"Iran Calls U.S. Military In The Persian Gulf A Target" Topic

"A senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander said on Sunday the U.S. military presence in the Gulf used to be a serious threat but now represented a target, the Iranian Students' News Agency (ISNA) reported.

The U.S. military has sent forces, including an aircraft carrier and B-52 bombers, to the Middle East in a move U.S. officials said was to counter "clear indications" of threats from Iran to its forces in the region…."
Main page
link

Somethin is going on… Spain quit as an scort…

link

Amicalement
Armand

Its called the slide to war.

Remember, "we have always been at war with Eurasia".

They also call blocks of wood a plane.

link

PERSIAN GULF—In what's being called a dangerous act of aggression, the country of Iran has deployed its country right next to the USS Abraham Lincoln Carrier Strike Group, which was just minding its own business in the Persian Gulf.

Gotta love the Babylon Bee.

Their drone attacks on merchant vessels aren't really very secretive either.

Seems every decade or two they need to be reminded they are a very weak military power by US standards.

That's OK, the US submarine fleet calls our OWN navy surface fleet 'targets'. In our own patrol reports.

I suspect the Iranians will not be happy to discover that submariners consider ALL ships on the surface nothing but targets.

Iranian military gonna learn this administration isn't like the previous ones…

Gonna do hideous things to fuel prices, though!

A senior Iranian Revolutionary Guards commander said on Sunday the U.S. military presence in the Gulf used to be a serious threat but now represented a target,

And how is this different from say, any given year in the last 40 years since the mullahs seized power in Iran?? I mean, they opened "relations" by storming the US Embassy and taking US diplomats hostage. They have conducted terror bombing attacks on several continents -- from Buenos Aires to Beirut, killing and injuring hundreds of civilians and US soldiers. They sent their RG into Iraq to train insurgents, directly attack allied troops and supply IEDs that killed and injured thousands more US and allied troops. They have attacked US ships on multiple occasions, directly and through proxies, and in 2016 took 10 US Navy personnel hostage. They have even attempted to conduct assassinations of Iranian dissidents in exile in the US and Europe. And how many times have they declared their intent to destroy the "Great Satan" -- making propaganda videos showing US cities and ships being attacked. Remember the giant plywood US Carrier the Iranians built, and then filmed their glorious navy destroying it?

So the real question is -- when has Iran NOT been at war with the US?

Good question….

Amicalement
Armand

And how is this different from say, any given year in the last 40 years since the mullahs seized power in Iran??

The "mullahs" never seized the power in Iran. Do you know what a mullah is? Obviously not. I think you know nothing about Shia Islam.

The Iranian revolution removed Reza Pahlavi (Shah) from power, a despicable dictator who ruined Iran and tortured many Iranian people. That criminal dictator was supported by the US.

After that, The US incited and supported the criminal attack carried out by another dictator, Saddam Hussein. Hundred thousands of Iranian people were killed by that dictator, even massacred by chemical weapons made by Western chemical companies. All with the American support.

After the war, Iran suffered the brutal economic sanctions imposed by the US. The impoverished Iranian people suffered a lack of food and medicines. Those sanctions have caused terrible harm to Iranian people. All because Iran did not want to become a puppet country such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, lackey countries totally subject to American Interests.

It is absolutely understandable that Iran does not have a good relationship with the US. I agree with Iran. It is impossible to have a good relationship with someone who has tried to destroy you using dictators, criminal wars and economic sanctions.

They sent their RG into Iraq to train insurgents, directly attack allied troops and supply IEDs that killed and injured thousands more US and allied troops.

Regarding Iraq, Iran has defended Shia population against an external aggression. Iran has defended its own interests in Iraq, and Iraqi Shia people are considered as brothers by Iran.

By the way, The US invaded Iraq illegally. It was a colonial war carried out in the name of economic and strategic interests. That war caused thousands of civilian victims, destruction, looting of resources, destructive misrule and the origins of ISIS (Daesh). All that chaos was created by the US. Congratulations. And you want to put the blame on Iran. Maybe it is a joke.

They have conducted terror bombing attacks on several continents -- from Buenos Aires to Beirut, killing and injuring hundreds of civilians and US soldiers.

They have even attempted to conduct assassinations of Iranian dissidents in exile in the US and Europe.

Unfortunately (or fortunately), the activities of CIA are well known: support to dictators, support to coups, support to terrorist groups and paramilitaries, and so on, around the world, for decades, and in the name of American interests.

The activities of Mossad are well known too, including assassinations and terror bombings. French intelligence services have supported criminal activities and paramilitaries in Africa.

But in your opinion all these activities are irrelevant. Only the Iranians are the bad guys.

As always, I recommend the use of critical thinking. It is the best medicine to combat the fanatical nationalism, the ignorance and the childish patriotism.

So the real truth is: Iran has never been at war with US. The US always have tried to dominate Iran using dictators, criminal wars and economic sanctions.

I am with the Iranian people.

"The US invaded Iraq illegally".

You're completely incorrect on that one, Ruchel.

Also, on this point – "Iran has never been at war with US".

Kidnapping and holding so many Americans hostage in 1979 can be viewed as an act of war, not to mention all of the attacks on shipping, our troops, and others in the region. Quite frankly, I think it is a pity we didn't go to war back then over that in order to rid Iran of the radicals who took them hostage. The world would be a far safer place today, and would have been so for the last 40 years, if we had.

Iran is involved in many, many countries and terrorist attacks around the globe, and has continued to support them financially, and with military weapons for decades.

The world's countries should hold them accountable for those crimes.

"The US invaded Iraq illegally".

You're completely incorrect on that one, Ruchel.

I am totally correct. It is absolutely true. But you should study international law if you want to understand it.
That war was a total disaster. It was a colonial invasion carried out in the name of economic and strategic interests, American imperialist interests. You can see the results: thousands of civilians killed, poverty, looting of resources, misrule, chaos, the birth and expansion of ISIS (Daesh), and so on. It was a total immorality. And the main problems have not been solved nowadays, sixteen years after the invasion.

All those calamities were caused by the US. Nobody can deny this true fact. But everyone is entitled to believe in American fairy tales or in American nationalist mythology. Again, I recommend the use of critical thinking.

Kidnapping and holding so many Americans hostage in 1979 can be viewed as an act of war, not to mention all of the attacks on shipping, our troops, and others in the region.

Perhaps the American support to Reza Pahlavi (Shah), a despicable dictator who ruined Iran and tortured many Iranian people, had much to do with the Iran Hostage Crisis. You should analyse that fact in its context if you want to understand it. It was a revolution and many people who had been repressed by the previous dictatorship were very angry with the US due to the support given to that dictator. And regarding the hostages, all of them were released, no one was killed.

Perhaps the American support to Saddam Hussein during the criminal war he started against Iran had much to do with those Iranian gestures of enmity. It is completely understandable. That war caused the killing of hundred thousands of Iranian people. I repeat it: the US supported Saddam Hussein during that criminal aggression.

Quite frankly, I think it is a pity we didn't go to war back then over that in order to rid Iran of the radicals who took them hostage. The world would be a far safer place today, and would have been so for the last 40 years, if we had.

You cannot solve everything using wars, invasions, bombings, support to dictators and criminal groups, and so on. They are the typical methods used by warmonger empires, and the logical consequences are: hundred thousands of people killed, poverty, destruction, political instability, civil wars, and so on.

The world would be a far safe place today if the US had not used those despicable methods. And the American government continues to use them nowadays.

The world does not need a false "American liberator". The world does not need the global dictatorship ruled by a warmonger empire which wants to impose its nationalist rules on the entire world by force of arms or by brutal economic sanctions.

Iran is involved in many, many countries and terrorist attacks around the globe, and has continued to support them financially, and with military weapons for decades.

The world's countries should hold them accountable for those crimes.

The typical American hypocrisy. US governments have been supporting dozens of terrorist bands, criminal groups and criminal dictators for decades, all in the name of "democracy and freedom". It was and it is a total fallacy. American governments have supported and financed the worst kind of criminals ever seen, all in the name of their own economic and strategic interests.

And the US has invaded, attacked, bombed and sanctioned many countries killing hundred thousands of civilian victims and causing poverty and destruction. The US has provoked coups, riots and civil wars around the world for decades, all in the name of economic and strategic domination. It is the real truth.

So, the world's countries should hold them accountable for those countless crimes.

Wow, Ruchel, a full blown defense of a violent militant theocracy. Way ta go!

No, you are wrong. It is a necessary defense of Iranian people against the criminal policies carried out by US governments and their puppet allies. It is a necessary defense of any people attacked and ruined by any imperialist power at any place around the world. It is a moral imperative.

I am not defending any government; most governments commit crimes and immoral actions in order to achieve their aims. It is a shame. Unfortunately those attitudes are the rule in the context of international relations.
And the Iranian state is not a theocracy in a Western meaning. Iranian society is a complicated one, you cannot use Western patterns in order to classify it. Western classifications are useless. Again, I think you know nothing about Shia Islam.

And the US governments have been (and are today) immensely more violent than Iranian one. There are many examples of countries which have been attacked, invaded, bombed, ruined and sanctioned by the US. And I am not talking about isolated bombs which have killed ten or twenty people. I am talking about massive bombings and invasions which have caused hundred thousands of civilian casualties. Then you should add all the victims caused by puppet dictators, coups, criminal groups, and so on, supported by the US. The difference is evident.

Some people prefer to defend false democracies which act as despotic empires imposing their criminal rules by the force of arms or by brutal economic sanctions. Some people prefer to close their eyes and deny all kind of atrocities committed by their countries. Or they make up all sort of childish justifications based on American propaganda. The next step is the hypocrisy: only the other countries are the bad guys.

It is the result of a fanatical nationalist education based on fallacies, the cult of sacred flags and the singing of ridiculous national anthems.

And the Iranian state is not a theocracy in a Western meaning. Iranian society is a complicated one, you cannot use Western patterns in order to classify it. Western classifications are useless. Again, I think you know nothing about Shia Islam.

I don't need to be an expert on Shia Islam to understand that Iran is a theocracy.

"Theocracy is a form of government in which a religious institution is the source from which all authority derives."

The country is run, ultimately, by the religious authorities who have based much of the nation's code of laws on religious law (Sharia Law).

No, you are wrong. It is a necessary defense of Iranian people against the criminal policies carried out by US governments and their puppet allies.

Yes, the US backed the Shah during the Cold War. Yes, he did some awful things, but more people were killed by the Theocrats in the first year of the revolution than all the years of the Shah's reign combined. The Iranian people also lost all individual freedoms and rights, forced to live by the interpretations of Sharia Law forced on them by violence by the religious class.

I just watched a video testimony of an Iranian woman who, when she was 14yo, was coming home in a crowded taxi and ended up having to ride in the front passenger seat. The religious police stopped the cab, accused her of basically being a and sent her to jail where she was sentence to 100 lashes. Her family was able to buy-off 80 lashes, and had to take the other 20. She was stripped naked, handcuffed to a metal bed frame and whipped until she lost consciousness with her back a torn and bloody mess. She took months to physically recover, and is still dealing with the emotional pain.

That's Iran today. And you defend that??

I think the Iranian people need more protection against their own government than they do against the US. The theocracy of Iran has murdered thousand and thousands of its own people -- dissidents, "undesirables" like people who are gay, apostates who try to convert away from Islam. How many did the regime kill in the abortive 2009 "Green Revolution" when many took to the streets to protest the regime, which unleashed the Revolutionary Guards and imported Hezbollah soldiers when local police and military refused to attack the protesters?

You don't like the US, fine -- but don't use that dislike to try and cover for and defend regimes like Iran's which are truly awful.

Say, and do you know what you can do to get the US to leave your country alone? Nothing. Yep. Just do *Nothing.* Don't attack the US, don't attack it's close allies, don't blow up hotels and condos with Americans in them, don't shoot missiles at our ships, stop pumping up the US as an external threat to cover for your own crappy government's mistakes, don't rant and rave on your national TV about killing Americans and then try and assassinate dissidents living in the US.

For the most part, most Americans would be happy to let the world spin along on its merry way without our playing Global Cop.

Here's a for instance. If bin Laden wanted the US out of the Middle East his best move would have been to do -- nothing. The US had been ramping *down* its involvement in the Middle East prior to the 9/11 attack. The country was on the cusp of a new neo-isolationist phase, and President Bush had zero foreign policy goals. None. The US was already basically leaving the Middle East. All that attack did was propel the Middle East and
Islamist terrorism into our top priorities.

So you want to be left alone? Don't be militant jerks, and leave us and ours alone. We'll happily buy your stuff and sell you stuff in peace.

It is a necessary defense of Iranian people…

Making antagonistic threats against ships in international waters is a "necessary defense"? Seems like a provocation…

And if Iran is a democracy, why is a leader of the Revolutionary Guards making foreign policy statements?

The bottom line…Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

Agree with USAFPilot on this one.

I fully expect that when Iran develops nuclear weapons, the Revolutionary Guard will immediately use them in an attack on the US.

And then the US will have to utterly end Iran.

I don't need to be an expert on Shia Islam to understand that Iran is a theocracy.

"Theocracy is a form of government in which a religious institution is the source from which all authority derives."

The country is run, ultimately, by the religious authorities who have based much of the nation's code of laws on religious law (Sharia Law).

No, the Iranian state is not a theocracy in a Western meaning. A "religious institution" does not exist. Iranian system is more complicated and includes many different institutions which are composed of members who come from the diverse sectors of society.

I am a "Westerner" and I realize that most Western people like to apply their own concepts and patterns to all cultures and civilizations. It is the consequence of ignorance, ethnocentrism, prejudices and intellectual laziness. Other cultures and civilizations have other ways to understand the human being, the society, the religion and the human life.

The Western concepts of religion and theocracy are firmly rooted in the cultural context of Christianity. But those concepts have not the same meaning in other cultures. For example, Islamic religion does not have a hierarchical organization as such, in a Christian manner.

So yes, you should study deeply in order to understand other cultures and civilizations. Otherwise your opinions will be based on misconceptions, absurdities and nonsenses. The use of inaccurate Western concepts in order to explain other cultural realities is a sign of ignorance and intellectual laziness. You have to do a lot of homework.

Yes, the US backed the Shah during the Cold War. Yes, he did some awful things, but more people were killed by the Theocrats in the first year of the revolution than all the years of the Shah's reign combined. The Iranian people also lost all individual freedoms and rights, forced to live by the interpretations of Sharia Law forced on them by violence by the religious class.

I think you do not understand anything I wrote in previous posts. Please read them again. I clearly stated that I am defending the Iranian people and Iranian culture, not their government.

The Shah repression, the war started by Saddam Hussein and the brutal economic sanctions, all supported and/or carried out by the US, have caused far more victims than the revolution excesses.

Again, it is evident that you know nothing about Shia Islam and the Iranian people. Most Iranian people voluntarily accept Sharia Law because Iranian people have profound religious convictions. Sharia Law, as a primary source of law, secures the freedoms and rights, although in a way which is different from the Western procedures. The problem does not lie in the Sharia Law in itself but in some wrong interpretations.

I think you do not know what Sharia Law is. Your opinions are full of the typical Western misunderstandings and distortions.

I just watched a video testimony of an Iranian woman who, when she was 14yo, was coming home in a crowded taxi and ended up having to ride in the front passenger seat. The religious police stopped the cab, accused her of basically being a Bleeped text and sent her to jail where she was sentence to 100 lashes. Her family was able to buy-off 80 lashes, and had to take the other 20. She was stripped naked, handcuffed to a metal bed frame and whipped until she lost consciousness with her back a torn and bloody mess. She took months to physically recover, and is still dealing with the emotional pain.

That's Iran today. And you defend that??

I think the Iranian people need more protection against their own government than they do against the US. The theocracy of Iran has murdered thousand and thousands of its own people -- dissidents, "undesirables" like people who are gay, apostates who try to convert away from Islam. How many did the regime kill in the abortive 2009 "Green Revolution" when many took to the streets to protest the regime, which unleashed the Revolutionary Guards and imported Hezbollah soldiers when local police and military refused to attack the protesters?

All governments and societies have many flaws and faults, and the Iranian government is no exception. The Iranian society has to change things. But the problems and faults which exist in the Iranian government and society have to be solved by the Iranian people. They do not need false liberators. The US is just a potential aggressor, an external colonial power, not a "liberator". The US has no legitimacy to play a part in the Iranian domestic political and social life.

Are the American society and institutions perfect? No. They have many flaws and faults, as any other society around the world. There are many examples of abuses of power in the American society. Racist behaviour and racist crimes committed by the police, discrimination and prejudices against racial minorities. In the US you can find countless examples of rapes and humiliations suffered by women and overlooked by local authorities. And there are many other examples of social problems in the US. That is the US today.

It is a good idea to avoid hypocrisy. Countries should clean their own rubbish first and not accuse other countries.

You don't like the US, fine -- but don't use that dislike to try and cover for and defend regimes like Iran's which are truly awful.
Say, and do you know what you can do to get the US to leave your country alone? Nothing. Yep. Just do *Nothing.* Don't attack the US, don't attack it's close allies, don't blow up hotels and condos with Americans in them, don't shoot missiles at our ships, stop pumping up the US as an external threat to cover for your own crappy government's mistakes, don't rant and rave on your national TV about killing Americans and then try and assassinate dissidents living in the US.

Again, I am defending Iranian people against the imperialist and rapacious intentions of the American government. The US supported dictators such as Saddam Hussein (until he was useless).The US protects and defends awful regimes such as the Saudis, a band of criminals, a bunch of murderers. The US supports dictators such as Al-Sisi. The US supported and supports today terrorist groups and paramilitaries who are not precisely defenders of human rights. A handful of despicable allies. Hypocrisy again.

I like American common people, like any other common people around the world. I dislike the US governments. They are dangerous, rapacious, despotic and imperialist.

For the most part, most Americans would be happy to let the world spin along on its merry way without our playing Global Cop.

Here's a for instance. If bin Laden wanted the US out of the Middle East his best move would have been to do -- nothing. The US had been ramping *down* its involvement in the Middle East prior to the 9/11 attack. The country was on the cusp of a new neo-isolationist phase, and President Bush had zero foreign policy goals. None. The US was already basically leaving the Middle East. All that attack did was propel the Middle East and
Islamist terrorism into our top priorities.

The wars in Iraq and Syria are real colonial wars. They were carried out in order to achieve economic and strategic goals. The war in Afghanistan had strategic motivations, and it was not just revenge against the Taliban. The US always has had interests in Middle East. The colonial powers (UK and France) and the US never have left that area. They have created new and artificial countries, they have enthroned false kings, they have supported dictators, they have provoked wars, and so on. And the way in which they created Israel was a disaster, a botch, a mess that has caused countless conflicts. And the problem remains unsolved today. So that "isolationism" never existed.

Some people should open their eyes, closed by the fanatical nationalism, and come out of their American bubble. The US is not fighting for "freedom and democracy" but for economic and strategic domination and hegemony, using all sort of despotic and criminal methods, and masking them with fallacies and propaganda. This is the real truth.

And if Iran is a democracy, why is a leader of the Revolutionary Guards making foreign policy statements?

Please, note that the Revolutionary Guards have no relevant place in the Iranian political and institutional structure. They cannot make decisions or establish state policies about international or domestic matters. They cannot enact laws. Those statements you are referring to are just propaganda. The Revolutionary Guards are mainly an instrument of propaganda but they have no real power at all.

Iran is not a democracy in a Western meaning. Other cultures and civilizations have to find the adequate political system according to their cultural characteristics. Western democracies are not the only one possible system. And they do not guarantee respect for the human rights. For example, The Belgian democracy caused the killing of more than ten millions of people in Belgian Congo. French, British and American democracies have committed many atrocities too. Again, I encourage the use of critical thinking.

The bottom line…Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

The terms of the nuclear deal make the production of nuclear weapons impossible. It is the solid conclusion reached by the best authority: the International Atomic Energy Agency. And this agency has verified and certified the Iranian compliance with the terms. If you disagree with the IAEA, you should discuss the matter with them.

I fully expect that when Iran develops nuclear weapons, the Revolutionary Guard will immediately use them in an attack on the US.

Sorry, but it is an unlikely "What if". And the Revolutionary Guards cannot make such a decision. I think you overestimate the power of that organization. Actually their power is minimal. I think it is the result of fake news made up by American propaganda.

The real Iranian aim is to develop their economy. It is an impoverished country, but they do not want to become a puppet country in the American hands. They want to maintain their independence. Actually their military capability is not a threat to the US. And the US government knows this very well despite all fallacies and propaganda made up in order to convince us otherwise.

No, the Iranian state is not a theocracy in a Western meaning. A "religious institution" does not exist. Iranian system is more complicated and includes many different institutions which are composed of members who come from the diverse sectors of society.
I am a "Westerner" and I realize that most Western people like to apply their own concepts and patterns to all cultures and civilizations. It is the consequence of ignorance, ethnocentrism, prejudices and intellectual laziness. Other cultures and civilizations have other ways to understand the human being, the society, the religion and the human life.
The Western concepts of religion and theocracy are firmly rooted in the cultural context of Christianity. But those concepts have not the same meaning in other cultures. For example, Islamic religion does not have a hierarchical organization as such, in a Christian manner.
So yes, you should study deeply in order to understand other cultures and civilizations. Otherwise your opinions will be based on misconceptions, absurdities and nonsenses. The use of inaccurate Western concepts in order to explain other cultural realities is a sign of ignorance and intellectual laziness. You have to do a lot of homework.

Iran, prior to the fall of the Shah was a largely secular nation with the majority of Iranians being muslim. Its civil legal system was at its core based on Western law and had more or less Western style social mores, with local Iranian cultural elements. Women and minorities had many more rights and were less persecuted under the Shah than today – because today Iran is ruled largely under the codes of Sharia Law. Sure, it may still have some elements of Western law, but the core law is now Sharia Law. And that's the "technicality" you're using to argue that Iran is not a theocracy.

Sharia Law is a complete civil, political, social and economic set of laws governing the whole of society, and nothing is separate from that religious law. And this is where the religious ruling class draws its moral authority from, though the appeal of actual democratic government is so strong that the theocrats go through the pretense of elections and parliament. But at the core the country is controlled by a religious dicatorships. The Supreme Leader runs the Council of Guardians, and *they* control Iran completely. Any elected politician serves only at their pleasure, and all policies and actions are overseen by and approved by the Supreme Leader and the Council, who purport to be the direct executors of Allah's will.

So it seems to me like you've studied just enough to think you know what's going on, as opposed to going past that surface layer. Why else can you say silly things like "Islamic religion does not have a hierarchical organization as such…"

Of course it does! Any human institution has hierarchy, and so does Islam. In fact, each sect of Islam has its own hierarchy, which can even differ depending on which country that sect is in.

I think you do not understand anything I wrote in previous posts. Please read them again. I clearly stated that I am defending the Iranian people and Iranian culture, not their government.
The Shah repression, the war started by Saddam Hussein and the brutal economic sanctions, all supported and/or carried out by the US, have caused far more victims than the revolution excesses.

LOL – you are in full throated defense of Iran as an oppressed "other" being attacked by the evil imperialist America. Keep reading, later on you'll vomit up some excuses for why Iran hangs gay people, flogs teenage girls, stones adulturers, and shoots its own people down in the streets when they protest.

Again, it is evident that you know nothing about Shia Islam and the Iranian people. Most Iranian people voluntarily accept Sharia Law because Iranian people have profound religious convictions. Sharia Law, as a primary source of law, secures the freedoms and rights, although in a way which is different from the Western procedures. The problem does not lie in the Sharia Law in itself but in some wrong interpretations.
I think you do not know what Sharia Law is. Your opinions are full of the typical Western misunderstandings and distortions.

Nope, read it, get it, and your understanding is weak. Sharia Law sure as hell does not secure freedoms and rights, it is a system that essentially takes Old Testament Deuteronomic Code and adds new stuff to it. It is designed to enforce control over the whole of society, aimed at ensuring that all submit to Allah's will as embodied in Sharia Law and the Quran. There is no concept of individual rights in Sharia Law, no concept of separation of Church and State because it is completely intertwined. And it applies Old Testament punishments to those who break Sharia and its local interpretations.

For example, in a Western nation of law, founded on Judeo-Christian principles, there is separation of Church and State, and you are free as an individual to believe or not, or to worship or not as you wish. As a Christian you could leave your faith and covert to Islam with no problem. However, in Iran, if you convert from Islam to Christianity you will be punished. In most cases you won't be executed, but you will be arrested, flogged and fined. In several cases Christian pastors have been executed for subverting Islam.

How's that sit with you??

All governments and societies have many flaws and faults, and the Iranian government is no exception. The Iranian society has to change things. But the problems and faults which exist in the Iranian government and society have to be solved by the Iranian people. They do not need false liberators. The US is just a potential aggressor, an external colonial power, not a "liberator". The US has no legitimacy to play a part in the Iranian domestic political and social life.
Are the American society and institutions perfect? No. They have many flaws and faults, as any other society around the world. There are many examples of abuses of power in the American society. Racist behaviour and racist crimes committed by the police, discrimination and prejudices against racial minorities. In the US you can find countless examples of rapes and humiliations suffered by women and overlooked by local authorities. And there are many other examples of social problems in the US. That is the US today.
It is a good idea to avoid hypocrisy. Countries should clean their own rubbish first and not accuse other countries.

That's called moral relativism – yes they did bad stuff, but so do you, so ptptptptp! And indeed, the Iranian people have tried to solve things in the last decade, but got a lot of blood for their troubles and no fixing. When the popular uprisings swept through middle eastern authoritarian societies, the Iranian people rose up while Obama tacitly took the side of the mullahs – as did the Europeans who just want their trade deals in place no matter who's in charge. With no external support, not even moral support, behind the uprising, the Mullahs felt comfortable unleashing their goons on the populace and shooting them down in the streets. It remains to be seen how long it will be before the next uprising.

Racist behaviour and racist crimes committed by the police, discrimination and prejudices against racial minorities

Yep, with 320 million people, some abuses will occur, but there is no codified system of government oppression or discrimination in place like in Iran. What you're pointing out as regards the US are the outliers. In Iran, the outliers are law.

In the US you can find countless examples of rapes and humiliations suffered by women and overlooked by local authorities.

Should be easy to find some examples if I happens "countless" times – please do so.

You don't like the US, fine -- but don't use that dislike to try and cover for and defend regimes like Iran's which are truly awful.
Say, and do you know what you can do to get the US to leave your country alone? Nothing. Yep. Just do *Nothing.* Don't attack the US, don't attack it's close allies, don't blow up hotels and condos with Americans in them, don't shoot missiles at our ships, stop pumping up the US as an external threat to cover for your own crappy government's mistakes, don't rant and rave on your national TV about killing Americans and then try and assassinate dissidents living in the US.

Again, I am defending Iranian people against the imperialist and rapacious intentions of the American government. The US supported dictators such as Saddam Hussein (until he was useless).The US protects and defends awful regimes such as the Saudis, a band of criminals, a bunch of murderers. The US supports dictators such as Al-Sisi. The US supported and supports today terrorist groups and paramilitaries who are not precisely defenders of human rights. A handful of despicable allies. Hypocrisy again.

1. Not really, the US poses no threat to Iran. Everything that's going on is totally driven by the actions of the Iranian government, who abuse the carp out of their people.
2. Saddam?? LOL! Not really, Saddam was the USSR's client state, not the US' despite a brief attempt to woo Iraq out of the Soviet sphere in the 1980s that was a total failure.
3. Yep, the Saudis suck. That's realpolitik, the enemy of my enemy is my ally of convenience. Iran wants to be the Hegemon of the Middle East, so what's the play to thwart that? Support the other guys – at least the Saudis don't seem to hold any imperial ambitions like Iran does. If you don't like the Saudi regime, and it sucks indeed, the Iranian regime is little different, btw.
4. Al-Sisi? Ya mean the guy that ended up leading a popular revolt against the crazy Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship? The MB emerged in charge after the dust had settled from the fall of Mubarak, and at first most Egyptians were like "yay, Mubarak is gone." Then the MB started going all Sharia Law dictatorship and rumbling about blowing up the apostate Great Pyramids, started whacking opponents, the economy went free fall and the people didn't like that. So they did another popular uprising and kicked out the MB. Al Sisi is a relative secularist who opposes Islamic extremism and has called for reformation of Islam. Does that not sit well with you?
5. "The US supported and supports today terrorist groups and paramilitaries who are not precisely defenders of human rights" – Yep, won't defend that.
6. "A handful of despicable allies" – like who? Names, please.

I like American common people, like any other common people around the world. I dislike the US governments. They are dangerous, rapacious, despotic and imperialist.

Dangerous? Sometimes
Rapacious? Not really, examples please.
Despotic? Examples please
Imperialist? Nah, we worked that out of our systems 100 years ago. Please name the US imperial possessions and colonies.

The phrase you need to apply is "Hegemon." The US is a leading Hegemonic power.

The wars in Iraq and Syria are real colonial wars. They were carried out in order to achieve economic and strategic goals. The war in Afghanistan had strategic motivations, and it was not just revenge against the Taliban. The US always has had interests in Middle East. The colonial powers (UK and France) and the US never have left that area. They have created new and artificial countries, they have enthroned false kings, they have supported dictators, they have provoked wars, and so on. And the way in which they created Israel was a disaster, a botch, a mess that has caused countless conflicts. And the problem remains unsolved today. So that "isolationism" never existed.

Hmmm…guess it depends on your use of the word "colonial." None of the three you mentioned are traditional colonial wars in the sense that they were designed to conquer and colonize territory. And the US has poured trillions of dollars into building up Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather than extracting wealth, the US has been depositing its own wealth into those countries. For instance:

1. Afghanistan: The initial engagement would be during the Soviet era, and is an example of anti-colonialism. The secondary engagement post 9/11 didn't start off as colonial in any way, it was purely punitive. The Taliban hosted brutal enemies, the US broke their power. And this is where, yes, the policy in Afghanistan became somewhat colonialist but not with traditional colonialist aims. The US engaged on misguided nation building efforts with the goal of imprinting Western style government on Afghanistan so it wouldn't stay a failed nation that grows dangerous global terror movements. So you could say that's a type of Colonialism, and as doomed to failure (as we've seen) as past Colonial efforts.

2. Iraq under Saddam chose to be an aggressive state sponsor of terrorism. Saddam had broken so many terms of cease fire that the US was already in technical state of war. So this war of choice, maybe technically colonialist, but not traditionally colonialist, was a strategic move to topple an inflammatory dictator and imprint a Western-style democratizing system onto Iraq so it would serve as a counterbalance to Islamism. Look, an Arab democracy! So it did not have traditional colonial aims, and as we see in Afghanistan, you cannot "nation build" the way the US tried to do. Yes, the US toppled Saddam and gave the Iraqis the chance or a new direction, but just like we saw in Yugoslavia there were so many internal factions who hated each other, only kept in check by the central government, that it boiled over into sectarian war – civil war – pretty quickly. And then Al Queda decided to go all in, shifted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq and was ultimately crushed by the US.

Iran also decided to get involved in a direct colonialist war by propping up Shia factions under Al-Sadr with the goal of creating an Iranian puppet state in southern Iraq. Iran also sent in organizers, Quds/RG troops and trainers and chose to attack US and Coalition troops (primarily Brits). They killed and injured thousands and inflamed the ivil war in Iraq.

3. Syra? Nah, not a colonial war. The US, under President Obama, inflamed the growing Civil War when we should have stayed out, but the Russians came to the defense of their old client State and Iran had been using Syria as safeharbor and as an ally against Israel for its Hezbollah puppets.

You missed the civil war in Yemen, btw – classic colonialism by Iran. Back a minority faction into power that becomes beholden to the colonial power for survival, and with the defacto control of Yemen through its Houthi puppets is waging a proxy war against Saudia Arabia, the Gulf States and the US.

Some people should open their eyes, closed by the fanatical nationalism, and come out of their American bubble. The US is not fighting for "freedom and democracy" but for economic and strategic domination and hegemony, using all sort of despotic and criminal methods, and masking them with fallacies and propaganda. This is the real truth.

Some of what you say is true, the US has its own interests and does desire to maintain its position in the world because we are apprehensive of the alternative. But the US could revert to isolationism as it has many times before. It was the top industrial power after its Civil War, but turned inwards. After WW1 it was the top industrial and military power and rejected that to turn inward. After WW2 the US could have literally conquered the planet with atom bombs and the only intact industrial base left – and was going isolationist until Soviet actions prompted the US to reverse course and become a reluctant superpower Why do you think the Korea War was so brutal? The US had so stripped its military of manpower that when the North Koreans attacked the South it had no assets it could send except hastily mustered, ill-equipped National Guard units who were used to try and buy time for a proper reaction. Those guys got chewed up, a miracle they held.

Please, note that the Revolutionary Guards have no relevant place in the Iranian political and institutional structure. They cannot make decisions or establish state policies about international or domestic matters. They cannot enact laws. Those statements you are referring to are just propaganda. The Revolutionary Guards are mainly an instrument of propaganda but they have no real power at all.

ROFLMAO! Oh, man and you tell me that I don't know what's going on?!? The Revolutionary Guards are the direct military arm of the Council of Guardians. They are the equivalent of the SS and internal KGB troops. They exist to defend the regime from threat, including their own people.

Iran is not a democracy in a Western meaning. Other cultures and civilizations have to find the adequate political system according to their cultural characteristics. Western democracies are not the only one possible system. And they do not guarantee respect for the human rights. For example, The Belgian democracy caused the killing of more than ten millions of people in Belgian Congo. French, British and American democracies have committed many atrocities too. Again, I encourage the use of critical thinking.

All fair points—but under which system do you prefer to live? Which systems invest some, or much, power in the people so as to allow changes to prevent the kinds of abuses we (probably) both agree we want to prevent? Which systems can be corrected by their people? Like Belgium and the Congo, for instance, in which there was no democratic check upon the power of King Leopold?
The bottom line…Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.

The terms of the nuclear deal make the production of nuclear weapons impossible. It is the solid conclusion reached by the best authority: the International Atomic Energy Agency. And this agency has verified and certified the Iranian compliance with the terms. If you disagree with the IAEA, you should discuss the matter with them.

Not my original words, but I'll respond anyway. Iran wants nukes, probably has some already, to ensure regime survival and to promote Iranian Hegemony over the Persian Gulf. The IAEA is a flawed institution that really works only well when countries have low nuclear weapons ambitions and it actively enforces limits with the backing of the US and other countries' military power and sanctions. It was unable to prevent India, Pakistan or North Korea from going nuclear – or Israel. Iran is playing for time, as Saddam was doing before the US toppled him, until it can go fully operational with nukes.

I fully expect that when Iran develops nuclear weapons, the Revolutionary Guard will immediately use them in an attack on the US.

Sorry, but it is an unlikely "What if". And the Revolutionary Guards cannot make such a decision. I think you overestimate the power of that organization. Actually their power is minimal. I think it is the result of fake news made up by American propaganda.

I don't think Iran would necessarily overtly use nukes, though it would threaten such (and has already). More likely is that the Iranian regime would think itself so clever that it could use Hezbollah or Hamas to sneak a nuke into a city and detonate it, thinking we wouldn't know who was responsible. And on that tragic day, should it ever occur, the US will be forced to obliterate one or more Iranian cities (if Israel doesn't do it) to show that Mutual Assured Destruction is in force.

The real Iranian aim is to develop their economy. It is an impoverished country, but they do not want to become a puppet country in the American hands. They want to maintain their independence. Actually their military capability is not a threat to the US. And the US government knows this very well despite all fallacies and propaganda made up in order to convince us otherwise.

That's totally laughable! If that was their goal, they are pretty bad at it. The way to develop your economy is through industry and trade, not spending heavily on weapons and terrorism. Not working to destabilize your neighbors and foment civil wars. Nope, you spend your resources on internal infrastructure, foster industry and innovation, seek trade deals and investment, and do what you could to conform to the norms of international conduct and commerce.

And honestly, no American give a carp about controlling Iran. Most couldn't point it out on a map, and we don't need anything from Iran. We don't need their oil – or anyone's oil, since the US is now a net energy exporter, they have few products at present we want to consume. And that's why the US is the leading counterweight to Iranian hegemonic ambitions – the Europeans are too much in bed, they need Iranian oil and they want to get in bed with the regime to make money.

Anyways, enjoy your gaming time, TTYL.

Firstly,

Your statements and comments are examples of islamophobia and ethnocentrism. They are the typical Western supremacist ideas based on ignorance, misconceptions and narrow-minded concepts about the human being. It is the classical colonialist way of thinking. According to this xenophobic way, only the Western people are the pattern to follow in every aspect of human life. Western society, which is the result of a specific history and of specific cultural characteristics, is the best of Universe, and the other cultures and civilizations are a bunch of primitive and despicable societies unable to reach the Western cultural levels.

You are absolutely wrong. Other cultures and civilizations have their own way to understand human being and human society. They have specific concepts of religion, law and politics, absolutely different from Western ones. So, Western concepts are not useful in those other cultures or civilizations.

So, taking into account your unfounded ethnocentric ideology, I do not want to discuss this matter with you anymore.

Secondly,

Again, your statements show that you know nothing about Sharia Law and about Islam in general, and you insist on applying Western misconceptions and distortions. This forum is not the adequate place for a discussion about religion, not just because it is a wargames forum, but also because you know nothing about other religions. Islamic religion has a concept of God (metaphysically and practically speaking) totally different from Christianity, and this fact has its consequences on the concepts of law and social organization. Islamic religion uses other concepts and procedures in order to establish freedoms and rights. But you cannot understand these matters unless you study deeply that religion. Otherwise you will continue despising in a childish way cultural aspects that you do not understand.

What I said in the previous paragraph can be applied to the Western concepts of theocracy and religious hierarchy. It is evident that Islam has not a power structure based on a rigid (vertical) hierarchy such as exists in Christianity (Catholicism and certain protestant churches). There are religious authorities such as sheiks, mullahs, imams and so on. There are experts on law, such as the ulamas. But there is no power structure like the Catholic one. And what is more important, there are no Sacraments, so cardinals, bishops and priests are not necessary. Muslims do not need intermediaries in order to practice their religion. Even mosques are not indispensable. Obviously other external aspects of religion are guided by experts, but they are not indispensable.

Regarding the separation of Church and State, we can see again the typical comparisons and distortions. Other cultures and religions have other historical paths and other points of view about religion and State. I recommend the reading of books by Fouad I. Khuri. He offers a basic explanation about this matter. Muslims do not feel that there is a conflict between Church and State because of their specific concepts of God and society. And they have their own reasons for this. You should study them if you want to avoid simplistic and wrong explanations.

By the way, in Islam nobody can consider himself as the God's will or the God's voice. These concepts are alien to Islam.

Thirdly,

Every society and every country should develop their own political system based on their cultural characteristics and points of view about human being and human life. You insist on your ethnocentric and distorted approach to political systems. The Western liberal democracy is not the only one way. It is a specific Western cultural and historical product that does not fit very well into other different societies. Perhaps you dislike other ways to understand the democratic system but they exist, and they will improve over time.

Iranian society and State are complicated. You insist on simplistic points of view about religious authorities based on tabloids and propaganda. For example, I would like to compare two different Iranian presidents. On the one hand Mahmud Ahmadineyad was not a religious leader, he was a technician. He came from a humble family. But nevertheless he was very conservative and a narrow-minded character. On the other hand and by contrast, Mohammad Jatami was a religious leader, an ulama and a philosopher. He was an open-minded leader and a moderate politician. So, Iranian society is diverse and complicated. Simplistic descriptions are not accurate.

Fourthly,

The example is illustrative, whether you like it or not. Racial prejudices and racist behaviour in the US can be found in institutions and in many social sectors. It is a structural reality nowadays. This problem has been present in America for more than 200 years and continues nowadays. And you pretend that Iranian society should solve their problems in just a few decades.
You should worry about your own rubbish and avoid accusing others.

Fifthly,

Yes, the US is a threat to the Iranian people, from the support to the criminal Shah until the economic sanctions nowadays. The US wanted (and wants today) Iran to be a puppet country, absolutely subject to American interests.
Saddam Hussein was incited and supported by the US (and the Soviet Union, France and many others) during his criminal attack on Iran, even when he used chemical weapons. All that nations were" allies of convenience", as you name them. The US was a partner in crime.

Regarding the Saudis, it is not realpolitik, it is despicable hypocrisy.

Iran does not want to be the Hegemon. Iran is realistic given its poor economic situation. Simply, Iran does not want to be gobbled down by the US and their despicable puppet allies. And the Iranian "regime" is totally different from Saudi's one.

Mursi was not a clever leader and he committed many mistakes, but he was democratically elected, he won the elections. If after the elections people do not like his policies, they should depose him democratically, not by a military coup. Many people were against Mursi, but many people supported him too. It was not a popular revolt. It was a typical military coup organized and supported by the US. Al Sisi is the typical puppet dictator totally subject to American and Israeli interests. For example, many American people are against Trump's policies but they do not organize a military coup. They will use democratic methods: the next elections.

By the way, the Muslim Brotherhood did not just "emerge" from nowhere. It was a social organization that had a long history and tradition.

Sixthly,

The US is a colonial power in a modern meaning. It is the historiographical concept of neo-colonialism (new colonialism). This new type of colonialism is based on economic dependence and strategic domination. Physical colonization of territories is no longer necessary. Those new empires only need dependent economies and puppet governments. It is a new type of imperialism that does not need the traditional colonies. It is the natural evolution of imperialism. So, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are examples of this new type of colonial war.

In Syria the colonial war had strategic motivations. It was a chess game played by the different powers. They wanted to dominate that area, each one for its own reasons. It is easy to know which aims were pursued by every power: USA, Israel, Russia, France, Turkey,… The losers were the Syrian people.

Regarding the war in Yemen, it is a complex history which includes tribal conflict, religious differences and external rivalries. It is the typical struggle between cultural minorities, many times repeated in Arabian Peninsula since remote times, with the addition of external actors.

In short, the US carries out new imperialist policies, using every kind of procedures at their disposal: invasions, bombings, economic sanctions, support to dictators, to coups, to criminal bands, to paramilitaries, and so on.

The US is a despotic power, imposing their policies around the world. For example, if the US decides to impose economic sanctions on a country, all countries have to obey this "order". If any country disagree and does not want to impose such sanctions, this country will be sanctioned by the US as well. The US can decide to impose sanctions but they have not the right to force other countries to do the same, threatening them with sanctions too. The US is a despotic power that has no respect for other countries' sovereignty.

Seventhly,

There are three branches (powers) of government in every State: executive, legislative and judicial. It is basic political theory. Well, the Revolutionary Guards do not take political decisions (it is the task of the government), do not make laws (legislative institution) and do not administer justice (courts and judges). The Revolutionary Guards may be a sort of militia, but they have no political power and they cannot make political decisions. They are used mainly as propagandists. It is easy to understand, right?

By the way, the CIA has immensely more power. This criminal organization makes the Revolutionary Guards look like Boy Scouts.

Eighthly,

The IAEA cannot make political decisions about countries and international relations. They are experts, scientists and technicians whose main task is to verify and certify political agreements related to nuclear matters, political agreements signed by governments. Iran has fulfilled the terms of the nuclear agreement. I do not know if Iran already has nuclear weapons. But I prefer to believe in the conclusions made by true experts instead of believing in the hypotheses imagined by a handful of wargamers.

Ninthly,

The brutal economic sanctions imposed by the US make the Iranian economic development impossible. Iran signed the nuclear deal in order to get the sanctions removed. Iran wants to maintain its sovereignty and independence. Yes, you are right. Iran could avoid those criminal economic sanctions. It is easy. Iran's only option is simple: turning itself into a puppet country totally subject to American economic and strategic interests.

In conclusion,

1. I think that some of your comments are impolite and disrespectful, they are poorly crafted and informed, and they can hardly be taken seriously. I am not interested in High School discussions. I think we are adults here. I am not interested in fanatical nationalist tantrums. And the patriotic pamphlets are irrelevant.

2. I would continue the discussion if you had a minimal level of knowledge about the discussed topics. I intended to suggest some basic bibliography in order to offer true knowledge about Islam, Shia Islam, Iranian culture, Iranian society, and so on, but I think it is pointless. It is evident that you prefer dubious sources such as tabloids and works written by fanatical islamophobic Christians or by outdated and biased orientalists. It is your choice. The ignorance and the intellectual laziness are voluntary options.

3. I have said all what I had to say. I do not want to waste my time anymore. I do not wish to continue this discussion anymore.

It is interesting to encounter folks with such a different world view on the Miniatures Page, who support what I feel is a totalitarian social order while enjoying the fruits of western liberal democracy.

Boy Ruchel certainly has an unusual view on the topic.

Boy Ruchel certainly has an unusual view on the topic.

Yep, the other time I ran into the same type of view was also from someone on the subject of Iran. The guy was a student at university in Canada sent there to study from Iran. Not only was he hardcore on Sharia, but he was also from a tribal people in northern Iran. So while studying in the West he didn't like the West, felt that the West had nothing to offer his people or Iran (then, like why are you studying in Canada???), and there was nothing about the West that he liked or admired….except for I guess, wargaming???

Oh, and since most Westerners are "settled peoples" who had betrayed their nomadic roots, we were all "less than his people" as well and didn't really count as human. Plus he hated the Turks for betraying the Caliphate, or something.

SBMini all the point you raised about Iran been an Islamic country ruled by Sharia and at the will on a limited number of people can be applied to Saudi Arabia.

SA is a feudal Islamic country directed by Sharia law. This is not UK, the king there is an absolut monarch (it means that he is bound by no law, if he wants you to get executed on spot, you will be with no recourse) and act as the prime minister. This form of government is way worst from a western standard than the Iran one and last seen during medieval time in Europe. In SA sharia law is also in full effect and applied. Gay people get lashes, women get stoned, etc., etc. (the list is way too long)

SA is a great promoter of Wahhabi Islam across the world. Paying all the extremist preachers in the western world pushing for a world Islamic Sunni revolution. They are the main engine behind the financing system of terrorism in the western world and beyond.

Yet SA is a great ally of the USA. Limited criticism is done by US president or media regarding their system even when journalist get slaughtered in their embassy, etc. The country is fully armed with Western weapons.

This dual language is what is undermining the credibility of the USA in the rest of the world. SA is the exact same kind of country than Iran, the only difference is that they will follow US will and provide an endless money flow to American politician or businesses.

So as long as SA will be a close US ally, nobody outside of the US will seriously listen to US criticisms about the way Iran is ruled and how bad they are.