Thread: Eurasia Topics

Originally Posted by OhOh

Non-oil exports hit...

Forwarding cost to Europe and USA have quadrupled...

Wondering where from all the goods are coming?

Originally Posted by Klondyke

Wondering where from all the goods are coming?

Originally Posted by OhOh

Meanwhile, the country’s top five sources of imports during these two months were the UAE with $1.8 billion, China with $1.5 billion, Turkey with $642 million, Germany with $285 million, and Switzerland with $283 million worth of imports.

Mobile phones, corn, sunflower oil, meal, wheat, soybeans, rice, barley, sugar and crude soybean oil were the most imported items during this period.

Originally Posted by OhOh

exported 16.9 million tons of non-oil commodities including gasoline, polyethylene, methanol, iron and steel ingots and steel products

Primarily produced in Iranian refinery/chemical plants. Steel from their own furnaces.

Imports:

Exports:

Iran Exports By Country


ameristan unsurprisingly is missing out on some good deals.

I used to look down on the creek from the Sheraton Dubai and marvel how much shit went into Iran on those dhows.

VW Camper vans, baths, you name it. If it fitted, it went on there. How they didn't capsize more often is a mystery.

Perhaps all the gold they were smuggling in the keel kept the lot upright ?

Let Iran choose its next president


May 30, 2021 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

"The western analysts feel agitated about Iran’s refusal to play by the rule book of liberal democracy. They feel indignant even as Tehran released on Tuesday the final list of candidates found qualified by the Constitutional Council to run for president in the June 18 election.

A consensus is forming that the election is gerrymandered by the powers that be. In reality, they are applying western norms of democracy, although the 1979 Iranian revolution created a unique political system in Iran devolving upon the unassailable supremacy of the concept of velayit-e-faqih, (guardianship of the jurists in power) but renewable through free elections on the basis of universal suffrage.

Such a political system based on Islamic principles with popular support was conceived as the best means to preserve the revolutionary ideals and ensure stability as well as create a firewall against predatory strikes by inimical foreign powers. Iran’s modern history is replete with brazen foreign interventions and it is no secret that the Iranian revolution is today at a crossroads.

A transition is looming large for the position of the Supreme Leader, which Ali Khamenei has been occupying since 1989 at the age of 50. The position carries immense responsibilities as the spiritual head of the system as well as being the most powerful political authority with either direct or indirect control over the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, as well as the military and media.

Interestingly, Khamenei had served as the third President of Iran from 1981 to 1989 before being elected as the Supreme Leader by the Assembly of Experts.

With the lifting of the US sanctions, which is in the cards, Iran’s integration into the world economy is expected to enter a new phase, and foreign influences and pressure on the country’s decision making are bound to intensify as never before. Iran is a potentially very rich country in resources and there is going to be a scramble for its minerals, in particular.

There is a wonderful 2006 book Overthrow authored by veteran New York Times foreign correspondent and author Stephen Kinzer about the US’ involvement in the overthrow of foreign governments from the late 19th century to the present.

Kinzer contends that “establishing military bases around the world and bringing foreign governments under American control were never ends in themselves” but were “ways for the United States to assure itself access to the markets, resources and investment potential of distant lands.” He adds to it as a supplementary factor that US intervention came also from humanitarian hubris as well — “the power of the noble idea of American exceptionalism.”

Both greed and hubris are present in the US’ fraught relationship with Iran, which will remain in adversarial terms for a foreseeable future even if diplomatic ties are established. The US fancies that there is a huge pro-American sentiment in Iran and it is far from a situation of every Iranian being militantly anti-Israel, anti-American, or in favour of the system of velayit-e-faqih.

Again, there is a notion that Iran’s support the resistance movement is in reality skin deep only and people don’t want to see the country’s resources being squandered to support militant groups such as Hezbollah or Hamas at a time when the economy ought to be the priority.

These self-serving notions, with no empirical data to back up, have led to the USG appropriating $75 million to go to the promotion of democracy and a more “open” society in Iran.

Kinzer writes in his book, “The United States uses a variety of means to persuade other countries to do its bidding… By the end of the twentieth century, it had become more difficult for Americans to stage coups because foreign leaders had learned how to resist them. Coups had also become unnecessary.”

When it comes to Iran, the system is based on checks and balances that prevents concentration of political power. But dispersal of power also has a flip side — it can not only create a dysfunctional system but is also vulnerable to foreign penetration.

It is critically important that the three main pillars of the political system — the presidency, the Majlis and the judiciary — are broadly in harmony with each other despite whatever differences on specific issues. Factionalism has been the Achilles heel of Shia politics historically.

All these considerations prevail when the list of approved presidential candidates is announced. The Guardian Council, which vets candidates for the presidential election, is appointed by the Supreme Leader and is a constitutionally mandated 12-member body of six Islamic jurists (faqihs, or, experts in Islamic Law) and six jurists specialising in different areas of law, to be elected by the Majlis from among the Muslim jurists nominated by the Chief Justice. In principle, the Supreme Leader can demand a revision of the recommended panel of presidential candidates and once, in the presidential election in 2005, it did happen.

Now, this may not conform to the practice of democracy in America. But then, as in America, it is any country’s choice in terms of its history and culture and exigencies of politics to adopt the most suitable electoral system. When it comes to this year’s election, the so-called reformist wing could not agree on a consensus figure while the conservative faction (Principalists) has several candidates in the fray.

Chief justice Seyyed Ebrahim Raeisi, who is being mentioned as front runner, and apparently enjoys broad support in the conservative camp, had opposed the candidacy of incumbent president Hassan Rouhani in the last election in 2017 but polled only 15.8 million votes as against the latter’s 23 million votes. Clearly, being the favourite of the conservative faction alone does not necessarily assure election victory. Surprises are galore when the voters make their choice.

There are other formidable candidates in the fray beyond Raeisi — notably, Mohsen Rezai, former IRGC commander; Saeed Jalili, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator from 2007-2013 (presently a member of the a Expediency Council which arbitrates between parliament and the Guardian Council in any dispute);

Abdolnasser Hemmati, the central bank governor (a “moderate” technocrat) who has worked under two presidents from the opposing wings of Iran’s political factions. By the way, all three candidates are PhD holders.

All in all, from the western perspective, the real problem with the current election in Iran is that the outlook for a moderate candidate is bleak. And this has profound implications at a juncture when the sanctions are likely to be lifted on Iran and the country will be embarking on a new journey to realise its full potential for growth and development for the first time after the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

A joint survey of the Iranian public conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and IranPoll in April provides fascinating insights into how Iranians view this pivotal moment for their country. The US think tank estimated that “Iranians view Rouhani’s policies quite negatively, especially his economic policies… As the election nears, nearly two-thirds of Iranians say they would prefer a critic of Rouhani to be the next president of Iran.”

That is to say, if no credible reformist candidate has not appeared in the electoral arena, it is not because any superior power ordained so but simply because the reformist platform stands discredited today in the eyes of the electorate.

The top contenders in the electorate arena are mostly conservative candidates. Raeisi scored 27%, but then, a plurality of Iranians also say they are undecided (35%). The undecided portion may swing the election in either direction. Clearly, no decisive favourite has volunteered in the upcoming election.

Interestingly, while half of Iranians think it is likely that sanctions would be loosened during the Biden presidency, there is little expectation of improvement for the US-Iran relations over the next four to eight years.

The crux of the matter is that elections in Iran are never about foreign policy. Iran has a very animated political culture. Both in its symbolism and its pragmatism, it stood out that Presidential candidate Raeisi began his election campaign on Wednesday with two events: a meeting with businessmen and a visit to Tehran Grand Bazar.

The election will not produce the results that the western world would hope for. The compass for Iran’s foreign policy is not going to be reset. It is anchored on strategic autonomy.

Therein probably lies the West’s disappointment."

https://www.indianpunchline.com/let-...ext-president/

Let Iran choose its next president

How about letting the Iranian people choose their next president rather than letting the beardy twats choose the candidates?

Or is that too democratic for you?

Originally Posted by OhOh

The "RULES" of the election procedures are normaly only revisable if one party has a high majority, as laid out in a county's constitution. Similar to many countries.

As for the "let the people decide", the people will vote very soon and the person who has the most votes will be the winner.

None of this post "peoples vote" adjustments, by an unelected group accountable to nobody, other than their campaign funders.

As adopted in ameristan it appears.

Or as in the UK. Where the PM is chosen by his political party MPs.

The British people only vote into office their constituency MP.

The British people do not vote into office, the PM.

You don't seem to have a fucking clue about the electoral systems of any country, let alone Iran.

Originally Posted by OhOh

The "RULES" of the election procedures are normaly only revisable if one party has a high majority, as laid out in a county's constitution. Similar to many countries.

As for the "let the people decide", the people will vote very soon and the person who has the most votes will be the winner.

None of this post "peoples vote" adjustments, by an unelected group accountable to nobody, other than their campaign funders.

As adopted in ameristan it appears.

Or as in the UK. Where the PM is chosen by his political party MPs.

The British people only vote into office their constituency MP.

The British people do not vote into office, the PM.

No. But they can vote him out of his seat which will remove him from office.
Your slavish adherence to a one party totalitarian state shows your complete ignorance of western politics, apart from the propaganda you are fed from the CCP which you slavishly drool over like some automaton like simpleton, with absolutely no intellectual capacity for any form of rational reasoning or critical thought.
You are quite a disapointing fellow in many respects as you do show signs of intellectual capacity, unlike a few pseudo intellectual morons on TD, but you exhibit an uncanny knack to back it up with a breathtakingly myopic stupidity that is apparent to all your readers, but unfortunately not yourself.
Fear not, there are two other rivals for your crown galloping up the rear to take out the slightly less than coveted "Tokyo Rose Poster of the year" award.

Originally Posted by OhOh

As for the "let the people decide", the people will vote very soon and the person who has the most votes will be the winner.

Sweet baby Jesus . . . I guess OhNo also thinks China has a one-person/one-vote electoral system . . .

Originally Posted by panama hat

Sweet baby Jesus . . . I guess OhNo also thinks China has a one-person/one-vote electoral system . . .

Well he thinks the chinkies can happily post antigovernment sentiments if they so desire...

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

You are quite a disapointing fellow in many respects as you do show signs of intellectual capacity, unlike a few pseudo intellectual morons on TD, but you exhibit an uncanny knack to back it up with a breathtakingly myopic stupidity that is apparent to all your readers, but unfortunately not yourself.

How very well put.

It's quite clear that he lives in his own little dreamworld.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

no intellectual capacity for any form of rational reasoning or critical thought.

There are a few posters I do regard highly. There are others here that can be easily led along which fit your opinion. All of which increases the forum post numbers, and it's value.

Originally Posted by cyrille

lives in his own little dream world

Absolutely, one day you may find your rainbows end.



Or is yours terrifying?

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

No. But they can vote him out of his seat which will remove him from office.

Do you have an example when a sitting PM has been voted out of office by his/her constituency citizens?

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

Your slavish adherence to a one party totalitarian state shows your complete ignorance of western politics,

You're implying that multi-party states are improving their citizens well-being. Some current and recent examples would be nice.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

the propaganda you are fed from the CCP

I post "news" from a variety of sources. Whether you accept their content is your choice.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

exhibit an uncanny knack to back it up with a breathtakingly myopic stupidit

There are many versions of history available to all who look.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

is apparent to all your readers

All?

Yet you post there are others vying for my exhaulted position!

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

"Tokyo Rose Poster of the year" award.

I've only met three "roses", none Japanese and married them all. All did, and one continues to, prick me occasionally.

A healthy epidermis protects me well.

Originally Posted by Hugh Cow

no intellectual capacity for any form of rational reasoning or critical thought.

. . . OhNo continues on on his unhinged multi-quote rant.

Well spotted, HC

To Indians, Palestine’s Hamas remains a riddle

May 20, 2021 by M. K. BHADRAKUMAR

"One major outcome of the current conflict in Gaza, West Bank and Jerusalem will be the emergence of Hamas as the charioteer of the Palestinian resistance movement against Israel.

The Hamas’ ascendence poses a predicament for a number of countries who would have a sense of involvement with the Palestinian cause. India falls in that category. A policy adjustment becomes necessary. This may involve a leap of faith, as it overlaps the relationship with a militant Islamic group.

In the current conflict, Hamas has won considerable sympathy far beyond the Muslim world, including among those who could otherwise be vehemently opposed from a variety of ideological perspectives to political Islam being the manifestation of power.
The complex feeling ranges from visceral reaction to a far more developed and politically articulated accommodation with Islamism as a political force. The uninformed Indian mind feels confused to see some combination of al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizbollah, Hamas, et al, while Hamas exemplifies a new form of the historic project of justice, freedom, equality and resistance to suppression.

In the international context, the evidence of this transformation appeared when the late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chávez flew into Tehran and dramatically embraced the Iranian president in 2006. More recently, Iran sent a flotilla of tankers to Venezuela last year to help the Latin American nation fight a crippling fuel shortage due to US sanctions, in an act of defiance in the face of Washington’s warnings. What began as a tactical cooperation between Venezuela and Iran has become something far more elaborated.

Curiously, the relationship between militant Islam and secularists in modern history dates back to the immediate aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia in 1917 when the Soviet leadership viewed militant Muslims as at least tactical allies while promoting an “anti-imperialist” movement in Asia against the British, French and Dutch colonial empires.
To quote the well-known British scholar on political Islam, Fred Halliday, “For decades afterwards, the Soviet position on Islam was that it was, if not inherently progressive, then at least capable of socialist interpretation.” Of course, it is a different story that in the latter part of the 20th century, as key template of the Cold War strategy against the Soviet Union, the West succeeded by a far clearer alignment of Islamist groups against communism, socialism, liberalism and all that Moscow stood for — with devastating effect culminating in the “Afghan jihad” in the 1980s.

Inevitably, when history is rewritten, the language of political adjustment also changes to accommodate the new accommodation. Thus, the protests in the western cities this past week over the Israeli assault on Gaza carried the banners “Palestinian Lives Matter,” echoing the movement that surged in the US following the brutal murder of George Floyd, an African-American by police in Minneapolis in Minnesota in the US last May.

That the sympathisers and supporters of the Palestine cause invoked Black Lives Matter, a decentralised political and social movement in the US against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people, carries much symbolism about the changing perceptions of Hamas worldwide as a resistance movement.
A riveting piece today by The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof was titled The ‘unshakeable bonds of Friendship Between the US and Israel are Shaking. Kristof wrote that young Americans tend to see “the rise of this hawkish, more extremist Israel and perceive not a plucky democracy but an oppressive military power. What strikes them most isn’t democratic values so much as what Human Rights Watch calls “crimes of apartheid.”

Importantly, among Democrats in the US Congress, attitudes toward Israel have grown more critical as the party base expresses concern about the human rights of Palestinians. A robust push from the energised progressive wing of the party — led by Senator Bernie Sanders and the representatives in the House, like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, have openly accused Israel of gross human rights violations against Palestinians and of operating an “apartheid state.”

Senator Sanders wrote a forceful essay in the New York Times last week where he argued, “In the Middle East, where we (US) provide nearly $4 billion a year in aid to Israel, we can no longer be apologists for the right-wing Netanyahu government and its undemocratic and racist behaviour. We must change course and adopt an evenhanded approach, one that upholds and strengthens international law regarding the protection of civilians, as well as existing US law holding that the provision of US military aid must not enable human rights abuses.”
Sanders concluded, “We must recognise that Palestinian rights matter. Palestinian lives matter.” Meanwhile, diplomacy always happens behind the scenes because it needs to be quiet and seldom if ever its every component gets read out. Reports have appeared nonetheless that President Biden has lately switched to a somewhat sharper private tone in his calls with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Biden’s juggling act on Israel only underscores his acute awareness that the Democrats are no longer solidly in Israel’s corner. The crisply worded White House readout on Biden’s call with Netanyahu on Wednesday ended with a noticeably undiplomatic formulation hinting at irritation, which has made headlines in the international press: “The President conveyed to the Prime Minister that he expected a significant de-escalation today on the path to a ceasefire.” (Emphasis added.)

All this has great relevance today for Indians who have been brainwashed by Israel and its lobbyists in the academia, media and think tanks into the stereotyped conceptions of Hamas as a violent jihadi group. Part of the problem, admittedly, lies in past history when Hamas used to be antithetical to the PLO led by Yasser Arafat and, more recently, to the Fatah led by Mahmoud Abbas, who have been friends of India.

However, much water has flowed down the River Jordan since Arafat. Even as the Palestinians increasingly got disillusioned with the Fatah’s dalliance with the CIA and Israel, Hamas — with its styles of dogged resistance, systems of social reform and the organisation of the centralised party — began rising in popular esteem. To be sure, Fatah feels threatened today to the point that Abbas contrived to scuttle the parliamentary elections in Palestine slated for May 31 (to be followed by presidential elections on July 3.)

The covert bonding between Abbas and Netanyahu, and the latter’s blatant interference in intra-Palestinian politics has been an enduring feature but no one wants to talk about it. In fact, the former Fatah intelligence chief Mohammed Dahlan who split from Abbas and lives in the UAE, keeps contact with the US and Israeli intelligence, and is being groomed up as possible contender to replace 84-year-old Abbas as Palestinian Authority President!

Herein lies the far-reaching significance of the Hamas’ resistance in Gaza today to the ferocious Israeli attacks. A point has come where Hamas, thanks to its growing deterrent power, may be insulating Gaza from anymore Israeli aggression — as the Hizbollah has succeeded in Lebanon since the disastrous Israeli invasion in 2006.

In political terms, this means that no issues of war and peace can any longer be decided in Palestine without the participation of Hamas, which has emerged as the most effective player with support from Iran, Turkey and Qatar.

Hamas by far overshadows the traditional friends of India in the Palestinian camp, who are of course a pale shadow of what they used to be in the halcyon days of Arafat. India must, therefore, upgrade its approach. The Indian statement of May 16 at the UN Security Council suggests that the new thinking is in transition, struggling to be born."

https://www.indianpunchline.com/to-i...ains-a-riddle/

I think to this particular retard blogger that you seem to fawn over, *anything* is a riddle.

India . . .

US Homicide Rate 60% Higher Than Russia's in 2020