Palestine

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

There can be little doubt, across the world, that Iran is controlling many of the areas, like Syria and Yemen, where missiles were launched at Israel. This combined with Irans  inability to inflict major damage with the missiles, has to be a political own goal by Iran. 

I'm not sure it was a political own goal.  I think the main reason for this attack was to so the Iranian government could maintain credibility with the Iranian population.  After Israel's attack on the embassy in Syria, or the consulate building next to the embassy I should say, the Iranian regime would have lost all credibility at home had it done nothing.  So it launched this very publicized attack on Israel, and despite most missiles being shot down it did manage to hit the very military base from which Israel launched the attack on the embassy/consulate.  

News reports in Iran are, as you'd expect, exaggerating the damage caused in Israel enormously, suggesting the base has been completely destroyed and so on.  So far, as a domestic PR operation, it seems to have been a success and the Iranian regime are saying they are satisfied with what occurred and their retaliation is complete. 

Unfortunately despite most of the world urging Israel to do nothing in response..... it's likely that there is a very serious response coming Iran's way.  

[Alph]

20 minutes ago, David Graham Brown said:

He isn’t, but like he said, it’s a much used word to close down an argument, like racist, fascist, etc.

or antisemitic. One he uses while apologising for the Likud party and giving them a platform. 

[David Graham Brown]

11 minutes ago, Alph said:

or antisemitic. One he uses while apologising for the Likud party and giving them a platform. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alph said:

or antisemitic. One he uses while apologising for the Likud party and giving them a platform. 

 

11 minutes ago, Alph said:

or antisemitic. One he uses while apologising for the Likud party and giving them a platform. 

I wasn’t aware this was a guessing game.

Edited April 15 by David Graham Brown

[Alph]

14 minutes ago, David Graham Brown said:

 

 

I wasn’t aware this was a guessing game.

There's an echo? 

[Stive Pesley]

48 minutes ago, David Graham Brown said:

He isn’t, but like he said, it’s a much used word to close down an argument, like racist, fascist, etc.

I don't get that "used to close down an argument" line. And it's always used by the same people in the same way

It's not closing down an argument - If anything it's opening the door for the accused to explain why they believe what they have said isn't racist/fascist/islamaphobic etc

But (somewhat ironically) they instead use it to close down the argument and say things like "oh that word doesn't even mean anything any more" 😂

[Leeds Ram]

40 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I'm not sure it was a political own goal.  I think the main reason for this attack was to so the Iranian government could maintain credibility with the Iranian population.  After Israel's attack on the embassy in Syria, or the consulate building next to the embassy I should say, the Iranian regime would have lost all credibility at home had it done nothing.  So it launched this very publicized attack on Israel, and despite most missiles being shot down it did manage to hit the very military base from which Israel launched the attack on the embassy/consulate.  

News reports in Iran are, as you'd expect, exaggerating the damage caused in Israel enormously, suggesting the base has been completely destroyed and so on.  So far, as a domestic PR operation, it seems to have been a success and the Iranian regime are saying they are satisfied with what occurred and their retaliation is complete. 

Unfortunately despite most of the world urging Israel to do nothing in response..... it's likely that there is a very serious response coming Iran's way.  

I'm not so sure about that. The Iranian regime has been suffering on multiple fronts from a direct lack of legitimacy. The 'hybrid' system initially developed at the beginning of the Republic has now all but broken down into simple authoritarianism. The regime's foreign adventures in Syria and Yemen are not popular with Iranians who have demanded resources be spent at home rather than abroad. I'm not sure how launching this kind of attack helps with that tbh. Nor do I think the Iranian regime is that bothered about the 'pr consequences' of their foreign policies as if they were they wouldn't still be propping up the Assad regime or arming the Houthi rebels. 

Admittedly I've not kept a close eye on the reaction domestically to this though so I may be wrong. 

Edited April 15 by Leeds Ram

[Crewton]

Team photo at the end of the latest meeting of the Islamic Republic of Iran's Equality and Diversity Council. 

[Stive Pesley]

5 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Team photo at the end of the latest meeting of the Islamic Republic of Iran's Equality and Diversity Council. 

About as diverse as the Reform Party in the UK - what is it with these factions run by angry old blokes? 😂

[Alph]

Quick guys, something something Iran. Drown out the gunshots at Palestinians returning north. How's that aid coming along?

 

 

[Highgate]

16 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I'm not so sure about that. The Iranian regime has been suffering on multiple fronts from a direct lack of legitimacy. The 'hybrid' system initially developed at the beginning of the Republic has now all but broken down into simple authoritarianism. The regime's foreign adventures in Syria and Yemen are not popular with Iranians who have demanded resources be spent at home rather than abroad. I'm not sure how launching this kind of attack helps with that tbh. Nor do I think the Iranian regime is that bothered about the 'pr consequences' of their foreign policies as if they were they wouldn't still be propping up the Assad regime or arming the Houthi rebels. 

Admittedly I've not kept a close eye on the reaction domestically to this though so I may be wrong. 

I don't dispute at all that the Iranian regime have real ideological motivations for their foreign policies, such as their support and arming of Hamas and Hezbollah. But I definitely think that even the most authoritarian regime has to be concerned with how their rule is perceived in their own countries, (After all when an authoritarian regime falls....it doesn't usually end well for those who were in charge). They definitely don't want to look weak, but that's exactly how they looked when Israel was able to destroy their consulate and kill their generals as they pleased. The fact that they are basically lying about how effective the strike against Israel was seems to suggest that they really do care about how this plays out in Iran.  As you rightly say, it's not a popular regime with much of the Iranian population so a strike against Israel was calculated as necessary so as not to add weakness in the face of Israeli aggression to the list of the regime's shortcomings.  That's my guess at least. 

[David Graham Brown]

51 minutes ago, Alph said:

There's an echo? 

My apologies, I’m using a 12 year old iPad, which is now showing its age, coupled with my impatience jabbing away at the screen! 

[Leeds Ram]

2 minutes ago, Highgate said:

I don't dispute at all that the Iranian regime have real ideological motivations for their foreign policies, such as their support and arming of Hamas and Hezbollah. But I definitely think that even the most authoritarian regime has to be concerned with how their rule is perceived in their own countries, (After all when an authoritarian regime falls....it doesn't usually end well for those who were in charge). They definitely don't want to look weak, but that's exactly how they looked when Israel was able to destroy their consulate and kill their generals as they pleased. The fact that they are basically lying about how effective the strike against Israel was seems to suggest that they really do care about how this plays out in Iran.  As you rightly say, it's not a popular regime with much of the Iranian population so a strike against Israel was calculated as necessary so as not to add weakness in the face of Israeli aggression to the list of the regime's shortcomings.  That's my guess at least. 

I'm just not sure the Iranian public overall would want that kind of strike against Israel given how they are opposed to the actions in Yemen and Syria which has cost them a lot in blood and treasure. It strikes me as a little incongruent as a reasoning. It wouldn't surprise me if it was done more with regional dynamics in mind than domestic consumption tbh.

On the question of does the regime care about public opinion- yes and no I would say. The Grand Ayatollah has recently bemoaned the lack of public religiosity which is partly down to the regime itself becoming increasingly reliant upon the armed forces as a separate wing to enforce control, as well as the 'basij' as a separate civilian militia. The danger for the regime is when the Ayatollah dies (I believe he's 83 if my memory is correct) what happens then as the legitimation for the regime has gotten too narrow to be considered stable. However, Iran is a sophisticated state, unlike Syria, which has significant capacity militarily to quell uprisings. Their response to challenges has not been to listen but to project 'strength' and crackdown on increasing numbers of opposition activists. 

[David Graham Brown]

55 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I don't get that "used to close down an argument" line. And it's always used by the same people in the same way

It's not closing down an argument - If anything it's opening the door for the accused to explain why they believe what they have said isn't racist/fascist/islamaphobic etc

But (somewhat ironically) they instead use it to close down the argument and say things like "oh that word doesn't even mean anything any more" 😂

Very true in some cases, but when the person who accuses you of being, racist, etc,etc, is open to debate then that’s fine, but some have no answer to their initial accusations and walk. 

[Crewton]

42 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

About as diverse as the Reform Party in the UK - what is it with these factions run by angry old blokes? 😂

I'd pay to see a punch up between the lot of them tbh.

[Crewton]

40 minutes ago, Alph said:

Quick guys, something something Iran. Drown out the gunshots at Palestinians returning north. How's that aid coming along?

 

 

Calm down, it's OK to criticise Israel and still point out that those that hate Israel the most are a cunch of bunts too.

[Alph]

33 minutes ago, Crewton said:

Calm down, it's OK to criticise Israel and still point out that those that hate Israel the most are a cunch of bunts too.

I didn't realise I wasn't calm? 

[Highgate]

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

I'm just not sure the Iranian public overall would want that kind of strike against Israel given how they are opposed to the actions in Yemen and Syria which has cost them a lot in blood and treasure. It strikes me as a little incongruent as a reasoning. It wouldn't surprise me if it was done more with regional dynamics in mind than domestic consumption tbh.

On the question of does the regime care about public opinion- yes and no I would say. The Grand Ayatollah has recently bemoaned the lack of public religiosity which is partly down to the regime itself becoming increasingly reliant upon the armed forces as a separate wing to enforce control, as well as the 'basij' as a separate civilian militia. The danger for the regime is when the Ayatollah dies (I believe he's 83 if my memory is correct) what happens then as the legitimation for the regime has gotten too narrow to be considered stable. However, Iran is a sophisticated state, unlike Syria, which has significant capacity militarily to quell uprisings. Their response to challenges has not been to listen but to project 'strength' and crackdown on increasing numbers of opposition activists. 

Speaking of incongruence, we may be both falling into the trap of speaking of a monolithic Iranian public opinion.  It's a broad and complicated spectrum, brought about by a fascinating but tragic history of malevolent foreign interference as well as homegrown oppression.

There are those that support the theocracy and their actions and there are those that oppose it. Likewise there are those that support the regimes proxy war against Israel and those that completely oppose it. And yet there are very few people in Iran, I would imagine, that support Israel's destruction of Gaza or the direct attack on the Iranian consulate.  And given that we can all agree that Iran's regime's very obvious position is one of violent opposition to Israel, it can't possibly let itself get attacked by Israel and not respond, to do so would damage it's perceived credibility enormously. Not only would it anger and disappoint those who still support the regime but it would also give it's opponents yet another reason to criticize it. 

 

 

Edited April 15 by Highgate

[Highgate]

3 hours ago, David Graham Brown said:

He isn’t, but like he said, it’s a much used word to close down an argument, like racist, fascist, etc.

I think to discuss him in any depth would bring us into areas prohibited by the forum.  He was only mentioned here because of his direct comments related to Palestine. 

[Leeds Ram]

14 hours ago, Highgate said:

Speaking of incongruence, we may be both falling into the trap of speaking of a monolithic Iranian public opinion.  It's a broad and complicated spectrum, brought about by a fascinating but tragic history of malevolent foreign interference as well as homegrown oppression.

There are those that support the theocracy and their actions and there are those that oppose it. Likewise there are those that support the regimes proxy war against Israel and those that completely oppose it. And yet there are very few people in Iran, I would imagine, that support Israel's destruction of Gaza or the direct attack on the Iranian consulate.  And given that we can all agree that Iran's regime's very obvious position is one of violent opposition to Israel, it can't possibly let itself get attacked by Israel and not respond, to do so would damage it's perceived credibility enormously. Not only would it anger and disappoint those who still support the regime but it would also give it's opponents yet another reason to criticize it. 

 

 

Well there is a gap in opinion between the more conservative rural areas of Iran and the more liberal urban cities. However, I think Iran's reaction yesterday- with morality vans dragging women into them for not wearing their hijab and threatening with court action activists who are criticising the regime's response speaks to a certain nervousness about the potential for an internal backlash. 

 

This isn't even the Iran of 2005-2008 under Ahmadinejad where despite the green revolution's claims of vote rigging Ahmedinejad's more conservative values probably did win enough votes in the rural areas to carry the election. The guardian council have been much more aggressive in recent years in striking candidates from the lists and election turnout has fallen to below half. 

[Alph]

Consonant please Rachel. And a vowel. Er, another consonant please...

R A S I C T 

Your time starts, now!