You claimed that the iranian state existed independently since 1500s. I proved you wrong.
> the continuation of the territorial integrity of Iran
"The treaty confirmed the ceding and inclusion of what is now Dagestan, eastern Georgia, most of the Republic of Azerbaijan and parts of northern Armenia from Iran into the Russian Empire."
You can find the others. I won't bother with the sphere of influences carved out by russia and britain within iran itself where iran had to grant privileges to russia and britain over a few provinces. If you look at the map, almost 2/3rd of iran proper was under russian or british "influence".
If it is easier for you to see rather than read...
> The historical fact is that an Iranian state composed predominantly of Iranian peoples and ruled by Iranians has existed for 2 and a half millennia.
Other than when the arabs and the mongols took charge for a bit. Right? Pretty major events in iranian and world history you completely forgot about.
> The Iranian nation-state cannot be a mere product of British/Russian influence
Sure it can because iran lost a significant portion of its territory to russia/britain in the past few hundred years. Modern iran exists as it is today because of britain and russia. Iran was much bigger before the rise of the west. Nation-state is a modern european concept. Iran's landmass looks the way it does because of all the wars lost to britain and russia.
> I'm not denying that there are disruptions to continuity
Then why are you arguing with me?
> Instead, I'm denying that those disruptions actually matter for the political analysis.
What? That's as ridiculous as saying the opium wars and the european colonization of china doesn't matter for political analysis. That the colonization of india doesn't matter. The partitioning of india doesn't matter? Since the chinese, indians, turks, etc all rule their own countries, european colonization doesn't matter?
What you wrote is so absurd that it's the political/historical equivalent of saying the earth is flat. Modern iran looks the way it does, geographically and politically, because of western expansion/invasion. It's a nation-state and not a empire because of the west.
This will be my last response as I know you'll just find another topic to argue about. To claim that iran had political/state/government, territorial, etc continuity since the 1500s when iran lost tons of land to russia/britain, it collapsed from an empire to a western forced 'nation-state' and had huge swathes of territory cordoned off in sphere of influence is absurd.
> Since the chinese, indians, turks, etc all rule their own countries, european colonization doesn't matter?
That is absolutely not what I said. But I'm not going to elaborate any further since apparently you believe that trying to explain why your responses are somewhere between misreading my statements and an outright strawman argument is just "finding another topic to argue about." If you're ever willing to actually engage my arguments in good faith, then perhaps I might revisit that decision.
> the continuation of the territorial integrity of Iran
"The treaty confirmed the ceding and inclusion of what is now Dagestan, eastern Georgia, most of the Republic of Azerbaijan and parts of northern Armenia from Iran into the Russian Empire."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Gulistan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Turkmenchay
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1857)
You can find the others. I won't bother with the sphere of influences carved out by russia and britain within iran itself where iran had to grant privileges to russia and britain over a few provinces. If you look at the map, almost 2/3rd of iran proper was under russian or british "influence".
If it is easier for you to see rather than read...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence#/media/Fil...
> The historical fact is that an Iranian state composed predominantly of Iranian peoples and ruled by Iranians has existed for 2 and a half millennia.
Other than when the arabs and the mongols took charge for a bit. Right? Pretty major events in iranian and world history you completely forgot about.
> The Iranian nation-state cannot be a mere product of British/Russian influence
Sure it can because iran lost a significant portion of its territory to russia/britain in the past few hundred years. Modern iran exists as it is today because of britain and russia. Iran was much bigger before the rise of the west. Nation-state is a modern european concept. Iran's landmass looks the way it does because of all the wars lost to britain and russia.
> I'm not denying that there are disruptions to continuity
Then why are you arguing with me?
> Instead, I'm denying that those disruptions actually matter for the political analysis.
What? That's as ridiculous as saying the opium wars and the european colonization of china doesn't matter for political analysis. That the colonization of india doesn't matter. The partitioning of india doesn't matter? Since the chinese, indians, turks, etc all rule their own countries, european colonization doesn't matter?
What you wrote is so absurd that it's the political/historical equivalent of saying the earth is flat. Modern iran looks the way it does, geographically and politically, because of western expansion/invasion. It's a nation-state and not a empire because of the west.
This will be my last response as I know you'll just find another topic to argue about. To claim that iran had political/state/government, territorial, etc continuity since the 1500s when iran lost tons of land to russia/britain, it collapsed from an empire to a western forced 'nation-state' and had huge swathes of territory cordoned off in sphere of influence is absurd.