3 ms·

> Iran has a ruthlessly oppressive regime, not even comparable to that of the US. Not comparable in domestic affairs... in foreign affairs the situation is rev

by t-3 5mo ago

> Iran has a ruthlessly oppressive regime, not even comparable to that of the US. Not comparable in domestic affairs... in foreign affairs the situation is reversed. US is by far the most violent, untrustworthy, and oppressive in the world, while Iran looks pretty peaceful and harmless in comparison.

bluegatty 5mo ago
No, this is hyperbole. Even with the terrible shenanigans of the last 1.5 years - the US is actually still the only thing that holds the world together. The reason it's hard to grasp is because we see 'horrible Trump regime' - and previous failures in Iraq but don't look at the underlying tectonic security foundation. DJT is Humpty Dumpty on a very entrenched wall. We live in a 'Post World War 2' system of relative peace which hasn't really happened in history. The US could have occupied and controlled 1/2 the world after World War 2 - it choose not to. This is the one of the most meaningful geopolitical actS in history - that framework actually still exists. Here are some Eisenhower quotes that capture the ideology [1], worth a read ('no nation before another' etc.). That's still the foundation. We mostly accept the notion of sovereignty because of this order. Freedom of navigation for example - is something that we take for granted, but that only exists because of a Western-led order with the US as the base of that. Even Vietnam - it was acted upon for the same reasons as Korea, but it was a mess and the US failed, were they to have been successful, we would look at it differently. There is no way to be an 'entirely benevolent power in all affairs' - it's always going to be a bit murky. It is a paradox that DJT has threatened Greenland (which is really all about him, nobody actually supports that) but the actions in Venezuela are not totally inconsistent with 'order' - it just so happens to be done by a leader with ulterior motives. The US did not stay in Iraq or 'acquire' it's vast Oil reserves. Up until President Humpty Dumpty - the US provided security for the Gulf for 80 years - again, almost unthinkable in the context of history. People have completely forgotten that the 'true point of instability' in the Middle East is Egypt vs. Israel. That's way, way more dangerous than Iran v. Israel - but we don't talk about it because the US has been 'bribing' Egypt for decades - still to this day - with billions in aid and support to keep the political system reasonably balanced. Without that - there would be constant war between Israel and Egypt, and Suez would be closed. If the US did not exist as a 'power' - then the world would be wild place - Ukraine would have been conquered long ago, at very least the Baltic states as well. Neither the Suez or Panama canal would exist as we understand them, and it's hard to even grasp what the world map would look like. And all of that despite Iraq, Afghanistan etc.. The world is shifting away from this, but not completely. The US will lose 'absolute centrality' but will not loose general centrality. [1] https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/eisenhowers/quotes https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/eisenhowers/quotes
- dakolli 5mo ago
  The US does occupy and control > 1/2 the world through financial instruments.
- blueblisters 5mo ago
  To the rest of the world, US aggression is perceived as oppressive and unilateral primarily because it’s a political act meant to further domestic political goals. All US administrations act in their own self interest, as they should. But the US being the world’s cop was never going to be sustainable indefinitely. It was partly because of hegemonic power and partly because of a reluctance of wealthy democratic countries to seriously invest in their military when they could just “pay” someone else. I don’t think anyone wants the pre world war 2 order. So we are likely going to see otherwise reluctant states step up militarily to protect their neighborhoods.
esseph 5mo ago
I mean, Iran has been firing missiles at 14 different countries in this war. Not exactly saints.
- t-3 5mo ago
  They didn't start the war. Those countries are hosting bases and troops and providing aid to the enemy who attacked them multiple times while they were negotiating. Why shouldn't they strike US bases and US vassals when fighting a war against the US? Why should they be polite when the US doesn't even honor basic diplomatic norms, let alone pretend to care about international law or rules of engagement?
  - esseph 5mo ago
    Seems like not a good way to make friends in the region. In fact, it seems like a situation where those countries could be like "fuck these guys".
  - bluegatty 5mo ago
    Iran does not respect 'basic diplomatic norms' or 'intentional law'. So we should hold the US to account, but we shouldn't magically give the other side a free pass either.
hollerith 5mo ago
If it were as powerful as the US is, my guess is that Iran would behave a lot worse than the US has. Not to say that US behavior can't be improved.

by t-3 5mo ago

bluegatty 5mo ago

No, this is hyperbole. Even with the terrible shenanigans of the last 1.5 years - the US is actually still the only thing that holds the world together. The reason it's hard to grasp is because we see 'horrible Trump regime' - and previous failures in Iraq but don't look at the underlying tectonic security foundation. DJT is Humpty Dumpty on a very entrenched wall. We live in a 'Post World War 2' system of relative peace which hasn't really happened in history. The US could have occupied and controlled 1/2 the world after World War 2 - it choose not to. This is the one of the most meaningful geopolitical actS in history - that framework actually still exists. Here are some Eisenhower quotes that capture the ideology [1], worth a read ('no nation before another' etc.). That's still the foundation. We mostly accept the notion of sovereignty because of this order. Freedom of navigation for example - is something that we take for granted, but that only exists because of a Western-led order with the US as the base of that. Even Vietnam - it was acted upon for the same reasons as Korea, but it was a mess and the US failed, were they to have been successful, we would look at it differently. There is no way to be an 'entirely benevolent power in all affairs' - it's always going to be a bit murky. It is a paradox that DJT has threatened Greenland (which is really all about him, nobody actually supports that) but the actions in Venezuela are not totally inconsistent with 'order' - it just so happens to be done by a leader with ulterior motives. The US did not stay in Iraq or 'acquire' it's vast Oil reserves. Up until President Humpty Dumpty - the US provided security for the Gulf for 80 years - again, almost unthinkable in the context of history. People have completely forgotten that the 'true point of instability' in the Middle East is Egypt vs. Israel. That's way, way more dangerous than Iran v. Israel - but we don't talk about it because the US has been 'bribing' Egypt for decades - still to this day - with billions in aid and support to keep the political system reasonably balanced. Without that - there would be constant war between Israel and Egypt, and Suez would be closed. If the US did not exist as a 'power' - then the world would be wild place - Ukraine would have been conquered long ago, at very least the Baltic states as well. Neither the Suez or Panama canal would exist as we understand them, and it's hard to even grasp what the world map would look like. And all of that despite Iraq, Afghanistan etc.. The world is shifting away from this, but not completely. The US will lose 'absolute centrality' but will not loose general centrality. [1] https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/eisenhowers/quotes https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov/eisenhowers/quotes

dakolli 5mo ago
The US does occupy and control > 1/2 the world through financial instruments.
blueblisters 5mo ago
To the rest of the world, US aggression is perceived as oppressive and unilateral primarily because it’s a political act meant to further domestic political goals. All US administrations act in their own self interest, as they should. But the US being the world’s cop was never going to be sustainable indefinitely. It was partly because of hegemonic power and partly because of a reluctance of wealthy democratic countries to seriously invest in their military when they could just “pay” someone else. I don’t think anyone wants the pre world war 2 order. So we are likely going to see otherwise reluctant states step up militarily to protect their neighborhoods.

esseph 5mo ago

I mean, Iran has been firing missiles at 14 different countries in this war. Not exactly saints.

t-3 5mo ago
They didn't start the war. Those countries are hosting bases and troops and providing aid to the enemy who attacked them multiple times while they were negotiating. Why shouldn't they strike US bases and US vassals when fighting a war against the US? Why should they be polite when the US doesn't even honor basic diplomatic norms, let alone pretend to care about international law or rules of engagement?
- esseph 5mo ago
  Seems like not a good way to make friends in the region. In fact, it seems like a situation where those countries could be like "fuck these guys".
- bluegatty 5mo ago
  Iran does not respect 'basic diplomatic norms' or 'intentional law'. So we should hold the US to account, but we shouldn't magically give the other side a free pass either.

hollerith 5mo ago

If it were as powerful as the US is, my guess is that Iran would behave a lot worse than the US has. Not to say that US behavior can't be improved.