A non-aggression pact with Iran is incredibly simple: don't want your shit blown up, just stop letting the US or the Zionist entity use your territory and airspace to attack Iran or its allies.

[–] Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Its not quite simple though because the second saudi ~~america~~ arabia thinks about pushing usa out the zionists and americans will start targeting saudi oil infrastructure and blame it on Iran.

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

When things like that happen the governments of those states don't genuinely believe it was Iran. They know it was the US/Zionists but they go along with blaming Iran because it's currently more convenient to use it as a pretext to agitate against Iran and gain "good boy points" with the US. Some of the population may be fooled by the media but the governments have enough intelligence capabilities to recognize false flags.

If they genuinely want to get out from under the US thumb and a establish mutual understanding with Iran for regional stability and security then they will have to start calling out the real culprits.

That is how you will know if the agreement was signed in good faith or not. Whether the Saudis are willing to engage in good faith that i don't know.

[–] GracesArms@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yes, this arguably takes a ripe asset rich target away from Iran though. Obviously hitting them for damages sake isn't good behaviour, but they've already made their bed when they let US use their country as a military base to blow up Iran. Just cause they fucked up and got their shit rocked doesn't mean Iran gains anything from this. What can Saudi do or provide that US and Israel don't already have in spades?

[–] cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

What can Saudi do or provide that US and Israel don't already have in spades?

Basing locations. Geographical limitations are a reality. If you cannot launch attacks from close by your options will be much more limited. If only a few of the Gulf state comprador regimes remain available to them in that region, that significantly reduces their tactical flexibility and shrinks the area to disperse/hide their assets over.

Taking Saudi Arabia out of the equation is a net advantage for Iran. There are still plenty of targets in the region without them.

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@reddthat.com 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And if they were to not allowing usage of airspace to attack Iran with a country, that also limits the ways the US can approach from more distant bases, potentially increasing flight lengths.

[–] KrasnaiaZvezda@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 18 hours ago

Although unless such a deal includes no radars can be active in SA during conflict it might just be a way for the empire to gain some of its vision against ballistic missiles again.

[–] prof_tincoa@lemmygrad.ml 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Simply not having US military stationed there is already a huge victory in itself, or am I missing something? Ultimately, Iran wants zero US military presence in the region, and this could be a major initial step in that direction. As long as Iran keeps bombing US allies and leaving be the neutral states, it sends a powerful message.

[–] GracesArms@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 13 hours ago

I thought this was a non aggression pact with nothing in it whatsoever about remove US presence or am I missing something