> Keep in mind that US sanctions against foreign companies doing business with Iran are opposed by:
They may be but US is on the right side of history on this one. And I say this as an European.
They may be but US is on the right side of history on this one. And I say this as an European.
I hate Islamic Republic with every single cell in my body but you're just wrong.
* U.S. plain and simply fucked Iran up with a coup at 1953.
* Then helped Islamic Republic gain power in 1979. (This is up for debate though)
* Then helped Saddam Hussein attack Iran.
* Then sanctioned the country to the verge of bankruptcy.
* Then made a deal and backed out of it for no reason (Internal politics?)
The humanitarian toll of US policies is hard to fathom.
The late 19th century was marked by occupation by Russia and the Ottoman empire. Following defeats in wars which Iran generally had provoked.
Once Iran became a constitutional monarchy in the early 20th century political instability reigned as forces loyal to the monarchy fought for power with those with a more democratic bent. Between 1947-1951 Iran had 6 different prime ministers. The coup itself was really a continuation of this political battle with the US helping the forces loyal to the monarchy.
Iran also didn't help itself during WW2 by choosing to technically remain neutral while allowing a large German presence and German utilization of the oil fields. This led to a joint British and Russian occupation to drive the Germans out.
Even today Iran's economic woes although made worse by sanctions is mostly rooted in economic policy decisions and large scale corruption which feeds money to those backed by the revolutionary guard at the expense of the people.
But it is easier to blame the big bad West for all your woes rather than take an introspective look at your own culpability.
We've had our moments that we were getting close. Now those moments are quite fragile. Every single time the U.S. has kicked us in the nuts in those moments.
Examples are this very same moment, where the economic sanctions and the reformists finally convinced the hardliners to talk to the U.S.
Supreme Leader finally gave it a thumbs up. And he raised his concerns back then that the U.S. cannot be trusted but if that's what people want it's OK to do it.
He was right. The U.S. could not be trusted. Now reformists have lost all credibility. In 2 years we have another election and for sure a batshit crazy like Ahmadinejad is going to be elected.
Same happened around 9/11. We had a really strong reformist movement and government. Then, out of nowhere, president Bush named Iran a part of "axis of evil". That gave the hardliners enough of a reason to push back against major reforms.
Jack Straw (British foreign minister of the time) has good notes on this if you're more interested.
1953's coup was another moment like that. Actually that's probably the closest we've ever been.
Now, if Iran is moving towards democracy, and at the most important moments, you kick it in the nuts, you "are" part of the problem.
I am so deeply ashamed by how the US treats the people of Iran.
As a European I wish the US would take all the refugees their actions cause.
The same kind of hardships that also radicalized Trump voters, it lead them to vote a populist fascist into power.
Of course if Iran or Iranians cause trouble in the future, you'd use these as an excuse to say "Trump did the right thing, see what they did, they deserved those sanctions!", ignoring cause and effect: without the sanctions, they wouldn't be that pissed off to cause these troubles.
What the US is doing is a form of terrorism. It completely nullifies any inspiring or positive influence that the narratives about the US founding principles might evoke in those abroad, and it is only possible due to the idea of American Exceptionalism, which is patently false to anyone who observes without bias US actions.
I agree the horrible policy is bipartisan.
Please clarify the nature of your disagreement with my comment. Not sure I fully understand.
> you have just been brainwashed into hating your country.
That's a very large assumption from a few lines of text, I'll classify this as a cheap baseless attack/dismissal.
> The last president and Secretary of State are directly responsible for open slave markets in libya.
So I guess Bush and Cheney are "directly responsible" for a lot of thousand dead Iraqis and Afghanis. Or were those military interventions justified in your eyes? At least Obama has admitted "the aftermath" is his biggest regret.
This isn't Reddit, but the argumentative tone of this thread certainly reminds me of Reddit. Sensitive people make me sad :(
As anopther European, the US is most certainly on the wrong side of history with this shit. They're still salty that their pet dictator got ousted all those years ago.
You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to ask you for the arguments behind your opinion. You are of course entitled to respond angrily. However, it doesn't make for great discussion and you won't persuade many people with this approach.