4 ms·

Maybe I can consider this in more familiar terms, as if both sides have guns. Do they use them differently? I at least can't know for sure. What it boils down t

Maybe I can consider this in more familiar terms, as if both sides have guns. Do they use them differently? I at least can't know for sure. What it boils down to for me is which side do you want to win? Being fair and impartial doesn't mean considering that both of the nations are the same and the outcome will be the same if either side wins, with only a different name and flag for the victor. If the US wins, a rough semblance of the freedom and democracy the "West" is accustomed to will be able to face other existential internal or external threats. If Iran wins, the end. We start over at square one winning back our freedoms. Maybe we start immediately, maybe it takes 1,000 years. If I have to choose, I want the US to win this one. It doesn't matter who started it, who is doing it worse. I would like things that support the regime in Iran to stop supporting that regime (in the most humane way possible). And I would like the US, with all its warts and flaws, to win a cyber war with Iran if one must be fought. Maybe this all sounds extremely unlikely, but the first step towards a superpower like the USA to lose to Iran is for the USA to not be trying at all, and Iran to be trying very hard. Also nuclear weapons are a great leveler. Therefore the USA must do two things at minimum. Try to have cybersecurity supremacy over Iran, and try to keep Iran from having nuclear weapons. If both of these objectives can be met we don't need to fight them, we can leave them in peace. If either is not met, this war might have to get very physical very quickly. So right now the sanctions don't look so bad, among available options. Not saying there aren't better options, but it's above my pay grade.

gdy 7y ago
"If Iran wins, the end. We start over at square one winning back our freedoms." You really believe there is a threat of Iran occupying the US and it's the reason for the US policy towards Iran? Gosh, it's scary that people like you vote to choose the government controlling by far the most powerful military in the world.
tsimionescu 7y ago
> What it boils down to for me is which side do you want to win? Being fair and impartial doesn't mean considering that both of the nations are the same and the outcome will be the same if either side wins, with only a different name and flag for the victor. Your argument makes sense, but it starts with a very flawed assumption: that Iran wants to dominate the world. The reality accepted by everyone except the US and its few allies on this issue is that Iran is an extremely defensive country. The current regime, and the country in general, feels threatened in the region, being generally sorrounded by belligerent hostile countries, with the backing of the US (Saudi Arabia and Israel being the most powerful and the most belligerent). So, if Iran wins, what will actually happen is that Iran will be left alone to function just like any other non-democratic state. Is the regime bad for its people? Yes. Is it better than being at war? Absolutely. And regarding nuclear weapons, Iran has declared numerous times that it would gladly participate in an agreement, enforced by UN/IANA inspectors, to declare the entire region a nuclear-free area. Israel is blocking any such agreement. Iran has entered deals with the US and other western countries to renounce its nuclear weapons program in exchange for lifting the embargo and other kinds of help. The US has backed up from these deals twice now. The second time, they have not even claimed to have any evidence that Iran is not respecting the deal; and the other parties to the agreement, like the entire rest of 'the West' have in fact remained in the deal, as has Iran, despite the new US sanctions (deemed illegal by the UN).
- pooya13 7y ago
  > Iran has entered deals with the US and other western countries to renounce its nuclear weapons program in exchange for lifting the embargo Which weapons program? AFAIK current Iranian inspection mechanisms are the most stringent (anywhere ever).
  - yyyk 7y ago
    'Most stringent' inspections with the proviso that Iran gets notification in advance, and that most inspections are in support of temporary restrictions. If these restrictions are necessary they should be permanent, otherwise we've got another NK in the future.
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    The second deal I was talking about is precisely the current one, the JCPOA, which Iran is abiding according to all objective observers.
  - jfnixon 7y ago
    How can you possibly know this? The JCPOA includes non-public "side deals" with the IAEA. How do you prove the secret fine print doesn't restore what the public large print took away?
- yyyk 7y ago
  Iran is already part of an agreement (called the NPT) to not have any nukes ever, and has already violated it. It has no justification to ask for any concession from any other country for it to honour its original signature, much less from countries they have sworn to annihilate. It sounds like they want others to disarm their intended victim for them.
  - tsimionescu 7y ago
    Iran's most rabid enemy illegally owns nuclear weapons, while the world's greatest super power is helping them hide it. Iran's position makes logical sense, and the best way to ensure they have no reason not to abide by the NPT would be to actually uphold the NPT, not to selectively enforce it against Iran but not the country threatening it.
eecc 7y ago
Tertium non datur? Obama made a deal with the Iranians to stop production of weapons grade nuclear material and to destroy related infrastructure. This also had the side-effect of strengthening the most reasonable politics within Iran. But no, I guess this new course undermined the career of too many apparatchiks so the Orange Man was persuaded to kick the table up in the air. And we’re back to square one, with the loudest monkeys showing their teeth at each other...
Udik 7y ago
> What it boils down to for me is which side do you want to win? This is a bit simplistic, isn't it? First, the one between Iran and USA doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. Why is it a matter of states winning or losing? I don't recall Iran waging a war against the US, or trying to destroy civil liberties in the West. For example, with the nuclear agreement, both Iran and the US (or Europe) would have benefited- why did the US got out of it then? Second, the two sides in this game are not necessarily Iran with its model of society and the US with its own model of society. The US is a free and democratic society, but that doesn't mean that their geo-political goals are all about freedom and democracy. In fact, the main rivals of Iran and allies of the US are Saudi Arabia- a country even less democratic than Iran itself- and Israel, a country that while internally free and democratic is illegally occupying a foreign territory and expelling its native population in violation of international law. So the US winning this particular exchange might not necessarily mean improving or preserving the freedom of US society, but making the world a worse place, with more injustice and future grievances. See what has produced the "existential" war against Saddam.
- yyyk 7y ago
  At the moment the people doing the expelling are Iranians (and their allies) in Syria, and they threaten to do it elasewhere. For whatever it's worth, Palestinians are not being expelled, and furthermore, Israeli presence is not illegal according to resolution 242. In addition, Iran is also even more repressive than SA, because they are killing dissidents outside of their territory, unlike SA. Then again, I don't see why we should be bothering with this given that the Iran regime is the one shouting 'Death to America'. It's pretty natural for the US to oppose those ideologically hostile to it.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > In addition, Iran is also even more repressive than SA, because they are killing dissidents outside of their territory, unlike SA. Have you not heard about Jamal Khashoggi? It was a big story a while back. > It's pretty natural for the US to oppose those ideologically hostile to it. Chicken or egg? That is, if the US hadn't engaged in regime change operations in Iran and hadn't supported Saddam in attacking Iran, would Iran be hostile towards the US?

gdy 7y ago

"If Iran wins, the end. We start over at square one winning back our freedoms." You really believe there is a threat of Iran occupying the US and it's the reason for the US policy towards Iran? Gosh, it's scary that people like you vote to choose the government controlling by far the most powerful military in the world.

tsimionescu 7y ago

> What it boils down to for me is which side do you want to win? Being fair and impartial doesn't mean considering that both of the nations are the same and the outcome will be the same if either side wins, with only a different name and flag for the victor. Your argument makes sense, but it starts with a very flawed assumption: that Iran wants to dominate the world. The reality accepted by everyone except the US and its few allies on this issue is that Iran is an extremely defensive country. The current regime, and the country in general, feels threatened in the region, being generally sorrounded by belligerent hostile countries, with the backing of the US (Saudi Arabia and Israel being the most powerful and the most belligerent). So, if Iran wins, what will actually happen is that Iran will be left alone to function just like any other non-democratic state. Is the regime bad for its people? Yes. Is it better than being at war? Absolutely. And regarding nuclear weapons, Iran has declared numerous times that it would gladly participate in an agreement, enforced by UN/IANA inspectors, to declare the entire region a nuclear-free area. Israel is blocking any such agreement. Iran has entered deals with the US and other western countries to renounce its nuclear weapons program in exchange for lifting the embargo and other kinds of help. The US has backed up from these deals twice now. The second time, they have not even claimed to have any evidence that Iran is not respecting the deal; and the other parties to the agreement, like the entire rest of 'the West' have in fact remained in the deal, as has Iran, despite the new US sanctions (deemed illegal by the UN).

pooya13 7y ago
> Iran has entered deals with the US and other western countries to renounce its nuclear weapons program in exchange for lifting the embargo Which weapons program? AFAIK current Iranian inspection mechanisms are the most stringent (anywhere ever).
- yyyk 7y ago
  'Most stringent' inspections with the proviso that Iran gets notification in advance, and that most inspections are in support of temporary restrictions. If these restrictions are necessary they should be permanent, otherwise we've got another NK in the future.
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  The second deal I was talking about is precisely the current one, the JCPOA, which Iran is abiding according to all objective observers.
- jfnixon 7y ago
  How can you possibly know this? The JCPOA includes non-public "side deals" with the IAEA. How do you prove the secret fine print doesn't restore what the public large print took away?
yyyk 7y ago
Iran is already part of an agreement (called the NPT) to not have any nukes ever, and has already violated it. It has no justification to ask for any concession from any other country for it to honour its original signature, much less from countries they have sworn to annihilate. It sounds like they want others to disarm their intended victim for them.
- tsimionescu 7y ago
  Iran's most rabid enemy illegally owns nuclear weapons, while the world's greatest super power is helping them hide it. Iran's position makes logical sense, and the best way to ensure they have no reason not to abide by the NPT would be to actually uphold the NPT, not to selectively enforce it against Iran but not the country threatening it.

eecc 7y ago

Tertium non datur? Obama made a deal with the Iranians to stop production of weapons grade nuclear material and to destroy related infrastructure. This also had the side-effect of strengthening the most reasonable politics within Iran. But no, I guess this new course undermined the career of too many apparatchiks so the Orange Man was persuaded to kick the table up in the air. And we’re back to square one, with the loudest monkeys showing their teeth at each other...

Udik 7y ago

> What it boils down to for me is which side do you want to win? This is a bit simplistic, isn't it? First, the one between Iran and USA doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. Why is it a matter of states winning or losing? I don't recall Iran waging a war against the US, or trying to destroy civil liberties in the West. For example, with the nuclear agreement, both Iran and the US (or Europe) would have benefited- why did the US got out of it then? Second, the two sides in this game are not necessarily Iran with its model of society and the US with its own model of society. The US is a free and democratic society, but that doesn't mean that their geo-political goals are all about freedom and democracy. In fact, the main rivals of Iran and allies of the US are Saudi Arabia- a country even less democratic than Iran itself- and Israel, a country that while internally free and democratic is illegally occupying a foreign territory and expelling its native population in violation of international law. So the US winning this particular exchange might not necessarily mean improving or preserving the freedom of US society, but making the world a worse place, with more injustice and future grievances. See what has produced the "existential" war against Saddam.

yyyk 7y ago
At the moment the people doing the expelling are Iranians (and their allies) in Syria, and they threaten to do it elasewhere. For whatever it's worth, Palestinians are not being expelled, and furthermore, Israeli presence is not illegal according to resolution 242. In addition, Iran is also even more repressive than SA, because they are killing dissidents outside of their territory, unlike SA. Then again, I don't see why we should be bothering with this given that the Iran regime is the one shouting 'Death to America'. It's pretty natural for the US to oppose those ideologically hostile to it.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > In addition, Iran is also even more repressive than SA, because they are killing dissidents outside of their territory, unlike SA. Have you not heard about Jamal Khashoggi? It was a big story a while back. > It's pretty natural for the US to oppose those ideologically hostile to it. Chicken or egg? That is, if the US hadn't engaged in regime change operations in Iran and hadn't supported Saddam in attacking Iran, would Iran be hostile towards the US?