3 ms·

Or alternatively, in 2026 Iran would have been hooked on closer economic cooperation and trade, (relative) reformers would be in power, and the deal would have

by sofixa 4mo ago

Or alternatively, in 2026 Iran would have been hooked on closer economic cooperation and trade, (relative) reformers would be in power, and the deal would have been renewed. Yanking the deal all but guaranteed that the hardliners would go back in charge, because they were proven right - the US could not be trusted to keep its word, so negotiations don't matter, the only thing that would actually protect them is nuclear weapons. > Would like to see a nuclear-capable Iran. Postponing their nuclear programme with at least 10 years is absolutely worth doing. Because realistically you cannot, I repeat, cannot force them to stop it. If the regime wants to continue, it will and their facilities deep under the mountains are impenetrable.

dotancohen 4mo ago
> Or alternatively, in 2026 Iran would have been hooked on closer economic cooperation and trade, (relative) reformers would be in power, and the deal would have been renewed. Oh, so you expect to change their culture and their value system. And do that in only 10 years. That's called imperialism. I believe it's no longer fashionable.
- sofixa 4mo ago
  > Oh, so you expect to change their culture and their value system What do you mean culture and value system? You think isolation and nuclear weapons are parts of the Iranian culture???? And yes, Iran had multiple bouts of reformer presidents. Reformer within the limits of what the Supreme Leader would allow of course, but there is still a massive gulf of difference between them and the hardliners. A few years of visible economic development under reformers would have nudged things in the reconciliation direction. Again, yanking the deal, even before the current strikes during negotiations, ensures that Iran will never fully trust the US. So realistically, what other choices do they have other than procure nuclear weapons for protection?
  - dotancohen 4mo ago
    You said that "closer economic cooperation and trade" might lead to "(relative) reformers would be in power". Westerners "reforming" other cultures has not been fashionable for about half a century.
    - sofixa 4mo ago
      Who is talking about westerners here? What even is your argument, because it seems you're just throwing random catchphrases around. The topic is Iran. A theocracy with an unelected supreme leader with final say on political decisions and candidates for all elections in the otherwise relatively democratic system. Reformer in their context (hence the relative qualifier I used) is people like Ahmadinejad who are for rapprochement and trade with the world, but without too many concessions. We're not talking about socially progressive or "western" or anything of the like. They are infinitely better than the hardliners aligned with the IRGC who are against anything other than autarky and building more strategic security via stuff like nukes. The reformers got their way with the JCPOA, and were proven wrong by the orange moron destroying that. Since then the hardliners have been in power and they are not going anywhere now.
      - dotancohen 4mo ago
        You are talking about reforming Iran. You used the word yourself. > people like Ahmadinejad Oh, this guy: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23538717 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23538717 Let's look at some of his policies: - Holocaust denial - Calling for the destruction of the state of Israel - Provided funding, training and arms to Hezbollah and Hamas - Condemned by the UK, Germany, Austria, and even the UN - Condemned the Palestinian Authority for holding peace talks with Israel - A nice quote of his: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country." Thank you for explaining to all those who won't listen to me because I'm Israel and therefore biased, what a "reformed" Iran would look like. Now they can understand just how hateful the current "unreformed" Iran looks like.
        4mo ago

by sofixa 4mo ago

dotancohen 4mo ago

> Or alternatively, in 2026 Iran would have been hooked on closer economic cooperation and trade, (relative) reformers would be in power, and the deal would have been renewed. Oh, so you expect to change their culture and their value system. And do that in only 10 years. That's called imperialism. I believe it's no longer fashionable.

sofixa 4mo ago
> Oh, so you expect to change their culture and their value system What do you mean culture and value system? You think isolation and nuclear weapons are parts of the Iranian culture???? And yes, Iran had multiple bouts of reformer presidents. Reformer within the limits of what the Supreme Leader would allow of course, but there is still a massive gulf of difference between them and the hardliners. A few years of visible economic development under reformers would have nudged things in the reconciliation direction. Again, yanking the deal, even before the current strikes during negotiations, ensures that Iran will never fully trust the US. So realistically, what other choices do they have other than procure nuclear weapons for protection?
- dotancohen 4mo ago
  You said that "closer economic cooperation and trade" might lead to "(relative) reformers would be in power". Westerners "reforming" other cultures has not been fashionable for about half a century.
  - sofixa 4mo ago
    Who is talking about westerners here? What even is your argument, because it seems you're just throwing random catchphrases around. The topic is Iran. A theocracy with an unelected supreme leader with final say on political decisions and candidates for all elections in the otherwise relatively democratic system. Reformer in their context (hence the relative qualifier I used) is people like Ahmadinejad who are for rapprochement and trade with the world, but without too many concessions. We're not talking about socially progressive or "western" or anything of the like. They are infinitely better than the hardliners aligned with the IRGC who are against anything other than autarky and building more strategic security via stuff like nukes. The reformers got their way with the JCPOA, and were proven wrong by the orange moron destroying that. Since then the hardliners have been in power and they are not going anywhere now.
    - dotancohen 4mo ago
      You are talking about reforming Iran. You used the word yourself. > people like Ahmadinejad Oh, this guy: - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel - https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23538717 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23538717 Let's look at some of his policies: - Holocaust denial - Calling for the destruction of the state of Israel - Provided funding, training and arms to Hezbollah and Hamas - Condemned by the UK, Germany, Austria, and even the UN - Condemned the Palestinian Authority for holding peace talks with Israel - A nice quote of his: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country." Thank you for explaining to all those who won't listen to me because I'm Israel and therefore biased, what a "reformed" Iran would look like. Now they can understand just how hateful the current "unreformed" Iran looks like.
      - 4mo ago