Iran stopping part of the implementation of the nuclear deal

[Heathen Hammer]

"Putting down a foreign insurrection " isn't an accurate description of Iran's role in the Syrian rebellion, though, given that they actively assisted the most radical jihadists in going to Syria, likely in an effort to discredit the rebellion as a jihadist endeavor.

That's a wild spin, but we are yet to see any evidence that it somehow corresponds with reality.

Interestingly enough, Russia did the same, as did Assad by emptying his prisons of extremists, IIRC. Iran and Syria also have a long history of helping ISIS against Iraq and Coalition troops; their fight against ISIL is very much a new development. If civil war, terrorism and revolution is what Iran means by stability, no wonder no one is interested.

Um, no they did not. Most of support for jihdaist groups in Syria came from Gulf theocracies which are ideologically aligned with groups like AQ and ISIS. Of course, US-backed "moderates" were hardly any better. And Iran helped Syria wipe floor with these beheaders. Iranians are the good guys here.

[Common Soldier]

So when an endless string of American, Israeli and Saudi politicians/despots call for Iran to be bombed (including with nukes), Iran should better believe them.

That's the reason why any country would be a fool not to go for nukes when threatened by the US. Deterrence is the only thing that works. Give your WMD's away and the US will attack you, as history has proven repeatedly.

Iran isn't the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism, the US is. By a huge margin that is bigger than the relative spending on military.

You feel threatened by Iran spreading some "Islamist revolution" world wide even though you wouldn't even be able to provide a single example for that. The US has been supporting and facilitating the rise of Wahhabi & Salafi Islamism worldwide since the Eisenhower days (1950s) at the latest. It is still supporting radical islamist groups in e.g. Syria, whereas Iran supports a secular government.

Not to mention the fact that the difference between Irani Shiite Islam and Wahhabi/Salafi Islamism is about as huge as that between Quakers and Westboro Baptist church.

You hands down prefer fantasy to reality, don't you?

When the US got out of the Middle East, the violence did not stop, it just got worse, which undermines you claims.about the US. Far more civilians were killed by religious Muslim fanatics in the Middle East than the US ever did. Most of the violence in the Iraq was caused by Iran and other Islamic groups doing their best to destabilize it the use of IED and other means. Irsn has been as actively supporting and giving the technical assistance to the making of IED, whose primary use has been to kill men, women, and civilians. Take a look at Syria, that mess has nothing to do with the US. And while the US has to share responsibility for the state Iraq is in, Iran also has to share blame, since it did all in I s power to prevent a stable Iraq government from forming, training insurgents to build IED (the IED devices were built with Iranian technical support). Iran actively supports terrorist around the world, terrorist who deliberately attack women and children. The Iranian don't kill.kill children as part of collateral damage while attacking military targets as is the case with the US military, deliberately killing civilians including children is the goal of Iranian and other Islamic terrorist around the world.

[swabian]

When the US got out of the Middle East, the violence did not stop, it just got worse, which undermines you claims.about the US. Far more civilians were killed by religious Muslim fanatics in the Middle East than the US ever did. Most of the violence in the Iraq was caused by Iran and other Islamic groups doing their best to destabilize it the use of IED and other means. Irsn has been as actively supporting and giving the technical assistance to the making of IED, whose primary use has been to kill men, women, and civilians. Take a look at Syria, that mess has nothing to do with the US. And while the US has to share responsibility for the state Iraq is in, Iran also has to share blame, since it did all in I s power to prevent a stable Iraq government from forming, training insurgents to build IED (the IED devices were built with Iranian technical support). Iran actively supports terrorist around the world, terrorist who deliberately attack women and children. The Iranian don't kill.kill children as part of collateral damage while attacking military targets as is the case with the US military, deliberately killing civilians including children is the goal of Iranian and other Islamic terrorist around the world.

Absolutely. Whatever it is that upsets you, let's import that . Everybody will love it.

[Heathen Hammer]

When the US got out of the Middle East, the violence did not stop, it just got worse, which undermines you claims.about the US. Far more civilians were killed by religious Muslim fanatics in the Middle East than the US ever did.

US didn't really leave Middle East since Cold War and violence in Iraq is direct result of America's illegal invasion in 2003, as well as countries US is actually allied to such as Saudi Arabia and other similar theocratic regimes.

Most of the violence in the Iraq was caused by Iran and other Islamic groups doing their best to destabilize it the use of IED and other means. Irsn has been as actively supporting and giving the technical assistance to the making of IED, whose primary use has been to kill men, women, and civilians.

Citation needed.

Take a look at Syria, that mess has nothing to do with the US.

LOL yes it does, Obama and his terrorist Saudi buddies backed terrorist groups there, similar to how they did same thing in Libya.

And while the US has to share responsibility for the state Iraq is in, Iran also has to share blame, since it did all in I s power to prevent a stable Iraq government from forming, training insurgents to build IED (the IED devices were built with Iranian technical support). Iran actively supports terrorist around the world, terrorist who deliberately attack women and children. The Iranian don't kill.kill children as part of collateral damage while attacking military targets as is the case with the US military, deliberately killing civilians including children is the goal of Iranian and other Islamic terrorist around the world.

Again, there is no evidence that Iran committed terrorist attacks there, and situation in Iraq, as was pointed out above, is direct result of American aggression.

[Bethrezen]

The Americans are already blaming Iran for attacking four oil tankers:

This is what Iran does ... The sort of thing you could see Iran doing ... It fits their M.O. (modus operandi)

Take a look at Syria, that mess has nothing to do with the US.

Search any recent news about Syria, this one, for example, then see how US backed groups like Jaish al-Izza are fighting together with al-Qaeda Tahrir al-Sham and other Islamist and terrorist groups against the governmental forces.

[Gigantus]

I can't shake the feeling to watch a pre-scripted performance.

Act 1 - where the protagonist walks away from a multilateral agreement with his nemesis
Act 2 - where the protagonist puts financial pressure on his nemesis and exhorts others to do the same on pain of penalties for themselves
Act 3 - where the protagonist discovers a plot by his nemesis
Act 4 - where the protagonist gathers his forces to protect himself and his interests from the plotted deeds
Act 5 - where the protagonist has his forces in place and plotted deeds happen conveniently and mysteriously on cue
Act 6 - a repeat of the final act in the long running 'they have WMDs!' play?

[Prodromos]

@HH: 1) thenational.ae/world/assad-regime-abetted-extremists-to-subvert-peaceful-uprising-says-former-intelligence-official-1.319620 2) thedailybeast.com/russias-double-game-with-islamic-terror 3) treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2287.aspx

[Abdülmecid I]

Iran is not responsible for the desintegration of Yemen. That's the equivalent of blaming France or Qatar for the Arab Spring in Libya and Syria respectively. The dictatorship of Hadi fell apart because it continued the policy of his equally authoritarian predecessor of bombing and discriminating against a religious minority. Hadi's regime was evicted from Sana'a, because he and his advisors managed to completely underestimate the efficiency of the Houthis and the significance of tribal alliances. In any case, even the minimal support Iran has provided to the rebels had only materialised after the surprising victory of the Houthis, not before.

Irsn has been as actively supporting and giving the technical assistance to the making of IED, whose primary use has been to kill men, women, and civilians. Take a look at Syria, that mess has nothing to do with the US. And while the US has to share responsibility for the state Iraq is in, Iran also has to share blame, since it did all in I s power to prevent a stable Iraq government from forming, training insurgents to build IED (the IED devices were built with Iranian technical support). Iran actively supports terrorist around the world, terrorist who deliberately attack women and children. The Iranian don't kill.kill children as part of collateral damage while attacking military targets as is the case with the US military, deliberately killing civilians including children is the goal of Iranian and other Islamic terrorist around the world.

Citation needed for the claim that the Iranians deliberately kill civilians. Iranian proxies in Iraq almost exclusively targetted the American occupation forces, which cannot be qualified as civilians. Iran has an active interest in maintaining a stable and friendly government in Baghdad, protected from ill-meaning foreign influence and Salafism, which is why she was one of the first states to react against the advance of ISIL. Moreover, the United States are one of the main responsible parties for the current sorry situation of Syria. Not only did they support violent, sectarian jihadists, but also insist on strangling the country's fragile economies through extremely harsh sanctions, which undermine reconstruction projects and are even responsible for the dramatic collapse of the healthcare system. On the contrary, Iran and her allies have helped to keep the sovereign Syrian Republic united, despite the attempts of Islamist warlords and have largely saved the Fertile Crescent's multireligious mosaic from extinction.

@HH: 1) thenational.ae/world/assad-regime-abetted-extremists-to-subvert-peaceful-uprising-says-former-intelligence-official-1.319620

This is a common conspiracy theory, but, in reality, it is only based on the subjective interpretation of a single event by totally biased individuals, either members of the opposition (like the quoted anonymous Syrian deserter) or lobbyists advocating for military intervention, on behalf of their employers. As the article explains, the release of hundreds of Islamists from the Syrian prisons was nothing but a sloppy effort of Damascus to satisfy one of the principal demands of the protestors, asking for the freedom of political prisoners. Simply put, the vast majority of the ideological adversaries of the government is composed of religious zealots, whose allegiance ranges from the Muslim Brotherhood to openly Salafist terrorist groups. Unfortunately for the authorities, their failed initiative only succeeded in enhancing the experience of the rebel leadership and encouraging the demonstrators to radicalise their rhetoric. Even from a common sense perspective, it would be suicidal to improve so decisively the skills of your enemies, in order only to render the prospect of a future foreign invasion morally slightly more controversial to the Western audience.

[Swiss Army Cheese]

Iran helped Syria deal with foreign insurrection.

Syria doesn't count, they're Near East, not Middle East. The Middle East starts east of Turkey and the former Roman Ottoman Empire.

So I guess there was the insurrection in Iraq.

[Heathen Hammer]

@HH: 1) thenational.ae/world/assad-regime-abetted-extremists-to-subvert-peaceful-uprising-says-former-intelligence-official-1.319620

And of course they "forgot" to include any evidence that would prove those allegations or that former official even exists in reality and isn't just product of some journo's propagandist imagination.

2) thedailybeast.com/russias-double-game-with-islamic-terror

Forcing terrorists to leave your own territory isn't nearly as close to how much America and terrorist states in Gulf backed terrorist groups in Syria including financial, material and military support.

3) treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/jl2287.aspx

This article doesn't even prove your point, its just usual neocon whining about Iran gaining nukes. Which wouldn't even be a bad thing, if countries like Israel(which is basically a chimp with a loaded gun at this point) can have them, then so should Iran.

[Caduet]

When the US got out of the Middle East, the violence did not stop, it just got worse, which undermines you claims.about the US. Far more civilians were killed by religious Muslim fanatics in the Middle East than the US ever did. Most of the violence in the Iraq was caused by Iran and other Islamic groups doing their best to destabilize it the use of IED and other means. Irsn has been as actively supporting and giving the technical assistance to the making of IED, whose primary use has been to kill men, women, and civilians. Take a look at Syria, that mess has nothing to do with the US. And while the US has to share responsibility for the state Iraq is in, Iran also has to share blame, since it did all in I s power to prevent a stable Iraq government from forming, training insurgents to build IED (the IED devices were built with Iranian technical support). Iran actively supports terrorist around the world, terrorist who deliberately attack women and children. The Iranian don't kill.kill children as part of collateral damage while attacking military targets as is the case with the US military, deliberately killing civilians including children is the goal of Iranian and other Islamic terrorist around the world.

This has been btfo already, but Iran's arming and training of Shia militias legitimately saved the nation of Iraq. When israeli-proxy forces were storming across the nation and the US-"trained" national army immediately broke and fled, it was the Iranian militias who held the line and prevented the fall of Baghdad. If Baghdad fell, the slaughter and anarchy israel wishes to spread as part of the Yinon Plan would have been a reality.

Meanwhile, America's Greatest Ally® is already making sure its dumb golem has to die alone in Iran:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/netany...n-us-tensions/
typical israel behavior, especially from bibi. Be the driving force behind tensions and warmongering, then back off and let the goyim do the fighting. How any American can see israel as anything other than a hostile parasite just shows the effectiveness of israeli brainwashing and subversion.

[Common Soldier]

This has been btfo already, but Iran's arming and training of Shia militias legitimately saved the nation of Iraq. When israeli-proxy forces were storming across the nation and the US-"trained" national army immediately broke and fled, it was the Iranian militias who held the line and prevented the fall of Baghdad. If Baghdad fell, the slaughter and anarchy israel wishes to spread as part of the Yinon Plan would have been a reality.

I am not sure what you are talking about. ISIS is not Israel's proxy force as you imply, although I conceded that Iran's Shia militias might have stopped the the ISIS. You can't blame Israel for all the problems of the Mideast, many of the problems the Muslims created entirely themselves. Others may have exploited conditions in the Muslim world, but they did not create them in the first place. For example, the relative backwardness of the Muslim world is all due to the Muslims themselves - the Muslims rejecting the printing press for 300 years is all on them, and just a symptom of the problems.

And yes, the US trained national army did not do well, but a big part of it was that Iran did everything in its power to sabotage the US efforts at nation building. Trainees of the Iraq army were the primary target of the Improvised Explosive Devices that frequently build with the technical assistance of Iran. Iran's opposition to ISIS was primarily because they were not Shiite.

Meanwhile, America's Greatest Ally® is already making sure its dumb golem has to die alone in Iran:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/netany...n-us-tensions/
typical israel behavior, especially from bibi. Be the driving force behind tensions and warmongering, then back off and let the goyim do the fighting. How any American can see israel as anything other than a hostile parasite just shows the effectiveness of israeli brainwashing and subversion.

I agree with some of what you say. Israel isn't really friends with anyone, including the US, but it uses the US for its own ends, that is true, and Israel is only allies with the US because it suits their purposes. But in part Israel's attitude results from frequently being picked on the the rest o the Arab world and the UN as well. Israel is routinely condemned in the UN for actions that other nations have even a worse record, but have never been censored for by the UN. Turkey's genocide against the Armenians and other Christian groups received a lot less censor than Israel's actions, although they killed far more. The Christian and non Islamic populations have been targeted by Muslims, yet the UN has largely remained silent on it, and the Islamic world is very vocal about how Israel has treated the Palestinians, but totally silent on how Muslims treat non Muslims in every country they are in charge. Pakistan and Bangladesh used to be 10% Hindu and Sikh, now they are something like 1%. Atrocities committed by Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Sudan, etc,, against non Muslims are ignored. The ancient Jewish communities that existed in places like Egypt, Yemen, and Baghdad that existed for thousands of years have been exterminated with no protest from the Islamic world or UN.

So Israel does have a chip on its shoulder, and why not, when repeatedly the Muslim world tries to wipe Israel off the face of the earth, and the Palestinian people have never truly acknowledged Israel's right to exist, not really (if you read between the lines of what the Palestinians leaders say, they actually don't acknowledge Israel's right to exist. They will acknowledge that some Jews could be allowed to live in a joint Palestinian state, but only those Jews that were native and lived in the area before the rise of Zionism.) Palestinians want Jerusalem as a capital of their stated, yet deny allowing Israel to be be allowed Jerusalem to be its capitol. Only Israel is not given the right to choose where to make its capital of all the countries of the world. Israel, and Israel alone, not allowed to decide what city it should have as a capital. So does Israel feel the world is against them? Yes. Is the feeling justified? Yes.

Conditions in the Mideast won't improve until the Muslim world looks at itself in the mirror and stops blaming every one else for their own problems. Long before Britain, France, or even Rome was carving out their empire, the Iranians were conquering people. And the Persian empire did far less for its subject people in developing infrastructures like building aqueducts, roads, and bridges, etc., than the Romans did. The Iranians have repeated demonstrated intolerance to anyone who doesn't follow their fundamentalist creed. Iran is the kind of regime that executes 16 year old girls when they are raped ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atefeh_Sahaaleh). Iran will use its nukes so it can spread that kind of behavior to the rest of the world, and that is the kind of government you support.

[Cookiegod]

Those claiming Iran being responsible for Yemen have no clue whatsoever.
They don't know anything about the inner workings of Yemeni tribal society, of the General People's Congress, of the legal & democratic legitimacy of Hadi's power (hint: He has no power, no legal and no democratic legitimacy - he never had a democratic mandate, he overstayed his electoral mandate, which he'd won without counter candidate with 100% of the votes for over a year before he was finally toppled), of the power of the Saleh clan, of the Houthis, or of the vast differences between the Shiite branches in Iran and Yemen.

"But NOOOOH! LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT YEMEN AND THE GIANT COMMUNIST SHIITE CONSPIRACY TAKING OVER THE WORLD!
IRAN SPREADS TERROR! Let's not talk about people literally being starved to death by the coalition, let's not talk about school children being bombed, let's not talk about the vast array of Wahhabi & Salafi 'militias' created and enabled by the West committing horrific acts and having been able to spread their might across the Muslim world, whereas the Houthis have been comparatively tame..."

I really hate this about people. It's ok not to know things. It's commendable to say what you know and what you assume and stand by it.
It's not ok to pass off assumptions as facts. You aren't just lying to yourselves when you're doing that, you're deliberately misleading others as well.

Add to that the complete absense of consistency and any sense of irony.
When some here are arguing Iran needs to be toppled because it's a religious state, and simultaneously argue with religious fervour the US right to invade others to be quasi god given, it... it's just...

It's a complete lack of responsibility and critical thought right there. Ignorance per se isn't something worth shaming people for, except these people here are war hawks.

---

Know what the main demographic of NSDAP voters in the 30s were?
Male, protestant, averse to other religions, believed their nation could do no moral wrong and had the right to start wars against anyone. Ring a bell?

[Vanoi]

Iran is not responsible for the desintegration of Yemen. That's the equivalent of blaming France or Qatar for the Arab Spring in Libya and Syria respectively. The dictatorship of Hadi fell apart because it continued the policy of his equally authoritarian predecessor of bombing and discriminating against a religious minority. Hadi's regime was evicted from Sana'a, because he and his advisors managed to completely underestimate the efficiency of the Houthis and the significance of tribal alliances. In any case, even the minimal support Iran has provided to the rebels had only materialised after the surprising victory of the Houthis, not before.

I know this is a late reply but i had to address this part because its ignorance at best from you. I'll also talk about you you call "minimal" support.

First there is no doubt that Hadi was kind of and he has a role to play in why he fell. Yet it isn't really the full story.

This is a great article detailing Iran's role in Yemen:

https://www.mei.edu/publications/ira...rospects-peace

Some things in this article stand out. Like this:

Historically, Iran has not been a significant factor in Yemeni affairs. It has long maintained a diplomatic presence in Sanaa, but its influence during the two decades before the war was marginal. During the six Saadah wars between 2004 and 2010, former President Ali Abdullah Saleh asserted that Iran was supporting the Houthis, but U.S. analysts found little evidence to support his claims.

In 2011 and 2012, Iran’s role began to change during the Arab Spring uprising and the subsequent political turmoil. Tehran’s support for the Houthis increased in that period, although Iran was not a player in negotiations that led to Saleh’s resignation. Ironically, after he was overthrown, Saleh turned to the Islamic Republic as he calculated prospects for returning to power. The Iranians probably played a role in forging the Houthi-Saleh partnership that led to the current civil war.

Evidence of Iranian intervention to support the Houthis, including with military assistance, began to grow in 2012. In January 2013, the U.S. Navy, in cooperation with the Yemeni Navy, seized an Iranian dhow, the Jihan I, carrying some forty tons of military supplies intended for the Houthis. The cargo included Katyusha rockets, surface-to-air missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, explosives and ammunition. The United States also tracked Iranian Revolutionary Guards providing training and assistance to the Houthis in the Saadah governorate.

Iran’s support of the Houthis grew increasingly open and transparent after the successful military drive by Houthis and Saleh loyalists in the summer of 2014. The Houthis seized control of Sanaa, the capital, and Yemeni government operations. Houthi leaders traveled to Tehran and signed agreements to establish regular air service between the two capitals; they also agreed to increase Yemeni-Iranian cooperation.

Here's another article about Iran's support to the houthis:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-yemen-iran-houthis/exclusive-iran-steps-up-support-for-houthis-in-yemens-war-sources-idUSKBN16S22R

A former senior Iranian security official said Iran’s hardline rulers planned to empower Houthi militia in Yemen to “strengthen their hand in the region”.
“They are planning to create a Hezbollah-like militia in Yemen. To confront Riyadh’s hostile policies ... Iran needs to use all its cards,” the former official said.

And another one detailing the Iranian support of the Houthi's air defenses: https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/...enses-in-yemen

And one about the Houthis extensive use of drones: https://www.defensenews.com/unmanned...deploy-drones/

This idea that Iran played no role in the overthrow of Yemen and that their support to the Houthis is minimal is at best. Someone had to broker the alliance between Saleh and the houthis considering that bad blood between the two. I doubt Saleh would have ust easily partnered up with the houthis without someone convincing him it was in his interest.

Without the alliance between Saleh and the Houthis, i very much doubt that Yemen would be overthrown or remotely be in the position it is today. And we have Iran to thank for that. Not fully blaming them, but they have a role in this war.

As for what you call "minimal support" my articles above detail just how much support Iran is giving the Houthis. Ballistic missiles, combat drones, radar, SAMs, small arms, heavy weapons, and the list goes on.

This is far more support than the French or Qataris even gave the rebels in Syria. Yet you would seriously call SAMs and Ballistic missiles minimal support? Really?

[Cookiegod]

The Yemeni armed forces made many domestic upgrades to their ballistic missiles, if those are what you're referring to. Yemen in general has been one of the most heavily armed countries in the world for a very long time now. Iran is not really needed, except by the axis as an excuse, and their impact has thus been much less than is being claimed, nor have their weapon shipments ever been that excessive as portrayed, given that those were only possible through Somalia and the sea..

Saleh's alliance with the Houthis didn't happen because of Iran - it happened because of Hadi, the Saudi puppet, first overstaying his mandate and then doing some severe miscalculations, actively trying to remove the Saleh clan from power. Which forced their hands. And the overthrow happened 2011. The Houthi takeover was merely the reverberation. Never mind the fact that the Houthis were always ready to ally with anyone against the central government in Sana'a. Before Salah's resignation it were his enemies.

The Saleh clan is now allied with the UAE, which has also used the opportunity to annex Socotra, whereas Hadi is under de facto Saudi arrest and probably unable to leave the country, if he wanted to. No one, not even the Saudis themselves, want him in power anymore.

Also: Middle east institute, Washington institute & defense news? Really? lol.

[Vanoi]

The Yemeni armed forces made many domestic upgrades to their ballistic missiles, if those are what you're referring to.

You didn't even read my articles at all, did you? My articles addressed this. It doesn't explain how Iranian ballistic missiles keep being found in Yemen or shot at Riyadh.

Your own statement makes my point. Who upgraded the ballistic missiles they did have? The Houthis are a militia and previous to this conflict did not have any ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles are not some simple technology. The Houthis would not have the expertise nor money to upgrade these weapons anyways.

Yemen in general has been one of the most heavily armed countries in the world for a very long time now. Iran is not really needed, except by the axis as an excuse, and their impact has thus been much less than is being claimed, nor have their weapon shipments ever been that excessive as portrayed, given that those were only possible through Somalia and the sea..

My articles again address this is you bother to read them. It doesn't explain how sophisticated Iranian weapons are ending up in Yemen. Not even the UN is dumb enough to claim anymore that Iran doens't send weapons to Yemen. My article above addresses that.

Saleh's alliance with the Houthis didn't happen because of Iran - it happened because of Hadi, the Saudi puppet, first overstaying his mandate and then doing some severe miscalculations, actively trying to remove the Saleh clan from power.

Except his mandate didn't expire until 2015. The Houthis had already taken the capital in 2014. Hadi himself resigned in January of 2015. The war didn't officially begin until March of 2015, after the
Houthis forced hadi to resign and had dissolved Yemen's

Which forced their hands. And the overthrow happened 2011. The Houthi takeover was merely the reverberation. Never mind the fact that the Houthis were always ready to ally with anyone against the central government in Sana'a. Before Salah's resignation it were his enemies.

Except Saleh was supporting the Houthis in 2014. Before Hadi's mandate expired. It was forces loyal to Saleh that helped the houthis capture the capital in 2014.

Also: Middle east institute, Washington institute & defense news? Really? lol.

SO? Your sources are what again? Oh wait......

[Common Soldier]

I will say this. Iran has a long history of when it was a major world power, and religion aside, I could see Iran wanting nukes and missiles so they could be taken as one of the big boys. I think Iran has aspirations of being at least a regional power, and a leading power among the Muslim world, so they probably have national aspirations aside from religious motivations to have Nukes.

And I know that if I were an Iranian, I think I might resent a country like the US, who has more nukes than anybody, telling me it is not OK for my country to have nuclear bombs, but it is OK for the US and its allies to have nuclear bombs, that the US can be trusted with nukes, but Iran can't. It would bother me if I were an Iranian. It would seem like a double standard to me. I still don't like the current Iranian regime, they have a poor human rights records, but the real question can the Iranians be trusted with nukes, and I am not sure they would be worse than Pakistan, and certainly better than North Korea.

And Iran might have a valid point. I don't know if it is true or not, but if the US and others haven't lived up to their part of the deal that was brokered, why should Iran live up to its end? I would like to know what parts of the treaty the other countries like the US haven;t live up to.

[Cookiegod]

You didn't even read my articles at all, did you? My articles addressed this. It doesn't explain how Iranian ballistic missiles keep being found in Yemen or shot at Riyadh.

You posted 3 articles. Not just one. I did skim them, and they had the usual talking points, only one of them actually did go a little bit deeper and mentioned some missile types.
They do make the fallacy of assuming those missiles are being produced, when they're in fact simply upgraded Soviet missiles. I did not see any proof or arguments as to why those missiles have to be shipped from Iran, when domestic ones exist, and especially how they should've been shipped there, when again: The country is under siege from all sides.

Your own statement makes my point. Who upgraded the ballistic missiles they did have? The Houthis are a militia and previous to this conflict did not have any ballistic missiles. Ballistic missiles are not some simple technology. The Houthis would not have the expertise nor money to upgrade these weapons anyways.

That's where ignorance comes into play. You think the Houthis simply overran the country just like that? Nope. Most of the Yemeni army, especially the presidential guard joined them orderly and stayed intact in their military formations as a result of the Saleh-Houthi alliance. The Yemeni army has acquired and upgraded a considerable amount of amongst others missiles since long before this war started, and the very same military formations that had them for years can be presumed to have targeted and fired them at e.g. Riyadh.

Hence the often heard claim "It has to be Iranian missiles, because normal ones don't have that range" is simply false.

My articles again address this is you bother to read them. It doesn't explain how sophisticated Iranian weapons are ending up in Yemen. Not even the UN is dumb enough to claim anymore that Iran doens't send weapons to Yemen. My article above addresses that.

There's a difference between sending some minor equipment, such as relatively small drones, and comparatively huge missiles to a place that's under a complete siege both from land, sea and air. Want to know how the Houthi-dominated alliance supplied itself?
Answer: Through smuggling from Somalia across the Bab-el-Mandeb. It's never been, nor could it ever hope to be a dominating factor in the course of the war.

I'd like your source as to how the UN is claiming Iran is arming the Houthis.

Except his mandate didn't expire until 2015. The Houthis had already taken the capital in 2014. Hadi himself resigned in January of 2015. The war didn't officially begin until March of 2015, after the
Houthis forced hadi to resign and had dissolved Yemen's


Except Saleh was supporting the Houthis in 2014. Before Hadi's mandate expired. It was forces loyal to Saleh that helped the houthis capture the capital in 2014.

False. He was "elected" in 2012 for a two year term, in which he was supposed to either enact democratic reform (officially) so there would be a real election, or to hand power back to the Saleh-clan (inofficially what he and Saleh very likely agreed on that had Saleh get him to power). His mandate expired the 27 February 2014. He ignored said expiration, and thus lost his legal basis. His "realpolitik"-basis was also destroyed by breaking with the Saleh-clan, trying to oust them from power, and also becoming a Saudi-American agent, which brought about the coalition that saw him ousted. This civil war would've ended very quickly and with rather little bloodshed, if it hadn't been for intervention by foreign powers that never had any right to intervene in the first place. Saleh wanted to become number 1 again. Hadi wanted to replace Saleh as forever-dictator. Saleh having the strongest basis of power in the northern part of the country meant Hadi had to ally with the secessionists in the south and especially with foreign powers. Knowing who is fighting whom and for what is the bare minimum you should know when wanting to discussing the Yemeni civil war, or any war anywhere.

SO? Your sources are what again? Oh wait......

Lol. You hadn't asked for sources before, nor I you.
Thing is again that defensenews, MEI & Washington Institute aren't credible sources. Basing your opinion on them is like building on sand.

The Yemeni civil war is several years old now already. You'll have to say which specific things you do not believe in, and I'll have to dig and find those sources again.

Since you've shown some lack of knowledge as to who is fighting in Yemen, I'll recommend Forbes for a start:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougban.../#246f41883e12

Yemen long was torn by conflict. Fighting has waxed and waned since the 1960s. Along the way the country divided and then reunited, but violent unrest continued. The Houthis, known as Ansar Allah, or “Supporters of God” (who doesn’t claim to be that in the Middle East?), belong to the Zaydi sect, and are Shia-lite, maintaining some theological similarities with Sunnis. The Houthis have been fighting the central government for years, including under U.S.-supported President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Saleh, no friend of the KSA, was ousted in 2012. Riyadh then seemed unconcerned about stability and legitimacy, and instead backed the new president, Saleh’s old deputy Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi. The latter had little domestic support, while Saleh performed a classic political pirouette and joined the Houthis against Hadi. Most of the Yemeni security forces defected to Saleh and Hadi had to flee the capital of Sana’a to the golden embrace of the Saudi royals.

And for a long time, it wasn't particularly obvious as to why the Houthis should've been the leaders of that side. Especially since the Ansar Allah had fought the secular GNC for most of its existence, and the GNC & army seemed to be fighting more for Saleh than for the Houthis. He seemed to think himself in control for long enough that he tried that coup that led to his death, and most of his long time allies abandoning the "dancer on the heads of snakes" probably did so because of the foreign coalition.

For the Saudis, on the other hand, it's always been important to hype the Zaidi shiite Houthis for both domestic and foreign policy.

I will say this. Iran has a long history of when it was a major world power, and religion aside, I could see Iran wanting nukes and missiles so they could be taken as one of the big boys. I think Iran has aspirations of being at least a regional power, and a leading power among the Muslim world, so they probably have national aspirations aside from religious motivations to have Nukes.

First of all: I commend you for phrasing yourself the way you did. It does help a lot, both regarding shaping other peoples opinion correctly, and finding a consensus.

I do not know if Iran does have military nuclear inspirations, but when you evoke history, I have to say it points the exact opposite way.

Iran doesn't have a history as a nuclear superpower. There is a wide range of nonmilitary uses for uranium, including medicinal, and for many of those the enrichment level needs to be far higher than the allowed minimum. Around 20% are necessary for various medicinal purposes, if I recall correctly. Those are still a far shot from the 90%+ that are necessary for nuclear weapons.

In the gulf war, when Saddam was using chemical weapons routinely and with devastating effect against Iran, Iran nevertheless refused to acquire WMD's of their own. Even though they were offered to them by western powers in a war Iran suffered in greatly.

The Iranian republic did so with a principled argument against WMD's, stating their religion prohibits the killing of civilians, which are inevitable when WMD's are used.

And I know that if I were an Iranian, I think I might resent a country like the US, who has more nukes than anybody, telling me it is not OK for my country to have nuclear bombs, but it is OK for the US and its allies to have nuclear bombs, that the US can be trusted with nukes, but Iran can't. It would bother me if I were an Iranian. It would seem like a double standard to me. I still don't like the current Iranian regime, they have a poor human rights records, but the real question can the Iranians be trusted with nukes, and I am not sure they would be worse than Pakistan, and certainly better than North Korea.

It is never good to presume what people of other backgrounds think. The background mentality differs significantly between protestants, catholics & orthodox already. If you were Iranian, you would be even further away, most likely a 12er Shia.

Fact is: No public Iranian figure has to my knowledge called for arming themselves with nuclear weapons, or even using them. Which puts them in stark contrast to e.g. Israel and the USA.
Several US public figures have called for nuking Iran. It was rumoured the US has supplied nuclear bunker busters to Israel, and it is very likely such missiles would be used in strikes against Iran.

And Iran might have a valid point. I don't know if it is true or not, but if the US and others haven't lived up to their part of the deal that was brokered, why should Iran live up to its end? I would like to know what parts of the treaty the other countries like the US haven;t live up to.

And that's one of my main points. I don't know what I'd think as an Iranian. I'm staunchly against WMD's. But I'm very convinced, were I a politician in Iran or another country threatened by the US (or even just a potential target further down the road), I'd push for arming my country in such a way that the US would sorely regret such a move. This includes WMD's.

No country anywhere in todays world that has any rational sense would give up on WMD's. Not only has the US armed many countries with WMD's both officially and unofficially (what do you think is the reason American nukes are being stored abroad?), it has repeatedly made sure any country dismantling their WMD's would sorely regret it. Had Libya had even a single ballistic missile with a WMD on it trained on a city such as Rome, Syracuse or Palermo, the country would still exist, and Ghadaffi wouldn't have died with a knife up his behind.

Take US & Israel out of equation (which would be unreasonable, given that they are the most threatening to Iran), and you still have Saudi-Arabia as a quasi-nuclear power, but with no moral compass whatsoever. I'm quite frankly astonished that Iran isn't pushing hard for nuclear weapons. They aren't that hard to make. Iran with its capabilities could've probably acquired them with one concerted push within very few years.

[Abdülmecid I]

Minimal was supposed to work in comparison to the outright foreign intervention of the opposite camp. Nobody is denying that Tehran has helped her allies, but some of your sources tend to exaggerate both the impact and the size of the Iranian material support. Especially the Middle East Institute (not to mention the author, a former U.S. ambassador) is very unreliable about Yemeni affairs, as it has been funded by the United Arab Emirates, who plays a very active role in the conflict and actually almost annexed the island of Socotra. Most of the claims are based on unverified reports originating from obviously biased sources; officials of either the Hadi government or the Saudi-led intervention.

Even the Jihan I story has been put under scrutiny, as it has been suggested, based on the content of its load, that the recipient was al-Qaeda and not the Houthis. Finally, blaming Iran for the formation of the alliance between Saleh and the Houthis is nothing more than a reasonable, but also completely unproved, hypothesis. Regarding the equipment, I personally doubt that the civil war would have ended earlier with a decisive Houthi defeat, hadn't been for the Iranian material aid. The extremely slow advance of SA and co. is mostly due to the unsuitable geography, the unwillingness of local proxies to commit themselves more than simply defending their homes and looting their neighbors and the fact that they lack the training necessary to perform serious offensive operations. Iranian missiles, rifles and drones may complicate their task, but they only play a secondary role. Finally, I am not sure about how an undisputed victory over the Houthis and the subsequent end of the conflict is morally justifiable, considering the possibility of the religious minority being ethnically cleansed by their vengeful masters. In my opinion, a negotiated compromise would be the most beneficial result, which means that the military stalemate is the safest way to reach such a peaceful solution.

I think Iran has aspirations of being at least a regional power, and a leading power among the Muslim world, so they probably have national aspirations aside from religious motivations to have Nukes.

Religious concerns have absolutely no impact on Iran's (or any other state's, including even Saudi Arabia) foreign policy. Don't confuse rhetoric with real intentions. Iran's main objective is to ameliorate its position, as, since the outbreak of the revolution, is surrounded by hostile actors, by installing cordial diplomatic relations with other states in the Middle East. Also, they financially compete with other regional and global powers, in order to secure a safe investment environment in countries like Iraq, Syria or Lebanon. In her effort to achieve these goals, the Iranian government has not hesitated to cooperate with Christians, Sunnis or even Ibadi Muslims, when they share common interests, despite the fact that such a policy would be in a direct contradiction with sectarian, Shiite doctrines.

[Bethrezen]

The US is not even trying anymore when creating false flags to attack countries.

In 10-20 years from now, they'll just attack anyone, no reasons needed anymore.