Economic collapse? Iran's Khamenei Tells Rouhani, Ministers, To Solve Economic problems

[rainman + 263]

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, meeting with Rouhani and his cabinet on Wednesday, told the government to work “day and night” to resolve economic problems. “We need to be strong in the economic field ... The officials should work hard day and night to resolve the problems,” Khamenei was quoted as saying by state television. Iranian lawmakers launched impeachment proceedings against the education minister on Wednesday, stepping up pressure on President Hassan Rouhani who is under attack from parliament over his handling of the economy following new U.S. sanctions. Iran’s official unemployment rate is 12 percent, with youth unemployment as high as 25 percent in a country where 60 percent of the 80 million population is under 30. The rial has lost more than two-thirds of its value in a year.

[damirUSBiH + 327]

First of all, Iran needs to change Mullahs and "bring" democracy before their economy will be improved.

[Pavel + 384]

They are controlling Iran and Iranians last forty years: 90% of Iranians lives as a poor people, in spite of world's leading oil producing countries!

[pinto + 293]

Mullahs created all the problems and Khamenei & Co. have stolen billions of dollars in last four decades, and now he wants people to work day and night to solve economic situation. What a mentality, what a regime.

[ThunderBlade + 231]

Meanwhile, Europe Gives Iran $20 million, while the U.S. focuses on maximizing economic pressure. " We are supporting Iran with a package of €18 million for projects in support of sustainable economic and social development, including €8 million assistance to the private sector and SMEs" -European Commission

[Petar + 76]

They have no idea where this money will be used for. It could well be to support of terrorism or to buy weapons. 

[50 shades of black + 254]

Solution? Yep. whole new government and new system. Hopefully, secular and democratic, so Iran can return to the modern world and become leader of the democracy on the Middle East...

[jpZelabal + 63]

Double standards in the EU. They should help and protect the persecuted Iranian people not to help the dictator regime for more killings. They don’t care about the human rights of the innocent people in the Iran.

[TXPower + 643]

The people of Iran must take responsibility and action for their future.  

The mullahs have brought nothing but religious extremism, economic problems and social repression.

The EU are enablers of the worst kind and part of the problem not the solution.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

Iran just blinked.  Big time.

Iran to leave nuclear deal if it fails to serve national interests, says Ayatollah Khamenei

[Eodmatt + 114]

21 hours ago, Petar said:

They have no idea where this money will be used for. It could well be to support of terrorism or to buy weapons. 

This is indeed one of the problems of "humanitarian aid" when cash is involved. I have never seen any aid program involving cash that isn't corrupt.

The problem is that the vocal liberal minority who now seem to rule the planet, scream "racism" and "neo colonialism" whenever any attempt is made to instal fiscal controls or proper auditing procedures over funding.

The United Nations is renowned for standing by whilst corruption reigns supreme  - a good example is the United Nations Mine Action Centre in Cambodia. This organisation absorbed countless millions of dollars since it was formed and has been the focus of many scandals involving fraud and corruption since its inception. Nothing is ever done, because the principle of applying proper and responsible oversight to local indigenous administrations is anathema to the lefty yoghurt knitters.

[Eodmatt + 114]

6 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Iran just blinked.  Big time.

Iran to leave nuclear deal if it fails to serve national interests, says Ayatollah Khamenei

Back in about 2010, I was working in Tehran for an oil company. One night we (me and my driver) went to the "best" restaurant in Tehran* for dinner. Sitting at the next table was a white haired geezer, whom my driver told me was the chief scientist in charge of Irans nuclear bomb project.

I had a momentary urge to leap across the table and have at him with a spoon. Someone else got him a few months later with, I think, a bicycle bomb if I remember correctly (maybe not, I cant even remember what I had for breakfast these days).

Karma

*It's nothing much to write home about.

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

18 minutes ago, Eodmatt said:

Back in about 2010, I was working in Tehran for an oil company. One night we (me and my driver) went to the "best" restaurant in Tehran* for dinner. Sitting at the next table was a white haired geezer, whom my driver told me was the chief scientist in charge of Irans nuclear bomb project.

I had a momentary urge to leap across the table and have at him with a spoon. Someone else got him a few months later with, I think, a bicycle bomb if I remember correctly (maybe not, I cant even remember what I had for breakfast these days).

Karma

*It's nothing much to write home about.

Using a spoon would have been a pretty unique way of premptively defusing an unexploded bomb maker.

[jaycee + 348]

Can help but point out that the Shah was a puppet put in charge of Iran by the West who became authoritarian and corrupt, look it up here is a starter https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-Pahlavi-Dynasty-overthrown. The people were glad to get rid of him in the end and welcomed the religious clerics as they are a religious people. When the West stops trying to force other countries to live by their rules and accept some countries want to do things differently peace will break out but that would mean the West would no longer be able to steal the natural resources of such countries.

Look at both sides of an argument to see the truth.  

[Eodmatt + 114]

17 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Using a spoon would have been a pretty unique way of premptively defusing an unexploded bomb maker.

Apparently my Dr. In the ancient village of Yalding in Kent had been a prisoner of war of the Japanese on the infamous Burma Railway, when he was a young army MO Captain.

Dr. Fincham was a very gently spoken man with a soft Scottish burr. I went to see him after I had been sent home for convalescence from the military hospital after a lung operation.

"Arre ye in pain," he asked.

"Yes" I replied.

"I rrrecommend that ye take a small glass of good malt Whisky aforre ye go to bed." He said.

I asked what was the maximum dose I could take per day.

"I'd rrreccomend  that ye take no morrre  than a bottle a day". He replied

Rex Hunt, a former racing driver and landlord of the Yew Tree Inn, my local pub, told me later that the young Captain Fincham, when he was a prisoner of war, had removed a tumour from a fellow prisoners brain with the aid of a rudimentary carpentry set and a sharpened spoon.

 

 

 

Edited August 31, 2018 by Eodmatt

[Eodmatt + 114]

15 hours ago, jaycee said:

Can help but point out that the Shah was a puppet put in charge of Iran by the West who became authoritarian and corrupt, look it up here is a starter https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-Pahlavi-Dynasty-overthrown. The people were glad to get rid of him in the end and welcomed the religious clerics as they are a religious people. When the West stops trying to force other countries to live by their rules and accept some countries want to do things differently peace will break out but that would mean the West would no longer be able to steal the natural resources of such countries.

Look at both sides of an argument to see the truth.  

And then the religious clerics became worse than the Shah ever was and the people now want to be rid of them. Of course it is all the fault of the decadent West.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Eodmatt
Rid doesn't end in an e

[jaycee + 348]

53 minutes ago, Eodmatt said:

And then the religious clerics became worse than the Shah ever was and the people now want to be ride of them. Of course it is all the fault of the decadent West.

Are they worse, how do you assume that? Will the West make it better like they did in Iraq?

[TXPower + 643]

1 hour ago, jaycee said:

Can help but point out that the Shah was a puppet put in charge of Iran by the West who became authoritarian and corrupt, look it up here is a starter https://www.quora.com/Why-was-the-Pahlavi-Dynasty-overthrown. The people were glad to get rid of him in the end and welcomed the religious clerics as they are a religious people. When the West stops trying to force other countries to live by their rules and accept some countries want to do things differently peace will break out but that would mean the West would no longer be able to steal the natural resources of such countries.

Look at both sides of an argument to see the truth.  

To be sure, the shah was no angel and I suspect some portion of the Iranian populace was in fact glad to be rid of him.

I won’t insult intelligence by suggesting we’d give two squirts about Iran were it not for our relationship with Israel and Oil.  But, that’s not the full story now is it.

Iranians are like the rest of us, some religious, some not so much.  Unfortunately, the religious zealots now rule Iran.  To suggest that the mullahs are somehow better than the Shah was and that “peace will break out” if the West would just leave them to their own devices is full departure from logic and reality.

The mullahs broadcast their intentions to the world with their rhetoric toward Israel and the west,  little Satan and the great Satan respectively, the motivation of which has less to do with settling scores and more to do with their destructive religious ideologies.  Research their beliefs about the next caliphate and the mahdi, it will instruct and provide a better view of both sides of the argument.  

[Qanoil + 116]

9 minutes ago, TXPower said:

The mullahs broadcast their intentions to the world with their rhetoric toward Israel and the west,  little Satan and the great Satan respectively

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LvkXyAmG1B4

Edited August 30, 2018 by Qanoil

[jaycee + 348]

54 minutes ago, TXPower said:

To be sure, the shah was no angel and I suspect some portion of the Iranian populace was in fact glad to be rid of him.

I won’t insult intelligence by suggesting we’d give two squirts about Iran were it not for our relationship with Israel and Oil.  But, that’s not the full story now is it.

Iranians are like the rest of us, some religious, some not so much.  Unfortunately, the religious zealots now rule Iran.  To suggest that the mullahs are somehow better than the Shah was and that “peace will break out” if the West would just leave them to their own devices is full departure from logic and reality.

The mullahs broadcast their intentions to the world with their rhetoric toward Israel and the west,  little Satan and the great Satan respectively, the motivation of which has less to do with settling scores and more to do with their destructive religious ideologies.  Research their beliefs about the next caliphate and the mahdi, it will instruct and provide a better view of both sides of the argument.  

I would say a large proportion of Iranians supported the religious take over judging by the total lack of resistance to it, not just some as you suggest.
Ayatollahs are possibly no better than the Shah but I don't live there so am not claiming to know, do you have inner knowledge, my only knowledge comes from an Iranian I work with however it is what the Iranian people want as there is a functioning democratic system in Iran so they can change things if they want.
Iran is hostile to the West as the West has been trying to unseat the Ayatollahs since the  took over. They are defending themselves against those that wish to take over their country. Why should the West always be the good guys perhaps sometimes they are the bad ones? 
I don't need to research the beliefs of Shia Muslims I am well aware however many countries are Muslim and live in peace with the West but then the West is not trying to bring them down. I suggest the problem is a reaction to Western aggression not vice versa. As an example of the West's ability to work with religious zealots how about Saudi Arabia? The Saudis have some very interesting views if you look closely at Wahhabism, it is responsible for the rise of the Taliban for example and their people are heavily repressed by religious police and strict religious based laws are enforced in the law courts where hands and heads are regularly chopped off yet the West gets on happily with them and the people are happy. It should also be noted a usual reason for condeming a country by the West is to say it is not democratic well Saudi is run by a male super rich elite based on who their father was, why are we not invading now!  Tolerance of how others want to run their own country is needed and I am sure the Iranians would be a lot less aggressive if we stopped trying to undermine them. Try looking past Western propaganda.

Edited August 30, 2018 by jaycee

[TXPower + 643]

17 minutes ago, jaycee said:

I would say a large proportion of Iranians supported the religious take over judging by the total lack of resistance to it, not just some as you suggest.
Ayatollahs are possibly no better than the Shah but I don't live there so am not claiming to know, do you have inner knowledge, my only knowledge comes from an Iranian I work with however it is what the Iranian people want as there is a functioning democratic system in Iran so they can change things if they want.
Iran is hostile to the West as the West has been trying to unseat the Ayatollahs since the  took over. They are defending themselves against those that wish to take over their country. Why should the West always be the good guys perhaps sometimes they are the bad ones? 
I don't need to research the beliefs of Shia Muslims I am well aware however many countries are Muslim and live in peace with the West but then the West is not trying to bring them down. I suggest the problem is a reaction to Western aggression not vice versa. As an example of the West's ability to work with religious zealots how about Saudi Arabia? The Saudis have some very interesting views if you look closely at Wahhabism, it is responsible for the rise of the Taliban for example and their people are heavily repressed by religious police and strict religious based laws are enforced in the law courts where hands and heads are regularly chopped off yet the West gets on happily with them and the people are happy. It should also be noted a usual reason for condeming a country by the West is to say it is not democratic well Saudi is run by a male super rich elite based on who their father was, why are we not invading now!  Tolerance of how others want to run their own country is needed and I am sure the Iranians would be a lot less aggressive if we stopped trying to undermine them. Try looking past Western propaganda.

The lack of resistance to the takeover by the religious zealots then, as now, had little to do with wholesale support for the mullahs and more to do with an unarmed populace.  Revolutions, left to themselves, rarely lead to a better government.  But that’s another conversation.  

My knowledge of Iran comes from the friends I have who came from there and live here in the U.S. now.  One of my Iranian friends came from nothing and teaches at a college now.  To paraphrase him, “it’s foolish to believe elections in Iran are free and transparent”.  Not to mention, it’s the Islamic Assembly and Supreme Leader where the real power rests, not their President.  Hell, even former President Ahmadenijad was calling out the Supreme Leader for free elections, absent meddling from the Guardian Council (the religious zealots), leading up to their last election.

Why should the West always be the good guys?  Honestly, we aren’t always, at least in the purest sense of the word.  Let’s be honest though, in the current conversation, the mullahs are definitely not the good guys.

You are correct, much of the world is Muslim and lives at peace with the rest of the world.  Our current dialogue is about Iran.  It does not and has not lived peacefully with the world.  Quite the opposite as a matter of fact.  If you do truly understand the fanatical nature of the Iranian religious leaders then it would be impossible for you to assert that Iran is acting the way it does from provocation.  What they say, do and work toward is intricately interwoven with their religious ideaology.  It’s not peaceful.

I am no defender of the House of Suad.  I deplore the paternal dynasties, dictatorships and theocracies of the world equally wherever they are and by whomever they are controlled.  Point of clarity though, Saudi isn’t racing toward nuclear status and openly telling us they want to kill us and our friends.  And perhaps more to the point, as I have pointed out before, it’s about balance of power in the region.  We support Saudi because they are a counterbalance to an Iranian hegemony, a desire Iran developed all on its own.

[Qanoil + 116]

Ya know what I love on this forum?

Unrestrained vocalizations of opinions.

Nowhere else but America is this possible 

[jaycee + 348]

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

Revolutions, left to themselves, rarely lead to a better government.  But that’s another conversation.

Totally agree the American revolution led us to where we are now should they have stayed as a colony of the UK bit like Iran was a puppet colony of the US :0)

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

To paraphrase him, “it’s foolish to believe elections in Iran are free and transparent”.  Not to mention, it’s the Islamic Assembly and Supreme Leader where the real power rests, not their President.  Hell, even former President Ahmadenijad was calling out the Supreme Leader for free elections, absent meddling from the Guardian Council (the religious zealots), leading up to their last election.

But they have elections that's my point many countries have no elections or even more corrupt ones and are still supported by the West. The Iranians elected a moderate Prime Minster last time against the wishes of the religious establishment who have tried to depose him ever since ironically America reneging on a treaty has now left him out to dry and the religious zealots are now conducting the megaphone negotiations with Trump.

 

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

Why should the West always be the good guys?  Honestly, we aren’t always, at least in the purest sense of the word.  Let’s be honest though, in the current conversation, the mullahs are definitely not the good guys.

Neither side is particularly good but I am proposing that the Iranians could have been a lot more moderate had the West not been trying since day 1 t topple them. As I said Saudi spanned the Taliban and has a anti Western fundamentalist version of Islam as its main religion and still the US loves them clearly a bit of religious zeal is no bar to being friendly we will never know how things might have gone if friendship was offered instead of aggression.

 

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

You are correct, much of the world is Muslim and lives at peace with the rest of the world.  Our current dialogue is about Iran.  It does not and has not lived peacefully with the world.  Quite the opposite as a matter of fact.  If you do truly understand the fanatical nature of the Iranian religious leaders then it would be impossible for you to assert that Iran is acting the way it does from provocation.  What they say, do and work toward is intricately interwoven with their religious ideaology.  It’s not peaceful.

Yes see quote above regards Saudi its version of Islam is just as anti Western and even more fundamentalist.

 

1 hour ago, TXPower said:

Point of clarity though, Saudi isn’t racing toward nuclear status and openly telling us they want to kill us and our friends.  And perhaps more to the point, as I have pointed out before, it’s about balance of power in the region

Perhaps keeping the previous deal with Iran would have been a good idea then as they were not racing towards nuclear armament with that? Only the US of all the signatories believed that was the case. Again this is a problem created by Western, in this case US,  aggression. As for balance of power yes the Saudis have egged on Trump, as have the Israels, to do this as they want to rule the area but I am not seeing how their brand of Islam is going to be any better in the long run considering that they created the Taliban with the madrasas they funded outside their home country.

[jaycee + 348]

1 hour ago, Qanoil said:

Ya know what I love on this forum?

Unrestrained vocalizations of opinions.

Nowhere else but America is this possible 

Seriously? Just for the record I am in the UK. I have had conversations like this on UK sites too.

[TXPower + 643]

16 minutes ago, jaycee said:

Totally agree the American revolution led us to where we are now should they have stayed as a colony of the UK bit like Iran was a puppet colony of the US :0)

But they have elections that's my point many countries have no elections or even more corrupt ones and are still supported by the West. The Iranians elected a moderate Prime Minster last time against the wishes of the religious establishment who have tried to depose him ever since ironically America reneging on a treaty has now left him out to dry and the religious zealots are now conducting the megaphone negotiations with Trump.

 

Neither side is particularly good but I am proposing that the Iranians could have been a lot more moderate had the West not been trying since day 1 t topple them. As I said Saudi spanned the Taliban and has a anti Western fundamentalist version of Islam as its main religion and still the US loves them clearly a bit of religious zeal is no bar to being friendly we will never know how things might have gone if friendship was offered instead of aggression.

 

Yes see quote above regards Saudi its version of Islam is just as anti Western and even more fundamentalist.

 

Perhaps keeping the previous deal with Iran would have been a good idea then as they were not racing towards nuclear armament with that? Only the US of all the signatories believed that was the case. Again this is a problem created by Western, in this case US,  aggression. As for balance of power yes the Saudis have egged on Trump, as have the Israels, to do this as they want to rule the area but I am not seeing how their brand of Islam is going to be any better in the long run considering that they created the Taliban with the madrasas they funded outside their home country.

And yet, the result of the American Revolution has benefitted so many nations for good for so long.  Including Canada, eh?  But let’s keep it apples to apples.  We and much of the west have truly free elections.  No Supreme councils puppeteering our elected officials.  Comparing Iran’s to the western model is inappropriate,  disingenuous and unconvincing at best.   

You are way to intelligent to miss this point, the mullahs did not rise to power because they, their platform or religious beliefs were moderate.  They are zealots, before and since the revolution.

As for Saudi, the Taliban isn’t in control of the Saudi Goverment. The mullahs are in control of Iran.   We could spend days talking about which governments fed or inspired which freedom fighters, terrorists, revolutionaries whatever you want to call them.  The Taliban do not act officially for the Saudis.  Family Saud runs the show, not the clerics.  To say we love the Saudis is a gross overstatement.  Better characteization would be the enemy of my enemy is my friend.  And oh yeah, they have cheaper oil they are willing to sell and lots of it.  Relationship of conveinance. 

The sham “nuclear deal” obummer signed was playcation of the worst order sealed with all the hope in the world.  To quote a Professor whose lecture on negotiations I sat in on recently, “hope is not a strategy”.  Iran’s fanaticism and rhetoric preceed that feat of naivety.  And trust that it was not just the U.S. that believed Iran was working toward nuclear status.

The Israelis aren’t egging anyone on.  They want to be left alone and for Iran and others to recognize their right to exist.  Iran would do well to heed that.  The Saudis, well they want to maintain they’re level of influence in the region.  The finest U.S. Military assets bought with their oil money is a good start.