Thread: Iran

Tuesday, June 15th, was the first "anniversary" of the bloody events which took place last summer in Iran. Of course it was not and could not be the kind of anniversary one might expect.
Much has been said about the aftermath of that infamous presidential election which handed the power to the meanest monkey among present-day politicians. I ruefully remember that exactly a year ago, right after we managed to get home safe and sound through burning streets, we used to sit around and talk, and talk, and talk. Many nights were filled with heated political discussions literally till morning. And Russia was such a nice topic to talk about.
The gang of my 21-year-old classmates knew about my love for everything in connection with Russia, and I somehow had to play the role of attorney in a court where everyone else was against the accused. People wholeheartedly believed that Russia was providing political and military aid for the cheaters in election. At times, I found my duties as Attorney at Law exceedingly difficult.
In a word, Russia was the No.1 topic when it came to foreign policy talks. Does Iran matter to you too, Russian pals?
I would like to know what people on this forum, Russian or otherwise, thought of Iran last year. Did you know that something unusual was going on at all? And if you knew, how did you think of that?

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

Does Iran matter to you too, Russian pals?

It does to me.

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

Did you know that something unusual was going on at all? And if you know, how did you think of that?

You wouldn't believe how much of the controversy it stirred. It basically boiled down to the discussions around:

1. The oppressing regime should be ousted to allow people to live freely and happily.

vs.

The US is trying to bring the puppet government to the power and finally get to Iran's oil.

2. Iran should not be allowed to build the nuclear weapons and should be stopped by all means including the military operation.

vs.

Iran should build its own nuclear weapons so that the US would finally stop their attempts of taking over their oil and telling them how to live their lives.

3. Iran is an extremist Islamic state that is threatening to wipe Israel off the map, so Israel has a right to bomb nuclear objects of Iran (and the US should help Israel to do that).

vs.

Israel is an apartheid regime and as such should be wiped off the map by Iran (and the US should not prevent Iran from doing that).

4. Iranians had learned an important democratic lesson with those protests and in the next elections they will be more prepared and active.

vs.

The protests were sponsored by the US and all the slogans were in English to report on the money spent. All the world had seen that, so now we can hate the US even more.

And finally:

5. Let Iranians do whatever they want and decide for themselves, it's their business and no country is allowed to take any steps (including economic sanctions and preventing Iran from having nuclear objects). And if the Iranian election was fake, so are the most of the so-called 'democratic' elections. And that is because (even if the result are not faked directly) all people are brainwashed, ignorant and stupid and believe they have some type of freedom (which they apparently have even less just because they think they do have it). And Iran would probably not start a nuclear war. And nothing else bad will happen. (Or, the bad will happen anyways regardless of the discussions.) So, instead of talking about politics let's go and have some drink (and other types of entertainment)!

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

Tuesday, June 15th, was the first "anniversary" of the bloody events which took place last summer in Iran. Of course it was not and could not be the kind of anniversary one might expect.
Much has been said about the aftermath of that infamous presidential election which handed the power to the meanest monkey among present-day politicians. I ruefully remember that exactly a year ago, right after we managed to get home safe and sound through burning streets, we used to sit around and talk, and talk, and talk. Many nights were filled with heated political discussions literally till morning. And Russia was such a nice topic to talk about.
The gang of my 21-year-old classmates knew about my love for everything in connection with Russia, and I somehow had to play the role of attorney in a court where everyone else was against the accused. People wholeheartedly believed that Russia was providing political and military aid for the cheaters in election. At times, I found my duties as Attorney at Law exceedingly difficult.
In a word, Russia was the No.1 topic when it came to foreign policy talks. Does Iran matter to you too, Russian pals?
I would like to know what people on this forum, Russian or otherwise, thought of Iran last year. Did you know that something unusual was going on at all? And if you know, how did you think of that?

There was quite a heated discussion not so long ago - here viewtopic.php?f=4&t=20610

Let's be honest, Iran does not play a MAJOR part in Russia's everyday foreign affairs but still, when someone is talking of the Middle East, Iran pops up immediately. The main Russian concern about it is stability in the region. Let's be honest, even as inflamous as it is, there is a certain status quo there. It's like a card house - remove one piece and the whole thing collapses. That's why, I think, Russia will support anyone who will guarantee stability in Iran and will not express any radical thoughts. Even with your current president of which many western media sources speak as of some dictator Russia tries to continue the dialogue.
Another concern is Iran's nuclear program. Personally, I support it, but there are many who don't. There are even people who think that you shouldn't have a nuclear power plant, not to mention nuclear weapons, but I think that is what will secure Iran against Israel. If only there were assurances that Iran wouldn't use them first.

Originally Posted by Ramil

...Another concern is Iran's nuclear program. Personally, I support it, but there are many who don't. There are even people who think that you shouldn't have a nuclear power plant, not to mention nuclear weapons, but I think that is what will secure Iran against Israel. If only there were assurances that Iran wouldn't use them first.

Yeah, right. Israel can not wait to start a war with Iran.

There was quite a heated discussion not so long ago

I took a third glance at it. I had actually followed that discussion when it was taking place, but I wasn't a registered member then.
Personally, I find it rather ridiculous how any discussion about Iran turns into a discussion of the Iran-Israel conflict instantly. People bring up nuclear issues as if that's everything about Iran. I can understand the concerns of European countries about a possible nuclear Iran, but I believe those concerns are due to the troubled political relationships of Iran and the West. Israel has much better international (=American) relationships, so no talks about it's nuclear weapons.
So let's forget about Israel. Iranian people were imprisoned, tortured, and killed. It wasn't for Israel. Israel's got all Arab nations to worry about. And Iranians hardly care about a country without history and of about the size of our capital province. [Size doesn't matter, I know that!] To quote Captain Jack Sparrow: "Savvy?!"

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

Personally, I find it rather ridiculous how any discussion about Iran turns into a discussion of the Iran-Israel conflict instantly. People bring up nuclear issues as if that's everything about Iran.

It's just a hot topic, that is all to it. Sadly, you can hardly impress anyone in the world by saying the people are tortured and dying. Simply because any regime would always depict their enemies as evil and torture/kill them. (The democratic countries are no exception. It's only a matter of the amount of those prosecuted.) But, if you're saying a country is preparing to enter the nuclear weapons club at the same time explicitly expressing aggressive intentions, that makes people start paying attention rather closely.

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

...So let's forget about Israel. ...

Умничка!
You be careful over there!

But, if you're saying a country is preparing to enter the nuclear weapons club at the same time explicitly expressing aggressive intentions, that makes people start paying attention rather closely.

That's the only part of your message I can't agree with. Please notice: that was partly the reason why we didn't want this person as president. In all presidential debates, there were talks of why we have to make so many enemies for ourselves in the world.
By the way, there is a certain country that has actually used nuclear weapons, and has spent the last century of it's history in wars at the corners of the world. Be a love and don't tell me that open aggressiveness annoys anyone.

Умничка!
You be careful over there!

I have absolutely nothing against Jews, and nothing against Israel as a nation. My point was that Israel was in no way responsible for what was going on in Iran.

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

By the way, there is a certain country that has actually used nuclear weapons, and has spent the last century of it's history in wars at the corners of the world. Be a love and don't tell me that open aggressiveness annoys anyone.

You wouldn't believe how much the 'anyone' have been annoyed. One of the very noticeable debates in that 'one certain country' was how that specific president made so many enemies for them in the world.

Unfortunately, that way of thinking didn't stop that one president from going on and making so many enemies for his own country. Consequently, the other president will most likely not be stopped by a good half of his country disagree with him on that issue.

Putting aside Iran's nuclear ambitions there's another issue I wanted to clarify. I have a friend (a catholic Arab if you can imagine that) from Lebanon. We were talking about the Middle East and he mentioned that Shiite vs. Sunni conflicts are even more severe than in the case of Arab vs. Jews. Is the matter about Mohammed's successors really that important?
And I don't believe in theocratic government also. I find it ineffective in the modern world. What do you think about it?

Is the matter about Mohammed's successors really that important?

It's about as important as the matter of Mohammed being the "successor" of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ being the "successor" of Moses, and Moses being the "successor" of Abraham, and Abraham being the "successor" of Noah, and so on all the way to Adam and Eve. In other words, it's not important at all.
Alas, people are fighting over such matters all the time. The most stupid wars of history were provoked by religious considerations.
I am with you when you say that a theocratic government is ineffective in the modern world. Not that religion and modernity are totally at odds with one-another, but religion isn't the way to run an entire country. More generally, any ideological government is inconsistent with demands of the modern world.

I don't think either Israel or Iran would be so stupid as to attack the other and risk starting an all-out war in the Middle East. Everyone would lose.

I don't support the idea that Iran (or any other country) should have nuclear weapons; but I don't see the logic, moral or fairness in saying that certain countries are "entitled" to have nuclear weapons while others are not.. Iranian government is not my business and I have no strong view on it; it's for the Iranian people to sort out themselves!

Misha's comment about Russian intervention in the Iranian election was surprising: Really I don't think Russia is interested in interfering in other countries much at all right now. I'd be really surprised if Russia intervened in Iran in any concrete way. Seems that Russia is interested in doing business with Iran, not much else. I really can't imagine why Russia would care whether Iran has nuclear weapons or not. Attacking Russia with nuclear weapons would be suicide for any country, including Iran, and everyone knows that.

I think there is a SERIOUS risk that the USA is attacks Iran in the future though; as soon as the Afghanistan/Iraq commitments are over. There is a real agenda against Iran in the media, and exactly the same talk about nuclear weapons proliferation as we saw before the attack on Iraq. If they add to that an accusation that Iran supports terrorism, then that's all the reasons they need to attack!

If the US has a "hit list" Iran is definitely on top of that right now.
I really wouldn't think that a foreign invasion is the solution to any problems that the Iranians have with their government...!

Misha, would you be able to comment on the recent execution of Abdolmalek Rigi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdolmalek_Rigi)?
Thanks.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Misha, would you be able to comment on the recent execution of Abdolmalek Rigi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdolmalek_Rigi)?
Thanks.

Well, I'm not Misha, but what exactly do you want to hear? According to the link you provided, this man was a leader of a radical Sunni militant group who supposedly killed 22 civilians. Though I cannot say I've heard of it, still, I found the details of his arrest very interesting, and his execution is what a normal government would do to a criminal anyway. You know I've never supported the moratorium for death penalty in Russia so generally I approve.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Misha, would you be able to comment on the recent execution of Abdolmalek Rigi

От тебя первого слышу! (Можно на "ты"?)
Apparently he was executed yesterday morning. I've been studying hard for final exams and didn't follow the news. I can't help thinking that he was probably executed while I was racking my brains over problems of analytical mechanics.
Let me speak plain. This guy was a filthy bastard. He was a cruel terrorist, and the fact that he tried to look like a hero makes his image even more hideous. He was guilty, no doubt. His execution was nothing but sheer justice.
A couple of weeks ago Максим Шевченко was discussing "смертная казнь" in his show "Судите Сами". I know both sides have their arguments. If you are asking me about my attitude towards execution, I am opposed to it in general. Yet I live in a country where murder is punished by execution in most cases. In such a case as that of Rigi, I totally approve of it.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Well, I'm not Misha, but what exactly do you want to hear?

Umm.. Actually, I noticed that Rigi had made several post-arrest statements on the state TV explaining the US, NATO and Israel support to the Jundullah. And since Misha had mentioned the torture I assumed Rigi was forced into those statements. So, I was wondering was Rigi a controversial figure or something like that. You see, Ramil, it was a genuine question. No need to get defensive.

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

От тебя первого слышу! (Можно на "ты"?)

Вполне. You see, we're really interested of what's going on in Iran.

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

In such a case as that of Rigi, I totally approve of it.

Ok, let me re-phrase my question. For example, once upon a time in a 'small and uninteresting country with no history' far far away there was another head of a terrorist organization. His name was Yassir Arafat. So, eventually he became a Nobel Peace Prize winner and a head of state. Then again, in another fun country there was (and still is) 'a bit fun' guy Nelson Mandela who was a co-founder and a leader of Umkhonto we Sizwe, the armed wing of the ANC. (Of course, it's all well-known that their main business was sheep breading and agriculture, but they also did something else part-time.) In the end, he also became a Nobel Peace Prize winner and a head of state. So, if Iran goes on and on executing the heads of the terrorist organizations, would you share the fear that Iran would run out of the Nobel Peace Prize winners and the heads of state?

You forget that Abdolmalek Rigi was a Sunni while the Iran has a Shiite majority.

Originally Posted by Ramil

You forget that Abdolmalek Rigi was a Sunni while the Iran has a Shiite majority.

So what? He could still become a Nobel Peace Prize winner and a head of state of the independent Sunni state on Iran's territory with the capital in Tehran. Name an objective obstacle to that.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Name an objective obstacle to that.

hmmm what could it be?