Good. I don't know how much longer Americans are going to buy the boogiemen we keep getting fed.
Sovereign nations under the the U.S.' thumb, not being able to control their own destiny only works so long as we're complacent.
I sense we're growing tired of war for war's sake, leery of ideological battles built for future blowback down the road. We see enough people profiting from these wars to wonder how much global conflict is manufactured.
I hope we stop buying in. When a politician tells us a country is evil, we need to start asking for receipts.
I don't see this having a ton of impact on U.S. relations other than a few terse, typo-laden tweets directed at Europe, but who knows these days. The notion that Western alliances are being intentionally weakened no longer seems far fetched.
We see enough people profiting from these wars to wonder how much global conflict is manufactured. I hope we stop buying in.
We, the people, are pretty powerless here. Lobbyists and elected officials have too much power and election cycles are too far apart. So even when recent American military action gets relatively low support from Americans [0], neither congress nor the president has any motivation to do anything about it.
You’ve forgotten how to protest. I recall you guys getting pretty upset over some tea with Britain.
Seriously as long as folks are content at home the politicians won’t give a damn about you. Go march in the streets en mass and things will slowly change.
Wasnt the last time this actually happened "occupy" and didn't that get dismantled and side-tracked pretty quickly?
IMHO not even a US specific issue, people in a whole lot of "western countries" seem to have forgotten how to meaningfully protest.
Sure, there is the occasional "against climate change" or "for this societal issue" marches, but they all have the problem of being incredibly obscure in their goals and demands.
Long gone are the days of large scale peace protests against very specific "interventions", like the invasion of Iraq triggered.
If you think people haven't protested needless military action, you're paying as much attention to the American people as the politicians we've elected.
Strikes are really difficult when you've developed a culture of consumerism and permanent debt trapping big chunks of the population into wage slavery.
It's even harder when, at the same time, you put your thumb firmly on one side of the business/labor relations scale by pushing at-will employment and right to work efforts.
I don't disagree with any of that. Will you argue any of that is going to change if we continue to prefer the safety of strong words over decisive action and sacrifice?
Most US americans have been voting for Democrats or Republicans or not at all for decades. Of course the politics remain the same: Wars and politics that favor the richest.
Please, vote for the Green Party or another reasonable party in 2020.
Maybe it's worth it to first reform the political system from a first-past-the-post system to more proportional representation (otherwise, unless I'm mistaken, those votes go pretty much straight to the wastepaper basket (or trash can, in this case)).
Unfortunately to change the law you need voters who vote for a party that is willing to change it even though it came into power under the current law.
If you do not vote or vote for someone you do not want, your vote is worse than lost.
There is much potential for other parties. And while the presidential election is most important regarding war and the rest of the world, other elections for local politicians are important too and maybe even more important for US citizens.
Its pretty well known among environmentalists that the American green party isn't "green" enough. Its not a truly environmentalist party that puts environmental issues above human issues. A environmental party must be anti-consumerism and anti-materialism. It should be against growing the human economy but instead making it more efficient. That means doing hard things that hurt human appetites/sensibilities but are better for the planet (ie. limited human migration, decreasing imports).
Let take 2016 elections for example, your choices were; Hillary, responsible for a failed country right now and rigged primaries or Trump, the less said about him is better. If enough people voted for a different party, that would keep these two main parties in sort of a check as well, knowing they can't get away with whatever they want.
There are certainly things I don't agree with with the options available.
This idea that candidates need to perfectly represent everyone's opinions is just absurd. I don't agree with everything that Hillary did or that Trump is doing. That doesn't mean everything they did was bad or good.
But to suggest Jill Stein as a viable alternative when she has some dubious backing doesn't really empower choosing the 3rd party, does it?
Yeah, thats fair. I'm with you on that. You'll never find a candidate who you agree with completely, you just go with the one that agree the most with or disagree the least with.
You really believe that the POTUS (notably Jill Stein and the Green Party) could be paid by Russia to enforce Russian policies to the detriment of US citizens ?
This idea is as crazy as the idea that China invented global warming to harm the USA economy.
Back in 2012, almost three years before he declared that he was going to run for the White House, Mr Trump tweeted: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
Funny, I thought the war was a direct consequence of people voting for Bush.
Also thought the war was a direct consequence of more Democrats voting for Bush than the total number of votes Nader got.[0] Democrats favored Bush over Nader. The number of Democrats who voted for Bush exceeded those who voted for Nader five fold.
In the last state I lived in, Democrats were far more hostile to 3rd party candidates than Republicans were - putting in a lot more effort to ensure they wouldn't get on the ballet.
As someone who grew up in a country where people couldn't vote, I can't imagine acts more hostile to democracy than what I saw the Democrats do to limit choices on the ballot. I may vote Democrat often, but I don't see myself as ever supporting the party.
I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. I returned from Sudan recently [0] and it is a fascinating country full of wonderful people and rich in culture - you will love visiting there! The Sudanese continue to suffer badly economically however, partly as a result of being on the US "State Sponsors of Terrorism" list [0] even though I firmly believe they no longer deserve to be there. Sudan still has many problems to tackle aside from this, but the US continuing to keep them on the terror list is without doubt only serving to make things worse.
Inflation is a huge problem in Sudan, largely brought on due to a lack of foreign exchange and trade (I had to take in enough USD to cover my entire trip). During my two week visit the Sudanese pound was devalued 39% overnight [2] and prices for common items rose noticeably during my stay. I came away feeling a huge amount of empathy for the locals who are finding it increasingly difficult to even afford basics such as bread there.
I guess the votes come based on whether you assume he's being serious or sarcastic and the current opinion you hold of Sudan.
It is hard to judge when made over an impersonal channel like a plain text comment and most people won't check grecy's profile to draw the correct conclusion: not a trace of sarcasm.
I think you misunderstood the ...start asking for receipts part of nkozrya’s comment. nkozrya is not suggesting that U.S. politician’s are never correct in their assessment of evil. nkozrya is suggesting that they aren’t always right. This is hardly a controversial point. Believing otherwise is dangerous. It is critical that we trust but verify claims of our leaders.
>nkozrya is suggesting that they aren’t always right.
Even more so, there are all kinds of "national interests" political/cultural biases, and even personal interests (e.g. Cheney and Halliburton) mixed in their assessments.
They're not some disinterested third parties trying to make the fairest assessment possible for the benefit of mankind, but agents of a top world dog nation-state wanting to get more resources and control, and to further its own prospects.
I don’t normally check profiles before responding to comments. It appeared to be sarcasm to me. Sudan does have problems (both North and South) and U.S. politicians have commented upon them.
Thanks for letting me know. And that last sentence wasn’t sarcasm on my part!
The fact that some boogiemen are not as terrible as portrayed, or that we shouldn't put too much effort to go after them, does not imply that all boogiemen are actually nice.
There's the fact that nobody appointed them the global cops in charge of boogiemen.
There's also the fact that more often than not, they act based on internal power plays and national interests of its own, and not for some "greater good".
There's also the fact that they have fucked up tons of countries with their interventions -- 4 countries in the last 20 years ago, turning relatively stable regimes into hell-holes of civil war, mayhem, and terrorism.
Not to go into how they have been historically worse than the boogiemen they complain about (from funding dictators, to directly invading countries, toppling democratically elected leaders, and so on).
> does not imply that all boogiemen are actually nice.
reply
I think that goes without saying. But after fighting ideological / proxy wars against communism, "terrorism" and "hell, just because" I think we need a little more support.
Here we have a long-standing soft war against a country and/or people for whom Western meddling has demonstrably affected their life for the worse. Every time they do anything acting in their own sovereign interest we peg it as evil and impose some wrist-slapping or worse.
I don't for one second believe that the leadership of Iran is "good." Nor do I believe they're inherently evil. We refuse to concede any responsibility in the fate of their land over the last 100 years, continue to box them in and it seems more and more apparent we're keeping them on the hotplate in case we need a new war.
I have a pretty skeptical view of lower-case-l libertarians, most of whom are just using it as a veneer over some otherwise lockstep partisan affiliation. But one thing I've found very encouraging is that movement's general cynicism toward continued world power interventionism.
We are going to keep buying the boogeyman as long as the media and politicians sells it to us.
One of the only things both republicans and democrats can agree on is war. They will debate and argue about children drinking lead in Flint, but bombing some small country on the other side of the world and increasing the defense budget and lining the pockets of the defense contractors will always have bipartisan support.
One of the only things both foxnews and cnn/msbnc/nytimes/wapo/etc can agree on is war. They'll call each other fake news and poison the minds of the american people with divisive rhetoric for ratings, but when it comes to war, they'll set aside their differences and speak in one united pro-war voice.
> We are going to keep buying the boogeyman as long as the media and politicians sells it to us.
That's the saddest part. The media is the one entity theoretically equipped to shine light on these things. And it's just fallen down hill in a race to the bottom the last two decades.
And for that we must also place some blame on ourselves. We're less and less likely to support good journalism and gravitate to fluff and fake(-able) news ("Who needs newspapers? I get my news from Twitter").
We cannot shift blame exclusively outwards. We are not discerning consumers of information.
No when somebody says something that does not ring 100% TRUE, you question it and have a look into it yourself with multiple sources from contrasting perspectives.
But equally, you can't presume innocence as that's just as bad as presuming guilty.
> I hope we stop buying in. When a politician tells us a country is evil, we need to start asking for receipts.
Well, there’s the minor issue of Iran’s totalitarian regime consistently announcing their intent to destroy Israel and devestate the U.S.A, and taking actual steps to support the same.
I am Israeli and completely left-wing by the way, and believe there are many steps both Israel and the U.S. could take to mitigate the threat from Iran without war, such as strengthening moderate forces in the middle-east, which they do not take. I consider our own prime minister a thoroughly evil man.
But the fact remains that Iran’s own statements and actions are extreme.
Israel was the country that convinced the US to refuse to reintegrate Iran after the 1991 war. Clinton adopted the absurd (and unprecedented) policy of dual containment where both ME powers were consistently suppressed and isolated.
Israel did this because they understood that once Iraq was gone, Iran was their direct geopolitical rival before that Israel and Iran (even Post-Revolution) were all buddy buddy.
The fact is, Iran is a country compliant with international nuclear guidelines and agreements, to a stronger extend then literally every other country in the world. Israel is a rouge state that stole nuclear secrets and built nuclear weapons.
The US supporting Israel against Iran by claiming the crimes that everybody knows Israel has actually perpetrated.
> Well, there’s the minor issue of Iran’s totalitarian regime consistently announcing their intent to destroy Israel and devestate the U.S.A, and taking actual steps to support the same.
You do realize this rhetoric goes both ways, right? Israeli politicians often make genocidal statements towards other countries including Lebanon, Palestine and Iran, so spare me this crying.
Iran may have rhetoric, but Iran isn't occupying anyone. The same cannot be said for Israel.
In fact when there is a terrorist attack in the US, Iran tends to condemn it, despite the non-existent relations, whereas US lawmakers say "Iran deserves it", when the same happens over there.
As for sponsoring terrorism; Israel has been proven to be shipping weapons to Islamic radicals in Syria, is increasingly buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia & the UAE, commits regular war crimes, including in other countries etc., so again, spare me.
> I am Israeli and completely left-wing by the way
That's great, however from my personal observation, what "left-wing" means in Israel is much more to the right than in other parts of the world. In fact you've fallen for right-wing talking points, it seems.
> there are many steps both Israel and the U.S. could take to mitigate the threat from Iran without war, such as strengthening moderate forces in the middle-east
There's no threat from Iran to other nations that I could see, do they perhaps have some proxy forces? Sure. Does Israel? Sure. Does the U.S. Sure, exponentially more. Do the Saudis and Emiratis? You bet.
As an European, I just don't get the Israeli fixation with Iran, apart for deflection purposes, it's not a great regime, but not worse than the 75% of the world's dictatorships the U.S. does support.
For the US I at least get it more; control of their resources, for the Saudis and to a lesser extent the Emiratis, it also has a religious angle, but for Israel, it seems to be purely for propaganda purposes.
P.S. Am not even going to get into Israelis smearing anyone critical of Israeli policies as an anti-Semite, which is not only reprehensible, but it also assumes that the Israeli government speaks for all Jews, which is itself rather anti-Semitic if you ask me.
Please do not engage in political or ideological or nationalistic flamewar on HN. This is the sort of discussion that starts out bad ("spare me this crying"), can only get worse, and leads to hell.
I dont'agree with the Israeli occupation of foreign territories but I don't see what that has to do with the US's sanctions against Iran. Are you trying to say that the sanctions against Iran are bad, because there are no US sanctions against Israel?
>> As an European, I just don't get the Israeli fixation with Iran,
Well I'm a European too but I can completely understand that a country which repeatedly has announced its intention to wipe Israel of the earth gets more than usual attention from the Israeli's.
> I dont'agree with the Israeli occupation of foreign territories but I don't see what that has to do with the US's sanctions against Iran.
If, as an Israeli, one makes claims that the sanctions are justified because Iran is sponsoring terrorism, perhaps it's justified to look at whether Israel is not only sponsoring, but committing terrorist acts on its neighbors, unless Israel is somehow justified to do so, while Iran isn't.
> I can completely understand that a country which repeatedly has announced its intention to wipe Israel of the earth gets more than usual attention from the Israeli's.
Right, but my point is that isn't nor really a one-sided thing. Israel does it too towards not only Iran, but its closest neighbors, they regularly threaten to "bomb Lebanon back to the stone age", as an example.
> If, as an Israeli, one makes claims that the sanctions are justified because Iran is sponsoring terrorism, perhaps it's justified to look at whether Israel is not only sponsoring, but committing terrorist acts on its neighbors, unless Israel is somehow justified to do so, while Iran isn't.
You must have a very broad definition of "terrorism" if you consider Israeli military operations to be "terrorist acts". Iran sponsors an out-and-proud terrorist organization called Hezbollah. They've committed textbook terrorist attacks around the world.
> Right, but my point is that isn't nor really a one-sided thing. Israel does it too towards not only Iran, but its closest neighbors, they regularly threaten to "bomb Lebanon back to the stone age", as an example.
...as a response to legitimate threats made by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Don't forget that Hezbollah started and escalated the war in Lebanon in 2006. Israel does not threaten Egypt, or Jordan, or even Syria itself except for Hezbollah's presence therein.
> As an European, I just don't get the Israeli fixation with Iran,
I agree, but let's not forget also the ridiculous fixation of Iran with Israel, which is even more senseless. I do not understand where the Irani animosity towards Israel comes from. Both countries are surrounded by arabs that hate them, wouldn't they all be better of as best buddies?
> I do not understand where the Irani animosity towards Israel comes from. Both countries are surrounded by arabs that hate them, wouldn't they all be better of as best buddies?
I have studied this very question previously and it's a bit more complex than that.
Iran had a democratically elected government, but in the early 50s, the UK & US orchestrated a coup that ousted that government, since they wanted to nationalize their natural resources and kick foreign oil firms out of the country.
The U.S. the installed the King of Iran as their puppet dictator. The King was a close ally of Israel and Saudi Arabia as well.
After some 20+ years, the dictator was overthrown in the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
Part of Iran's national defense strategy since then, is to have allied forces in some neighboring countries like Lebanon, Iraq etc. These forces are not occupying the territories, they're native to the land, but just ideologically align more with Iran than other countries in the region.
This strategy exists because Iran knows it would not be able to defeat an invasion on its own, were that to ever happen.
Part of how Iran was able to attract their support was by positioning itself as the force to stand against Western abuses in the region, (including Israel).
Because Israel was an ally of the old Iranian dictator, who was hated in Iran and because their abuses against the Palestinians, it was natural for Iran to position itself as against Israeli abuses, both because of its own history and because it strengthened its image as an alternative in the region against Western abuse.
It is therefore far from true that "arabs hate them". Some Arabs hate Iranians, mostly Sunni gulf states, who supported the previous Iranian regime, but some consider them an ally, including a significant portion of Lebanon, Syria, portions of Yemen and the Palestinians.
Looking at it this way, it does at least make some sense.
> I have studied this very question previously and it's a bit more complex than that.
It's in fact far more complex that what you describe and I strongly urge readers to do their own research.
> Iran had a democratically elected government, but in the early 50s, the UK & US orchestrated a coup that ousted that government, since they wanted to nationalize their natural resources and kick foreign oil firms out of the country.
Iran had had a monarchy for 2500 years. Then, after a brief power struggle, Mohammed Mossadegh (previously appointed prime minister by the Shah himself) became a leader for two years. He did later win an election. Indeed, he was ousted by that coup and monarchy was restored.
> The U.S. the installed the King of Iran as their puppet dictator. The King was a close ally of Israel and Saudi Arabia as well.
Characterizing Reza Pahlavi as a dictator or a "close ally" of Israel is an exaggeration. He was a monarch - and a reluctant one at that.
> These forces are not occupying the territories, they're native to the land, but just ideologically align more with Iran than other countries in the region.
By these "forces", you must be referring to Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that killed over 300 peacekeeping forces in the Beirut bombing during the Lebanese civil war, or the Houthi rebels that played a major role in causing the ongoing the civil war in Yemen.
> Part of how Iran was able to attract their support was by positioning itself as the force to stand against Western abuses in the region, (including Israel).
Almost every Arab country in the region stands against Iran, to the point of covertly cooperating with Israel. Those who align with Iran are virtually all part of the Shia/Alawite religious minority.
I'm not so sure Arabs hate Israel anymore. Saudi Arabia for instance has been working on improving relations. Could be "enemy of my enemy is my friend" though.
This sort of flamewar will get you banned here. Please do not do it again.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19045708 is also bad. Tedious, nasty political back-and-forths are both off topic (on topic is gratification of intellectual curiosity, and there's none of that here) and against the spirit of the site. If this is what you want to do, please find somewhere else on the internet to do it. Here it's necessary to resist the bait when others do it, not respond in kind.
Yes, but half the world isn't actively trying to destroy most people/nations.
And yes I do recognize it must suck ass to live in Gaza and I feel for them, and hope for a better future where their lives don't suck ass. I have no idea what to do about it though.
I know it's inconvenient for Europeans and progressives who think they can just lift the blockade and stop operations in Syria and everyone will live happily ever after, but when that filters through my ears it becomes "we don't give a fuck if you live or die."
Why should I care about the opinions of people who don't give a fuck if I live or die?
> half the world isn't actively trying to destroy most people/nations
True, including Israel.
You do realize that the occupation and abuse of Palestinians by Israel is what drives those Arabs that hate Israel, right? It's a rallying call, if you will.
As for genocidal rhetoric, it's been done both by Israeli neighbors and Israel itself.
As for military might, Israel is clearly on top.
> I do recognize it must suck ass to live in Gaza and I feel for them, and hope for a better future where their lives don't suck ass. I have no idea what to do about it though.
> I know it's inconvenient for Europeans and progressives who think they can just lift the blockade and stop operations in Syria and everyone will live happily ever after
As for Syria, is a sovereign country that you have no right to operate in, nor do you have the right to constantly violate Lebanese airspace.
How do you expect other countries to respect you, when you don't even respect international law?
As for Palestinians, there's always the rhetoric that they will never become peaceful etc. but how about you stop thinking of 'Greater Israel' and stop building illegal settlements as a first step? You can't continue jacking their land and somehow come to an agreement with them.
As for Gaza, yes, lifting the blockade, at least for essential supplies, lifting fishing restrictions, not targeting civilians and perhaps sponsoring targeted programs to build infrastructure there etc. would help. Stop sniping nurses and journalists as you did with the great match of return, that would be nice.
Build some goodwill, allows Gazans to leave and study abroad, sponsor some targeted infrastructure projects...
> but when that filters through my ears it becomes "we don't give a fuck if you live or die."
> Why should I care about the opinions of people who don't give a fuck if I live or die?
For my part, I absolutely care for you to live, but it could be said that it is what comes out of Israel is to my ears as if you don't care whether Palestinians live or die indeed.
There's much talk about their violence etc. but from what I've studied, it is driven by desperation. There's no prospects there, no future, no joy, no nothing. When there's such a situation, resisting what they, (and the international community btw), see as occupation is pretty much the only thing that occurs to many of them.
I realize the issue isn't simple, but as I said, outreach and show of goodwill go a long way. Stop building settlements for one, enforce security in their areas from settler attacks as well, build infrastructure, come to the table and most importantly stop dreaming of 'Greater Israel' and you may get somewhere.
> Naive. I'm sure they'll find another excuse to restore the Muslim lands.
So it's ok for you to continue, because you're sure they'll find another reason? What if am sure they won't? That's a lousy argument if I ever saw one.
> This is where the 'get fucked' comes in.
So you approve of violating international law? Why should Israel have any extra rights as a state, compared to others, or the Palestinians for that matter?
> What's your point? It's ok if they shoot missiles at me because ours our bigger and fancier?
It's not ok, but so it's acting that your bombardment is a proportional response to their home-made rockets. It mostly kills civilians.
> Noted. Both sides are negotiating in bad faith so some degree here. There is no indication that Palestinians will ever consider one square inch of Israel to not be 'jacking their lands'
The Palestinians have said that they're OK with the '67 borders, that's certainly giving up on some land allocated to them by the UN to Israel.
> any more than there is of settlers giving up hope for 'greater Israel.'
So is this the justification for continuing the status quo of the occupation? That's not a good look if I may say so myself. How are the settlers different then than the extreme Islamic factions of the Palestinians? Because their settlements are protected by Israel and thus make Israel at least partially responsible for them.
> So they can use fishing boats to smuggle weapons and concrete for tunnels? Which IS what would happen. but still..
Am sure there would a percentage used that way, so do inspections or whatever. You don't make an argument like this for anything other. "There should be no cars, because someone may have an accident".
> You do realize that the occupation and abuse of Palestinians by Israel is what drives those Arabs that hate Israel, right? It's a rallying call, if you will.
You do realize that it's the other way around, in that "Palestinians" have always hated Israel (aided and abetted by Israel's Arab neighboring states) since it's lawful establishment by the UN? Palestinians are still failing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.
> You do realize that it's the other way around, in that "Palestinians" have always hated Israel (aided and abetted by Israel's Arab neighboring states) since it's lawful establishment by the UN?
If you're giving the historical context, it's worth noting that Israel was indeed established by the UN, but only after years of massive migration to the territory and committing significant terrorism when the British were there(in fact the IDF is a result of the merger of several terrorist factions), the kind of terrorism that is often used by Israelis to pain the Palestinians as uncivilized savages.
The UN also established what should be the Palestinian territory, which is today occupied by Israel.
The Arab states did in fact invade, the Palestinians saw it as eroding on their land, (and the British agreed to a large extent at the time), however I do agree that they should have accepted the UN ruling. It was wrong not to do so, regardless of how Israel came to be.
This does however not justify the present occupation of even the few remaining Palestinian territories, especially because the very UN that you cite considers them illegal and Israel is regularly condemned at the UN for it. Yet it continues to ignore international law with impunity because of U.S. support.
> Palestinians are still failing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist.
They largely do acknowledge it, the PA certainly does and even Hamas has amended their charter in 2017 to that direction as far as I know.
The fact is, Israel has a state in any case. Do you acknowledge the right for Palestine to exist? Because Israeli continued expansion of illegal settlements on the ground does not suggest so and it certainly does not help the peace process in any way.
"Iran may have rhetoric, but Iran isn't occupying anyone"
Well, Iraq and Syria would be two countries.
And if they could, they would be occupying many more.
Iran is not some entity trying to protect themselves from invaders, they are a theocratic dictatorship and they want to spread their specific brand of revolution throughout the region and the world.
Nukes involve us all so it's less a matter of sovereignty.
Nobody wants Iran to have nukes - not Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China etc which is why they are all signatories to the treaty!
If Iran tried to get nukes in the eyes of the above, they would pull out as well!
The issue here is more or less one of 'what Iran is doing' - not an issue of 'what we should do if Iran is cheating'.
So the headline of 3 major countries doing trade with Iran is not an abnegation of the nuclear issue, it's just a difference of opinion on what is actually going on inside Iran.
No, they wouldn't, Iran is in both countries with the explicit permission of the local governments, (like them or not). That's not what occupation means.
> And if they could, they would be occupying many more.
Given you first statement isn't true, I doubt this one is, beyond the cynical, "who wouldn't"?
> Iran is not some entity trying to protect themselves from invaders, they are a theocratic dictatorship and they want to spread their specific brand of revolution throughout the region and the world.
Look, am not a fan of Iran, but am also trying to be rational about them. Their strategy of having some proxy forces in strategic places is part of their defense strategy, this has been studied.
As for them trying to spread their ideology, sure, that alone doesn't seem to warrant sanctions, given the Gulf states and our relationship with them.
> Nobody wants Iran to have nukes - not Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China etc which is why they are all signatories to the treaty!
Right, and Iran has been complying with the deal, so what's your point? It's the U.S. that pulled out of it.
(For the record, am not sure why Israel should have unacknowledged nukes either.)
"Their strategy of having some proxy forces in strategic places is part of their defence strategy, this has been studied."
Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah towards attacking Israel is part of their defence strategy?
Iran's passing of Hadouthi missiles to targeted at cilivian areas in Saudia Arabia is part of their defence strategy.
Yes 'this has been studied' and I'm afraid you're wrong.
Iran is a antagonistic entity, and they want nukes so they can point them at Turkey, Saudi, Israel, Europe and further embolden themselves.
The reason that 'UK/France/Germany' issue is important is because it undermines almost all of the arguments being made here i.e. that 'Iran is sovereign, a victim, and shouldn't be subject to sanctions'.
The fact that 'the entire world' wants to sanction Iran for pursuing nukes fairly points to their bad acting.
The only reason that trade is possibly going to happen - is because of the belief that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons.
> Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah towards attacking Israel is part of their defence strategy?
Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah is absolutely part of their defense strategy, so is antagonism towards Israel, not that I agree with it, but it's worth noting that Israel has been regularly threatening to "bomb Lebanon back into the stone age" and attacking Iranians in Syria, so Israel is clearly an antagonizing force as well.
> they want nukes so they can point them at Turkey, Saudi, Israel, Europe and further embolden themselves
There's no particular reason to think that if they wanted nukes, they'd do so for any other reason, than as a deterrent against an invasion, similarly to the reasons North Korea develops them.
> The only reason that trade is possibly going to happen - is because of the belief that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons.
It is not just a 'belief' as you call it, it has been verified regularly by the International Atomic Agency and Iran is in compliance with the deal. The U.S. is not.
Since the end of Saddam - there is no entity in the region that has any material ability to pose any real threat to Iran.
Moreover, there are no entities with the ability to even 'cause meaningful harm' (ie Israel) without significant reciprocal damage and serious political blowback.
So the notion of 'attacking neighbours as part of a defence' doesn't hold any water.
Consider that Iran has the open and public position that they want to 'wipe Israel of the map', that they are sending missiles that end up landing over the heads of Saudis and Israelis - it's clear that Iran poses an existential threat to some of their neighbours, not the other way around.
Palestinian issues aside (which will never be resolved through war anyhow) - Israel has proven they maintain very peaceful relations with any neighbours not trying to destroy it, ergo, the very easy path to peace with Israel is just to not antagonize them. Jordan, Egypt, Saudi etc. have zero to fear from Israel.
If Iran wanted peace they would just make peace, but it's clear they do not.
The Saudis are not the nicest bunch, and their funding of extremist activities should draw more ire, but they have no real military capabilities more than a few miles beyond their borders.
> Since the end of Saddam - there is no entity in the region that has any material ability to pose any real threat to Iran
Not without allying with and outside power like the United States to do so (which, incidentally, was critical to Saddam’s ability to do so); Iran's influence with dissatisfied groups, which its visible active opposition to Israel is a key component of, is key to it's ability to credibly threaten to impose a high cost for that.
It's also, beyond defence against existing local regimes, a key component of it's strategy to prevent the US from securing a stronger foothold in the region to threaten Iran by displacing or subverting an existing regime both by establishing Iran's positive influence and by poisoning the week against the US.
> Well, there’s the minor issue of Iran’s totalitarian regime consistently announcing their intent to destroy Israel and devestate the U.S.A, and taking actual steps to support the same.
Be wary of the narrative the media feeds you. There is a lot of spin on what is actually said in Iran and what is reported. For example:
The first article is mostly an opinion piece on the illegitimacy of Israel as a Jewish state.
> So the UN resolution was actually legally compromised and the partition plan was also completely unfair, giving out 70 percent of the land to the immigrant Jews who made up only 30 percent of the population at the time! (See 1947 UN Partition Proposal)
> So people only need to use their common sense to see how wrong this radical and bloody demographic implantation in the Arab world, called Israel, has been!
therefore, I would take whatever other factual claims this writer makes with a grain of salt, since anyone who reads his article can see a clear anti-Israeli agenda.
But even assuming his factutal statements regarding what Ahmadinejad said: that the occupation will vanish from the face of time, and not actually Israel, which is not the same as the occupation - anyone who is a bit versed in Middle-Eastern media knows that “the occupation” is just the way Israel is referred to. In very much the same way that the Iranian regime calls Israel and the U.S. “the small and big devils”. The writer’s point is moot. Any threat about the vanishing of the occupation is the same as the threat of the vanishing of Israel as a state.
The second article is a bit weird, as it seems to argue the finer points of translation:
> Khomeini gave a speech in which he said in Persian “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.” This means, “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.” But then anonymous wire service translators rendered Khomeini as saying that Israel “must be wiped off the face of the map,” which Cole and Nourouzi say is inaccurate.
and
> In 2000, Khamenei stated, “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.” He went on to say in the same speech that “Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews.”
Wow, I’m so glad the Iranian regime only says that Israel along with the Jews living in it must vanish and be uprooted, but not wiped out.
To make things clear: I am against the control of Israeli military of territories with a Palestenian civilian majority in the West Bank, and I myself call that “occupation”. I believe Israel is very much at fault, even if it is not exclusive fault.
But that doesn’t excuse ignoring or defending actual threats to the very existence of Israel, which Iran does make, and act upon.
Stating that a country should not exist vs stating a country should be wiped off the map are drastically different things.
It's long been known that Iran doesn't recognize Israel as a country, just like Israel doesn't recognize Palestine, so there should be no surprise here.
I really don't understand why others really think the people of Iran have some overarching goal of attacking Israel and the US versus just trying to live their lives. What will that accomplish them?
Iran is a republic and must answer to it's people, which is why they participate in the international community by e.g. following the Non Proliferation Treaty and making trade deals with the rest of the international community. At the end of the day they don't want to be isolated and straddled with hyper inflation from sanctions just like most countries.
> Stating that a country should not exist vs stating a country should be wiped off the map are drastically different things.
You make the first sound very sterile. Aggressively saying one (a person or country) must not exist is not that far off from saying he must be wiped off, especially if you’re taking actual military steps against that subject.
> It's long been known that Iran doesn't recognize Israel as a country just like Israel doesn't recognize Palestine, so there should be no surprise here.
Who’s surprised? I just demonstrated the so-called receipts the parent OP said one must show.
Regardless, not recognizing something is very different from saying it must not exist and taking steps to advance that desired non-existence.
I think the Israeli regime is also evil in not allowing a Palestenian state to exist, even if it’s not Israel’s exclusive fault.
> I really don't understand why others really think the people of Iran have some overarching goal of attacking Israel and the US versus just trying to live their lives. What will that accomplish them?
I think it’s clear we are talking about the regimes here, not “the people”. Especially in autocratic Iran.
> Iran is a republic and must answer to it's people
False. [1]
> de jure:
Unitary Khomeinist presidential Islamic republic
> de facto:
Theocratic-republican authoritarian unitary presidential republic subject to a Supreme Leader
This is going to be the really unfortunate legacy of Trump: disastrous foreign policy and the loss of soft power.
1. Denial of Russia's meddling in US election because it runs counter to Trump's ego and he had a weird soft spot for autocrats.
2. The baseless termination of the Iran nuclear Accord as essentially a capitulation to Israel and Israeli interests. There was no violation of the agreement. The best the administrative could come up with was that Iran was violating the "spirit" of the agreement with actions that took place prior to it. WTF?
3. Giving North Korea a pass, a country that actually has unchecked nuclear ambitions and a deplorable human rights record.
4. Giving Saudi Arabia a pass on killing a US permanent resident in Turkey (Trump asked on camera "he's not a citizen right?"). Why? Because they're an ally. Why exactly is that? Well because of Iraq. Why was Iraq an enemy? Well because of Iran. Why was Iran an enemy? Well because we incited a revolution there to remove a democratically elected government leading to a hardline religious revolution so they didn't like is. Then we propped up a dictator and supplied him with arms, commenting a war that killed millions. Yeah ok. But hey MBS is another Putin in the making so that's fine.
Honestly the only bright spot in this (and there really is one) is that China's misdeeds seem to be getting called out.
Anyway the whole Iran thing just makes me angry. The best thing we could do there is work towards normalization is relations. Three internal politics were slowly becoming more moderate. Isolating them gives more power to the hardliners.
But that's really the story of the disproportionate power Israel has over US foreign policy. Gone are the days when Eisenhower told them to get the hell out of Sinai.
Saudi Arabia is an ally because, and for as long as, they happily do their oil business in USD, which does a lot to underpin the USD as a driver in the global economy as a whole.
Not going to war with N. Korea, Russia and Saudi Arabia is a good thing. Trump has lessened tensions, he should get credit for that. As an American, I don't want to fight a war with these countries.
I agree with you on Iran for the same reasons though.
Who said anything about going to war? That's a false dichotomy. How about just:
- Not giving credibility to the North Korean regime
- When Russia kills dissidents overseas in a pretty public way (eg Polonium-210, nerve agents), annexes a sovereign nation (ie part of the Ukraine) and their meddling leads to giving anti-aircraft systems to rebels who use it to shoot down a passenger plane (ie MH17) then they're treated with sanctions and are ostracized to some degree from the international community. To be fair, a lot of this predated Trump. The MBS-Khashoggi affair should be met with a similar amount of condemnation.
Oh and there's the whole Yemen thing too.
There was a time when Saudi Arabia wielded a lot of power due to their oil output and the West's dependence on it. But those days are gone. The US is now a net oil exporter. There are sources other than OPEC for oil (eg Venezuela, Russia although each of them has their issues now obviously). More to the point, Saudi Arabia needs to sell oil to buy off their own citizens.
Supporting an unpopular autocratic regime is part of why many in the Middle East hate the US.
The real tragedy of the Middle East is that the US caused no end of problems and then picked the wrong side (again and again actually). There's a case to be made than Iran would've made the better ally.
But our hands are tied. Because Israel, basically.
Like I said, I agree that we should not sanction Iran.
How about not increasing the risk of war with N. Korea and Russia? It should not be our job to police other countries. We have enough of our own problems to deal with in the US.
“We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.” -- from emails leaked from the office of Hillary Clinton, who was US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.
The Iranian people overthrew the shah who ruled for ~38 years and whom the US supported, and seemed to choose theocracy. (I say "seemed" because I'm sure there are two sides to the story. From the little reading I've done, it seems there was significant support for the theocracy.) They now hold elections, though I don't know how free of meddling they are. So they've gone from a US-supported dictatorship, a feeling much of the Middle East and Latin Americas knows, to a partially democratic theocracy.
Negative attitudes towards homosexuality are common across the Middle East; they're not unique to Iran. Neither are negative attitudes towards Israel.
I don't know enough about Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran supposedly building nuclear weapons to comment, so I won't.
For those interested, I highly recommend reading Robert Fisk's "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East"[0]. The author was in Iran during the revolution which overthrew the Shah and offers a fascinating perspective into the Iranian people. The rest of the book is proving to be amazing too!
I can also highly recommend Fisks books (I have The Great War on the shelf and refer to it often), but I would also like to add Robert Baers books, he was a CIA case officer who speaks farsi and is pretty knowledgeable about things. I think it is also highly worth reading up on the original coup that installed the Shah in the first place, it was essentially the first coup the British used their newly trained (everyone knows the OSS became the CIA, but who did the OSS learn from? The Brits) American orgs as a proxy in an overthrow.
Which is one of the reasons moves like this by the UK are interesting; much of the current American sentiment towards Iran was shaped by the Chatham House group in the first place.
Also I sat down and actually read all the IAEA reports in 2010 or so and besides the mossad planted laptop fiasco, all indications were that Iran was not seeking weaponization or even virtual breakout mode, and I have yet to see any good evidence to the contrary other than claims of "secret evidence".
The second is pretty much false. Iran has never tried to build nuclear weapons. Iran has been and always was perfectly in accordance with international law.
If you want to sanction Iran for the reason giving in your first line, then you must sanction literally every single ally the US has in the Middle East.
Please stop claiming that this is some moral position that the US holds.
Pretty good evidence there that Iran wants to destroy Israel. Even if they're not trying to build nukes, which is a stretch, they can't be trusted with nuclear power.
I agree that it is not the only homophobic non-democracy in the Middle East. The sooner no-one needs oil and we can stop dealing with those countries, the better.
The Iranian population is far less against Israel then in Arab countries. Iran was long allied with Israel even after the Revolution.
Iran has shown again and again that they can be trusted as they have join the global communities process from early on and are not the best monitored country. Israel has shown that they can not be trusted with Nuclear power, they have not even signed the NPT.
Iran government might want to destroy Israel, but Israel government would like to destroy Iran as well. They are both regional powers.
Sovereign nations under the the U.S.' thumb, not being able to control their own destiny only works so long as we're complacent.
I sense we're growing tired of war for war's sake, leery of ideological battles built for future blowback down the road. We see enough people profiting from these wars to wonder how much global conflict is manufactured.
I hope we stop buying in. When a politician tells us a country is evil, we need to start asking for receipts.
I don't see this having a ton of impact on U.S. relations other than a few terse, typo-laden tweets directed at Europe, but who knows these days. The notion that Western alliances are being intentionally weakened no longer seems far fetched.