5 ms·

> Both Iran and S.A. are radical islamists countries (one could even argue that S.A. is worse). What argument could there possibly be that Iran is “worse” than

> Both Iran and S.A. are radical islamists countries (one could even argue that S.A. is worse). What argument could there possibly be that Iran is “worse” than S.A.? As bad as things like human rights are in Iran, they are far worse in SA. The democracy index (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index) rates SA a half point lower than Iran, which is fairy significant. Freedom house also rates SA as less free than Iran: https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/iran https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/iran https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/saudi-arabia https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2018/saudi-ara... Hard to find any measure by which Iran is less humane than SA.

joelbluminator 7y ago
Well Iran is anti west (especially anti U.S) and S.A is happy to cooperate with the West as long as it can keep it's current regime. So in western eyes Iran is dangerous and S.A is mostly an ally. This isn't necessarily supposed to be "fair", if Iran doesn't like the current state of affairs it can abandon it's expansionist aspirations and nuclear weapons, stop with the "Death to America" mindset and all sanctions would be removed. But the regime doesn't want to give it up.
- skitout 7y ago
  For sure they don't want to give it up for free ! Just like any country Iran want to defend its interests, to play its hand the best it can... And leverage in many countries (now even in Africa) and the nuclear weapon are "trump card" in the game, so they reinforce it for now... They will wait for the next US election and see how they can work something after it
  - joelbluminator 7y ago
    "Iran want to defend it's interests" : well arguably bringing your country to the brink of economic collapse due to American sanctions isn't in Iran's best interests. We will see what the new American president (could be still Trump btw) is gonna do.
    - nickik 7y ago
      The problem is that it is insane to go with the US demands. US demands are driven by regmin change, not resonable demands. There is NO WAY any Iranian government would simply give up its rocket program, specially when literally every power around you has them. Specially when they don't have an Airforce. Iran has complied and tried to work with the international system on the nuclear question. They have behaved pretty reasonably going back to early 2000s. Their demands and programs are not outrages if any other country had made them. The US wants to destory and overthrow all of their allies and the have bases in basically every country around Iran. In reality econoimc sanctions do not collapse a country, the evidence of that is pretty clear. And it doesn't lead to regimn change either.
      - joelbluminator 7y ago
        It's not just US demands, I don't think Europe is crazy about Iran having ballistic missiles armed with Nuclear warheads either (nor is it crazy about the idea Saudi will have them). Iran is responsible for destabilising oil supplies recently, is 100% responsible for arming Hezbollah and of course extends it's influence to Yemen, Iraq and Syria. Saudi Arabia is doing none of that and doesn't seem to care that much about building an empire of "influence" around the middle east. I don't think it's "crazy" to go with U.S demands. it requires letting go of ego and the dream of the shiite revolution and empire I guess, or at least postponing it. It's like saying Kim from North Korea is would be crazy to let go of his crazy regime, how is that crazy?
        skitout 7y ago
        US Europe and Iran had a deal. USA broke it. Nobody is crazy about anybody else than themselves having ballistic missile and nuclear war head (which is not yet the case of Iran) Every country try to build influence outside. Saudi Arabia is more responsible of the situation of Yemen than Iran is. SA supported jihadist group in Syria, support armed group in Libya and Lebanon, have bought some influence in Sudan, Egypt... Pour hundred of million to support quietist salafist... SA builds its influence and defend its interest, like any country. What Trump is currently asking is a no go for Iranian... Each part is building force to find a new deal, to force a better deal. Sanctions is part of it. Supporting proxy is another.
- concordDance 7y ago
  Iran is anti-USA solely because the USA is anti-Iran. They've made a number of attempts to normalize relations but the USA just keeps going back to tarring Iran as evil before long.
  - shademaan 7y ago
    Yep. Anti-usa sentiment (and posters here are seriously overestimating any such sentiment imo) was originally rooted in the reaction to the CIA-backed coup that overthrew a progressive, democratically elected prime minister and effectively installed of the shah, regarded by many as a despot, who was of course on fabulous terms with the US.
natsecthrow3 7y ago
>> What argument could there possibly be that Iran is “worse” than S.A.? As bad as things like human rights are in Iran, they are far worse in SA. Its quite easy to make an argument that the Iranian regime is worse than Saudi Arabia. Iran has killed far more dissidents than Saudi Arabia ever has. For gosh sakes, Iran killed thousands of dissidents in the span of a couple months with the confirmed death toll at a low end of 4,500. Saudi Arabia has never done anything like this, and in fact, Saudi Arabian policy has always fluctuated between crackdowns and trying to accommodate islamist elements by being willing to show leniency; even making decisions to let prisoners go free en masse over several periods. Iran has always had zero tolerance for dissident elements whatsoever. Iran's leaders believe, after all, that the revolution is under constant threat from both internal and external enemies. This isn't to 'defend' saudi arabia and its security services but only to point out a difference that is essentially unknown to the general public. At the very least, Iran's economic performance has been catastrophic even before the sanctions imposed over its nuclear program. The goal of an oil rich state should be to pump as much oil as possible to the broadest possible market. By this standard, Iran has been the worst performer in the middle east aside from countries at war and its populace is significantly poorer under the current regime than it would be otherwise. The same thinking influences their foreign policy. Iran takes actions fundamentally destabilizing within the broader middle east because it believes the current state system poses an existential threat to it. Saudi Arabia doesn't believe this at all. Trying to reconcile islamist elements with a broadly pro-western foreign policy has been the modus operandi of saudi leaders since the cold war. You may take Iran's side but that doesn't mean their policy interests are somehow compatible with a nation state interested in preserving the status quo.

joelbluminator 7y ago

Well Iran is anti west (especially anti U.S) and S.A is happy to cooperate with the West as long as it can keep it's current regime. So in western eyes Iran is dangerous and S.A is mostly an ally. This isn't necessarily supposed to be "fair", if Iran doesn't like the current state of affairs it can abandon it's expansionist aspirations and nuclear weapons, stop with the "Death to America" mindset and all sanctions would be removed. But the regime doesn't want to give it up.

skitout 7y ago
For sure they don't want to give it up for free ! Just like any country Iran want to defend its interests, to play its hand the best it can... And leverage in many countries (now even in Africa) and the nuclear weapon are "trump card" in the game, so they reinforce it for now... They will wait for the next US election and see how they can work something after it
- joelbluminator 7y ago
  "Iran want to defend it's interests" : well arguably bringing your country to the brink of economic collapse due to American sanctions isn't in Iran's best interests. We will see what the new American president (could be still Trump btw) is gonna do.
  - nickik 7y ago
    The problem is that it is insane to go with the US demands. US demands are driven by regmin change, not resonable demands. There is NO WAY any Iranian government would simply give up its rocket program, specially when literally every power around you has them. Specially when they don't have an Airforce. Iran has complied and tried to work with the international system on the nuclear question. They have behaved pretty reasonably going back to early 2000s. Their demands and programs are not outrages if any other country had made them. The US wants to destory and overthrow all of their allies and the have bases in basically every country around Iran. In reality econoimc sanctions do not collapse a country, the evidence of that is pretty clear. And it doesn't lead to regimn change either.
    - joelbluminator 7y ago
      It's not just US demands, I don't think Europe is crazy about Iran having ballistic missiles armed with Nuclear warheads either (nor is it crazy about the idea Saudi will have them). Iran is responsible for destabilising oil supplies recently, is 100% responsible for arming Hezbollah and of course extends it's influence to Yemen, Iraq and Syria. Saudi Arabia is doing none of that and doesn't seem to care that much about building an empire of "influence" around the middle east. I don't think it's "crazy" to go with U.S demands. it requires letting go of ego and the dream of the shiite revolution and empire I guess, or at least postponing it. It's like saying Kim from North Korea is would be crazy to let go of his crazy regime, how is that crazy?
      - skitout 7y ago
        US Europe and Iran had a deal. USA broke it. Nobody is crazy about anybody else than themselves having ballistic missile and nuclear war head (which is not yet the case of Iran) Every country try to build influence outside. Saudi Arabia is more responsible of the situation of Yemen than Iran is. SA supported jihadist group in Syria, support armed group in Libya and Lebanon, have bought some influence in Sudan, Egypt... Pour hundred of million to support quietist salafist... SA builds its influence and defend its interest, like any country. What Trump is currently asking is a no go for Iranian... Each part is building force to find a new deal, to force a better deal. Sanctions is part of it. Supporting proxy is another.
concordDance 7y ago
Iran is anti-USA solely because the USA is anti-Iran. They've made a number of attempts to normalize relations but the USA just keeps going back to tarring Iran as evil before long.
- shademaan 7y ago
  Yep. Anti-usa sentiment (and posters here are seriously overestimating any such sentiment imo) was originally rooted in the reaction to the CIA-backed coup that overthrew a progressive, democratically elected prime minister and effectively installed of the shah, regarded by many as a despot, who was of course on fabulous terms with the US.

natsecthrow3 7y ago

>> What argument could there possibly be that Iran is “worse” than S.A.? As bad as things like human rights are in Iran, they are far worse in SA. Its quite easy to make an argument that the Iranian regime is worse than Saudi Arabia. Iran has killed far more dissidents than Saudi Arabia ever has. For gosh sakes, Iran killed thousands of dissidents in the span of a couple months with the confirmed death toll at a low end of 4,500. Saudi Arabia has never done anything like this, and in fact, Saudi Arabian policy has always fluctuated between crackdowns and trying to accommodate islamist elements by being willing to show leniency; even making decisions to let prisoners go free en masse over several periods. Iran has always had zero tolerance for dissident elements whatsoever. Iran's leaders believe, after all, that the revolution is under constant threat from both internal and external enemies. This isn't to 'defend' saudi arabia and its security services but only to point out a difference that is essentially unknown to the general public. At the very least, Iran's economic performance has been catastrophic even before the sanctions imposed over its nuclear program. The goal of an oil rich state should be to pump as much oil as possible to the broadest possible market. By this standard, Iran has been the worst performer in the middle east aside from countries at war and its populace is significantly poorer under the current regime than it would be otherwise. The same thinking influences their foreign policy. Iran takes actions fundamentally destabilizing within the broader middle east because it believes the current state system poses an existential threat to it. Saudi Arabia doesn't believe this at all. Trying to reconcile islamist elements with a broadly pro-western foreign policy has been the modus operandi of saudi leaders since the cold war. You may take Iran's side but that doesn't mean their policy interests are somehow compatible with a nation state interested in preserving the status quo.