5 ms·

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

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.
nickik 7y ago
> I don't think Europe is crazy about Iran having ballistic missiles armed with Nuclear warheads either That just fear mongering. Iran is neither developing missiles that can carry warheads, nor do they have the nuclear material for warheads nor do they have the technology for warheads. The missles Iran are developing are conventional missiles for mid-range applications. They actual understand that Europe doesn't want them to be able to attack Europe. In fact Saudi Arabia and pretty much every other country has missiles. In fact Saudi Arabia illigally bought intercontinental missles from China and were not held accountable at all, but Iran is supposed to beg to be allowed even basic missles? Demanding that Iran can not have missles when everybody else has them is unreasonable. > Iran is responsible for destabilising oil supplies recently Iran has 'destabalised' oil supply far less then constant arab and US oil polices. For most of its history Iran was consistant conservative oil producers and they are still. Its frankly laughable for the West to claim 'Iran' is destabalizing the oil market, given things like Iraq War. Multible massive embargos against countries like Iran, Iraq and so on. > is 100% responsible for arming Hezbollah Hezbollah is no longer a pure subsidiary as it was in the past. They are independned power that allied with Iran. They still get some of their important arms from Iran, but to think of Hezbollah as '100% reliant on Iran' is a wrong. > and of course extends it's influence to Yemen Iran had no interest in Yemen and had basically no relationship with Houthi. The Houthi took over Yemen before they were really supported by Iran. Only once the Saudis started a full on war against them, did Iran change its policy and started to support the Houthi in order to bleed Saudi Arabia. Iran didn't cause anything in Yemen and the Houthi are no-where near the same relationship with them as they have with Hezbollah. The Houthis are just a group that is fighting Saudi Arabia for its own reason and Iran using Saudi Arabia bad polices against them. Its Western and Saudi stupidity that they handed the Houthi to Iran, as the Houthi were actually more or less payed of by the Saudis for a long time and even had good relations with the West. > 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. Maybe you simply don't pay attention to Middle East politics but that is an absurd statment. - Saudi Arabia just reasently kidnapped the prime minister of Lebanon. - The enacted a blockade of Qatar - The funded the Egyption Military Coup against Muslim Brothers and democracy - They are fighting a war in Yemen (more agressive then anything Iran has done in 100 years) - They are fighting a proxy war against UAE in Yemen as well (just for good measure) - They activly try to change Islam to make it more like their own (Wahhabism) both in the ME and world wide - They clearly funded very nasty groups in Syria including ISIS (early on) and later groups like Al-Nusra The list goes on and on ... > 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? Iran has already given up pretty much everything that is reasonable yet it has absolutly no effect on the policy that persue. They have no nuclear weapons program and that has been confirmed by all intellegence services. They don't even demand the full rights they have under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They signed the extended treaty and then to double reassure the international community the signed the most restrictive nuclear treaty in the history of the IAEA. They observed the signed treaty and that was confirmed over and over again by IAEA. The effect, US didn't release sanction but betrayed the treaty and recreated the sanction. But yet you still demand that Iran changes the way its doing things? In terms of rocket development they have already, without even a treaty, stopped the program to develop intercontinental missiles. So yes, Iran is treated incredibly unfairly in the international system specially considering their historical role, practical power and ability to work with the West if their is mutual interst (such as nuclear treaty, fighting ISIS, fighting Taliban and so on) this is incredibly unreasonable and totally hypocritical. And yes, for the leaders of those countries, simply giving up would be crazy. As most likly they and their famillies would be killed.
- joelbluminator 7y ago
  Unreasonable, hypocritical? The west is dealing with a country that still hangs gays out of cranes (lately it said it has no gay problem because no gays live in Iran). Just because Saudi maybe is just as bad as Iran (which I doubt, since as I said it cooperates with Western interests) doesn't make Iran a reasonable country. If they wanna commit financial suicide that's on them.
  - nickik 7y ago
    Do you know what hypocritical means???? That the US is opposed to Iran has nothing today with human rights or gays or anything like that. > which I doubt, since as I said it cooperates with Western interests Again, you seem to suffer under the delusion that the West interest have something to do with human rights. Its really not up for debate, SA is less Western in pretty much every single way. Both win the governemnt and far more so when you consider the population. > If they wanna commit financial suicide that's on them. So being stranggled against the your will or the will of your population is now 'commiting suicide'? These sanction make the Revolutionary Guard stronger, not weaker. Pure sanctions have proven again and again that they do not lead to regimn or even policy change. But lets just continue to hurt the population for no reason because it feels good to do something about some PR stories that have nothing to do with the actual conflict.
    - joelbluminator 7y ago
      I never said the U.S opposes Iran only on the base of it's treatment of gays: but it definitely doesn't help. The gay thing is just an example, Iran is a full blown theocracy governed by a totalitarian regime; everything is censored. It's leaders spread hate to the U.S: "Death to America!" (when did Obama or Bush or even Trump ever use such speech?), and it's a destabilising element in the region. Russia and North Korea got sanctions for their behavior, I don' see why Iran shouldn't. Their population is far from starving. I tend to agree the sanctions have yet to prove themselves, but it's a much better tool than full blown war which nobody wants.
      - 7y ago

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.

nickik 7y ago

> I don't think Europe is crazy about Iran having ballistic missiles armed with Nuclear warheads either That just fear mongering. Iran is neither developing missiles that can carry warheads, nor do they have the nuclear material for warheads nor do they have the technology for warheads. The missles Iran are developing are conventional missiles for mid-range applications. They actual understand that Europe doesn't want them to be able to attack Europe. In fact Saudi Arabia and pretty much every other country has missiles. In fact Saudi Arabia illigally bought intercontinental missles from China and were not held accountable at all, but Iran is supposed to beg to be allowed even basic missles? Demanding that Iran can not have missles when everybody else has them is unreasonable. > Iran is responsible for destabilising oil supplies recently Iran has 'destabalised' oil supply far less then constant arab and US oil polices. For most of its history Iran was consistant conservative oil producers and they are still. Its frankly laughable for the West to claim 'Iran' is destabalizing the oil market, given things like Iraq War. Multible massive embargos against countries like Iran, Iraq and so on. > is 100% responsible for arming Hezbollah Hezbollah is no longer a pure subsidiary as it was in the past. They are independned power that allied with Iran. They still get some of their important arms from Iran, but to think of Hezbollah as '100% reliant on Iran' is a wrong. > and of course extends it's influence to Yemen Iran had no interest in Yemen and had basically no relationship with Houthi. The Houthi took over Yemen before they were really supported by Iran. Only once the Saudis started a full on war against them, did Iran change its policy and started to support the Houthi in order to bleed Saudi Arabia. Iran didn't cause anything in Yemen and the Houthi are no-where near the same relationship with them as they have with Hezbollah. The Houthis are just a group that is fighting Saudi Arabia for its own reason and Iran using Saudi Arabia bad polices against them. Its Western and Saudi stupidity that they handed the Houthi to Iran, as the Houthi were actually more or less payed of by the Saudis for a long time and even had good relations with the West. > 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. Maybe you simply don't pay attention to Middle East politics but that is an absurd statment. - Saudi Arabia just reasently kidnapped the prime minister of Lebanon. - The enacted a blockade of Qatar - The funded the Egyption Military Coup against Muslim Brothers and democracy - They are fighting a war in Yemen (more agressive then anything Iran has done in 100 years) - They are fighting a proxy war against UAE in Yemen as well (just for good measure) - They activly try to change Islam to make it more like their own (Wahhabism) both in the ME and world wide - They clearly funded very nasty groups in Syria including ISIS (early on) and later groups like Al-Nusra The list goes on and on ... > 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? Iran has already given up pretty much everything that is reasonable yet it has absolutly no effect on the policy that persue. They have no nuclear weapons program and that has been confirmed by all intellegence services. They don't even demand the full rights they have under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. They signed the extended treaty and then to double reassure the international community the signed the most restrictive nuclear treaty in the history of the IAEA. They observed the signed treaty and that was confirmed over and over again by IAEA. The effect, US didn't release sanction but betrayed the treaty and recreated the sanction. But yet you still demand that Iran changes the way its doing things? In terms of rocket development they have already, without even a treaty, stopped the program to develop intercontinental missiles. So yes, Iran is treated incredibly unfairly in the international system specially considering their historical role, practical power and ability to work with the West if their is mutual interst (such as nuclear treaty, fighting ISIS, fighting Taliban and so on) this is incredibly unreasonable and totally hypocritical. And yes, for the leaders of those countries, simply giving up would be crazy. As most likly they and their famillies would be killed.

joelbluminator 7y ago
Unreasonable, hypocritical? The west is dealing with a country that still hangs gays out of cranes (lately it said it has no gay problem because no gays live in Iran). Just because Saudi maybe is just as bad as Iran (which I doubt, since as I said it cooperates with Western interests) doesn't make Iran a reasonable country. If they wanna commit financial suicide that's on them.
- nickik 7y ago
  Do you know what hypocritical means???? That the US is opposed to Iran has nothing today with human rights or gays or anything like that. > which I doubt, since as I said it cooperates with Western interests Again, you seem to suffer under the delusion that the West interest have something to do with human rights. Its really not up for debate, SA is less Western in pretty much every single way. Both win the governemnt and far more so when you consider the population. > If they wanna commit financial suicide that's on them. So being stranggled against the your will or the will of your population is now 'commiting suicide'? These sanction make the Revolutionary Guard stronger, not weaker. Pure sanctions have proven again and again that they do not lead to regimn or even policy change. But lets just continue to hurt the population for no reason because it feels good to do something about some PR stories that have nothing to do with the actual conflict.
  - joelbluminator 7y ago
    I never said the U.S opposes Iran only on the base of it's treatment of gays: but it definitely doesn't help. The gay thing is just an example, Iran is a full blown theocracy governed by a totalitarian regime; everything is censored. It's leaders spread hate to the U.S: "Death to America!" (when did Obama or Bush or even Trump ever use such speech?), and it's a destabilising element in the region. Russia and North Korea got sanctions for their behavior, I don' see why Iran shouldn't. Their population is far from starving. I tend to agree the sanctions have yet to prove themselves, but it's a much better tool than full blown war which nobody wants.
    - 7y ago