[starman2003]

without Assad there is no hezbollah and no Iran on our borders

Hez has been on your northern border since long before before 2011.

[Zionist Nationalist]

Hez has been on your northern border since long before before 2011.

Syria is Hezbollahs lifeline

without Syria Hezbollah will collapse as there will be barely money and military aid for them

[starman2003]

Syria is Hezbollahs lifeline

without Syria Hezbollah will collapse as there will be barely money and military aid for them

Yes of course but this was the case long before the civil war and Assad's recent successes. The civil war btw made Syria a lot more dependent on Iran and Hez.

[LehmanB]

Assad victory is the worst thing that happened for Israel since the start of the Arab spring

without Assad there is no hezbollah and no Iran on our borders

Obama made a terrible decision back in 2012 not to bomb Assads regime

He made a descision but didn't go through it. Started to arm the rebeliors yet avoiding entering and beating Assad. This low-fire- distant intervention saved US money and people, but brought in a genoside and loss.

Eventualy, all sides are bad for Israel, although Iran is now an empire so this is the worse option. And Russia is eventualy our foe, as part of the cold war.

The civil war btw made Syria a lot more dependent on Iran and Hez.

Yep.

Israel didn't want Assad to be completely overthrown.

Perhaps, Israel didn't interfere much. But I don't think Israel mannages or dragged superpowers here. The middle east is not turning around Israel, things happen for various reasons here. Understanding it is crucial. For instance- if there is quiet inside Israel between Jews and Arabs, it doesn't solves anything in Yemen or Iraq. Although in the news/ propaganda, it is easy to focus on Israel, but that just enabling the public to ignore the various fallacies in the middle east that aren't been handled.

[skinster]

[noir]

In a televised presention, Israel tries to force the EU to take notice.

It won't be easy. The EU adamant to take the Iranian side

[noir]

A battle of naratives, while Israel is seeing the Iranian presence in Syria as threat and is attacking it, the media, both MSM and alt media, fed by German, Russian and Church pro Assad line see Syria as beacon of secularism.

The Israeli paper, Haaretz, owned by German house and serving German and EU interests

[Oxymandias]

@noir

ITT: No one has any idea about what is the reason for the protests in Iran

[Zionist Nationalist]

@noir

ITT: No one has any idea about what is the reason for the protests in Iran

I dont think you need to be a genius to guess the reasons

you know theocratic regime and bad economy

also about 20 billion USD goes to finance terrorist groups instead of helping their own people

[noir]

Probably the discontent led also for Iranian informants to cooporate with the Mossad. This operation (half ton of documents of entire Atomic archive) could not smuggled to Israel in one night without internal cooperation.

[Oxymandias]

@Zionist Nationalist

Well you certainly need to be intelligent unlike the person I am responding to.

Theocratic regime isn't the issue here though. Most people don't have a problem with it and most don't want another civil war. It's much better than the Pahlavi regime.

The bad economy is due to neo-liberal economic practices. You know, the same ones causing all the problems in America and Britain only in Iran it's worse since it's a developing economy.

Sources? The Iranian government puts much more into their own R&D and developing new infrastructure than financing terrorist groups, which is something I have seen first hand. Furthermore, Iran only sells arms to Hezbollah and other Shia militant groups as they are proxies. If you have an issue with this, then why aren't you angry at the US who funded a terrorist group in order to combat a terrorist group which they also funded?

@noir

You don't understand how informants work. Informants are either sell information to anyone regardless of who wants it or are state agent sent to spy on another state. There isn't just some Iranian people, deep into the government, would immediately sacrifice all the research they have been doing in nukes to some country who wouldn't even accommodate them and actually despises their very existence.

[noir]

some country who wouldn't even accommodate them and actually despises their very existence.

Despise? Iran was Israel's ally during the Shah reign. Israel has huge Jewish Farsi community.

[noir]

Faisal al Qassem, the leading Arab journalist raises some interesting questions.

[Oxymandias]

@noir

The Shah regime was oppressive to the Iranian people and is far worse than the theocratic one. While the theocratic regime has issues, it is not as bad as the Pahlavi regime. Israel supported the Shah regime because it was a Western puppet. Because Iran is no longer a Western puppet, it refuses to have friendly relations with it despite the Islamic Republic attempt to have good relations with Israel several times over the course of it's reign.

[Zamuel]

The Shah regime was oppressive to the Iranian people and is far worse than the theocratic one. While the theocratic regime has issues, it is not as bad as the Pahlavi regime.

I disagree. The (last) Shah was extremely progressive, both physically and socially. Oppression was reserved for the clerics and revolutionaries who opposed him, not society in general. He concentrated on building Roads, Sanitation, Schools and Hospitals ... He educated Women and placed many of them in high administrative offices. He decreed secular (western) law and outlawed Sharia. And he taxed the hell out of the rich ... which eventually led to his downfall.

I'd agree his father, the first shah, was an uneducated barbarian and a simple puppet who ruled by indiscriminate terror. He was a huge man who started out as a machine gunner for the British (he was big enough to carry the heavy gun around with ease). He ruthlessly carried out whatever orders his officers gave him and worked his way up in rank.

Zam

[Oxymandias]

@Zamuel

That's remarkably false. Just because you saw pictures of women in mini-skirts doesn't mean that the Pahlavi dynasty was progressive. Only 5% of women in Iran at the time knew how to read and write, only 2% went to universities, and many women were barred from getting education. Furthermore, political freedom was very low compared to the theocratic regime. At least in the current regime, you could actually vote along with your vote actually mattering to a certain extent. In the Reza regime, you couldn't vote at all ever since the regime dissolved parliament.

Also you're confusing things. The clerics had no power to oppress anyone. In fact, it was islamic theologians who were forced into hiding. Since free speech and criticism of the regime resulted in death without a trial, these underground mosques were the only places where free speech could even happen.

The women placed in such high offices were figureheads compared to their advisors. This is in contrast with the current regime in which, while it was harder for women to achieve such offices compared to the patronage of the previous regime, they now hold actual power.

These "western secular" laws both aren't suited to Iranian culture and weren't applied at all. The Shah's words were law, regardless of the circumstances.

That's strange considering that the traditional Persian nobility of the region are just as, if not more richer during the Shah's reign than they are now. It seems that your beloved Shah was just as prone to cronyism as other dictators feigning legitimacy.

Sharia is a social law applied to communities that wish to use it. It wasn't used in proper political discourse in Persia for centuries.

The Shah's downfall is that he was an oppressive dictator played king with no legitimacy at all. He dismissed infrastructure in favor spending on vanity projects such as creating an "Immortals" regiment in his ineffective army, building slabs of concrete as memorials to the ancient Achaemenid kings (which is strange given that the Sassanids were more influential to Iranian culture than the Achaemenids).

[Zamuel]

Just because you saw pictures of women in mini-skirts doesn't mean that the Pahlavi dynasty was progressive.

Oh hell yes, it does ... ask any western female. Though mini-skirts is an exaggeration. Burqas were out, Hijabs were optional. Pants were common. Lebanon was the only place in the ME that was more liberal with it's women.

Only 5% of women in Iran at the time knew how to read and write.

Compared to what? 0% in the other ME countries ... and they were building schools and educating girls.

Only 2% went to universities

In Iran maybe ... LOTS of females were sent to Europe and the USA for college educations ... Doctors, Lawyers, Theoretical Physicists ... Iran's future, they thought.

Furthermore, political freedom was very low compared to the theocratic regime.

I hope so ... it wasn't engineered as a "political" state.

Also you're confusing things. The clerics had no power to oppress anyone. In fact, it was islamic theologians who were forced into hiding.

No, I agree, those in hiding were revolutionaries wanting sharia law (making them judge, jury and executioner.)

These "western secular" laws both aren't suited to Iranian culture and weren't applied at all.

Oh yeah they were, that's what lured all the western corporations to open offices in Tehran.

Sharia is a social law applied to communities that wish to use it. It wasn't used in proper political discourse in Persia for centuries.

Under Islam, Sharia is the only law. Secular law, if allowed at all, is subject to theological approval, that includes elections.

The Shah's downfall is that he was an oppressive dictator played king with no legitimacy at all. He dismissed infrastructure in favor spending on vanity projects.

During the Shah's reign Tehran was converted from mud huts to a modern city, complete with a sanitary sewer system ... indoor plumbing! It's been degenerating ever since the revolution. Nothing of consequence has been built. I think they tried to redo the airport, but most airlines will no longer fly there. I hear it's crumbling.

Zam

[Oxymandias]

Oh hell yes, it does ... ask any western female. Though mini-skirts is an exaggeration. Burqas were out, Hijabs were optional. Pants were common. Lebanon was the only place in the ME that was more liberal with it's women.

If I told a western female which would she rather have, wear a mini-skirt but have no political rights and no right to education or follow a dress code but have political rights and a right to education I would bet my money on the latter rather than the former.

Yes, because Burqas are so horrible. Throughout Middle Eastern history, the noble women of pagan empires used to wear something comparable to them as it was a sign of status to be able to cover yourself. I don't know what logic lead to this idea but that doesn't mean that burqas are a negative in any sense. It's simply a difference in culture and burqas themselves aren't mentioned in the Quran (hijabs aren't either as the Quran only calls for some kind of head covering).

So pants apparently weren't common pre-Pahlavi Iran? Do you know anything about the Middle East? Pants were literally invented there since riding a horse is really uncomfortable bareback and horses are important in the rough and mountainous terrain of the Middle East.

Compared to what? 0% in the other ME countries ... and they were building schools and educating girls.

That comparison literally makes no sense. Baathist Iraq and Syria had more women in universities than Iran. Saudi f-ing Arabia had a higher literacy rate amongst women than Iran. Saudi Arabia in 1970 had a literacy rate of 70.34 amongst women while Iran had only a literacy rate of 42.33.

Building schools for girls doesn't matter if no girls are even going to school to begin with. For a guy who is against believing in propaganda, you sure believe in a lot of propaganda.

In Iran maybe ... LOTS of females were sent to Europe and the USA for college educations ... Doctors, Lawyers, Theoretical Physicists ... Iran's future, they thought.

Travel to areas outside of Iran in the 1970s was practically non-existent. My grandmother said that she didn't know much about Europe and even less about the US. It's like saying lots of Europeans during the Dark Ages when to Baghdad when many only knew that it existed and nothing else.

In modern Iran, in the Islamic Republic, people are much more aware of the outside world and more Iranians are going to foreign universities.

I hope so ... it wasn't engineered as a "political" state.

Political freedom means being able to express differing political opinions freely. In Pahlavi Iran, if you had a different idea on how the state should be run, you were put to death immediately without a trial. In theocratic Iran, you have communists, socialists, Reformists, libertarians, anarchists, and monarchists all having their own parties. While the treatment of such parties varies, at least you don't get put to death when you have a different political ideology.

No, I agree, those in hiding were revolutionaries wanting sharia law (making them judge, jury and executioner.)

It seems you don't understand the diversity of thought that existed amongst revolutionaries during the time. For example, the Tudeh Party of Iran is a secular communist party that was created during the revolution and by no accounts were they Islamic.

Also Sharia cannot be imposed upon a person. That is a big issue with modern Islamic states.

Under Islam, Sharia is the only law. Secular law, if allowed at all, is subject to theological approval, that includes elections.

Do you not know anything about how Islamic states post-Rashid worked? Sharia worked as a justification for actions not as a source of law itself. The laws of the Umayyads, Abbasids, and Ottomans were different on a court level than they were on a communal level. It was on a communal level that Sharia was applied.

Also non-Islamic communities could have their own laws. Look up the millet system which is a system that dates back to the Rashidun Caliphate.

Oh yeah they were, that's what lured all the western corporations to open offices in Tehran.

So western companies are now Iranian or do they now somehow love Iranian culture so much they're willing to abandon profit for pure fanboyism?

During the Shah's reign Tehran was converted from mud huts to a modern city, complete with a sanitary sewer system ... indoor plumbing! It's been degenerating ever since the revolution. Nothing of consequence has been built. I think they tried to redo the airport, but most airlines will no longer fly there. I hear it's crumbling.

Esfahan was a village before the government moved there, then it became a blooming city. Baghdad was just a flat area of sand until the Abbasid government moved there. Damascus was just a simple fishing village until the Umayyads moved there. Tehran was an unknown city until the Iranian government moved there. If the government moves there, it automatically becomes a city by default.

Tehran existed as a city eons before Pahlavi and it certainly wasn't a dirt village.

Tehran, degrading after the revolution? Oh please, I lived there for 4 years and I still hear echos of construction work still ringing in my ears. Tehran is building and rebuilding it's infrastructure non-stop. Most construction companies relocate there because of how many construction work is done there. The only issue is that most other cities were ignored outside of Tehran but this was also the case with the previous government.

I would like a source on both of your claims. The airport works fine there. I go there frequently. My job requires travelling. Furthermore, I haven't seen a building crumble out of age there, usually because they're demolished after a new development is being made there.

[noir]

Iranian and Obama's acolytes to the deal are not impressed.

"The cynical attitude of the Europeans"
01.05.2018 22:57
Eldad Beck

While European officials went out of their way to reduce the importance of exposing Iran's "military nuclear arsenal" to Israel, the Israeli intelligence achievement was greeted with great satisfaction among Iranian exiles in Europe, who oppose the regime in their country.

Dr. Kazem Mousavi, an Iranian opposition activist in Berlin, said that the attack by Iranian Foreign Minister Jawad Zarif from the moment his announcement was announced showed the increasing fear of the Tehran regime.

"In order to understand the importance of the archival material exposed by Netanyahu, it is necessary to make clear that Iran's nuclear programs are a product of the apocalyptic and anti-Semitic worldview of the Islamic republic and its global goals. The radical Islamic, anti-Western and anti-Israelism can only be achieved with the help of indefatigable military armament and the nuclear program. "

Nuclear armament combined with appeasement policy is the only opportunity for the regime to hold power. The regime used the appeasement agreement to secretly pursue the nuclear program. The presentation of the archival material by Netanyahu caused de-moralization among the regime, significantly weakened it and strengthened the Iranians, who this year went back to the streets to protest against oppression and for freedom, equality and democracy. "

Mousavi expressed harsh criticism of European reactions to Israeli exposure. "The Europeans are important political and economic partners of the Fascist religious regime in Iran," he said, "Europe and Germany thought that the regime could be changed through an internal reform process and consciously reduced the danger this regime poses to world security and Israel."

Obama and Europe did not compel the regime in the 2015 agreement to respect human rights strictly and ignored the regime's efforts to destroy the State of Israel and destabilize the Middle East through the Revolutionary Guards and the Al Quds Brigades. The agreement does not allow uncoordinated inspection visits to military nuclear sites, and after the end of the agreement, the regime can continue its uranium enrichment program. "

"Trump should cancel the agreement"

The agreement does not refer to the Iranian missile program, which threatens Israel. The agreement is a guarantee for the survival of the regime during its implementation, and the regime received billions of dollars to support the terrorist organizations Hezbollah and Hamas. Europe and Germany are silencing the fact that the murderous takeover efforts of the Iranian terror units in Syria are the main reason for the Syrians' flight to Europe. "

Mousavi calls on Europe and the West to take seriously the information presented by Netanyahu. "President Trump needs to cancel this dangerous agreement," says the Iranian opposition activist. "We must impose sanctions on the regime and publish a black list of all the Revolutionary Guards - the body that guarantees the survival of the regime, coordinates and organizes the nuclear bomb program. Thus, it will be possible to increase the pressure on the Europeans to maintain sanctions against the Revolutionary Guards and to reduce their dealings with the Iranian regime. "

Are we standing before the outbreak of war?

"The war is already under way: in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon and within Israel's borders, now not only because of Hamas and Hezbollah but also with an Iranian military presence and massive Iranian logistics.

To this, the policy of European appeasement contributed greatly. Europe must stop supporting Assad. If Europe is indeed interested in peace, it should see the exposure of the nuclear archive by Netanyahu as an opportunity to change its policy toward Iran. Assad's dictatorship in Syria gives the Iranian regime a corridor to the conquest of Jerusalem. "

A recent example of Germany's "appeasement policy" was given by German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier a few days ago when, despite public protests, he held the head of the Shi'ite Islamic community in Germany, a body run by Iran.

"This anti-Semitic body organizes the Al-Quds Day march every year in Berlin, calling for the destruction of Israel," Moussaoui said, "and is working against Iranian oppositionists in Germany. The democratic integration of Muslim refugees, who are under the massive influence of Iranian elements. "

https://translate.google.co.il/translat ... t=&act=url

[Zamuel]

If I told a western female which would she rather have, wear a mini-skirt but have no political rights and no right to education or follow a dress code but have political rights and a right to education I would bet my money on the latter rather than the former.

I'd put my money on her calling a cop ...

So pants apparently weren't common pre-Pahlavi Iran?

Not on Women.

Building schools for girls doesn't matter if no girls are even going to school to begin with. For a guy who is against believing in propaganda, you sure believe in a lot of propaganda.

How obtuse ... here's a look at women in post revolution Iran.

The Iranian Revolution of March 1979 ushered in a period of conservative leadership that altered the role and conception of the new model female in Iranian society.[1] The period was characterized by the retraction of previously passed laws reforming women's status in the home, and the institution in its place of family and civil law based in notions of patriarchy.[5]

The newly enacted Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated the importance of women's economic and social well-being, yet did not guarantee the right to educational opportunities.[2] Instead, the new regime of religious authority cracked down on women's participation in education, barring coeducation.[2] Immediately following the Revolution, universities and many high schools were shut down, not to be reopened for another 3 years. During this time many female faculty were excused from their positions and many women lost their jobs. This included all female judges as well as women who held positions of authority in the government.[5]

Upon reopening of schools and under the leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini, educational curriculum was altered to reflect a new focus on Islamic values. Women were depicted wearing a veil in textbooks, appearing in social studies books as managers of the home and offering guidance on Islam and schoolwork. Men were depicted as providers for the family's needs.[2] Some women did appear in pursuit of farming or factory work, working in hospitals and in schools in these textbooks, mostly in conformity with a gender stereotype of feminine work.[2] Because of this, Iran became a sexist place.

Tehran existed as a city eons before Pahlavi and it certainly wasn't a dirt village.

Here's a pic of "Pre-Shah" Tehran ...


Definitely no flush toilets ...

Zam