4 ms·

Why does this sound as much about Team Trump's behavior as about Iran? Also, Iran isn't as bad as you make it sound. Broadly, it's an okay-ish country. It wou

by ioulaum 16d ago

Why does this sound as much about Team Trump's behavior as about Iran? Also, Iran isn't as bad as you make it sound. Broadly, it's an okay-ish country. It would likely have become a liberal country by now if not for the sanctions... Their leadership's lifestyles certainly don't suggest that they want to be living in a country dominated by religion – even if they maintain that for the masses still. Being under attack makes people more conservative on average.

ericmay 16d ago
> Why does this sound as much about Team Trump's behavior as about Iran? My guess would be because you're bringing in some prior baggage and over-indexing on Trump and not looking at the broader history and geopolitical situation. For example, Trump wasn't even president in 2023 when Iran launched an attack on Israel via it's proxies and later launched ballistic missiles at Israel. Now that's not absolving Israel of any wrongdoing or anything, but attacking them was never going to solve the problems in Palestine and it only pushed forward predictable responses. Diplomacy and international pressure are the only real options there, but once Iran attacked Israel you sort of lose that leverage as being peaceful. To your point about Iran becoming a liberal country if not for the sanctions, I don't see evidence for that. The west really tried and while I think it's stupid we did the JCPOA only to find Iran was still behaving poorly, funding militants to destabilize countries like Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and more, never mind arguably still pursuing a nuclear weapon (remember they enriched uranium to 40% - 60%) under the JCPOA, again not that we should need a special snowflake agreement with Iran they can just not do these bad things. Liberal, democratic protestors even prior to the US attacking were killed. Over 30,000 of them. The sanctions that are there are there for a reason, and unfortunately there doesn't appear to be much evidence that Iran was liberalizing. > Being under attack makes people more conservative on average. Maybe but what does that matter? You can be conservative, which means respecting traditions and having different views without being hostile since quite literally billions of people around the planet in many countries do that every day. Also being conservative isn't a bad thing by definition despite what arrogant liberals think (which is itself a self-inflicted wound and has led to many setbacks toward their own goals). I'm liberal about some things, conservative about others and don't particularly align with either camp but I do reject these sorts of narratives.

by ioulaum 16d ago

ericmay 16d ago

> Why does this sound as much about Team Trump's behavior as about Iran? My guess would be because you're bringing in some prior baggage and over-indexing on Trump and not looking at the broader history and geopolitical situation. For example, Trump wasn't even president in 2023 when Iran launched an attack on Israel via it's proxies and later launched ballistic missiles at Israel. Now that's not absolving Israel of any wrongdoing or anything, but attacking them was never going to solve the problems in Palestine and it only pushed forward predictable responses. Diplomacy and international pressure are the only real options there, but once Iran attacked Israel you sort of lose that leverage as being peaceful. To your point about Iran becoming a liberal country if not for the sanctions, I don't see evidence for that. The west really tried and while I think it's stupid we did the JCPOA only to find Iran was still behaving poorly, funding militants to destabilize countries like Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and more, never mind arguably still pursuing a nuclear weapon (remember they enriched uranium to 40% - 60%) under the JCPOA, again not that we should need a special snowflake agreement with Iran they can just not do these bad things. Liberal, democratic protestors even prior to the US attacking were killed. Over 30,000 of them. The sanctions that are there are there for a reason, and unfortunately there doesn't appear to be much evidence that Iran was liberalizing. > Being under attack makes people more conservative on average. Maybe but what does that matter? You can be conservative, which means respecting traditions and having different views without being hostile since quite literally billions of people around the planet in many countries do that every day. Also being conservative isn't a bad thing by definition despite what arrogant liberals think (which is itself a self-inflicted wound and has led to many setbacks toward their own goals). I'm liberal about some things, conservative about others and don't particularly align with either camp but I do reject these sorts of narratives.