Israel V Iran war dangerous stage starting

[Muhammad_1996]

I think that the US only wants an anti-climax of the 1979 revolution, which was also backed by the US.
In this way, they can install a regime who will openly declare peace with Israel and sign the nuclear deal too.
Everyone in the room happy :-)

1979 revolution was not backed by US.

 

[crankthskunk]

I have a different take on the US jumping the Israeli bandwagon at this time. Rather I would say that it was the US who prompted Israel to go ahead with these attacks.

The US wants China to be stopped from CPEC. It tried to drag China into a war many times, the recent examples are of Taiwan and Pakistan India skirmishes. At the last G-20 Summit, they also announced a parallel project to CPEC (IMEC)

Now, it is targeting Baluchistan from the Iranian side. Surprised to see the Failed Marshall at DC called up for line haazri? not allowed in the Army parade and not allowed to leave the US soil amidst this worsening crises in the region? speaks volumes in silence.

The US is at war with China, it needs to stop CPEC or at least delay the functioning until their parallel project is up and running; capturing a greater market before China. You know, the early bird catches the worm

CPEC is almost stopped since this government has come to power. Remember the speech Bajwa gave, which was not the remit of a COAS. But in Pakistan, no one gets punished. India started Chabahar and fooled the Iranians completely. In the guise of investment, India planted spies for Israel. We are seeing the result during the current war. Those of us who live in the West know very well how broken the systems are in the West. They are not very efficient and productive. China has passed the stage of control. China is intelligently avoiding them; one day it would have no choice but to opt for war. They will leave no space for China except the war. We all should know it; it is very simply the control of the world. Always had been for a few thousand years now. Just look at the history, and everything becomes crystal clear.

 

[Sohail Shuja]

1979 revolution was not backed by US.

and Iran was not a US ally in the 1980-81 Iraq iran war?

 

[Sohail Shuja]

CPEC is almost stopped since this government has come to power. Remember the speech Bajwa gave, which was not the remit of a COAS. But in Pakistan, no one gets punished. India started Chabahar and fooled the Iranians completely. In the guise of investment, India planted spies for Israel. We are seeing the result during the current war. Those of us who live in the West know very well how broken the systems are in the West. They are not very efficient and productive. China has passed the stage of control. China is intelligently avoiding them; one day it would have no choice but to opt for war. They will leave no space for China except the war. We all should know it; it is very simply the control of the world. Always had been for a few thousand years now. Just look at the history, and everything becomes crystal clear.

The thing is that China is working.... not only through CPEC, but from all sides, in Pakistan.

Right now, most of our foreign debt is owned by China. So, perhaps it is waiting for the right time to reign in its debt-chain control, as it did in Sri-Lanka.

The West may think that China is only working for Baluchistan, while on the other hand China is increasing its footprint at the Karachi port, unnoticed, in the meanwhile.

Your analysis of Chabahar is correct.

 

[Muhammad_1996]

and Iran was not a US ally in the 1980-81 Iraq iran war?

absolutely NOT. bro you really need to read more. US, Soviet Union (todays Russia), France, Germany all supported Iraq.

 

[Sohail Shuja]

Bro you really need to read more.

Oh, I do even try to read even between the lines too.

The US's withdrawal of support of Shah of Iran led to the Iranian revolution in 1979. This was how US was fooling Shah. Six months earlier, the CIA gave him a report that there is not going to be any revolution in Iran.

Then there is a book titled "Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987" by Bob Woodward. There he has described how the US and CIA supported the Iranian regime in the Iran Iraq war, covertly.

 

[Muhammad_1996]

Oh, I do even try to read even between the lines too.

The US's withdrawal of support of Shah of Iran led to the Iranian revolution in 1979. This was how US was fooling Shah. Six months earlier, the CIA gave him a report that there is not going to be any revolution in Iran.

Then there is a book titled "Veil: The Secret Wars of the CIA, 1981-1987" by Bob Woodward. There he has described how the US and CIA supported the Iranian regime in the Iran Iraq war, covertly.

that's bullshit. its open secret Shah was a US puppet, US intelligence had no idea that mullahs could kick out Shah. they were more concerned about the communist parties in Iran. Even shah used to ignore the mullahs, but once people came out supporting mullahs, it was too late. Although shah tried to press them and killed thousands of people but at the end he had to flee and US personals were also forced to flee. and in the war with Iraq which started even less than a year after the revolution, the whole west (US, UK, France, Germany, Soviets) all supplied arms to Iraq,

 

[Sohail Shuja]

that's bullshit. its open secret Shah was a US puppet,

So was Zia ul Haq. But these are the assets which are disposed off after their useful life.

US intelligence had no idea that mullahs could kick out Shah. they were more concerned about the communist parties in Iran. Even shah used to ignore the mullahs, but once people came out supporting mullahs, it was too late. Although shah tried to press them and killed thousands of people but at the end he had to flee and US personals were also forced to flee. and in the war with Iraq which started even less than a year after the revolution, the whole west (US, UK, France, Germany, Soviets) all supplied arms to Iraq,

Selling arms is a business. In WWII, US was an ally of the USSR. Does it mean that they became partners for the long haul?

It was necessary for the US to let the mullahs take over Iran, because prior to that, Iran signed concessionary oil contracts with the British and the Russians. So, it was necessary to overturn Iranian regime in order to deprive Russia from the oil of Iran.

 

[Muhammad_1996]

So was Zia ul Haq. But these are the assets which are disposed off after their useful life.


Selling arms is a business. In WWII, US was an ally of the USSR. Does it mean that they became partners for the long haul?

It was necessary for the US to let the mullahs take over Iran, because prior to that, Iran signed concessionary oil contracts with the British and the Russians. So, it was necessary to overturn Iranian regime in order to deprive Russia from the oil of Iran.

go back to your claim that US was an ally of Iran in Iran Iraq war. how did they support it? by supplying arms to Iraq and also sharing important intelligence with Sadam? you are making no sense here.
The Shah did not sign major concessionary oil contracts with the British or Russians. The British had historical concessions (pre-Shah), renegotiated under his rule in 1954, while no significant oil concessions were granted to the Soviets.

 

[Sohail Shuja]

go back to your claim that US was an ally of Iran in Iran Iraq war. how did they support it?

I already referred you a book which details how the US supported Iran in that war.

by supplying arms to Iraq and also sharing important intelligence with Sadam? you are making no sense here.

In WWII, the US did not directly or overtly supply arms to the Nazi Germany, but its companies which had branches in Germany were instrumental in the raw material supply of the arms. This is business and was also necessary to lift the US out of its 1930's great depression.

So, people who know, know that the US supported both Germany & the allies as well. Does it make sense to you? NO?

Iran was supported by the US in the same manner. The Iran-Contra affair involved the clandestine sale of arms to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages held in Lebanon. This directly contradicted the US policy of not negotiating with terrorists and provided a source of arms for Iran.

The Shah did not sign major concessionary oil contracts

Who said that? I said "Iran signed" those contracts.

while no significant oil concessions were granted to the Soviets.

Point taken.

 

[Muhammad_1996]

bro, Iran signed those contracts during the democratic time of Prime minister Musadiq in 1950s. US did a regime changed and installed the Shah of Iran. your logic is firing back on you.
and that book clearly says US supported Iraq during Iran Iraq war. read that again.

Who said that? I said "Iran signed" those contracts.

 

[Sohail Shuja]

bro, Iran signed those contracts during the democratic time of Prime minister Musadiq in 1950s. US did a regime changed and installed the Shah of Iran. your logic is firing back on you.
and that book clearly says US supported Iraq during Iran Iraq war. read that again.

Come out of this Bro. I never said Shah signed the deal.
And the book clearly tells the story of this historical event:

Iran–Contra affair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Muhammad_1996]

Come out of this Bro. I never said Shah signed the deal.
And the book clearly tells the story of this historical event:

Iran–Contra affair - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Shah was installed because Iran signed the deal in 1050s, so what's your point when you said US pulled its support for Shah because of the deal. the dots are not connecting.
read the same wki link you shared. it clearly says US supplied minimal amount of weapons to release its held hostages, so it was like a ransom. the war lasted for 8 years. that Ian contra affair lasted almost 1 year.
BUT. The U.S. primarily supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) with economic aid, intelligence, and dual-use technology to counter Iran’s revolutionary government, while covertly selling arms to Iran through the Iran-Contra affair (1985–1986) to secure hostage releases, bypassing Congress. US and its Allies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates provided Iraq with financial aid, loans, and logistical support. The Soviet Union, France, China, USA and the United Kingdom supplied Iraq with weapons and military equipment

 

[Sohail Shuja]

Shah was installed because Iran signed the deal in 1050s, so what's your point when you said US pulled its support for Shah because of the deal. the dots are not connecting.
read the same wki link you shared. it clearly says US supplied minimal amount of weapons to release its held hostages, so it was like a ransom. the war lasted for 8 years. that Ian contra affair lasted almost 1 year.
BUT. The U.S. primarily supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War (1980–1988) with economic aid, intelligence, and dual-use technology to counter Iran’s revolutionary government, while covertly selling arms to Iran through the Iran-Contra affair (1985–1986) to secure hostage releases, bypassing Congress. US and its Allies like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates provided Iraq with financial aid, loans, and logistical support. The Soviet Union, France, China, USA and the United Kingdom supplied Iraq with weapons and military equipment

Now you are getting into reading and reading the right things.

As per your acceptance of the fact about the Iran-Contra affair, now it is time to move to the next lesson-- Iran Pipeline.

Here is a CIA report of US supplying arms to Iran through Israel, even before the Iran-Contra affair

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00965R000504340006-3.pdf

Secondly, you are yourself referring to a conundrum of Iraq yourself, where you clearly see US supporting them at one time and then the same US taking them out at another instance. But you are adamant of any similar thing happening to Iran, why?

In the international community, it is a standard that " There are no friendships, just interests". People like Shah of Iran or even Saddam Hussein, for that matter, are merely pawns in the game --disposables.

 

[Muhammad_1996]

Now you are getting into reading and reading the right things.

As per your acceptance of the fact about the Iran-Contra affair, now it is time to move to the next lesson-- Iran Pipeline.

Here is a CIA report of US supplying arms to Iran through Israel, even before the Iran-Contra affair

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP90-00965R000504340006-3.pdf

Secondly, you are yourself referring to a conundrum of Iraq yourself, where you clearly see US supporting them at one time and then the same US taking them out at another instance. But you are adamant of any similar thing happening to Iran, why?

In the international community, it is a standard that " There are no friendships, just interests". People like Shah of Iran or even Saddam Hussein, for that matter, are merely pawns in the game --disposables.

again, answer this question. Shah was installed because Iran signed the deal in 1050s, so what's your point when you said US pulled its support for Shah because of the deal. the dots are not connecting. the war lasted 8 years, US supported first 6 and half years to only Sadam in hope that he might roll back the Islamic revolution. then later when it was not successful they provided some arms to Iran in exchange of release of US personals. it was a ransom.
connect the dots first.