Meanwhile back to the topic - Top foreign adviser to Iran’s supreme leader signals endorsement for Rouhani and a bit of a blow to hardliners.
I’ve no idea why I was quoted in post #806, but the question I asked is still pending.
I would like to see the question answered also. It goes along with my messages.
Funny you mentioning sport.
Sweden is out of its mind with this women’s equality (you have no idea) going to ridiculous lengths to out-prove a point. There’s even been scandals about how public urinals are discriminatory against women and should therefore be removed! Anyway, there’s a minor football stadium just a stones-throw from my place and a few years ago they announced that it would be completely redone and become a World Woman’s Sport Village where only women would compete. So they put up some preliminary buildings and lots of signs on the upcoming Women Only Sport Village. Fast forward several years to today, my wife and I were saying that we haven’t seen much work done there since the initial huba-huba. It stood in the newspaper yesterday that the plan fell through. I wonder how many millions was already spent on preliminaries and such?
Ps. The thanking Americans for major surgery and gall bladder went over my head. I don’t get it. 
What question was that? I don’t have the honour of seeing BE’s posts.
Censorship* of a viewpoint not favourable to the government of Iran… go figure.
*in the informal sense
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers
So, Riga, can any of the current circumstances be blamed on the Iranians? Are they even 10% responsible? 5%?
Silly question.
Why, not at all a silly question! Clearly, you have explicitly articulated a position of absolute innocence on the part of Iran! Perhaps not in so many words, words that might be quoted, but your position is obvious to any objective observer, an objectivity that can be measured by the degree with which it aligns with the foreign policy of such worthy nations as our own, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Paragons of international virtue, each and every one! This is also clear to any objective observer, which is a neat alignment of proofs positive.
So, the question is simple: are you going to continue to offer an absurd position which is directly contrary to the objective truth, or will you humbly admit your error and promise to do better?
Well?
Do you believe Iran has borh hardliners and moderates? Or are all Iranians on the same page in how to deal with the US and the EU? I’m trying to find out why you think BE’s question is silly in a respectful way of course.
From Post 841
"The remarks Friday by Ali Akbar Velayati signaled a high-level endorsement of the policies of President Hassan Rouhani, who has been been sharply criticized by hardliners over the landmark nuclear deal that Iran reached with world powers last month and over other contacts with the U.S."
None of the points and counter-points that have been brought up by this discussion, on this forum (that I myself have had to pleasure of reading) have discouraged me in my conviction that Iran has acted with carefully designed diplomacy, and given the facts of history - both then and now (as I understand them) - I would have acted in the same manner and felt justified. That does not mean that every turn has been ideal, but given the background (all in all) I feel that Iran has played the cards its been dealt with great cunning, despite the fact that many of those hands that Iran was (and is being) dealt have been from the bottom of the pack.
The idea of assigning percentages to this or that is, as I said, is silly. Isn’t that how the question was put to me?
Absolutely. Yes, I do.
I gather Riga holds Iran utterly blameless for the current state of affairs. I suggest this be taken into consideration when arguing with him - it’s akin to arguing with someone over a matter of deep personal unyielding faith.
Okay, if Iran has played their cards so well since 1979, are you implying that it was their plan to have most of their major trading partner impose significant sanctions on them? If you see some genius in walking into economic isolation that has made inflation triple over the last four years, and unemployment almost triple in the same time, I’m just not seeing it.
Given the murk that clouds any view of Iran from the outside, it does appear that the moderates have gained considerable, perhaps even dominant, approval from the Iranian electorate. This is an encouraging development, and we should foster and nurture that trend to whatever extent is open to us.
Perhaps bluster, brow-beating and threats are not the best way to encourage such a movement. Just a thought.
Reading my reply gave you such an impression, did it? Where do you get such questions? Do you really expect for me to answer that?
From your assertion that Iran has been acting with carefully designed diplomacy. So apparently their diplomacy, such as it is, ranging from sponsoring terrorism, chanting “death to America”, and breaking their word on treaties, is carefully designed to bring them to the situation they are in now.
Not with any kind of sense or moral consistency, no.
Regards,
Shodan
Do hardliners want a bomb and moderates want only peaceful use of nuclear energy. What draws the distinction between hardliners and moderates for you?
That is why defining any US Senator who calls for new and tougher sanctions
despite Iran’s clear move to moderation last summer as acting in an extremist out of control, hostile to diplomacy behavior in my view. Why so many here have tried to slap that back is hard to figure.
The same thing that distinguishes the degree of grey between black and white. It depends on how black and how white your extremes are.