So what that problems are everywhere???

And your point is ??? Want me to accept one evil because it has the "Islam brand" attached to it??
That's just ignorant and percisely the type of mentality that will keep middle east back

In arabic what you just did now is called Maqlate. It is a technique mullahs use. It is to ""misdirect" . They bring something that is obviously bad to prove their way is good. Like saying music industry is corrupted and the people in film indusfry are dirty so cinema and music being haram is a good thing

I just don't understand how you want the problem fixed, clearly more damage is done to iran through western sanctions and regional geopolitical pressure than through incompetence and culture. Incompetence and corruption are important to focus on, sure, but I don't really understand being under the impression that the ticket to fixing things is simply fixing a resulting issue of a greater problem rather than the anger being correctly directed at a greater threat of which is more directly causing the correlative problems. It'd be the equivalent of me saying the US would be fixed by simply electing a good president rather than saying clearly the issue is the US government as an entity itself. Like Assad runs a secular government, but you still call him a western puppet, and still say he's part of the problem. So what is the other option? Being a country like Albania that fixes its problems by simply fixing its period of instability by becoming a western satellite? If we were able to go back 200 years ago and fix things sure, i agree with you, but we can't, so i don't understand doting on things which are at best secondary problems

My opinion is that if you learn in the right manner, you'll actually find it's way easier than you think it is. Learning vocabulary is quite easy and speaking is not too difficult either. I think the rules of the language are easy to pick up on too. The real issue imo comes from the level of abstraction and assumption in the language, it's not as extremely specific tense-wise as most western languages. so like it's a lot easier to pick up and learn (and even conjugate, since rules are very consistent), but it can be very hard to "intake" in terms of understanding immediatedly sometimes (at least to me). I think the real challenges are writing (like from scratch not on a keyboard) and listening (mainly due to accent and recognizing conjugations and structure in action) as opposed to speaking (which i find very easy) and reading (which is really just recognizing vocab + conjugation).

Look mate it is true that the crown took control as soon as bunsen got the engine going. They are still in control. Your problem is that you think the ayatollahs are opossing it.

Anyone that tried to cut BP off in Iran been exiled. The westerners killed millions of iranian during the famine that they caused during wwii and exiled a powerless king who couldnt even get his generals to fight back. They controlled his 18 yr old son till he expired then replaced him with an option that served their purposes of the time... an option against the communist ideology of the time

Here is the big difference. During those two shahs even with their corrupt governments people who got their management position ( like a hospital chief or school principle) did so based on their skill level and not their religion and how thick their beard was.

You see that's why the economy during muhammad reza shah wasnt so f***ed and a primary school teacher could afford to build himself a big house and have 7 children. This is not the case today. First the Mullah problem has to be solved before we can sort the west out.

But that's exactly what I'm saying. The shahs were only there essentially because of western interference and embracing. If you want to go back to that, that's fine, but you shouldn't be under the impression doing so will do anything except realign the country to at worst the western bloc and at best non-alignment (which in modern history basically just means being a proxy or not wanting to say alignments because of regional tension, look at India). This becomes a circular argument, returning to Shahs or secularism isn't going to challenge the west unless Iran suddenly becomes Cuba, and that doesn't really seem possible given the secular options that exist are essentially pro-West.

also yeah the economy wasn't f***ed under the shahs because the US didn't completely embargo and sanction the f*** out of it since they weren't diametrically opposed...

Why are you so fixated with going back to the Shah? Why can't Iran have a secular government without a permanent supreme leader? Why is this not an option? Can you elaborate?

I'm just copying from what you said, you explicitly mentioned the shahs. Like sure, you can theoretically have a secular government without shahs, of course. But the framework for that can mean anything. What do you want? A secular democracy? A one-state one-party system? You clearly don't want something like Baathism, Nasserism, Jamahiriya since you accuse those of being puppet ideologies. So iIf you got rid of Khomeneni and had someone like Ahmadinejad as a secular president with no supreme leader, what would that fix? I don't have any doubt Khomenei is an idiot and incompetent, but he's clearly not the root of most of these problems, ESPECIALLY not economics. Unless you are saying the sole root of Iran's economic woes is the integration of the islamic banking system. But even that isn't actually true, even under Khomeini there are latent connections to Russian financial systems via non-SWIFT connections, and the root of why there isn't further integration isn't islamic banking restrictions, it's western sanctions.

Why is he not the root of economic problems when his family members run the import export game?

What I believe in is not important. The Important thing and what im worried about is the fact that if it keeps going like this with the mullahs in charge and the pace they keep there will be no Iran left, the ecosystem will be destroyed too

Is he the one who put the embargo and sanctions on the country, making it so legitimately no one in the entire world can do so much as even transfer money to Iran or face having their country cut off from the entire world's trade supply? The only argument I'm sympathetic to is that they haven't pursued self-sufficiency, but even that I'm skeptical of as an argument. They aren't in a situation like Cuba where it's just the US carrying out a regional geopolitical vendetta. There are actively other countries besides the US (Israel) whose like entire being is just targeted at destroying any attempt of self sufficiency Iran tries (nuclear power for energy so they wouldn't have to rely on power grids elsewhere for example). Plus you get too self-sufficient and uh oh you end up like Ghaddafi the next day with a paid rebellion against you. The country is between a rock and a hard place regardless of leadership.

His actions fuel the fire...
His family members pocket the money ;)
Oh How the mullahs benefit from the sanctions haha

What would you do to fix the problem given the country is cut off from anything in the world basically in terms of international relations and also is targeted for sabotage at even the smallest attempt at self-sufficiency

If i was president? Put qualified people in management positions regardless of their gender race belief system or blood line.

Sure, that's understandable, but is that really going to fix the root issues Iran is facing right now?

Yes

Gonna agree to disagree on that

If people stopped buying into religious stuff and stopped taking it so seriously the imperialists would fail in carrying out their agenda.

They want big war in middle east between muslims iran vs saudi type of s***. They gonna present middle easterners as savages in the western media and do like they always do play the role of the White Knight hero

Not sure if I agree with that when you look at what interventionalism has done in, say, south america, which definitely does not have the same tension and regional in-fighting.
Agree that it certainly lends itself to exploitation, but cultural in-fighting in the region far pre-exists western imperialism and general capitalism. So it certainly doesn't help things and it may lend itself to exploitation, but interventionalism definitely is a kind of conjunctive overriding force at worst, its influence is only further exponentiated by general societal chaos elsewhere

Ofcrouse it far existed... the brits discovered and exploited it like a weakness

No isms gonna fix middle east.

People need to raise awareness so people stop listening to mullah's stories. It is 21st century you cant be spending time listening to a guy with a fancy get up telling you stories about talking animals and s*** like that. Flying Donkey time is UP i hope the donkey 🧠 dude realizes it soon

Under religious regimmes good pretenders thrive. Sociopaths are good pretenders. They do the deed to get the cheddar.

I'm confused about the PLO, i probably know the least relatively about palestine of all arab nations and peoples, you probably know more on this so im actually curious. i know in the 90s the PLO recognized Israel as a state, but i don't really understand why, especially since it didn't actually do anything, neither to their benefit (besides some idiotic symbolic gestures from Israel), nor to anyone else's. Was it just a reluctant attempt at international legitimization? I know the Arab League recognized the PLO originally, but what is the current status given many Arab League countries now actually just recognize Israel themselves?

I wouldn’t say the whole PLO recognized Israel more so just Fateh (Arafat’s party) seeing that they had the most power within the organization. Basically within almost every Revolutionary struggle there is someone or some group that sells out and betrays the Revolution. In the case of Palestine this was Arafat and fateh which eventually became the Palestinian Authority and Abbas.

When it comes to Arab nations recognizing the occupation it’s simply them betraying the Arab nation as a whole by bowing down to the western imperialists it’s pretty simple.

Statement from Nasrallah (head of Hezbollah)