Hacker News Reader

Comment by icegreentea | Hacker News Reader

I think calling the relationship between two countries who do bad shit to each other, but generally don't want to have to do bad shit to each other (if nothing else because it distracts them from other issues, or cause bad shit includes getting your own economy starved) as "complicated" is okay.

View on HN

The US went to Iran and did bad shit. Iran didn't go to the US to do bad shit.

Not denying the asymmetry of power and actions, but I think calling the relationship as purely "US is bady" is while less wrong than just "Iran is bady", it still pretty wrong, and an honest description of the relationship as "complicated" with both sides doing bad shit is the only way forward.

If the power differential were reversed you'd better believe the bad shit coming out of the Islamic Republic of Iran would be orders of magnitude worse than what the US has ever done the other way.

Yes all superpowers act the same way. In fact all powers act the same way - try to maximize their own power and access to resources etc. When last did Iran attack a neighboring country? Anyways they're not much of a military power right now, even by regional standards.

> In fact all powers act the same way - try to maximize their own power and access to resources etc

Do you think that Nazi Germany and the USSR were just "trying to maximize their own power and access to resources"?

Why do you think they weren't?

The Holocaust, commitment to the spread of Communism throughout the globe ... that kind of stuff.

And the US didn’t do the same? They didn’t murder hundreds of millions of natives, overthrew democratically elected governments and instead put dictatorships in place to spread their antidemocratic radical capitalism?

>They didn’t murder hundreds of millions of natives

When we compare morality, we compare morality among contemporaries.

Hezbollah, which is funded and armed from Iran has more than their fair share to answer for in eastern Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank. In the 1980s, while Iraq was certainly the initial aggressor, Iran quickly got the upper hand and remained on the offensive for most of the war.

Iran defended itself from Iraq's invasion. Hezbollah was formed in response to the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon.

What are you talking about? They have one of the biggest influences both politically and militarily in the region right now. They are backing and involved with the Houthis in Yemen, the Hezzbollah in Lebanon, and the Quds Force in Iraq.

And also those three proxies I mention above, none of them are about resources but regional dominance. What would the resource even be? Iran has its own oil. In fact what's going on in Yemen is basically a proxy war between Saudia Arabia and Iran.

Why would I better believe that? Do you have any pointers to Iranian bad shit activities outside of their borders?

If you're not already aware of the character of the Islamic Republic and what its goals are then here's a start I guess:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12575423

and for example

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

That's so impressive after having had a dictator installed and the coup against him being co-opted by Islamists. It's not like the US owes the Iranians held hostage by them anything, right? Especially considering how they really love Saudi-Arabia, while the US obviously wouldn't be caught dead supporting radical Islam with obscene amounts of money to fight the Russians or anything of that nature.

Not quite sure what you're saying. The US supports Saudi Arabia in order to promote stability of a critically strategic area of the world. There's otherwise no love lost between the two powers. (Ironically, Iran under a secular government would be a far more preferable ally than Saudi Arabia)

"(Ironically, Iran under a secular government would be a far more preferable ally than Saudi Arabia)"

Why does it have to be secular as a prerequisite? Saudia Arabia is not only not secular but its not democratic either.

It's not a prerequisite. It's just that a substantial proportion of the people of Iran are secular (unlike Saudia Arabia).

That's exactly my question why does it matter if their government is secular or not in order for the US to have it as a friend or ally?

Unless you have a good reason otherwise, I'm inclined to believe that a secular government will be a more valuable ally than an Islamist one!

Actually the US and Britain went to Iran and did bad shit. The coup that overthrew Mosaddeq and the National Front party was carried out by both the CIA and MI6.

It's not a stretch to say these agencies were acting as proxies for their home oil company's interests. So logically US and and British petroleum companies went to Iran and did bad shit.

This is an overly simplistic way to look at foreign relations. Iran can do plenty of "bad shit" to the U.S. and the world without ever leaving its own geographic borders. It's the same reason why the oil embargo during WW2 led Japan into the war, even though we weren't technically doing anything within Japan's borders. And it's the same reason most of the world views the Iranian nuclear program with suspicion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com