Here it is, direct from the US government....the 3 top state sponsors of terrorism. And this. Cuba is still on the list.

These are some of the terrorist organizations that Iran supports...ISIL, Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Popular from for the Liberation of Palestine. If these sound familiar, they should. They're the exact same organizations that are active in Palestine....hence why Israel is justifiably upset by any support of Iran.

Stabbing attacks, car ramming, suicide bombing, etc are all terrorist strategies that are tried and tested by the Palestinians and then disseminated to other terrorists around the world.

 

I would like evidence for your claim that Iran supports ISIL. ISIL's favourite pastime is killing Shi'ites. Iran is a country of Shi'ites, not to mention that ISIL is fighting the Syrian regime - a regime that Iran heavily supports, and is Iran's sole state ally in the region. Are you suggesting that Iran is supporting both sides in Syria? If so, I would like to hear how Iran could possibly benefit from such a strategy.

 

The link Jedi_Jade-Skywalker provided under "and this" says Iran increased assistance to Iraqi Shia militias in response to ISIL in Iraq. It says it more than once. The page is from 2014.

 

What are you getting at? Are you saying that supporting the Shia militias is just as bad, such that they might as well have been supporting ISIL?

 

Are you responding to me?

No, I was pointing out Jedi_Jade-Skywalker's obvious error, using a source she provided, that is all.

Of course Iran doesn't support ISIL. Not only is that common knowledge, the fact that they oppose ISIL is in one of the links she cited. If she had bothered to read them, or had any significant knowledge of the subject, she would have known that.

 

I just noticed in the very link she provided that Cuba has been taken off the list, while she claims they're still on it. Also, it's not hard to be the "top three" on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. There are only three countries on the list.

And they just so happen to be countries where the US has no economic or strategic interests. Curious, isn't it? Iran, the country that funds Lebanese Hezballah is on the list, but Lebanon, the country that hosts the damn organisation on its soil, and where it is treated as a legitimate political party, is not. Two of the cabinet ministers of the current sitting government right now in Lebanon are parliament representatives of Hezballah.

This is a rally in Lebanon by Hezballah supporters:




That yellow flag they're holding is Hezballah's party logo. The state sponsor of terrorism list is a politicised joke and always has been. An equally politicised joke is the designated foreign terrorist organisation (FTO) list.

"In 1978-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism- in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation.”
- Former NSA Director under Ronald Reagan, Lt. General William Odom

 

Iran's having an election today that may determine the future of its engagement with the West, who the next Supreme Leader is, and the future of the nuclear deal, but nobody's covering it.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/19/iran-election-chose-president-relatonship-with-west

 

Front page news here.
Vivec's post and this thread's title: +1 Americentri...zzzzz

 

Skynews are giving more coverage than our own election.

 

I changed the title to what it currently is, and the reason is that the rest of the parties to the nuclear deal are all fine with it. It's only the US that, under Trump and the Republican-led Senate and Congress, regrets its decision and might walk it back. I would change the title again, but I don't think we're going to be discussing the election that much.

 

Et tu VVM

 

Unfortunately the insignificant United States is somehow relevant in world affairs pertaining to Iran. I am puzzled by this also.

 

Will you stop saying that? I read news articles on this on even CNN weeks ago. Let alone real outlets. To your point, yes, Western media is unjustifiably narcissistic and preoccupied with itself. Aljazeera English tried to correct this and bombed hard in the ratings. We still need what they were trying to do. But don't just say "no ones covering it."

 

If we went after every single state sponsor of terrorism, how many countries would we be at war at?

Yeah. That's called tolerating a lesser evil. Oh no, the feckless Obama Administration just wanted to kick the can down the road so that someone else would deal with it...no. They were playing the long game. Iranian nationalism is what keeps the regime in power, and pushing too hard would simply result in ordinary Iranians flocking to defend Khamenei against the Great Satan. The only right move for us was to stop with the Bush Administration's self-righteous and insulting rhetoric, and let the Iranians turn against the unpopular regime themselves (see this). Iran is already contained militarily, and all this complaining about terrorism or missiles really just sounds like moving the goalposts and setting impossible standards for Iran so as to trigger a conflict.

 

If anyone's still discussing the money part of the Iran deal from 44's perspective, don't. It's insane, I'm in banking, it was literally that or nothing.

 

I only meant that "Congress" isn't automatically "The United States Congress".

 

Nobody's covering how I knew this would get a response from you.

 

It's like a rapper saying "You already know what it is." I love the insights you bother to make. But increasingly, instead of just discussing topics, you settle for complaining how no one else is. It's a personal pet peeve of mine that extends far beyond this site. If what really bothers you is that "no one" is doing something, I've always felt you should just start doing it yourself.

 

I'm sorry Wocky, what now?

Ever read the Straits Times? South China Daily?

Please.

 

I can't speak to either of those publications as I don't read them. But I also don't see your point. Is it a great intellectual triumph to note that generalizations don't apply to every specific and particular example? My point was about the overall trend in investment for news resources in the developed versus developing world. Are you really objecting to the notion that rather than confining global news to an "Around the World in 60 seconds" segment, maybe CNN could afford a little less wall-to-wall coverage of Balloon Boy?

 

The Mask Is Off: Trump Is Seeking War with Iran

 

5 lies Nikki Haley just told about the Iran deal
And surprise of surprises, she was speaking at a conservative think tank that helped make the case for the war in Iraq. This plays in nicely with the developments described in the article in the post above.

 

And developing further on from there:

On Monday, the NIAC hosted a conference on Capitol Hill about Trump's decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the UN nuclear agreement that went into effect in 2015, and the potential impact and consequences of this decision. The panel consists of Rob Malley, a former senior Obama administration official who was part of the Iran negotiations; John Glaser, a libertarian from the conservative CATO Institute who is a supporter of the agreement and, finally, Trita Parsi, the founder and president of NIAC, which is a lobby organisation representing Iranian Americans. We unfortunately have to suffer the juvenile Nahal Toosi of Politico as moderator, but the panel will be doing most of the talking, and their knowledge and perspectives make it worth powering through it. The entire discussion runs a little over an hour and the back half is all Q&A from the audience, which consists mainly of interns for congressmen. The full video, as well as transcript, is on C-SPAN.

 

The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) has a section on its website called The Iran Primer that, as the name suggests, is an introduction to key facts about the state at present day, as well as follows Iran policy and whatever news surrounds Iran at any time. In the Iran Primer, I found a useful timeline of the last... let's say 100 years of Iranian history through the lens of economic policy. The article is called The Revolutionary Economy, and touches on the pre-revolution era of the monarchy briefly as a preface to describe in detail the various phases in Iran's economy and accompanying policies from the revolution to the present day. It's divided mainly by presidential terms and describes in broad terms the governing challenges and priorities in the different periods. I found it useful, as it really touches on most important developments over the decades in order to give context to shifts in economic policy, so it in a sense becomes a summarised timeline of the country's recent history. It's about 4-5 pages of text altogether, I think. Recommended.