3 ms·

> 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 o

> 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.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    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.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > 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.

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.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  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.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > 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.