Living under Iran Mullahs

  • Advertisement
  • proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    I meant they'll negatively impact the process to get rid of the mullahs.
    Possible, but we do not know for sure.
    It may even be positive affect - Iranians might no longer wait for American interference.
    Besides after 2009 Obama's inaction I doubt Iranians expected manna from heaven even before Trump decided to leave Northern Syria.
     
    J

    joseph_lubnan

    Legendary Member
    If Iran relinquishes nuclear weapons and retracts at least some of its current expansion into the region, then the US and the Mullahs or any regime that the Iranian people are ok with will be just fine and dandy. If the Iranians like the theocratic mullah dictatorship, then that's what they can have, for as long as they want, it is their choice and their choice only. The US goals are not to change the Iranian regime, and it really cannot do that even if it wanted. I only hope that when the deal is reached between the US and Iran's Mullah's that Lebanon sovereignty benefits from it rather than not.
     
    Last edited:
    Picasso

    Picasso

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Iran, the Unitary State
    Tehran’s Foreign-Policy Makers Act as One

    By Afshon Ostovar and Ariane M. Tabatabai



    Ayatollah Ali Khamenei meeting with military commanders in Tehran, Iran in February 2017

    The drone strikes on two major Aramco oil facilities in Saudi Arabia in September left many observers puzzled. Though officials in Washington and Riyadh blamed Iran for the attacks, aggression of this kind seemed at odds with the more conciliatory positions of the government of Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s president. Was it really in Iran’s interest to so drastically escalate a simmering conflict with the United States and its regional partners? The Houthis, Iran’s allies in Yemen’s bloody civil war, immediately claimed responsibility for hitting the oil fields, but the sophistication of the attack pointed to a state actor and, eventually, to Iran as the culprit. Though Iranian officials denied any involvement, some commentators suggested that elements of Iran’s security apparatus participated in the attacks, even if the strikes weren’t orchestrated at the level of the state.

    Many experts, including current and former analysts and officials within the U.S. government, subscribe to the notion that factionalism drives Iran’s strategic behavior. This line of thinking (albeit not entirely embraced by the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump) generally presumes that aggressive actions by Iran’s military are often guided by the imperatives of the country’s contentious internal politics. Iran’s Foreign Ministry, which serves as the main interlocutor for the United States and other Western powers, appears in this light as the “good cop” to the “bad cop” of the regime’s hard-liners. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), a branch of the Iranian armed forces tightly associated with the hard-liners, is thought to pursue aggressive actions as a way of undercutting the legitimacy and influence of the more pragmatic Rouhani government. Hard-liners, particularly those within the ranks of the IRGC, execute policies designed to undermine the moderates at home and abroad, making it more difficult for Rouhani to function on the international stage.

    The problem with this line of thinking, however, is that it misunderstands how decision-making works in the Islamic Republic. To see Tehran as helplessly riven with antagonistic factions is misguided. Under concerted pressure from Trump, the separate parts of Iran’s regime have closed ranks. Western policymakers must accept the reality that Iran conducts its security policy as a unified state actor.

    ALL FOR ONE, ONE FOR ALL

    Iran’s political system consists of discrete entities and centers of power. These include the executive branch that Rouhani currently leads, the IRGC, and the office of the supreme leader, occupied since 1989 by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In the context of defense and security policy, these power centers may not always see eye to eye, but they don’t operate in silos. Under the aegis of the Supreme National Security Council, different parts of Iran’s political and military establishment meet to make decisions affecting national security. Even outside this forum, Rouhani and his cabinet routinely consult and exchange information with the IRGC. During the negotiations that led to the nuclear deal in 2015, for example, Rouhani’s Foreign Ministry frequently touched base with the IRGC. The executive branch and the IRGC likewise coordinate policy in Syria, where the IRGC oversees Iran’s support of President Bashar al-Assad’s forces and conducts operations alongside Iran’s conventional army.

    Above both the executive branch and the IRGC sits the supreme leader, Khamenei. The supreme leader is the chief policymaker in the Islamic Republic. If the supreme leader rejects an idea, no part of the regime puts it into action. Khamenei has representatives in every state institution and, most important, on the Supreme National Security Council to ensure that all arms of the regime faithfully pursue his policy objectives.

    For this reason, there is little doubt that the Rouhani administration was fully aware of the Aramco attacks before they took place. Rouhani, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, and the IRGC denied that Iran was behind the strikes. But the sophistication of the attack suggests that the IRGC was in charge of the operation, and it would not have acted without the unequivocal endorsement of the supreme leader’s office and the Supreme National Security Council. The supreme leader allows the IRGC to act independently within some limits when performing routine operations. An attack of this scope, however, which could have easily triggered escalation with Saudi Arabia and perhaps even with the United States, is not routine. The decision to go forward with this attack was strategic and would have involved the top officials in the country.

    That the decision to target the Saudi oil fields was made by the entirety of the state rather than by the IRGC alone indicates consensus within the Iranian system. The separate parts of Iran’s regime have met what they see as the hostility of the Trump administration and of Saudi Arabia with a unified approach. The Islamic Republic has shown through numerous actions over the past six months that it will respond by force to Washington’s “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions. Incidents such as the strikes in Saudi Arabia or operations against shipping in the Persian Gulf aren’t flailing attempts at retribution but instead are calculated to claw back leverage from Iran’s adversaries. This approach may already be bearing fruit. In a bid to de-escalate in the wake of the Aramco attacks, Saudi Arabia agreed to talks with Iran mediated by Pakistan.

    GROWING CONSENSUS

    When dealing with the United States, the various parts of Iran’s political and security apparatus have historically had a hard time reaching a consensus. Only on a handful of occasions since the advent of the Islamic Republic have these bodies managed to agree on how to approach the United States. For instance, in 2001 when Tehran’s interests aligned with Washington’s goals during the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Iran chose to support U.S. efforts. Much like the 2015 nuclear deal, these moments of consensus within the Iranian regime were the exception, not the rule.

    After a contentious few years before and after the nuclear deal, the regime now enjoys a new internal unity in the face of the United States. The Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign has moved Iran’s major factions closer together in setting strategic policy. In its cost-benefit calculus, Iran has settled on a path that privileges escalation over capitulation. The Aramco attacks might not be an outlier so much as the beginning of the next stage of Iran’s counterpressure campaign.

    As the United States rolls out its response to recent Iranian activities, officials and Iran observers in Washington should understand the real nature of policymaking in Tehran. The more appealing narrative may be to see two camps within Iran struggling for the soul of the Islamic Republic and the future of its relations with the United States; in that view, Washington need only find ways to bolster the position of the moderates. However, in matters pertaining to national security, the regime acts deliberately and in unison. Iranian behavior today stems not from infighting within the regime but from a systemwide conviction in decisive action. Iran is probing for ways to increase its leverage and compel policy shifts among its adversaries. It sees its provocations as the best way to improve its tenuous position in the Middle East and in its relations with the United States.

    In comparison with Washington’s Middle East policy, Tehran’s decision-making is steady and consistent. Current and future U.S. policy toward Iran must begin with the premise that the Islamic Republic is the sum of its parts and that to try to empower moderates or disempower hard-liners is naive. Rather, Washington should strive to deal with Iran as it is, not as Washington wishes it were.

    ~ Foreign Affairs

    October 18, 2019
     
    J

    Jeremy Samuel

    New Member
    Wishful thinking, Iran and its Islamic Regime are expanding their influence in the region as Americans pull out. They're not going anywhere anytime soon, and no one in the region trusts the word of Americans anymore. I mean, if anyone trusts the Americans after they sold out the Kurds to a genocidal maniac, they only have themselves to blame. Including Israel.
    Happy birthday Putin!
    I absolutely hate Trump's decision on Rojava, but I don't think that "no one will 'trust' America again." The issue when a weak group or country accepts support from a strong country isn't that strong country's past actions, but just how much support the strong country is willing to give, then and there.

    The Kurds didn't join in the rebellion against Assad because America told them too. They didn't establish their military and government in Rojava because of America. They did that because they wanted to for their own independent reasons (which I support). The establishment of Rojava wasn't a favor to the US or any other country.

    I see Donald Trump's election as a freak occurrence that is the result of America's own benighted political culture and archaic constitution; Trump's decision on Rojava was probably motivated by his own corruption with Russia or even Istanbul real estate. It wouldn't make sense for a future group to decline American support when America has a different president because of Donald Trump's idiocy in 2019.
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    "German Youth Demand Hezbollah Designated a Terror Organization"

    "A German youth movement highlighted its parliament’s failure to address anti-Semitism and radical Islam."

     
    N

    Nimaa

    Active Member
    This is how Ayatollahs are talking themselves into sleep lately.

    "We can destroy Israel in less than half an hour"

    Akhoonds do indeed have a hard on for their Semitic brothers, but Israel and Netenyahoo have them beat with the daily scream-fest about how they're going to either attack Iran or how Iran should be attacked before they get the bomb, which according to them Iran has been on the cusp of getting for 4 straight decades (and somehow Iran is always 6 months away from getting). Face it half-wit, your mini-me Euro-Jewish colony is on that megaphone about Iran more than the mullahs talk about Israel, although they're not far behind.
     
    I

    I am a man

    New Member
    If we think for a moment: it is the US who backed Khomeini and his magi or mullah in overthrowing the Shah.
    All this to prevent the expansion of communist/atheist USSR in Asia.

    Hence, a fanatical religious regime is the best wall for any progress of any communist anti religious ideology.

    Once again US did a great favor to Iran in invading Iraq, Iran worst enemy in 2003. The end of Iran won't happen if US, Russia, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and China agree together on its demise, and that, finally, had happened few months ago, just few weeks before protests in Lebanon and Iraq
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Akhoonds do indeed have a hard on for their Semitic brothers, but Israel and Netenyahoo have them beat with the daily scream-fest about how they're going to either attack Iran or how Iran should be attacked before they get the bomb, which according to them Iran has been on the cusp of getting for 4 straight decades (and somehow Iran is always 6 months away from getting). Face it half-wit, your mini-me Euro-Jewish colony is on that megaphone about Iran more than the mullahs talk about Israel, although they're not far behind.
    This is how you are talking yourself into sleep lately.
     
    Big Brother

    Big Brother

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    Nah half-wit, I sleep just fine.

    So when are the mullahs getting their nukes?
    Why are you excited about an Islamist regime oppressing your people getting nukes?

    Israel can defend itself just fine. Your people on the other hand -- تحت الصرماي (under the boots).
     
    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    proIsrael-nonIsraeli

    Legendary Member
    Why are you excited about an Islamist regime oppressing your people getting nukes?
    Israel can defend itself just fine. Your people on the other hand -- تحت الصرماي (under the boots).
    Genius cannot grasp the reality that there are Arabs between Iran and Israel and everything Iran will throw at Israel will be shot down and will fall on Arab heads.
     
    N

    Nimaa

    Active Member
    Why are you excited about an Islamist regime oppressing your people getting nukes?

    Israel can defend itself just fine. Your people on the other hand -- تحت الصرماي (under the boots).
    If they were getting nukes I'd start supporting the shitslamic Arabesque regime actually. Unfortunately they're not. Yes, they are oppressive. The simple fact that I live in Canada is directly because of that. WTF does that have to do with nuclear weapons though? You're not very bright are you? In any case, I wish they were gunning for nukes, but there's no indication that they are. You have no proof, IAEA has no proof... nobody does. So don't talk out of your behind.

    Israel can defend itself. Okay. Good for them. Sucks for you Arabs.
     
    Big Brother

    Big Brother

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    If they were getting nukes I'd start supporting the shitslamic Arabesque regime actually. Unfortunately they're not. Yes, they are oppressive. The simple fact that I live in Canada is directly because of that. WTF does that have to do with nuclear weapons though? You're not very bright are you? In any case, I wish they were gunning for nukes, but there's no indication that they are. You have no proof, IAEA has no proof... nobody does. So don't talk out of your behind.
    You'd start supporting an Islamofascist regime if they acquire nukes? ****ed in the head, are we?

    Iran has been proven to be working towards a nuke -- Mossad already smuggled intel out of Iran showing that, some of which was presented by Netanyahu.

    Also, if Iran acquires a nuke, so will the Wahhabists. I wonder who is crazier, the Wahhabists or the Mullahs? Either way, you Persians and Arabs will surely let me know :cigar: .

    Israel can defend itself. Okay. Good for them. Sucks for you Arabs.
    Not an Arab -- but, humor me this, where'd you learn to hate Arabs so much?
     
    N

    Nimaa

    Active Member
    You'd start supporting an Islamofascist regime if they acquire nukes? ****ed in the head, are we?

    Iran has been proven to be working towards a nuke -- Mossad already smuggled intel out of Iran showing that, some of which was presented by Netanyahu.

    Also, if Iran acquires a nuke, so will the Wahhabists. I wonder who is crazier, the Wahhabists or the Mullahs? Either way, you Persians and Arabs will surely let me know :cigar: .



    Not an Arab -- but, humor me this, where'd you learn to hate Arabs so much?
    You're talking out of your ass. Where is this intel? Only you have it? It's proven? By who? Your big mouth?

    Arabs and Iranians are like oil and water. Not sure if you can call it hate. Whatever it is, the feeling is mutual so don't feel sorry for your kind. You're not an Arab? What are you then? If you're not an Arab why are you keeping your ethnicity a secret? But that's besides the point. Where is the proof that the mullahs are getting nukes?

    Saudis can't even fly a helicopter. They get Pakis to fly it for them. They have 9 million foreign workers there. one for every 2-3 Saudi citizens. The best they can hope for is Pakis giving them nukes. Woopdedoo. They got a whole bunch of ballistic missiles from China back in the 80's and the solid fuel expired while they were in storage. These people are still trying to figure out the decimal system.
     
    Big Brother

    Big Brother

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    You're talking out of your ass. Where is this intel? Only you have it? It's proven? By who? Your big mouth?

    Arabs and Iranians are like oil and water. Not sure if you can call it hate. Whatever it is, the feeling is mutual so don't feel sorry for your kind. You're not an Arab? What are you then? If you're not an Arab why are you keeping your ethnicity a secret? But that's besides the point. Where is the proof that the mullahs are getting nukes?

    Saudis can't even fly a helicopter. They get Pakis to fly it for them. They have 9 million foreign workers there. one for every 2-3 Saudi citizens. The best they can hope for is Pakis giving them nukes. Woopdedoo. They got a whole bunch of ballistic missiles from China back in the 80's and the solid fuel expired while they were in storage. These people are still trying to figure out the decimal system.
    I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps you haven't seen the following:


    I'm half American Jew half Lebanese. The Arabs are useful tool against Iran. Just as backwards and barbaric as Iran though. Funny to see you pretend to be better though.
     
    Top