Top   /  New
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
That a boy... keep giving the US and allies more ammunition to use against you, and keep giving Europe less reasons to even pretend to care about the JCPOA. With chess moves like this, the IRI will soon rule the world.
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) replied to Shahir (@Shahir) on Pinned comment
You're right. I think I see what he did: 1.68/2.7 = 0.622, but that doesn't equal a 62% fall.
See More
0 +
Shahir Shahir (@Shahir) on Pinned comment
"Exports are down a whopping 62% since May, when Iranian oil sales reached a record 2.7 million b/d."

Wrong maths. "Down a whopping 38% ...."
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
Interestingly, the author is from England, yet he still peddles the standard American leftist line that the fall of Mossadegh "ushered in" the Shah, and imply that Mossadegh was an alternative to the Shah, when they filled different roles. The Shah was "ushered in" by the British 12 years earlier after they "ushered out" his father! Doesn't anyone bother to verify these inaccurate sound bites before repeating them like a broken record?


"Amid rising tensions, European capitals worry that the nuclear treaty with Iran will not survive."

This is another standard issue soundbite. How do you know the Europeans are genuinely worried? Because they and the mainstream media say so? With such uniform alignment of opinion on matters like this, you have to wonder whether you are being fed a load of BS. I am far from convinced that the Europeans are genuinely concerned for Iran. They just WANT you to believe they are. The fact of the matter is that while money is money, they don't NEED that relatively small trade with Iran that the JCPOA facilitated. They've survived for so long without it and can continue to do so, so take anything they say about that with a generous pinch of salt.


"But what happened in 1953 is still deeply embedded in Iranians’ worldview. In turn, however, it relates to a broader memory of a country subject to intense rivalry between Russia and Britain in the nineteenth century – and beyond that to millennia of culture with far older foundations than Russia or Britain, to say nothing of that Johnny-come-lately, the United States."

As much as it sucks to be on the losing team, that's the way of the world. Iran can be proud of a rich history with a long time spent on top of the world in the game of empire, but that time has long passed, as it has passed for the British, Romans, Turks and many others. It's hypocritical for one nation to say the game is wrong and unfair when that same nation spent centuries enjoying the benefits of winning it. I mean, if we're to have an honest conversation about empire, that's the truth, isn't it? Play on.




See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
'"For the Islamic Republic of Iran, time is running out," Iran's representative Mohsen Mohebi told the ICJ's judges on Wednesday.'

Time is running out for the Islamic Republic of Hell? Oh, boo-hoo!


'"The lives of millions of people residing in this country are already deeply suffering from the sanctions reinstated by the United States... and will further suffer as these sanctions are expanded and aggravated."'

Don't pretend to care about ordinary Iranian people now.
See More
1 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
In order to turn public opinion against Iran and lessen opposition to a possible war, it would make sense for Western security services to engineer a false flag attack if Iran didn't make any suitable false moves of its own volition. I say "Western" not "US", because I am not convinced that the Europeans are truly opposed to the US on this matter - I suspect it may be more a case of public image. That is, the Europeans don't want to be SEEN as the bad guys, when in fact they are on board with America's anti-Iran agenda. Regarding the MEK, remember it was the UK who delisted them as terrorists first, not the US, so something is going on there.
See More
1 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) replied to Ash (@Ash_) on Pinned comment
Because apparently Obama loved Iran. He hated Syria, Libya, the Ukraine and Yemen enough to destroy them, but somehow Iran was singled out for "special treatment".
See More
0 +
Ash_ Ash (@Ash_) on Pinned comment
Given the steady stream of a certain type of articles on that website, might as well rename "The Iranian" to "The Leftist" or "The Lobbyist", which might also be interpreted as "The Pro-Muslim" or "The Mullah-Apologist".

What a farce.
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
"Where does this leave U.S. ambitions? Short of an invasion, can it replace the Islamic Republic?"

Iran has suffered regime change without war before, so it's possible. If it doesn't work. Iran will be weaker by the time the US does take military action. If this drags out for a few years, it would arguably be relatively weaker than in 1980 when the Iran-Iraq war began. That would be a slow and painful death scenario for the regime.


“They have even republished nineteenth-century maps portraying it as a mosaic of innumerable ethnic groups —almost all of which have long since been assimilated and now consider themselves as integral parts of Iran.”

Integration is well advanced compared to the 19th century, but it could be levered apart by terrorism. We know the US likes to play that game.


"This sense of identity—including a Shia Islam wedded in daily life to wider Iranian culture—hardly makes Iran vulnerable to a ‘regime change’ orchestrated from abroad."

No mention of all the Iranians, especially younger folk, who consider Islam to be BS and only follow the customs to the bare minimum to stay out of trouble, with some not afraid to really push the boundaries. Wedded to daily life? Have you even checked how many people regularly perform all rituals, let alone attend mosques these days? Have you seen all the unrelated men and women fraternizing in public? When left to their own devices, free of external pressure, the majority of Iranians are not really "good Muslims", although when asked some will lie about it to avoid public shame and stay out of trouble. Supposed religiosity within the population will not hold the regime up.


"But is evidence of cohesion and hardiness, rather than brittleness,"

No, the IRI is brittle as hell and comprised of highly inflammable materials. That's why it has always had to be held together by violence, or terror, if you prefer (which is just like Islam itself - it only "works" under threat of violence). But people look at Iraq, Libya and Syria and know that the current state of Iran, with all its faults, is still far better than a shattered and battered Iran. They're not going to wish the disintegration of society upon themselves. Yet at the same time, there is awareness that if we don't fix it, someone else will, so we have a big problem.


"A Social Revolution: Politics and the Welfare State in Iran, the result of extensive fieldwork, paints a complex picture of social changes since the 1979 Revolution, many of which, contrary to the picture painted by proponents of ‘regime change’, show positive changes. The ratio of doctors to the general population has increased from 1:2800 in 1979 to 1:690."

The portrayal of such studies in the media often conveniently overlooks the fact that Iran was undergoing rapid development before the revolution. The mullahs didn't start it. And then there's the other angle - was it worth it? Were the achievements of the USSR worth millions of fatalities?






















See More
0 +
abolhussein abolhussein (@abolhussein) replied to Ash (@Ash_) on Pinned comment
The Mullahs are not known for their support of anything Iranian, they would sell off the persian identity to become completely arabized, including forcing arabic script and language on the persian people, the reason being that the liar and child rapist their so called prophet mohammad was an arab.
See More
2 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
Many Americans struggled with cognitive dissonance regarding the notion of the US as a leading imperial power. They were taught the American creation myth in school, of a small nation which fought off evil British imperialism for liberty, and which kept to itself, but then they saw their government getting involved in many international disputes and eventually taking Britain's place as the leading imperial power of the world, and it didn't add up. In the early 1950s that transition was not yet complete; the UK was still an imperial power with many overseas possessions, and the leading imperial influence in the middle east.
See More
0 +
Ash_ Ash (@Ash_) on Pinned comment
Success? The Mullahs have just basically conceded 7% of Iran's territory over the Caspian Sea along with all the natural resources in that area, and to add insult to injury, a fake 100 years old "country" is part of this Caspianchay agreement, and people are call it a success. Yes of course, to the enemies of the Iranian nation it is a resounding success.

It is utterly disgraceful that this biased article from a pro-Russian outfit has made it to The Iranian and to this website while getting 20+ tops from members some of whom are supposedly anti-IR. Disgraceful it is, but to the careful observer, totally unsurprising.
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) replied to Ash (@Ash_) on Pinned comment
Millions of Koreans, Vietnamese and Afghans would disagree with you. Wars most certainly did happen during the Cold War. Moreover, the British did in fact consider seizing the Persian oilfields, but the MI6/CIA option was much cheaper, and in the end it was successful. Had the coup against Mossadegh failed, only then would we have found out how far they were willing to push.
See More
0 +
Ash_ Ash (@Ash_) replied to Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
I don't think total annihilation was a risk back then. Only sanctions were. Invasion was not a going to happen, certainly not at the height of the Cold War. Only now it has become a real threat thanks to the mullahs and their aggressive foreign policy.
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) replied to Ash (@Ash_) on Pinned comment
But given that the alternative to that "membership" (your words) is a risk of total annihilation, I maintain that on balance it is better to avoid conflict with the Anglo-Zionists, which means submission to some of their demands. Don't try to outsmart them on oil, don't take them hostage, don't shout marg bar anything and don't try to set up a quasi neo Persian empire.
See More
0 +
Ash_ Ash (@Ash_) on Pinned comment
It's as if the word "secret" does not exist in the Perso-Arabic dictionary of these idiots. They just have to announce every new weapon with pomp and circumstance.

No matter, they can't win a war in conventional means anyway even if they kept this junk a secret. This is good for nothing other than pleasing regime supporters inside and outside the Islamic Republic of Hell.
See More
0 +
Ash_ Ash (@Ash_) replied to Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
Pahlavi Iran was a full member of the international community. What benefits did it get from that? Not much, and certainly not any that justified that membership. It was basically an exploited American colony ruled and mismanaged and abused by a corrupt, treacherous, treasonous, degenerate, and incompetent illegitimate regime. That miserable condition was required for Iran to be admitted into the club to begin with. Pragmatically as well as ideologically, it was a bad deal.
See More
0 +
Ash_ Ash (@Ash_) replied to Mostofi (@Mostofi) on Pinned comment
This, along with the possible moving away from the fossil fuel industry due to urgent environmental reasons will provide breathing space for the region. Moreover, pressure on Iran would be lifted once the IR is gone and the country hopefully adopts an isolationist foreign policy that allows Israel to dominate the Arab world. That would provide a respite, to say the least.
See More
0 +
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) replied to Ash (@Ash_) on Pinned comment
Being part of a club versus ational honour and dignity? Ideologically, no. it's not more important. Pragmatically, yes, I think it is given the huge impact it has on outcomes for the people.
See More
0 +