9 ms·

Iran is a country much more aligned with the US in many more ways than Saudi Arabia is. It's really a "natural ally" for the US in the middle east.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
bsaul 11y ago
Out or curiosity, why does the (religious) iranian regime keeps calling USA "the great devil" then ? Ps :reading some answers, i know about the history of conflicts between usa and iran. I was just pointing the fact that calling Iran a "natural ally" is a bit of a stretch.
- geff82 11y ago
  Because they are used to do so and because they are completely detached from the reality of their people. For the average Iranian, USA is the land to go. And you can't image how similar things look! Highways, signs, style of buildings all look like a slightly cheaper copy of the USA. Except for the roads, which are worse in the USA.
  - secfirstmd 11y ago
    Had to laugh at the last sentence.
  - dsfyu404ed 11y ago
    They even drive a few old American cars and their air force flies a handful of F-14s
- throwaway556588 11y ago
  I meet with a lot of people from that region. From my personal experience almost every Iranian in the US is very Westernized including women who dresses like any other American. But most other Arabs including Saudis I know are still very traditional. Most of Arab women in the US still wear scarves or even burkas. This is just what I have observed, I have no idea how they really think. Not sure if this translates to larger population or not though.
  - alricb 11y ago
    The thing with Iranians is that most of them are ethnically and linguistically Persian. They are mostly Muslim, but then they're Shia, not Sunni; it's the Sunni extremist that tend to go nuts for scarves and burqas.
- jajool 11y ago
  because of decades of conflicts between countries as president Obama stated. this vision cannot change over night.
- afarrell 11y ago
  Partly because we once overthrew their democratically-elected prime minister out of fear he would align with the USSR. In our defense, China had just become communist and Britain was convincing us this would happen because their PM was saying he would nationalize the Anglo-Iranian oil company (now known as BP). Have a CrashCourse video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4Ku6l7OEI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4Ku6l7OEI
  - evgen 11y ago
    It is also worth noting that Mohammad Pahlavi (aka 'the Shah' and the person we backed after the coup) was a really, really heinous individual who did some incredibly nasty shit over a couple of decades as he clung to power. Like many revolutionaries of that period, the people who overthrew him had a lot of very legitimate grievances.
    - jballanc 11y ago
      Furthermore, as most of the student leaders and politicians opposed to the Shah were leftists, the US continued to undermine efforts for them to organize (lest they side with the USSR). So that, when a popular uprising finally did occur, the clergy were the only group with sufficient organizational structure left that they could form a new administration...thus bringing us to today.
    - wtbob 11y ago
      My understanding is that it was exactly the opposite: the Shah was too meek to assert himself and reign in his courtiers, some of whom were up to some very evil stuff. And of course, it didn't help that people really were after him (remember, he was the rightful emperor whom Mossadegh served; it really doesn't deserve to be called a coup when the emperor fires his Prime Minister, as was his constitutional right), and so his government felt justified in searching for people…out to overthrow him.
  - user_0001 11y ago
    > out of fear he would align with the USSR. oh come on. That was not the fear (although perhaps "portrayed" as that, but it was never the fear by those who commanded the action. The fear was he wanted to use the profits of the resources of their country to benefit the people of the country. This would never do as the profits were being directed to Britain and the US. It is like China overthrowing the US government because they wanted the control of the oil and profits from the surge in the US oil industry due to fracking. Then framing the attack and overthrow of a sovereign, elected government as something to do with US being aligned with a fictitious enemy
- simonh 11y ago
  For similar reasons that the USA is the great pariah in Cuba. In both cases the USA was a primary supporter of a repressive totalitarian government kicked out by a popular revolution. It's just that in Cuba the revolution was communist while in Iran it had a strongly religious dimension. Other than the Iranian's support of the Palestinian cause, there's really no particular reason for them to be a great enemy of the west, except that we totally screwed them over repeatedly for a few generations.
  - user_0001 11y ago
    >For similar reasons that the USA is the great pariah in Cuba. That should probably read "the great pariah in Latin America". Is there a country in the whole region the US hasn't overthrown, tried to overthrow, propped up a right wing dictator, funded death squads in the last 70 years? I am failing to think of one....
    - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
      Costa Rica. I'm not sure there are any others, though. Maybe Belize, though I'm not sure that counts as "Latin America".
      - olifante 11y ago
        As someone who admittedly knows very little about Belize, why would it not count as part Latin America?
        AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Because it was a British colony, not a Spanish or Portuguese one. That changes the whole culture.
  - refurb 11y ago
    In both cases the USA was a primary supporter of a repressive totalitarian government kicked out by a popular revolution. You're missing the other side of the equation. The USSR used Cuba (and Cuba used the USSR) to repress the people of Cuba. Cuba was just a superpower pawn.
- rayiner 11y ago
  It's worth reading up on the structure of the government of Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran. The Iranian President or Ayatollah is often portrayed as a dictator, but the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that. Iran has a functional civil service, with the office of the President, a parliament, and independent judiciary. Presidential candidates are vetted by the theocracy, but are elected in pretty legitimate elections. Though the theocracy pulls a lot of strings, the civil government has significant autonomy in areas such as economic policy and the routine administration of justice. And theocracy itself at least as elements that could evolve into a more liberal system. The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, who are themselves elected by public vote. Most importantly, Iranians are used to and expect those hallmarks of modern civilization. That makes them very different from the people who live in the other Middle Eastern theocracies, who, prior to establishment of the monarchies, did not have nations with functioning national governments and civil services. Those attitudes towards government are what enable friendships between countries, moreso than relatively transitory conflicts. For example, the U.K., France, and Germany live relatively harmoniously within the structure of the EU, even though as recently as 70 years ago, they killed millions of each others' people. I don't want to whitewash Iran (it's still a place that executes homosexuals, after all). But I think it's important to look at the example of England, the originator of modern western democracy. It evolved very methodically from a divine-right monarchy into a liberal democracy. It did so because it had the political structures in place to enable that transition. Long before the monarch was relegated to ceremonial status, the civil government was actually running the show. Countries like Saudi Arabia do not have that. Their governments are intimately tied up in their monarchies. Iran, on the other hand, does have the structures in place to enable a successful transition into democracy.
  - rospaya 11y ago
    > Presidential candidates are vetted by the theocracy, but are elected in pretty legitimate elections. First of all, I wouldn't call any election in a country without free press and with severe censorship legitimate or fair. Secondly, around a hundred people got killed protesting contested election results in 2009. The democracy Index ranks Iran among the 10 least democratic countries on the planet.
- 0xFFC 11y ago
  Iranian here , and I am commenting from Iran.Iranian people maybe most pro usa people in middle east. and about government, they just need keep people busy because of they systematic corruption. Thats all. 10 years before , Ali Khamneai said following : "anyone who says we should communicate with USA is or idiot or our enemy/traitor". and guess what ? today , FM Zarif have record in our history for maximum time negotiation with a USA FM. Thats about it , they just want money , they don't care about Israel or otherwhere a little bit , they don't care about people either , they just care about themselves. Look at the whole picture . When there was serious threat about Iran regime existence , they negotiate , and they accept what they called 10 years ago a traitor would do. They just love money.And they only weapon they have for keeping people in iran busy and afraid of any kind of protest, is "imaginary" enemy.That's all. I cannot find the exact link . But I read a DoD Analysis about Iran , and the first paragraph they mentioned was this : "Iran regime only care about himself" (meaning of the first paragraph) . As Iranian I can assure you , They don't even care even about Israel/Palestine.They just need imaginary enemy keeping people in scared position. p.s. sorry for my broken English. p.s-2: Yes I know and accept this is so simplistic, we have all kind of majority in our society , but If you see the level of corruption in our economy , You will understand nothing can stand against money.Not even supreme leader.At the end at least in my view (I served in high-level military base in my mandatory military service_sadly was two year waste of my life), at the very end alls boils down to money and keeping regime safe. They interfere in Lebanon , Just because they want to propagate , NOT BECAUSE OF ISLAM OR ANYTHING ELSE , they just feel safer if they have more poppet.
  - danialtz 11y ago
    It is too simplistic to link all the changes to money or radicals. Every country has all the sides of a normal distribution. You have extremists, and you have general majority, and then many smaller interest groups, leftists etc. In USA even look what the difference between two elections was, clinton and bush and then Obama, and what the world experienced. What I believe happened is that the remains of the green movement did not die, but thanks to the awareness of folk in Iran, direction of politicians inside, and policy changes of USA and other EU outside (pull out rather than invade), the movement was left to go into direction of democracy rather than anarchy. Despite being hurt in the election I voted for Ruhani, envisioning a slow but necessary passage into democracy, while many people are used to the black and white terms of revolution. The people in power felt this, and saw the movements around them in arabic revolutions, and decided to go on with it rather than against it, with the support of majority. Today we are not done, but is the day we start seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, that there is hope. Edit:typo + clarification
- rusabd 11y ago
  I am puzzled why nobody mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état 60 years is not really that long
- marcosdumay 11y ago
  Because that's what their supporting base wants to hear. Must be said that such supporting base wasn't much big, and was losing people very fast until the second Bush said he'd invade the country. Then things changed overnight. Today Iran is getting progressive again.
- alexnewman 11y ago
  Or anyone in that region?
cpursley 11y ago
Yeah, I agree. Also, the US has much more in common with Russia than China. I don't understand painting either of these countries as "the enemy".
anigbrowl 11y ago
I've thought that for years, but I'm undergoing a rapid change of opinion in my geopolitical views. Strategically it makes much more sense for Iran to be aligned with Russia and China right now, which puts it into an oppositional relationship with the US. I still think this deal is a good thing though.
- wahsd 11y ago
  Oil strikes again. The CIA / MI6 butt-buddy backed, Oil industry demanded Iranian '53 coup has been resonating through American geo-political policy and ramifications for decades now and has weakened the USA in the long run by, like you mentioned, pushing Iran in the direction of Russia and China, but also the other members of the BRICS block that really are the future.
dba7dba 11y ago
It was. Before the revolution.
eruditely 11y ago
I think Iran hides from what they are, they are the Persians after all.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

bsaul 11y ago

Out or curiosity, why does the (religious) iranian regime keeps calling USA "the great devil" then ? Ps :reading some answers, i know about the history of conflicts between usa and iran. I was just pointing the fact that calling Iran a "natural ally" is a bit of a stretch.

geff82 11y ago
Because they are used to do so and because they are completely detached from the reality of their people. For the average Iranian, USA is the land to go. And you can't image how similar things look! Highways, signs, style of buildings all look like a slightly cheaper copy of the USA. Except for the roads, which are worse in the USA.
- secfirstmd 11y ago
  Had to laugh at the last sentence.
- dsfyu404ed 11y ago
  They even drive a few old American cars and their air force flies a handful of F-14s
throwaway556588 11y ago
I meet with a lot of people from that region. From my personal experience almost every Iranian in the US is very Westernized including women who dresses like any other American. But most other Arabs including Saudis I know are still very traditional. Most of Arab women in the US still wear scarves or even burkas. This is just what I have observed, I have no idea how they really think. Not sure if this translates to larger population or not though.
- alricb 11y ago
  The thing with Iranians is that most of them are ethnically and linguistically Persian. They are mostly Muslim, but then they're Shia, not Sunni; it's the Sunni extremist that tend to go nuts for scarves and burqas.
jajool 11y ago
because of decades of conflicts between countries as president Obama stated. this vision cannot change over night.
afarrell 11y ago
Partly because we once overthrew their democratically-elected prime minister out of fear he would align with the USSR. In our defense, China had just become communist and Britain was convincing us this would happen because their PM was saying he would nationalize the Anglo-Iranian oil company (now known as BP). Have a CrashCourse video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4Ku6l7OEI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4Ku6l7OEI
- evgen 11y ago
  It is also worth noting that Mohammad Pahlavi (aka 'the Shah' and the person we backed after the coup) was a really, really heinous individual who did some incredibly nasty shit over a couple of decades as he clung to power. Like many revolutionaries of that period, the people who overthrew him had a lot of very legitimate grievances.
  - jballanc 11y ago
    Furthermore, as most of the student leaders and politicians opposed to the Shah were leftists, the US continued to undermine efforts for them to organize (lest they side with the USSR). So that, when a popular uprising finally did occur, the clergy were the only group with sufficient organizational structure left that they could form a new administration...thus bringing us to today.
  - wtbob 11y ago
    My understanding is that it was exactly the opposite: the Shah was too meek to assert himself and reign in his courtiers, some of whom were up to some very evil stuff. And of course, it didn't help that people really were after him (remember, he was the rightful emperor whom Mossadegh served; it really doesn't deserve to be called a coup when the emperor fires his Prime Minister, as was his constitutional right), and so his government felt justified in searching for people…out to overthrow him.
- user_0001 11y ago
  > out of fear he would align with the USSR. oh come on. That was not the fear (although perhaps "portrayed" as that, but it was never the fear by those who commanded the action. The fear was he wanted to use the profits of the resources of their country to benefit the people of the country. This would never do as the profits were being directed to Britain and the US. It is like China overthrowing the US government because they wanted the control of the oil and profits from the surge in the US oil industry due to fracking. Then framing the attack and overthrow of a sovereign, elected government as something to do with US being aligned with a fictitious enemy
simonh 11y ago
For similar reasons that the USA is the great pariah in Cuba. In both cases the USA was a primary supporter of a repressive totalitarian government kicked out by a popular revolution. It's just that in Cuba the revolution was communist while in Iran it had a strongly religious dimension. Other than the Iranian's support of the Palestinian cause, there's really no particular reason for them to be a great enemy of the west, except that we totally screwed them over repeatedly for a few generations.
- user_0001 11y ago
  >For similar reasons that the USA is the great pariah in Cuba. That should probably read "the great pariah in Latin America". Is there a country in the whole region the US hasn't overthrown, tried to overthrow, propped up a right wing dictator, funded death squads in the last 70 years? I am failing to think of one....
  - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
    Costa Rica. I'm not sure there are any others, though. Maybe Belize, though I'm not sure that counts as "Latin America".
    - olifante 11y ago
      As someone who admittedly knows very little about Belize, why would it not count as part Latin America?
      - AnimalMuppet 11y ago
        Because it was a British colony, not a Spanish or Portuguese one. That changes the whole culture.
- refurb 11y ago
  In both cases the USA was a primary supporter of a repressive totalitarian government kicked out by a popular revolution. You're missing the other side of the equation. The USSR used Cuba (and Cuba used the USSR) to repress the people of Cuba. Cuba was just a superpower pawn.
rayiner 11y ago
It's worth reading up on the structure of the government of Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran. The Iranian President or Ayatollah is often portrayed as a dictator, but the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that. Iran has a functional civil service, with the office of the President, a parliament, and independent judiciary. Presidential candidates are vetted by the theocracy, but are elected in pretty legitimate elections. Though the theocracy pulls a lot of strings, the civil government has significant autonomy in areas such as economic policy and the routine administration of justice. And theocracy itself at least as elements that could evolve into a more liberal system. The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, who are themselves elected by public vote. Most importantly, Iranians are used to and expect those hallmarks of modern civilization. That makes them very different from the people who live in the other Middle Eastern theocracies, who, prior to establishment of the monarchies, did not have nations with functioning national governments and civil services. Those attitudes towards government are what enable friendships between countries, moreso than relatively transitory conflicts. For example, the U.K., France, and Germany live relatively harmoniously within the structure of the EU, even though as recently as 70 years ago, they killed millions of each others' people. I don't want to whitewash Iran (it's still a place that executes homosexuals, after all). But I think it's important to look at the example of England, the originator of modern western democracy. It evolved very methodically from a divine-right monarchy into a liberal democracy. It did so because it had the political structures in place to enable that transition. Long before the monarch was relegated to ceremonial status, the civil government was actually running the show. Countries like Saudi Arabia do not have that. Their governments are intimately tied up in their monarchies. Iran, on the other hand, does have the structures in place to enable a successful transition into democracy.
- rospaya 11y ago
  > Presidential candidates are vetted by the theocracy, but are elected in pretty legitimate elections. First of all, I wouldn't call any election in a country without free press and with severe censorship legitimate or fair. Secondly, around a hundred people got killed protesting contested election results in 2009. The democracy Index ranks Iran among the 10 least democratic countries on the planet.
0xFFC 11y ago
Iranian here , and I am commenting from Iran.Iranian people maybe most pro usa people in middle east. and about government, they just need keep people busy because of they systematic corruption. Thats all. 10 years before , Ali Khamneai said following : "anyone who says we should communicate with USA is or idiot or our enemy/traitor". and guess what ? today , FM Zarif have record in our history for maximum time negotiation with a USA FM. Thats about it , they just want money , they don't care about Israel or otherwhere a little bit , they don't care about people either , they just care about themselves. Look at the whole picture . When there was serious threat about Iran regime existence , they negotiate , and they accept what they called 10 years ago a traitor would do. They just love money.And they only weapon they have for keeping people in iran busy and afraid of any kind of protest, is "imaginary" enemy.That's all. I cannot find the exact link . But I read a DoD Analysis about Iran , and the first paragraph they mentioned was this : "Iran regime only care about himself" (meaning of the first paragraph) . As Iranian I can assure you , They don't even care even about Israel/Palestine.They just need imaginary enemy keeping people in scared position. p.s. sorry for my broken English. p.s-2: Yes I know and accept this is so simplistic, we have all kind of majority in our society , but If you see the level of corruption in our economy , You will understand nothing can stand against money.Not even supreme leader.At the end at least in my view (I served in high-level military base in my mandatory military service_sadly was two year waste of my life), at the very end alls boils down to money and keeping regime safe. They interfere in Lebanon , Just because they want to propagate , NOT BECAUSE OF ISLAM OR ANYTHING ELSE , they just feel safer if they have more poppet.
- danialtz 11y ago
  It is too simplistic to link all the changes to money or radicals. Every country has all the sides of a normal distribution. You have extremists, and you have general majority, and then many smaller interest groups, leftists etc. In USA even look what the difference between two elections was, clinton and bush and then Obama, and what the world experienced. What I believe happened is that the remains of the green movement did not die, but thanks to the awareness of folk in Iran, direction of politicians inside, and policy changes of USA and other EU outside (pull out rather than invade), the movement was left to go into direction of democracy rather than anarchy. Despite being hurt in the election I voted for Ruhani, envisioning a slow but necessary passage into democracy, while many people are used to the black and white terms of revolution. The people in power felt this, and saw the movements around them in arabic revolutions, and decided to go on with it rather than against it, with the support of majority. Today we are not done, but is the day we start seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, that there is hope. Edit:typo + clarification
rusabd 11y ago
I am puzzled why nobody mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état 60 years is not really that long
marcosdumay 11y ago
Because that's what their supporting base wants to hear. Must be said that such supporting base wasn't much big, and was losing people very fast until the second Bush said he'd invade the country. Then things changed overnight. Today Iran is getting progressive again.
alexnewman 11y ago
Or anyone in that region?

cpursley 11y ago

Yeah, I agree. Also, the US has much more in common with Russia than China. I don't understand painting either of these countries as "the enemy".

anigbrowl 11y ago

I've thought that for years, but I'm undergoing a rapid change of opinion in my geopolitical views. Strategically it makes much more sense for Iran to be aligned with Russia and China right now, which puts it into an oppositional relationship with the US. I still think this deal is a good thing though.

wahsd 11y ago
Oil strikes again. The CIA / MI6 butt-buddy backed, Oil industry demanded Iranian '53 coup has been resonating through American geo-political policy and ramifications for decades now and has weakened the USA in the long run by, like you mentioned, pushing Iran in the direction of Russia and China, but also the other members of the BRICS block that really are the future.

dba7dba 11y ago

It was. Before the revolution.

eruditely 11y ago

I think Iran hides from what they are, they are the Persians after all.