4 ms·

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 ht

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.
- recuter 6y ago
  One is an apologist for a repressive regime when one knowingly or unknowingly repeats their exaggerated talking points. They are very adapt at exploiting western sensibilities. Their realpolitik is to stay in power at all costs and export terror to deflect from internal instability. The US has attained energy independence and has been leaving the region. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/politics/biden-afghanistan-withdrawal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/politics/biden-afghani... Turkey, China, Russia, and now Iran will divvy up the spoils. Iran is an expansionist rising power vying for hegemony in the region and a repressive authoritarian religious dictatorship, it is silly to take their negotiations in good faith as if that weren't the case - whatever historical excuse they might try and shame you with.
  - fatbird 6y ago
    Yes, they're an expansionist rising power and a repressive authoritarian religious dictatorship. So what? No one at the State Dep't thinks otherwise, or is shamed by Iranian propaganda, except insofar as that propaganda is effective PR that the U.S. has to counter--and PR is where the U.S. history is relevent and problematic, and where a clear-headed appraisal of the circumstances is necessary. When you're playing chess, you're not being an apologist for the other player by imagining their best move.

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.

recuter 6y ago
One is an apologist for a repressive regime when one knowingly or unknowingly repeats their exaggerated talking points. They are very adapt at exploiting western sensibilities. Their realpolitik is to stay in power at all costs and export terror to deflect from internal instability. The US has attained energy independence and has been leaving the region. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/politics/biden-afghanistan-withdrawal.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/politics/biden-afghani... Turkey, China, Russia, and now Iran will divvy up the spoils. Iran is an expansionist rising power vying for hegemony in the region and a repressive authoritarian religious dictatorship, it is silly to take their negotiations in good faith as if that weren't the case - whatever historical excuse they might try and shame you with.
- fatbird 6y ago
  Yes, they're an expansionist rising power and a repressive authoritarian religious dictatorship. So what? No one at the State Dep't thinks otherwise, or is shamed by Iranian propaganda, except insofar as that propaganda is effective PR that the U.S. has to counter--and PR is where the U.S. history is relevent and problematic, and where a clear-headed appraisal of the circumstances is necessary. When you're playing chess, you're not being an apologist for the other player by imagining their best move.