4 ms·

From the perspective of a Western government, Iran's international relations are the problem.[1] The fact that Iran's society is relatively advanced does littl

by nickff 11y ago

From the perspective of a Western government, Iran's international relations are the problem.[1] The fact that Iran's society is relatively advanced does little to console the families of the 1100 American soldiers killed by Iranian proxies in Iraq; nor does it console the families of the hundreds (if not thousands) of Israeli civilians killed by (Iranian government supported) Hamas. State support for the Assad regime isn't helping the Iranian government's international reputation either.[2] If you want to change the West's attitude towards Iran, a good first step would be to push for the release of Jason Rezaian, and the end of state support for terrorism.[3] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_involvement_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_involvement_in_the_Syr... [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/stories-jason-rezaian/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/stories-jason-rezaian/

jacquesm 11y ago
I think the US/Iran resentment goes back a bit further, roughly to the time that Iran took a whole pile of US hostages that were held for more than a year. That's not the sort of thing that is easily forgotten and it is one of the cornerstones of West/Islam conflict. After that it was mostly a downward spiral, with some recent relaxation on both sides of the line.
- nickff 11y ago
  That's certainly a good point, but they can do little to change their history, other than plead for forgiveness, which the state is unlikely to do, as that is now part of their origin myth.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_myth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_myth
- natrius 11y ago
  That was a while after we deposed their democratically elected leader. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Yes, I'm aware of that. But for the US that was not a reason to hate Iran (then Persia). (Of course it may not have helped the other side of the balance)
- hackuser 11y ago
  > I think the US/Iran resentment goes back a bit further, roughly to the time that Iran took a whole pile of US hostages that were held for more than a year. But that didn't happen in a vacuum either. The U.S. engineered or facilitated the overthrow of a mostly democratic Iranian leader in 1953, and put in his place a mini-dynasty of dictators who brutally oppresssed Iranians, with U.S. support, until that day in 1979. I'm not saying the Iranians should have taken those innocent Americans hostage but they didn't pick the American embassy and take hostages in a random act of violence. ... and I'm sure the 1953 coup didn't happen in a vacuum either.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    I said 'US/Iran' resentment. The 'Iran/US' resentment dates back even further, and if you trace it all to its roots you end somewhere in the 1700's or so, but then it was still (mostly) the UK and not the US.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > I said 'US/Iran' resentment If you mean "US/Iran resentment" means "US resentment of Iran but not Iranian resentment of the US", I now understand what you intended. Unfortunately, your syntax is undocumented and not defined in the language standard. :)
  - lobster_johnson 11y ago
    Also, the overthrow of Mossadegh was fundamentally about communism. Eisenhower featured that Mossadegh's policies would lead Iran towards communism. (The British were the ones who got that ball rolling; they wanted to depose Mossadegh for other reasons, mostly related to oil, but were not in a position to do anything with him.)
- acveilleux 11y ago
  The US was also big time friend of the previous guy...
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    They all but installed him.
- anon1mous 11y ago
  Or even further back to the time when CIA destroyed the democracy in Iran, and hasn't stopped interfering since ...
0xFFC 11y ago
I approve your point , but you are not going to beat a regime which has effective - and clever - regional - and domestic - policy with a bunch of sanction. Iran and its proxies are fighting against USA.That is truth. But the question is how we can solve Iran -regime- problem? What is the solution ? I personally believe there is no answer to this question other than Iran's own population. You cannot believe me , but I can see with my own eye. Every time USA or international community interfere in something all people are suspicious and whole community turn to regime supporters (you may know , being against foreign powers in middle east is one of the effective way to stay in power , and Iran's supreme leader does this in extremely effective way). If you want to fight you can only throw this regime with only academia and liberal people through a push for reform. There is no other alternative.They cleverly managed to stop and destroy every other opposition in country.Even parties which was more than 100 years old. I will guarantee you other way of fighting against this regime is not effective and will not effective.You want military invasion ? hell no , they will harm your military very badly , they will turn Iran worse than Vietnam and Germany in second WW.Even after changing regime they will remain active force like Al-Quada , suicidal force in society, which can change or throw government very easily. But the increasing liberal force in Iran want reform more than ever , they pushing even badly. I am not saying it is going to be successful.No , not yet, but I am saying it can be if west does not provoke people against reform and provide platform for free information flow (which is regime nightmare)
yongjik 11y ago
I'll bet way more than 1100 Iranian soldiers were killed by American proxies, umm I mean, allies in Iraq back when Hussein was a friend of America. So, call it even?
hackuser 11y ago
I think those are rationalizations for the larger reason: The U.S. and the West are the status quo powers; that is, we support the status quo power structure in the Mideast, with Sunnis and Saudi Arabia in particular dominating the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula. Iran is challenging that status quo. Speaking generally, in any such situation the challengers appear to be behaving badly because they are disruptive - they have to disrupt the status quo to bring change. In the end, neither side necessarily has a more legitimate claim to power and both would do the same in the other's shoes. I'm also not sure either side behaves better. Remember the U.S. played a major role in overthrowing a (mostly) democratic Iranian government in the 1950s, then supported a dictator who brutally oppressed the people of Iran for decades. The U.S. supports insurgent groups in and near Iran, sabotages their infrastructure (the nuclear program), imposes crippling economic sanctions, and very likely participated in the assassination of Iranian scientists. I happen to think the actions against Iran's nuclear weapons program are necessary, and Iran's government is generally a danger to many people's lives in the Mideast, but the West can hardly complain about Iran behaving badly. (And don't forget the U.S. misleading the world and invading a neighboring Mideast country for no good reason.)
rdtsc 11y ago
> The fact that Iran's society is relatively advanced does little to console the families of the 1100 American soldiers US killed a lot more of the American soldiers since. You make it seems like 1000 US soldiers' concerns somehow makes huge difference in the overall geopolitics. That is just propaganda. Many of those solders were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan invasion. Others were sent home traumatized mentally and physically. > soldiers killed by Iranian proxies in Iraq In general mentioning "killing by proxy" and US in the same comment is not a good idea if it is supposed to support the US position. US has killed by proxy a lot more and supported brutal regimes and dictators for many decades on almost all continents.
guelo 11y ago
There's also the Israel tail wagging the dog issue. Israel hates Iran so we hate Iran. Israel loves Sunni dictatorships in Egypt and Saudi Arabia so we love Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
- rezashirazian 11y ago
  I don't think Israel hates Iran or Iran hates Israel. Both, regardless of their differences, behave logically. I believe they find in each other an enemy that helps with their narrative, without the detriment of having to deal with the danger of an erratic or unreasonable enemy.
dingaling 11y ago
> does little to console the families of the 1100 American soldiers killed by Iranian proxies in Iraq Hang on... the USA sent armed forces 9,500 km across the globe to unilaterally invade a country literally across the border from Iran, and you reckon it's Iran's fault they were killed? Of course Iran was going to take advantage of the situation. It's their backyard, the USA was thrashing around aimlessly and they saw an opportunity to achieve an objective to their benefit. After all they have to live beside the self-imploding remains of Iraq, they can't just climb into C-17s and say it's over.
pravda 11y ago
>1100 American soldiers killed by Iranian proxies in Iraq And how 'bout all the Iranian soldiers killed by our friend and alley, Saddam Hussein, during the Iran-Iraq war? We didn't even get upset at Saddam for the USS Stark incident!

by nickff 11y ago

jacquesm 11y ago

I think the US/Iran resentment goes back a bit further, roughly to the time that Iran took a whole pile of US hostages that were held for more than a year. That's not the sort of thing that is easily forgotten and it is one of the cornerstones of West/Islam conflict. After that it was mostly a downward spiral, with some recent relaxation on both sides of the line.

nickff 11y ago
That's certainly a good point, but they can do little to change their history, other than plead for forgiveness, which the state is unlikely to do, as that is now part of their origin myth.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_myth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_myth
natrius 11y ago
That was a while after we deposed their democratically elected leader. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Yes, I'm aware of that. But for the US that was not a reason to hate Iran (then Persia). (Of course it may not have helped the other side of the balance)
hackuser 11y ago
> I think the US/Iran resentment goes back a bit further, roughly to the time that Iran took a whole pile of US hostages that were held for more than a year. But that didn't happen in a vacuum either. The U.S. engineered or facilitated the overthrow of a mostly democratic Iranian leader in 1953, and put in his place a mini-dynasty of dictators who brutally oppresssed Iranians, with U.S. support, until that day in 1979. I'm not saying the Iranians should have taken those innocent Americans hostage but they didn't pick the American embassy and take hostages in a random act of violence. ... and I'm sure the 1953 coup didn't happen in a vacuum either.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  I said 'US/Iran' resentment. The 'Iran/US' resentment dates back even further, and if you trace it all to its roots you end somewhere in the 1700's or so, but then it was still (mostly) the UK and not the US.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > I said 'US/Iran' resentment If you mean "US/Iran resentment" means "US resentment of Iran but not Iranian resentment of the US", I now understand what you intended. Unfortunately, your syntax is undocumented and not defined in the language standard. :)
- lobster_johnson 11y ago
  Also, the overthrow of Mossadegh was fundamentally about communism. Eisenhower featured that Mossadegh's policies would lead Iran towards communism. (The British were the ones who got that ball rolling; they wanted to depose Mossadegh for other reasons, mostly related to oil, but were not in a position to do anything with him.)
acveilleux 11y ago
The US was also big time friend of the previous guy...
- jacquesm 11y ago
  They all but installed him.
anon1mous 11y ago
Or even further back to the time when CIA destroyed the democracy in Iran, and hasn't stopped interfering since ...

0xFFC 11y ago

I approve your point , but you are not going to beat a regime which has effective - and clever - regional - and domestic - policy with a bunch of sanction. Iran and its proxies are fighting against USA.That is truth. But the question is how we can solve Iran -regime- problem? What is the solution ? I personally believe there is no answer to this question other than Iran's own population. You cannot believe me , but I can see with my own eye. Every time USA or international community interfere in something all people are suspicious and whole community turn to regime supporters (you may know , being against foreign powers in middle east is one of the effective way to stay in power , and Iran's supreme leader does this in extremely effective way). If you want to fight you can only throw this regime with only academia and liberal people through a push for reform. There is no other alternative.They cleverly managed to stop and destroy every other opposition in country.Even parties which was more than 100 years old. I will guarantee you other way of fighting against this regime is not effective and will not effective.You want military invasion ? hell no , they will harm your military very badly , they will turn Iran worse than Vietnam and Germany in second WW.Even after changing regime they will remain active force like Al-Quada , suicidal force in society, which can change or throw government very easily. But the increasing liberal force in Iran want reform more than ever , they pushing even badly. I am not saying it is going to be successful.No , not yet, but I am saying it can be if west does not provoke people against reform and provide platform for free information flow (which is regime nightmare)

yongjik 11y ago

I'll bet way more than 1100 Iranian soldiers were killed by American proxies, umm I mean, allies in Iraq back when Hussein was a friend of America. So, call it even?

hackuser 11y ago

I think those are rationalizations for the larger reason: The U.S. and the West are the status quo powers; that is, we support the status quo power structure in the Mideast, with Sunnis and Saudi Arabia in particular dominating the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula. Iran is challenging that status quo. Speaking generally, in any such situation the challengers appear to be behaving badly because they are disruptive - they have to disrupt the status quo to bring change. In the end, neither side necessarily has a more legitimate claim to power and both would do the same in the other's shoes. I'm also not sure either side behaves better. Remember the U.S. played a major role in overthrowing a (mostly) democratic Iranian government in the 1950s, then supported a dictator who brutally oppressed the people of Iran for decades. The U.S. supports insurgent groups in and near Iran, sabotages their infrastructure (the nuclear program), imposes crippling economic sanctions, and very likely participated in the assassination of Iranian scientists. I happen to think the actions against Iran's nuclear weapons program are necessary, and Iran's government is generally a danger to many people's lives in the Mideast, but the West can hardly complain about Iran behaving badly. (And don't forget the U.S. misleading the world and invading a neighboring Mideast country for no good reason.)

rdtsc 11y ago

> The fact that Iran's society is relatively advanced does little to console the families of the 1100 American soldiers US killed a lot more of the American soldiers since. You make it seems like 1000 US soldiers' concerns somehow makes huge difference in the overall geopolitics. That is just propaganda. Many of those solders were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan invasion. Others were sent home traumatized mentally and physically. > soldiers killed by Iranian proxies in Iraq In general mentioning "killing by proxy" and US in the same comment is not a good idea if it is supposed to support the US position. US has killed by proxy a lot more and supported brutal regimes and dictators for many decades on almost all continents.

guelo 11y ago

There's also the Israel tail wagging the dog issue. Israel hates Iran so we hate Iran. Israel loves Sunni dictatorships in Egypt and Saudi Arabia so we love Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

rezashirazian 11y ago
I don't think Israel hates Iran or Iran hates Israel. Both, regardless of their differences, behave logically. I believe they find in each other an enemy that helps with their narrative, without the detriment of having to deal with the danger of an erratic or unreasonable enemy.

dingaling 11y ago

> does little to console the families of the 1100 American soldiers killed by Iranian proxies in Iraq Hang on... the USA sent armed forces 9,500 km across the globe to unilaterally invade a country literally across the border from Iran, and you reckon it's Iran's fault they were killed? Of course Iran was going to take advantage of the situation. It's their backyard, the USA was thrashing around aimlessly and they saw an opportunity to achieve an objective to their benefit. After all they have to live beside the self-imploding remains of Iraq, they can't just climb into C-17s and say it's over.

pravda 11y ago

>1100 American soldiers killed by Iranian proxies in Iraq And how 'bout all the Iranian soldiers killed by our friend and alley, Saddam Hussein, during the Iran-Iraq war? We didn't even get upset at Saddam for the USS Stark incident!