Top   /  New
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
"MM: I was not only against a democratic republic but any type of those kinds of regimes since a change in regime does not necessary bring progress to a nation. Until a nation is knowledgeable and informed and there are not competent administrators in a country, the country’s fate will remain the same.

There are many countries whose regimes are a republic but do not enjoy freedom and there are those countries whose regimes are constitutional monarchy and they enjoy freedom and independence."

He was definitely right there. Look what happened when Iran became a republic.
Shhhh... Mossadegh was against a democratic republic. We'd better keep that one quiet.
See More
Mostofi Mostofi (@Mostofi) replied to Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
Yes. But Russians and Iranians achieved their goals. As did Assad who wet hated the storm and is still in power. The country is being rebuilt as we speak. Of course, none of the actors in Syria including the losers (US, Israel, Saudi, UAE etc) give a rats ass about Syrians but fact remains that the triumvirate of Russia, Iran and to a lesser extent Turkey achieved its goals.
See More
Ash_ Ash (@Ash_) replied to ashianeh (@ashianeh) on Pinned comment
Calling it a "line of reasoning" is giving it undue credit. It's a line of stupidity more than anything else. But you are absolutely correct. In the Islamic Republic of Hell nobody is allowed to become part of the system without being in line with the Islamic Revolution. This is one of the reasons why no one opposed to the Islamic regime should trust the "reformists/moderates". They are all criminals just like everyone else in the system. Their abominable Islamic regime is the reason why there's a threat of war against Iran. But the vile hypocritical Iranian-American supporters of the Islamic Republic of Hell will always deny this. It's a waste of time to even respond to such moral lepers.
See More
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) replied to ashianeh (@ashianeh) on Pinned comment
The mullahs partnered with the British in 1953 and again in 1979, but now their time has come and they don't know what to do about it.
See More
Hamid Hamid (@Hamid) replied to Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
Your comment is silly. To the winner goes the spoils. The benefits and gains for Assad, Iran, Russia and to a lesser extent Turkey will become more obvious in the years to come.
See More
ashianeh ashianeh (@ashianeh) on Pinned comment
For whom? One wonders, maybe the young women removing their head covers.
See More
abolhussein abolhussein (@abolhussein) replied to Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
There is nothing worse than having a bunch of mullahs control the destiny of a country, like we have in the islamic republic of hell, except for the MEK which is a pseudo religious cult, which NO ONE in Iran or outside of Iran support, except the US Necons who as always are ignorant and have no knowledge of the middle east, as we saw in what they did in Iraq.
See More
iraj iraj (@iraj) on Pinned comment
A new and excellent 4 hours documentary about what Iranians feels, think and hope inside Iran.
See More
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
'Last month, Rouhani’s chief of staff told reporters that Iran rejected not one but eight requests from the United States for a meeting of their presidents.'

If they really wanted peace and prosperity, they would at least try to sit down and talk, instead of threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz. Even if they think the Americans are up to no good, it's still worth a try. You never know what might come of talks, establishing and developing relationships - maybe nothing, maybe something. For the record, I think America wants war, but I also believe no opportunity to talk should be missed.

'“We’d like them to hear what we have to say [about the nuclear deal],” one presidential adviser said at the time, hours after arriving in New York with the Iranian delegation. “As long as they’re not disrespectful, of course,” the adviser added.'

Silly. Any disagreement can be construed as a matter of disrespect in order to stifle dialogue. Neither side respects the grand ideas of the other, but if they want peace, they should try to ensure those differing ideas don't lead to war. Welcome to the real world. The question is, does either side really want peace? I don't think so. The mullahs are still pushing a revolutionary ideology which is inherently violent, and the Americans want full spectrum imperial dominance.

'After almost 40 years, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action had opened an unprecedented channel where the United States and Iran could sit and talk face-to-face, but the Trump administration slammed the door on it.... “Iran’s leader even said that if the nuclear talks go well, Tehran would be open to discussing other matters with the West,” Iran's ambassador to the UN, Gholamali Khoshroo, told Al-Monitor. But an Iranian official traveling with Rouhani in September said, “They had their chance and blew it."'

Either the JCPOA was limited strictly to the nuclear programme or it was not. If it really was an opportunity for broader rapprochement, the mullahs must have known that the US and Europe had expectations of Iran that went beyond the nuclear programme - we did not have to wait for Pompeo to issue his 12 demands to know that. No one outside Iran supports the revolution or the regional activities; no one wants to a see a new Persian empire emerging in the region that competes with the Western order. These are realities that must be accepted if Iran is to become a welcome member of the global community. But what did the mullahs do after the deal? Did they pull back and realign? Of course not. They pressed ahead with their regional agenda at full speed. Therefore, this cannot be blamed solely on Trump because the mullahs did not take all reasonable steps to facilitate a rapprochement.





See More
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
Western support for the MEK is what happens when the mullahs do what they do. Mullahs gonna mullah, Yanks gonna Yank. On the one hand, the mullahs complain that they are not an accepted and respected member of the world community, yet on the other hand they stick their fingers up at that community. You can't have it both ways. Support for the MEK and other dangerous initiatives is the result.
See More
Ash_ Ash (@Ash_) replied to Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
When you talk to Iranians about political matters it often feels like you are talking to a wall. The level of unresponsiveness, narrow-mindedness, and bigotry is beyond astonishing. Everyone is wielding their unintelligent opinions like facts. And most seem like they aren't even really concerned about the nation and its future.
See More
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
For Iran, blocking the Strait of Hormuz is almost like Russia launching a strategic nuke at America, or vice versa, i.e. it could be the end of the world.

OK, so the mullahs block the Strait. Then what? It's not hard to guess, is it? Do you think the US will just give up and allow the waterway to remain blocked? Of course not. The Iranian navy will be destroyed in a matter of hours, and if we are unlucky, the whole of Iran could face the modern destructive equivalent of the Mongol invasion.

You can be sure the Americans want the mullahs to block the Strait. Go on, do it. Give the Americans the excuse they need to go to war.

See More
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
Iraq? There is no Iraq, just the remains of a former Ottoman territory, and a few mullahs in Iran who masturbate over the thought of having a few useless disciples in nearby lands.

Anyone with an IQ over 60 should be able to work out that Iraq was not the primary trading partner target of the sanctions on Iran. It was always the Western signatories of the JCPOA, and their withdrawal is near complete, those who chose to stay being inconsequential.
See More
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) replied to iraj (@iraj) on Pinned comment
Small victories amuse small minds. Enjoy your halal champagne.
See More
Ash_ Ash (@Ash_) on Pinned comment
This spineless Arab can contradict himself with words as much as he wants. It doesn't mean anything given that he still hasn't even made a decision yet.

Anyway, Iraq is worthless. It can do neither much harm or much good to Iran when it comes to complying with or rejecting sanctions. It just shows how stupid the Mullahs and their supporters are for considering Iraq a worthwhile economic ally.

Our resident Iranian-American Hezbollahi is happy. Meanwhile, the real Iranian chess players...
See More
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
"Therefore, if Iran is going to resist the sanctions, they would need to address the dysfunctionalities of their own system. Therefore, this is one reality about dysfunctionality of Iranian domestic economic system. "

There has never been a time in the modern era in which Iran was not riddled with corruption. That kind of corruption transcends regimes and dynasties, so to change it would be much bigger than changing the regime. Corruption is literally part of the culture. I don't know what can be done to change that, but I do know that getting rid of the mullahs alone will not fix it, because the cultural acceptance of corruption will remain.

"President Trump, if he really wants a normal relation with Iran, then we have three criteria. The first criteria is a Treaty of Amity between Iran and the U.S. signed 1955"

I laugh when the mullahs talk about treaties and agreements that predated their rule. Do not expect anyone to honour deals done with a previous regime. As far as they are concerned, that was a different Iran.


We just have to accept that the JCPOA was an American or at least Western idea, that never would have happened without the US - they made it happen, AND that the US was probably never sincere about it. It was just an act. It may never have been intended to survive as long as it did. The US does not help rogue enemy states. It tricks, teases, sanctions and crushes them. But we wanted to believe it was real.
See More
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
Yeah, there are difference between Iran and the USSR, which is why the US has other cards up its sleeve if it cannot cause the mullahs to implode, i.e. war - anything from civil war to all-out Iraq-style war. I don't think the US imperial policymakers are so ignorant as to believe efforts to crush the mullahs by soft means will definitely succeed, but it is natural for them to try it before moving to harder tactics.
See More
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
The focus on the petrodollar is valid, but the drawing of distinction between Obama and Trump is less so. Obama played the same imperial game Trump is playing now.

While Obama is portrayed in the article as a Europhile, looking at the real world it is clear he was equally focused on the middle east and north Africa, overseeing the destruction of Syria and Libya, the latter being perceived as a major threat to the petrodollar.

Iran was always going to be one of the later targets of this imperial full spectrum dominance programme, no matter who was in power, remembering of course that Hillary was no friend of Iran.




See More
Cyrus___ Cyrus___ (@Cyrus___) on Pinned comment
The war with Iran, if it happens, will not be a personal affair for Trump. Trump had nothing to do with the original idea that Iran had to be taken out, nor did he have anything to do with the comprehensive plans for war drawn up years ago. The focus on personality and emotions is part of the post truth era propaganda campaign.
See More