Revanchism implies a recent thing. It's like the German attitude toward Versailles, Hungarian attitude toward Triannon, etc.

I did not know the definition of irrendentism until I looked it up just now, but that is exactly what I am accusing Persia of.

To be fair revanchism works too, it's just less specific

that jordanian pilot was pretty hot

error says

irredentism vs revanchism

Good point. I used the wrong term there, my apologies.

irredentism vs revanchism

I believe that they do currently recognize them, but I think that their recognition is a very recent development and I think that there is still a great deal of animosity between them.


I have to go to class, but I will illustrate this point better lately.

Show me where they have said that post 2003. Show me where they do not currently recognise them.

How can you argue that Iran does not practice revanchism when they have flat out stated that they want the area back, and refused to recognize them as a sovereign state for decades?

No, I am not. But I am saying that whilst modern Iran is many things, nationalist and revanchist are not one.

Are you arguing that a nations history has no relevance to contemporary society? Why did the Ottomans want the Dardanelles back so bad during WWI? Why did the Russians annex Crimea?

I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with you when you say that there is no pride regarding the history of Persia in Persia. I think that is factually incorrect, and I think that Iran has flat out stated that they intend to take back the fertile crescent numerous times since about 1980

The British Empire treated minorities like crap 150 years ago, how is that relevant to today's society? Comparing Iran to the Achaemenid Empire is hilarious.

And if you want proof that Iran is not the nationalist entity you're making it out to be - look at the Iranian minorities. There are a huge amount of them, Baluchis and in particular Kurds. It's no coincidence the Iranian Kurds are the only ones not even interested in independence. Iran is too multicultural to treat its minorities badly.


Persia is historically renowned for treating its conquered denizens extremely well, dating back to the Archaemenid Persian Empire in 550 BC. What is your point here?

Because America will not allow Iran to take over half of Iraq. Whilst Iraq was led by a hostile Saddam, of course Iran made aggressive statements toward it. Show me one time where they've denied Iraqs right to exist in the past decade.

A nationalist theocratic Iran would collapse in months because of the huge amount of Kurdish, Baluchi, Azeri and other minorities in it. There is no Persian master race in Iran. There is a Shia master race, but Sunnis are tolerated and even the Zoroastrians are left in peace, albeit without any government power.

You're correct about the Shah wanting Shiite dominance across the middle east, but I can assure you that historically the territory between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers has been one of Iran's long term goals, pretty much since Iraq came into existence.

I don't know where you got that idea that Iran knows it will never get that. The Middle East isn't exactly stable, and Iraq is especially not stable. It is completely feasible that they will get the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers back under their control in the near future. Saying that they know they will never get that is like saying Russia knew they would never get Crimea back. Iran has acknowledged numerous times that it does not believe that Iraq has a right to exist as a sovereign nation, and that they believe the territory that currently belongs to Iraq should belong to Iran.

And if you want proof that Iran is not the nationalist entity you're making it out to be - look at the Iranian minorities. There are a huge amount of them, Baluchis and in particular Kurds. It's no coincidence the Iranian Kurds are the only ones not even interested in independence. Iran is too multicultural to treat its minorities badly.

Iran knows it will never get that. Iran is a theocracy, and as a result it is religion that drives it, not nationalism. It's easy to misconstrue these things, but the Iranian government is actually quite pragmatic. What Iran wants is a Shiite band stretching from Tehran to the Mediterranean. It has Lebanon already via Hezbollah. It's likely it will get Syria back in a year or two under Assad. That leaves the removal of IS so that it can connect Syria to Iraq again. Iran having full access to a Mediterranean port scares the crap out of Israel (just look at their reaction to Iran sending some warships through Suez a couple of years ago) and it's one of their key aims. The recent overtures toward rapprochement with the Saudis do not overrule this aim.

They might be interfering with Iraq's internal politics right now as a means to further their goals, but make no mistake. The Persians believe that Iraq should belong to Persia, and they intend to take the territory between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers back eventually.

You're not wrong but you also have completely misconstrued Iran's intentions. Iran's eventual goal is and always has been to take the territory between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers back. Iran has never even acknowledged Iraq's right to exist as a sovereign nation. They aren't using it "As a puppet". They aren't friends. The Persians want that piece of Persia back.

And why would they hate each other? Iran's been interfering and controlling the Iraqi government since 2010. Iraq is a puppet state being controlled by Iran.

lol this thread is how all my weekend family gatherings go

Iraq and Iran hating each other? You what?

This was true under Saddam and the Baathists. The key there is Saddam was Sunni. Iraq is now led by Shiites, and Iranian influence is stronger than American influence as a result. Since the idea of secular Pan-Arabism has died, sectarianism has become rife, and Iran is closely allied to every other Shia group in the Middle East. Whether it be the Houris (sp?) who've just overthrown the Yemeni government, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Assad in Syria, and the new Iraqi government. There's a reason the defence of Baghdad was led by Iranian militias, why the Revolutionary Guards are fighting IS in Syria, and why Iran has been bombing IS from outside the US coalition. Iran has invested a lot into getting its influence in Iraq, it isn't going to abandon it.

Do you think that Muslim and Arab are synonymous? Did I say that less than 98% of Iran is Muslim?

98% of iranians are muslims... what are you talking about