7 ms·

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 rel

by 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.
torstenvl 6y ago
> What even makes American [foreign policy] reliable any more? ...Why should Iran not be able to develop a nuclear deterrent? I strongly oppose Iran developing nuclear weapons, but your logic is unassailable here. Our foreign policy with WMDs has been abysmal. Our leaders fail to take into account one simple truth: You get what you incentivize. Ghaddafi and Hussein disarmed and ended up dead. Meanwhile Pakistan and North Korea get treated with kid gloves. Given that, why should Iran stop its nuclear program? The United States should adopt a bipartisan set of criteria for when it will intervene re WMDs and when it won't, and stick to it across administrations. That is the only way to maintain any credibility.

by pradn 6y ago

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.

torstenvl 6y ago

> What even makes American [foreign policy] reliable any more? ...Why should Iran not be able to develop a nuclear deterrent? I strongly oppose Iran developing nuclear weapons, but your logic is unassailable here. Our foreign policy with WMDs has been abysmal. Our leaders fail to take into account one simple truth: You get what you incentivize. Ghaddafi and Hussein disarmed and ended up dead. Meanwhile Pakistan and North Korea get treated with kid gloves. Given that, why should Iran stop its nuclear program? The United States should adopt a bipartisan set of criteria for when it will intervene re WMDs and when it won't, and stick to it across administrations. That is the only way to maintain any credibility.