Persian influence in Iraq was decisively separated from Iran by the Arabs after the Battle of Qadisiyyah in 636 CE. The Achaemenids captured Babylon in 539 BCE, bringing Mesopotamia under Persian control. From 539 BCE to 636 CE is approximately 1,175 years. So where does the claim of “2,600 years of influence in Iraq” come from?
Thats simply very naive and 100% wrong, anyone with basic knowledge about history and geopolitics would tell you. Iranian influence in Iraq is historical and civizational, it cuts through ethno-cultural barriers and time. They are among the oldest continuous interstate relationships in human history
Civilizations of Iran, like the Elamites always had contact with civilizations of Iraq (Sumerians, Babylonians). This goes back almost 6000 years. Proto-Iranians like Medes entered Iraq already 1200 BC.
Persians played a Major role in Iraq and Khorasan, supporting Abbasids to defeat the Arab-centric Umayad Caliphate. During the Abbasids the Persians played a major role in the administration, science, cultural fields.
The Iranian Buyid Dynasty actually regained Iranian rule over the Abbasids and Baghdad and made them only symbolic rulers. Search up what is called the Iranian Intermezzo.
Shah Ismail and Shah Abbas the Great turned Iraq from Sunni into Shia (which remains until now). Whenever Iraq gets into huge trouble, it will be Irans duty to help them.
The Iraqi people were distinct from Iranians, who lived beyond the Zagros Mountains.
Ancient DNA studies show that:
Zagros Neolithic farmers (western Iran) and
Mesopotamian farmers (Iraq) were closely related
They shared ancestry distinct from:
Anatolia
the Levant
the Arabian Peninsula
This Iran–Mesopotamia genetic axis already existed thousands of years before Elam, Sumer and Akkad
This is the deep genetic foundation of Iran–Iraq affinity.
Elamites show strongest affinity to Zagros / Iranian plateau populations Mesopotamians show a mix of Zagros-related and Levantine ancestry
Continuous contact caused bidirectional gene flow. Not the same population, but clearly related neighbors.
God willing, the Iraqi people will organize to gain freedom. That will not through fake machinations, but through a revolution, like the Syrian people inshallah and this will put an end to Iran’s hegemony.
Iraq will never again have a empty head like Saddam. Iran is a civizational power and cant be replaced. Thats why we see deep jalousy from our enemies, wherever they are located, in form of sanctions, wars, sectarianism.
Omavi Syria (as they call themselves) is destroyed and occupied by multiple power and zionist forces have now more influence there than ever dreamed. It is divided more than ever. Is this your CIA-Turk-backed freedom? Iraq will say no.
That claim is a stretch. The TTP, as their name suggests, is a Pakistani group, not Afghan. The Afghan-Pakistan skirmish shortly after the alleged Pakistani strike targeted the TTP leader in Afghanistan, resulting in limited clashes that have since stopped. Currently, no Afghans are fighting Pakistan.
Its a Pashtun group that also operated from Afghanistan to attack Pakistan. Tali-cavemen cant control these Sunni terrorist elements and now we are also witnessing attacks on Tajikistan including deadly drone attacks against Chinese investors.
The Iranian claim relies on a selective and incomplete historical account. Afghanistan had already emerged as a recognized state under the Durrani Empire (founded in 1747), and Herat was historically Afghan land. Iranian control during 1856–57 was brief and limited, confined mainly to Herat city and its immediate surroundings, amounting to only about 1–2% of Afghan territory, and never extending over most of western Afghanistan. Moreover, the British were not transferring Iranian land to Afghanistan; their objective was to create a buffer state against Russian expansion and regional influence from Iran.
It is not selective and afghan means pashtun. It was outcome of separation from Iran. It is part of Iranian plateau and parts of today’s Afghanistan were part of Iranian states for most of history.
I’m not defending US or British actions, but I’m highlighting the contradictions in the reasoning used to justify the US attack on Afghanistan. Attacking foreign embassy staff clearly violates diplomatic immunity and international conventions.
Well I dont see you complain jolani working for US, Israeli, NATO interests and you talk about British Dividing Afghans, but You dont talk about British preventing Iran from regaining Herat. So yeah British defenitely had a role in this.
The “Act of Tearing” when Khosrow tore the letter of the Prophet PBUH fits historical records. He was enraged that the Prophet’s name appeared before his own, exclaiming, “A wretched slave among my subjects dares write his name before mine!” Even if one doubts Islamic reports, Persian/Zoroastrian sources similarly describe the Arabs as desert-dwelling, ignorant people who ate snakes and lizards.
There was no "tearing" and literally no eyewitness. It was simply a rejection, a "No", later dramatized by muslim writers and rejection became figuratively as tearing apart. The rest of swearing and slave blabla is pure lie.
Pre-Islamic Persian/Zoroastrian sources generally describe Arabs in a more neutral and less hostile way than early Arabic and Islamic sources describe pre-Islamic Arab society itself!!
You are either spreading lies or deliberately misleading.
And to add, in Quran Zoroastrians are mentioned next to People of the Book and Separated from Polytheists:
“Indeed, those who believed, and the Jews, and the Sabians, and the Christians, and the Magians, and the polytheists—God will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection.”
Qurʾān 22:17
Khwarezm and Bactria were part of the Sassanid Empire under Bahram II (276–293), with Khwarezm as a regional capital. Both pre-Islamic and post-Islamic sources, including Biruni and Ibn Khordadbeh, describe Khwarezm as part of the Iranian/Persian world, and Biruni even calls its people “a branch of the Persian tree.” The region was populated by Eastern Iranian-speaking people, so calling its rulers Iranian is justified
Dude there was no Sassanid Empire during Khwarazmian empire/dynasty, what is so difficult to understand?
It was part of Iranian cultural realm (Iranian Plateau), but the Khwarazmian rulers there, 600 years after Sassanids, were Turkics and they killed the Mongol traders and representatives which provoked the Mongol invasion.
There is 0 Justification to call these Turkic rulers, which are mentioned by Name and Ethnicity, as Iranian.
And lastly:
Compared to Persians, Turks are described far more negatively in early hadith literature, including explicit physical caricature and apocalyptic conflict, while Persians receive explicit praise and no ethnic condemnation.
The new currency represents a new beginning for the future of the Syrian economy according to professional and responsible standards
