19 ms·

This is terrific news! As with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy.

by tyre 11y ago

This is terrific news! As with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy. The implications of this are tremendous (not in order of importance): 1) Oil prices will continue to fall as Iran is able to supply the global markets. Many oil states rely on money from natural resources to preserve monarchies. Money for freedom only works so long as the money keeps flowing. 2) Our (US) reliance on Saudi Arabia will diminish as there are now two powers in the region to work with. Having strong relations with both Shiite and Sunni powers in the Middle East will likely reduce sectarian violence. We're light years from being out of the woods, but this is big step in the right direction. 3) The Iranian people will gain access to the world economy. From a human rights perspective, they are the biggest winners here. As with Sunni/Shiite relations, no doubt a long way to go (the Ayatollah is a tyrant,) but you gotta celebrate the wins when you can. 4) De-escalation of our conflict with Iran. We saw it with Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea. Invasion + nation building is sexy, but highly ineffective. Having one less nuclear power that calls for our destruction is certainly a nice to have. 5) Shows Americans that diplomacy can work. Iranians don't hate Americans, they hate what America represents. To them, we represent a superpower that gives little to no thought of anyone else's sovereignty. We assassinated their democratically elected leader and backed the Shah, which got us into this mess. Diplomacy is far less sexy and easily criticized, but that's a huge part of getting this deal done. Note: Many of these are over-simplified. Nonetheless, this is a pretty big deal and a cause for celebration.

amalag 11y ago
I have been very neutral towards Obama ( I voted third party in both recent national elections) and don't like how cozy he is with corporate interests, but he has impressed me with what he has accomplished. Iran, Cuba, Healthcare and a few other programs that may have had some initial resistance but are in the best interests of the US and will be an enduring legacy.
tyre 11y ago
On a more speculative note, regarding Saudi Arabia, this could indirectly lead to the declassification of the full 9/11 report. We know that SA was heavily involved but absolutely could not risk our relationship with them by releasing the full findings. Perhaps now that we have more options in the Middle East, we can recalibrate towards the truth. (Left out of original comment because this is wild speculation.)
- salimmadjd 11y ago
  Exactly! The IranDeal was all about giving US more options in mideast. Saudis had ensure to maintain their monopoly as being the only US option and as a result they could get away with indirectly funding and supporting ISIS, etc. There is probably "more" stuff that will come out from US-Iran before Obama's end of term as this relationship will expand his legacy and it will provide the Iranian counterpart opportunity to show they are ready to be part of the world.
  - amalag 11y ago
    It is excellent because the US should really NOT fall into being only a Shia or Sunni ally. We do not want a stake in that conflict.
kobayashi 11y ago
>Having strong relations with both Shiite and Sunni powers in the Middle East will likely reduce sectarian violence. This is a ridiculously optimistic, naïve, and shallow reading of the situation. To better understand the current state of sectarian conflict, I highly recommend reading Kenneth Pollack's recent Brookings essay. [0] To quote: >Indeed, both the civil wars and the spillover they generate have also produced a general mobilization of the Middle East’s Shiites, instigated and led by Iran. And that includes the Shiites in the Saudi kingdom. Officials in private and press reports occasionally note that hundreds of Saudi security service personnel have been killed and wounded in operations in the Eastern Province, the home to the vast majority of the kingdom’s Shiites. Americans tend not to pay attention to these operations because we see them as proof that the Saudis have things well in hand; but another way to look at it is that the Saudis are fighting pitched battles with someone in the cities of the Eastern Province. In other words, there seems to be a much higher degree of mobilization and violent confrontation among the Saudi Shiites than most realize. [0] http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/01/08-fear-and-loathing-saudi-arabia-pollack?rssid=Markaz http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/01/08-fear-...
- tyre 11y ago
  It is optimistic, but not naive. I'm not saying that our relations will in any way reduce the two sides' hatred for each other. The US now has a vested interest in reducing tensions between Sunnis and Shiites. If we have a diplomatic partner on one side of the fight (e.g. only the Saudis), our response must be to either support their interests in the region or stay out of it. If we have interests on both sides, our options are to either push for peace or to play the sides against each other in hopes of chaos and a mutual weakness. We may end up pushing for the latter, as was the case in the Iran-Iraq war, but with a shared enemy in the Islamic State and our long-overdue recognition that chaos hurts our own security and economic interests, it is in our own self-interest that we advocate for stability. Let me be clear: both Iran and Saudi Arabia are ruled by theocratic despots. They will continue to revile each other and assert themselves in the region. But it is far easier to turn a blind eye on their bad behaviour when we have no other option (both in SA and Pakistan.)
- bhouston 11y ago
lazaroclapp 11y ago
> opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy. Not saying that might not be true now a days, taking the optimistic view. But keep in mind that Iran took the first step towards democracy (from a quasi-sultanistic plain autocracy to a theocratic republic hybrid) when it closed itself to the world economy and ousted the Shah. I know you mention that part of history in your fifth point, but this is probably something that is important to acknowledge when talking about Iran relations. Traditionally speaking, the Iranian people have many more reasons to associate the United States with even worse dictatorships, rather than with democracy.
grecy 11y ago
I wonder if it also means US citizens will again be permitted to enter Iran as tourists. They currently can't, and it's presenting a problem for people driving/riding round the world.
- tyre 11y ago
  US citizens can currently visit Iran but must be accompanied by a tour guide. Neither the state department nor the Iranian government would like one to do so, but Americans can still visit the country.
marcoperaza 11y ago
Iran is not shy about its imperial ambitions and the barbaric tactics it pursues them with. Why are we putting our heads in the sand? Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, these are just some of the groups that Iran has funded, armed, and sponsored at various points in time, including the present day. The same Iran, led by the same people, that we so eagerly made this deal with. What's happening is nothing but appeasement. Don't take my word for it, this wiki article is a good starting point for more information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...
- x0x0 11y ago
  As opposed to our dear friends, the Saudis?
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    The Saudis are no angels. They proselytize their form of radical Islam around the world. Internally, they are a repressive oligarchy ruled by the royal family and the radical clerics. Private donors from Saudi Arabia contribute a huge amount to terrorism. These are huge problems and the Saudis shouldn't get a pass on it, but it's not comparable to the Iranian government sponsoring civil wars across the Middle East to build itself an empire.
    - mschuster91 11y ago
      > but it's not comparable to the Iranian government sponsoring civil wars across the Middle East to build itself an empire. I believe there's no worse party in the entire ME region than Turkey. They might be a NATO ally, but for years they have e.g. allowed free influx of foreign fighters and arms into the region and export of oil back into Turkey, thus directly fueling the rise of IS. (Granted, Saudi Arabia with sponsoring Wahhabite islam propaganda all over Europe also had its part) Also, Erdogan is rapidly transforming Turkey to an Islamist dictatorship... and he's using the Syrian refugees as a weapon against Europe. Europe pays 3B € and Europe looks away from him turning into a dictator and massacring Kurds as long as he keeps the refugees in Turkey. If Erdogan were to truly unleash the millions of refugees, Europe would be screwed. Europe couldn't manage the 2m refugees last year without nearly falling apart, another 2m (or more!) would break up the EU.
Camillo 11y ago
> As with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy. Saying this kind of thing in 2016 is not merely naive, but sits firmly in the territory of culpable ignorance. That was Clinton's official line when he brought China into the WTO, and the following decade and a half have proven that it is perfectly possible to have a fully globally integrated market economy without making any concessions to democracy. Apart from that, what the fall of the Berlin Wall shows is that annexing a smaller country is the first step towards extending your system of government to it, be it democracy or otherwise.
- bhouston 11y ago
  Well, in the Iranian situation there is already more democratic than China. I hope that because the Iranian liberals were the ones that negotiated this deal, although with permission of the Supreme Leader, it will bolster the liberal's standing in the country even further and increase their credibility and their openness to the rest of the world.
  - MichaelMoser123 11y ago
    I am not sure that this is true. This guy was in jail for six years just because of blogging http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/29/irans-blogfather-facebook-instagram-and-twitter-are-killing-the-web http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/29/irans-blog... (this was also featured on the HN front page, happy down voting). Also Iran is not that far from Saudi Arabia - with a very strict and literal interpretation of Islam serving as the ruling ideology.
    - amalag 11y ago
      The Iranian people in general though are not like the Saudi people. Persia may have become Islamic but there is a stronger current of secularism there. Also the Shiite version of Islam in general is not so strict like the Sunni. Iran was very liberal before the Islamic regime took power by force. I think we will see it open up a lot more and you will see a lot more reform than Saudi Arabia in the coming years.
toephu2 11y ago
What's the deal with this whole push for democracy? (nevermind, checked your company, I see your angle now). As if it's the holy grail of form of governments? Yeah, democracy really turned India around.. Food for thought: Would you rather be an Indian living in India, or a Chinese living in China?
- bhouston 11y ago
  There are a lot more differences between India and China than just democracy.
- hackuser 11y ago
  There is a very strong, unmistakeable relationship between democracy and quality of life, by almost any measure. All of the most free, most prosperous, safest, healthiest, best educated, etc. nations in the world are democracies. More importantly there is a moral requirement for democracy in some form: People have a right to self-determination. India seems to be doing relatively well, though it's hard to find anything to compare it to (Pakistan?). Democracy isn't sufficient by itself; democracies can be corrupt, poor, etc. Someone said long ago: democracies are the worst form of government - except for all the alternatives.
  - meric 11y ago
    You're right democracies by themselves means nothing. I don't agree with a foreign country toppling an existing country's stable government for the purpose of extending "democracy" when in reality the reason is because democracies of small countries are easy to manipulated by foreign governments and corporations. Look at Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, besides the last one I think the first three were more properous before foreign intervention, than after. Even Taiwan's democracy has only become more and more of a joke since KMT giving up emergency powers. Singapore on the other hand, is faring a lot better than all the countries I've mentioned in this comment.
    - hackuser 11y ago
      > I don't agree with a foreign country toppling an existing country's stable government for the purpose of extending "democracy" I don't know how often it happens to stable governments, but generally I agree that destroying the country (through war) and imposing democracy - the essence of which is self-determination - is short-sighted and generally disasterous. > democracies of small countries are easy to manipulated by foreign governments and corporations Other forms of government are more easily controlled, speaking generally. In fact during the Cold War the U.S. replaced many democracies (Chile, Zaire/Congo, Iran, and others) with dictatorships because they were more easily controlled. In those three cases, leaders the U.S. disliked were elected, prompting the coups. > Ukraine I'm a little puzzled by this one. Clearly Ukraine's problems are due to Russia invading, conquering a major part of their country, and creating unending war in another part. > Taiwan's democracy has only become more and more of a joke since KMT giving up emergency powers. I don't understand what this refers to. Taiwan's democracy is thriving; they are very prosperous. They just had another successful election and power changed hands again. Their main problem is the communist government in mainland China which puts a threatening shadow over everything and denies the Taiwanese normal relations with most of the world.
baudehlo 11y ago
One significant point I feel you missed is that it proved that the sanctions worked, albeit taking a very long time. Iran's economy has suffered badly (eg a cheap car there such as a Hyundai is 4 times the price it is elsewhere). And that has been a clear reason for them to accept the terms of this deal. Next stop Cuba?
- hackuser 11y ago
  Based on reading a lot of foreign policy literature, experts see sanctions as a specific tool for specific situations, but very over-used. The following is what a well-read amateur has absorbed (in the absence of anyone with actual expertise - that would be very welcome!): Governments and publics tend to see sanctions as a solution to every problem, especially where they don't want to have to actually pay or sacrifice anything. They think it's a freebie, a way to get something done witout putting any skin in the game: 'We don't want to risk any lives or have to give anything up to get what we want - let's use sanctions!' Note that you won't see sanctions where it will have a serious economic impact on the sanctioning country; for example, the U.S. isn't going to enact significant trade sanctions on China. Also, sanctions tend to have the harshest effects on the most vulnerable. In the kinds of countries that are sanctioned, the poor starve and their unelected oppressors continue to live affluent lives. That's why in the the last decade or two, the U.S. and others have used the tactic of targeted sanctions, aimed specifically at the people in power. Sanctions freeze their personal assets in overseas banks (where they often stash their money), deny access to western markets and financial services for the businesses run by them and their leading supporters, etc. Apparently, denying the leaders travel visas to the west has a real impact (perhaps they lose status when then can't take their families on vacation to Paris and New York?). It seems to have accomplished something in Iran (but at what cost to the poor and oppressed there?). It hasn't worked yet in North Korea, and their population already is starving. Cuban sanctions are, I think, the old-fashioned non-targeted sanctions and have been ineffective or at least clearly insufficient. Also, as I said, it's not the right tool for every job.
  - baudehlo 11y ago
    I agree completely. It has made the people suffer, not those higher up. However I think Iran could see another uprising on the horizon, which I guess is the point of making the people suffer. Sad it had to be that way.
tn13 11y ago
The Iran deal has probably saved a lot of money for Americans. What matters here is if Iran honors this deal in letter if not in spirit. While the Iranian regime is going to hate all things non-muslim the population with good access to other countries and trade is likely to get de-radicalized at much faster rate.
- RobertoG 11y ago
  The Iran deal has probably saved a lot of Iranian lives. American lives too, but probably less, taking into account how this things go normally. For a moment, it just looked like that this could finish like Iraq again. It's not like if nobody was pushing for war in the American establishment, whatever the Iranians did.
peterrushkin 11y ago
I just had to reply. OMG, you are totally stupid and naive. Please don't breed. Your stupid ilk will inherit the earth and will doom the human race!
- dang 11y ago
  We've banned this account for breaking the HN guidelines.
refurb 11y ago
Invasion + nation building is sexy, but highly ineffective. Is it? There have been some very successful examples: Japan, Germany, South Korea....
- nkozyra 11y ago
  Hard to describe these as invasions, at least in the sense Iraq was.
Paradigma11 11y ago
What democratically elected leader did the USA assasinate?
- hackuser 11y ago
  Salvador Allende in Chile comes to mind. I think the head of Congo/Zaire before Mobutu met a similar fate. Sukarno in Indonesia, but I don't know if the U.S. played as big a role there. Of course an American might not have actually pulled the trigger, but the U.S. was a/the primary mover in many of these situations. IIRC, President Carter issued an executive order banning the assassination of foreign leaders.
clarkmoody 11y ago
All of your points are great but have nothing to do with this: > first step towards democracy. More importantly, when countries are strong trade partners, they are way less likely to fight. War would hurt both parties through loss of economic activity more than it would benefit either as aggressor. The United States has been the aggressor / meddler in too much of the world for too long. It's good to see when diplomacy works, since we've been taking the "last resort" of war WAY too often.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
refurb 11y ago
as there are now two powers in the region to work with This agreement is a minor deescalation of tensions. I wouldn't go as far as to say the US has another friend in the Middle East.
- girvo 11y ago
  Yeah. It's good news, definitely, but there's still a long way to go. It'll be interesting to see if they can keep up the diplomatic momentum once Kerry is gone, because he's been rather instrumental for a lot of this (as per a fascinating Aljazeera) report I watched today)
JanezStupar 11y ago
> 2) Our (US) reliance on Saudi Arabia will diminish as there are now two powers in the region to work with. One can hardly talk about US reliance on SA nowadays. US imports only 24% of its petroleum[1]. Only 13% of which comes from SA[2]. The fact that US reliance on foreign petroleum has fallen from 60% to 24% and is projected to fall to less than 10% in the next couple of years is IMO the reason why the Iran deal was possible at all. SA had no say in it. [1]: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6 [2]: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm
tim333 11y ago
>opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy. It helps on the whole but it's ironic that Iran was partly democratic in the 40s which ended with a coup organized by the CIA and MI6 because Iran had been trading oil internationally and tried to get a bigger cut from BP, roughly.

by tyre 11y ago

amalag 11y ago

I have been very neutral towards Obama ( I voted third party in both recent national elections) and don't like how cozy he is with corporate interests, but he has impressed me with what he has accomplished. Iran, Cuba, Healthcare and a few other programs that may have had some initial resistance but are in the best interests of the US and will be an enduring legacy.

tyre 11y ago

On a more speculative note, regarding Saudi Arabia, this could indirectly lead to the declassification of the full 9/11 report. We know that SA was heavily involved but absolutely could not risk our relationship with them by releasing the full findings. Perhaps now that we have more options in the Middle East, we can recalibrate towards the truth. (Left out of original comment because this is wild speculation.)

salimmadjd 11y ago
Exactly! The IranDeal was all about giving US more options in mideast. Saudis had ensure to maintain their monopoly as being the only US option and as a result they could get away with indirectly funding and supporting ISIS, etc. There is probably "more" stuff that will come out from US-Iran before Obama's end of term as this relationship will expand his legacy and it will provide the Iranian counterpart opportunity to show they are ready to be part of the world.
- amalag 11y ago
  It is excellent because the US should really NOT fall into being only a Shia or Sunni ally. We do not want a stake in that conflict.

kobayashi 11y ago

>Having strong relations with both Shiite and Sunni powers in the Middle East will likely reduce sectarian violence. This is a ridiculously optimistic, naïve, and shallow reading of the situation. To better understand the current state of sectarian conflict, I highly recommend reading Kenneth Pollack's recent Brookings essay. [0] To quote: >Indeed, both the civil wars and the spillover they generate have also produced a general mobilization of the Middle East’s Shiites, instigated and led by Iran. And that includes the Shiites in the Saudi kingdom. Officials in private and press reports occasionally note that hundreds of Saudi security service personnel have been killed and wounded in operations in the Eastern Province, the home to the vast majority of the kingdom’s Shiites. Americans tend not to pay attention to these operations because we see them as proof that the Saudis have things well in hand; but another way to look at it is that the Saudis are fighting pitched battles with someone in the cities of the Eastern Province. In other words, there seems to be a much higher degree of mobilization and violent confrontation among the Saudi Shiites than most realize. [0] http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/01/08-fear-and-loathing-saudi-arabia-pollack?rssid=Markaz http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/01/08-fear-...

tyre 11y ago
It is optimistic, but not naive. I'm not saying that our relations will in any way reduce the two sides' hatred for each other. The US now has a vested interest in reducing tensions between Sunnis and Shiites. If we have a diplomatic partner on one side of the fight (e.g. only the Saudis), our response must be to either support their interests in the region or stay out of it. If we have interests on both sides, our options are to either push for peace or to play the sides against each other in hopes of chaos and a mutual weakness. We may end up pushing for the latter, as was the case in the Iran-Iraq war, but with a shared enemy in the Islamic State and our long-overdue recognition that chaos hurts our own security and economic interests, it is in our own self-interest that we advocate for stability. Let me be clear: both Iran and Saudi Arabia are ruled by theocratic despots. They will continue to revile each other and assert themselves in the region. But it is far easier to turn a blind eye on their bad behaviour when we have no other option (both in SA and Pakistan.)
bhouston 11y ago

lazaroclapp 11y ago

> opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy. Not saying that might not be true now a days, taking the optimistic view. But keep in mind that Iran took the first step towards democracy (from a quasi-sultanistic plain autocracy to a theocratic republic hybrid) when it closed itself to the world economy and ousted the Shah. I know you mention that part of history in your fifth point, but this is probably something that is important to acknowledge when talking about Iran relations. Traditionally speaking, the Iranian people have many more reasons to associate the United States with even worse dictatorships, rather than with democracy.

grecy 11y ago

I wonder if it also means US citizens will again be permitted to enter Iran as tourists. They currently can't, and it's presenting a problem for people driving/riding round the world.

tyre 11y ago
US citizens can currently visit Iran but must be accompanied by a tour guide. Neither the state department nor the Iranian government would like one to do so, but Americans can still visit the country.

marcoperaza 11y ago

Iran is not shy about its imperial ambitions and the barbaric tactics it pursues them with. Why are we putting our heads in the sand? Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, these are just some of the groups that Iran has funded, armed, and sponsored at various points in time, including the present day. The same Iran, led by the same people, that we so eagerly made this deal with. What's happening is nothing but appeasement. Don't take my word for it, this wiki article is a good starting point for more information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...

x0x0 11y ago
As opposed to our dear friends, the Saudis?
- marcoperaza 11y ago
  The Saudis are no angels. They proselytize their form of radical Islam around the world. Internally, they are a repressive oligarchy ruled by the royal family and the radical clerics. Private donors from Saudi Arabia contribute a huge amount to terrorism. These are huge problems and the Saudis shouldn't get a pass on it, but it's not comparable to the Iranian government sponsoring civil wars across the Middle East to build itself an empire.
  - mschuster91 11y ago
    > but it's not comparable to the Iranian government sponsoring civil wars across the Middle East to build itself an empire. I believe there's no worse party in the entire ME region than Turkey. They might be a NATO ally, but for years they have e.g. allowed free influx of foreign fighters and arms into the region and export of oil back into Turkey, thus directly fueling the rise of IS. (Granted, Saudi Arabia with sponsoring Wahhabite islam propaganda all over Europe also had its part) Also, Erdogan is rapidly transforming Turkey to an Islamist dictatorship... and he's using the Syrian refugees as a weapon against Europe. Europe pays 3B € and Europe looks away from him turning into a dictator and massacring Kurds as long as he keeps the refugees in Turkey. If Erdogan were to truly unleash the millions of refugees, Europe would be screwed. Europe couldn't manage the 2m refugees last year without nearly falling apart, another 2m (or more!) would break up the EU.

Camillo 11y ago

> As with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy. Saying this kind of thing in 2016 is not merely naive, but sits firmly in the territory of culpable ignorance. That was Clinton's official line when he brought China into the WTO, and the following decade and a half have proven that it is perfectly possible to have a fully globally integrated market economy without making any concessions to democracy. Apart from that, what the fall of the Berlin Wall shows is that annexing a smaller country is the first step towards extending your system of government to it, be it democracy or otherwise.

bhouston 11y ago
Well, in the Iranian situation there is already more democratic than China. I hope that because the Iranian liberals were the ones that negotiated this deal, although with permission of the Supreme Leader, it will bolster the liberal's standing in the country even further and increase their credibility and their openness to the rest of the world.
- MichaelMoser123 11y ago
  I am not sure that this is true. This guy was in jail for six years just because of blogging http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/29/irans-blogfather-facebook-instagram-and-twitter-are-killing-the-web http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/29/irans-blog... (this was also featured on the HN front page, happy down voting). Also Iran is not that far from Saudi Arabia - with a very strict and literal interpretation of Islam serving as the ruling ideology.
  - amalag 11y ago
    The Iranian people in general though are not like the Saudi people. Persia may have become Islamic but there is a stronger current of secularism there. Also the Shiite version of Islam in general is not so strict like the Sunni. Iran was very liberal before the Islamic regime took power by force. I think we will see it open up a lot more and you will see a lot more reform than Saudi Arabia in the coming years.

toephu2 11y ago

What's the deal with this whole push for democracy? (nevermind, checked your company, I see your angle now). As if it's the holy grail of form of governments? Yeah, democracy really turned India around.. Food for thought: Would you rather be an Indian living in India, or a Chinese living in China?

bhouston 11y ago
There are a lot more differences between India and China than just democracy.
hackuser 11y ago
There is a very strong, unmistakeable relationship between democracy and quality of life, by almost any measure. All of the most free, most prosperous, safest, healthiest, best educated, etc. nations in the world are democracies. More importantly there is a moral requirement for democracy in some form: People have a right to self-determination. India seems to be doing relatively well, though it's hard to find anything to compare it to (Pakistan?). Democracy isn't sufficient by itself; democracies can be corrupt, poor, etc. Someone said long ago: democracies are the worst form of government - except for all the alternatives.
- meric 11y ago
  You're right democracies by themselves means nothing. I don't agree with a foreign country toppling an existing country's stable government for the purpose of extending "democracy" when in reality the reason is because democracies of small countries are easy to manipulated by foreign governments and corporations. Look at Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, besides the last one I think the first three were more properous before foreign intervention, than after. Even Taiwan's democracy has only become more and more of a joke since KMT giving up emergency powers. Singapore on the other hand, is faring a lot better than all the countries I've mentioned in this comment.
  - hackuser 11y ago
    > I don't agree with a foreign country toppling an existing country's stable government for the purpose of extending "democracy" I don't know how often it happens to stable governments, but generally I agree that destroying the country (through war) and imposing democracy - the essence of which is self-determination - is short-sighted and generally disasterous. > democracies of small countries are easy to manipulated by foreign governments and corporations Other forms of government are more easily controlled, speaking generally. In fact during the Cold War the U.S. replaced many democracies (Chile, Zaire/Congo, Iran, and others) with dictatorships because they were more easily controlled. In those three cases, leaders the U.S. disliked were elected, prompting the coups. > Ukraine I'm a little puzzled by this one. Clearly Ukraine's problems are due to Russia invading, conquering a major part of their country, and creating unending war in another part. > Taiwan's democracy has only become more and more of a joke since KMT giving up emergency powers. I don't understand what this refers to. Taiwan's democracy is thriving; they are very prosperous. They just had another successful election and power changed hands again. Their main problem is the communist government in mainland China which puts a threatening shadow over everything and denies the Taiwanese normal relations with most of the world.

baudehlo 11y ago

One significant point I feel you missed is that it proved that the sanctions worked, albeit taking a very long time. Iran's economy has suffered badly (eg a cheap car there such as a Hyundai is 4 times the price it is elsewhere). And that has been a clear reason for them to accept the terms of this deal. Next stop Cuba?

hackuser 11y ago
Based on reading a lot of foreign policy literature, experts see sanctions as a specific tool for specific situations, but very over-used. The following is what a well-read amateur has absorbed (in the absence of anyone with actual expertise - that would be very welcome!): Governments and publics tend to see sanctions as a solution to every problem, especially where they don't want to have to actually pay or sacrifice anything. They think it's a freebie, a way to get something done witout putting any skin in the game: 'We don't want to risk any lives or have to give anything up to get what we want - let's use sanctions!' Note that you won't see sanctions where it will have a serious economic impact on the sanctioning country; for example, the U.S. isn't going to enact significant trade sanctions on China. Also, sanctions tend to have the harshest effects on the most vulnerable. In the kinds of countries that are sanctioned, the poor starve and their unelected oppressors continue to live affluent lives. That's why in the the last decade or two, the U.S. and others have used the tactic of targeted sanctions, aimed specifically at the people in power. Sanctions freeze their personal assets in overseas banks (where they often stash their money), deny access to western markets and financial services for the businesses run by them and their leading supporters, etc. Apparently, denying the leaders travel visas to the west has a real impact (perhaps they lose status when then can't take their families on vacation to Paris and New York?). It seems to have accomplished something in Iran (but at what cost to the poor and oppressed there?). It hasn't worked yet in North Korea, and their population already is starving. Cuban sanctions are, I think, the old-fashioned non-targeted sanctions and have been ineffective or at least clearly insufficient. Also, as I said, it's not the right tool for every job.
- baudehlo 11y ago
  I agree completely. It has made the people suffer, not those higher up. However I think Iran could see another uprising on the horizon, which I guess is the point of making the people suffer. Sad it had to be that way.

tn13 11y ago

The Iran deal has probably saved a lot of money for Americans. What matters here is if Iran honors this deal in letter if not in spirit. While the Iranian regime is going to hate all things non-muslim the population with good access to other countries and trade is likely to get de-radicalized at much faster rate.

RobertoG 11y ago
The Iran deal has probably saved a lot of Iranian lives. American lives too, but probably less, taking into account how this things go normally. For a moment, it just looked like that this could finish like Iraq again. It's not like if nobody was pushing for war in the American establishment, whatever the Iranians did.

peterrushkin 11y ago

I just had to reply. OMG, you are totally stupid and naive. Please don't breed. Your stupid ilk will inherit the earth and will doom the human race!

dang 11y ago
We've banned this account for breaking the HN guidelines.

refurb 11y ago

Invasion + nation building is sexy, but highly ineffective. Is it? There have been some very successful examples: Japan, Germany, South Korea....

nkozyra 11y ago
Hard to describe these as invasions, at least in the sense Iraq was.

Paradigma11 11y ago

What democratically elected leader did the USA assasinate?

hackuser 11y ago
Salvador Allende in Chile comes to mind. I think the head of Congo/Zaire before Mobutu met a similar fate. Sukarno in Indonesia, but I don't know if the U.S. played as big a role there. Of course an American might not have actually pulled the trigger, but the U.S. was a/the primary mover in many of these situations. IIRC, President Carter issued an executive order banning the assassination of foreign leaders.

clarkmoody 11y ago

All of your points are great but have nothing to do with this: > first step towards democracy. More importantly, when countries are strong trade partners, they are way less likely to fight. War would hurt both parties through loss of economic activity more than it would benefit either as aggressor. The United States has been the aggressor / meddler in too much of the world for too long. It's good to see when diplomacy works, since we've been taking the "last resort" of war WAY too often.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

refurb 11y ago

as there are now two powers in the region to work with This agreement is a minor deescalation of tensions. I wouldn't go as far as to say the US has another friend in the Middle East.

girvo 11y ago
Yeah. It's good news, definitely, but there's still a long way to go. It'll be interesting to see if they can keep up the diplomatic momentum once Kerry is gone, because he's been rather instrumental for a lot of this (as per a fascinating Aljazeera) report I watched today)

JanezStupar 11y ago

> 2) Our (US) reliance on Saudi Arabia will diminish as there are now two powers in the region to work with. One can hardly talk about US reliance on SA nowadays. US imports only 24% of its petroleum[1]. Only 13% of which comes from SA[2]. The fact that US reliance on foreign petroleum has fallen from 60% to 24% and is projected to fall to less than 10% in the next couple of years is IMO the reason why the Iran deal was possible at all. SA had no say in it. [1]: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6 http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6 [2]: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm

tim333 11y ago

>opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy. It helps on the whole but it's ironic that Iran was partly democratic in the 40s which ended with a coup organized by the CIA and MI6 because Iran had been trading oil internationally and tried to get a bigger cut from BP, roughly.