> It doesn't look like foreign conquest is part of their MO.
sigh this is aljazeera ... They don't mention what Iran did in the Iran-Iraq war (Iraq gave up after ~1 year, and Iran tried to conquer Iraq for 7 years. Oh and you might want to Google "plastic keys to heaven". You see, according to the IRGC allah provides cheap demining equipment in the form of minority children. And before you say they've now stopped you might want to look at the pictures they're spreading TODAY about the Houthi's "success". There's a ~10 year old boy on those pictures ...)
If what you say is remotely true, what is the intention behind Hezbollah, the Houthi's, Iraq's religious parties, and Iran's participation in Syria's civil war (delivering the soldiers).
Please note that if you give an explanation, and you say it's "to feel safe", note that Iran helped kill 600,000 Syrians (they brought the soldiers to kill everyone). Houthi's in Yemen killed tens of thousands and starved hundreds of thousands ... to death, with Iran's help.
I mean this is what they do to feel safe, and you are trying to give an argument that they should have nukes so they'll be safe?
I'll make a guess, now you're going to "compare" it to some US actions, or perhaps Israel? And we won't be discussing that Iran's IRGC probably killed more of their own people "only to feel safe" in 3 days of January protests than Israel did in 3 years of war in Gaza.
"The high death rate for children is indicated by Brigadier General Mohammad-Saleh Jokar, the head the Students Basij, who stated that 36,000 schoolchildren were killed while only 2,853 were injured during the war."
(note: such numbers are only realistic if Iran killed their own wounded children. Let's hope this is not actually true)
Note the constant reduction in the death toll (and read the talk page for why the numbers were reduced, along with attempted removals of references to Reza Pahlavi. You see the death toll are western disinformation campaigns, and if you check the people, claimed by people who got warnings for being pro-Russian unfair edits ...)
I meant Iran that taking over the aggression starts at the stalemate. Yes Iraq attacked first, but Iran was the aggressor for 8 to 9 out of 10 years of the war.
Iraq even gave as a reason that they were sure Iran was going to attack soon and that there was a substantial Iranian force inside Iraq as Iraqi citizens. Both were probably correct, although we'll never know.
sigh this is aljazeera ... They don't mention what Iran did in the Iran-Iraq war (Iraq gave up after ~1 year, and Iran tried to conquer Iraq for 7 years. Oh and you might want to Google "plastic keys to heaven". You see, according to the IRGC allah provides cheap demining equipment in the form of minority children. And before you say they've now stopped you might want to look at the pictures they're spreading TODAY about the Houthi's "success". There's a ~10 year old boy on those pictures ...)
If what you say is remotely true, what is the intention behind Hezbollah, the Houthi's, Iraq's religious parties, and Iran's participation in Syria's civil war (delivering the soldiers).
Please note that if you give an explanation, and you say it's "to feel safe", note that Iran helped kill 600,000 Syrians (they brought the soldiers to kill everyone). Houthi's in Yemen killed tens of thousands and starved hundreds of thousands ... to death, with Iran's help.
I mean this is what they do to feel safe, and you are trying to give an argument that they should have nukes so they'll be safe?
I'll make a guess, now you're going to "compare" it to some US actions, or perhaps Israel? And we won't be discussing that Iran's IRGC probably killed more of their own people "only to feel safe" in 3 days of January protests than Israel did in 3 years of war in Gaza.