5 ms·

> 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 natu

by 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.

adamcstephens 6y ago
Very shocking that the pro-US dictatorship installed by US efforts to overthrow the democratically elected government in Iran was friendly with Israel. And that the inevitable blowback that replaced the dictator left the region with a county distrusting and hostile to the West and Israel. It’s almost like actions have consequences. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Unfortunately, imperial hubris blinds people to their own state and its actions.
- recuter 6y ago
  Iran never had democracy. Soviets were in the picture as well. It's almost like the US is not omnipotent and there is more than one actor. Historically, ordinary Persian citizens, regardless of regime, were perfectly fine with both Jews in general and Israel in particular. At worst they didn't care, why should they, the two places are very far apart. Little spoken about in western press even the Ayatollahs initially were not hostile to Israel, as their interests aligned. That's how realpolitik works. This changed and they made the calculation like any number of colorful despots and dictators in the ME and further afield to distract their populations from their failures with an external foe.
  - adamcstephens 6y ago
    > The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup d'état (Persian: کودتای ۲۸ مرداد‎), was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953. Just because the US, at the behest of the British, helped orchestrate a coup to reinstall a dictator, doesn’t mean they never had democracy. It’s just that said democracy wanted to profit off the oil in their own land, instead of letting the British continue their imperial theft. The inevitable blowback from such a cravenly selfish act, means that we get the world the US created. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état
recuter 6y ago
Really, you're going back to WWII and the Anglo-Soviet invasion? Why not go back to the 19th and The Great Game? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game > 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%A9ta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... I'll tell you a secret; it wasn't just the US and the UK but several other powers. And not just in Iran but all over the world. There was this little thing called the Cold War as a backdrop, from your own link: "The British soldiers withdrew from Iran after the end of the war. However, under Stalin, the Soviet Union partly remained by sponsoring two "People's Democratic Republics" within Iran's borders." > Even the Ayatollahs themselves are in power now because we thought regime change is necessary in Iran, hence we did aid their revolution. So? What do you imagine this magical aid was? There was quite a lot going on in that part of the world at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Iranian_hostage_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Iranian_hostag... I don't know who we is supposed to be, but if you mean the US, certainly it had interests and influence it tried to wield. Very unsuccessfully. Quite an interesting unsavory story to be sure, but scratch beneath the surface and you'll find a quite complicated one as well - it isn't black and white at all. Iran never had democracy, it is cursed with oil as you point out and geography plays a role as well, as does religion, welcome to how the world actually works. However Iran ended up with Ayatollahs, one could only ever so gently suggest that perhaps Iranians themselves had some agency and responsibility in this matter, or how North Korea ended up with the Kim dynasty - hardly a reason to be an apologist for these dangerous repressive regimes.
- fatbird 6y ago
  One is not an apologist for a repressive regime when one dispassionately analyzes the realpolitik of their circumstances. It's not a defense of the Ayatollahs to observe that, from the perspective of the Iranian gov't., the U.S. (among many others) has continuously been a hostile power since at least WW2, and it's silly to place expectations on them as a negotiating partner as if that weren't the case.
  - 6y ago

by stunt 6y ago

adamcstephens 6y ago

Very shocking that the pro-US dictatorship installed by US efforts to overthrow the democratically elected government in Iran was friendly with Israel. And that the inevitable blowback that replaced the dictator left the region with a county distrusting and hostile to the West and Israel. It’s almost like actions have consequences. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Unfortunately, imperial hubris blinds people to their own state and its actions.

recuter 6y ago
Iran never had democracy. Soviets were in the picture as well. It's almost like the US is not omnipotent and there is more than one actor. Historically, ordinary Persian citizens, regardless of regime, were perfectly fine with both Jews in general and Israel in particular. At worst they didn't care, why should they, the two places are very far apart. Little spoken about in western press even the Ayatollahs initially were not hostile to Israel, as their interests aligned. That's how realpolitik works. This changed and they made the calculation like any number of colorful despots and dictators in the ME and further afield to distract their populations from their failures with an external foe.
- adamcstephens 6y ago
  > The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup d'état (Persian: کودتای ۲۸ مرداد‎), was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953. Just because the US, at the behest of the British, helped orchestrate a coup to reinstall a dictator, doesn’t mean they never had democracy. It’s just that said democracy wanted to profit off the oil in their own land, instead of letting the British continue their imperial theft. The inevitable blowback from such a cravenly selfish act, means that we get the world the US created. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état

recuter 6y ago

Really, you're going back to WWII and the Anglo-Soviet invasion? Why not go back to the 19th and The Great Game? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game > 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%A9ta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... I'll tell you a secret; it wasn't just the US and the UK but several other powers. And not just in Iran but all over the world. There was this little thing called the Cold War as a backdrop, from your own link: "The British soldiers withdrew from Iran after the end of the war. However, under Stalin, the Soviet Union partly remained by sponsoring two "People's Democratic Republics" within Iran's borders." > Even the Ayatollahs themselves are in power now because we thought regime change is necessary in Iran, hence we did aid their revolution. So? What do you imagine this magical aid was? There was quite a lot going on in that part of the world at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Iranian_hostage_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Iranian_hostag... I don't know who we is supposed to be, but if you mean the US, certainly it had interests and influence it tried to wield. Very unsuccessfully. Quite an interesting unsavory story to be sure, but scratch beneath the surface and you'll find a quite complicated one as well - it isn't black and white at all. Iran never had democracy, it is cursed with oil as you point out and geography plays a role as well, as does religion, welcome to how the world actually works. However Iran ended up with Ayatollahs, one could only ever so gently suggest that perhaps Iranians themselves had some agency and responsibility in this matter, or how North Korea ended up with the Kim dynasty - hardly a reason to be an apologist for these dangerous repressive regimes.

fatbird 6y ago
One is not an apologist for a repressive regime when one dispassionately analyzes the realpolitik of their circumstances. It's not a defense of the Ayatollahs to observe that, from the perspective of the Iranian gov't., the U.S. (among many others) has continuously been a hostile power since at least WW2, and it's silly to place expectations on them as a negotiating partner as if that weren't the case.
- 6y ago