Iranian Situation... - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15013229
Zionist Nationalist wrote:I dont want a war but If its neccesary Im ready for a one big war to finally get rid of the "axis of resistance"
Israel will take on Lebanon and Syria the US will attack Iran


Ooh please, like we're gonna stand by and not fight.
You wont be fighting against the couple of gangs Hezbollah has under its wing, you'll be fighting against everyone now.
Previous wars would be a joke compared to an all-out war, and you didn't win previous wars.
#15013230
A couple of years ago when peace seemed guaranteed


What peace?

the only thing that was guaranteed when the deal was made was the fact that Iranians can now use all their income to finance their terrorist buddies around the middle east. peace was never part of the Iranian regime plans

now they have trouble financing all of it and they seek a way out of this
#15013231
anasawad wrote:Ooh please, like we're gonna stand by and not fight.
You wont be fighting against the couple of gangs Hezbollah has under its wing, you'll be fighting against everyone now.
Previous wars would be a joke compared to an all-out war, and you didn't win previous wars.


I know you are not gonna stand by thats why we need to strike first

its very unlikely to ever have a peaceful resolution with Hezbollah I think eventually Israel will have to go all way to Beirut to take them out
it can be done but the question is does the goverment wants it at this point I think no but who knows how things will turn out
#15013232
Peace with the US.

Which "terrorist" buddies? The political party in Lebanon which mostly was founded and funded by Lebanese tribes? Or the light support of Yemeni resistance groups resisting a genocide? Or is it the Iraqi militias fighting against Sunni Islamists trying to do genocide against them?

The only one funding terrorists in the middle east is the US and Saudi Arabia, and that fact isn't missing anyone's mind.

I know you are not gonna stand by thats why we need to strike first

Well, We're ready for you.
If the Iraq war made everyone cry, oh boy the tears when the region is set ablaze.

its very unlikely to ever have a peaceful resolution with Hezbollah I think eventually Israel will have to go all way to Beirut to take them out
it can be done but the question is does the goverment wants it at this point I think no but who knows how things will turn out

If Hezbollah is in good terms with the Baalbek tribe, not even in your dreams will you be able to destroy it.
It was in bad terms until your warmongering in recent times forced everyone to put their differences aside.
Last edited by anasawad on 20 Jun 2019 19:53, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Nonsense
#15013233
anasawad wrote:@noemon
The only way to do business with Iran at the moment is through Lebanese banks, primarily Med Group and Iran imports bank.
Most others don't do transactions to Iran at the moment.


From a personal view, I would say the sanctions have been a positive rather than a negative.
As far as my sister tells me, the sanctions, especially when now there are sanctions on several types of food and medicine, have been forcing local industries and production to expand their production.
There is currently several projects, some operational and others in preparation, in the Seman river valleys to increase food production. (It's near Damghan where my family is from actually)
The vertical farming model which the university of Tehran ,where my sister works, is working on is starting to gain grounds as the administration is trying to utilize all available farm lands at the most efficient means.
The valley is one of most fertile lands in Iran, and for several years now it's been unused due to political disputes between provincial governments ( food production is shared, so there are quotas on how much each province puts into the market), but now it's being used again.
Local manufactoring, both public and private, has been receiving lots of incentives to expand production. There are several financing solutions being offered for small private businesses and workshops to open up and operate to service the market.
So it's might not be a very pleasant time under blockade, but the path it's putting Iran on is actually very good.
And Iran is not alone, Since the deal was broken, Iranian diplomats have been going all over to their allies to increase investment in Iranian industries and markets.
Baalbek alone have been seeing a near monthly visit by Iraninan diplomats, and offering incentives and tax breaks for the Baalbek tribes to invest, which they are responding to.

So the future looks better.

As far as war goes, the middle east is our region, and we have the defenders' advantage present in the topography of the land where any conflict will take place.
Along with heavy build up inside mountains and in fortified buildings ( a simple look at how thick the average factory walls in Iran would tell you what they're built to withstand), so the industry is safe.
And most Iranian cities, like Baalbek, have large networks of underground bunkers and shelters, built primarily in the 80s in fear of chemical attacks, that were expanded and maintained over the years, So the civilian population is also safe.
There will be damages incurred from a war, obviously, and that's why it's preferable for a war not to take place. But Iran, and all of its allies, are prepared for a war if one was to be forced on it, it's been preparing for years now.


EDIT:
For the political situation inside of Iran, it's actually going the exact opposite of what the Americans wished it would.
The hardliners, moderates, reformists, and the various socialist and liberal movements are actually uniting with each other at the moment.
A couple of years ago when peace seemed guaranteed, the political situation was actually very tense since once the deal was made, everyone freed up to fight over other internal issues.
Since the sanctions are back on, the deal was broken, and now a war seemingly imminent, everyone is getting back together and letting go of their differences.
Heck, even the tribes, usually living in their own world, are uniting with the various political factions.


Necessity is the mother of invention, sanctions force countries to innovate & circumvent sanctions.

it's why, to be effective first time around, they have to hit hard & be enforced.

None,of which helps though in the end,unless the behaviour changes, it isn't because America, as usual, is acting as the world's policeman on it's own, as opposed to gathering support abroad, rather, it is it's lack of 'friends' that is the problem.


It's easy to declare war on a country, more difficult to end it, even more difficult to win people's hearts & minds in a country.

America, for all of it's power or might, finds itself, all too often, impotent when it comes to nurturing friendship in international relationships & it's that power-might that is it's problem.
#15013234
@Nonsense
The US has been putting sanctions on Iran for the past several decades. Nothing the US is doing now hasn't it done before.
Iran isn't some broken back country with no resources for the sanctions to work.
The US and Saudi behavior is the one needing change. It's not us going into others territories and spreading chaos, it's the US and Saudi Arabia.
The various Islamists wrecking havoc and spreading chaos around the region aren't our creation, its your buddies in Saudi Arabia that created them.
We're not the ones starting wars all over the place, the US is the one attacking one country after another, creating refugee crises and economic turmoil.
The US started these wars to get its hands on oil. The US is the one that needs to change its behavior and stop with its greed.
#15013237
Nothing the US is doing now hasn't it done before.


thats not true the sanctions now are much more


your baalbek tribes are not scaring us we can turn the whole place to rubble and your buddies will run to the mountains

The political party in Lebanon which mostly was founded and funded by Lebanese tribes? Or the light support of Yemeni resistance groups resisting a genocide? Or is it the Iraqi militias fighting against Sunni Islamists trying to do genocide against them?


all of them are terrorists.
#15013240
We all dont want to do that but since Nasrallah said himself that Hezbollah wont stand by there is no other way than to bomb Lebanon becaus Hezbollah will bomb Israel anyway if a war with Iran will take place and I think we should strike first but I dont know if our politicians will have the balls to do it because they are scared about what the world will say in such case
#15013241
@Zionist Nationalist
Your politicians do want war, especially Netanyahu. It's not really a secret you know.
The reason why your military doesn't want war, just like the US military doesn't want a war, is because they have this thing called a brain, and they can actually see the massive disadvantage either of their armies would suffer in a mountain war against a heavily armed foe.
#15013260
Weird to see a Zionist support military war on Iran, since Genocidal American Regime's little client states in the region will be the amongst the first to get fucked.

Otherwise, military war on Iran is amongst the dumbest ideas today.



#15013269
skinster wrote:Weird to see a Zionist support military war on Iran, since Genocidal American Regime's little client states in the region will be the amongst the first to get fucked.

Otherwise, military war on Iran is amongst the dumbest ideas today.





@skinster ,

This situation of certain destruction in the Middle East should a war with Iran erupt is again, my reason for believing that it is actually Salafist/Wahhabi Jihadis behind these attempts to spark a war, like the well placed Jihadi assets that are in Baluchistan and in Yemen, etc... Could be done fairly easily I would think.
User avatar
By Godstud
#15013284
Oh goody, another war in the Middle East. That's all Europe needs... more refugees and displaced immigrants.

It's important to note that Iran has 4x the population that Syria had.

USA doing this is immoral. A war is not necessary in this region, and people should stop calling for an unnecessary war, anywhere. This situation has American false flags all over it.
#15013287
skinster wrote:I mean, that false flag had the Saudis fingerprints all over it.


See, the real problem is going to come with ''Saudi Arabia'', when the Saudi family is pretty well overthrown (or a Jihadi faction of them takes over in a Coup) and then we'll see an Osama bin Laden or Al-Baghdadi type in charge there.

What will the world do then?

Well, whatever is going on, the people behind all these goings-on feel the need to prepare their battlefield and win their war well before the actual shooting starts.
#15013291
Godstud wrote:Oh goody, another war in the Middle East. That's all Europe needs... more refugees and displaced immigrants.

It's important to note that Iran has 4x the population that Syria had.


Not to mention Iran is like the 3rd or even 2nd most democratic country in the Middle East, depending on how good you think Turkey is now.

Given their geographic position I suspect the refugees would more likely be Russia-bound, which might as well cause some troubles to Putin.
User avatar
By Rancid
#15013292
Godstud wrote:Oh goody, another war in the Middle East. That's all Europe needs... more refugees and displaced immigrants.


I doubt Europe would go along. They refused to go along with invading Syria when Obama asked them to.

Godstud wrote:USA doing this is immoral. A war is not necessary in this region, and people should stop calling for an unnecessary war, anywhere. This situation has American false flags all over it.


Who's calling for war at the moment?
User avatar
By Rancid
#15013293
Patrickov wrote:Given their geographic position I suspect the refugees would more likely be Russia-bound, which might as well cause some troubles to Putin.


Russia? Nah, I think they would go to Europe.

That said, if they did go to Russia, I guess that would be motivation for the US to start war. :eek:
#15013296
Rancid wrote:Russia? Nah, I think they would go to Europe.

That said, if they did go to Russia, I guess that would be motivation for the US to start war. :eek:


If situation is desperate for the US and SA, an antipation of this outcome would be a strong enough reason.

Mind you, it's not like Iran hasn't been fought in a fierce war before.
User avatar
By noemon
#15013370
Trump's sudden abandonment of Iran airstrikes prompts confusion over what prompted decision: 'Somebody obviously got to him' wrote:Questions are being asked about outside influence on Donald Trump after the US president called off air strikes against Iran at the last minute.

Having initially said he believed Iran made an error when it shot down a US drone on Thursday in the Strait of Hormuz, the president nonetheless reportedly approved military strikes against the Islamic Republic later that day.

The operation to hit targets such as radars and missile batteries was in its initial stages, the New York Times reported, and planes were in the air and ships had been moved into position. But before any missiles were fired the operation was cancelled.

It was not clear if Mr Trump had changed his mind, or whether the strike was called off for operational or strategic reasons, said the report, but Dr Karen von Hippel, a former senior adviser at the State Department said she believed “somebody obviously got to” the president.

“It’s really hard to say with President Trump, and I certainly wouldn’t consider myself to be a Trump whisperer, but somebody obviously got to him, and whether that was Tucker Carlson from Fox News or prime minister Trudeau, it’s hard to say, “ Dr Von Hippel, now director-general of the Royal United Services Institute, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Mr Trump had met with Canadian leader Justin Trudeau earlier that day, while the Daily Beast reported Mr Carlson has privately advised the president against military action in Iran.

It comes in contrast to the hawkish position on Tehran taken by two of the most senior members of the Trump administration: secretary of state Mike Pompeo and particularly John Bolton, Mr Trump’s national security adviser.

CNN reported Mr Bolton, who has repeatedly called for Iranian regime change in the past, has been locked in “debate” with Mr Trump over how to handle Iran, with other senior officials playing the role of “swing votes”.

On Fox News, there appears to be a battle for Mr Trump’s ear after Sean Hannity, another host and longtime friend of the president, on Thursday night called on the US to “bomb the hell out of Iran”.

“A strong message needs to be sent that a huge price will be paid if you take on the United States of America,” Mr Hannity said. “Simple peace through strength, and it works.”

Mr Carlson on Monday devoted a segment of his show to question the shaky evidence provided by US authorities purporting to prove Iran was responsible for an attack on two commercial oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman.

He attacked Mr Pompeo's "misplaced certainty" over Iran's responsibility and compared it to the Bush administration's discredited justifications of going to war with Iraq in 2003.

“We’re still paying a price for that,” Mr Carlson said.

Dr Von Hippel speculated that Mr Trump may have followed Mr Carlson’s advice.

“He’s been anti-war in the Middle East, and he’s been pushing Trump very hard not to do anything with Iran, and even challenged Pompeo’s intelligence briefing the other day on Fox News, and we know Trump really likes him and listens to him,” she said of Mr Carlson.

She added: “With Trump it seems that he has one approach and it’s the same approach in business as foreign policy, and he likes to push very hard to the brink, and he assumes others will cave, and in foreign policy it just doesn’t work that way.”

Ben Rhodes, former national security adviser to president Barack Obama, said the confusion surrounding strikes against Iran demonstrated an “absence of any rational, coherent process for national security decision making” that “has always been a clear risk under Trump”.

“Now we see what that looks like in a crisis,” he added.

Former US ambassador to Russia, Michael McFaul, suggested the leak over Mr Trump’s U-turn could itself be an attempt by a Trump administration official to force the president’s hand into striking Iran by making him “look weak”.

Iranian officials told Reuters on Friday that Tehran had received a message from Mr Trump through Oman overnight warning a US attack on Iran was imminent.

“In his message, Trump said he was against any war with Iran and wanted to talk to Tehran about various issues ... He gave a short period of time to get our response but Iran’s immediate response was that it is up to Supreme Leader (Ayatollah Ali) Khamenei to decide about this issue,” one of the officials told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The circumstances of the shooting down of the drone, a US navy RQ-4A Global Hawk, by Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, are disputed.

Iran said the drone, with a wingspan larger than a Boeing 737 and costing more than over $100m (£79m), had violated its territorial airspace.

The US said the "unprovoked attack” happened in international airspace, but failed to provide compelling evidence for the claim. Either way, it marked the first time Iran had struck the US military, which released a set of coordinates it claimed the drone was shot down at.

Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said on Twitter that the aircraft had taken off from the United Arab Emirates “in stealth mode & violated Iranian airspace”.

A Revolutionary Guards statement said the drone’s identification transponder had been switched off “in violation of aviation rules and was moving in full secrecy” when it was downed, Reuters quoted the Iranian state broadcaster IRIB as saying.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Only Zionists believe that bollocks and you lot ar[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]