Iran Complies with Nuclear Deal; Sanctions Are Lifted | Hacker News Reader

Iran Complies with Nuclear Deal; Sanctions Are Lifted

nytimes.com

264 pointsjseliger235 comments

This is terrific news!

As with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy.

The implications of this are tremendous (not in order of importance):

1) Oil prices will continue to fall as Iran is able to supply the global markets. Many oil states rely on money from natural resources to preserve monarchies. Money for freedom only works so long as the money keeps flowing.

2) Our (US) reliance on Saudi Arabia will diminish as there are now two powers in the region to work with. Having strong relations with both Shiite and Sunni powers in the Middle East will likely reduce sectarian violence. We're light years from being out of the woods, but this is big step in the right direction.

3) The Iranian people will gain access to the world economy. From a human rights perspective, they are the biggest winners here. As with Sunni/Shiite relations, no doubt a long way to go (the Ayatollah is a tyrant,) but you gotta celebrate the wins when you can.

4) De-escalation of our conflict with Iran. We saw it with Iraq, Vietnam, and Korea. Invasion + nation building is sexy, but highly ineffective. Having one less nuclear power that calls for our destruction is certainly a nice to have.

5) Shows Americans that diplomacy can work. Iranians don't hate Americans, they hate what America represents. To them, we represent a superpower that gives little to no thought of anyone else's sovereignty. We assassinated their democratically elected leader and backed the Shah, which got us into this mess. Diplomacy is far less sexy and easily criticized, but that's a huge part of getting this deal done.

Note: Many of these are over-simplified. Nonetheless, this is a pretty big deal and a cause for celebration.

On a more speculative note, regarding Saudi Arabia, this could indirectly lead to the declassification of the full 9/11 report. We know that SA was heavily involved but absolutely could not risk our relationship with them by releasing the full findings.

Perhaps now that we have more options in the Middle East, we can recalibrate towards the truth.

(Left out of original comment because this is wild speculation.)

Exactly! The IranDeal was all about giving US more options in mideast. Saudis had ensure to maintain their monopoly as being the only US option and as a result they could get away with indirectly funding and supporting ISIS, etc. There is probably "more" stuff that will come out from US-Iran before Obama's end of term as this relationship will expand his legacy and it will provide the Iranian counterpart opportunity to show they are ready to be part of the world.

It is excellent because the US should really NOT fall into being only a Shia or Sunni ally. We do not want a stake in that conflict.

>Having strong relations with both Shiite and Sunni powers in the Middle East will likely reduce sectarian violence.

This is a ridiculously optimistic, naïve, and shallow reading of the situation.

To better understand the current state of sectarian conflict, I highly recommend reading Kenneth Pollack's recent Brookings essay. [0] To quote:

>Indeed, both the civil wars and the spillover they generate have also produced a general mobilization of the Middle East’s Shiites, instigated and led by Iran. And that includes the Shiites in the Saudi kingdom. Officials in private and press reports occasionally note that hundreds of Saudi security service personnel have been killed and wounded in operations in the Eastern Province, the home to the vast majority of the kingdom’s Shiites. Americans tend not to pay attention to these operations because we see them as proof that the Saudis have things well in hand; but another way to look at it is that the Saudis are fighting pitched battles with someone in the cities of the Eastern Province. In other words, there seems to be a much higher degree of mobilization and violent confrontation among the Saudi Shiites than most realize.

[0] http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/posts/2016/01/08-fear-...

It is optimistic, but not naive.

I'm not saying that our relations will in any way reduce the two sides' hatred for each other. The US now has a vested interest in reducing tensions between Sunnis and Shiites.

If we have a diplomatic partner on one side of the fight (e.g. only the Saudis), our response must be to either support their interests in the region or stay out of it. If we have interests on both sides, our options are to either push for peace or to play the sides against each other in hopes of chaos and a mutual weakness.

We may end up pushing for the latter, as was the case in the Iran-Iraq war, but with a shared enemy in the Islamic State and our long-overdue recognition that chaos hurts our own security and economic interests, it is in our own self-interest that we advocate for stability.

Let me be clear: both Iran and Saudi Arabia are ruled by theocratic despots. They will continue to revile each other and assert themselves in the region. But it is far easier to turn a blind eye on their bad behaviour when we have no other option (both in SA and Pakistan.)

The Kenneth Pollack article really makes Saudi Arabia look bad. The Saudi Arabian regime is actually more autocratic and less democratic than Iran.

Well, I agree that Saudi Arabia's regime is more autocratic and less democratic than Iran, given that SA is one of the world's last absolute monarchies. However, I think Pollack accurately depicts SA as largely reactionary to Iran's external meddling, which is highly disruptive to the region and the world. Pollack didn't really touch upon the issue of Iran as a revolutionary power, but I think it's worth noting. The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to act as a movement, rather than a status-quo power, as it continuously acts to export its revolution and remake itself as the dominant hegemon in the region and beyond.

You seem to have a belief that Iran is worse that SA for some somewhat undefined reason. I can not aruge with that.

To briefly summarize why I think the Iranian regime is worse than the Saudi regime - Iran is a more destabilizing force. It's the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism and it seeks to remake itself as the Middle East's superpower by whatever means necessary. It calls for, and takes actions towards the destruction of a UN member state. In short - SA is a despicable regime that mostly keeps it's human rights abuses confined to its borders, while Iran conducts its despotic behaviour both internally and externally.

PS: the fact that Iran knows how to play the Western media, speaking in terms that resonate with Western audiences, is very troubling.

seriously ? Are we talking about same SA that sponsors radical islamists and islamic schools all around the world and delivers weapons and money to radical islamists in Syria which fuels the civil war ? The same SA that hangs a shiite cleric as an atempt to sabotage the atom deal ? Sorry but SA is the worst regime in the world and if it would vanish tomorrow, the world would be probably a better place.

The Saudi regime and it's population are two different groups of people. Most of the sponsoring of violent Islamists abroad is done by the Wahhabi establishment, not the regime. Though, the regime does lay the groundwork for much of the Wahhabi proselytizing by its sponsoring of madrassas abroad.

So, the Saudi Regime does a lot of absolutely abhorrent shit, and so do it's people. But without the regime we'd probably be in a worse-off place.

>delivers weapons and money to radical islamists in Syria which fuels the civil war

The civil war is being fuelled by Iran's support for the Assad regime, both directly and by it's proxy, Hezbollah. The draw for radicals to fight in Syria is the Assad regime.

>SA that hangs a shiite cleric as an atempt to sabotage the atom deal

I definitely wouldn't say that the execution of Nimr was an attempt to sabotage the nuclear deal. There's really no evidence of that, and it's illogical because there's almost no way it could do that. Read the Pollack article above to understand the likely reason as to why SA killed him.

I can't believe I'm hear almost defending Saudi Arabia. I just think they're less despicable than Iran, but both are absolutely abhorrent. Both regimes push their own version of violent Islamism and are a pox on the world.

>So, the Saudi Regime does a lot of absolutely abhorrent shit, and so do it's people. But without the regime we'd probably be in a worse-off place.

I think the SA regime is the single biggest reason why the population is still stuck in the middle ages (but what do you expect of a regime that treats woman like second class citizen). The money from oil might hide this fact a bit but SA has virtually no cultural or civilizing accomplishments

>The civil war is being fuelled by Iran's support for the Assad regime, both directly and by it's proxy, Hezbollah.

Iran and Russia have supported Assad way before the civil war started. 6 years ago I was in Damascus and Deir ez-Zor and there was no signs of a civil war. Don't get me wrong, the Assad regime is restrictive and brutal but if those radical jihadists supported by SA, Katar and Turkey win, it will be much much worse. Just take the groups hat were invited to the "opposition talks" in Riad (Jaysh al-Islam, etc). If you watch the videos on liveleak you see all those groups running around with TOWs and modern weapons.

> definitely wouldn't say that the execution of Nimr was an attempt to sabotage the nuclear deal.

What else was it ? Killing a important shiite cleric is nothing but fueling the secterian conflict and the reaction was the descruction of the SA embassy in Teheran. Luckily the Iranian government (especially the moderate ones like Rohani,Zarif) decided not to escalate further. But this was a clear attempt to provocate a stupid reaction from the iranian side. Nimr was no threat to SA and if you really think that a cleric is thread to a regime like SA, then it's probably better if this regime vanishes rather earlier than later.

> I just think they're less despicable than Iran

If you really think that, then you don't know much about Iran or its history. Apart from the fact that Iran is one of the oldest cultures in the world, the population and especially woman are highly educated. In SA until recently woman couldn't even drive or vote or go out without a male accompanying them. 2009 millions of young iranians went to the streets to protest against voter fraud and before the revolution, Iran was a quite free and progressive. So even tough the regimes might be both religious fanatics, Iran is still light years ahead of SA in terms of civil society and culture.

>I think the SA regime is the single biggest reason why the population is still stuck in the middle ages (but what do you expect of a regime that treats woman like second class citizen).

I'm not sure if the regime is the reason for the repressive Islamist culture of Saudi Arabia. While they enforce the Wahhabi establishment's strict version of Sharia, the regime draws its legitimacy from the religious establishment. Essentially, my guess is that the SA regime is actually a pretty accurate reflection of the will of the Sunni majority, and might even be more moderate than the populace. If we're talking about treating women like second-class citizens, Iran is definitely in the same boat, even if they have moderately more rights than do women in SA.

>Iran and Russia have supported Assad way before the civil war started. 6 years ago I was in Damascus and Deir ez-Zor and there was no signs of a civil war. Don't get me wrong, the Assad regime is restrictive and brutal but if those radical jihadists supported by SA, Katar and Turkey win, it will be much much worse. Just take the groups hat were invited to the "opposition talks" in Riad (Jaysh al-Islam, etc).

The historical alignment of Russia and Iran with the Assad regime isn't the problem. What draws in the foreign fighters and what pushes relative moderates (essentially non- or semi-Islamists) in Syria to join the most extreme religious groups is the continuous barbarity of the Assad regime. Needless to say, without the support of Iran, and to a lesser degree, Russia, the Assad regime would have likely folded long ago, and the domination of the opposition groups by Sunni radicals would have been far less likely to have occurred. That's not to let Qater, Turkey, and SA off the hook. Those three countries (especially Qatar and Turkey) are definitely guilty of supporting Islamists, but the size of the opportunity for them to do so was largely contingent on the draw of the fight with Assad's regime.

>What else was it ? Killing a important shiite cleric is nothing but fueling the secterian conflict and the reaction was the descruction of the SA embassy in Teheran.

I think that Kenneth Pollack's article (cited above) is worth the read to fully understand why SA executed Nimr, but here is another excerpt to answer your question:

"So, the Saudis are scared of the rising tide of popular mobilization and Shiite mobilization; they are scared by their loss of control over the oil market and what that is forcing them to do domestically; they are scared by the spillover from the region’s civil wars and the costs that they are being forced to bear to try to prevent that spillover from affecting them; and they are scared that we are abandoning them for Iran. The Saudis’ world, in other words, is pretty scary. And their modus operandi today is the same as it always has been: to lash out to try to beat back the threats that they see and regain control of their circumstances. Hence their stunning intervention in Yemen, their constant escalation in Syria, and now this latest flare-up with Iran."

I'd actually argue that the destruction of the SA embassy was a tremendous provocation by Iran. The destruction of diplomatic embassies is a huge no-no, and just goes to show how callously the Iranian regime treats its commitments under international law and reasonable morality. The destruction was certainly sanctioned by high levels of the Iranian government, and the police did nothing to quell the violence until it was already too late.

>If you really think that, then you don't know much about Iran or its history. Apart from the fact that Iran is one of the oldest cultures in the world, the population and especially woman are highly educated. In SA until recently woman couldn't even drive or vote or go out without a male accompanying them. 2009 millions of young iranians went to the streets to protest against voter fraud and before the revolution, Iran was a quite free and progressive. So even tough the regimes might be both religious fanatics, Iran is still light years ahead of SA in terms of civil society and culture.

I don't think I ever made the argument that Saudi Arabia's populace was more modern or liberal than Iran's. It's the Iranian regime that I'm critiquing (though, admittedly, the Iranian regime does draw significant support from its populace). Assuredly, the Iranian people and their culture are more admirable that Saudi's, but they're not the policy-makers.

> I'm not sure if the regime is the reason for the repressive Islamist culture of Saudi Arabia.

Well if you treat half of the population like second class citizen, then you shouldn't be suprsided about the repressive culture. This is a vicious circle. How should the culture improve if the government provides such as role model ?

> If we're talking about treating women like second-class citizens, Iran is definitely in the same boat,

Sorry but that must be a huge boat, because women in Iran can vote, drive a car, travel alone, etc.

> The historical alignment of Russia and Iran with the Assad regime isn't the problem.

I won't argue that the Assad regime is terrible but fueling the oppositions with weapons and money was a huge mistake. But we tend to make mistakes over and over again (see Libya). Also where do you draw the line ? What about the civil war in the east of turkey ?

> So, the Saudis are scared of the rising tide of popular mobilization and Shiite mobilization

I want to add to this that SA is mostly afraid of the economic rise of Iran once the sanctions are lifted and rightly so. I really don't believe that the timing of the execution of Nimr was a coincidence. SA did everything they could to stop the atom deal, so I would't be suprised that they would also use those means to sabotage it.

It might be true that the destruction of the embassy was sanctioned by high levels or at least tolerated, but the iranian government and politics is not as homogeneous as one might think. You have moderate people like Rohani and Katami and then also extremist like Khamanei (although he recently also condemned the descruction of the embassy) and Ahmadinejad.

I would even claim Iran is probably the country in the middle east with one of the most repressive regimes but with the most tolerant populace

Historically the Shia's have been a minority and have often played by the rules of assymetric warfare. As I learned from a tv documentary, we get the word "assasin" from an early small Islaimi Shia group (the Nizaris) which fought against the larger Sunni group by killing its leaders.

The best solution for that whole region is more secular governments. That will not happen because the only one is Jewish. The only other thing is to be neutral in this whole sunni-shia divide. If they want to fight and kill over whether to follow the son-in-law or father-in-law of muhammad we cannot stop them but the US should not be a part of it. If that means giving some leeway to Iran I think we should do that instead of coming exclusively on the side of Sunni arabs.

I don't think your conclusions follow your facts.

More secular governments would be a good thing, but that's not really going to happen. See Shadi Hamid's writings on the matter. Essentially, the future of the Muslim Middle East is more illiberalism and more Islamism.

As you mentioned, currently the only democracy in the ME is Israel, though I have hope for a secular and democratic Kurdistan. I've heard whispers that the main reason the US isn't backing an independent Kurdistan separating from Iraq is the worry that the lack of the Kurds as a moderating force on Iraq will enable Iran to fully control the state (more so than it already does), essentially allowing it to become an Iranian client state.

Being neutral in the Sunni-Shi'a divide is functionally impossible for a number of reasons, but to easily understand why it's impossible, just try to imagine what neutrality in that context would actually look like. There's no answer that all sides would agree is neutral. The US has to be a part of it because the US has no choice - Americans benefit from the US dominated world order (as do most other people of the world). When you're a superpower with stakes in virtually every matter, even inaction is an action; even not choosing is a choice.

Enabling Iran hurts American interests. Iran is a destabilizing force, rather than a status quo power. Iran has had, and continues to have a choice: is it a movement, or is it a respectable state? It's leaders have consistently chosen to be a movement, exporting its revolution wherever it can, and upending the region and the world according to its vision. And let's not forget, a part of that vision is the annihilation of America's one reliable ally in the region, Israel, and the murder of all of its Jewish inhabitants.

We can only say that Iran acts rationally if we understand its motives. Its leaders view power and geopolitics as a zero-sum game, and it cannot win as long as the US, Israel, and the Sunnis are not dominated by its Shi'a axis.

I agree with what you say about Iran but I think the US should still engage in order to make inroads with moderates there. International pressure has worked in Iran and a large country like that does feel the pressure. 3 million protestors in 2009 is a big deal. They now have more more moderate presidents and foreign ministers. I think the US should support Israel and also be as neutral as possible in the Shia-Sunni conflict which is coming more to the forefront. The US will be active in that part of the world because of supporting Israel, but we have to be smarter. There have been too many mistakes. Recently I think meddling in the Syrian conflict was also a mistake which can rightly be seen as pro-Sunni.

When we say that we should engage with the moderates in Iran, it all sounds nice and dandy. But when we get to the nitty-gritty of the matter, it becomes more difficult to identify when we're engaging with moderates and when we're getting the fleece pulled over our eyes, since the moderates are systemically beholden to the Ayatollah and his 'guardians of the revolution'. I wish the Obama administration had done more to support the Green revolution protesters in 2009, but those days seem to be over, and ever since the regime has worked hard to disempower, co-opt, or placate the protestors and/or their supporters.

I don't actually think that the Rouhani administration is any more moderate than the hardliners - just more strategic. Their goals align with the conservatives goals, but they are more willing to take a conciliatory tone with the West, even if it is only tone and not strategic realignment. So, then if it's just a matter of how to achieve hegemony - whether by direct conflict (hardliners) or subversion and manipulation of the West (Rouhani), does it really benefit the West to empower the moderates? Obviously, I think not. Besides, the Rouhani government is also just acting as political cover for Iran's other operations, whereby Rouhani and Zarif play good cop, while the IRGC and alike play bad cop.

The Sunni status quo powers (which does not include Qatar) are in de facto alignment with Israel because the biggest threat to both is the Iranian destabilization (mostly via proxy forces). Iran understands that if its actions empower Sunni radicals to the detriment of relatively moderate Sunnis, Iran wins, because then it positions itself as a bulwark against radical Sunni Islamism - even if its actions help create the environment conducive to those forces gaining strength.

As for 'meddling' in the Syria conflict being pro-Sunni, I just disagree. The Assad regime is the biggest draw for Sunni violent extremism, and the longer Iran enables Assad's slaughter of his people, the biggest the problem is going to be for the West.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying and you know a lot about the situation. However if the Rouhani administration is strategic and its goals align with not having nuclear weapons then the international community should accept it strategically as well. Rouhani is indeed nothing more than a well dressed Islamic militant, but I don't think the other Sunni leaders are any better, even if they are also strategically allying with the US policies to further their objectives too.

As for Syria I completely disagree, this version that Assad is slaughtering his people as if he is another demon with nothing better to do is just more US propaganda. He was fighting rebels but was just not careful and there are many civilian casualties. We don't need another headless state for radicals to occupy. The US meddled in Iraq, Libya and now is strengthening ISIS even more by destroying the sovereign nation (Syria) that is fighting it. If the US has a problem with Syria, then Congress should debate and then declare war on it. Talk of no-fly zones is ridiculous. We only don't like Syria because they are close to Iran. Saudi has reportedly pumped $700 million into rebel groups. Supporting these Sunni extremists and then claiming to also fight ISIS is foolish. Saudi and their coalition are attempting to establish their Sunni Islam across the middle east. And that is not better than Iran. At least in Congress Tulsi Gabbard is the one congressperson saying we need to let Assad stay and focus efforts on ISIS.

> ridiculously

As an aside, when I see hyperbole like that in a comment, I stop reading. I assume the reader is just ranting (and I really don't need to read yet another rant on the Internet) and even the valuable content is going to have subtle facts, analysis and judgement sacrificed for dramatic overstatement.

(Sorry to pick on this comment, I know it's a widespread phenomenon.)

I understand where you're coming from. I don't usually use hyperbole, but sometimes we type as we talk, and I'm no exception.

> opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy.

Not saying that might not be true now a days, taking the optimistic view. But keep in mind that Iran took the first step towards democracy (from a quasi-sultanistic plain autocracy to a theocratic republic hybrid) when it closed itself to the world economy and ousted the Shah.

I know you mention that part of history in your fifth point, but this is probably something that is important to acknowledge when talking about Iran relations. Traditionally speaking, the Iranian people have many more reasons to associate the United States with even worse dictatorships, rather than with democracy.

I wonder if it also means US citizens will again be permitted to enter Iran as tourists.

They currently can't, and it's presenting a problem for people driving/riding round the world.

US citizens can currently visit Iran but must be accompanied by a tour guide.

Neither the state department nor the Iranian government would like one to do so, but Americans can still visit the country.

Iran is not shy about its imperial ambitions and the barbaric tactics it pursues them with. Why are we putting our heads in the sand? Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, these are just some of the groups that Iran has funded, armed, and sponsored at various points in time, including the present day. The same Iran, led by the same people, that we so eagerly made this deal with.

What's happening is nothing but appeasement.

Don't take my word for it, this wiki article is a good starting point for more information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...

As opposed to our dear friends, the Saudis?

The Saudis are no angels. They proselytize their form of radical Islam around the world. Internally, they are a repressive oligarchy ruled by the royal family and the radical clerics. Private donors from Saudi Arabia contribute a huge amount to terrorism. These are huge problems and the Saudis shouldn't get a pass on it, but it's not comparable to the Iranian government sponsoring civil wars across the Middle East to build itself an empire.

> but it's not comparable to the Iranian government sponsoring civil wars across the Middle East to build itself an empire.

I believe there's no worse party in the entire ME region than Turkey.

They might be a NATO ally, but for years they have e.g. allowed free influx of foreign fighters and arms into the region and export of oil back into Turkey, thus directly fueling the rise of IS. (Granted, Saudi Arabia with sponsoring Wahhabite islam propaganda all over Europe also had its part)

Also, Erdogan is rapidly transforming Turkey to an Islamist dictatorship... and he's using the Syrian refugees as a weapon against Europe. Europe pays 3B € and Europe looks away from him turning into a dictator and massacring Kurds as long as he keeps the refugees in Turkey.

If Erdogan were to truly unleash the millions of refugees, Europe would be screwed. Europe couldn't manage the 2m refugees last year without nearly falling apart, another 2m (or more!) would break up the EU.

That would be fun to watch. What goes around comes around, EU.

What's happening in Turkey really breaks my heart. It reminds me of Fareed Zakaria's book The Future of Freedom, about the phenomenon of illiberal and failed democracies. His thesis is that democratization can't succeed without liberalization first, brought about by economic and social development. And that democracy, anyhow, is a lesser good than constitutional liberalism. That the ballot box is less important than the impartial judge and guarantee of liberties. This is difficult for us who believe in both freedom and democracy to swallow. Where would Turkey be today without Ataturk? And what if his dictatorship survived to the current day, would that be better than the populist, democratically-elected, Erdogan?

Many around the world would consider the USA worse in this regard than iran

>Many around the world would consider the USA worse in this regard than iran

Many people think many things, many of them are wrong. What do you think?

I think that those many are mostly correct. The US has funded those it knows will sign contracts with US companies to purchase arms (mostly, construction and oil deals also). They may even prove to be correct in the Iran situation too. Time will tell.

I think being able to trade and move is good and builds cultural bridges which assists demilitarisation

> Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, Iraqi insurgents, the Taliban, these are just some of the groups that Iran has funded

The US has funded most of those very same groups, only at different points in time.

This is absolutely false. The US has never supported Hezbollah, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and especially not the insurgency that was attacking us in Iraq. Yes, the US helped the Mujahideen fight off a Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, and unfortunately some of them went on to be part of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. That's not at all comparable.

The Taliban was formed because the "mujahideen" we funded to bleed the Soviets replaced Soviet-sponsored dictatorships with an almost lawless feudalism controlled by brutal warlords who we did, indeed, fund. The Taliban was an order-restoring reaction to an untenable situation we helped create.

The US didn't "fund" the Taliban, but we have more than a little bit of culpability for it, as do several other countries.

Unfortunately for the implicit message board psyche, there are no simple good-guy bad-guy narratives in the Middle East/West Asia. "It's all just a bunch of guys."

I'd say it's all a bunch of bad guys, down to everyone who has any sort of political power. The further the guy try to interfere in matters away from their home, the badder the guy. That would make the US officials involved in training terrorists in Syria and invading Iraq just about the worse, and the village farmers in India who interferes with nothing except his plot, not even his family, the least bad.

Ehem ? http://i.imgur.com/qdCuOIk.jpg

[citation needed]

I doubt you can even name one of those groups that the US has ever funded let alone "most of them"

at best you can dishonestly bring up the afgahn mujahadeen to tenuously get to 2/5 of those groups

Really incredible to me that my comment and the one below are downvoted more than the one parent which is a blatant lie

Do you realize the US supported a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran?

Do you realize the US funded Sadam Hussein in a war against Iran?

Do you realize the US invaded Iraq?

Do you realize the US has supported terrorist Muslim organizations when they benefited from that? The most recent example the "moderate fighters" against al-Assad whose American weapons ended in hands of the most fanatical ISIS groups.

Imperial ambitions? Let me ask you something: What the Hell is doing the US of America tens of thousands of miles afar from his country? For me Imperial ambitions applies to other countries much better than Iran.

>Do you realize the US supported a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran?

No, when was that government "democratically elected"?

EDIT: Removed bickering that was distracting from my real question

Mossadeagh, before the Shah. His ousting was the cause of resentment that fuelled the rise of Iran's political system today. You can google when that happened and read the history from then to now and see its all connected.

Mossadeagh was about to be booted by his own people. There were mass protests as he had become very unpopular. Claims the US had a hand in his downfall is being very generous.

It's possible that he was very unpopular. I'm pretty sure it's confirmed from CIA papers since released that the mobs of protesters were organized, paid for and in some cases paid by the CIA, so there's at least an argument that his unpopularity was purchased.

The protests against Mossadegh included tens of thousands of Iranians. Is it possible to create that kind of unpopularity out of thin air using money?[1]

"A startled CIA reported to the White House that "an unexpectedly strong surge of popular and military reaction to Prime Minister Mossadeq's government has resulted, according to the latest dispatches from Tehran, in the virtual occupation of the city by forces professing their loyalty to the Shah and to his appointed Prime Minister Zahedi."

I'm not saying US didn't get it's hands dirty, but to assume that Iran would be a peaceful, democratic country otherwise is being naive.

[1]http://www.cfr.org/iran/myth-american-coup/p30900

I don't think they paid all of them, no, but I think it's entirely possible to fund a group of organizers who could motivate a significant-sized protest.

I make no assumptions about how peaceful and democratic any country in the Middle East would be, with or without US involvement.

So instead of electing someone else, they would install a shah?

The Shah already existed. He just used his power to dismiss Mossadegh (which was constitutional).

Reply to meric, since it won't let me.

>Mossadeagh, before the Shah.

When was he elected. Or if it's like the british system, then when was the parliament that appointed him, elected?

My understanding is that the Shah nominated him and he was approved by the elected Majlis. By the time of the coup, though, Mosaddegh had dissolved parliament and was able to unilaterally declare laws by fiat.

He became Prime Minister in 1951 after his party, the National Front, won a majority in the Iranian Parliament (the Majlis).

As best I can make make out he was appointed in 1951[1], as per the British system, by the parliament elected in 1950[2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh#Appointment... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_legislative_election,_...

>Do you realize the US supported a coup against a democratically elected government in Iran?

You have to understand the context in which that happened. It had only been a few years since the Soviets tested their first nuke. Stalin had just died that same year. The Soviet-allied Tudeh Communist Party in Iran was infiltrating the military and political establishment. There was no way that the West was going to let the Soviets gain another foothold. The Soviets were masters of infiltration and political intrigue. You should read up on how they turned Eastern Europe into satellite states. I'm not informed enough to pass judgment of the Iranian coup, but suffice to say, it's not a clear-cut issue.

I think you raise excellent points. However, I could see Iranians being very angry that people in the U.S. government decided for the Iranian people that it was best that the Iranians should live under a brutal dictatorship. I can only imagine if the situation were reversed ...

> The Soviets were masters of infiltration and political intrigue. You should read up on how they turned Eastern Europe into satellite states.

I don't know about that particular example: I believe the E. European client states were occupied by the Red Army after WWII, dominated by secret police services, and later when they rebelled in Hungary and Czechoslovakia the tanks were sent back in. Not much intrigue needed.

But they did manage to acquire allies in many parts of the world, so generally I'd agree they seemed good at it.

It's a controlled democracy, it's not brutal and it's not a dictatorship[1]. What gives U.S. the right besides it's carrier groups to say what kind of government the Iranian people should live under? The head of state the Iranian people last officially recorded as having overwhelmingly supported in 1979 is more legitimate than any kind of leader or government U.S. might say they would like to foist onto the Iranian people. The U.S. has indirectly caused multiple times more deaths and suffering in Iran that it's current government ever did.

Who is brutal, and who is trying to dictate?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_Iran

I think you misunderstood my comment.

You're right, yes I did. Thanks.

The military occupation was a big part of it, but the communists were able to seize control of the political process in Eastern European capitals without resorting to overt military coercion. They made it look like the Eastern European states were free to choose their own paths. By the time people realized what was happening, it was too late.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc#Concealed_transfo...

Roosevelt was fooled too. This is what he wrote to one of his diplomats in 1943, before the war was over: "I think that if I give [Stalin] everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."

> Roosevelt was fooled too. This is what he wrote to one of his diplomats in 1943, before the war was over: "I think that if I give [Stalin] everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, noblesse oblige, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace."

That quote is unbelievable for someone so experienced in war and politics (but I see it has a good-looking cite in Wikipedia) Thanks. Wow.

Here's a great interview with Stephen Kotkin, Princeton professor, about Stalin: http://www.hoover.org/research/hoover-fellow-stephen-kotkin-... . He was apparently a very charismatic and likable guy. The interview convinced me to buy the book.

Thanks! I've seen several times people be surprised that some horrible leader was charismatic.

I've heard it said by people who meet politicians they despise: 'They were actually very nice!'. Politicians need to win people over in seconds, which is all the time they will have with most of them. If they rise to high levels, they probably are very good at it.

Stalin was (I assume) a leader of the Bolsheviks from when they were a nothing grassroots organization through taking over a large country through a successful revolution and coup, and then later defeating the Nazi army and controlling one of the largest empires in the history of the world. I don't think you can pull that off without exceptional interpersonal skills.

It also reinforces that there is little relationship between being someone you like and being a good leader. The very worst were highly charismatic - how else could they get millions of people to do such horrible, irrational things?

http://www.npr.org/2012/11/08/164632546/crushing-eastern-eur...

A terrorist nation from the very beginning.

I'm kind of surprised you're getting downvoted so bad. Your tone may have been over the top, but I don't see anything factually wrong.

It's common knowledge that Iran supports groups that have committed terrorist acts.

Sometimes the truth can be very hard for people to accept. Western academia, media, and press all turned a blind eye to Soviet repression, gulags, and purges up until the late 40s and early 50s. George Orwell, a leftist, had a very hard time getting Homage to Catalonia published because it portrayed the Soviet-backed Republican forces in Spain in a very unfavorable light. The Western intellectual elite was infatuated with Communism and didn't want to deal with facts that contradicted their neat world view.

There's a really powerful line in 1984 that has stuck with me: "He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past."

> As with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy.

Saying this kind of thing in 2016 is not merely naive, but sits firmly in the territory of culpable ignorance. That was Clinton's official line when he brought China into the WTO, and the following decade and a half have proven that it is perfectly possible to have a fully globally integrated market economy without making any concessions to democracy.

Apart from that, what the fall of the Berlin Wall shows is that annexing a smaller country is the first step towards extending your system of government to it, be it democracy or otherwise.

Well, in the Iranian situation there is already more democratic than China. I hope that because the Iranian liberals were the ones that negotiated this deal, although with permission of the Supreme Leader, it will bolster the liberal's standing in the country even further and increase their credibility and their openness to the rest of the world.

I am not sure that this is true. This guy was in jail for six years just because of blogging http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/dec/29/irans-blog... (this was also featured on the HN front page, happy down voting). Also Iran is not that far from Saudi Arabia - with a very strict and literal interpretation of Islam serving as the ruling ideology.

The Iranian people in general though are not like the Saudi people. Persia may have become Islamic but there is a stronger current of secularism there. Also the Shiite version of Islam in general is not so strict like the Sunni. Iran was very liberal before the Islamic regime took power by force. I think we will see it open up a lot more and you will see a lot more reform than Saudi Arabia in the coming years.

Here they say that the judicial system of Iran is based on sharia. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_system_of_Iran . So it doesn't quite matter if you get flogged or stoned because of Shia or Sunni interpretation of Sharia.

Yes they are hypocritical to criticize Saudi and its sharia. But generally you will find the persians are not as strict as arabs. Now they have an over the top Islamic regime, but historically this is abnormal. You are aware Iran was much more liberal before this Islamic regime. They had 3 million demonstrators in 2009 to protest the presidential sham elections as well. This regime does not have huge populist support and it knows it so it went with this new liberal president after Ahmedijinad. I think the US can do better with the regime without an adversarial relationship. They can be better allies than Pakistan and the US should NOT land on any one side of the sunni/shia divide so making Saudi Arabia and its ideology exclusive allies is a BAD idea.

You are correct that Persia has a very rich history. However I think that it is difficult to predict as to how this country/culture will evolve in the future.

Also the protests of 2009 were held in the cities, I am not sure that they had universal support. (Can anybody explain why Obama was neutral during the Iranian protests but supported the Arab spring protesters ?)

Persians will not follow a super strict Islam like Saudi and other Sunni countries do. It will just not happen. You are aware they were quite liberal in the 1950's before the recent fundamentalists. Even now in Iran they recognize 4 religions, Muslims (sunni and shia), Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians. Compare that to Saudi in which there is one religion, sunni islam.

And yes the educated cities is where the main opposition to the islamic regime is. There is support for the regime amongst the more religious fundamentalists. The islamic regime is considered by many as uneducated religious fundamentalists who have gained power by force.

There is some difference from Arab countries where Islam is synonymous with government.

I have met only a few Iranians in the US. Naturally they will not support the islamic regime, but you do get a sense of the culture and how Islam is an add on. They consider themselves much more european.

Regardless of all this, the US should not become only Sunni nation's allies. Read the wikipedia on Religion in Saudi Arabia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Saudi_Arabia. It is chilling.

We do not want to get involved in their thousand year clash on whom to follow, the father-in-law or the son-in-law. It would be excellent if the US can give more importance to Iran to counter Saudi influence in the region. Obama has done wonders.

Republicans are really stupid if they continue to villify Iran and let support for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan go unquestioned. Iran was ready to support US efforts in Afghanistan. I think the Bush families oil connections with the Saudis got in the way.

> fully globally integrated market economy

You should hear the hoops rich Chinese have to jump through to expatriate their capital. Fully globally integrated market economy my ass.

And despite all those hoops, they still manage to move quite a lot of their money overseas. I'm glad they're not able to move more money faster because I don't think my local real estate market can handle any more incoming foreign capital.

China is changing, slowly but surely. The amount of instability in the regime is growing, newer generations are slowly opting out of mainstream values, protests about inequality are growing... These things take time. Look at Putin: the more you demonize and isolate him, the stronger he gets with internal public opinion. Same with China -- which is why the leadership is bent on provoking in the South China Sea: they need newer enemies to distract public opinion.

What's the deal with this whole push for democracy? (nevermind, checked your company, I see your angle now). As if it's the holy grail of form of governments? Yeah, democracy really turned India around..

Food for thought: Would you rather be an Indian living in India, or a Chinese living in China?

There are a lot more differences between India and China than just democracy.

There is a very strong, unmistakeable relationship between democracy and quality of life, by almost any measure. All of the most free, most prosperous, safest, healthiest, best educated, etc. nations in the world are democracies.

More importantly there is a moral requirement for democracy in some form: People have a right to self-determination.

India seems to be doing relatively well, though it's hard to find anything to compare it to (Pakistan?). Democracy isn't sufficient by itself; democracies can be corrupt, poor, etc. Someone said long ago: democracies are the worst form of government - except for all the alternatives.

You're right democracies by themselves means nothing. I don't agree with a foreign country toppling an existing country's stable government for the purpose of extending "democracy" when in reality the reason is because democracies of small countries are easy to manipulated by foreign governments and corporations. Look at Ukraine, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, besides the last one I think the first three were more properous before foreign intervention, than after. Even Taiwan's democracy has only become more and more of a joke since KMT giving up emergency powers. Singapore on the other hand, is faring a lot better than all the countries I've mentioned in this comment.

> I don't agree with a foreign country toppling an existing country's stable government for the purpose of extending "democracy"

I don't know how often it happens to stable governments, but generally I agree that destroying the country (through war) and imposing democracy - the essence of which is self-determination - is short-sighted and generally disasterous.

> democracies of small countries are easy to manipulated by foreign governments and corporations

Other forms of government are more easily controlled, speaking generally. In fact during the Cold War the U.S. replaced many democracies (Chile, Zaire/Congo, Iran, and others) with dictatorships because they were more easily controlled. In those three cases, leaders the U.S. disliked were elected, prompting the coups.

> Ukraine

I'm a little puzzled by this one. Clearly Ukraine's problems are due to Russia invading, conquering a major part of their country, and creating unending war in another part.

> Taiwan's democracy has only become more and more of a joke since KMT giving up emergency powers.

I don't understand what this refers to. Taiwan's democracy is thriving; they are very prosperous. They just had another successful election and power changed hands again. Their main problem is the communist government in mainland China which puts a threatening shadow over everything and denies the Taiwanese normal relations with most of the world.

I'm not going to comment on the other points because either we agree or I can see how different perspective can see things in those ways, but with Ukraine, U.S. had spent 5 Billion dollars on civil activism, sponsored by various American oil companies, prior to the "coup" which ousted the elected, legitimate Russian-friendly Ukraine government. Without such surreptitious interference from the U.S., Ukraine would be in a more prosperous and stable situation today. Russia would not be able to say "You ousted a legitimate government that was protective towards the interests of Russians in Ukraine, that is why we're taking over Crimea because that is what the people want.".

Here is the video direct from Victoria Nuland's mouth, speaking at a Chevron and ExxonMobil sponsored conference[1]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2y0y-JUsPTU#t=448

Ukraine, along with Libya and Iraq are prime examples to demonstrate when the Americans tell you your country should be liberated so it becomes democratic, you should probably plan to move out.

"Russian-friendly Ukraine government"

Calling Yanukovich Russian-friendly is extremely naive.

Russian officials saw him is Russian-friendly. He thought he is Russian-friendly. He wasn't Russian-friendly if you consider what he did and what friends do.

Wasn't Yanukovych voted out? I don't think US was involved militarily or otherwise. EU powers could have been supporting pro-EU protests, however.

Libya certainly had serious civil unrest before receiving US support. But it certainly has been going in the wrong direction since the fall of the Gaddafi government.

The Ukrainian constitution requires a three-fourth majority vote to remove the president from office. The actual 2014 parliamentary vote only had 73% for his removal[0].

If you polled people in the west, at least 80% of them wouldn't be able to tell you that Yanukovych was removed illegally.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Yanukovych#constitution...

The 5 Billion were foreign aid from 1992 onward. It includes money to the peace corps, HIV prevention, help with chernobyl and tuberculosis... during many different goverments.

I doubt the US goverment is capable enough to finance and plan a coup of an not yet known goverment 20+ years in the future.

The U.S. propaganda machinery is very strong. Even as Joe Biden's son is now involved in Ukraine's gas companies[1] right after the coup, and along the 5 billion Victoria Nuland said U.S. spent on "democratic institutions", in front of Chevron and ExxonMobil flags, with half of Ukraine in tatters and gas rationings during bitter cold winters, people in the U.S. still think their government is a force for good in the country.

Why help Ukraine with billions and not other countries that do not have gas/oil?

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27403003

Aid and help are given to other countries that aren't oil-rich, though?

What propaganda are you speaking of? Would you forbid private companies to hire whoever they like? Do you have a list of blacklisted persons like Joe Bidens son so that companies could easily check? Again the 5 billion was spent over a period of more than 20 years how is this relevant here? For a list of the many, many countries, most of them without oil, that US aid spends more money on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_aid#Reci...

Between 2009 and 2013, including when Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state, the Clinton Foundation received at least $8.6 million from the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, according to that foundation, which is based in Kiev, Ukraine. It was created by Mr. Pinchuk, whose fortune stems from a pipe-making company. He served two terms as an elected member of the Ukrainian Parliament and is a proponent of closer ties between Ukraine and the European Union.[1]

Between donations from Ukraine oligarchs to Clinton foundation, Joe Biden's son involved in Ukraine gas corporations, the hundreds of millions spend by U.S. every year in Ukraine to "build democratic institutions", stories from recruited shooters planted in Euromaidan[2], here you are, saying U.S. officials are the good guys for the Ukrainian people. If that's not effective propaganda, I don't know what is.

And if you think the above situation is fine and dandy, I think there's nothing else we can say to increase our agreement. I'm not the kind of person who would interfere with my neighbours family, because their children didn't get lunch money for school, so that I can buy their house at a foreclosure auction later in the year when they divorce, but if you're fine with the U.S. government doing that kind of behaviour, then I should not interfere with that, either.

[1]http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-charity-tapped-foreign-f...

[2]http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31359021

This is silly. The U.S. military did not invade Ukraine, the Russians did. The Russia government made that choice; it cannot blame it on someone else.

> Russia would not be able to say ...

On a much more minor point, the Russian government will find a way to justify whatever it wants to do. They are not waiting for the U.S. to somehow give them the right to do it; they don't care about or need any truth or facts. For example, like the good propagandists they are, they fabricated that entire fictional structure on a tiny kernel of truth and now even people on HN are repeating it. That is information power.

There is a very strong, unmistakeable relationship between democracy and quality of life, by almost any measure

What relationship is that exactly? I haven't run a regression or anything, but eyeballing lists seem to show a link between a high GDP/capita and quality of life.

Singapore and Hong Kong are both pretty rich, have high quality of life but aren't very democratic. They generally rate higher for quality of life than more democratic but poorer countries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_D...

US, Britain, Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Canada, Australia, Belgium, Italy, Japan, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, Netherlands, Iceland, South Korea, New Zealand, Spain, Israel

In no particular order, that's the vast majority of the richest, most well off, and highest GDP per capita countries on earth. Your list so far has Singapore and Hong Kong, now try to match my group - you can't get even remotely close.

What could you add to your list? Qatar?

It's not my list.

I don't understand what you are trying to say. The countries you have listed include countries like Italy and Spain that rank well below the non-democratic countries I listed (Singapore and Hong Kong). Indeed, they score (0.876, 0.873) closer to Saudi Arabia (0.837) and UAE (0.835) than to countries at the top of the list (Norway: 0.944).

The point is that I can find features that correspond to those lists better than "are democratic".

For example, there's very good correlation between the Corruption Perceptions Index[1] and the list from the Human Development Index[2].

I think Democracy is great. But I also think facts are great, and the fact is that there do appear to be other ways to good outcomes.

[1] http://www.transparency.org/cpi2014/results

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_D...

I think it's important to ask the question, but I don't see those answers as convincing. For one thing, a correlation doesn't have to be perfect in order to be meaningful, and the correlation between democracy and the welfare (politically, socially, physically, ecoomically) of citizens seems very strong.

> Singapore and Hong Kong

Singapore and Hong Kong are cities, and in many ways not comparable to nations. Also, both are more democratic than most comparable places in East Asia.

> there's very good correlation between the Corruption Perceptions Index[1] and the list from the Human Development Index[2]

I believe democracy is widely considered to be important to controlling corruption, but I don't know if that's backed by research or is just a widely held assumption.

Also, much of what you write seems focused on economics. For example, I don't think anyone sees the Saudi people's political rights, religious freedom, or the well-being of women there as very good.

the correlation between democracy and the welfare (politically, socially, physically, ecoomically) of citizens seems very strong.

Could you show me what metric you are using to show that?

Singapore and Hong Kong are cities, and in many ways not comparable to nations.

So is your argument that "Democracy is correlated with quality of life if a country's landmass is greater than a particular area"?

Also, both are more democratic than most comparable places in East Asia.

Can you name what other comparable East Asian countries you are comparing them too? I'd say Japan and South Korea have roughly similar GDP/Capita, but both are more democratic than Singapore and Hong Kong and have lower quality of life.

Also, much of what you write seems focused on economics. For example, I don't think anyone sees the Saudi people's political rights, religious freedom, or the well-being of women there as very good.

Sure. But then on the other side you have Israel, which may not be as extreme as Saudi Arabia but certainly has issues with political rights and religious freedom. Other democracies like Malaysia and Indonesia also don't have the same freedoms around religious and political expression as are the norm in the US and Europe, rate comparatively low on the quality of life scale and yet are undeniably democratic (at least in the case of Indonesia - Malaysia does have some issues on that, and yet as a higher quality of life).

Or compare say China and India: on women's rights China is way ahead, and their whole population's quality of life has risen higher and quicker than India's, from a similar base.

Comparing 2 wildly different countries with wildly different cultures and histories and attributing the reason one's better than the other to a singular property is absolutely meaningless.

And the answer to your question isn't very obvious. There are many reasons to pick either answer. I'd guess for an individual the answer would depend almost entirely on their personal value system (e.g., someone very religious, or someone who values having 2 or more kids very heavily would almost immediately exclude China from the equation. On the other hand, there are few values which would lead to someone immediately eliminating India as an option).

China today, but I'd bet India in 25-50 years.

Democracy might not be efficient but it is the best safeguard we have against severe abuses. Look at China they might have benefited from their autocracy in recent years, but they paid dearly for it during the cultural revolution. India has been spared horrors like that exactly because they have been a democracy.

Other than that I think the countries are too different to make any hard conclusions. China has very strong traditions for effective administration going thousands of years back. This has likely been of more profound importance than dictatorship. Japan after the war managed to grow very rapidly under democracy. So did Germany.

While economic development in India has always been difficult. Even during the British dictatorship in India they had problems getting any kind of modern business going.

I think India suffers from not really being a single country and from being dam hot. It is harder to get stuff done under such heat. Productivity will pick up there when aircondition becomes far more common.

Really I think India should be multiple countries. When you put together lots of countries which are too different, you will get too many conflicts which will make progress grind to a halt.

...you completely misunderstand the reasons for those countries to grow their economies so fast.

What is in common between S.Korea, China, post-war Japan and Germany? Democracy?

India was about as poor as countries like South Korea immediately post world war 2. The most massive difference was their embrace of a Soviet style planned economy, which means that they grew at about 1-2% annually for the next 40 years and South Korea grew at a much, much higher rate. It's not a coincidence that economic liberalization in India in the early 90s (as with china, 15 years earlier) coincided with a boom in growth rate.

I fully agree with your point that India ideally should be many, many countries: democracy suffers greatly when a massive, linguistically, religiously, and culturally diverse subcontinent is forced into a single government. Just look at Europe and their cautious, precarious tiptoeing towards political unity, despite having the relative advantage of being infinitely less diverse, way less religious, and way more developed than the Indian subcontinent.

One significant point I feel you missed is that it proved that the sanctions worked, albeit taking a very long time. Iran's economy has suffered badly (eg a cheap car there such as a Hyundai is 4 times the price it is elsewhere). And that has been a clear reason for them to accept the terms of this deal.

Next stop Cuba?

Based on reading a lot of foreign policy literature, experts see sanctions as a specific tool for specific situations, but very over-used. The following is what a well-read amateur has absorbed (in the absence of anyone with actual expertise - that would be very welcome!):

Governments and publics tend to see sanctions as a solution to every problem, especially where they don't want to have to actually pay or sacrifice anything. They think it's a freebie, a way to get something done witout putting any skin in the game: 'We don't want to risk any lives or have to give anything up to get what we want - let's use sanctions!' Note that you won't see sanctions where it will have a serious economic impact on the sanctioning country; for example, the U.S. isn't going to enact significant trade sanctions on China.

Also, sanctions tend to have the harshest effects on the most vulnerable. In the kinds of countries that are sanctioned, the poor starve and their unelected oppressors continue to live affluent lives.

That's why in the the last decade or two, the U.S. and others have used the tactic of targeted sanctions, aimed specifically at the people in power. Sanctions freeze their personal assets in overseas banks (where they often stash their money), deny access to western markets and financial services for the businesses run by them and their leading supporters, etc. Apparently, denying the leaders travel visas to the west has a real impact (perhaps they lose status when then can't take their families on vacation to Paris and New York?).

It seems to have accomplished something in Iran (but at what cost to the poor and oppressed there?). It hasn't worked yet in North Korea, and their population already is starving. Cuban sanctions are, I think, the old-fashioned non-targeted sanctions and have been ineffective or at least clearly insufficient. Also, as I said, it's not the right tool for every job.

I agree completely. It has made the people suffer, not those higher up. However I think Iran could see another uprising on the horizon, which I guess is the point of making the people suffer. Sad it had to be that way.

> I agree completely. It has made the people suffer, not those higher up.

My point was the opposite: Sanctions in Iran worked because they were targeted at the higher ups and made them suffer. (Edit: I'm not trying to go back and forth with you, just clarifying what I meant because it seemed misunderstood.)

> I think Iran could see another uprising on the horizon, which I guess is the point of making the people suffer.

I believe that research shows that this never works. I don't want to say never, but I can't think of a situation when it has worked.

South African apartheid? Sanctions were not the only factor, but I believe they are at least partly credited.

I've heard little about it but what I heard was the same as what you say.

I would be skeptical to say if the sanctions worked.

Did it stop Iran from creating a nuclear program? No. Did it allow for a change in government? No.

Mainly the people who suffered most were the common people of Iran. The government in Iran took advantage of this situation to radicalize people against the US even more.

> Did it stop Iran from creating a nuclear program? No.

It has stopped their nuclear program - see the news. More specifically, it didn't make it impossible for them to build nukes, but it motivated them to stop in order to get the sanctions relieved.

(Of course we all are talking speculativly, unless a someone very high in the Iranian government, who knows their motives, is posting on HN.)

I think it worked because it put pressure on the government. The government is not hugely supported everywhere, it would have had increasing pressure on its higher powers if sanctions continued. Do you remember the green movement?

This is very US centric but still interesting. http://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/green-movement

>The Green Movement reached its height when up to 3 million peaceful demonstrators turned out on Tehran streets to protest official claims that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won the 2009 presidential election in a landslide. Their simple slogan was: “Where is my vote?”

The problem with sanctions is not whether or not they "work".

The Iran deal has probably saved a lot of money for Americans. What matters here is if Iran honors this deal in letter if not in spirit.

While the Iranian regime is going to hate all things non-muslim the population with good access to other countries and trade is likely to get de-radicalized at much faster rate.

The Iran deal has probably saved a lot of Iranian lives.

American lives too, but probably less, taking into account how this things go normally.

For a moment, it just looked like that this could finish like Iraq again.

It's not like if nobody was pushing for war in the American establishment, whatever the Iranians did.

Invasion + nation building is sexy, but highly ineffective.

Is it? There have been some very successful examples: Japan, Germany, South Korea....

Hard to describe these as invasions, at least in the sense Iraq was.

What democratically elected leader did the USA assasinate?

Salvador Allende in Chile comes to mind. I think the head of Congo/Zaire before Mobutu met a similar fate. Sukarno in Indonesia, but I don't know if the U.S. played as big a role there.

Of course an American might not have actually pulled the trigger, but the U.S. was a/the primary mover in many of these situations. IIRC, President Carter issued an executive order banning the assassination of foreign leaders.

All of your points are great but have nothing to do with this:

> first step towards democracy.

More importantly, when countries are strong trade partners, they are way less likely to fight. War would hurt both parties through loss of economic activity more than it would benefit either as aggressor.

The United States has been the aggressor / meddler in too much of the world for too long. It's good to see when diplomacy works, since we've been taking the "last resort" of war WAY too often.

as there are now two powers in the region to work with

This agreement is a minor deescalation of tensions. I wouldn't go as far as to say the US has another friend in the Middle East.

Yeah. It's good news, definitely, but there's still a long way to go. It'll be interesting to see if they can keep up the diplomatic momentum once Kerry is gone, because he's been rather instrumental for a lot of this (as per a fascinating Aljazeera) report I watched today)

I have been very neutral towards Obama ( I voted third party in both recent national elections) and don't like how cozy he is with corporate interests, but he has impressed me with what he has accomplished. Iran, Cuba, Healthcare and a few other programs that may have had some initial resistance but are in the best interests of the US and will be an enduring legacy.

> 2) Our (US) reliance on Saudi Arabia will diminish as there are now two powers in the region to work with.

One can hardly talk about US reliance on SA nowadays. US imports only 24% of its petroleum[1]. Only 13% of which comes from SA[2].

The fact that US reliance on foreign petroleum has fallen from 60% to 24% and is projected to fall to less than 10% in the next couple of years is IMO the reason why the Iran deal was possible at all. SA had no say in it.

[1]: http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=727&t=6 [2]: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/us_oil.cfm

>opening up countries to the world's economy and ideas is the first step towards democracy.

It helps on the whole but it's ironic that Iran was partly democratic in the 40s which ended with a coup organized by the CIA and MI6 because Iran had been trading oil internationally and tried to get a bigger cut from BP, roughly.

This an incredibly subtle deal.

- Iran gets access to global markets, and in time tourism (there's an incredible number of amazingly beautiful things in Iran for tourists to see, from ancient to modern ski resorts)

- Iranian oil will keep prices in the toilet, this is basically a way for the U.S. to punish Saudi Arabia for decades of support for various maleficent actors. Except it doesn't involve an invasion, a takeover, or anything else beyond economic sabotage. The Saudis have also had decades to form a more diverse economy, and for various reasons haven't managed to do it...this has kept them vulnerable to this kind of action and it helps free the the major users of Saudi oil from "vendor lock-in"

- It demonstrates that cool, calm, collected diplomacy can actually work. However, many people will forget that the U.S. and Iran have been fighting a proxy war for decades. It hasn't been a hot war, but Stuxnet, various revolutionary movements and so on have been bits of that war. This isn't just Iran throwing in the towel because the sanctions finally worked, its because all of the other major leverage points Iran could muster were defeated.

- While the sanctions by themselves failed to work, they helped create a political climate inside of Iran that favored this outcome instead of having another go at saber rattling.

- This helps provide a mildly more palatable "friend" in the region than Pakistan

> - Iranian oil will keep prices in the toilet, this is basically a way for the U.S. to punish Saudi Arabia for decades of support for various maleficent actors.

While I'd certainly support letting SA rot to pieces for their misdeeds, SA alone could with a single move end the low oil prices. It's more like SA wants to screw over both Russia and the US, because neither country can produce oil at 10$ per barrel like SA can.

> It hasn't been a hot war, but Stuxnet, various revolutionary movements and so on have been bits of that war.

Stuxnet was Israeli with US cooperation, iirc. Not that this makes stuff any better. Only problem is that Israel can and will ignore US opinions if they feel threatened. Unfortunately, Israel is in possession of nuclear bombs and their current government is extremely right-wing; I'm not sure if Israel won't escalate the war to "really hot" now that a deal has passed and they will be afraid that Iran will try to subvert it.

> Stuxnet was Israeli with US cooperation, iirc. Yes, and they targeted the Iranian computers that control their cetrifuges, to sabotage them.

What's wrong with Pakistan? No mandated hijab, no execution of gays, no deep packet inspection...

Extremely powerful intelligence agency that basically pulls (or tries to pull) the strings on the rest of the government.

Actual tested nuclear weapons with some nuclear scientists sympathizing with extremist Islamist views, not just a bourgeoning nuclear program.

Pseudo-militaristic rule. (Going back and forth between military and civilian rule, with various coups over the decades).

Slow loss of control of various extremist elements?

I don't know, I'd say Pakistan is pretty risky as well.

There are scholars who have advocated for the US to ally with Iran more than Pakistan. C Christine Fair has written scathing books and articles on Pakistan and its Islamist Jihadist army. She says most countries have an army, but in Pakistan the army has a country. US funds given to Pakistan are put in very dangerous hands.

Her recent article is quite good: http://business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/pathank...

This is a tremendous news politically and economically.

Economics - 1 - the price of oil has been declining since the IranDeal was signed. In US alone the annual savings as result of cheaper gas and cheaper food (food production costs is strongly tied to gas prices) is about $500B/year (from $4/gallon - $2/gallon). Basically providing additional $500B in spending money in US. 2 - globally, the lower price of food and gas can potentially provide additional spending money.

3 - Iran has crumbling infrastructure and need numerous foreign contractors to rebuild (European and Chinese have already signed up). Sadly US companies will not be able to participate.

4 - Iran has potential for a large consumer market.

Politically -

1 - US will finally have a second option (let's call it the second front) in middle east. We in US have been keeping a blind eye toward Saudis, their indirect financing of ISIS and all types of jihadist fighters in region from Libya, Syria, Africa, Afghanistan, etc.

2 - Iran will be tapped into helping stabilize Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria (there is already talks of providing and exist for Assad)

3 - Iran's gas can provide a hedge (at least the fear of an Iranian pipeline) against Russia. This probably wont happen as Iran relies more on Russia than Europe and will probably maintain that role, but that's a possibility.

4 - The open Iran is forced to further integrate globally. This has always been the fear of the hardliners and it'll be resisted by some within, however, there seem to be an understanding that stopping progress is a futile task.

5 - One of the largest women secondary eduction (close to 70% of college students are women), it will eventually play out as a potential model for other regional muslim countries to emulate.

6 - It will force Saudis to change. Saudis are extremely worried about the IranDeal. But their biggest existential threat is not militarily, but culturally. From having 70% women college students, to hybrid system of government. Iran socioeconomic role, will put pressure internally on Saudi rulers and it will force them make uncomfortable changes or face internal turmoil.

Very interesting with the high number of women in college. In the long run I think they will bury Saudi Arabia. Once oil runs out Saudi will have nothing but Iran will have a much stronger foundation to build on.

They already got lots of industry like car manufacture.

> Iran will use the roughly $100 billion in frozen assets it will receive to support terrorism and other misadventures.

> Iran’s support for terrorism, its imprisonment of dissidents and even some Americans, its meddling in Iraq and Syria and its arms trade.

Funny that Saudi Arabia is guilty of all the above if not 10X worse but not a single word from those republicans. This speaks volumes of the power of the Saudi lobby in the US political system and how their wealth could influence decisions and policies in the US.

> This speaks volume of the power of the Saudi lobby

... or it shows the systematic hate for Iran.

Why "or"? Can't it be both?

| != ^

Except that allowing Iran to export even more oil keeps the price of crude down on the floor. Saudi Arabia can't survive oil staying at $30 for the next decade.

So maybe this is an end-run around the Saudis and letting things sort themselves out naturally?

From what I understand? Saudi Arabia has plenty of money banked; They can survive a decade without the sort of windfall profits they've enjoyed.

"SAMA's net foreign assets totaled $628 billion in November, down from a record high of $737 billion in August 2014,"

The marginal price to produce a barrel of Saudi crude is still the lowest in the world, at just three USD. What's going die out once the equipment is worn out (or require extensive subsidy) are marginal plays in developed countries like Canada, the US, and the North Sea, the Arctic, the deep offshore drilling, tight or heavy oil, tar sands, tar shales, smaller fields without economies of scale, and all forms of biodiesel & ethanol (yes, even the most efficient, Brazilian ethanol).

All the oil-dependent economies are going to suffer and compensate monetarily, by drawing down sovereign wealth or cutting expenditures, but the harder bound is the level at which it makes economic sense to stop drilling. Production prices in the above settings are high enough that they just can't make money at $30/barrel, which is a whole other category of problem than not making enough money to feed the government budget which has ballooned only in the last decade taking advantage of higher prices.

http://knoema.com/vyronoe/cost-of-oil-production-by-country

Saudi oil revenue has already sunk below government expenditures[1]. The just-announced 2016 budget has a deficit of $87 billion[2]. That's 7 years to go until the reserves are gone.

And how much does the House of Saud hand out to its citizens to keep things calm and orderly? What happens when that money starts to dry up?

[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-saudi-budget-expected-to-be-...

[2] http://english.alarabiya.net/en/special-reports/saudi-budget...

They bleed out savings while slowly ramping back down to the vicinity of the levels that they handed out 15 years ago.

This is a traumatic process, sure - but it's not like they were uncomfortably poor 15 years ago, and they (unlike some others, I'm looking at you Venezuela) have plenty of buffer with which to keep their populations comfortable until a few years after their rivals stop drilling.

Going from rich to poor is significantly harder than staying poor.

All they need to do is outlast maybe 20% of the rest of the oil producers, enough to raise prices back up.

"allowing Iran to export even more oil keeps the price of crude down on the floor"

That's probably the best case scenario for the rest of the world. Cheap energy and keep the amount of money middle eastern countries have to fight each other to a minimum.

I'm no fan of Saudi Arabia, particularly their global proselytizing of radical Islam and internal repression of opposing thought, but they're not comparable with Iran. Iran directly arms and funds terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. They funded terrorists in Iraq with the sole purpose of killing as many American troops as possible and undermining the new Iraqi government. They are allies of Al-Qaeda and provided material support to their operations, including US embassy bombings and 9/11. They've also continued to support the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan. Even though they are not shy about their imperial intentions in the Middle East, the West seems to be sticking its head in the sand. The risk of an Iranian-dominated Middle East should not be under-estimated. They already have their hands on Syrian, Lebanese, Yemeni, and Iraqi politics. They exert their influence by extortion. If you don't bend to their will, Revolutionary Guard-backed insurgents blow you up.

Without evidence (from reputable news sources outside of USA), I'm going to have to ignore your claims. Sounds like the propaganda US politicians spew. Iran has a long history of supporting freedom fighters (terrorists if you're on the other side), but so has Saudi Arabia... and they were responsible for 9/11, which pretty much trumps all else.

If you want to learn about this stuff for yourself, this Wikipedia article is a good starting point, you are rightly skeptical about such a controversial issue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...

This information brought to you by the people who said Iraq has WMDs. Colour me a bit skeptical.

Oh I never claimed that the Iranians were saints. Rather that Saudi Arabia is just as bad if not worse:

> Saudi Arabia remains perhaps the most prolific sponsor of international Islamist terrorism, allegedly supporting groups as disparate as the Afghanistan Taliban, Al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Al-Nusra Front.[96]

> Saudi Arabia is said to be the world's largest source of funds and promoter of Salafist jihadism,[97] which forms the ideological basis of terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS and others.

From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Saud...

9/11 terrorists were not from Iran or Iraq, they were Saudi nationals.

One very welcome change is reconnection of SWIFT network to Iran. You can't believe how hard it is right now to send money to Iran. This hit me when I had to transfer money to my family in their extremely hard times, when my brother had an accident and needed cash for treatments.

I hope this trend continues and Iran comes back to the international scene. It's good for everyone. Iran is very similar to Israel. Most of people are normal but there is a small percentage of extremist who have a lot of voice. Lucky for Israel they have a better constitution and governance model.

Israel and Iran are far from alike. It's likely true that Iranians are, to our best knowledge, some of the most reasonable and liberal-minded in the Middle East, but Israel does not simply have a "better constitution and governance model". In Iran, the extremists are running the place, and are a large segment of society. In Israel, extremists are marginalized, and even the degree of their extremism is less than that of the Iranian leadership.

I am less welcoming of the news that Iran will be reconnected to SWIFT, as I think that the real good news would be the downfall of the Mullahs and the rise of a representative, reasonable Iranian government, in peace with its neighbours and its own citizens.

It's proven (North Korea) that crippling a country's economy does not lead to downfall of its government. I wish it was that simple though!

One country (DPRK) does not make a rule. An besides, the DPRK and the Islamic Republic of Iran are very different regimes with very different citizenry. Iranians, by and large, do not believe in a death cult of personality surrounding their leaders, and can be much more critical of governmental choices.

Cuba? Burma? Syria?

Iraq, for that matter. They suffered under severe sanctions and a no-fly zone that left part of the country beyond the control of the state for over a decade and Saddam was nowhere near being overthrown until the US and allies actually invaded (again).

>Cuba

OK, maybe beginning to see a pattern

>Burma

I'm not an expert on Burma, but haven't they become a democracy again? I'd like to know what/any effect US sanctions had on this.

>Syria

I don't think this is a great example against isolation causing regime change

Yeah, if only we could have ended apartheid that way!

The North Korean government is being propped up by China. If China withdrew support their government would collapse.

My sincere apology for all the downvotes you have received on this comment. I have close Iranian friends who exactly share your point of view, as opposed to other overly optimistic and simplistic comments you see in this thread which applaud lifting the sanctions.

I hope these downvotes don't make you disappointed about bringing out your message. Take care and stay safe wherever you are.

Thanks very much. It seems that the downvotes have now been outnumbered, and I'm sure that's in part thanks to your comment.

In all honesty, when I was last online and saw the downvotes, I was a little disappointed, as it felt that perhaps the reasonable, thoughtful comments threads that I've grown to love on HN were perhaps being lost to reddit-style political populism. While one batch of downvotes or upvotes will not sway me to or away from HN, I'm happy to see HN users live up to my expectations of them. I hope this doesn't sound pompous.

Likewise, I hope you also take care and stay safe, wherever you are, toni.

I don't know why we're so ensconced in Saudi arms. Iran is much more liberal than Saudi Arabia; and Iran doesn't export the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam (Wahabbism) which is causing headaches all over the world.

Now I'll sit back and wait for the "but... but... Iran said they would wipe Israel off the map!!!1!" crowd.

This is such an ignorant statement that it is difficult to decide how exactly to unpack it. As an Iranian let me attempt to do so anyway:

First, Iran is Shia, not Sunni. So, no, they are not Wahabi. Just like the Queen of England is not Catholic but rather Anglican (Protestant).

Second, it is arguable whether Iran is more liberal than Saudi Arabia. In some instances it is. In others it is not. This is a matter of religious debate. Just like Saudi Arabia, as a Muslim, you can not simply stop being a Muslim or convert to another religion or become an atheist.

Iran also has consistently persecuted non-Shia Muslims (including Sunnis, Sufis, Ahmadiys, etc.) as well as the Bahais who are the largest religious minority in Iran.

The reality is that Iran implements Sharia just like Saudi Arabia. They chop off hands, blind people, hang people in public hangings off cranes, etc. The Iranian version of Sharia is a little different than that of Saudi Arabia. This is because they are Shia and have a different version of Islam, not because they are full of sugar and spice and everything nice.

Third, Iran certainly does exports their version of Islam just like Saudi Arabia. The most obvious one right now is Yemen where the Houthis are being used by Iran as a proxy to fight Saudi Arabia.

But Iran has also funded Shia Muslims in Nigeria [1] and elsewhere in Africa. They also created and continue to fund Hizbollah to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year as well as shiploads of weapons and explosives which Hizbollah uses as a terrorist organization to perpetrate untold atrocities.

Iran has also perpetrated many acts of aggression and terrorism globally: Kenya, Thailand, Argentina (AMIA bombing), Paraguay, etc. [2]

[1] http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/23/nigeria-s-k... [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianoce... [2] for more complete list, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...

It is only as a consequence of a wholesale ignorance of the reality of the Iranian regime, its government's motivating philosophy, and its brutal autocratic and dictatorial grip on power that someone could say what you've just said.

If this comes across as a sharp response it is because I'm tired of people giving Iran a pass by way of a false comparison to Saudi Arabia and/or misunderstanding or not taking the time in the first place to inform themselves about the realities of the current regime.

As an Iranian who has had family members and friends of my family imprisoned on trumped up charges, tortured and killed and their property seized (to then be charged for the bullet that killed them) it is unconscionable to give such a blood soaked regime a pass of any kind.[3]

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_fee

>>Just like Saudi Arabia, as a Muslim, you can not simply stop being a Muslim or convert to another religion or become an atheist.

Why not? Can't you just stop praying five times a day and going to the mosque etc.? Are they mandatory activities?

This is called apostasy and in lots of places it carries the death sentence:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam#Iran

You seem to know a lot about Iranian politics, would you recommend something to read to bring an American up to speed on Iranian culture and politics both domestic and international?

It depends what you want to learn about specifically.

For a general introduction there is an excellent 3 part BBC documentary "Iran and the West":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_the_West

If you want an inside account of things from a 'Prince': "Blood and Oil:: Memoirs of a Persian Prince"

For fascinating insight into Iran's geopolitics, economics and the context of the 1979 revolution (with major implications for the current global oil market) consider Andrew Scott Cooper's excellent book: The Oil Kings

here's an article from 2014 by Cooper to whet your appetite: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/12/18/why-would-the-saudis-cra...

and here's quite a good interview with Cooper from 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BXCx8oNvoo

His more recent book (not out yet): The Fall of Heaven: The Pahlavis and the Final Days of Imperial Iran

http://www.amazon.com/The-Fall-Heaven-Pahlavis-Imperial/dp/0...

But be aware that as always, behind every tyrant walks a cadre of sycophants with bloody mops attempting to twist history & exonerate the guilty. IMHO Hooman Majd, Reza Aslan and Trita Parsi are all varying degrees of apologists for the Islamic regime.

If you have a more specific interest, let me know and perhaps I'll be able to recommend something else.

I really appreciate your sharing these sources.

For anyone else interested, I found the BBC series Iran and the West is currently available on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ka-Wu1jYY9U

Wow. Thank you for this very comprehensive answer.

I've never heard of Ahmadis in Iran - I didn't think they'd be foolhardy enough to preach there.

The sad thing is Iran used to be reasonably liberal in the 1960's. Based on pictures from that time period, but politics got really ugly.

IMO, it's a classic case of nut-jobs on both sides of a boarder causing pain for a wide range of people.

That's true to some extent but only in urban areas. Rural areas where Khomeni drew his huge support from were in dreadful conditions and as reactionary and conservative as they get.

There was a general global religious reactionary backlash in the 70s and 80s. Over here we got the moral majority and such.

Maybe overthrowing their democratic government and replacing it with a brutal dictatorship wasn't the most intelligent thing the American government did.

You need to a bit more reading.

The US/UK did not "overthrow" a democratically elected gov't. Mossadegh's gov't had become very unpopular and there were mass protests across the country.

I agree that the US/UK fully supported the Shah in his attempt to take over the gov't, but overall the effect was more a nudge than a bullet to the head.

It was social liberalism masking a particularly virulent and corrupt regime under the Shah. The greatest mistake the West made in dealing with modern Iran was to support the coup against Mossadeqh; it ushered in a period of political oppression that even CIA admitted was unsustainable, and which led inexorably to the Bazaari-Clericalist revolution. (Khomeini's supporters weren't the only anti-establishment revolutionaries, but they seized the reins of power first and then began systematically reducing the liberal and Marxist opposition.)

> The sad thing is Iran used to be reasonably liberal in the 1960's. Based on pictures from that time period, but politics got really ugly.

It still is, compared to it's neighbors.

Considering the neighbours, a Sith lord would be considered liberal at the moment.

That depends on how liberal you believe a coup d'état is...

Iran's prime minister was overthrown by the UK and the USA because Iran wanted to nationalise its oil companies. The UK & USA weren't having any of that and put their own choice of government in charge.

Naturally, this had a large influence on the eventual Iranian Revolution in 1979 and the country's swing away from the west.

>IMO, it's a classic case of nut-jobs on both sides of a boarder causing pain for a wide range of people.

I think this is a classic statement meant to be non-controversial enough that everyone can read their own opinion into it, but is inaccurate and adds nothing of substance to the conversation.

Iran didn't become the illiberal theocracy that it is today because of 'nut jobs outside its borders', but because the student revolution that ousted the Shah was co-opted by the hardline clerics, led by Ruhollah Khomeini, who were better organized than the student protestors.

The most reasonable argument for external forces being responsible for Iran's current state as a repressive regime, and as the world's largest state-sponsor of terrorism, is that Khomeini wasn't even inside Iran at the time of the revolution, and swooped in just in time to capitalize on the revolutionary struggle of others.

I was more thinking democracy > dictatorship > theocracy. I suspect the direct democracy > theocracy jump is harder, but I could be wrong. So, in this case the external nut-jobs would be the CIA in 1950's.

"Politics got really ugly" is a kind way of saying "the US fucked it up".

A great lecture on Iran: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtELk8S3dhU

Really gives some perspective on an oft-misunderstood place.

I would use this video to respond every comment here. But then that would be quite annoying.

While Rick Steves is a warm and wonderful person he is no authority on Iran. He visited Iran and was carefully stage managed to present only the positive side of things and completely ignore the rest.

He is not a historian, he is not a sociologist, he is not an orientalist, he has zero credentials or background which would make him in any way an authority or a source of insight.

He went to Iran and had a great time visiting different cities and sites. And he talked to many people, while government minders were close by but off camera.

Therefore, this presentation is what it is: an anecdotal account of one man's carefully choreographed visit to a country.

And I'll add that I'm saying this as an Iranian - I wish I didn't have to add that but it seems that sometimes good intentioned people see anything negative written about Iran or a 'brown' country and automatically think it is motivated by racism or bigotry.

> He visited Iran and was carefully stage managed to present only the positive side of things and completely ignore the rest.

The US govt has been "informing" us about the negative side of things for decades. We had nothing new to learn about that side. To show us the other side was what was and is needed.

Actually it was human rights organizations and other NGOs which were reporting on the brutal realities of Iran and asking the US, Canada, Europe and the UN to take action about the extrajudicial assassinations, the lack of due process, the tortures, etc.

The 'other side' is what the other side has always been. Normal people going on about their lives. The same is true for North Korea or Burma, etc.

People are people. No one has a personal grudge against Iranians as a people or individuals.

The government however should be held accountable and justice demands consequences for their actions.

> Normal people going on about their lives. The same is true for North Korea or Burma, etc.

Most people in the world realise this, but then most people aren't residents of the United States. If online commentary is anything to go by, US citizens have been totally brainwashed by government propaganda. I mean, your president called those countries the "Axis of Evil". Think about that for a minute.

> If online commentary is anything to go by, US citizens have been totally brainwashed by government propaganda.

The internet, like the US, is a large and diverse place, with varying political, cultural and intellectual identities. You're just cherry picking to assemble a strawman "ignorant, brainwashed American" to knock down, but as straw Americans go, if it depends on internet comments to provide an unbiased reflection of reality, it's not very substantive.

If online commentary were anything to go by, the earth is flat and space-jews did 9/11.

Would you accept that most Americans believe what their government tells them?

I mean, politicians on the campaign trail can't be trusted, but when the head honchos of the US "defence" forces, the Secretary of State, and the President of the United States stands in front of the nations media and talk about the foreign bogeymen who're out to get them, would you accept that most Americans believe them?

Then you have the Fox News and dozens of right wing radio talk shows pounding on the same drums... creating more fear about these foreign evils who hate them "for their freedoms" and who "want to impose sharia law on the world.

The propaganda machine in the US is extremely efficient... so well oiled that most people don't see it. Even the moving parts of the machine believe that they're doing good and aren't out to fool anyone.

This type of brainwashing is less the Pyongyang brand, and more of the type that the beauty product companies use to tell women they're too fat.

>Would you accept that most Americans believe what their government tells them?

Often, but not always. I think Americans will believe what they're told not because they believe the government is never wrong but because they believe what the news tells them and they simply don't care enough to dig deeper. Americans also tend to believe whatever confirms their existing biases. I suspect this is not a uniquely American problem, though.

> but when the head honchos of the US "defence" forces, the Secretary of State, and the President of the United States stands in front of the nations media and talk about the foreign bogeymen who're out to get them, would you accept that most Americans believe them?

Even at the height of the post 9/11 paranoia and the Iraq war, there was plenty of skepticism and criticism of Bush's actions. Some (admittedly many) Americans thought Bush was a hero (and still do,) and others thought he was an idiot who was playing out a power fantasy in the Middle East. So it's not really the case that the whole country swallowed the government's arguments hook, line and sinker.

>Then you have the Fox News and dozens of right wing radio talk shows pounding on the same drums...

The thing with right-wing talk radio and Fox News is it's designed to preach to the choir, and it does, and the choir is large and boisterous, but it's a laughingstock to a lot of people as well. Is it effective propaganda if it only works on people who shared its biases to begin with?

To paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi here, what you're saying is true, but only from a certain point of view, and a narrow-minded view at that. As with any population of this size, pinning it down to any one political stereotype is difficult - our lunatic fringe is bigger than some countries.

If you look at how well Donald Trump is doing, you have to concede that the "fringe" is a bit more than a fringe these days.

I will concede, it is disturbing that Donald Trump is as popular as he seems to be. But to be fair, he is a celebrity and can afford to literally force the country to listen to him, and he doesn't actually have to appeal to anyone but the hardcore Republican base at this point. I feel like Donald Trump is the bursting of a pustule that's been festering under the skin of America's psyche for a while.

But he hasn't even been nominated by his party yet, and I'm not entirely certain he would actually win a general election.

> He is not a historian, he is not a sociologist, he is not an orientalist, he has zero credentials or background which would make him in any way an authority or a source of insight.

He has traveled the world and visited lots of countries and viewed them with an open mind. He can make comparisons and contrasts. He can derive lessons as he did in the video where he touted the benefits of church/state separation. I think he has some expertise now. And definitely more than the theoretical historians, sociologists, orientalists who have never been in the field like he has.

> while government minders were close by but off camera.

Never mentioned this on camera. But he did mention that security would often inquire and investigate what he was up to.

> was carefully stage managed

He was not really stage managed. His focus was on the Iranian side of Iran, the human side, not the government side. And if he found information that he could not document, he spoke about it. That is not 'stage managed'.

Iran is an authoritarian country like North Korea. No foreign press is allowed in without first requesting a special permit. Among the information they have to present is who they are and what they are planning on reporting on. This is the first filter.

For example, if you request a press pass to enter Iran and report on the persecution of Bahais, don't be surprised if you are turned down.

But once allowed in, that's not the end of it. They are monitored and carefully managed to only present the positive. Also, who they speak to and what they say and hear is also monitored.

This is well known and routine. Therefore, to think that a choreographed and superficial 'feel good' anecdotal video like Rick Steve's presents anything approaching reality is the height of naivete.

If you had watched the video you would see the parts where he addresses your critiques. He explores the everyday life of many different Iranians, particularly those in the urban areas, and makes efforts to highlight the positive and negative attitudes towards the West.

You don't have to have a doctorate in Iranian studies to learn and understand for yourself that Western media's portrayal of Iran is deeply biased. Of course, Iran's portrayal of the West is equally biased. The key is to listen to the grievances of both sides within the context of a historical understanding and form judgments from there. This is exactly what Rick Steves has done.

Steves mentions in his video that every schoolboy and girl know of the 1953 coup and the CIA's involvement. The vast majority of Americans are entirely oblivious of this event when forming opinions of Iran. Isn't this valuable information for Steves to communicate with his Western audience?

Very exciting news, that made me happy about the news for a change. I am confident we can make Iran into a normal country if we show them some good will. It is a country full of all political stripes like anywhere else. The confrontational policies of the past has emboldened the Iranian hardliners.

It is time to embolden the moderates and reformers in Iran! When you read about the details of Iranian society, it is very clear that they have a huge amount of potential. Regular Iranians are the most positive to the west in the region. Religion is in strong decline there. They got a lot of real industry there. They are big car manufacturers e.g. They have more scientific output than the whole Arab world combined. Their strain of Islam is not as extremist as the one found among the gulf states like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jemen etc.

We got to give the Iranians reasons to believe that playing well with the west will give them a lot more benefits than antagonizing Israel.

I support Israel's existence but I really wish they had a more moderate and constructive leader than Bibbi. He really comes across as a deranged conspiracy theorist. To make real progress we really need to get Iran and Israel to make the peace.

Now if only we could do away with the double standard and hold Isreal responsible for their nuclear escapades[0] too.

0. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapons_and_Israel

Israel never publicly announced the willing and need to destroy another country, and it doesn't not support terror organization with monetary and military aid, it has never carried out terror attacks specially targeted at civilians. So yes double standards indeed.

Actually Israel has a long history of state sponsored terrorism, see Irgun and their incorporation into the IDF at the dawn of Israeli statehood.

In fact they haven't just supported terrorism, they've used direct military action to intentionally kill civilians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibya_massacre

And they even currently support terrorist organizations that specifically target civilians: http://rockcenter.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/02/08/10354553-isra...

And the US had slaves, Europe murdered millions of people in Africa and the Americas. 48 is ancient history.

The actions of a single military unit going out of control (which can be argued) is not indicative mind set of the country and government. There is a difference between directly attacking civilians and "punitive expeditions" and you have to put the whole incident in the context of the times in the 60's

I wouldn't say a nuclear scientist working on an atomic bomb is an innocent civilian, these are rumors, nothing more and even if are true so what? Iran say they are terrorist because they are anti state organization.

"Ariel Sharon, who led the attack, later wrote in his diary that he had received orders to inflict heavy damage on the Arab Legion forces in Qibya: 'The orders were utterly clear: Qibya was to be an example for everyone'. Original documents of the time showed that Sharon personally ordered his troops to achieve "maximal killing and damage to property", and post-operational reports speak of breaking into houses and clearing them with grenades and shooting."

I'm not sure I would call an attack by IDF troops, ordered by the government, and executed by a man who would become the future prime minister not indicative of the government's mindset. Sure that was a long time ago, but you did claim "it has never carried out terror attacks specially targeted at civilians".

A civilian is someone who is not a member of any armed forces. The Iranian scientists assassinated were not part of the armed forces, they were civilian scientists working on a military project. Much like the thousands of American civilian scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project. Furthermore, several family members of the Iranian scientists were wounded in the attacks, so whichever way you slice it they were attacks on innocent civilians. And by the way, MEK was considered a terrorist group by the US State Department at the time of the assassinations, it wasn't just Iran saying it.

So what if all of that is true? Maybe that means there is in fact a double standard, in that Israel is allowed to violate the NPT while engaging in the same behaviour as its neighbours.

if you are going to quote from the wiki page and from what Sharon said you can maybe add some other quotes from the same wiki such as: "I couldn't believe my ears. As I went back over each step of the operation, I began to understand what must have happened. For years Israeli reprisal raids had never succeeded in doing more than blowing up a few outlying buildings, if that. Expecting the same, some Arab families must have stayed in their houses rather than running away. In those big stone houses [...] some could easily have hidden in the cellars and back rooms, keeping quiet when the paratroopers went in to check and yell out a warning. The result was this tragedy that had happened."

And even in your own quote it said that "Sharon personally ordered his troops to achieve" so if you want to have a blame game that the persona responsible.

Again from the same "Orders to inflict heavy damage on the Arab Legion" not to directly kill civilian indiscriminately.

"Civilian scientists working on a military project" - and that's make them a valid target, remember that weren't doing space exploration they were building nuclear weapons!

Innocent civilian die all the time, it's unfortunate and sad but true. But there is a difference between killing for the sole purpose of of killing them and when they are collateral damage - and when it happens Israel regrets that, and remember that Israel tries to minimize it as much as possible, no one is happy when that happens unlike their fellow neighbors.

The MEK has denied any involvement in the assassinations and the existence of any alliance with Israel, and as you said they are no longer on the terror list, it was even lifted in 2009 by the Council of the European Union and on 2012 by the US, MEK is different than what it was in the 70s. I can't say the same for Hamas or Hezbollah, both funded by Iran, with the sole purpose of destroying Israel.

Israel isn't violating the NPT because it didn't sign it. I would think that once there is no threat to the existence of Israel the need to be a nuclear power will be gone. Israel was pushed to that by the continued aggression of the Arabs in the region.

Ha, maybe you'd like to include the very next line from the wiki article:

"UN observers noted that they observed bodies near doorways, and bullet marks on the doors of demolished houses, and later concluded that residents may have been forced to stay in their homes due to heavy fire.[10]"

I get that Israel has their own narrative of events when it comes to Qibya, but if you would read the article, you'd see that it wasn't an isolated instance but the end result of several months of punitive raids by the IDF and civilians with the specific goal of targeting civillians. And yes those orders came from the top of the government: "Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon gave the order, in coordination with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion." The international consensus on what happened in Qibya is pretty clear.

"Over the year leading up to the raid, Israeli forces and civilians had conducted many punitive expeditions, causing destruction of infrastructure and crops and many civilian casualties against Palestinian villages, with Latrun, Falameh, Rantis, Qalqiliya, Khirbet al-Deir, Khirbet Rasm Nofal, Khirbet Beit Emin, Qatanna, Wadi Fukin, Idhna, and Surif being the most notable examples"

MEK and Israel can deny involvement all they want, and you're correct there's no way to prove what actually happened, but the US intelligence services seem pretty damn convinced: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/isr... And by they way, one of the scientists was gunned down while driving home with his wife and kid after picking them up from school. That doesn't seem like trying to minimize civilian casualties to me.

MEK is funded by Israel with the sole goal of destroying Iran. Maybe if there was no threat to the existence of Iran they wouldn't have needed to pursue a nuclear program.

You're right the NPT not violating it since they didn't sign it, doesn't mean that there's not a double standard in the way we treat Israel's nuclear program. It's pretty inarguable the Israel has specifically targeted innocent civilians and funded terrorist groups, both of which you gave as reasons as why Israel should be allowed to have a nuclear program without that same sort of scrutiny it's neighbours undergo.

I'm sorry but UN reports are meaningless, it's a corrupt spineless organization which takes things at face value. Helped hide terrorist in UN facilitates, rapes little girls, and is overly one sided due to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation.

Punitive raids due to Palestinian raids, it's the chicken and the egg.

And to continue the next line from your quote "Meanwhile, Palestinian guerilla raids into Israel continued. Over a two-week period in late May and early June, four raids by Palestinian fedayeen killed 3 and wounded 6 people in Israel, at Beit Arif, Beit Nabala, Tirat Yehuda and Kfar Hess which, according to the UN, greatly concerned both the Israeli and Jordanian governments"

US intelligence services is known to leak misinformation, I don't know if Israel has involvement with MEK but it's pure speculation at this point. I don't remember Israel declaring the need and will to destroy another nation, have you seen the size of Israel and the size of Iran? I'd say the scale tips in their favor, so "threat to the existence of Iran" is BS. It's just fanatics wanting to remain in power by aligning the opposition with an enemy, age-old trick.

Minimizing civilian casualties doesn't mean zero casualties, that's called collateral damage, we don't know the operational decisions in regard to the assignation.

I'd argue that Israel is being held up to a much higher standard than the rest of the world, which arguably isn't fair considering the neighborhood and the people criticizing Israel.

This is a really poor argument for why Israel is allowed to skirt the Non-Proliferation Treaty scot-free. The less nuclear weapons we have to worry about, the better. But instead, the US rewards them with billions of dollars and high-tech weaponry[0]. When other countries do the same, like Iran, they receive sanctions and threats of military action (Iran is even a member of the NPT[1]). Worse yet, Iran has been clear about its intentions[2] and there's been high-profile accounts of intelligence officials agreeing that Iran isn't pursuing nuclear weapons[3][4]. And we wonder what kind of message this double standard sends to the rest of the world...

0. http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferatio...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_program_of_Iran

3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Views_on_the_nuclear_program_o...

4. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/23/leaked-spy-cabl...

It's a realistic argument nothing is black and white.

1. Documents are signed, UN regulations are passed so what, it's the actions that count.

I agree that the world needs less if any nuclear weapons, but there is a big difference who holds them.

Iran IS NOT clear about it's intentions, why would they say they want it specifically to attack someone? It's better to lie and say it's only for research, every country lies I would take the words of a fanatic murders country with a grain of salt.

Your argument does nothing other than distract away from my point. Your statements about Iran are opinionated at best, and misinformed at worst (Iran has never threatened to attack anyone with nuclear weapons). You are not countering the fact that Israel is the elephant in the room, the only nuclear weapons holder in the middle east (confirmed by their own former Prime Minister[0]) and flagrantly dismisses signing the NPT while condemning and threatening other nations for exercising their right to nuclear energy. The pot is calling the kettle black.

0. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/dec/13/israel

They have the right to nuclear energy, I'm not disputing that and if they weren't an enemy of Israel and a murders fanatic country - Israel, and me personally, wouldn't have a problem with that.

Not signing the NPT means nothing just like signing it means nothing. You look good on paper but that's about it.

Even tho Iran signed the NPT it violated it numerous times and resumed its enrichment program even after the security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.

Indeed you are correct they didn't say they want to destroy Israel with nuclear weapons but they did say that they want to destroy it, does the means change that fact?

And if they said that and they did/are trying to procure nuclear weapons what should we think of that? Would they just stay in the silos collecting dust? You western logic and it's all going to be alright doesn't not apply here.

And I counteract that Israel is the elephant in the room, just because you say so, it's another argument to delegitimize it for no other reason but to just do that.

If you read your own link #1, you will see that Israel is not even a signatory to the treaty, so they aren't "skirting" anything.

Iran and North Korea are signatories but violated it anyway.

By skirt I meant avoid. It's a lot easier to violate a treaty by not even recognizing it. By that logic, Iran and North Korea would have been better off not signing it too. North Korea actually announced its withdrawal from the NPT in 2003.

Really? Because the past six decades have made it pretty clear that its first priority is wiping Palestine off the map.

Then it's doing piss poor job at that as they are still here after six decades.

So either Israel doesn't want to or it's the worst ethnic cleaning in History.

The simple truth is that they can't do it openly and quickly as this would have catastrophic consequences, both internally and internationally. Internationally, they would become a pariah state for many decades. Internally, I think that Israelis are lying first and foremost to themselves about their real intentions towards Palestine.

So they're wiping Palestine off the map in slow motion - building a settlement here and there, annexing a portion of territory, building a wall that transforms the remaining territory in a fractioned ghetto where life is impossible.

If Israel had good intentions towards Palestine, they would establish a border once and for all, and promote, instead of opposing with every means, the constitution of a Palestinian state. But the very charter of Likud, the party in power in Israel, openly states (much as Hamas' charter does on the other side) that Likud "flatly rejects the constitution of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan river". You can't be much more clear than that.

None of what you wrote is true, it's pure nonsense, I can't even begin to think how to respond to that.

You have to make an effort.

Sometimes when someone is too far gone it's a waste to medicate.

Then shut up.

Classic left wing tolerance.

So what did he mean when he said that Iran would be able to access its holdings abroad?

"A senior American official said Saturday that Iran will be able to access about $50 billion of a reported $100 billion in holdings abroad, although others have used higher estimates."

Prior to the sanctions, Iran had billions of dollars invested in foreign banks and infrastructure. Their access to this money was cut off when the sanctions were put into place and we're slowly allowing them access. Here's an article from 2014 with more detail:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-assets-usa-idUSBREA0G...

Thank you.

Access money that is outside of Iran. Most countries have assets in other countries. Preventing the movement of this money is pretty typical form of sanctions.

Crude oil is expected to fall another $2-$3 on Monday after this news. Curious what that will do to the rest of the market.

They always did. It's just that now we agree to recognize it...

Nice (surprising) to see some let up in the US's brutal war of aggression against Iran!

This is the worst news this year. More money for terror, seems legit.

The single best way to reduce terrorism, civil strife, and violence in general is greater prosperity. Keeping people poor, ignorant and frustrated is a guarantee of future terrorism.

If only that new found prosperity wouldn't be used directly for terrorism I would agree with you. Lack of prosperity and poor education, didn't contribute to the sanctions been put on Iran but of direct action by the government. Lifting them will not help Iran become western democracy or less fanatic it's left wing bullshit.

Iran is state sponsor of terrorism but probably less than Pakistan whom the US government funds a lot more. The Taliban is sheltered and supported in Pakistan. Iran would be a far better strategic ally. Their Israel obsession can be cured, it is not pathological.

The Iran population is probably a lot more favorable to the US than Pakistan. Iranians are actually a lot more secular, the government is a lot more fanatic than the average person. That is not true in other countries.

The US needs to help shape Iran's future. An adversial relationship is not the best for that.

Haha, I have been down voted to oblivion... I guess that what you get for not using a throwaway...

This is only good for big corporations going to cash in on a new land of fresh business opportunities, pure greed.

Makes a lot of sense. The scrawny kid with low self esteem who has a bad family life so he lashes out from time to time, is entirely ostracized by all the popular kids until he agrees to turn in his red ruder bb gun.

Not sure I'd call the US scrawny.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com