Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds

[Flotilla]

"some but not conclusive progress"

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

It would be good if Iran opens all three enrichment sites sealing two of them, and letting IAEA inspector to supervise the enrichment to civil nuclear reactor levels just in that only place. Maybe in that way US would be satisfied. They will supervise all enrichment process ...but inside Iran.

 

[vmro]

We don't need to reverse-engineer the Turkish model. We had our own model that worked a lot better than the Turkish model during the Shah's time.

You have to understand that Iran enjoyed incredible amount of soft power during the Shah's time. Millions of people in the region continue to listen to Persian music from the time of the Shah, including people in Turkic countries, Arab countries and Southern Asia. Artists like Googoosh, Haydeh, Dariush, etc. all have millions of fans in the region outside of Iran.

The Ayatollahs are inherently against arts and culture. It's not going to change as long as these idiots are in power. The only exception was during the time of Ahmadinejad when he heavily invested in international channels like PressTV, iFilm and even a Spanish channel for Hispanic people in Latin America and it had limited success but as soon as he left, the system decided to ruin all his legacy. Khatami also played a huge role in reviving arts and culture after the 1979 revolution.

Rumi is bestselling poet in USA for very long time... without signs of being dethroned...but that is high-level artistry, while 90% of ordinary Balkanian housewives are addicted to Turkish TV novels... they are grounded to the lower educated masses, with significant success... https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20140414-americas-best-selling-poet

 

[Khorasan Black Flags]

پست جالبیه:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ShapurII]

Rumi is bestselling poet in USA for very long time... without signs of being dethroned...but that is high-level artistry, while 90% of ordinary Balkanian housewives are addicted to Turkish TV novels... they are grounded to the lower educated masses, with significant success... https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20140414-americas-best-selling-poet

I don't get your point. Rumi (Mowlana) is a Persian poet. It only shows influence of Persian culture. Thomas Jefferson had a copy of "Cyropaedia", a biography of Cyrus the Great, and it heavily influenced him. So, what is your point?

Rubaiyat of Khayyam has been the world's leading collection of poems for nearly two centuries around the world. It has been translated into over 100 languages. It is considered as one of the main factors behind the intellectualist movement in the British Empire in the 18th century after Edward Fitzgerald translated Khayyam's poems into English with his own interpretation. So, again, what is your point?

Thanks, but we didn't make movies about women gossiping or family issues and betrayal to gain soft power before the revolution. And again, as I said, it worked like a charm. And even after 48 years, it still has millions of fans in our neighboring countries. Most of these TV shows won't be remembered even 2 years after they're over.

 

[Persian Gulf]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[vmro]

I don't get your point. Rumi (Mowlana) is a Persian poet. It only shows influence of Persian culture. Thomas Jefferson had a copy of "Cyropaedia", a biography of Cyrus the Great, and it heavily influenced him. So, what is your point?

Rubaiyat of Khayyam has been the world's leading collection of poems for nearly two centuries around the world. It has been translated into over 100 languages. It is considered as one of the main factors behind the intellectualist movement in the British Empire in the 18th century after Edward Fitzgerald translated Khayyam's poems into English with his own interpretation. So, again, what is your point?

Thanks, but we didn't make movies about women gossiping or family issues and betrayal to gain soft power before the revolution. And again, as I said, it worked like a charm. And even after 48 years, it still has millions of fans in our neighboring countries. Most of these TV shows won't be remembered even 2 years after they're over.

I'm struggling to understand why my post was perceived as anti-Persian and anti-Iranian. As a matter of fact, I hold Persian classical poetry in the highest regard, considering it a pinnacle of global literary achievement. My point is that Persian poets continue to be widely admired and commercially successful, even in the United States. In my post, I was partly mocking the shitty-artistic aspects of Turkish influence, partly targeting Balkanian housewives (a long-overdue jab), and partly agreeing with the notion that Iran should enhance its modern soft power projection. I believe that preserving the Shia leader's aura is crucial, but it's equally important not to overlook other aspects. Ignoring these aspects would be a missed opportunity. I think Mohammad Khatami's idea of initiating cultural détente with the United States, followed by a more substantial political approach, was worth exploring. While the chances of success in realpolitik are debatable, the 9/11 attacks effectively sealed the fate of his concept.

 

[ShapurII]

I'm struggling to understand why my post was perceived as anti-Persian and anti-Iranian.

Because it was not. When did I say your post was anti-Persian or anti-Iranian? I said I didn't understand your point, not that it was anti-Iranian. I was genuinely confused about the point you were trying to make.

As a matter of fact, I hold Persian classical poetry in the highest regard, considering it a pinnacle of global literary achievement. My point is that Persian poets continue to be widely admired and commercially successful, even in the United States. In my post, I was partly mocking the shitty-artistic aspects of Turkish influence, partly targeting Balkanian housewives (a long-overdue jab), and partly agreeing with the notion that Iran should enhance its modern soft power projection. I believe that preserving the Shia leader's aura is crucial, but it's equally important not to overlook other aspects. Ignoring these aspects would be a missed opportunity. I think Mohammad Khatami's idea of initiating cultural détente with the United States, followed by a more substantial political approach, was worth exploring. While the chances of success in realpolitik are debatable, the 9/11 attacks effectively sealed the fate of his concept.

I totally agree with you. But you have to understand that the nature of the Islamic Republic is against arts and Persian culture. They've had moments where this changed (like during Khatami's era), but overall, it's always been like that.
Before the presidency of Khatami, it was forbidden to show music instruments on TV. Even today, the TV refuses to show music instruments on the stage. Khatami made a lot of cultural changes to the core of the IR and some of them had a lasting impact. People like Shadmehr and music groups like Arian changed a lot in Iran. But again, the problem is that the IR does not appreciate arts and it is impossible to have soft power when you don't appreciate arts.

The only aspect of Iranian culture and arts that improved after the revolution was our cinema, but after a while, our cinema became infiltrated with leftist ideology and people like Bahman Ghobadi and Asghar Farhadi who prefer to make movies that depict Iran in a bad way to collect international awards.

 

[vmro]

Because it was not. When did I say your post was anti-Persian or anti-Iranian? I said I didn't understand your point, not that it was anti-Iranian. I was genuinely confused about the point you were trying to make.


I totally agree with you. But you have to understand that the nature of the Islamic Republic is against arts and Persian culture. They've had moments where this changed (like during Khatami's era), but overall, it's always been like that.
Before the presidency of Khatami, it was forbidden to show music instruments on TV. Even today, the TV refuses to show music instruments on the stage. Khatami made a lot of cultural changes to the core of the IR and some of them had a lasting impact. People like Shadmehr and music groups like Arian changed a lot in Iran. But again, the problem is that the IR does not appreciate arts and it is impossible to have soft power when you don't appreciate arts.

The only aspect of Iranian culture and arts that improved after the revolution was our cinema, but after a while, our cinema became infiltrated with leftist ideology and people like Bahman Ghobadi and Asghar Farhadi who prefer to make movies that depict Iran in a bad way to collect international awards.

I consider Khatami's most notable achievement to be his efforts during the early phase of the revolution, where he effectively safeguarded Iran's ancient cultural heritage, a UNESCO-protected treasure. Unfortunately, the situation took a drastic turn with Saddam's well-prepared military invasion, prompting the new government to reconcile with Iran's rich imperial past and its long-standing political traditions. This led to the notion of Persian imperial grandeur never being fully tested. The Shah's decision to avoid a more modern and pragmatic approach, modeled after Shah Abbas, rather than drawing inspiration from the likes of Cyrus or Darius, also contributed significantly to this outcome. While this approach may have been appealing, it remains largely unrealistic. In reality, the Pahlavi dynasty's geopolitical approach proved to trail behind that of the Safavid era.

As for cinema, I know, only good balkanian movie is movie with bloody revenges among divided balkanian tribes...

 

[ShapurII]

I consider Khatami's most notable achievement to be his efforts during the early phase of the revolution, where he effectively safeguarded Iran's ancient cultural heritage, a UNESCO-protected treasure. Unfortunately, the situation took a drastic turn with Saddam's well-prepared military invasion, prompting the new government to reconcile with Iran's rich imperial past and its long-standing political traditions. This led to the notion of Persian imperial grandeur never being fully tested. The Shah's decision to avoid a more modern and pragmatic approach, modeled after Shah Abbas, rather than drawing inspiration from the likes of Cyrus or Darius, also contributed significantly to this outcome. While this approach may have been appealing, it remains largely unrealistic. In reality, the Pahlavi dynasty's geopolitical approach proved to trail behind that of the Safavid era.

As for cinema, I know, only good balkanian movie is movie with bloody revenges among divided balkanian tribes...

The Pahlavi dynasty had its own security/geopolitical challenges, the most important of which was a powerful Soviet Union right next to us with a trending communist ideology among the leftists in Iran. And the issue of pan-Arabism that was sweeping the region in late 60s and Iran could be one of the targets. Saddam was most notably a pan-Arab that hated Iranians. Add to that the undeniable influence of the Americans and the British, as well as unpopularity of the Shah and royal corruption.

The Islamic Republic was lucky that the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. And it got even luckier that the US invaded Iraq. Also, pan-Arabism almost died after 80s and it was never revived. Two of our biggest security challenges that the Pahlavi regime had to face, and were serious threats to our country, were removed for the IR, and the IR still managed to miss these God given opportunities by choosing wrong strategies.

 

[vmro]

The Pahlavi dynasty had its own security/geopolitical challenges, the most important of which was a powerful Soviet Union right next to us with a trending communist ideology among the leftists in Iran. And the issue of pan-Arabism that was sweeping the region in late 60s and Iran could be one of the targets. Saddam was most notably a pan-Arab that hated Iranians. Add to that the undeniable influence of the Americans and the British, as well as unpopularity of the Shah and royal corruption.

The Islamic Republic was lucky that the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991. And it got even luckier that the US invaded Iraq. Also, pan-Arabism almost died after 80s and it was never revived. Two of our biggest security challenges that the Pahlavi regime had to face, and were serious threats to our country, were removed for the IR, and the IR still managed to miss these God given opportunities by choosing wrong strategies.

But this is not an answer to my claim that decision of the Shah to brand itself in new Shah Cyrus instead of new Shah Abbas effectively ruined his monarchy.. .he was strange megalomaniac, with plan to dominate Indian Ocean and everything that is not against Israeli interests... The Shah never takes arabs seriously, they were punching objects in his behaving, none of the Arab neighbors were satisfied with the borderlines but he couldn't care less....his army wad siam twin of saudi army...missed white revolution was probably decided his fate.

 

[ShapurII]

But this is not an answer to my claim that decision of the Shah to brand itself in new Shah Cyrus instead of new Shah Abbas effectively ruined his monarchy.. .he was strange megalomaniac, with plan to dominate Indian Ocean and everything that is not against Israeli interests... The Shah never takes arabs seriously, they were punching objects in his behaving, none of the Arab neighbors were satisfied with the borderlines but he couldn't care less....his army wad siam twin of saudi army...missed white revolution was probably decided his fate.

I don't see a problem with his branding. I would do the same. Cyrus the Great is quite well-known outside of Iran. Shah Abbas, not so much. The history of Iran's glory starts from the Median Empire and then the Achaemenid Empire. Little is known about the Median Empire, but the history of the Achaemenid Empire is much better known.
Khamenei also brands himself as the Leader of the Shiite people around the world. At least, the regime does.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Shah was perfect or anything. But his policy of spending our money on the Army instead of regional proxies did prove to be solid during the Iraq-Iran war.

The equipment he purchased helped the newly established regime defend Iran for 8 years while Iraq was supported by both of the world's super powers of the time: The US and the Soviets and we were under sanctions by the US and had poor relations with the Soviets. It is ridiculous to say that his army was the twin of the Saudi Army It shows grave misunderstanding of reality. Many of our generals were executed after the revolution for treason, yet the Iranian Army defeated the Iraqi Army more than once, but the Iraqis kept receiving more and more equipment and the supplies never ended. Iraq had the support of the Arab League (excluding Syria, Algeria and partly Lebanon and Libya) besides the world's greatest powers. We captured soldiers from more than 20 nations during the war. The French loaned Iraq +100 Mirage-F1 fighters and later forgave the debt. Iraq extensively used chemical weapons against our forces and civilians. Yet, the Iranian Army performed well throughout the war even though it's been claimed by multiple people in the war that the Army received less than the Sepah and the Basij.

The White revolution was a stupid idea though, particularly for a country that was 30% urbanized at the time. But I never said the Shah's internal policies were good. The Shah was a weak man. He allowed the US and the British infiltrate every top position in the country, but his policy of investing in our own armed forces was correct and worked.

And just for the record, Iran helped Oman defeat the communist rebellion in Dhofar. Fast-forward 50 years, Oman maintains amicable relations with Iran. Possibly, the only country in the Persian Gulf region that has been truly friendly with us. Oman is doing everything they can to mend our ties with the US, while many countries in the region want Iran to remain isolated and sanctioned and even bombed by the US. How many of these so-called "Axis of Resistance" countries will remain friendly to us once the money dries up or Iran gets attacked?

 

[vmro]

I don't see a problem with his branding. I would do the same. Cyrus the Great is quite well-known outside of Iran. Shah Abbas, not so much. The history of Iran's glory starts from the Median Empire and then the Achaemenid Empire. Little is known about the Median Empire, but the history of the Achaemenid Empire is much better known.
Khamenei also brands himself as the Leader of the Shiite people around the world. At least, the regime does.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the Shah was perfect or anything. But his policy of spending our money on the Army instead of regional proxies did prove to be solid during the Iraq-Iran war.

The equipment he purchased helped the newly established regime defend Iran for 8 years while Iraq was supported by both of the world's super powers of the time: The US and the Soviets and we were under sanctions by the US and had poor relations with the Soviets. It is ridiculous to say that his army was the twin of the Saudi Army It shows grave misunderstanding of reality. Many of our generals were executed after the revolution for treason, yet the Iranian Army defeated the Iraqi Army more than once, but the Iraqis kept receiving more and more equipment and the supplies never ended. Iraq had the support of the Arab League (excluding Syria, Algeria and partly Lebanon and Libya) besides the world's greatest powers. We captured soldiers from more than 20 nations during the war. The French loaned Iraq +100 Mirage-F1 fighters and later forgave the debt. Iraq extensively used chemical weapons against our forces and civilians. Yet, the Iranian Army performed well throughout the war even though it's been claimed by multiple people in the war that the Army received less than the Sepah and the Basij.

The White revolution was a stupid idea though, particularly for a country that was 30% urbanized at the time. But I never said the Shah's internal policies were good. The Shah was a weak man. He allowed the US and the British infiltrate every top position in the country, but his policy of investing in our own armed forces was correct and worked.

And just for the record, Iran helped Oman defeat the communist rebellion in Dhofar. Fast-forward 50 years, Oman maintains amicable relations with Iran. Possibly, the only country in the Persian Gulf region that has been truly friendly with us. Oman is doing everything they can to mend our ties with the US, while many countries in the region want Iran to remain isolated and sanctioned and even bombed by the US. How many of these so-called "Axis of Resistance" countries will remain friendly to us once the money dries up or Iran gets attacked?

I know very well about Iranian ancient glory, as least enough to work on dissertation about Media as direct legitimate continuum of Assyrian imperial brand... and Zarathustra as prophet that reshape old, world's oldest religion, first prophet in religion, but practically the father-founder of Iranian historical nation, in broader sense speaking of course...Jesus was Zarathustra on steroids, but Zarathustra started this concept....omg OT...

My point with Shah Abbas that modern Iranian iteration is based on 3 parts, Persian culture, Iranian institutional traditions and Shia Islam, and degradation of one pillar for accent on other one is very sensitive field... Shah Abbas as pinnacle of the Safavid reinvented Empire was ideal to approach Iranian society in general...

And that is not negation of ancient glory, Shah Abbas himself was admirer of that glory, winner of "Parthian shoot" competition, although the second placed rival discretely felt systematic discrimination (just kidding)...

But ancient glory adapted to new reality... Pahlavi were somehow in passive-aggressive (and less passive occasionally) manner underestimated Shia pillar for the sake of other 2, self declared "Aryan Star".... such mismanagement in national doctrine costed the Shah a lot....

For military, I agree that he was spending wealth on military, but Iran had zero homegrown military industry, was totally dependent on pentagon technical support, fatal mistake....
Heroic thing about Iranian surprising counter attack on Saddam's invaders is not in hi-tech abilities of the Shah military spending, but in Iranian ability to provide homegrown based military power, enough to kick out Arabs out of Iran with no single planed objectives achieve by Saddam...

Same fate with Saudis, their army could be put out of order with a little bit American sabotage...

About the Axis, just consider the possibility that maybe Iran needed and then made regional network to avoid being submitted by some superpowers...Just ability of partial influence in foreign countries is valuable defensive tool... Yes, Iran got some major blows on his Axis... But not on Iran itself...and this is the point of Iranian pragmatic approaches in organizing the Axis....

 

[Khorasan Black Flags]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[ShapurII]

I know very well about Iranian ancient glory, as least enough to work on dissertation about Media as direct legitimate continuum of Assyrian imperial brand... and Zarathustra as prophet that reshape old, world's oldest religion, first prophet in religion, but practically the father-founder of Iranian historical nation, in broader sense speaking of course...Jesus was Zarathustra on steroids, but Zarathustra started this concept....omg OT...

My point with Shah Abbas that modern Iranian iteration is based on 3 parts, Persian culture, Iranian institutional traditions and Shia Islam, and degradation of one pillar for accent on other one is very sensitive field... Shah Abbas as pinnacle of the Safavid reinvented Empire was ideal to approach Iranian society in general...

And that is not negation of ancient glory, Shah Abbas himself was admirer of that glory, winner of "Parthian shoot" competition, although the second placed rival discretely felt systematic discrimination (just kidding)...

But ancient glory adapted to new reality... Pahlavi were somehow in passive-aggressive (and less passive occasionally) manner underestimated Shia pillar for the sake of other 2, self declared "Aryan Star".... such mismanagement in national doctrine costed the Shah a lot....

For military, I agree that he was spending wealth on military, but Iran had zero homegrown military industry, was totally dependent on pentagon technical support, fatal mistake....
Heroic thing about Iranian surprising counter attack on Saddam's invaders is not in hi-tech abilities of the Shah military spending, but in Iranian ability to provide homegrown based military power, enough to kick out Arabs out of Iran with no single planed objectives achieve by Saddam...

Same fate with Saudis, their army could be put out of order with a little bit American sabotage...

About the Axis, just consider the possibility that maybe Iran needed and then made regional network to avoid being submitted by some superpowers...Just ability of partial influence in foreign countries is valuable defensive tool... Yes, Iran got some major blows on his Axis... But not on Iran itself...and this is the point of Iranian pragmatic approaches in organizing the Axis....

The Shah (Pahlavi II) wasn't against the Shiite Islam. At least publicly, he visited Mashhad regularly and he named both of his sons Reza and Alireza to pay tribute to the 8th Imam. His father had a much stronger position against religion, but the Shah was too weak and passive.

He felt threatened by the huge popularity and power that the clergy held in Iran before the revolution. He was an authoritarian for sure. Part of the reason for the White revolution was to curb the power of the clergy who owned over 20% of the farm lands, unsuccessfully. His biggest mistake that led to his fall was complete reliance on the Westerners, and ignoring the growing Islamic influence during the late years of his reign.

The IRIAF played a huge role in restoring the balance of power for a crisis-hit country like Iran, in the middle of one of the largest revolutions in history. The IRIN was also quite successful. We successfully destroyed the Iraqi Navy and enforced a blockade on Iraqi exports. If it weren't for Arab countries that helped Iraq exports its oil and goods, and later the US direct involvement against our navy and oil terminals, Iraq would've collapsed.

The Army wasn't put out of order by a little sabotage. It was put out of order by a f*cking revolution. There's a huge difference, unless you want to claim that the 1979 revolution was a little "sabotage". People wanted blood for the revolution. They were too hot-headed at the time and executed many high ranking generals. And the Iranian leadership didn't take the threat of Saddam seriously because they thought the Shiite Iraq would not initiate a war against us.

It is absolutely nonsense that Iran had zero homegrown military industry. Sure, we couldn't build tanks, frigates, missiles or drones, but we could build light military equipment. You are talking about 50 years ago. Name one country in our entire neighborhood, or pretty much most of the world, that had a homegrown military 50 years ago. Do you expect a country whose literacy rate was 36% in 1975 to produce tanks, missiles or jet fighters? Seriously? But he did invest heavily in importing technology and sending our students to the US, which is all he could do at the time. We imported Laser Isotope Separation technology in 1975, which was cutting-edge at the time and only the US and the Soviets had it and the French were working on acquiring it.

Define major blow. Iranian economy is on the verge of collapse. Dissatisfaction is at its peak. We have had 4 major nation-wide protests in the last 10 years alone. Our sovereignty has been violated by Israel more than once. The Arab-Israel war is not our war to begin with. We are defending these proxy groups against Israel, not the other way around. It's their war, not ours. When it was their turn to help us, i.e. TP2 and TP3, they didn't show up in our defense. Hence, invalidating this theory.

 

[Persian Gulf]

this thread is about nuclear negotiations. please stay on topic