As an Iranian, you're quite uninformed here. The Islamic Republic does a lot of small-scale aggression (e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters), and they lead many proxy militias. They also pursue nuclear weapons. Their handling of domestic affairs is also bullshit (e.g., they lured Amadnews's reporter, Zam, to Iraq and then kidnapped and executed him.).
None of these things preclude a great relationship with the US, however.
One could 's/Islamic Republic/KSA' here and it'd be pretty much the same stories. None of these bad behaviors would stop you from being tight allies with the US as long as your oppressive theocratic dictatorship was in the US sphere of influence.
Heck, Iran is objectively far more democratic than KSA, not that it gets them any credit.
> e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters
The rest of the story: Because South Korea is effectively stealing $7B worth of oil from Iran. They're following the sanctions that the US unilaterally imposed after breaking its deal with Iran over nuclear enrichment, which Iran had been following.
>One could 's/Islamic Republic/KSA' here and it'd be pretty much the same stories.
KSA is smart enough not to openly shout 'Death to America'. Nor does it have a nuclear program or keeps hostages or refuses to join anti-terrorist transparency treaties.
>The rest of the story: Because South Korea is effectively stealing $7B worth of oil from Iran.
OK, lets have any country which has a financial dispute with some other country takes hostages. That would be a nice world, right? That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour.
> OK, lets have any country which has a financial dispute with some other country takes hostages. That would be a nice world, right? That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour.
Well, I'd have to point out, when the US told South Korea (and the rest of the world) to cut trades with Iran (or else), it was engaging in this very kind of behavior.
As a South Korean, I'd appreciate if the US and Iran could talk to each other like adults and leave my country out of this, but that's not the kind of world we're living in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Who needs hostages, when you can crush a whole country's economy with your thumbs? America can cause $$$ to instantly evaporate off Korea just by looking at it the wrong way. You think Korea is keeping Iran's 7 billion dollars just because we like to be a jerk?
I don't want to complain too much, because the arrangement is usually mutually beneficial (after all, if you have to keep thousands of foreign soldiers on your own soil, better to be a part of team America than team Iran or team China) - I just think it would be better if we talk about practicality instead of moral outrages.
I don't think practicality and moral outrages are in contradiction. There's a practical reason to get outraged here - because it would be bad for SK if everyone starts taking hostages and because SK has a duty to its citizens.
If only there was some international agency that could have people on the ground that could walk into any place in Iran under any suspicion that they might be enriching uranium beyond the levels needed for nuclear power plants, overriding basically any local laws that might prevent them access. We could call it International Atomic Energy Agency or something.
Now seriously, this was in the deal that the US pulled out of, as well as an agreement that Iran will not enrich uranium beyond like 4% (enough for nuclear power plants, not bombs), reducing their stockpiles of uranium by 97% and much, much more. Now just days ago Iran let IAEA know that they're going to enrich it up to 20%.
Yea. It would be tough for Iran to develop weapons under those conditions, if they existed in reality. What would a smart leadership do to make it easier?
If only there was a deal that wrote down that the international agency needed to ask permission from Iran in advance for inspections of 'military sites'. Also explicitly allow Iran to keep researching enrichment so breakout time would be small. And make that any extra restrictions are temporary. After all, there was that deal with North Korea, and we see how it worked so well - for North Korea.
It's uranium, you can't simply hide it in the matter of days. Not to mention 24/7 video surveillance, satellite images, and that IAEA released quarterly reports and every one of them until over a year after US withdrew from the agreement said the same: Iran complied. Hell, even a year after Iran let IAEA know that they're gonna exceed their limits. Here's the entire timeline for those interested: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Nuclear-D...
Nothing like the situation was with North Korea, where North Korea was uncooperative with the IAEA, mostly disagreeing on which parts of the plants IAEA can access. Not to mention IAEA had 20 years in between to improve their methods.
US absolutely shot themselves in the foot by withdrawing from the deal no matter how you look at it.
>It's uranium, you can't simply hide it in the matter of days.
The problem here is that Iran was allowed to not tell all on previous existing program. Lets pretend they cheat and IAEA finds out traces of Uranium. What happens when they argue that the Uranium signature is pre-2015 and not from a new installation? There's not enough time passed to prove either way.
> US absolutely shot themselves in the foot by withdrawing from the deal no matter how you look at it.
US had to look for improvements, even if Clinton had been elected, since the agreement was designed to be temporary. The tactics involved are a different matter. I guess Trump could have been more devious and unofficially sanction Iran while officially staying part of the deal. Would that have been better? Hmm.. difficult to say.
>>What happens when they argue that the Uranium signature is pre-2015 and not from a new installation?
Is this even possible? Doesn't the half-life of the enriched uranium reveal when it was enriched?
>>The tactics involved are a different matter. I guess Trump could have been more devious and unofficially sanction Iran while officially staying part of the deal. Would that have been better? Hmm.. difficult to say.
The US could have stayed party to the nuclear deal and coordinated any new negotiations with its European allies, and that would have been substantially better than reneging on an important nuclear arms control deal.
>Is this even possible? Doesn't the half-life of the enriched uranium reveal when it was enriched?
I am not an expert, but I believe Carbon dating is based on similar principles. Yet archeologists always give +-100 years variation in their estimates. Could IAEA really get to +-10 years or better? None of this would matter normally, except for the particular structure of the deal.
>The US could have stayed party to the nuclear deal and coordinated any new negotiations with its European allies
Support from the EU isn't the real question. We see the US can enforce unilaterally. Nor would Iran act differently if the EU had fully joined the pressure, or if the EU would also have torn up the deal. The question was whether to fix from inside or tear it up. Either way it would have to involve pressure.
Detection of any enriched uranium at a site, combined with evidence of recent earth work, would be a pretty clear smoking gun, so I don't think that would be a viable way to avoid being held accountable for unauthorized nuclear enrichment.
>>Nor would Iran act differently if the EU had fully joined the pressure, or if the EU would also have torn up the deal.
Reneging on a deal undermines the credibility of the diplomatic process and ratchets up tensions which increases the chance of a military conflict. Having a united front is good both for cross-Atlantic ties and the chances of resolving the dispute peacefully.
>Detection of any enriched uranium at a site, combined with evidence of recent earth work, would be a pretty clear smoking gun,
The UN/IAEA process requires unanimity among the major powers. Since Iran has been left with an semi-believable out, there's enough diplomatic cover to allow Russia/China to cover for it there (see Syrian chemical weapons for comparison). For once such a position would be understandable: If seeing enriched Uranium could eventually lead to war, and there's a way to rationalize it, how much of a smoking gun would it be? Allowing that rationalization was an error in the deal.
> Having a united front is good both for cross-Atlantic ties and the chances of resolving the dispute peacefully.
The structure of the deal made some form of renegotiation inevitable (since the main restrictions were temporary). The question is how to do it.
>>The UN/IAEA process requires unanimity among the major powers.
I think your assessment of the outcome of said smoking gun is unrealistic. The scandal described would have massive political repercussions that would go far beyond any letter of the deal.
>>The structure of the deal made some form of renegotiation inevitable (since the main restrictions were temporary).
Why would it inevitably need to be renegotiated?
>>The question is how to do it.
By honoring the deal and working with other countries on a new one if/when it's needed.
>I think your assessment of the outcome of said smoking gun is unrealistic. The scandal described would have massive political repercussions...
The structure of the deal gave a way to rationalize not seeing, which means some people will rationalize. That was a bad policy error, hopefully it will remain only a policy error.
>Why would it inevitably need to be renegotiated?
First, because the restrictions were temporary, starting to expire in this term. If these are needed, then they will be needed in the future. After all, The regime hasn't changed. Second, because there were other issues between everyone and Iran and not resolving these will lead to the same results as in the past.
>By honoring the deal and working with other countries on a new one if/when it's needed.
The US position is the one that matter here, so lets discuss that. The US isn't going to let other countries decide its foreign policy.
>>The structure of the deal gave a way to rationalize not seeing, which means some people will rationalize.
We're not dealing with inert subjects in negotiating partners. There is a strong motivation to counter nuclear proliferation and hold Iran to the spirit of the deal, which again is why I find your fears to be hyperbolic.
>First, because the restrictions were temporary, starting to expire in this term.
All restrictions, or some?
>If these are needed, then they will be needed in the future. After all, The regime hasn't changed.
Regimes change all the time. It's entirely posssible the Iranian regime will moderate over time. Agreements like the Nuclear Deal make that more likely.
>The US position is the one that matter here, so lets discuss that.
I'm saying US position adopted by Trump and his allies undermined diplomacy and harmed cross-Atlantic ties.
It was temporary in a sense that it applied for 10-15 years, so until 2025-2030. Whoever won in 2016 simply didn't need to worry about it in their first term. Iran did nothing to provoke it, IAEA repeatedly confirmed that, and Trump simply decided to undo it because it was Obama that reached the deal.
> refuses to join anti-terrorist transparency treaties
It only funds terrorists in Syria, Yemen etc. and constructs radical schools all over, being dubbed fatwa valley but nothing to see here.
> That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour.
It seems to me like they tried to be constructive with the Iran Deal and got betrayed by the U.S. again. They have plenty of reason not to trust the U.S. Iran has not staged a coup in the U.S. as far as I know.
>Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their generals etc., organizing illegal coups & we'll see then.
The first is after a nuclear program and Iran killing hundreds of American soldiers. The coup is unrelated (would you support bombing a different country over something that happened 60 years ago when both countries had very different governments?), and quite funny when one remembers the Islamists also supported the coup.
>It seems to me like they tried to be constructive with the Iran Deal
If you define being constructive as taking hostages over and over than yes they were.
>There's little credible evidence Iran is trying to actually build a bomb.
Apart from weapon drawings, direct recordings of one the key architects discussing weapons[1], mass uranium enrichment.... SA has nothing remotely comparable.
Actually, Iran was happy to take American support during that war[1], and the Iraqi program was not supported by the US - the program was mainly supported by French and Germany, which Iran is weirdly not pissed at.
Almost like there's no tit-for-tat. Maybe the real reason for the enmity is the Iranian regime being theocratic revolutionaries and the US not allowing them to 'export their revolution' (that is, take over the ME) as much as they'd like.
> and the Iraqi program was not supported by the US
Yes it was. The CIA knowingly helped Iraq kill Iranians with nerve gas:
> Declassified CIA documents show that the United States was providing reconnaissance intelligence to Iraq around 1987–88 which was then used to launch chemical weapon attacks on Iranian troops and that the CIA fully knew that chemical weapons would be deployed and sarin and cyclosarin attacks followed.[255]
I agree realpolitik is certainly a thing, and as long as we can see that with clear eyes and not settle on one side or another being 'the good guys' or 'the bad guys' we're all much better off. The best outcome for everyone is for de-escalation and peacemaking efforts that reduce the suffering of the regular people in the region.
Realpolitik is not an excuse to look away from the moral results of policy. So long as the Iranian regime keeps trying to expand its hold or to attack Israel the ME won't be stable or peaceful. We saw the results of that in Syria. Stability would require a change in Iranian policies, right now the regime is unwilling to do that.
> Realpolitik is not an excuse to look away from the moral results of policy
Realpolitik is pretty much the act of never caring about the moral results of policy, and every power in the middle east practices it. I'm not convinced that KSA would be doing anything morally superior to what Iran is doing if they were in Iran's shoes. Stability would be what changes Iranian policies, and there are a lot of parties dedicated to ensuring that stability never breaks out in the middle east.
>Realpolitik is pretty much the act of never caring about the moral results of policy
Yea, and it's not a good idea in the long term.
>I'm not convinced that KSA would be doing anything morally superior to what Iran is doing if they were in Iran's shoes.
What matters is what countries do now and not what some countries might have done if history were entirely different.
>Stability would be what changes Iranian policies
Many years ago, Kissinger said the Iranian regime has to choose whether whether Iran is country or a cause. They chose to make Iran a cause. Stability is incompatible with the cause's ideology.
Realpolitik is arguably the only geopolitical philosophy countries have ever operated under in modern times. We throw revisionism into the history books to feel better about ourselves after the fact. You're here citing Kissinger as a venerable authority rather than an amoral war criminal, case in point.
KSA exports the same toxic religious fundamentalism, the same if not more radical than anything Iran espouses. The difference is they have the fig leaf of support from first world countries as they do it.
>You're here citing Kissinger as a venerable authority rather than an amoral war criminal, case in point.
Citing Kissinger does not mean endorsing him.
>KSA exports the same toxic religious fundamentalism...
Iranian-supported fundamentalism controls 4 ME captials, KSA controls only 1 capital. Iran is a explicitly anti-American revisionist power with a serious nuclear program while KSA isn't.
Unsurprisingly, I focus on the bigger more toxic power (that wasn't always the case - two decades ago KSA was the bigger issue). Isn't that more like realpolitiks rather than talking about what would some fictional KSA have done?
Correction, Germany did more than anyone to help Iraq with chemical weapons. 52% of their chemical weapons equipment derived from Germany for example. The Germans knew exactly what they were doing.
I'd call it a team effort. The US was certainly selling dual use equipment in the war, and not only did it not lift a finger to stop the use of chemical weapons, it blocked the UN Security Council from even passing a resolution saying that using them was a bad thing.
America also provided rhetorical cover for Iraq by accusing Iran of using chemical weapons as well. Allegations which were never substantiated, probably because it never actually happened.
And when the Reagan administration learned that Iraq was targetting their own Kurdish population with chemical weapons, they still didn't give a shit. But two decades later, when Bush the Younger decided to emulate his father, the American government invoked those gas attacks against civilians as a justification to dismantle Iraq. Two decades late for the Kurds that got gassed by Iraq while the American government pretended not to notice. American foreign policy is depraved.
Civilians, not only soldiers, were gassed by the German's munitions resulting in long term injuries and deaths. It's surprising this isn't more well known, and that Germany was not internationally censured, tried, & made to pay compensation to the victims of these disgusting actions following their conduct in the Holocaust.
Why's it so necessary for Germany to sell chemical weapons to be used in a warzone anyway? I wouldn't be surprised to see these were the same companies or individuals that acted 40 years earlier.
Objectively, why can't Iran have a nuclear program while Israel, India, and Pakistan can?
> Iran killing hundreds of American soldiers
They are a regional superpower and the United States invaded and destabilized their neighbor causing widespread chaos throughout the region. Civilian casualties from violence in Iraq following the destabilization of the '03 war have been estimated at around 200,000.
> would you support bombing a different country over something that happened 60 years ago
The US did shoot down an Irainian civilian airliner in 1988 and refuse to apologize about it.
They don't need them. They can do whatever they want in the region while the U.S. looks away and sells them the weapons to do it.
"The bomb dropped on a school bus in Yemen by a Saudi-led coalition warplane was sold to Riyadh by the US, according to reports based on analysis of the debris.
The 9 August attack killed 40 boys aged from six to 11 who were being taken on a school trip. Eleven adults also died. Local authorities said that 79 people were wounded, 56 of them children. CNN reported that the weapon used was a 227kg laser-guided bomb made by Lockheed Martin, one of many thousands sold to Saudi Arabia as part of billions of dollars of weapons exports.
Saudi Arabia is the biggest single customer for both the US and UK arms industries. The US also supports the coalition with refuelling and intelligence."
>Objectively, why can't Iran have a nuclear program while Israel, India, and Pakistan can?
Because Iran signed the NPT unlike the others and should abide by its commitments? Because Iran is the country which threatens other countries publicly? Because the Pakistani bomb is enough of a problem and nobody really needs another such problem?
>They are a regional superpower and the United States invaded and destabilized their neighbor causing widespread chaos throughout the region. Civilian casualties from violence in Iraq following the destabilization of the '03 war have been estimated at around 200,000.
How many of those are the result of Iranian involvement? For that matter, how many civilian casualties are the result of Iranian 'stabilization' in Syria?
>The US did shoot down an Irainian civilian airliner in 1988 and refuse to apologize about it.
Read your own cite, there was an agreement and compensation.
>And then assassinated one of their generals earlier this year.
Who had been involved in attacking American soldiers.
>They [SA] don't need them. They can do whatever they want in the region while the U.S. looks away and sells them the weapons to do it.
SA couldn't even respond to the attack on their oil facilities. I was talking about the Iranian nuclear problem though.
They signed in 1968. In your words, "something that happened 60 years ago when both countries had very different governments" But, perhaps after watching the US performance in Iraq, maybe Iran wanted a credible deterrent to prevent the same thing from happening to them.
If the issue with the nuclear program was really about proliferation, the US would have active sanctions against Pakistan. AQ Khan wasn't an Iranian!
> "How many of those are the result of Iranian involvement?"
They didn't invade the country, overthrow the government, and disband the army. If Iran invaded Mexico, overthrew the government, and disbanded the army plunging the country into chaos, do you think the US would stand by and do nothing? No way!
Do you feel that the ISI is any more odious of an institution that Iranian military intelligence in that respect? Why does the US treat them so differently?
> "agreement and compensation"
That's blood money, not an apology. The US screwed up big time in shooting down that plane, and the best they could muster was that it was a "...proper defensive action by the U.S.S. Vincennes." (rolls eyes) When Iran shot down the Ukrainian airliner, at least they had the decency to label it a "disastrous mistake."
> "Who had been involved in attacking American soldiers."
Why were the American soldiers there halfway across the planet in a country where they aren't welcome and don't speak the language? Maybe they wanted the Americans out so that the region could achieve some stability?
My point with the Saudi-Yemen thing is that KSA doesn't need nukes as an insurance policy because the US has their back. No nuclear-armed superpower has Iran's back, so they're probably looking for the security of a nuclear deterrent.
The US-Irainian conflict, like the US conflict with Cuba, is something that should have ended decades ago. It's a legacy of old political hostilities that happened when my parents were teenagers. It's 2021, we have better things to worry about. It's all so petty.
So old agreements don't mean anything? I support laying down old grievances, but going back on old agreements is usually undesirable, especially after having no objections all this time. Half the international treaties are older than that, which ones are 'safe'?
>> "How many of those are the result of Iranian involvement?"
>They didn't invade the country.. plunging the country into chaos
Iran sure tried to between 1982 and 1988. And quite a lot of the Iraqi chaos is their doing. They need a weak Iraqi government so their militia can create a state within the state.
>That's blood money, not an apology.
Iran agreed to it. When Iran shot down its own citizens, it lied about the event until footage leaked out making the lie unsustainable.
>Maybe they wanted the Americans out so that the region could achieve some stability?
Right. The guys building substate militias everywhere, undermining half the states in ME really care about stability.
>the US has their [SA] back
Which is why the US really helped them after Iran attacked their oil facilities. Not.
>they're probably looking for the security of a nuclear deterrent.
They are the one openly calling for the elimination of one ME state, and the overthrow of a half dozen regimes on the other. If they want security they should look at their own actions. Or perhaps the 'security' the Iranian regime is looking for is being able to attack others without fear of interference from the West.
I'm not arguing that Iran is the best country ever, who does only nice things and only hugs their neighbors.
I'm arguing that when you weigh Iran's activities in the Middle East alongside U.S. activities in the region over the last 30 years or-so, Iran really doesn't look like the boogeyman it's made out to be.
As a result, when viewing each other as perhaps within the same order of magnitude on the morally outrageous activities scale, the two countries could maybe leave behind the tired old mutual hatred routine that has played itself out since 1979.
A big part of that could be the United States extending an olive branch, apologizing for a few things, letting a few things go, and not simply pointing fingers and rattling sabers at them for cheap political points. The U.S. should be able to look around, realize that they have more important stuff to worry about, and embrace Iran as an economic partner like Europe and China have done.
It's ok for the U.S. to take the first step and extend an open hand. Go to the Wikipedia page on the 'Reactions to the September 11 attacks.' The Iranians deserve it on the basis of their behavior in the early days after 9/11, and the help they gave the U.S. in the early days of the Afghan War. They're not bad people, and have expressed a great deal of kindness to the United States in times of vulnerability.
Push soft power aggressively, offer a more prosperous alternative, and you'll pull the damn rug right out from under the hard-liner's justification for their hold on power.
If the U.S. has learned anything from Cuba, it should be that the stupid 60-year embargo didn't do anything but keep the Cuban people poor and bitter, and the Castro brothers in power.
Our current policy is something dragged up from the Carter administration. It's not the seventies anymore.
Despite having far less power, the Iranian regime's ME body count is higher than any other country - even if we blame Iraq solely on US. Letting those fanatics have nukes would be a mistake. But lets put that aside.
How did the 'engage economically to change the regime' policy work with China and Russia? For that matter, did Cuba change at all after Obama's attempt? These policies were a complete failure - the regimes got stronger, yet the drivers of conflict remained. Eventually the same old frosty relations returned.
Engagement fails when it is not reciprocal. The economics did not encourage the regimes to get more moderate - rather the reverse. In order for true change in relations to happen, the other side has to commit themselves to some change too. Unfortunately, the Iranian regime is ideologically committed to its current policies, and refusing to discuss any matters except maybe nuclear. They are definitely not willing to apologize or let things go. I see no real prospects for engagement until this changes.
> "How did the 'engage economically to change the regime' policy work with China and Russia?"
China and Russia didn't engage economically to change the regime. They did it to make money.
> "For that matter, did Cuba change at all after Obama's attempt?"
YES! When Obama engaged Cuba, the entire political calculus of the country changed almost overnight.
"As Obama began softening U.S. policy toward Cuba, the island signaled openness to reform under the new leadership of Fidel’s brother, Raul. Facing an aging population, a heavy foreign debt load, and economic hardship amid the global downturn, Raul Castro began liberalizing Cuba’s state-controlled economy in 2009. Reforms included decentralizing the agricultural sector, relaxing restrictions on small businesses, opening up real estate markets, allowing Cubans to travel abroad more freely, and expanding access to consumer goods. Cuba’s private sector swelled as a result, and the number of self-employed workers nearly tripled between 2009 and 2013.
Obama and Raul Castro surprised the world in late 2014 by announcing that their governments would restore full diplomatic ties and begin to ease more than fifty years of bilateral tensions. The historic moment marked the culmination of eighteen months of secret diplomacy brokered by Pope Francis in which the parties agreed to an exchange of prisoners, including Cuban intelligence officers and an American development contractor, among other concessions."
U.S. policy towards Cuba was turned 180 degrees in 2016 in a unilateral move by the U.S., so that ended any hopes of progress.
"As a candidate, Trump was fiercely critical of the Obama administration’s thaw with Cuba and he pledged to reverse course once in office. Despite maintaining diplomatic relations, Trump has largely delivered on his promise through policies that curtail trade and tourism, and target Havana’s purse strings."
Iran was very open to cooperation with the United States following 9/11, right up until they were included in the 'Axis of Evil.'
"In the aftermath of the attacks, the Iranian public responded with sympathy and their government with something resembling prudence. Tehran was the scene of spontaneous candlelight vigils by ordinary Iranians and a temporary suspension of the weekly chants of “death to
America” by its official clergy. An array of Iranian officials, many with reformist political leanings, offered seemingly heartfelt condolences to the American people, and even the hardest-line elements of Iran’s leadership briefly summoned the moral decency to denounce Al Qaeda and the use of terrorism against Americans."
...
"The initial willingness to cooperate with the U.S. military campaign against the Taliban eventually bloomed into a wide-ranging, historic cooperation between the two old adversaries that included the only sustained, officially sanctioned dialogue since the negotiations of the hostage release in 1981. Logistical cooperation from Tehran facilitated use of Iranian airspace as well as tactical assistance in establishing supply lines. Equally vital was Tehran’s political collaboration, as the Iranians had close and long-standing relations with the Taliban’s primary domestic opponent, the Northern Alliance."
...
"The “Axis of Evil” speech produced a furious response from Iranian leaders across the political spectrum, and incited a similarly fierce debate in Washington. It did not, however, result in the termination of the bilateral dialogue over Afghanistan, as Tehran demonstrated its capacity to prioritize interests over outrage or ideology. But it marked an across-the board American repudiation of Iran’s ruling elites, one that would become more pronounced over the course of the subsequent year, and a deliberate U.S. embrace of the idea of galvanizing popular opposition against the Iranian regime. In the months that followed the speech, the Bush White House strove to align themselves with regime opponents through public statements and other efforts to expedite political change inside the country."
(It's from a Brookings whitepaper, but it jives with the gist of The Twilight War by David Crist)
The U.S. keeps turning its back on both countries when progress begins to be made, based on old animosities left over from the Cold War. It's ridiculous. Why does the wealthiest country on the planet need to be in a pissing contest with a small Caribbean island nation over something that happened under the Kennedy administration? Or a theocracy on the other side of the planet over something that happened under Jimmy Carter? My god, what's the point?
>China and Russia didn't engage economically to change the regime. They did it to make money.
The West engaged Russia and China to make the regimes liberalize. It was really common to hear that a Chinese middle class will bring in democracy. The West got nothing, and the regimes only became stronger and more oppressive.
>YES! When Obama engaged Cuba, the entire political calculus of the country changed almost overnight.
Your long quotes are actions before agreement or negotiation, and it was done as a result of economic hardship (as they themselves acknowledge). Alleviating these hardships did not lead to liberalization, but seemed to have removed the impetus to make more changes.
>Iran was very open to cooperation with the United States following 9/11, right up until they were included in the 'Axis of Evil.'
Right, people who scream worse on a weekly basis and are proudly calling themselves enemies of the US were really offended.
They were willing to tactically let the US off their enemy. But friendly relations require a firmer basis then temporary cynical cooperation - they require the regime to change a few of the policies that the US finds abhorrent, and for that there was zero willingness (They even kept their nuclear program running until the Iraq war spooked them to temporarily shut it off)
> Why does the wealthiest country on the planet need to be in a pissing contest with a small Caribbean island nation over something that happened under the Kennedy administration? Or a theocracy on the other side of the planet over something that happened under Jimmy Carter?
The US got over all that long ago. As early as the 80s the US sold weapons to Iran! It's that the US has a problem being friendly to totalitarian murderous regimes which also have an aggressive foreign policy and officially declare themselves anti-US.
The first makes engagement difficult to square with US values, and leads domestic voter blocks to really oppose engagement. The second makes engagement difficult to square with US interests. The third is just an extra insult.
Friendly relations require the regimes to change policy on at least one measly point. China remained oppressive, but its 'peaceable rise' was really peaceable for a short time, so the US kept friendly relations. Now that China isn't 'peaceable', Biden can't afford to go back to the way things were.
Had Cuba moderated their domestic policy, Hispanics wouldn't have been so susceptible to GOP ads this November. Now, Biden can't risk losing them, so you can forget about a new agreement with Cuba.
The fact that they don't like or trust the US does not mean they also don't want peace. If your idea of peace however is the US antagonizing in the region, (Iran's backyard if you will) and Iran disarming and sitting on their ass watching the US surround them, without any regional allies, then no I don't think Iran is after that, I also don't think it has anything to do with wanting peace.
“Death to X” is an overly-literal translation of a common Persian idiom of frustration, eagerly and maliciously repeated by motivated parties to make Iranians look as dangerous as possible. It’s essentially the Persian equivalent to “fuck X”, and so this is as though you had your arm bitten off by a shark and said, “Fuck sharks!”, and someone deliberately took that to mean you endorse bestiality.
This is a lie. The chant is literally "Death to X," there is no idiom whatsoever. The only human targets I have ever heard for this chant is the US and some of its allies (KSA, UK), the IR's leader, and some generic terms for the outgroup ("monafegh").
This should may help you, and other interested persons determine whether or not marg bar Amrika is to be taken literally, or is indeed an idiom (btw, it is):
In Persian, "Death to America" is "marg bar Amrika"
Common Persian phrases, and these are everyday phrases in Iran include:
1) Marg! Literally, Death!, closest we have in English: Shut up!
2) Khabare margesh! Literally, the news of his/her death! This is used with someone you don't like, as in, you're only interested in the news of that persons death (perhaps a politician is a typical example).
3) Boro bemir! Literally, Go die! Again, in English, the equivalent is along the lines of Shut Up!
4) Che margeshe? Literally, what's his death? Used mostly for objects, such as when your car won't start.
5) Marge man, literally, my death. Used when you are swearing you are telling the truth.
Iranians have so many idioms/expressions/figures-of-speech related to Death, this is just a small sample.
Are there good secondary sources for this? This alleged perversion strikes me as a significant linchpin in the structural animosity between the two people. I really want it to be true, so am particularly hesitant to accept it without compelling evidence.
In Persian, "Death to America" is "marg bar Amrika"
Common Persian phrases, and these are everyday phrases in Iran include:
1) Marg!
Literally, Death!, closest we have in English: Shut up!
2) Khabare margesh!
Literally, the news of his/her death! This is used with someone you don't like, as in, you're only interested in the news of that persons death (perhaps a politician is a typical example).
3) Boro bemir!
Literally, Go die! Again, in English, the equivalent is along the lines of Shut Up!
4) Che margeshe? Literally, what's his death? Used mostly for objects, such as when your car won't start.
5) Marge man, literally, my death. Used when you are swearing you are telling the truth.
Iranians have so many expressions/figures-of-speech related to Death.
Maybe https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/world/middleeast/some-ira... (there's also a Wikipedia article). I think a good comparison may also be "damn Kubernetes", you're not literally damning some technology. It's less clear in the phrase "damn you to hell". I think it's kind of similar, it's overloaded.
> I think a good comparison may also be "damn Kubernetes", you're not literally damning some technology.
The only reason I don't mean that literally is because a: I'm fairly sure Hell doesn't exist, and b: if it did, I support and endorse most of the people there (eg blasphemers, scientists and other heretics, homosexuals and other deviants, and of course heathens, infidels, and apostates) and would not wish to inflict Kubernetes on them, even if the resulting increase in suffering would only be a rounding error.
I think you have a valid point in general, but in this case I would, in fact, prefer for Kubernetes to be gone from the world entirely, and I don't think this is by any means a unique position, either regarding Kubernetes, or in the general case of "damn X".
Even if it does literally mean 'death to America,' as an American I always interpreted that as being directed at the American government. I never took it personally. Hell, I could probably wear them out complaining about the federal government.
It offends all those who are patriotic to America no matter who or how the government is. Remember this came out in the 70s when the sayings were Love it or Leave it.
Also when the concept is paired with imagery of a Nuclear Iran, you can’t help but feel attacked.
> None of these things preclude a great relationship with the US, however.
Doesn't it, though? We have great relationships with a relatively small number of countries. Then there are the mutually beneficial relationships.
Maybe our definition of "great relationship" differs. When I think "great relationship" I think five-eyes countries plus maybe Japan. Perhaps arguably a few others.
It is also almost the anniversary of Iran shooting down and killing 176 Iranians/Iranian-Canadians, including people I know.[1]
Iran is in its own right a regional imperialist, though it is nice to get some code interchange going.
Me and my family no longer can go back to the country without risking imprisonment because of speaking out against the regime.
It's worth noting that this was after the U.S. killed their top general illegally and they expected a strike on Iran after hitting some Iraqi bases in response to the U.S. assassination.
So they made us, the civilians, their meat shield, just as they used us to clean minefields in the Iraq war. And then they were so incompetent they shot their own meat shield. After that, they launched massive media campaigns to say the plane had not been shot, but had crashed out of a "technical glitch." Even after the evidence became undeniable, and they issued public apologies, they still continued with their media campaigns, saying this was all because of a US cyber attack. And they did not let people organize proper funerals, and they imprisoned, threatened, and fucked the survivors' families, and they used tear gas and just straight opened fire when people protested at their sheer malicious incompetence, and ...
And random assholes on the internet defend them while seemingly caring for the Iranian people. I don't know, perhaps you're one the of the thousands who directly or indirectly get money/status from the IR?
The gov comes down hard on people saying they don't like him, so the answers people give are biased. How biased, I don't know. I can tell you that even people who liked him still got outraged at the plane shooting.
It's almost like the people of the world should unite in throwing out their leaders. Get rid of all the folks at the top that persist in bad behavior so the rest of us can code in peace.
...except it didn't really work all that well for the French in 1789, or the Chinese in 1911, or the Russians in 1917. Executing their corrupt leaders just led to more dictatorial ones taking their place. Maybe it's more power corrupts than corrupt people seeking power.
It didn’t work well with the Iranians in 1977–1979 either. Originally the overthrow of the Shah was supported by a wide variety of factions in society, including secular ones, and it may well have led to a secular country. But once there was a power vacuum, Khomeini returned from exile in France and managed to install the present Islamic republic.
It sort of, kind of worked with Romania in 1989, though. But in spite of massive popular discontent with the dictator, the actual overthrow of Ceausescu was largely the regime’s elites seeking to get rid of the boss so that they could rule the roost themselves. That Romania eventually became a democratic European nation feels like a happy accident.
Are you Romanian? If you think Romania is or should be a democratic European nation, can you offer your perspective on what could stop the ongoing verbal, legal and sometimes physical harassment of the Hungarian minority? Some of which is described in the last paragraphs of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanianization#Recent_events
I am Romanian.
I don't think there is an "ongoing verbal, legal and sometimes physical harassment of the Hungarian minority". There were isolated conflicts, mainly artificially perpetuated by radicals for (pretty small) political gains.
Also, the Hungarian minority political party (UDMR) is currently a part of the government coalition (not the first time it happens).
That Romania still struggles with a number of flaws – some a holdover from the socialist era, some new after ’89 – is why I wrote "sort of, kind of". Still, even with the grievances of the Hungarian minority, it nevertheless became a multiparty system after violently overthrowing the old dictator instead of another single-party dictatorship.
Unfortunately, in several European countries today ethnic minorities fail to get the recognition and treatment they seek, so Romania’s actions towards the Hungarian minority don’t hinder it from being called today a "modern European state" or whatever.
The proper way to evaluate how successful throwing out leaders is as a way towards peace is not to list cases you can think of where it failed, but to list every place leaders were thrown out with a goal of peace, and seeing how well that fared.
Then to be really honest, see how well that fared against other options.
Then you may reach a different, but demonstrably more accurate, conclusion.
I was curious about how this'd look without the cherry-picking, so I took a look at Wikipedia's list of revolutions from the 1900s on and sampled a few dozen:
Results from the period of 1900-1910 (19 revolutions; I don't have time to do more) is that 12 were outright failures: the revolution was crushed, the leaders executed, oftentimes with significant loss of life for the revolutionaries and nearby civilians. 5 were temporary successes: they led to some reforms or a new government, but the government collapsed within 15 years anyway, leading to either anarchy, dictatorship, or conquest by a foreign power. 2 were an "eventual success" (Young Turk revolution, and revolution in the Kingdom of Poland), where the revolution had modest success but later events achieved "peaceful" (if you can count WW1 & WW2 as peaceful) independence. 1 was a success, the Theriso Revolt that broke Crete away from the Ottoman empire and led to its eventual union with Greece.
I'd come to a bleaker conclusion: most revolutions fail, and lead to the deaths of their leaders and most of the people who support them. Then of the subset that "succeed" (in the sense of not being crushed), a majority lead to government or lack thereof that is just as bad or worse than what came before.
It kind of worked for us Romanians after executing our dictator and his dimwit wife in '89, by scaring them into fleeing, then a fast capture, followed very quick - slightly unfair - trial and then firing squad, on Christmas Day of all days (and all these recorded).
Of course, afterwards, the new elected president was a former communist party member who tricked everyone that he had changed, and of course his anti-west (and east) propaganda helped secure him his win (because "we should not listen to anybody anymore, so vote for me"), and of course, because of his win, the pseudo-communists still ruled/destroyed the country for the majority of the next 32 years but, anyway, I still say it was a win and I am very proud of our revolution.
Sure, there are those who say that most people died in vein for the revolution but such transitions take a lot of time and it would have taken even more if we waited another 5-10-15 years. It did not help that we were right between east and west either.
Now we celebrate 14 years of being in the E.U., which helped a lot, although we mismanaged tens of billions (sorry E.U.), while we are still many years away from managing so much money correctly and without illegal shenanigans... Also around 17 years in the NATO, which helped a lot I'd say (see our neighbor Ukraine for the contrary; Moldova is also behind us by some 15 years, at least).
But, technologically, the new freedom brought us some very interesting 90's and 2000's, catapulting our internet speeds to number one (sometimes two) in Europe [1] due to our giant nation-wide interconnected LAN-party networks, fueled mainly by piracy (or lets call it "hunger for information and everything that we missed before"). But there is a long reddit post which explains those years much better: [2]. Today everybody and their parents have at least 100 Mbps. Our main ISP doesn't include a 100 Mbps plan anymore anyway. Only 300 Mbps up. Even my parents in a small poor city have fiber since 5 years. Welcome to Romania.
These generated a lot of English speaking young people, me included. Lots of us becoming very good at electronics or IT. Sadly, many self-educated IT engineers left for other countries. We even had a running joke (urban legend mainly) that the second language at Microsoft was Romanian, which of course is said by other countries too (e.g. India) but somehow everybody knows somebody at Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, etc. While many of us are still (thinking about) leaving, placing us 2nd after Syria when it comes to mass emigration, still... executing those two bastards was for the best.
That always feels strange to me, why this is considered evil. If there is a strong military might with nuclear weapons on your doorstep threatening you, then also going after nuclear weapons is just logic and self-preserving.
(I mean, not that I want more idiots on this world having nuclear weapons)
Evil is indeed all the other shit they are doing, but I am not sure if collective punishment helps with that. And collectivily banning any person from iran collaborating with the rest of the software world via Github is a very strong collective punishment, which I doubt would make me see the west in a nicer view, if I would be such a developer in Iran. (and never mind all those other bans, like money transfer). Maybe I would even feel a push to close ranks with the hardcore idiots who are in control.
I can understand not wanting more actors that can initiate MAD. I sure would feel safer if my country had nuclear weapons, but the risk of every sovereign being armed is too high.
Korea blocked Iranian assets, fearing US sanctions. Iran was pissed off being robbed, and now confiscated a ship, basically asking Korea to pay its debt (at least through products).
I really don't see much difference in Iran having nuclear power or weaponary compared to Pakistan. Yet we don't see this type of attitude from the US and other countries in the immediate area (other than India) towards Pakistan.
The domestic affairs handling applies equally to both countries, so why should Iran get singled out here?
They're not singled out. North Korea is also being treated similarly in regards to their pursuit and build-up of nuclear weapons. North Korea has been suffering under brutal sanctions and embargo on and off for decades now.
Pakistan already has nukes and they're dangerously unstable. Pakistan is by a large margin the most unstable nuclear power. North Korea by comparison is a stable insular kingdom ruled by a dynasty family that has held power through thick and thin for 70 years. Pakistan is a powder keg always waiting to explode. Applying North Korean style sanctions on Pakistan is a lot more likely to result in an exceptionally bad outcome. And Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, so if they crack into revolution right now that would not risk potential nuclear war or proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Further, Iran has openly declared their intention to genocide Israel, on repeat. They say it whenever they get the chance. North Korea for decades has declared their desire to conquer South Korea and create one Korea under their rule, they repeat that at every opportunity (and when a country says for decades that they want to conquer you and they have nukes, you have to take them at their word).
> Further, Iran has openly declared their intention to genocide Israel, on repeat.
Based on my understanding, that's based on a misinterpretation so what they're actually saying in Farsi. Even so, the attitude of the population and government in Pakistan towards Israel isn't that much different. Even if you consider the dynamics between Pakistan and India, the last war was 50 years ago and other than some skirmishes, nothing major happened.
If we were to substitute Iran for Pakistan and Israel for India, would the situation be really that different?
> North Korea for decades has declared their desire to conquer South Korea and create one Korea under their rule
To a certain extent, this is what happened in Vietnam and the country appears to be doing okay these days.
> Based on my understanding, that's based on a misinterpretation so what they're actually saying in Farsi.
On Israel, there are very explicit messages around, though it's more of a "Zionist" genocide. The IR will not care if the Jews just go out of the ME, presumably.
It seems they are not using every opportunity to advocate for genocide. Definitely some mixed messaging?
On a more serious note, the notion that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon so they can throw it on Israel is nonsense. Yes, Israel is perfectly right to be concerned about a country that would act against its security interests whenever given the chance, and would do so at least in part for ideological reasons (though this aspect is also overblown in the common narrative).
But they haven't really declared their intention "to genocide Israel". You'll find that in most quotes that circulate, a defensive posture is implied ("if they dare to attack us"). People argue about whether the original Khomeini/Ahmadinejad quote ("wiping Israel off the map") should be translated as "removed from the pages of time", but it more importantly says "the regime occupying Palestine". Again, no peaceful agenda towards the country of Israel is to be found here, but no need for comically evil holocaust-like plans either.
Iranian leadership has referred to Israelis as "so-called humans"; has demanded a "final solution" to Israel; has repeatedly denied that the Holocaust happened, including hosting a Holocaust denial conference; has referred to Israel as a "cancerous tumor" to be destroyed; ...
You don't have to look hard to find this stuff. These aren't mistranslations or misunderstandings. A lot of these translations were done by the Iranian Republic themselves in press releases!
These are less subtle than Trump's dog whistles about "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" — which was bad enough. These are obvious, repeated, consistent statements and actions.
By the way, being Iranian doesn't give you special understanding of foreign relations and the US role in the middle east. I'm sure it helps, but using it as an appeal to authority of some sort is misguided.
Most states do, and many do much much worse, and still have great relations with their western allies (if not being directly funded to do so). Heck, they were hunky dory with Germany, merely a few years after they started a World War that killed 30+ million people, burned 6 million jews, etc., because "Cold War".
>e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters
After Korea seized some billions of their assets in its banks.
>They also pursue nuclear weapons
That's because any state without them is toast when the big dogs decide.
Plus, they remember their history, like outsiders toppling their democratic leader, because he was getting too "socialist", and establising a lackey into power to play the king.
Or outsiders funding their neighborhood country to go into war with them, praising their leadership, and then come back a decade later, do a u-turn, to invade them, hang their leader that was their ex ally, and occupy the country (that thet turned into a civil war hell-zone).
Plus they have another country nearby with ample foreign support that's used as a proxy for foreign power in the area, and which has nuclear weapons itself.
> Plus, they remember their history, like outsiders toppling their democratic leader, because he was getting too "socialist", and establising a lackey into power to play the king.
If by "they" you mean the IR, they were and are (though nowadays they are more undecided) opposed to Mosadegh. (Check out what streets are in his name. The IR reveals who they favor quite accurately in their naming scheme.). The people mostly don't care that much about Mosadegh, as the school history books are written by the IR, and Mosadegh is not painted all that well. Most Iranians also hate communists now (communism has long since been out of the overton window).
> Or outsiders funding their neighborhood country to go into war with them, praising their leadership, and then come back a decade later, do a u-turn, to invade them, hang their leader that were their ex-allies, and occupy the country (that thet turned into a civil war hell-zone).
A war which brought a lot of power to the IR and especially the Guards. A war that the IR itself protracted for years, perhaps because they were gathering power and clueless, fungible young people were dying, which was quite cheap. Their domestic strategy ever since has been to give merits to a minority that follows their orders, and crush their opposition thoroughly by any means necessary.
>If by "they" you mean the IR, they were and are (though nowadays they are more undecided) opposed to Mosadegh.
I mean the Iran as people (and state with a degree with historical and cultural continuity). The IR might come and go, and leaders or fractions might be opposed to Mosadegh for religious, ideological, etc reasons, but the hummiliation and harm that was instilled in the people by the action influenced later events (and even today).
>A war which brought a lot of power to the IR and especially the Guards.
Yeah, but that's neither here nor there. It did a whole lot of harm to Iran the people - and to the Iraq the people for that matter, and it was fuelled from outside.
> The Islamic Republic does a lot of small-scale aggression (e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters), and they lead many proxy militias. They also pursue nuclear weapons. Their handling of domestic affairs is also bullshit
The United States does all these things too, it just has nobody big enough to sanction it.
For the record, I am not a fan of the Islamist Republic, but banning access to GitHub does not punish the government, it puishes civilians. It also doesn't change the fact that it's the U.S. who pulled out of the Iran Deal or that medicine is impacted by the sanctions too.
I mean the U.S. is buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt etc. etc. the behavior you're describing is clearly not the problem here.
Iran also assassinates its critics abroad, or kidnaps them for show trials (France, Germany, Italy and Austria have withdrawn from the Europe-Iran Business Forum over one of these cases). Iran funds Houthi rebels in Yemen to harass the Saudis and attack oil tankers in the Gulf with limpet mines; there was that rocket attack on the US embassy in Iraq... They're also making a big show about issuing INTERPOL warrants agains Donald Trump (futile, of course, but hardly a peace-seeking gesture.)
If you bring up Yemen and Saudi Arabia to make Iran look bad without mentioning the atrocities occurring in Yemen with the support of Saudi Arabia and the USA, I cannot take the rest of your comment seriously.
We are in a thread asserting that it's "worth noting that this is entirely the U.S. not wanting peace."
I remind you to "Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
> We are in a thread asserting that it's "worth noting that this is entirely the U.S. not wanting peace."
In relation to the sanctions that were imposed as part of the U.S. pulling out of the nuclear deal despite Iran complying. But of course you left that part out.
Weirdly, I tend to blame regimes shouting 'death to America' for bad relations with the US.
Remember that the nuclear deal only dealt with nuclear matters* , all the other regime behaviours (hostage taking, supporting terrorists, missile development, etc.) remained. Stable relations between US and Iran are impossible without the regime changing its ways, the regime has no reason to change so long as the deal exists, ergo there won't be stable relations.
* Even the nuclear terms expire in about a decade, leaving Iran free to do whatever. There used to be a similar deal with North Korea, and we saw how that ended up.
I tend to look at actions, and the US (in particular the current administration) bears a large part of the blame. The Iranian government is despicable, but so is the one in Saudi Arabia, yet the US has no problem supporting them. The North Korean government is much worse, but the US negotiates with them. Historically, the US has had no qualms associating with authoritarian countries. There's no intrinsic "reason" for the poor relationship, except realpolitik balance of power.
SA and NK are vile, but they are not revisionist powers like Iran. It's not a surprise the Iranian regime's attempts to expand its hold across the region would lead to opposition.
Why do America (The only country to actually use a nuke) get to decided who gets national security and who gets "freedom and democracy" delivered by a predator drone.
> Why do America (The only country to actually use a nuke) get to decided who gets national security and who gets "freedom and democracy" delivered by a predator drone.
I believe the moral principle you're looking for is "ad baculum".
It's not entirely the US. Unfortunately there's other people in the region who really don't want anyone being friends with Iran who we'd rather be friends with.
Back when it looked like relations might thaw during Obama every big business was foaming at the mouth over the opportunity to make a buck selling things in a new market. There's a lot of very powerful people who's ideal vision of places like Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc involves everyday citizens using their iPhones to daytrade on the American stock exchanges over a Verizon tower while driving their Chevrolet trucks, smoking Marlboros and wearing Nikes
Iran just seized a South Korean oil tanker yesterday to give it civilian hostages as leverage in on going negotiations with South Korea, a country that has never engaged in any form of violence against Iran.
If that was more than an obvious propaganda smoke screen then Iran wouldn't hold the crew hostage.
Iran has also failed to provide evidence for their accusation and did not provide either a warning or opportunity to remediate the claimed polution. Evidence for a crime is of course generally considered a requirement.
They also have a strong recent history of this sort of activity.
Well, Iran supporting North Korea, funneling arms and resources to terrorists, and launching missiles at us probably didn't help. The EU disagreement is specifically with the harshness of the sanctions - they still believe Iran should be sanctioned, just not as harshly.
This is why those discussions from a morally neutral standpoint are a waste of time. It’s entirely reasonable for one side to punish the others for having nukes while having those itself. We are not some impartial aliens surveying the planet, each of us is affected by these things.
The US is hardly the sole aggressor here. Iran has conducted many provocations against others, not least of which is directly contributing to destabilizing forces within other countries in the region and relentless pursuit of a nuclear weapons program.
I mean Iran threatens every month or so to literally bomb Israel off the map. Some countries are okay with that kind of rhetoric. In general, the US is not.
Maybe, if they decide to use GitHub as a versioning system for their policy & geopolitical strategy. Perhaps a bunch of pull requests for "don't build nuclear weapons" would get approved, and #73 could be closed as "not a bug"
Worth noting that this is entirely the U.S. not wanting peace, not Iran, hence the EU disagrees with the sanctions regime.