31–40 of 84 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
After all? As if funding proxies in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and Iraq that undermine the state government’s sovereignty was not enough
Well yeah, but they still had a chance to play the victim after the US/Israel strikes (especially if some of the reports about how the negotiations went down are true). Lots of people are still primed to listen to it. But they're not interested in making it easy for their apologists, I guess.
Iran has the right to defend itself.
From who? Did the UK attack Iran?
Hideous double-speak in this article.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/01/uk-to-allow...
We're already seen those "defensive strikes" wipe out a school. This is an unprovoked, reckless, criminal attack, the perpetrators of which should be sent to the Hague.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which Republic are we talking about? The Islamic Republic or the western "republics"?
I am talking about the Islamic Republic setting up local mercenary forces in order to extract resources from the local government in Iraq and Lebanon. That's called Imperialism and was common among european powers in the 19th century
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems this was not the case, but this has all changed now for sure https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj98egkl7l1o https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/20/what-are-chago...
Those articles are both out of date.
This is probably military strategy 101 not to push your enemies together when they are having a rift
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am talking about the Islamic Republic setting up local mercenary forces in order to extract resources from the local government in Iraq and Lebanon. That's called Imperialism and was common among european powers in the 19th century
[flagged]
Iran's communication specifically calls these bases foreign soil. and "reassures" the host countries that the attacks are not against them. In this case it would be UK soil.
Iran has the right to defend itself.
Who is Iran?
The tiny minority of people with guns to everyone's heads?
The entity acting right now is a small ruling clique presenting themselves as 'Iran'.
A regime loses legitimacy to act when they don't have internal legitimacy - or does not act with legitimacy either.
Iran is supporting massive conflicts in Yemen, and is building non-defensive weapons capabilities.
That does not make US or Israel automatically 'the good guys' as they have their own lack of legitimacy problems.
US president started a war without Congressional approval, against wishes of allies. Unclear objectives, zero popular support.
Israel illegally colonizes West Bank, kills civilians etc.
It's all shades of grey, but there are lighter and darker shades.
And to make more complicated, lighter and darker given context as well.
Iran's communication specifically calls these bases foreign soil. and "reassures" the host countries that the attacks are not against them. In this case it would be UK soil.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which Republic are we talking about? The Islamic Republic or the western "republics"?
I am talking about the Islamic Republic setting up local mercenary forces in order to extract resources from the local government in Iraq and Lebanon. That's called Imperialism and was common among european powers in the 19th century
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does Iran communication describe the attacking of Saudi ARAMCO oil facilities and hotels in Bahrain and Dubai?
These countries are not sovereign states. They are western puppets with western armies on their territory. It makes these attacks only legitimate.