Your logic: if the iranian Shah deports and kills Armenians in 1605 and safavid Persia opresses Armenians it is a reason to see Iran as a potential enemy today. If some russian rulers are anti-armenian, organize anti-armenian riots by using azeri bandits (1905-1907), organize "evacuation" of Armenians from western Armenia (1915), cede armenian lands to turks (1921) and help azeris to deport Armenians from Northern Artsakh (1989) we should differentiate between the rulers, the state form, the time period etc ???
I understand that there were differences between the tsars and that there is a big difference if Russia is a Monarchy, Socialist xxxxland or Oligarchy like today. But then we have to look at Iran in the same way. Iran has helped us during the war and was pro-armenian regarding the conflict until Russians got friendly with azeris.
You described Iranians as "two-faced muslim backstabbers" and Russians as...
They were both two-faced backstabbers in the past and will be the same in the future. And it's ok because everybody has to act according to his very own interests. I wish Armenia becomes also a two-faced backstabber and deport people for fun
1. If you make a claim, you should guarantee that you have the possibility to realize your claim if the other side does not accept the claim. If we are too weak we should shut up. The position we have today regarding this problem is the best compromise. We don't accept the border and the treaty but don't make impotent claims.
2. In 1920 the turks were successful because the bolsheviks attacked simultaneously alongside with azeris. No offense, but you are interpreting armenian history like russians want us to interprete our history.