2 thoughts on “Iran”

  1. The former administration’s policies “empowered Russia and Iran, produced ISIS, strengthened al-Qaeda and created the refugee crisis which became a strategic threat to Europe,” according to one analyst from the BBC.

    All those chuckleheads telling us that Hillary was some kind of foreign policy savant conveniently overlook this. The media couldn’t even bring itself to report on anything in context over there much less criticize the Obama administration playing the dominant role in creating the climate.

    Had their been slave markets in Iraq or the mass capture and sale of women into sex slavery under a Republican President, we would still be hearing about decades from now.

    How many people has to die, become slaves, and be displaced from their homes just because Obama thought Islamists were pretty OK, that Russia needed appeasing for our sins in the Cold War (Red Scare), and wanted to get a deal that enables Iran to get nukes?

  2. ISIS? You mean Al-Qaeda. They started out during Carter’s reign when the US supported the Islamofascists against the USSR’s puppet regime in Afghanistan. The US invasion of Iraq (Bush’s fault) and Libya (Hillary’s fault) only accelerated their expansion and eventually they spread elsewhere like into Syria as well.

    Iran was never in good relations with ISIS since Wahabists and Shiite don’t mix that well. Wahabism is kinda like the Protestant iconoclast/nihilist phase of the Sunni branch of Islam. While the Shiites still pretty much venerate saints and the older Islamic traditions.

    Iran had a democratic regime once already. It was destroyed by the West to put the Shah as a dictator to rule over Iran. The eventual result was a revolt which led to the Islamic Republic regime it has today. You could say the West destroyed the democratic regimes in both Iran and Iraq and let to the rise of tyrants in order to ensure an easier supply of oil and a more pliable regime in both Iran and Iraq.

    Contrary to what you think, I would venture to say Iran isn’t over extended. Most of the hardware resources they’re deploying are old stocks, with only some tests of their newer technology, and Iran has a quite large and young population to serve as fodder in those wars. They have all the plausible deniability they could ask for if they want to disengage as well. Also contrary to what the news piece says, Iran has mostly acted defensively, first in the Iran-Iraq war, and now in support of the Shiite regimes in Syria and Iraq. Sure they are a state sponsor of terrorism, but so is Saudi Arabia, the USA, China, Russia, and while Israel is no longer guilty of that, they still conduct targeted assassinations all over the globe even today.

    I’m more worried that all the isolation of Iran will do is lead to a re-armament of Iran with modern Russian and Chinese hardware, countries with which in the past they had only tepid relations at best, which will make the possibility of an assertive Iran more rather than less possible. Currently their armaments are mostly obsolete, but this could easily change, once their only oil customer becomes China, I think this will eventually lead to large purchases of Chinese military equipment. Considering the current state of Chinese missile and naval systems this could be quite dangerous to Western interests in the Persian Gulf.

Comments are closed.