5 ms·

Yeah, Iran is just a simple country that doesn't deserve any of this... they treat everyone well, don't subjugate half their population along gender lines, aren

Yeah, Iran is just a simple country that doesn't deserve any of this... they treat everyone well, don't subjugate half their population along gender lines, aren't responsible for thousands of US and Iraqi causalities, and don't export terrorism across the region. I know the "America is dumb" line works well on HN, but the naivety of some people here around foreign policy is just kind of staggering. Iran's "own destiny" isn't a positive one, so let's not romanticize it.

vegardx 8y ago
Unlike Saudi-Arabia?
- strictnein 8y ago
  Whataboutism isn't a debate technique.
femiagbabiaka 8y ago
Do you know the history of Iran? It was once a very progressive country before we interfered in their government. With expose to global markets for Iranian citizens, it may be again.
- ashelmire 8y ago
  I think you have that backwards. It was another Islamic regime until the west interfered with it. Then it became more progressive due in large part to our interference. Then the Islamists revolted, wanting to regress back to a less progressive state, fearing secularism - which gave us the Islamic state we have today.
  - boomboomsubban 8y ago
    This is getting the details incorrect and ignoring a century of interference. Following allied occupation during WWII, Iran was developing a progressive secular government until the US decided to overthrow it as Iran was trying to regain control over it's oil. This led to 25 years of a pro-west regime that can not remotely be considered progressive, followed by the revolution leading to the anti-west regime that also can not be considered progressive.
    - ashelmire 8y ago
      The “progressive secular government” was a despotic dictatorship without a free press, where political opponents of Reza were assassinated, and rule was maintained through the military. The progress was progress for the wealthy. Yes, there was foreign interference before that; but it wasn’t better before that either.
      - boomboomsubban 8y ago
        The progressive secular government was the one under Mosaddegh. Though Reza was the Shah at the time, he did not have the tyrannical power until after the US backed coup, and that period is the pro-west regime I mention.
        ashelmire 8y ago
        I was referring to Reza Shah, Mohammad Reza's father, who led Iran for decades. Reza Shah is generally credited with being an autocrat, but who is credited with most of Iran's modern nation-building. Mosaddegh led the nation for two years, half of which he had emergency dictatorial powers, which he used to forcibly reallocate wealth from landowners to tenants. And due to nationalizing oil, he faced a British boycott that caused the economy to fail (and declared the British an enemy... which was unwise). If anything, his short-lived leadership was one of the most rapid and catastrophic failures of leadership of any world nation in recent history. The US led coup was only planned 8 months after the emergency powers were granted to Mosaddegh. 5 months after that, the coup was executed.
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        >If anything, his short-lived leadership was one of the most rapid and catastrophic failures of leadership of any world nation in recent history. Purely because he resisted Western control over the oil fields. The government was secular and progressive, but the west only cares if you're pro-western interests.
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    It was the West what broke it. The 1979 revolution probably would not had happened had the US and UK not overthrown the Prime Minister in the 50s, because he had the audacity to nationalise his country's oil. How very dare he. Once the Shah returned he turned initial popularity (thanks to an economy spared from the oil nationalisation sanctions) into a repressive dictatorship.
  - nickik 8y ago
    You are missing part of the history. Iran was Democracy until 1953 when a CIA coup took down the government. Its a myth that Iran was only progressive because of the West. They were progressing without direct Western influence. The Shah was installed and he was super progressive (in some ways) pushing values on the population and that cause a huge backlash. The US essentially destroyed the only real democracy in the middle east.
BeetleB 8y ago
>Iran's "own destiny" isn't a positive one, so let's not romanticize it. It's probably more positive than a number of the US's allies, and it is a valid question as to why Iran is the one being picked on. Everything you say is as true and more of Saudi Arabia. And much of it is also more true for Pakistan. In the latter country, a huge portion of the population literally cheer the assassination of a governor who promised to interfere with Asia Bibi's conviction. Edit: And let's not forget the slap on the wrist Pakistan got for developing nuclear weapons.
- strictnein 8y ago
  Please list the terrorist organizations that Pakistan funds and supplies that have a very significant destabilizing impact on its neighbors.
  - BeetleB 8y ago
    >Please list the terrorist organizations that Pakistan funds and supplies that have a very significant destabilizing impact on its neighbors. Please list how many politicians in Iran are assassinated by their own people, and cheered for it, for opposing blasphemy or apostasy legislation, and for defending minority rights. It's quite notable how you focus on only one aspect of my comment, and for only one country. It's also notable on how you appear to think the standards you set are the relevant ones, and don't address others. As for the list you asked for, I'll let folks from Afghanistan and India answer. It's also quite accessible from the perspective of a Google search. I do not want to be drawn deeply into the conversation, as in my past experience, it always devolves into "No, that's not a terrorist organization. Yes, that is." If destabilizing a region is a legitimate metric, the US should consider sanctioning themselves. It's silly to accuse Iran of interference of neighbors when the US travels far across continents and invades two countries.
Wishmonger 8y ago
I'm glad to hear someone say this. Iran's government is not a good-faith actor.
nickik 8y ago
The US position with Iran has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with gener lines, or causalities or export of terrorism. The allies that the US works with to contain Iran are worse in every single category you mention. Claiming the moral high ground over Iran is embracing and only works for people who don't have a clue about the middle east. Iran has complied with an international process according to international law after being bullied by the US when the US claims were never true. Iran never had nuclear weapons, they never had a program to build nuclear weapons and pretty much everybody including US spy agencies agree with that. After this international process, the US fucked all its allies, went against everything they had worked towards. Just to hit Iran with more sanctions that were originally about nuclear issues but now they have dropped that pretense. Iran is not a good country, but the US and allies does worse quite often and consistently and Iran has very real and legitimate complaints about how they were treated since 1979.
- strictnein 8y ago
  "treated since 1979" - the US should have treated them well while holding American hostages? Is that what you're claiming here? It has to do with all the things I've stated. And stating that "Iran never had a program to build nuclear weapons" is just nonsensical. They may no longer be pursuing it, but you're conflating many things. > "Iran and six world powers known as the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) reached a historic nuclear deal on July 14, 2015 ... Prior to that, Iran had been engaged in efforts to acquire the capability to build nuclear weapons for more than two decades." https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Di...
  - nickik 8y ago
    I just meant since the government changed. > It has to do with all the things I've stated. And stating that "Iran never had a program to build nuclear weapons" is just nonsensical. They may no longer be pursuing it, but you're conflating many things. No. I am not. Iran never had nuclear weapons program. That is a fact. At the very most they had a program that did some basic research to understand how you would even build a bomb, far away from what we would consider a nuclear weapons program. > https://www.armscontrol.org https://www.armscontrol.org The fact is that Iran didn't want to an enrichment program, they asked France to do it for them, with all enriched uranium being controlled by France and in full view of international supervision. It was the US who blocked this move by France and did not allow that to happen. Only then did Iran start to invest in enrichment facilities. The ACA is a lobby group that spreads their point of view as fact.

vegardx 8y ago

Unlike Saudi-Arabia?

strictnein 8y ago
Whataboutism isn't a debate technique.

femiagbabiaka 8y ago

Do you know the history of Iran? It was once a very progressive country before we interfered in their government. With expose to global markets for Iranian citizens, it may be again.

ashelmire 8y ago
I think you have that backwards. It was another Islamic regime until the west interfered with it. Then it became more progressive due in large part to our interference. Then the Islamists revolted, wanting to regress back to a less progressive state, fearing secularism - which gave us the Islamic state we have today.
- boomboomsubban 8y ago
  This is getting the details incorrect and ignoring a century of interference. Following allied occupation during WWII, Iran was developing a progressive secular government until the US decided to overthrow it as Iran was trying to regain control over it's oil. This led to 25 years of a pro-west regime that can not remotely be considered progressive, followed by the revolution leading to the anti-west regime that also can not be considered progressive.
  - ashelmire 8y ago
    The “progressive secular government” was a despotic dictatorship without a free press, where political opponents of Reza were assassinated, and rule was maintained through the military. The progress was progress for the wealthy. Yes, there was foreign interference before that; but it wasn’t better before that either.
    - boomboomsubban 8y ago
      The progressive secular government was the one under Mosaddegh. Though Reza was the Shah at the time, he did not have the tyrannical power until after the US backed coup, and that period is the pro-west regime I mention.
      - ashelmire 8y ago
        I was referring to Reza Shah, Mohammad Reza's father, who led Iran for decades. Reza Shah is generally credited with being an autocrat, but who is credited with most of Iran's modern nation-building. Mosaddegh led the nation for two years, half of which he had emergency dictatorial powers, which he used to forcibly reallocate wealth from landowners to tenants. And due to nationalizing oil, he faced a British boycott that caused the economy to fail (and declared the British an enemy... which was unwise). If anything, his short-lived leadership was one of the most rapid and catastrophic failures of leadership of any world nation in recent history. The US led coup was only planned 8 months after the emergency powers were granted to Mosaddegh. 5 months after that, the coup was executed.
        boomboomsubban 8y ago
        >If anything, his short-lived leadership was one of the most rapid and catastrophic failures of leadership of any world nation in recent history. Purely because he resisted Western control over the oil fields. The government was secular and progressive, but the west only cares if you're pro-western interests.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  It was the West what broke it. The 1979 revolution probably would not had happened had the US and UK not overthrown the Prime Minister in the 50s, because he had the audacity to nationalise his country's oil. How very dare he. Once the Shah returned he turned initial popularity (thanks to an economy spared from the oil nationalisation sanctions) into a repressive dictatorship.
- nickik 8y ago
  You are missing part of the history. Iran was Democracy until 1953 when a CIA coup took down the government. Its a myth that Iran was only progressive because of the West. They were progressing without direct Western influence. The Shah was installed and he was super progressive (in some ways) pushing values on the population and that cause a huge backlash. The US essentially destroyed the only real democracy in the middle east.

BeetleB 8y ago

>Iran's "own destiny" isn't a positive one, so let's not romanticize it. It's probably more positive than a number of the US's allies, and it is a valid question as to why Iran is the one being picked on. Everything you say is as true and more of Saudi Arabia. And much of it is also more true for Pakistan. In the latter country, a huge portion of the population literally cheer the assassination of a governor who promised to interfere with Asia Bibi's conviction. Edit: And let's not forget the slap on the wrist Pakistan got for developing nuclear weapons.

strictnein 8y ago
Please list the terrorist organizations that Pakistan funds and supplies that have a very significant destabilizing impact on its neighbors.
- BeetleB 8y ago
  >Please list the terrorist organizations that Pakistan funds and supplies that have a very significant destabilizing impact on its neighbors. Please list how many politicians in Iran are assassinated by their own people, and cheered for it, for opposing blasphemy or apostasy legislation, and for defending minority rights. It's quite notable how you focus on only one aspect of my comment, and for only one country. It's also notable on how you appear to think the standards you set are the relevant ones, and don't address others. As for the list you asked for, I'll let folks from Afghanistan and India answer. It's also quite accessible from the perspective of a Google search. I do not want to be drawn deeply into the conversation, as in my past experience, it always devolves into "No, that's not a terrorist organization. Yes, that is." If destabilizing a region is a legitimate metric, the US should consider sanctioning themselves. It's silly to accuse Iran of interference of neighbors when the US travels far across continents and invades two countries.

Wishmonger 8y ago

I'm glad to hear someone say this. Iran's government is not a good-faith actor.

nickik 8y ago

The US position with Iran has LITERALLY NOTHING to do with gener lines, or causalities or export of terrorism. The allies that the US works with to contain Iran are worse in every single category you mention. Claiming the moral high ground over Iran is embracing and only works for people who don't have a clue about the middle east. Iran has complied with an international process according to international law after being bullied by the US when the US claims were never true. Iran never had nuclear weapons, they never had a program to build nuclear weapons and pretty much everybody including US spy agencies agree with that. After this international process, the US fucked all its allies, went against everything they had worked towards. Just to hit Iran with more sanctions that were originally about nuclear issues but now they have dropped that pretense. Iran is not a good country, but the US and allies does worse quite often and consistently and Iran has very real and legitimate complaints about how they were treated since 1979.

strictnein 8y ago
"treated since 1979" - the US should have treated them well while holding American hostages? Is that what you're claiming here? It has to do with all the things I've stated. And stating that "Iran never had a program to build nuclear weapons" is just nonsensical. They may no longer be pursuing it, but you're conflating many things. > "Iran and six world powers known as the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) reached a historic nuclear deal on July 14, 2015 ... Prior to that, Iran had been engaged in efforts to acquire the capability to build nuclear weapons for more than two decades." https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Diplomacy-With-Iran https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Di...
- nickik 8y ago
  I just meant since the government changed. > It has to do with all the things I've stated. And stating that "Iran never had a program to build nuclear weapons" is just nonsensical. They may no longer be pursuing it, but you're conflating many things. No. I am not. Iran never had nuclear weapons program. That is a fact. At the very most they had a program that did some basic research to understand how you would even build a bomb, far away from what we would consider a nuclear weapons program. > https://www.armscontrol.org https://www.armscontrol.org The fact is that Iran didn't want to an enrichment program, they asked France to do it for them, with all enriched uranium being controlled by France and in full view of international supervision. It was the US who blocked this move by France and did not allow that to happen. Only then did Iran start to invest in enrichment facilities. The ACA is a lobby group that spreads their point of view as fact.