Can someone explain how the world is a better place by outlawing business with Iran? Remember, the crime here is selling telecom equipment...
I'm not saying the world is/isn't a better place, just explaining the common beltway logic re: Iran sanctions.
Also the US does not have a great track record with inciting revolutions in Iran.
(just not intentionally)
It's not anyone's goal to overthrow Iran. No one want to clean up the mess. There are already enough messes in that region already (afghanistan, iraq, syria, yemen).
In 1953, the CIA baited the Iranian coup d'état by covertly supporting pro-shaw groups. The shaw was then overthrown in 1979, bringing Khomeini to power as the Supreme Leader. Our role in the later Iranian revolution isn't as clear, yet. After that the 2009 Persian Awakening was additionally supported by the states.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RS21592.pdf
The US puppet planning to start building 23 nuclear power plants in the 70s were based on US support to create a US friendly power-base in the middle east.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/01/opinion/tehran-nuclear-sa...
...It's really worrying to me that the New Left seems to embrace nationalism and American exceptionalism just like the right. It means nobody is pushing back against creating wars. A lot of people will die for it unless people wise up.
They supported the Iranian revolution expecting they will be able to control the outcome. That was ending the British relationship and starting an only American one with their oil.
This worked out pretty well in Saudi Arabia, which was very primitive and had very small population.
In the end,though,in Iran they are Muslims first and Iranians second, with a long History. They could have accepted all the money from infidels that they could get, and promised whatever to them, but their own religion says they could(and should) lie to infidels. So they did it.
Rather, sanctions attempt to align financial incentives of those in power with the country issuing sanctions. It may seem (thankfully) foreign to those in the West, but in autocratic places like Russia, Iran, and China, the people who control the policy of the state are generally also the people who have large stakes in the major economic engines of the state. Given that autocrats tend to be motivated by wealth at least as much as they are motivated by power, sanctions can force autocrats to try to negotiate with sanctioning countries, wherein the autocrat tries to adopt his policy as little as possible to the sanctioning country (so as to keep a grip on power) in order to get wealth flowing again.
[0] Better is somewhat subjective I suppose, but I think we can pretty objectively say "more likely to hold a human civilization 100 years from now".
[1] It also undoubtedly makes the world worse in other ways, whether it improves the world more than it makes it worse is too political for me to be interested in discussing it with strangers on the internet.
> By torpedoing U.S. adherence to the accord, Trump has all but guaranteed its collapse, a move that opens the door to the unfettered resumption of Iran’s nuclear program and unleashes unpredictable escalatory pressures in an already volatile Middle East.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2018/05/08/a...
> Although the deal didn’t address every concern, it was successfully preventing Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Trump has instead opted for an uncertain future, raising the risks of an Iranian bomb and a U.S-Iranian conflict.
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/trumps-iran-dea...
> The United States is left without good options moving forward. It is hard to see how this decision serves U.S. interests or regional stability.
https://www.rand.org/blog/2018/05/the-strategic-fallout-of-u...
In addition I believe there are long term costs for a country to be violating agreements for no discernible benefit.
If you're talking about the current US sanctions, I think you're wrong. The deal ensured Iran could not develop nuclear weapons, through a strict regime of inspections. Without the deal, there are no inspections anymore and Iran is free to develop said weapons.
It seems that the real purpose of the sanctions is to weaken Iran so that its enemies in the region (Israel, Saudi Arabia) have a freer hand in doing as they please.
That said, the stated reason for the current sanctions is still nuclear weapons [0]. An accurate evaluation of why the US chose to withdraw from that deal is probably not possible with publicly available information. The limited analysis in your comment seems to assume that the deal was effective, something I don't think we have enough information to reliably evaluate, but I consider unlikely.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/08/us/politics/trump-speech-...
Of course. And I think it's a blatant lie.
> The limited analysis in your comment seems to assume that the deal was effective, something I don't think we have enough information to reliably evaluate
The IAEA opinion is that we do, and that Iran has complied with the terms of the deal.
It's possible I missed something, I would be surprised though since the IAEA is pretty tight lipped. To quote an IAEA statement [0] made a week before the US withdrew from the deal
> In line with standard IAEA practice, the IAEA evaluates all safeguards-relevant information available to it. However, it is not the practice of the IAEA to publicly discuss issues related to any such information.
[0] https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/statement-on-i...
To suggest that all the major world powers would have signed a deal that leaves space for Iran to develop nuclear weapons, and that the IAEA might have been happily certifying the compliance to the terms of the deal without bothering to make sure that Iran isn't actually developing nuclear weapons, would be supremely naive.
A more complete quote from the IAEA statement that you quoted is:
"The Agency’s overall assessment was that a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device were conducted in Iran prior to the end of 2003 as a coordinated effort, and some activities took place after 2003. The Agency also assessed that these activities did not advance beyond feasibility and scientific studies, and the acquisition of certain relevant technical competences and capabilities. The same report stated that the Agency had no credible indications of activities in Iran relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device after 2009. Based on the Director General’s report, the Board of Governors declared that its consideration of this issue was closed."
In fact, what IAEA is diplomatically saying is "we don't give a damn what Netanyahu claims, we have reports and information that proves that the claims are not true and we don't have to discuss it any further".
I don't this is an accurate summary, rather it says
> we don't have reports and information that proves Iran is continuing to develop weapons.
And why would they? They aren't a spy agency, they are a monitoring agency. Assuming for the sake of argument that Iran was actively developing nuclear weapons they would have had to fuck up for the IAEA to be aware of it. The IAEA's purpose in all this is to force them to be circumspect, not to catch them if they are being sufficiently circumspect.
Before the deal (5 years ago), we were hearing that Iran was ~18 months away from a bomb. Yet, no bomb so far. Looks like the deal has been in the black for at least 3.5 years, to me.
The reason for pulling out of the deal had everything to do with domestic politics and, on a disorganized level, a bunch of yahoos' power fantasies. Nothing to do with Iran's behavior.
To see this via a argument to absurdity suppose that we had an alternate deal that was magically enforced and said "Iran will cease development of nuclear weapons for 10 years, and then we will give them an ICBM or two with warheads on top".
And, I mean, it's certainly possible that it was just a bunch of yahoo's and the deal was effective. It's also possible that the USes various spy agencies have information that made people legitimately concerned about the status quo. It would be outright negligent of the government to tell us (and thus Iran) which it is.
So the deal is, at the absolute least, better than not having a deal. Or at least it was until we unilaterally tore it up after getting what we wanted.
From the other countries perspective, it is a tremendous power imbalance.
The fact that any city of your country could be destroyed by an invading force in 3 seconds at zero cost for the invaders is for sure not very reassuring.
That actually happened in the US territory with native people, they were exterminated by outsiders with superior technology leaving almost not trace behind. This was costly for the invaders because the technology difference being great was not that great.
Right now, with the US(spaceX) able to put a rocket in any part of the world in 30 minutes with a nuclear head, the power imbalance is extreme. They do not have to risk a single life to destroy an entire city or nation!!
This is something that no country on earth should tolerate and they will not tolerate if if they have enough technology.
It's OK for there to be an objective right and wrong in a conflict.
There was no existing country, it was British territory, and Ottoman, and others. The last time the place was an independent country it was part of the ancient Kingdom of Israel, around 2,200 years ago. And now it's an independent Israel again.
Same place, same people, same name, same capital. Different laws and government though.
To be fair, the people alive now were not in a decision-making position back during the formation of Israel, but I wanted to bring up the historical context since we're discussing the formation period.
More background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_supporters_of_Israel