5 ms·

"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 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.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
> Well, Iraq and Syria would be two countries. 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.)
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "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.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > 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. Also see my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19045148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19045148 for the broader context. > 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.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah towards attacking Israel is part of their defence strategy? Yes. Particularly, it's central to their defense strategy against Sunni-dominated neighbors.

AsyncAwait 8y ago

> Well, Iraq and Syria would be two countries. 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.)

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"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.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > 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. Also see my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19045148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19045148 for the broader context. > 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.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah towards attacking Israel is part of their defence strategy? Yes. Particularly, it's central to their defense strategy against Sunni-dominated neighbors.