Leader of Iranian Quds Force Terminated by Order of Trump

Regimes that are 100% totalitarian don't last.
I've got Kim Jong-un on the line for you, can you spare a few moments
 

TamH70

MIA
I've got Kim Jong-un on the line for you, can you spare a few moments
Whatever evil sod that's currently running Equatorial Guinea would like a word too.
 
Momentum (Tehran) publicity stunts backfires

Didnt know Momentum where such fans of the US.

This is actually a pretty big deal IMO. Things seem to be changing in Iran.
 
Funny thing is, as was noted by some big cheese on on't telly, if the process to blow up embassies was in train, it would still go ahead even after you killed the alleged bad man behind it.

And here we are, no big smoking holes in the ground on the site off former US Embassies.

Meanwhile, Its as close as the Canadian PM can come to calling the US actions 'BS'

Google the phrase CHECK FIRE.

You silly.
 
NK can’t be Fiefdom, unless you take the Allies as the granters of the Fief to Kim Il Sung. The problem here is that the Kims haven’t shown any particular adherence to the notion that a fiefdom comes with the obligation to show allegiance or provide service of some sort. Fiefdoms don’t operate as entirely independent entities - they may be almost completely autonomous when used in the modern sense (that’s Professor Snooks’ own Fiefdom, where the Trust managers tread warily/the QM operates stores as though it were his own personal Fiefdom, and not even the Brigadier dares interfere’). But that’s not NK.

Phot_Ex is correct that NK doesn’t quite fit the traditional definition because of the bonkers way the state is established.

It’s a ‘dictatorship of people’s democracy’ and has two parties which are - in theory only - capable of being opposition parties - opposition parties which don’t actually oppose and whose candidates are chosen by the Workers’ Party. The elections involve one candidate from the three parties (so either the official WKP candidate or the one chosen by them from the other two), and you have a choice of voting either for the candidate or - under supervision - crossing out the name of the chosen candidate to show your disapproval.


AIUI, what tends to happen is that someone from the WKP will be nominated as the official disapprover (for want of a better phrase), quite possibly the candidate themselves, and show their disapproval so that candidates don’t all get elected with a 100% share of the vote. They’re the only people who are allowed to disapprove (in the case of candidates, it shows their humility, which means that they are the perfect person to represent their ‘constituents’, as the WKP wisely decided when choosing them).

So it’s not a Fiefdom, but because of the existence of other parties - there used to be a Buddhist one, but they don’t run in elections any more (again, their candidates were chosen), and the party is now one of the notionally independent bodies in DPRK society - it doesn’t strictly fit most of the definitions of a Totalitarian state.

I’d suggest that it is a Dynastic Authoritarianist Dictatorship if we’re being picky, but ‘Totalitarian’ does the job in fewer words and isn’t exactly imprecise...
 
Trade and JCPOA - Iran behaves

Donald throws it all in the bin - Iran misbehaves


Iran does play by strategic rules, alas, Donalds can't understand the difference between Irans tactical local actions, and its strategic aims
Hmmmmm, so whilst JCPOA was in place Iran was still funding and supporting Hama, Hezbollah, Houthis, rogue militias in Iraq and Syria. And you call that behaving.

I think the thing that you just don't see (or don't want to see) is that Trump can see what Iran's strategic aims are. Or are you in that big river in Egypt
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
I've got Kim Jong-un on the line for you, can you spare a decade?
As my old Donegal granny Connie 'Confucius' Corcoran used to say:

' If wishes wuz horses - beggars wid ride !'
 
Hmmmmm, so whilst JCPOA was in place Iran was still funding and supporting Hama, Hezbollah, Houthis, rogue militias in Iraq and Syria. And you call that behaving.

I think the thing that you just don't see (or don't want to see) is that Trump can see what Iran's strategic aims are. Or are you in that big river in Egypt
do you understand the difference between regional and strategic aims?

You sound like the sort of chap that seemed awfully surprised having parked umpteen thousand troops along Irans border in the bit of shiite Iraq it regarded as its near abroad, Iran reacted a bit badly.

iran runs two axes action.

It’s regional tiff with the house of a Saud - see Yemen, Bahrain, Syria

its strategic tiff with the Americans it wants gone from what it sees as its near abroad - see Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf.

they don’t export ‘terrorism’ despite the claims of Shrub and a Trump.
 
do you understand the difference between regional and strategic aims?

You sound like the sort of chap that seemed awfully surprised having parked umpteen thousand troops along Irans border in the bit of shiite Iraq it regarded as its near abroad, Iran reacted a bit badly.

iran runs two axes action.

It’s regional tiff with the house of a Saud - see Yemen, Bahrain, Syria

its strategic tiff with the Americans it wants gone from what it sees as its near abroad - see Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf.

they don’t export ‘terrorism’ despite the claims of Shrub and a Trump.
You clearly don’t understand any of this....
 
/\
|
|
|

Wot he said



do you understand the difference between regional and strategic aims?

You sound like the sort of chap that seemed awfully surprised having parked umpteen thousand troops along Irans border in the bit of shiite Iraq it regarded as its near abroad, Iran reacted a bit badly.

iran runs two axes action.

It’s regional tiff with the house of a Saud - see Yemen, Bahrain, Syria

its strategic tiff with the Americans it wants gone from what it sees as its near abroad - see Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf.

they don’t export ‘terrorism’ despite the claims of Shrub and a Trump.
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
Another viewpoint , from a former State Dept official:

Source


More sanctions are unlikely to change Iran’s calculus. There are few historical examples of sanctions forcing the sort of sweeping changes that Washington now demands from Iran. Iran’s malign activities also cost little (it spends approximately $2 billion to $3 billion per year on proxy groups throughout the region, according to the State Department). Its entire defense budget is a tiny fraction of what American allies like Saudi Arabia spend per year. Its population has long struggled economically, with per capita GDP historically one-seventh of Mississippi’s, the nation’s poorest state. And Tehran cares little for its citizens. (Its failure to close civilian air space when launching ballistic missiles against Americans in Iraq is the latest example of both malevolence and incompetence.) Iranians courageously protesting their ruling system deserve support, but revolutionary change from the bottom up is unlikely so long as the regime remains united from the top down with a monopoly of force and the proclivity to use it in the most brutal of ways.

Worse, the maximum pressure campaign allows Tehran to externalize the blame for its dysfunction and to justify further crackdowns on Iranians striving for reform and accountability.

For all of these reasons, the record to date suggests that additional economic pressure will more likely result in counterpressure on Washington than in a better nuclear deal or significant changes in Iranian behavior and policies.
 
Basically a Republican Guard leader saying they finance themselves through kidnapping and ransoms. He reckons they got $1.5bn for an American spy and says they should kidnap more Americans to make $50bn. Also says that Qatar gave them $3bn blood money for Solemaini as the Americans conducted the strike from there.
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top