7 ms·

I'm just going to repeat a question I posted earlier today on a similar article. Hopefully it will get more compelling answers. Why should anyone believe they

I'm just going to repeat a question I posted earlier today on a similar article. Hopefully it will get more compelling answers. Why should anyone believe they are pursuing a peaceful nuclear energy program when they do things like this? Surely the best way to convince people you are the peaceful victim is to continue to demonstrate peaceful intentions even when others don't reward you for it. For better or for worse, the JCPOA was abandoned and the accompanying incentives for Iran to limit the scope of its nuclear research disappeared. But that doesn't mean Iran is incentivized to develop nuclear weapons. Continuing to adhere to the guidelines outlined by the JCPOA would help build trust from the rest of the world that Iran really just wanted a peaceful nuclear energy program. Instead, their recent actions only seem to build distrust. After laying their intentions bare like this, why should anyone trust them with JCPOA 2.0?

dicomdan 6y ago
It’s a fundamentalist regime, they are developing nuclear weapons and are open about it.
pradn 6y ago
I'll turn the tables here: 1) Why should Iran come to the negotiating table if the previous deal was scuttled so quickly? What even makes American treaties reliable any more? To put it another way, why should they even trust any treaty with the West? Why is Iran asked to turn the other cheek, vs America asked to provide concessions for overturning a treaty, or put hard checks on their client state, Israel. 2) If you have more to give up, wouldn't you have a stronger bargaining position? There's not much the West can do at this point in terms of tightening sanctions, and they, with the exception of Israel, have no interest in another long war in the Middle East. 3) Why should Iran not be able to develop a nuclear deterrent? It is surrounded by American bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, has Saudi and the Gulf monarchies against it close by, and is an enemy of Israel, which is known to have dozens to hundreds of nuclear warheads. Clearly, given MAD, launching nuclear weapons offensively is untenable. So, a nuclear deterrent might protect Iran from foreign attack. A deterrent means the US or its client states aren't allowed to unilaterally bomb Iran any more, which is the right they are currently claiming. I'm simply asking you to consider their view, without considering them irrational or chaotic or evil a priori. Certainly, a great deal of prejudice, jingoistic nationalism, sectarian religiosity, and macho posturing are at play on their end, as well. I can say it's similar on the end of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the US, as well. A more balanced view, understanding the motivations of all sides, may help arrive at an actual solution to this awful standoff, where innocents bear the brunt. I sincerely wish all the countries of this region, and across the world, disarmed themselves of nuclear weapons. It's too easy for disaster to occur, accidentally or at will, and we forget that this guillotine is hanging over our head at every second.
- GavinMcG 6y ago
  Yeah, the parent comment asked about "the best way to convince people you are the peaceful victim," but Iran isn't necessarily (wholly) emphasizing that narrative. They probably don't primarily care about being believed. If convincing people they're a peaceful victim were the strongest position to be in, they'd likely pursue that more seriously.
- recuter 6y ago
  > has Saudi and the Gulf monarchies against it close by, and is an enemy of Israel It is a self declared enemy of Israel. There is over a thousand miles and two countries between them. Israel has never threatened Iran and has no interest in attacking it. As for the Saudis and Gulf monarchies, religious differences and hegemony struggles aside - as far as I know Iran are the sole aggressors supporting proxy wars and attacks in the gulf (they literally regularly blow up Saudi oil refineries). I don't think it is at all threatened by the Saudi and Gulf armies, which are not formidable, and has never been attacked by them. This is some Scooby Doo villain level inversion. In case it isn't completely clear to you, Iran is an expansionist rising power competing with Turkey for control over the ME and Persian/Arabian gulf over a Shia/Sunni cold-religious-war type background, a centuries old holy war... their beef with the house of Saud is about who should control Mecca, feel free to read up about it. > A more balanced view, understanding the motivations of all sides, may help arrive at an actual solution to this awful standoff, where innocents bear the brunt. That would involve some knowledge of the history of the region and basic understanding of the cultures and actors involved. Start by understanding what an Ayatollah is and why they have been ordering their own citizens to be hanged from construction cranes, disappeared, and tortured, for half a century.
  - pradn 6y ago
    So the points are are "Iran started the enmity" and "Iran is worse than the other countries." I have a hard time buying either. Wouldn't the nakba be the original source of enmity created by the state of Israel between it and the Muslim nations? In any case, who started it doesn't change the ground geopolitical realties that must be solved for us to achieve a world with active peace. I am absolutely no defender of the enormous amount of violence that Iran's supply of rebel groups and militias in the region has caused. But I have a hard time ranking these crimes, and their internal oppression vs Israel's apartheid state vs the Saudi's internal oppression and funding of militias and rebel groups vs the US's war in Iraq, where between half a million and a million people died. It's unclear to me what you mean by the "culture" of Iran? Do you mean their political religiosity? I don't find that a convincing source of differentiation between them and other countries in the region. Israeli Zionism, Saudi Wahabbism, etc.
kelnos 6y ago
If you look at it from Iran's perspective, why should they be responsible for building trust? They got jerked around by the last administration. Their sworn enemy, Israel, has nuclear capability, and the US and other nuclear powers have military bases within striking range of Iran. While I personally am in favor of nuclear disarmament and anti-proliferation, it's very easy for me to say that, living in a country with nuclear weapons serving as deterrent. Iran logically wants to own that deterrent as well. And at its base, even if they don't have immediate plans to enrich to the point where they could have a viable nuclear weapon, it's also a case of showing strength (in the negotiation sense): "we're tired of being jerked around; if you want us to come to the table, you have to see us as strong and take us seriously". I don't think they really care about presenting themselves as the "peaceful victim". > After laying their intentions bare like this, why should anyone trust [Iran] with JCPOA 2.0? Given what happened with 1.0, why should Iran trust the US with JCPOA 2.0?
- COGlory 6y ago
  The real question is, why do they have to have a sworn enemy? Its not like israel is going to invade them.
  - recuter 6y ago
    It never ceases to amaze me just how short memories are in the west. Edit: The only enemy Iran ever had in the ME was Iraq, the decade long war between them was the stuff of nightmares. They sent tens of thousands of child soldiers into trench war fare, to be gassed by Saddam, and run over mines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War You might be shocked at just how few Iranian citizens consider Israel to be an enemy.
    - stunt 6y ago
      > The only enemy Iran ever had in the ME was Iraq That's false. Iran was neutral on both WWI and WWII, and yet it was invaded multiple time because their natural resources were needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran Both the US and the UK have manipulated power in Iran in the past multiple times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... Even the Ayatollahs themselves are in power now because we thought regime change is necessary in Iran, hence we did aid their revolution. Saddam Hussein had direct support from the west for the Iraq invasion of Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War And there are just so many other incidents in between that explains why their relationship with the west is so f...up and the most recent one is JCPOA and the killing of their general and scientists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 Of course they will focus on their defense capabilities and military strength knowing that their entire history was manipulated by others. What gives them a reason to trust anyone now? > You might be shocked at just how few Iranian citizens consider Israel to be an enemy. Yes, I read they were ally until the revolution in Iran. I think Israel is the enemy Iran needs to increase their political influence in the region. The same way the Iran is the enemy that the US needs to sell arms in the Middle East. The rest is BS. Iranians are living a misery between a regime that doesn't give them freedom, and sanctions that don't allow them to live. All because we have God knows how much arms sell in the Middle East, and we want to control oil. It's all sad.
trhway 6y ago
>Surely the best way to convince people you are the peaceful victim i'm not sure that convincing people of that would play well for domestic standing of an authoritarian regime. Even if there were no threat to the current Iranian regime from outside (which i suspect is a big if), a populist government, especially an authoritarian one, to stay in power has to play a strong national identity theme. So, one way or another, each step is making them closer to the bomb - only regime change from inside as the result of some rose/orange revolution may stop it, and it doesn't seem that there is any chance of it in the near decade or two (so delaying their progress until such a time is probably the best strategy, and that is what Obama's agreement was doing - delaying, not stopping/preventing, and the voting public's non-understanding of that approach is what tanked it as GOP were technically right in their attack of the agreement that it doesn't prevent the bomb in some decades down the road). Any bold external action i think would only fuel internal nationalist forces and thus would play into the regime hand.
fatbird 6y ago
Because treaties like JCPOA aren't based on trust, they're based on verification. Trust, in the sense you're describing it (the way a person might trust another based on their past behaviour) doesn't really exist between nation states. And Iran is very incentivized to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea's bargaining position wrt to the U.S. improved immensely once they demonstrate a nuclear weapon; Pakistan and India have both enjoyed much less superpower pressure because they also have nukes. And more immediately, Israel has nukes and are Iran's primary regional rival. Israel has been a dominant regional entity largely because of it's military superiority over everyone else, which includes its nukes. Iran obtaining nukes is a potent counterweight to Israel's perceived freedom of military action.
gizmo686 6y ago
Iran doesn't want the world to believe it's nuclear ambitions are peaceful. The threat of (and actual) progress towards a nuclear weapon is their negotiating power. Iran doesn't need to build "trust" with the rest of the world. (Almost) everyone agrees that they were followed through on their commitments. What Iran needs is to maintain credability. Without that, the international community would walk all over them. Iran offered to keep following the JCPOA even after the US so blatantly voided it. They just needed the rest of the world to make up the difference. When this didn't happen (again, because the US flexed its muscles to make it not happen) Iran had no way to maintain credability without resuming their nuclear program. In more concrete terms, Iran would still need to negotiate another treaty, only this time they would need to make additional consessions. A few years later, the rest of the worlds backs out of the new treaty and forces Iran to make another set of concessions. > After laying their intentions bare like this, why should anyone trust them with JCPOA 2.0? Because they complied with JCPOA 1.0. And JCPOA 2.0 would likely include monitoring. And we can reimpose sanctions quickly if Iran is found to be in violation. On the other hand, leaders in Iran would need to answer the same questions; only they will be faced with much worse answers. Their counter parties did not follow through on JCPOA 1.0. And rebuilding a nuclear program takes longer than reimposing sanctions. It is easy to get stuck in the mindset that we are the only players. But geopolitics is a game; and our enemies get to make moves too.
websites2323 6y ago
US goal: Nuclear containment in Central Asia that threaten Israel. Iran goal: reversal of sanctions that cripple the economy. US has no incentive to lift sanctions if Iran complies with sanctions in place. In a world where a bankrupt Iran abandons enrichment, Israel is not threatened.
banannaise 6y ago
> Surely the best way to convince people you are the peaceful victim is to continue to demonstrate peaceful intentions even when others don't reward you for it. This is the international relations version of asking protestors to just show up unarmored and let police beat the shit out of them. It is entirely ineffective in both cases for the same reason: there is an American news empire that centers the state's narrative. The state will attack, and will spin the resulting images of destruction as entirely provoked by the victim. (Given that everyone knows that's what will happen, you might as well get what you paid for and show up ready for violence. That's what Iran is doing.)

dicomdan 6y ago

It’s a fundamentalist regime, they are developing nuclear weapons and are open about it.

pradn 6y ago

I'll turn the tables here: 1) Why should Iran come to the negotiating table if the previous deal was scuttled so quickly? What even makes American treaties reliable any more? To put it another way, why should they even trust any treaty with the West? Why is Iran asked to turn the other cheek, vs America asked to provide concessions for overturning a treaty, or put hard checks on their client state, Israel. 2) If you have more to give up, wouldn't you have a stronger bargaining position? There's not much the West can do at this point in terms of tightening sanctions, and they, with the exception of Israel, have no interest in another long war in the Middle East. 3) Why should Iran not be able to develop a nuclear deterrent? It is surrounded by American bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, has Saudi and the Gulf monarchies against it close by, and is an enemy of Israel, which is known to have dozens to hundreds of nuclear warheads. Clearly, given MAD, launching nuclear weapons offensively is untenable. So, a nuclear deterrent might protect Iran from foreign attack. A deterrent means the US or its client states aren't allowed to unilaterally bomb Iran any more, which is the right they are currently claiming. I'm simply asking you to consider their view, without considering them irrational or chaotic or evil a priori. Certainly, a great deal of prejudice, jingoistic nationalism, sectarian religiosity, and macho posturing are at play on their end, as well. I can say it's similar on the end of Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the US, as well. A more balanced view, understanding the motivations of all sides, may help arrive at an actual solution to this awful standoff, where innocents bear the brunt. I sincerely wish all the countries of this region, and across the world, disarmed themselves of nuclear weapons. It's too easy for disaster to occur, accidentally or at will, and we forget that this guillotine is hanging over our head at every second.

GavinMcG 6y ago
Yeah, the parent comment asked about "the best way to convince people you are the peaceful victim," but Iran isn't necessarily (wholly) emphasizing that narrative. They probably don't primarily care about being believed. If convincing people they're a peaceful victim were the strongest position to be in, they'd likely pursue that more seriously.
recuter 6y ago
> has Saudi and the Gulf monarchies against it close by, and is an enemy of Israel It is a self declared enemy of Israel. There is over a thousand miles and two countries between them. Israel has never threatened Iran and has no interest in attacking it. As for the Saudis and Gulf monarchies, religious differences and hegemony struggles aside - as far as I know Iran are the sole aggressors supporting proxy wars and attacks in the gulf (they literally regularly blow up Saudi oil refineries). I don't think it is at all threatened by the Saudi and Gulf armies, which are not formidable, and has never been attacked by them. This is some Scooby Doo villain level inversion. In case it isn't completely clear to you, Iran is an expansionist rising power competing with Turkey for control over the ME and Persian/Arabian gulf over a Shia/Sunni cold-religious-war type background, a centuries old holy war... their beef with the house of Saud is about who should control Mecca, feel free to read up about it. > A more balanced view, understanding the motivations of all sides, may help arrive at an actual solution to this awful standoff, where innocents bear the brunt. That would involve some knowledge of the history of the region and basic understanding of the cultures and actors involved. Start by understanding what an Ayatollah is and why they have been ordering their own citizens to be hanged from construction cranes, disappeared, and tortured, for half a century.
- pradn 6y ago
  So the points are are "Iran started the enmity" and "Iran is worse than the other countries." I have a hard time buying either. Wouldn't the nakba be the original source of enmity created by the state of Israel between it and the Muslim nations? In any case, who started it doesn't change the ground geopolitical realties that must be solved for us to achieve a world with active peace. I am absolutely no defender of the enormous amount of violence that Iran's supply of rebel groups and militias in the region has caused. But I have a hard time ranking these crimes, and their internal oppression vs Israel's apartheid state vs the Saudi's internal oppression and funding of militias and rebel groups vs the US's war in Iraq, where between half a million and a million people died. It's unclear to me what you mean by the "culture" of Iran? Do you mean their political religiosity? I don't find that a convincing source of differentiation between them and other countries in the region. Israeli Zionism, Saudi Wahabbism, etc.

kelnos 6y ago

If you look at it from Iran's perspective, why should they be responsible for building trust? They got jerked around by the last administration. Their sworn enemy, Israel, has nuclear capability, and the US and other nuclear powers have military bases within striking range of Iran. While I personally am in favor of nuclear disarmament and anti-proliferation, it's very easy for me to say that, living in a country with nuclear weapons serving as deterrent. Iran logically wants to own that deterrent as well. And at its base, even if they don't have immediate plans to enrich to the point where they could have a viable nuclear weapon, it's also a case of showing strength (in the negotiation sense): "we're tired of being jerked around; if you want us to come to the table, you have to see us as strong and take us seriously". I don't think they really care about presenting themselves as the "peaceful victim". > After laying their intentions bare like this, why should anyone trust [Iran] with JCPOA 2.0? Given what happened with 1.0, why should Iran trust the US with JCPOA 2.0?

COGlory 6y ago
The real question is, why do they have to have a sworn enemy? Its not like israel is going to invade them.
- recuter 6y ago
  It never ceases to amaze me just how short memories are in the west. Edit: The only enemy Iran ever had in the ME was Iraq, the decade long war between them was the stuff of nightmares. They sent tens of thousands of child soldiers into trench war fare, to be gassed by Saddam, and run over mines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War You might be shocked at just how few Iranian citizens consider Israel to be an enemy.
  - stunt 6y ago
    > The only enemy Iran ever had in the ME was Iraq That's false. Iran was neutral on both WWI and WWII, and yet it was invaded multiple time because their natural resources were needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran Both the US and the UK have manipulated power in Iran in the past multiple times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... Even the Ayatollahs themselves are in power now because we thought regime change is necessary in Iran, hence we did aid their revolution. Saddam Hussein had direct support from the west for the Iraq invasion of Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War And there are just so many other incidents in between that explains why their relationship with the west is so f...up and the most recent one is JCPOA and the killing of their general and scientists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 Of course they will focus on their defense capabilities and military strength knowing that their entire history was manipulated by others. What gives them a reason to trust anyone now? > You might be shocked at just how few Iranian citizens consider Israel to be an enemy. Yes, I read they were ally until the revolution in Iran. I think Israel is the enemy Iran needs to increase their political influence in the region. The same way the Iran is the enemy that the US needs to sell arms in the Middle East. The rest is BS. Iranians are living a misery between a regime that doesn't give them freedom, and sanctions that don't allow them to live. All because we have God knows how much arms sell in the Middle East, and we want to control oil. It's all sad.

trhway 6y ago

>Surely the best way to convince people you are the peaceful victim i'm not sure that convincing people of that would play well for domestic standing of an authoritarian regime. Even if there were no threat to the current Iranian regime from outside (which i suspect is a big if), a populist government, especially an authoritarian one, to stay in power has to play a strong national identity theme. So, one way or another, each step is making them closer to the bomb - only regime change from inside as the result of some rose/orange revolution may stop it, and it doesn't seem that there is any chance of it in the near decade or two (so delaying their progress until such a time is probably the best strategy, and that is what Obama's agreement was doing - delaying, not stopping/preventing, and the voting public's non-understanding of that approach is what tanked it as GOP were technically right in their attack of the agreement that it doesn't prevent the bomb in some decades down the road). Any bold external action i think would only fuel internal nationalist forces and thus would play into the regime hand.

fatbird 6y ago

Because treaties like JCPOA aren't based on trust, they're based on verification. Trust, in the sense you're describing it (the way a person might trust another based on their past behaviour) doesn't really exist between nation states. And Iran is very incentivized to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea's bargaining position wrt to the U.S. improved immensely once they demonstrate a nuclear weapon; Pakistan and India have both enjoyed much less superpower pressure because they also have nukes. And more immediately, Israel has nukes and are Iran's primary regional rival. Israel has been a dominant regional entity largely because of it's military superiority over everyone else, which includes its nukes. Iran obtaining nukes is a potent counterweight to Israel's perceived freedom of military action.

gizmo686 6y ago

Iran doesn't want the world to believe it's nuclear ambitions are peaceful. The threat of (and actual) progress towards a nuclear weapon is their negotiating power. Iran doesn't need to build "trust" with the rest of the world. (Almost) everyone agrees that they were followed through on their commitments. What Iran needs is to maintain credability. Without that, the international community would walk all over them. Iran offered to keep following the JCPOA even after the US so blatantly voided it. They just needed the rest of the world to make up the difference. When this didn't happen (again, because the US flexed its muscles to make it not happen) Iran had no way to maintain credability without resuming their nuclear program. In more concrete terms, Iran would still need to negotiate another treaty, only this time they would need to make additional consessions. A few years later, the rest of the worlds backs out of the new treaty and forces Iran to make another set of concessions. > After laying their intentions bare like this, why should anyone trust them with JCPOA 2.0? Because they complied with JCPOA 1.0. And JCPOA 2.0 would likely include monitoring. And we can reimpose sanctions quickly if Iran is found to be in violation. On the other hand, leaders in Iran would need to answer the same questions; only they will be faced with much worse answers. Their counter parties did not follow through on JCPOA 1.0. And rebuilding a nuclear program takes longer than reimposing sanctions. It is easy to get stuck in the mindset that we are the only players. But geopolitics is a game; and our enemies get to make moves too.

websites2323 6y ago

US goal: Nuclear containment in Central Asia that threaten Israel. Iran goal: reversal of sanctions that cripple the economy. US has no incentive to lift sanctions if Iran complies with sanctions in place. In a world where a bankrupt Iran abandons enrichment, Israel is not threatened.

banannaise 6y ago

> Surely the best way to convince people you are the peaceful victim is to continue to demonstrate peaceful intentions even when others don't reward you for it. This is the international relations version of asking protestors to just show up unarmored and let police beat the shit out of them. It is entirely ineffective in both cases for the same reason: there is an American news empire that centers the state's narrative. The state will attack, and will spin the resulting images of destruction as entirely provoked by the victim. (Given that everyone knows that's what will happen, you might as well get what you paid for and show up ready for violence. That's what Iran is doing.)