.
I ask you to read this (shockingly, already 15 years old!) blog post first:
I ask you to read this (shockingly, already 15 years old!) blog post first:
So, Iran is sponsoring terrorism abroad, right?
 |
| graphic taken from U.S. Congress |
Well, look at the following map and search for "coincidences":
 |
| regarding copyright: see lower bound of image |
The so-called proxies turn out to be Shia / Shi'ite groups outside of Iran.
This opens the possibility that the Western public (not terribly literate on such issues) misunderstands Iran's policy regarding support for outside groups. It might actually be about
- support for religious fellows who are (or feel) oppressed by sunni-dominated governments
- an effort to overcome the solitude as only Shia country by having at least some friends abroad
Again (I wrote so previously), maybe the best approach to overcome the war in Yemen including the Red Sea crisis and missile launches on Israel is to split Yemen into a Shia state and a Sunni state. The unification of both Yemens was an obvious mistake.
We should have a peace conference with incentives to both Houthis and their main opponents to agree to a partition (preferably with better-drawn borders, but a decent seaport for the Houthis) rather than focusing on shooting down Houthi munitions and bombing them targets in Houthi-controlled territory.
Lebanon's issues could be addressed by replacing the Shia sponsor Iran with a more secular, more international order-focused sponsorship.
Last but not least another thought; even a democratic Iran would still be majority Shia and might still behave very similarly, feeling solidarity with Shias abroad, supporting their cause in some way, including arming them!
S O
.
There is so many problem with your post, that I don't even know where to start.
ReplyDelete1- Iran only has bad relations with countries aligned closely with Israel, they heavily supported the secular nationalist regime of Assad, for example and enjoy good relations with countries such as Algeria.
2- Iran does not have proxies, just groups with a shared struggle.
3- The whole Sunni VS Shia BS is a long held Zionist narrative in an attempt to divide up the ME.
4- The Houthis enjoy a great deal of support from most Yemenis, which is why they lasted this long under severe pressure, where as the other parts of Yemen are backed by the Americans and are a minority of Yemenis.
5- The international order and law are very much dead, as proven in Gaza.
Clearly this isn't a Sunni VS Shia conflict, but a conflict between. Free West Asians and American imperialists.
This is why I can't trust anything that comes out of American occupied European commentators, you are always out to advance false Zionist narratives.
Utter nonsense; the direct counterpoint is Iran’s activities in Iraq. The Saudis, UAE, Qataris, etc. all have issues with Iranian backed “trouble makers.”
Delete"The Saudis, UAE, Qatari"
DeleteAll of these are simply proxies for the US.
Infact, Qatar is at this point an American military base that just so happen to have Arabs in it.
If they were motivated by religious causes, most certainly they wouldn't be thus supportive of the US, as the US has done nothing but protect and expand their hated enemy (Israel).
Nowadays the U.S. is more of a proxy to Saudi-Arabia than Saudi-Arabia a proxy to the U.S..
DeleteSunni-Shia violence is a lot older than Zionism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Shi%27ism
*Nowadays the U.S. is more of a proxy to Saudi-Arabia than Saudi-Arabia a proxy to the U.S.*
DeleteYes, just look at all the Saudi military bases in the US.
And how the US actively regularly attacks Israel in line with Saudi Wahabbi ideology and how US politicians spend the majority of their time discussing how to best serve Saudi Arabia and how much they adore it.
Why should I take anything you say seriously?
And the idea that I would learn about any historical trends from Wikipedia is even more laughable.
Look at all the American military bases in Saudi-Arabia - that is, not a single one. This is 2025, not 1992.
DeleteUS politicians don't discuss in the open how best to benefit Saudi-Arabia. They just do it. Such as sending the navy into Saudi waters to protect their trade.
"Why should I take anything you say seriously?"
Well, ditto. You're an anon on the internet without track record. I have an 18-year track record on this blog. Check that out to see how trustworthy I am.
Wikipedia is a handy link to point people at things when I cannot expect them to know about them.
And again, an anon without track record and identity has zero credibility, whereas Wikipedia is well over 90% accurate. So it wins hands down over your facts-free comment.
"Look at all the American military bases in Saudi-Arabia - that is, not a single one. This is 2025, not 1992."
DeleteAre we splitting hairs now?
There are plenty of US assets (aircrafts, troops, etc...) deployed across the kingdom.
"They just do it. Such as sending the navy into Saudi waters to protect their trade."
America sends assets across the world to secure its imperial control over various regions in the world, it's how the US manages to tax everyone via its petro dollar scheme.
"Well, ditto. You're an anon on the internet without track record. I have an 18-year track record on this blog. Check that out to see how trustworthy I am."
Wow, you spend 18 years writing on some blog and you have to yet to amass an audience?
That's quite sad.
Anyhow, I still cannot take anything you say seriously, given your habit of making utterly idiotic and baseless assertions.
"Wikipedia is a handy link to point people at things when I cannot expect them to know about them."
I am not going to read Wikipedia, it's insulting to my intelligence.
"And again, an anon without track record and identity has zero credibility"
Irrelevant as I make no arguments from authority.
"whereas Wikipedia is well over 90% accurate."
Not on any contentious topic, as it insists that any source that disagrees with its editors political views are invalid.
No, the U.S. avoids having troops in Saudi-Arabia (country of Mecca and Medina) bc that provoked hostility.
DeleteThere are marines at the embassy mostly.
https://www.cfr.org/article/us-forces-middle-east-mapping-military-presence
The U.S. bases in the region are in smaller countries around S-A.
"America sends assets across the world to secure its imperial control over various regions in the world, it's how the US manages to tax everyone via its petro dollar scheme. "
That sentence makes no sense.
"your habit of making utterly idiotic and baseless assertions."
Well, I feel free to not take you seriously, either. Disagreement isn't the same as the other guy is wrong, though. People who correctly identify some idiotic statement are usually able to clearly argue why it's idiotic. You didn't.
"I am not going to read Wikipedia, it's insulting to my intelligence."
That's bad, for I think it was written for people like you.
I'm reading peer-reviewed papers by researchers for a living and I have a personal library on military and technical stuff. There are no reliable sources. Wikipedia is fine, simply correct it with a source if you believe to know where it errs. Only once I wasn't able to correct an error due to moderation.
"No, the U.S. avoids having troops in Saudi-Arabia (country of Mecca and Medina) bc that provoked hostility.
DeleteThere are marines at the embassy mostly.
https://www.cfr.org/article/us-forces-middle-east-mapping-military-presence
The U.S. bases in the region are in smaller countries around S-A"
US military aerial assets regularly use Saudi airports for operations, just as they did during the gulf war, I have no reason to assume otherwise.
I can reasonbly deduce that they do, since SAUDI-US dynamics have not changed since the gulf war.
"That sentence makes no sense."
How so?
Are you denying the existence of American Empire?
"That's bad, for I think it was written for people like you."
I am aware.
"I'm reading peer-reviewed papers by researchers for a living and I have a personal library on military and technical stuff"
What a pathetic appeal to imaginary authority.
"Wikipedia is fine, simply correct it with a source if you believe to know where it errs."
The staff will insist that any source that contradicts their narrative is unreliable.
The wiki staff usually has a narrative to push and they go out and attempt to collect any source that validates said narrative.
Throughout our conversations I have noted that you reject reasonable deduction and insist that truth can only be derived from a handful of American propaganda outlets like the CFR.
ReplyDeleteYou furthremore more deny the existence of American Empire, which makes this conversation pointless as your willingness to deny reality on behalf of your masters makes having an objective discussion impossible.
Utterly Buck Broken germ!
You must have written that "reasonable deduction" with invisible letters then.
DeleteThe American empire is basically Samoa, Virgin islands, Puerto Rico and Guam.
The leaders of all other countries laugh about the POTUS and pity him for his addled brain. Nobody is subservient, some play and bribe the POTUS.
One might debate whether there was some bigger American empire in the past, but there sure ain't one now.
"The American empire is basically Samoa, Virgin islands, Puerto Rico and Guam."
ReplyDeleteThat is demonstrably false.
Not even the most ardent of America's supporter would agree to this.
This is what I meant when I said that you are unwilling to recognize reality.
" The leaders of all other countries laugh about the POTUS and pity him for his addled brain."
The POTUS is irrelevant, he gets replaced every 4 or 8 years.
What matters is American empire.