Middle East Running Iranian threat news and discussion thread

[Floridaman]

It doesn't really change the hypocrisy of Trump denouncing his press critics, and in phrasing often used to justify violent suppression in other countries, while arguing for more press rights elsewhere. If anything, his prior anti-press tantrums undermine his moral authority in calling for greater freedom of the press within other countries.

Freedom of the press does not, and has never meant being free of mockery because that would violate Freedom of Speech. It means the president won’t spy on them, arrest them or have physically supressed, if Trump had done any of that the house Would have used that as a charge, rather than them going with vague charges that mean nothing at all.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Has there been journos that caught a case of suicide?

 

[Deleted member 88]

Literally if Trump is for something his enemies are or would be against it.

Supporting dissent in Iran? Trump supports it must be bad.
Curing cancer? It would destroy the pharmaceutical industry and thus shatter the economy.
I dunno solving global warming? He wants to make the planet freeze to death.
Putting roofs over the heads of homeless people? He’s over-stretching the housing market and causing the economy to collapse!

 

[Bacle]

Literally if Trump is for something his enemies are or would be against it.

Supporting dissent in Iran? Trump supports it must be bad.
Curing cancer? It would destroy the pharmaceutical industry and thus shatter the economy.
I dunno solving global warming? He wants to make the planet freeze to death.
Putting roofs over the heads of homeless people? He’s over-stretching the housing market and causing the economy to collapse!

I have often said that Trump could end world hunger, and the Left would just slam him for 'spreading obesity'.

 

[Deleted member 88]

I have often said that Trump could end world hunger, and the Left would just slam him for 'spreading obesity'.

Probably yeah.

 

[GoldRanger]

TDS sinking so far Pelosi would sweep the protestors under the rug because Trump is for the protesters.

Even an Iranian MSM news anchor is as broken up about the suppresed protests.

This makes me nauseous.

At this point, any sympathy or support the left has toward Iran is based solely on ideology or emotion, not any actual and honest evaluation of the situation in the real world.

I've encountered this behavior a lot on Space "Iran is a nominally peaceful country" Battles, where listing the atrocities Iran committed and continues to commit all across the Middle East is met with replies such as "b-b-b-b-ut Saudi Arabia!" or "It's all America's fault for fucking up Iran!" (which excuses said atrocities how?) or my favorite: "Iran offered America aid during 9/11 and America snubbed them!" (because it was totally out of the goodness of their hearts and had zero strings attached, right?). And of course there are those who view Iran getting access to nuclear weaponry as a good thing... I can't even.

Sorry about the rant, it's just this Iranophilia is fucking insane and makes zero sense. It's infuriating. Many western countries just can't make decent life-saving geopolitical decisions because they've convinced themselves that the Iranian regime are the good guys despite all the evidence to the contrary. If Iran started gassing its own population tomorrow like Syria did (and which is at least partially Obama's fault since he made that cringy bluff about chemical weapons being his "red line"), will Pelosi finally acknowledge the glaringly obvious, or will that also be Trump's fault? What if they get the bomb and nuke Tel-Aviv and Riyadh, will that also be "just in self defense"? Fuck.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Iran isn’t even like a leftist country such as Cuba or Venezuela.

It’s one thing for the left to support fellow traveler governments opposed by the big bad US, but Iran is not a leftist country nor does it have a leftist government.

At this point, I think it’s just Trump opposes Iran therefore Iran gud, not even principled anti imperialism anymore.

 

[Marduk]

Iran isn’t even like a leftist country such as Cuba or Venezuela.

It’s one thing for the left to support fellow traveler governments opposed by the big bad US, but Iran is not a leftist country nor does it have a leftist government.

At this point, I think it’s just Trump opposes Iran therefore Iran gud, not even principled anti imperialism anymore.

It's a tactical alliance on geopolitical stage. Works exactly the same way how the ayatollahs and Iran's left had one when it came to overthrowing the Shah. Of course the ayatollahs and leftists had different ideas on what should happen with Iran after the Shah is overthrown, the left didn't really think that one through...

On the global stage, Iran is too small a fish in the pond to really take hold of the part of the world where the anti-american leftists are located in the unlikely scenario that the anti-american alliance would knock it off from the hegemonic position, so the leftists feel even more secure in this alliance than they were in the aforementioned case.

Thinking a bit fourther, if Iran and leftists would succeed in the common goal, as in making USA weaker on the global stage in general, making it withdraw from Middle East, and stop supporting its allies there? What would happen then?
Well, then the Islamic Revolution would have drasticly higher chances in its quest to rebuild a Persian Empire as a Shia favoring theocracy in the Middle East.
And what would be the side effect of that?
Lots and lots of Sunni Arabs becoming refugees (of fucking course to the west) due to proper war and religious persecution which the ayatollahs would be fairly interested in creating. That can also make you think...

 

[Deleted member 88]

I wonder why leftists don’t idolize the Tudeh party or say the Amol uprising of 1982?

They do realize leftist movements existed historically in Iran?

Is it just historical illiteracy or do they not care?

 

[Cherico]

I wonder why leftists don’t idolize the Tudeh party or say the Amol uprising of 1982?

They do realize leftist movements existed historically in Iran?

Is it just historical illiteracy or do they not care?

Once again this is about power, it is not about idology, or principle.

And if you bring up their hipocracy it will not have any effect because they know their hippocrits.

Its really is about power.

 

[Arch Dornan]

It's a tactical alliance on geopolitical stage. Works exactly the same way how the ayatollahs and Iran's left had one when it came to overthrowing the Shah. Of course the ayatollahs and leftists had different ideas on what should happen with Iran after the Shah is overthrown, the left didn't really think that one through...

On the global stage, Iran is too small a fish in the pond to really take hold of the part of the world where the anti-american leftists are located in the unlikely scenario that the anti-american alliance would knock it off from the hegemonic position, so the leftists feel even more secure in this alliance than they were in the aforementioned case.

Thinking a bit fourther, if Iran and leftists would succeed in the common goal, as in making USA weaker on the global stage in general, making it withdraw from Middle East, and stop supporting its allies there? What would happen then?
Well, then the Islamic Revolution would have drasticly higher chances in its quest to rebuild a Persian Empire as a Shia favoring theocracy in the Middle East.
And what would be the side effect of that?
Lots and lots of Sunni Arabs becoming refugees (of fucking course to the west) due to proper war and religious persecution which the ayatollahs would be fairly interested in creating. That can also make you think...

For the alliance and political stage how well handled was the Saudi Arabia affair when they murdered a journalist?

I'm sure Trump wasn't happy about that.

 

[DarthOne]

Once again this is about power, it is not about idology, or principle.

And if you bring up their hipocracy it will not have any effect because they know their hippocrits.

Its really is about power.

Very much like the Inner Party in 1984...

“But always – do not forget this, Winston – always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever." (3.3.34, O’Brien)

Although they haven’t quite mastered this one yet:

Doublethink - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Tryglaw]

Very much like the Inner Party in 1984...

“But always – do not forget this, Winston – always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever." (3.3.34, O’Brien)

“The aims of all governments, whatever their names or forms, are precisely the same, at all times and everywhere. The first and foremost of them is simply to maintain the men constituting the government in their positions of power, that they may live gloriously at the expense of the people they govern, and enjoy all the honors and usufructs that go therewith. There may be other purposes in them from time to time, but those purposes are transient, and most of them are insincere… The natural tendency of every government is to grow steadily worse – that is, to grow more satisfactory to those who constitute it and less satisfactory to those who support it.” -- H. L. Mencken

 

[Terthna]

Very much like the Inner Party in 1984...

“But always – do not forget this, Winston – always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever." (3.3.34, O’Brien)

Although they haven’t quite mastered this one yet:

Doublethink - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And yet even the Inner Party eventually collapses under it's own weight, if the appendix in 1984 is anything to go by. Honestly, that quote from O’Brien comes across as delusional on his part; as if he's trying to convince himself that by becoming an instrument of this system of oppression, he has achieved a form of immortality. That, as long as the system endures, so does he.

 

[Marduk]

For the alliance and political stage how well handled was the Saudi Arabia affair when they murdered a journalist?

I'm sure Trump wasn't happy about that.

Classic case of "In the Middle East, you don't get the allies you want, you get what allies are available". Could be handled worse, could be handled better. Most of the screwup is SA's fault of course, so others could do only so much.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Classic case of "In the Middle East, you don't get the allies you want, you get what allies are available". Could be handled worse, could be handled better. Most of the screwup is SA's fault of course, so others could do only so much.

An interesting slip up these assasination attempts that get uncovered.

No one likes it when it occurs for the public to know.

Could be worse allies to partner with like working with an ally that openly preys on children.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Geopolitically the Saudis aid the US in a variety of ways-their a lynchpin for American hegemony in west Asia and useful for projecting power eastward.

The Iranians before 79 were an anti Soviet bulwark-that in the event of WW3 probably would have been fighting alongside the US against the Soviet republics in central asia(though I’d need to research that to see if that was the idea or not).

Once you start understanding US alliances and diplomatic policy to be operating on a realpolitik basis and not on morality-it makes a lot more sense.

The US is interested in hegemony in Eurasia. Imperial politics.

The saudis, Israelis, Turkey, South Korea, Australia-they all serve roles in the advancement of that policy.

Of course no one admits to the public this, and few in the government are likely consciously aware that this is the rationale. Except people like Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinki. Who formulated a lot of US foreign policy.

 

[PsihoKekec]

The Iranians before 79 were an anti Soviet bulwark-that in the event of WW3 probably would have been fighting alongside the US against the Soviet republics in central asia(though I’d need to research that to see if that was the idea or not).

They and Turkey were blocking Soviet access to Middle East and it was expected that in case of WW3 they wouldn't get a choice, Soviets would attack. This was the reason why Iran built it's bases with capacities that went beyond the projected strength of their air force, they expected that in case of conventional WW3 Americans would be using those bases as well.

 

[Deleted member 88]

Probably to attack Soviet Central Asia and the Black Sea region from the south.

Hmm, maybe somebody needs to write an alternate history WW3 book that focuses on the middle eastern and other peripheral fronts(that is not central Germany).

 

[PsihoKekec]

But, but muh Fulda Gap.

Funny fact, for all the waxing of American planners about Fulda gap, Soviets never planned their main strike there but fuhrter North, through NORTHAG area, Fulda gap would only see supporting attacks, to pin Americans in place.

The main offensive worth of Iran was the capability to hit much of the Soviet oil production with airstrikes, so Soviets would be hard pressed to neutralize this threat.