- Joined
- Jun 5, 2017
- Messages
- 16,330
- Likes
- 70,173
Brother you're russia boner is so strong u go on full anti America stanceRothschilds about Iran
........................................................................
Iranian Revolution
- Thread starter Indian Sniper.001
- Start date
Please forgive my ignorance regarding the actions of Iran. But didn't Indian government protest on award of oil field to Russians or balance payment in Euros? Indian media also didn't publicize these actions of Iran. Seems something fishy.
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,233
are you saying good or bad about me... pardon for my poor english understanding knowledge....
basically i go through more Russian pages & blogs.....
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2017
- Messages
- 16,330
- Likes
- 70,173
Nah bro I was just trying to crack a joke.
I often see U posting and representing Russian narratives of things.
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,233
cool bro, well my concern is if Iran & Syria fall, their target will be us [India].... as long as Iran stand against KSA, we are safe.... 1970's situation will develop again.....
Kshatriya87
Senior Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2014
- Messages
- 10,136
- Likes
- 16,039
Well then go to "Russian involvement in Syrian crisis" thread. It's dominated by @brahmos.
Sent from my Redmi 4A using Tapatalk
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,233
Who is behind the manifestations in Iran and who benefits?
2 Replies
Published here: https://www.alraimedia.com/Home/Details?id=1557eccb-f6e2-4db3-b298-6ce9a26496b7…
By Elijah J. Magnier – @ejmalrai
Iranians took the streets for the seventh day, leaving behind more than 20 killed and hundreds of arrests in various Iranian cities. These protests are considered to be the biggest challenge (several thousands) to the government since the 2009 Green movement. The big question remains: who stands behind these manifestations and who are the beneficiaries?
Both the liberals and the hardliners, as well as the rest of the world, were taken by surprise when the manifestations spread to various cities just before the new year 2018. Actually, thousands of Iranians hit the streets a couple of days before the 9 Dey, a manifestation organised yearly to reaffirm allegiance to the Islamic Republic and its religious leadership, and mainly against the reformists Mir Hussein Mussavi and Mahdi Karrubi’s Green Movement (still under house arrest since then).
The Iranian hardliners leaders see no interest in mobilising the street days before other manifestations were expected in their support. Moreover, there are many occasions throughout the year where the population can be asked to rally in solidarity with the Iranian Islamic Republic. These hardliners are today in control of key intelligence, security, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Basiji and key decision-making positions in the country. Therefore, any uncontrolled manifestation falls to their disadvantage, mainly when the mob has no obvious leadership in the street or behind the scenes, to date.
Iran’s security and national interest really doesn’t need wide uncontrolled manifestations when Takfiri (religious extremists i.e. al-Qaeda and ISIS) can destabilise the country and yet blend in. Moreover, Iran is also under threat from neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia, who promise to destabilise the country from within. This follows the victory of Iran and its allies in Iraq and Syria, as well as its support to the Houthis in Yemen that is stopping Saudi Arabia from celebrating a quick victory despite its superior fire power, siege and the indiscriminate slaughtering of civilians. Also, Israel prefers to divert attention from Gaza to the events in Iran, to turn the world’s attention away from its doings in Palestine.
The greatest danger the Iranian leaders feel is coming from Israel and from the current US administration. This has manifested especially as the defiance has been publicly declared by the commander of the Quds Force in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Qassim Soleimani who sent a clear message asking the US forces to leave Syria. Moreover, Soleimani declared his readiness to finance and arm Palestinian organisations in Palestine to fight Israel and stop the implementation of Donald Trump’s decision to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel.
Trump did not stand still watching: since he is in office, the US President has been working to revoke the nuclear deal, threatening his European partners – who took a different stand for the first time against the US at the UN – if they deal with Iran and help the Islamic Republic recover its economic prosperity.
Because the war has come into the open between Iran and the US (and all its allies in the Middle East), Saudi Arabia expressed its readiness to join the efforts, along with Israel, to curb the Islamic Republic of Iran and destabilise it. This leads us to the most plausible conclusion that the Iranian hardliners – who are leading the Revolutionary Guards, the Basij and the “Axis of the Resistance” – have no interest in supporting the ongoing protests which are hitting this weak economy. These protests – to the hardliner’s disadvantage – are allowing enough space for international and regional intervention to organise themselves and support those in the street.
These Iranian protesters in the street are today composed of angry youth pushed by economic grievances: others are, and remain, anti-regime, they never accepted the Islamic Republic ruling. Some protesters are pro-Shah, and others are pro-US. All this mixture with these various titles are melting together, with different objectives and goals.
As for the liberals, these demonstrations are damaging the Iranian economy, pointing to the failure of the government led by President Hasan Rohani. These demonstrations rightly prove the incapacity of the liberal President to put an end to grievances resulting from unemployment, corruption, price increases, and difficult living conditions inherited from previous governments. The liberal President walked in to lead the government in 2013 with a country under heavy sanctions and suffering from critical economic conditions.
Since the rule of the late former President Hashemi Rafsanjani (1991) demonstrations in the country are taking place with a different intensity, calling for the improvement of living conditions, secure employment opportunities, and the enhancement of the purchasing power of the local currency.
However, the nuclear deal that President Rohani relied on to secure positive results and went through an extra stretch to face the hardliners –enjoying rare and precious support from the people and from the leader of the revolution, Ali Khamenei – has not borne fruit. President Trump has so far refrained from releasing the 150 billion dollars of Iranian assets and refused to meet and recognise Rohani’s reforms and liberalism.
Rohani failed to secure the Iranian banks’ openness needed towards the international market – despite the moral support received from Iran’s new European partners – due to the US’s objections and the intention to curb any effort by the liberals. And European banks are reluctant to do business with Iran for fear of being penalised.
The present situation regarding these demonstrations is the result of a number of different tendencies, claims and demands. The way in which it is handled will determine whether the “enemies of Iran” can effectively instrumentalise it to their advantage or not. Of course, there is a real economic crisis in Iran, part of a global problem not limited only to the Iranians. It is hitting even rich monarchies like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom is introducing new taxes on electricity, gasoline and on major goods and services. Moreover, the Saudi crown Prince Mohamad Bin Salman is jailing Emirs and Saudi businessmen in order to suck up their wealth (to impose his will, secure his ability to govern recover some of the high sums given to the US for ‘protection’, and balance some of the billions spent on Syria and Yemen).
However, those just socio-economic demands have brought only a small fraction of the Iranian people (a few thousand) to the streets, whereas hardliners and liberals are capable, if they were indeed behind the protests, of mobilising millions of supporters: this is obviously not the case.
Today, the government is cautiously reacting to the protestors because the Iranian leaders do not want to wear the clothes of repression as long as these protests do not cause great harm to government facilities and public and private property.
However, the continuation of violence will most probably force both the liberals and the hardliners to unite and take the initiative before it costs more lives and damages to contain it. Widespread unrest in different cities may force the liberal president to take radical measures and give up his soft approach in order to avoid foreign countries organising themselves and intervening financially and supporting wider protests, similar to what happened in Syria in 2011.
Ironically, all those who have accused the Iranian people of terrorism, including Trump and most main stream media and think-tankers, have become suddenly great supporters of the Iranian people and their ‘freedom’. Social media is fuelled by fake news and images from Bahrein protests, reported and tweeted as ‘manifestations in Iran’. And there is still no mention, by these suddenly sensitive researchers and journalists, of the human rights violations taking place in Bahrein and the daily Saudi massacre in Yemen. Trump is furious because Iran is out of his control and dominance (this has been the case of all US Presidents since 1979’s Islamic Republic) and not because of human rights and American values: America is today supporting Saudi Arabia and its “values”.
However, the more Trump tweets about Iran, the more he supports the theory of Sayyed Ali Khamenei, who, as an Iranian leader close to him put it to me, told President Rohani behind closed doors: “Never trust them (the US administration and leadership). Go and try your luck but never forget they were and will always remain the enemies of Iran and the Iranians, all Iranians without distinction”. This is what Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said!
https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/who-is-behind-the-manifestations-in-iran-and-who-benefits/
2 Replies
Published here: https://www.alraimedia.com/Home/Details?id=1557eccb-f6e2-4db3-b298-6ce9a26496b7…
By Elijah J. Magnier – @ejmalrai
Iranians took the streets for the seventh day, leaving behind more than 20 killed and hundreds of arrests in various Iranian cities. These protests are considered to be the biggest challenge (several thousands) to the government since the 2009 Green movement. The big question remains: who stands behind these manifestations and who are the beneficiaries?
Both the liberals and the hardliners, as well as the rest of the world, were taken by surprise when the manifestations spread to various cities just before the new year 2018. Actually, thousands of Iranians hit the streets a couple of days before the 9 Dey, a manifestation organised yearly to reaffirm allegiance to the Islamic Republic and its religious leadership, and mainly against the reformists Mir Hussein Mussavi and Mahdi Karrubi’s Green Movement (still under house arrest since then).
The Iranian hardliners leaders see no interest in mobilising the street days before other manifestations were expected in their support. Moreover, there are many occasions throughout the year where the population can be asked to rally in solidarity with the Iranian Islamic Republic. These hardliners are today in control of key intelligence, security, Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Basiji and key decision-making positions in the country. Therefore, any uncontrolled manifestation falls to their disadvantage, mainly when the mob has no obvious leadership in the street or behind the scenes, to date.
Iran’s security and national interest really doesn’t need wide uncontrolled manifestations when Takfiri (religious extremists i.e. al-Qaeda and ISIS) can destabilise the country and yet blend in. Moreover, Iran is also under threat from neighbouring countries like Saudi Arabia, who promise to destabilise the country from within. This follows the victory of Iran and its allies in Iraq and Syria, as well as its support to the Houthis in Yemen that is stopping Saudi Arabia from celebrating a quick victory despite its superior fire power, siege and the indiscriminate slaughtering of civilians. Also, Israel prefers to divert attention from Gaza to the events in Iran, to turn the world’s attention away from its doings in Palestine.
The greatest danger the Iranian leaders feel is coming from Israel and from the current US administration. This has manifested especially as the defiance has been publicly declared by the commander of the Quds Force in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Qassim Soleimani who sent a clear message asking the US forces to leave Syria. Moreover, Soleimani declared his readiness to finance and arm Palestinian organisations in Palestine to fight Israel and stop the implementation of Donald Trump’s decision to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel.
Trump did not stand still watching: since he is in office, the US President has been working to revoke the nuclear deal, threatening his European partners – who took a different stand for the first time against the US at the UN – if they deal with Iran and help the Islamic Republic recover its economic prosperity.
Because the war has come into the open between Iran and the US (and all its allies in the Middle East), Saudi Arabia expressed its readiness to join the efforts, along with Israel, to curb the Islamic Republic of Iran and destabilise it. This leads us to the most plausible conclusion that the Iranian hardliners – who are leading the Revolutionary Guards, the Basij and the “Axis of the Resistance” – have no interest in supporting the ongoing protests which are hitting this weak economy. These protests – to the hardliner’s disadvantage – are allowing enough space for international and regional intervention to organise themselves and support those in the street.
These Iranian protesters in the street are today composed of angry youth pushed by economic grievances: others are, and remain, anti-regime, they never accepted the Islamic Republic ruling. Some protesters are pro-Shah, and others are pro-US. All this mixture with these various titles are melting together, with different objectives and goals.
As for the liberals, these demonstrations are damaging the Iranian economy, pointing to the failure of the government led by President Hasan Rohani. These demonstrations rightly prove the incapacity of the liberal President to put an end to grievances resulting from unemployment, corruption, price increases, and difficult living conditions inherited from previous governments. The liberal President walked in to lead the government in 2013 with a country under heavy sanctions and suffering from critical economic conditions.
Since the rule of the late former President Hashemi Rafsanjani (1991) demonstrations in the country are taking place with a different intensity, calling for the improvement of living conditions, secure employment opportunities, and the enhancement of the purchasing power of the local currency.
However, the nuclear deal that President Rohani relied on to secure positive results and went through an extra stretch to face the hardliners –enjoying rare and precious support from the people and from the leader of the revolution, Ali Khamenei – has not borne fruit. President Trump has so far refrained from releasing the 150 billion dollars of Iranian assets and refused to meet and recognise Rohani’s reforms and liberalism.
Rohani failed to secure the Iranian banks’ openness needed towards the international market – despite the moral support received from Iran’s new European partners – due to the US’s objections and the intention to curb any effort by the liberals. And European banks are reluctant to do business with Iran for fear of being penalised.
The present situation regarding these demonstrations is the result of a number of different tendencies, claims and demands. The way in which it is handled will determine whether the “enemies of Iran” can effectively instrumentalise it to their advantage or not. Of course, there is a real economic crisis in Iran, part of a global problem not limited only to the Iranians. It is hitting even rich monarchies like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The Kingdom is introducing new taxes on electricity, gasoline and on major goods and services. Moreover, the Saudi crown Prince Mohamad Bin Salman is jailing Emirs and Saudi businessmen in order to suck up their wealth (to impose his will, secure his ability to govern recover some of the high sums given to the US for ‘protection’, and balance some of the billions spent on Syria and Yemen).
However, those just socio-economic demands have brought only a small fraction of the Iranian people (a few thousand) to the streets, whereas hardliners and liberals are capable, if they were indeed behind the protests, of mobilising millions of supporters: this is obviously not the case.
Today, the government is cautiously reacting to the protestors because the Iranian leaders do not want to wear the clothes of repression as long as these protests do not cause great harm to government facilities and public and private property.
However, the continuation of violence will most probably force both the liberals and the hardliners to unite and take the initiative before it costs more lives and damages to contain it. Widespread unrest in different cities may force the liberal president to take radical measures and give up his soft approach in order to avoid foreign countries organising themselves and intervening financially and supporting wider protests, similar to what happened in Syria in 2011.
Ironically, all those who have accused the Iranian people of terrorism, including Trump and most main stream media and think-tankers, have become suddenly great supporters of the Iranian people and their ‘freedom’. Social media is fuelled by fake news and images from Bahrein protests, reported and tweeted as ‘manifestations in Iran’. And there is still no mention, by these suddenly sensitive researchers and journalists, of the human rights violations taking place in Bahrein and the daily Saudi massacre in Yemen. Trump is furious because Iran is out of his control and dominance (this has been the case of all US Presidents since 1979’s Islamic Republic) and not because of human rights and American values: America is today supporting Saudi Arabia and its “values”.
However, the more Trump tweets about Iran, the more he supports the theory of Sayyed Ali Khamenei, who, as an Iranian leader close to him put it to me, told President Rohani behind closed doors: “Never trust them (the US administration and leadership). Go and try your luck but never forget they were and will always remain the enemies of Iran and the Iranians, all Iranians without distinction”. This is what Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said!
https://elijahjm.wordpress.com/2018/01/03/who-is-behind-the-manifestations-in-iran-and-who-benefits/
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,233
Trump’s CIA Director Reaches Out Directly to Iranian Foe
Mike Pompeo broke with recent protocol, and that's not a bad thing.
By DANIEL R. DEPETRIS • January 4, 2018
Mike Pompeo, CIA director (Gage Skidmore / Wikimedia Commons)
Speaking at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum, CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently disclosed that he sent a direct communication to Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, the longtime commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force division responsible for Iran’s overseas paramilitary and intelligence activity. “What we were communicating to him in that letter was that we will hold he and Iran accountable for any attacks on American interests in Iraq by forces that are under their control,” Pompeo told the audience. “We wanted to make sure he and the leadership in Iran understood that in a way that was crystal clear.”
To some who have operated in the clandestine and murky world of intelligence tradecraft, Pompeo’s maneuver was a surprise. Former CIA director Mike Hayden told Newsweek that he couldn’t recall ever doing such a thing during his tenure, while others labeled Pompeo’s move a too-clever-by-half strategy to signal toughness to Soleimani, who retains enormous power and influence within the Iranian political system.
But regardless of the critiques (and the fact that Soleimani reportedly sent back the letter without opening it), there are legitimate and wise reasons for a top U.S. national security official to make contact with such an adversary. History has demonstrated that back-channel negotiations (and even mere discussions on topics of mutual concern) can, if accepted as promising and sincere by the other side, result in greater understanding among competitors and perhaps even the beginning of a more formal negotiating process. Pompeo’s move was a good idea, and here are the reasons why.
“Jaw-jaw is better than war-war”: As British Prime Minister Winston Churchill argued, talking with an enemy to prevent a major military conflict from happening is a far better option than skipping dialogue altogether and catapulting toward a more violent and unpredictable relationship. While the context of Churchill’s quote is unclear even after all these years, it is likely that he had in mind the trials of World War II, which killed at least 60 million people, led to the indiscriminate fire-bombing of entire cities, and destroyed large parts of the European continent—as well as the prospect, very real at the time, that the United States and the Soviet Union could stumble into a nuclear confrontation.
A military conflict between Washington and Tehran would be devastating to the Middle East. Diplomacy is the only mechanism states have at their disposal to resolve international disputes peacefully and prevent conflicts from spiraling into violent catastrophes. Whether it was the Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq in the 2000s, or Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Yemen today, human history is replete with examples of leaders failing to exhibit the strategic foresight to deescalate at critical moments before warfare becomes inevitable.
Attempting to make contact with a high-ranking Iranian general, specifically one who is behind many of Iran’s aggressions in the Middle East today, is an unappetizing but pragmatic and commonsense move that keeps open a potentially critical avenue of dialogue.
U.S.-Iran contacts today are too limited: The Trump administration’s policy on Iran during its first year has been overly dependent on sticks, like economic sanctions and massive weapons sales to regional allies, and too short on engagement. There is no balance in America’s Iran policy. Such is the wisdom of the conventional, bipartisan foreign policy consensus in Washington, which equates talking to hostile governments with offering premature concessions—a perverse interpretation of the very concept of diplomacy.
Such a mindset handcuffs the United States and prematurely limits the options national security officials can pursue. The global environment is too competitive for politicians to remove a valuable tool in America’s foreign policy kit. There is nothing pragmatic or beneficial in cutting officials off at the knees and forbidding them from leveraging all the options at their disposal on behalf of the United States.
Miscalculation is in nobody’s interest: The Middle East is a region on tenterhooks, congested with multiple actors vying for power and influence. As we speak, Russian and U.S. fighter planes are flying in the same Syrian airspace, and in some cases have come within a mile of colliding.
U.S. aircraft shot down Iranian-manufactured drones and a manned Syrian regime aircraft earlier in the summer. Russian planes have bombarded U.S.-supported Syrian opposition forces. And in Eastern Syria, Iranian and American-sponsored Syrian militias have come close enough that armed clashes were more than a distinct possibility. In the waters of the Persian Gulf, U.S. naval officials almost assume they will have to stare down Iranian patrol boats whenever they set sail.
Without clear and consistent communication links between U.S. and Iranian officials, what are now manageable irritations could easily become potential flash points that prelude a violent incident.
Just as the U.S. and Russia established a military-to-military channel to ensure American and Russian pilots don’t run into each other in Syrian airspace, Washington and Tehran could minimize any miscalculation that may occur in a very turbulent and unpredictable region of the world by doing the same. In a way, Pompeo’s letter to Soleimani was designed for just that purpose: making it clear that if any Iranian proxy force targets U.S. forces or interests, Tehran will be held responsible for the consequences.
It will be up to the Trump administration to decide whether Pompeo’s message to the Iranians was a one-off, isolated occurrence meant for the cameras or the beginning of a more established channel to communicate red lines, prevent mistakes, and, above all, keep U.S. foreign policy options open. Let’s hope it’s the latter.
Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.
http://www.theamericanconservative....director-reaches-out-directly-to-iranian-foe/
Mike Pompeo broke with recent protocol, and that's not a bad thing.
By DANIEL R. DEPETRIS • January 4, 2018
Mike Pompeo, CIA director (Gage Skidmore / Wikimedia Commons)
Speaking at the annual Reagan National Defense Forum, CIA Director Mike Pompeo recently disclosed that he sent a direct communication to Iranian Major General Qassem Soleimani, the longtime commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard’s Quds Force division responsible for Iran’s overseas paramilitary and intelligence activity. “What we were communicating to him in that letter was that we will hold he and Iran accountable for any attacks on American interests in Iraq by forces that are under their control,” Pompeo told the audience. “We wanted to make sure he and the leadership in Iran understood that in a way that was crystal clear.”
To some who have operated in the clandestine and murky world of intelligence tradecraft, Pompeo’s maneuver was a surprise. Former CIA director Mike Hayden told Newsweek that he couldn’t recall ever doing such a thing during his tenure, while others labeled Pompeo’s move a too-clever-by-half strategy to signal toughness to Soleimani, who retains enormous power and influence within the Iranian political system.
But regardless of the critiques (and the fact that Soleimani reportedly sent back the letter without opening it), there are legitimate and wise reasons for a top U.S. national security official to make contact with such an adversary. History has demonstrated that back-channel negotiations (and even mere discussions on topics of mutual concern) can, if accepted as promising and sincere by the other side, result in greater understanding among competitors and perhaps even the beginning of a more formal negotiating process. Pompeo’s move was a good idea, and here are the reasons why.
“Jaw-jaw is better than war-war”: As British Prime Minister Winston Churchill argued, talking with an enemy to prevent a major military conflict from happening is a far better option than skipping dialogue altogether and catapulting toward a more violent and unpredictable relationship. While the context of Churchill’s quote is unclear even after all these years, it is likely that he had in mind the trials of World War II, which killed at least 60 million people, led to the indiscriminate fire-bombing of entire cities, and destroyed large parts of the European continent—as well as the prospect, very real at the time, that the United States and the Soviet Union could stumble into a nuclear confrontation.
A military conflict between Washington and Tehran would be devastating to the Middle East. Diplomacy is the only mechanism states have at their disposal to resolve international disputes peacefully and prevent conflicts from spiraling into violent catastrophes. Whether it was the Soviet Union’s occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq in the 2000s, or Saudi Arabia’s military intervention in Yemen today, human history is replete with examples of leaders failing to exhibit the strategic foresight to deescalate at critical moments before warfare becomes inevitable.
Attempting to make contact with a high-ranking Iranian general, specifically one who is behind many of Iran’s aggressions in the Middle East today, is an unappetizing but pragmatic and commonsense move that keeps open a potentially critical avenue of dialogue.
U.S.-Iran contacts today are too limited: The Trump administration’s policy on Iran during its first year has been overly dependent on sticks, like economic sanctions and massive weapons sales to regional allies, and too short on engagement. There is no balance in America’s Iran policy. Such is the wisdom of the conventional, bipartisan foreign policy consensus in Washington, which equates talking to hostile governments with offering premature concessions—a perverse interpretation of the very concept of diplomacy.
Such a mindset handcuffs the United States and prematurely limits the options national security officials can pursue. The global environment is too competitive for politicians to remove a valuable tool in America’s foreign policy kit. There is nothing pragmatic or beneficial in cutting officials off at the knees and forbidding them from leveraging all the options at their disposal on behalf of the United States.
Miscalculation is in nobody’s interest: The Middle East is a region on tenterhooks, congested with multiple actors vying for power and influence. As we speak, Russian and U.S. fighter planes are flying in the same Syrian airspace, and in some cases have come within a mile of colliding.
U.S. aircraft shot down Iranian-manufactured drones and a manned Syrian regime aircraft earlier in the summer. Russian planes have bombarded U.S.-supported Syrian opposition forces. And in Eastern Syria, Iranian and American-sponsored Syrian militias have come close enough that armed clashes were more than a distinct possibility. In the waters of the Persian Gulf, U.S. naval officials almost assume they will have to stare down Iranian patrol boats whenever they set sail.
Without clear and consistent communication links between U.S. and Iranian officials, what are now manageable irritations could easily become potential flash points that prelude a violent incident.
Just as the U.S. and Russia established a military-to-military channel to ensure American and Russian pilots don’t run into each other in Syrian airspace, Washington and Tehran could minimize any miscalculation that may occur in a very turbulent and unpredictable region of the world by doing the same. In a way, Pompeo’s letter to Soleimani was designed for just that purpose: making it clear that if any Iranian proxy force targets U.S. forces or interests, Tehran will be held responsible for the consequences.
It will be up to the Trump administration to decide whether Pompeo’s message to the Iranians was a one-off, isolated occurrence meant for the cameras or the beginning of a more established channel to communicate red lines, prevent mistakes, and, above all, keep U.S. foreign policy options open. Let’s hope it’s the latter.
Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities.
http://www.theamericanconservative....director-reaches-out-directly-to-iranian-foe/
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2017
- Messages
- 328
- Likes
- 665
As far as discord with Iranians is concerned, no country can really argue with a dictatorial regime especially after sanctions have been removed. In my opinion the sudden removal of UN Sanctions was a grave mistake made by the previous US Admin, the effects of which will be felt for a long time to come, the nuke deal and removal of sanctions basically white washed all the bad deeds of a dictatorial regime in Iran.
Indian Media is primarily a leftist media being fed capital through Hawala channels by Hindu Haters be it Democrats, Labors, Arabs, Maoists and most of all very wealthy Congi supporters in India and Abroad, in my opinion the likes of Ambanis,Chatwals,...Khalistani Brigade of UK/CAN.
Surprise! Surprise! yes the Ambanis HATE Modi to the gut and vice versa. They Can't stand a chaiwala. No media house will show you that either. Remember how kokila wept through a RIL assembly more that she wept when she lost her husband...some screws have been tightened.........RIL is the biggest importer of Iranian oil. ...no more questions, Please!
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2011
- Messages
- 7,701
- Likes
- 9,099
Iranian side is not empty, as shown in pic. It's not like they are saints.Also, one should add Macedonia, Syria, Ukraine, and Yemen to the USA's list.
They have also tried some of these activities in their neighborhood, though they can't hold even a candle to the US in this game.
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,556
You forgot the participation of the Knights Templar and the Masons.... The CIA, Mossad and Dart Vader's Intelligence Service...Rothschilds about Iran
........................................................................
Last edited:
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,233
those all are dogs of Rothschilds NWO .......................
bhramos
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 25,625
- Likes
- 37,233
non are Saints.... i accept,
but Iran has done noting big crimes like US did in these countries ...............
- Joined
- May 5, 2011
- Messages
- 12,846
- Likes
- 8,556
Quit your yapping. It's Iranians themselves who are already feed up with their theocracy! Would you want to be ruled by an incompetent self-ordained personal secretary of All@h? Iranians are having hardships and they felt their voices are not heard by All@'s annointed Persian ruler so they protest. What's wrong with that.
Haldiram
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2018
- Messages
- 5,708
- Likes
- 28,648
Iran has been trying to act smart with India recently. They delayed an oil field agreement and other stuff and tried to play hardball. An Iran under foreign pressure is the only kind of Iran that will be amenable to cut deals with India, otherwise they will negotiate from a position of strength.
As long as the uprising doesn't result in a mass upheaval, these small threats to Iran's regime are welcome. The moment they face western pressure they run to the India-Russia-China camp for support.
As long as the uprising doesn't result in a mass upheaval, these small threats to Iran's regime are welcome. The moment they face western pressure they run to the India-Russia-China camp for support.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Indo-Aryans vs Iranians | History & Culture | 5 | |
|
Mossad tricked the Iranians into blowing up Natanz | West Asia & Africa | 16 | |
|
|
Genetic Continuity of Indo-Iranian Speakers Since the Iron Age in Southern Central Asia | History & Culture | 39 | |
|
|
History of Indo Iranian Deities | History & Culture | 28 |
