Here's an article when Obama still had 2 years till his presidency ended on How Iran was heavily involved in Syria.
Iran boosts support to Syria
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Iran has breached the stockpile limit under the nuclear deal
- Thread starter poklane
- Start date
Iran boosts support to Syria
You mean 2018 right? Last year when Trump pulled out? It didn't even go into effect until 2016.
Funny you don't mention how the Saudi, Russia or the US involvement affected the country.
And lets talk about other countries other Syria. Who was it that invaded Afghanistan and was supported by a certain country in the middle east while doing so? Or how about when the western countries attacked Iran to install a puppet that lead to a series of events that brought the current government over there? Or hell, a recent war like Iraq war. That's their fault am I right?
But sure, Iran is the reason the middle east is the way it is.
2014, huh? That far back?
Try to educate yourself on why is it that Iran would ally themselves with the Assad regime in the first place. Here's an article that explains how the US has been actively fucking with Iran since before Obama was even born.
How about we just say everyone sucks here? I can not wait until the oil dries up and Iran and Saudi Arabia can figure it out on their own. They're regional rivals and they're both vying for control of the Middle East. There are no good guys here.
You probably need to go back earlier than 2014 to find out why the Middle East is destabilised.
Accusations of Whataboutism doesn't mean their point is wrong lol
Whataboutism in the first place is just a convenient tool to excuse war crimes and a fancier term for the horrible crime of demanding some moral and logical consistency from governments.
Your point was wrong. Own up to it.
I don't disagree.
My point ia that they said Iran is the reason why the middle east is destabilized which is bullshit. I would argue that US and Russia are the biggest people destroying the region with Saudi coming third and current Iran being the fourth.
User Banned (2 weeks): Driveby trolling, history of driveby trolling and accumulated infractions.
Hahahahaha! Ok buddy! 😂😂😂
Iran has always been an unstable country. It was only a matter of time before they withdraw from these agreements. Iran never complied, even under the Obama administration.
Everybody it's worse than we thought. Not only was Iran violating the deal after it was torn up by the US, they were also violating it before it existed.
Iran having nukes would be terrifyingly. Israel would constantly be threatened. By the time the sanctions are applied it'll be too late to stop them.
It's likely that Iran would abandon their nuclear program if they were sure that it would make them safe from foreign destabilizing actions or invasion. Since history has shown that abandoning your WMD ambitions does not provide safety they're in a bit of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation that they and the signatories of the deal were trying to balance. Your three options for Iran are hard for them for different reasons. No 1 for economic reasons and no 2 since appeasement towards the US didn't work for their neighbor. That pretty much leaves option number 3 even though it is a bad option. Basically their house is on fire but the only thing they have is gasoline so obviously they will try to use it.
Well, Israel has nukes and that would be equally terrifying to the Iranians as well, right?
Israel constantly threaten Iran.
The United States constantly threaten Iran.
Why is this acceptable to you?
While I can definitely understand the dick swinging and overall force of power, the agreement wasn't with just the US so the nuclear deal is still in effect, and technically Iran has breached that deal. But obviously it's a little more nuanced than that, what can they do after the US hitting them with sanctions without good reasons? If the EU has the intention to overthrow the US as the main international powerhouse, they have to show they don't need the US for these deals. Good for the EU, good for Iran.
I mean, people are bending over backwards to not think about the basic facts of the situation.
There existed an agreement between Iran, the U.S.A and several other countries stipulating its own terms.
There exists no way someone can fault Iran's breaking of the deal without faulting the U.S's. It's nonsensical. Iran has to stay beholden to a deal that other people broke? It's mental gymnastics.
There existed an agreement between Iran, the U.S.A and several other countries stipulating its own terms.
There exists no way someone can fault Iran's breaking of the deal without faulting the U.S's. It's nonsensical. Iran has to stay beholden to a deal that other people broke? It's mental gymnastics.
Oh man, this article is so one-sided. Let's say that with the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc the Czechs and the Hungarians would install heavy anti-Russian regimes. Fourty+ years of support to communist regimes and the supression the Hungarian and Prague Springs would be the cause. If I would follow the logic of this article it would excuse the Chechs and Hungarians to support Caucasian and Arab terrorists, attack Russians around the globe, taking hostages etc.
Not to say the least that Mossadeq was unpopular with Iranians, slided Iran to arbitrary rule with rigging elections and unleashing violence on the opposition and refused to negotiate a settlement which further destabilized Iran. Fear of a left-wing take-over led to the coup, not oil. A large part of the clergy even supported the coup against Mossadeq.
Now, this doesn't excuse the coup, or the other wrongful behaviour the US has showed towards Iran. But it doesn't excuse the Islamic Republic from waging terrorism or destabilisation. Especially with countries which have nothing to do with the US-Iran dispute.
The deal isn't in effect as the EU breaches it by adhering to US sanctions. That won't change because EU companies fear US sanctions.
Amazing.
Lol at people expecting Iran to hold up their end of the deal when other parties to the treaty are too chicken-shit to say fuck you to the US
Lol at people expecting Iran to hold up their end of the deal when other parties to the treaty are too chicken-shit to say fuck you to the US
What exactly are you laughing at, yet you refute nothing I say. Why should Iran comply to the USA?
The biggest cause of destabilisation in the Middle East is the USA, yet the middle east has to do what USA says or else?
But it's OK for Israel to have nukes, and constantly threat Iran?
It's relative. Yes Iran backed the heinous Assad regime, on the other hand the Gulf states backed many Sunni terrorist rebels which terrorized the West. It makes no sense to defend the latter.
Iran is hardly just a "victim"... speak to anyone in the Middle East and they will confirm that the opposite is also true.
When has he ever said that (recently)? If anything, he's been trying to diffuse any pressure from a potential conflict which some members of his entourage are pushing for. Trump's been guilty of many things, but even he knows a conflict with Iran is a lose-lose.
User Banned (1 week): Inflammatory accusation; trolling
Typical white supremacist in disguise lol. He tries hard tho so I can respect that.
The article is one-sided for one obvious reason: its (openly stated) intent is inform the side that's not the one widely propagated by the traditional media and all of the hawkish "interested parties" that are the ones usually discussing matters relating to Iran in the public sphere.
Still, I didn't bring it up with the intent of excusing anything on Iran's part. I was pushing back against the very specifically-worded claim that Iran is the main destabilizing factor in the Middle East, which is simply not true if you actually look at the complete timeline of events in the region. With things like what's going on in Yemen right now, the identity of the main destabilizing factor should be pretty obvious even if you refuse to look to the past - but doing so makes it even more blatant. The US is the external actor in this play.
Can't fault them for a breaking a deal that the USA already broke, but at the end of the day the only thing I care about is stopping nuclear proliferation. The world letting Pakistan sneak a few was bad enough, but Iran going nuclear would cause a WMD race in the Middle East.
If nuclear sites need to be bombed then so be it. Once the nuclear box is opened it can't be closed. Just look at how much of a headache North Korea has become. A nuclear deal shouldn't "postpone" Iran for a decade, it should stop them outright.
If nuclear sites need to be bombed then so be it. Once the nuclear box is opened it can't be closed. Just look at how much of a headache North Korea has become. A nuclear deal shouldn't "postpone" Iran for a decade, it should stop them outright.
There are a few posts that give a primer on the history of Iran in this thread and yet you decide to quote me to demonstrate that you didn't read the thread or show how ignorant you are of that history?
I am not ignorant of history. But claiming that Iran's issues today are solely due to Western powers meddling is equally ignorant. Iran has been a bad actor in the region for decades.
Countering a one-sided argument with another one-sided argument doesn't usually produce a desired outcome. Operation Ajax is not a good explanation for the current behaviour of the Islamic Republic and some claims in the article are even false(Mossadeq being a popular leader and oil as the main reason for his ouster). That being said, a lot of Iranians hold a justified resentment against the US for a bunch of other reasons, but it doesn't justify the behaviour of the Islamic Republic in any way. The Islamic Republic is responsible for their own behaviour. I gave you an example of how the Czechs or Hungarians could have behaved using the exact same justifications.
It's fair to say that the US has been a more destabilizing factor to the Middle East than the IRI. It's also fair to say that the US pulled out for unjustifiable reasons, making Iran a victim of that move. That still doesn't make the statement about the IRI damaging and destabilizing the Middle East (completely) incorrect. The Islamic Republic is still responsible for the way they act.
Iran has been a saint compared to Israel and the USA in the region.
Iran is what it is today because of a US coup against a democratic leader in 1953.
A maximum pressure campaign? Oh no, if only there were a diplomatic foothold in place that could have been used to negotiate Iran's future in handling uranium from... Oh well, time to ready the F-16s!
And how do they propose doing that, starting a global nuclear war?
Sorry English is not mt first language but does it saying what I think it does?!According to this, Iran was violating the deal's terms before the deal! lol
Iran was violating the terms of the deal, when the deal didn't even exist?
Obviously, I am missing something. They can't be that daft.