8 ms·

What's really the most disgusting thing here to me isn't just the sanctions and laws around them, but the fact that these laws have so much weight behind them,

What's really the most disgusting thing here to me isn't just the sanctions and laws around them, but the fact that these laws have so much weight behind them, as compared to others. Compare this to any number of other egregious events - like the latest rounds of personal data exposure from various corporations on the front page all of this week - and the fact that things like that have zero repercussions for the corporations who failed to secure our data. Expose the PII of millions of citizens - zero punishment or repercussions. But oh no, if you happen to have someone in Iran working on your project, then watch out! Why is there such a gaping, borderline incomprehensible, asymmetry here?

natch 5y ago
Nuclear proliferation tends to do that. Especially nuclear proliferation to countries where the cultural norm promoted by the government is to profess to love death more than life. I do realize technology is just a tool. And not all technology is nuclear. Sanctions are a tool as well. Not perfect, very blunt. While the author isn’t interested in politics, the underlying concerns driving the politics are real.
- Ansil849 5y ago
  > countries where the cultural norm is to profess to love death more than life. This comes off as insulting. One could just as easily come up with a glib derogatory summary of the 'cultural norms' of Western nations too. Propagating the belief that some cultures don't treasure life is dehumanizing, because it is a direct pathway to rationalize exterminating them ('oh, they value death more anyway').
  - the_af 5y ago
    Not only it's insulting, it's false. Iranians don't love death more than life.
  - natch 5y ago
    Edited to clarify my view that the government promotes this as a norm. I fully agree that many and perhaps most of the people don’t feel that way.
    - trasz 5y ago
      It’s still stupidly wrong, though - killing millions by starting wars is the domain of the US, not Iran.
- soperj 5y ago
  There's only one country who has actually used nuclear weapons on humans.
  - adamc 5y ago
    Yeah. The country that ended a long and terrible war. Fake moral high ground is aggravating.
    - Ansil849 5y ago
      Killing hundreds of thousands of people is also aggravating.
      - ipaddr 5y ago
        To save millions of mostly Asian lives. Japan was never going to give in without taking as many lives as possible. Japan was brutal with people in China, Korea and other nations around that area more so than the west. Sometimes you have to shoot a suspect to save a family. That's justified.
        soperj 5y ago
        it's such a silly argument. Why didn't you drop a nuclear bomb on Afghanistan then to save lives?
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        And further, why wouldn't they want Iran to have the ability to drop a nuke and "save millions of lives" if they ever ended up in a similar situation?
        Ansil849 5y ago
        The fact that this is not a legitimate argument can be evinced by the simple fact that this horrible act has never been repeated in history. If 'let's nuke hundreds of thousands to save millions' is a legitimate option, why has it not been used in any other number of conflicts?
tomjen3 5y ago
Becourse one is an offense against the state, the other is an offense against the tax-milk cows, and who cares about them.
guerrilla 5y ago
> Why is there such a gaping, borderline incomprehensible, asymmetry here? If I understand you right, you're asking why the state prioritizes enforcement of laws that encourage harm to Iran rather than laws that are supposed to discourage harm to US (and maybe other) consumers? I think that happens because the state is a tool of the overclass and overthrowing Iran is in their interest while protecting consumers is not. In fact, the lalter is likely counter to their interests. The question of how overthrowing Iran is useful used to be easier to explain so it deserves some attempt given the current situation. Iran acting independently has some ability to effect oil and gas prices, although this has decreased significantly over time. It's still of interest to the US and especially to some of the US's allies though because alternative sources of energy feed not only Iran but other opponents of the US (e.g. NK, Afghanistan, Syria, etc) and can also still threaten if not decimate smaller producers. In other words, it reduces the geopolitical power of the US and they have less ability to coerce other states. Then there's the the geopolitical game more local to Iran, where Iran is funding multiple opponents to Israel in Gaza, Lebanon and opponent of KSA in Yemen. Why care about Isarel's interests? Well obviously there's significant economic overlap but also consider the famous quote by General (and former Secretary of State) Alexander Haig "Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security." So, again, defeating Iran is consolidation of power in another way. There's more to it than that and it's become more complicated as time goes on but this is what I can think of off the top of my head. On the other hand, ask yourself why would most of the powerful lobbies in the US be interested in advocating enforcement of the privacy laws and such that you care about? How does that benefit who pays for them? And where there are interests of outright corruption or coercion, why would anyone pay for that to be in your interest rather than prioritize their own? You can work the logic backwards from realist rules too: Normally, you aren't going to get any result that doesn't benefit the state and those who have most influence over its use. (See neorealism in IR and public choice theory but also all of anarchist and "Libertarian" theory for why.) So, in some ways it benefits the overclass directly and in other ways it just sharpens (or keeps sharp) their tool.
- jollybean 5y ago
  The notion that Iran's economic actions on 'oil pricing' is any material threat to anything is totally unfounded, as they don't have the economic power to do such a thing. The notion that Iran's military threat exclusively down to antagonism of Israel is another conspiracy theory - because their actions clearly are much broader. The concern over Iran is founded in the fact that since their Islamic Revolution, they've been an open antagonist of the US and the West, they constantly threaten the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, the stability of the Middle East. Since they have embarked on their Nuclear Program which they are using to Blackmail the world, it's become a much more significant issue. Iran's 'problem with oil' is not their ability to supply, it's that they are literally attacking Saudi Arabia both directly and indirectly (via Houthis) and trying to overthrow House of Saud, Bahrain, and eventually the other Gulf states. They're constantly threatening commerce (mostly Oil) in the Gulf. This antagonism by the way is rooted in centuries-old Shia vs. Sunni conflict over the righteous claim to 'True Islam'. Iran's destabilizing and support of terrorism against Israel is of course well founded, but their actions against Saudi Arabia are more direct and have much bigger direct repercussions. Of course, the overthrow of Israel has probably the most indirect knock-on effects which would throw the entire region into chaos. And by the way 'Big Business' in the world would much prefer to end sanctions. All of that Iranian Oil will be spent on US and German 'stuff' and Tim Cook would definitely want to sell them all iPhones. Protection of individuals privacy, so that their emails and SS numbers aren't accidentally made public, are basically an orthogonal issue - not even business issues are aligned. This talk of a nebulous 'overclass' is not helpful to your argument if you conflate their own needs especially 'money' - which most of them wold prefer to make in Iran if they could. The US has a complicated leadership class that's not easily lumped into groups. We're seeing more progress on issues of privacy so cross your fingers.
jollybean 5y ago
"Why is there such a gaping, borderline incomprehensible, asymmetry here? " The Iranian Government is trying to destabilize the Middle East including threatening the world with an nuclear program, attempting to overthrow House of Saud, having destroyed 50% of it's refinement industry by direct military attack (aka major act of war) with the objective turning Saudi Arabia into a Syrian mess, supporting Houthi rebels towards direct attacks on Saudi civilians, destroying Israel, arming terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah towards that objective, and the United States as well, if they could, among other things including state sponsored terrorist attacks around the world including bombings and assassinations in Europe [1]. AT&T has accidently made public some people's phone numbers, it isn't trying to get nuclear weapons to use as cover to overthrow nations in it's periphery. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...
- Ansil849 5y ago
  > The Iranian Government is trying to destabilize the Middle East including threatening the world with an nuclear program This sounds an awful lot like what the American government is and has been doing for a long, long time...In fact, America's nuclear program didn't just threaten the world, but caused actual harm. Where are the international sanctions?
  - jollybean 5y ago
    "America's nuclear program didn't just threaten the world, but caused actual harm. " Which is false of course. It was the key ingredient in ending the worst war the world has ever seen, and since then, major wars have gone by the wayside. Decade by decade in the US-backed world order, there have been fewer and fewer major conflicts. The world is inherently unstable, it's barely held together by somewhat organized powers of which the US is by far the biggest pillar. The world as we know it with open seas, open Panama, Suez, Gulf, peace between Egypt, Israel and Saudi, relative freedom of movement and commerce is an artifact of that order of which the US is the biggest pillar. Without that order (and possibly just without the US alone, as it's hard to know if Europe+Japan+Korea+Aussie etc. could step up in a coordinated way), it would be something completely different, and in almost every scenario, much worse. The Iranian Regime is a toxic entity that literally their own citizens would overthrow in an instant given an opportunity to do so - we're all waiting for the time when they collapse so everyone, especially Iranians citizens such as the author of this article, can move forward and participate in FOSS without getting caught up in geopolitics.

natch 5y ago

Nuclear proliferation tends to do that. Especially nuclear proliferation to countries where the cultural norm promoted by the government is to profess to love death more than life. I do realize technology is just a tool. And not all technology is nuclear. Sanctions are a tool as well. Not perfect, very blunt. While the author isn’t interested in politics, the underlying concerns driving the politics are real.

Ansil849 5y ago
> countries where the cultural norm is to profess to love death more than life. This comes off as insulting. One could just as easily come up with a glib derogatory summary of the 'cultural norms' of Western nations too. Propagating the belief that some cultures don't treasure life is dehumanizing, because it is a direct pathway to rationalize exterminating them ('oh, they value death more anyway').
- the_af 5y ago
  Not only it's insulting, it's false. Iranians don't love death more than life.
- natch 5y ago
  Edited to clarify my view that the government promotes this as a norm. I fully agree that many and perhaps most of the people don’t feel that way.
  - trasz 5y ago
    It’s still stupidly wrong, though - killing millions by starting wars is the domain of the US, not Iran.
soperj 5y ago
There's only one country who has actually used nuclear weapons on humans.
- adamc 5y ago
  Yeah. The country that ended a long and terrible war. Fake moral high ground is aggravating.
  - Ansil849 5y ago
    Killing hundreds of thousands of people is also aggravating.
    - ipaddr 5y ago
      To save millions of mostly Asian lives. Japan was never going to give in without taking as many lives as possible. Japan was brutal with people in China, Korea and other nations around that area more so than the west. Sometimes you have to shoot a suspect to save a family. That's justified.
      - soperj 5y ago
        it's such a silly argument. Why didn't you drop a nuclear bomb on Afghanistan then to save lives?
        boomboomsubban 5y ago
        And further, why wouldn't they want Iran to have the ability to drop a nuke and "save millions of lives" if they ever ended up in a similar situation?
      - Ansil849 5y ago
        The fact that this is not a legitimate argument can be evinced by the simple fact that this horrible act has never been repeated in history. If 'let's nuke hundreds of thousands to save millions' is a legitimate option, why has it not been used in any other number of conflicts?

tomjen3 5y ago

Becourse one is an offense against the state, the other is an offense against the tax-milk cows, and who cares about them.

guerrilla 5y ago

> Why is there such a gaping, borderline incomprehensible, asymmetry here? If I understand you right, you're asking why the state prioritizes enforcement of laws that encourage harm to Iran rather than laws that are supposed to discourage harm to US (and maybe other) consumers? I think that happens because the state is a tool of the overclass and overthrowing Iran is in their interest while protecting consumers is not. In fact, the lalter is likely counter to their interests. The question of how overthrowing Iran is useful used to be easier to explain so it deserves some attempt given the current situation. Iran acting independently has some ability to effect oil and gas prices, although this has decreased significantly over time. It's still of interest to the US and especially to some of the US's allies though because alternative sources of energy feed not only Iran but other opponents of the US (e.g. NK, Afghanistan, Syria, etc) and can also still threaten if not decimate smaller producers. In other words, it reduces the geopolitical power of the US and they have less ability to coerce other states. Then there's the the geopolitical game more local to Iran, where Iran is funding multiple opponents to Israel in Gaza, Lebanon and opponent of KSA in Yemen. Why care about Isarel's interests? Well obviously there's significant economic overlap but also consider the famous quote by General (and former Secretary of State) Alexander Haig "Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security." So, again, defeating Iran is consolidation of power in another way. There's more to it than that and it's become more complicated as time goes on but this is what I can think of off the top of my head. On the other hand, ask yourself why would most of the powerful lobbies in the US be interested in advocating enforcement of the privacy laws and such that you care about? How does that benefit who pays for them? And where there are interests of outright corruption or coercion, why would anyone pay for that to be in your interest rather than prioritize their own? You can work the logic backwards from realist rules too: Normally, you aren't going to get any result that doesn't benefit the state and those who have most influence over its use. (See neorealism in IR and public choice theory but also all of anarchist and "Libertarian" theory for why.) So, in some ways it benefits the overclass directly and in other ways it just sharpens (or keeps sharp) their tool.

jollybean 5y ago
The notion that Iran's economic actions on 'oil pricing' is any material threat to anything is totally unfounded, as they don't have the economic power to do such a thing. The notion that Iran's military threat exclusively down to antagonism of Israel is another conspiracy theory - because their actions clearly are much broader. The concern over Iran is founded in the fact that since their Islamic Revolution, they've been an open antagonist of the US and the West, they constantly threaten the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, the stability of the Middle East. Since they have embarked on their Nuclear Program which they are using to Blackmail the world, it's become a much more significant issue. Iran's 'problem with oil' is not their ability to supply, it's that they are literally attacking Saudi Arabia both directly and indirectly (via Houthis) and trying to overthrow House of Saud, Bahrain, and eventually the other Gulf states. They're constantly threatening commerce (mostly Oil) in the Gulf. This antagonism by the way is rooted in centuries-old Shia vs. Sunni conflict over the righteous claim to 'True Islam'. Iran's destabilizing and support of terrorism against Israel is of course well founded, but their actions against Saudi Arabia are more direct and have much bigger direct repercussions. Of course, the overthrow of Israel has probably the most indirect knock-on effects which would throw the entire region into chaos. And by the way 'Big Business' in the world would much prefer to end sanctions. All of that Iranian Oil will be spent on US and German 'stuff' and Tim Cook would definitely want to sell them all iPhones. Protection of individuals privacy, so that their emails and SS numbers aren't accidentally made public, are basically an orthogonal issue - not even business issues are aligned. This talk of a nebulous 'overclass' is not helpful to your argument if you conflate their own needs especially 'money' - which most of them wold prefer to make in Iran if they could. The US has a complicated leadership class that's not easily lumped into groups. We're seeing more progress on issues of privacy so cross your fingers.

jollybean 5y ago

"Why is there such a gaping, borderline incomprehensible, asymmetry here? " The Iranian Government is trying to destabilize the Middle East including threatening the world with an nuclear program, attempting to overthrow House of Saud, having destroyed 50% of it's refinement industry by direct military attack (aka major act of war) with the objective turning Saudi Arabia into a Syrian mess, supporting Houthi rebels towards direct attacks on Saudi civilians, destroying Israel, arming terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah towards that objective, and the United States as well, if they could, among other things including state sponsored terrorist attacks around the world including bombings and assassinations in Europe [1]. AT&T has accidently made public some people's phone numbers, it isn't trying to get nuclear weapons to use as cover to overthrow nations in it's periphery. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...

Ansil849 5y ago
> The Iranian Government is trying to destabilize the Middle East including threatening the world with an nuclear program This sounds an awful lot like what the American government is and has been doing for a long, long time...In fact, America's nuclear program didn't just threaten the world, but caused actual harm. Where are the international sanctions?
- jollybean 5y ago
  "America's nuclear program didn't just threaten the world, but caused actual harm. " Which is false of course. It was the key ingredient in ending the worst war the world has ever seen, and since then, major wars have gone by the wayside. Decade by decade in the US-backed world order, there have been fewer and fewer major conflicts. The world is inherently unstable, it's barely held together by somewhat organized powers of which the US is by far the biggest pillar. The world as we know it with open seas, open Panama, Suez, Gulf, peace between Egypt, Israel and Saudi, relative freedom of movement and commerce is an artifact of that order of which the US is the biggest pillar. Without that order (and possibly just without the US alone, as it's hard to know if Europe+Japan+Korea+Aussie etc. could step up in a coordinated way), it would be something completely different, and in almost every scenario, much worse. The Iranian Regime is a toxic entity that literally their own citizens would overthrow in an instant given an opportunity to do so - we're all waiting for the time when they collapse so everyone, especially Iranians citizens such as the author of this article, can move forward and participate in FOSS without getting caught up in geopolitics.