the case.
You are right that Hitler did not help but would help the Jews to come to Palestine.
but after a meeting with the Mufti and Hitler in Austria I think the meeting took place so Hitler buried the idea of moving Jews to Palestine.
Baluchistan is 2% of the population. They are not getting independence. Kurds are 10% of the pop on the border with Iraq and Turkey, if the gov doesn't collapse, geography is against them. Azeri are a big minority, but have the following problem, they occupy a very mountainous area and many of them are in Teheran. They are also the most integrated into the gov. The Ayatolah is Azeri. Will Turkey go to war against Iran? No way. Will Azerbadjan? Absolutly not, since it's a small country, and even 1000 shahed drones would turn its economy back to the stone age. They cannot sustain military operations for more than a couple month. The azeris are not suicidal, they are mostly clan based mafia run country.
If Trump were serious, I think this setup would make the most sense. Due to geography and other factors, Iran is immune to a bombing-and-assassination ‘thrust’ (which, as in Venezuela, is more like useful PR for the regime than a real war effort). Any chance of regime change would depend on nearby land forces, which Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Pakistan amply supply. The U.S., Israel, and the EU would need to initiate a much wider campaign, involving the aforementioned states as well as their GCC overseers. However, right now the U.S. is invested in prioritizing other theaters, while joining regional forces in such a way that gives it room to maneuver. The TRIPP concept, which melds with the “Islamic NATO”, suits multiple aims at once, and is a precondition for effective action on more fronts than one (i.e., Russia vis-à-vis Ukraine, the South Caucasus, and South-Central Asia). It is a ‘dual-use’ project.
However, at this stage U.S.–Israel ties are quite strained, owing in part to Trump’s siding with the Qataris and their Saudi-fronted, Turkish-led “Islamic NATO” in Gaza, Syria, and the Red Sea littoral. The U.S. is pressing Netanyahu and Israeli defense officials to accept the dissolution of the SDF, a move that would cede Israeli strategic parity to Turkish–Arab (read: Islamist) interests. Trump’s advisers heavily back the “Islamic NATO” in the Horn of Africa and Yemen as well, while doing little or nothing to help Israel resume its anti-Houthi war effort. Also, the current unfolding of affairs widens the preexistent Iran–Russia cleft, a reality visible in the media sphere due to Muslim clout favoring pan-Islamic causes (i.e., Palestine) over Russian policies on Israel. Historic Iranian, as well as pan-Turkic, nationalism could thus be redirected against Russia in response, suiting U.S. interests (as part of Brzezinski’s “Green Arc”).
"..To be clear, this isn’t likely, just possible, but it can’t be ruled out..." Maybe, yet I will not be the least bit surprised when the jackals attack the wounded lamb.
USA is Isreals supporter Russia is Irans neighbor & friend. Russia will support Iran for Russias own concerns about having enemies on it's borders. All the other countries in the region know that Israel comes first and everybody is second or of no concern. Where do they look to? Russia, who else, not USA.
Andrew,are you saying conditions between Iran and it's neighbors are the same now since previous disputes, conflicts that happened 30-40 years ago? Pakistan supports Iran against Israel. Turkey likes to stay neutral. And what about the people who live in these areas of Iran? Are they dissatisfied with the Iranian regime or is this all conjecture and "fantasy thinking"?
What I'm saying is that the four neighboring countries that I mentioned (I consider Saudi Arabia to be a neighbor of Iran) are all opportunistic, have each had very serious disputes with it since 1979, and their strategic interests are increasingly aligning through the "Islamic NATO" format.
Pakistan's support for Iran over Israel is purely rhetorical. The country has a long-documented history of resorting to anti-Zionist rhetoric for rallying the masses around the ruling military (nowadays de facto) leadership. Turkiye is pro-Turkic, thus pro-Azeri, over pro-Iranian by a long shot.
I don't consider average people as having much agency in terms of influencing international affairs. That doesn't mean that I don't wish it was different, I just expect that while there might be some resistance if this worst-case scenario unfolds, the locals wouldn't be able to stop it. In fact, at least a minority of the Turkic/Azeri ones might welcome it.
My assessment from afar but after consuming lots of information from pro- and anti-government activists alike, including among minority communities, is that the general sense is that people don't want to "Balkanize" their country even if they have (whether legitimate or illegitimate) grievances against it, but again, I don't believe that average people have much agency in terms of influencing international affairs.
Pakistan has done no such thing, other than some empty rhetoric. "Thoughts And Prayers!"
And the United States has many levers over Pakistan.
Please don't use AI in your responses, I absolutely detest the technology and want it nowhere near my comments section, ever. Thank you.