Skirting U.S. sanctions, Europeans launch trade mechanism for Iran
reuters.com
reuters.com
It's my understanding that China has also licensed SWIFT software and will use it to create isolated payment system to shield it's trade with Iran and Russia other countries.
That's a really bad idea. It would be better to delete the thread then.
This is a great example of how current US foreign policy means a loss of soft power all over the world.
I do think that this is a win for world stability though, trading tends to help relations, which helps stops all sort of unpleasantness. Whether this will be enough i don't know, but it seems like a good step forward.
Nobody with half a grasp of reality doubts that Iran was fulfilling its end of the nuclear deal. It’s entirely unclear why China, or North K, or really anybody should trust the US Government in the future. That means one of the arguably most important tools to avoid armed conflict was entirely eliminated from the US arsenal. What makes it even worse is that there just wasn’t any reason to do so, beyond some egotistical jingoism. Saudi Arabia is far worse in almost any observable category.
There is no "real" compliance beyond technical compliance. That's just wordplay.
The problem is that the Iran deal is an Obama deal, so it must be wrong, and Iran's compliance is irrelevant.
Anyone care to justify?
Edit: Or just downvote me instead.
One of the big campaigns for Leave was that the EU was dampening our ability to trade with the rest of the World. I guess maybe not then?
You may be right, but it's not right
So I think you need some enforcement of standards, whether moral or legal.
The Scottish Independence referendum had a plan running to hundreds of pages. Good bits and bad bits, but a good few people had put thought into what came next.
Leave had a bus, with a slogan.
sadly visible all over the world
Not just any slogan, a slogan that was blatantly misleading to say the least.
You can argue that external forces decrease the room for maneuvers for a single nation. Just as you can argue that member states have the tendency to fiercely guard sovereignty anyway and did so in the past. Nothing to say against that.
But to say that sovereignty is not an important issue to discuss within the European Union isn't an informed position at all.
Most new laws are enacted by the EU in most member states.
> Of course that is one of the most important discussion within the European Union.
Is it? Why?
> Nothing to say against that.
Why should the sovereignty of the UK be paramount? Why not the sovereignty of (for example) London, Cornwall or Scotland?
The UK is a mix of geographically-close former countries, inhabited by people with different backgrounds who speak different native languages and used to be at war with each other.
I fail to see why the UK should have any greater claim to sovereignty than the EU or a subsection of the UK...
> Most new laws are enacted by the EU in most member states.
No idea if that's true, but I do know that the vast majority of laws enacted by the EU are done so because it is more beneficial for the UK (and other member states) if the EU enacts them as opposed to each EU state enacting their own version. Much simpler when it comes to trade etc.
this is not a fact at all, Lisbon removed the veto from nearly every area, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_in_the_Council_of_the_E...
To argue otherwise would be akin to arguing that the UK parliament isn't sovereign because local councils can make some local decisions independently.
EDIT (To reply to the comment below):
If you read the information in the link posted, it's obvious that the important decisions still require unanimity, even if minor decisions (yes, some of them in important fields) now only require QMV.
FWIW, I'm a fan of QMV.
personally I would call employment, business, immigration, social security, criminal law, and half a dozen things listed there as important, but there you go
> If you read the information in the link posted, it's obvious that the important decisions still require unanimity, even if minor decisions (yes, some of them in important fields) now only require QMV.
not true (again)... might be true most of the time, but not always (which is the entire problem)
see the fuss over the past two years where eastern european countries were forced over their explicit objections to accept migrant quotas using QMV
This means Britain will actually have one trade agreement by the time it leaves the EU.
"This is a great example of how current US foreign policy means a loss of soft power all over the world"
Agreed, it does seem very short sighted. Once a system is in place, and it works, suddenly its very easy to apply that system to any other regime where the US doesn't agree with the rest of the world. Plus what's the point in 'rogue' states coming in from the cold, if the US are going to renage on their agreements.
Glass half full, and all that.
The US won't "not accept the deal" or "not make a trade deal with the UK" because UK trades with Iran, itt'l be too good for them to pass up. Itt'l be the only thing going that the UK can accept, no matter how bad it is, in an attempt to save face as they can't be seen to go back to trading with the EU especially on worse terms. This is devolving into a Brexit rant, but I can guarantee you that the US doesnt give two shits if the UK trades with Iran, they're rubbing their hands in anticipation of what is to come. UK knows this so is scrambling to do deals with whoever it can as soon as possible. This is my line of thinking anyway.
Services, maybe - but again most of the core banking will move away from the UK post Brexit and even then there's a lot of overlap in competencies between the UK and USA. There's a lot of smart people in the UK for sure, but there's a lot of smart people in the US.
I can't help but think the whole idea of a US/UK trade alliance is borne more of anglophone ideology than any kind of practicalities.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44802666
Interestingly, the UK exports rather a lot more to the US than it imports from there.
Edit: What is worrying is that investment in UK car building has drammetically reduced
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/industry/uk-car-manufactu...
Well I never ... I wouldn't have thought that would be something the US would need to import ...
> works of art
Doesn't this refer to a lot of the branding work done by the likes of Starbucks, Amazon etc. which then get written off against tax or something (hence value is quite inflated).
Of course, it might be UK brands licensing their IP?
Distance really isn't much of an issue at scale, when your cheap stuff comes from China - - edit - to clarify, the point i'm trying to make is that it really doesn't cost much to ship stuff halfway around the world, especially en masse. -, or meat from New Zealand, this isn't much of an argument. This would be a purely US beneficial deal, the UK wouldn't really be bringing anything into the US, other than maybe finance services, specialist products or (i guess) softer products like educational visas?
There's quite a big controversy over here at the moment about the possibility of a US trade deal. We are being told that for it to happen we would have to accept terms like chlorinated chicken/steroid injected beef, and then agree to other things like labeling the origin of the product (so you would never really know if you were eating US or UK products). There's a whole other host of subtleties which would degrade the UK whilst being beneficial to the US, just do a bit of googling about the proposed deals.
Yeah except neither party to this deal is producing "cheap stuff". Both consider themselves to be very much "top tier".
> edit - to clarify, the point i'm trying to make is that it really doesn't cost much to ship stuff halfway around the world, especially en masse
Yeah, if the stuff is "cheap". Like dramatically cheaper than what you can produce at home.
Unfortunately for Brexiteers who use this as an argument for No-Deal Brexit being an opportunity, however, geography was a big consideration for how pretty much every company in the world has set up its supply chains and partners.
"The geography is a bit of an issue for physical goods" when you're not producing goods cheap enough to cover the cost of transit. The UK does not produce cheap goods. Quite the opposite.
I don't think racing to the bottom in living standards to compete productively with China is something that people voting for Brexit had in mind.
The main issue people are concerned about is that the UK would be flooded with cheaper/sub standard goods (re. chlorinated chicken) that they can't differentiate between standard UK/EU products which are of a higher quality. Currently, US meat is outright banned in the EU, if there's an influx in cheap/chemically altered meats coming from the US which people can't differentiate from (this is partially due to the terms of the trading deal banning branding of goods as "Produced in the UK") then people are worried they'd accidentally end up buying them.
Not such a concern about where you’re going to get the £££ if all you’re buying is cheap junk in $$$ but even so there’s got to be cheaper places to buy cheap junk from and sure with the rules lifted why not just start producing cheap junk yourself!
Such things would be clearly labelled and no worse than the US standard. If consumers want it, they will buy it. If they don't, they won't.
Don't really see it as an opportunity to save face myself. More an opportunity for those who were the driving force behind Brexit (who entirely coincidentally have significant offshore business interests) to create UK buying opportunities. Opportunities that will arise as our livestock farmers compete against terrible US welfare standards. Despite UK population having shown for decades they want better welfare than even EU standards.
We'd probably lose CE or BSI marks, environmental protections, EU regional food protections, and the price and generic restrictions within the NHS most likely. I'm not sure even the Tories would dare open us up to US healthcare companies, yet. They'll move as far as they think they can get away with.
Then there'll be all the industries that will benefit from harmonisation of UK and US regulatory differences. ie, The US majors will benefit from the GB garage sale of newly failing businesses as Theresa May's fine negotiating team ask for nothing in return except a paper hat.
Edit: ps, Bentley are Volkswagen owned.
Bentley -> Volkswagen
Rolls Royce, Mini -> BMW
Aston Martin -> Seems to be independent again
McLaren -> Half the company is owned by Bahrain
Lotus -> Geely (China)
Jaguar/Land Rover -> Tata (India)I’m surprised their isn’t more discussion about the German domination of the EU. The current structure is not sustainable, and Britain leaving will make that more evident quickly. I would not be surprised if the Dutch are waiting to see where Britain leeds before jumping ship themselves.
Do you mean "it'll"?
Despite the best efforts of whoever to run the country down the UK is and will remain a rich, advanced country, a world leader in many areas, still blessed with ample natural resources, one of the world's most attractive countries for inward investment, a significant tourist destination, and with a population that loves to spend its money making it an attractive marketplace. None of these things are going to change just because France has got it's knickers in a twist about no longer being able to bleed the UK dry to fund the stupid common agricultural policy.
Sovereign nations under the the U.S.' thumb, not being able to control their own destiny only works so long as we're complacent.
I sense we're growing tired of war for war's sake, leery of ideological battles built for future blowback down the road. We see enough people profiting from these wars to wonder how much global conflict is manufactured.
I hope we stop buying in. When a politician tells us a country is evil, we need to start asking for receipts.
I don't see this having a ton of impact on U.S. relations other than a few terse, typo-laden tweets directed at Europe, but who knows these days. The notion that Western alliances are being intentionally weakened no longer seems far fetched.
There's also the fact that more often than not, they act based on internal power plays and national interests of its own, and not for some "greater good".
There's also the fact that they have fucked up tons of countries with their interventions -- 4 countries in the last 20 years ago, turning relatively stable regimes into hell-holes of civil war, mayhem, and terrorism.
Not to go into how they have been historically worse than the boogiemen they complain about (from funding dictators, to directly invading countries, toppling democratically elected leaders, and so on).
I think that goes without saying. But after fighting ideological / proxy wars against communism, "terrorism" and "hell, just because" I think we need a little more support.
Here we have a long-standing soft war against a country and/or people for whom Western meddling has demonstrably affected their life for the worse. Every time they do anything acting in their own sovereign interest we peg it as evil and impose some wrist-slapping or worse.
I don't for one second believe that the leadership of Iran is "good." Nor do I believe they're inherently evil. We refuse to concede any responsibility in the fate of their land over the last 100 years, continue to box them in and it seems more and more apparent we're keeping them on the hotplate in case we need a new war.
I have a pretty skeptical view of lower-case-l libertarians, most of whom are just using it as a veneer over some otherwise lockstep partisan affiliation. But one thing I've found very encouraging is that movement's general cynicism toward continued world power interventionism.
Even more so, there are all kinds of "national interests" political/cultural biases, and even personal interests (e.g. Cheney and Halliburton) mixed in their assessments.
They're not some disinterested third parties trying to make the fairest assessment possible for the benefit of mankind, but agents of a top world dog nation-state wanting to get more resources and control, and to further its own prospects.
Thanks for letting me know. And that last sentence wasn’t sarcasm on my part!
I wouldn’t be surprised if he is being sincere about visiting Sudan
1 http://theroadchoseme.com/africa-expedition-overview
2 https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice/south-sudan/safety-...
Inflation is a huge problem in Sudan, largely brought on due to a lack of foreign exchange and trade (I had to take in enough USD to cover my entire trip). During my two week visit the Sudanese pound was devalued 39% overnight [2] and prices for common items rose noticeably during my stay. I came away feeling a huge amount of empathy for the locals who are finding it increasingly difficult to even afford basics such as bread there.
[0] https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10156632235706760&...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_(U...
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-07/sudan-rev...
It is hard to judge when made over an impersonal channel like a plain text comment and most people won't check grecy's profile to draw the correct conclusion: not a trace of sarcasm.
Well, there’s the minor issue of Iran’s totalitarian regime consistently announcing their intent to destroy Israel and devestate the U.S.A, and taking actual steps to support the same.
I am Israeli and completely left-wing by the way, and believe there are many steps both Israel and the U.S. could take to mitigate the threat from Iran without war, such as strengthening moderate forces in the middle-east, which they do not take. I consider our own prime minister a thoroughly evil man.
But the fact remains that Iran’s own statements and actions are extreme.
You do realize this rhetoric goes both ways, right? Israeli politicians often make genocidal statements towards other countries including Lebanon, Palestine and Iran, so spare me this crying.
Iran may have rhetoric, but Iran isn't occupying anyone. The same cannot be said for Israel.
In fact when there is a terrorist attack in the US, Iran tends to condemn it, despite the non-existent relations, whereas US lawmakers say "Iran deserves it", when the same happens over there.
As for sponsoring terrorism; Israel has been proven to be shipping weapons to Islamic radicals in Syria, is increasingly buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia & the UAE, commits regular war crimes, including in other countries etc., so again, spare me.
> I am Israeli and completely left-wing by the way
That's great, however from my personal observation, what "left-wing" means in Israel is much more to the right than in other parts of the world. In fact you've fallen for right-wing talking points, it seems.
> there are many steps both Israel and the U.S. could take to mitigate the threat from Iran without war, such as strengthening moderate forces in the middle-east
There's no threat from Iran to other nations that I could see, do they perhaps have some proxy forces? Sure. Does Israel? Sure. Does the U.S. Sure, exponentially more. Do the Saudis and Emiratis? You bet.
As an European, I just don't get the Israeli fixation with Iran, apart for deflection purposes, it's not a great regime, but not worse than the 75% of the world's dictatorships the U.S. does support.
For the US I at least get it more; control of their resources, for the Saudis and to a lesser extent the Emiratis, it also has a religious angle, but for Israel, it seems to be purely for propaganda purposes.
P.S. Am not even going to get into Israelis smearing anyone critical of Israeli policies as an anti-Semite, which is not only reprehensible, but it also assumes that the Israeli government speaks for all Jews, which is itself rather anti-Semitic if you ask me.
>> As an European, I just don't get the Israeli fixation with Iran,
Well I'm a European too but I can completely understand that a country which repeatedly has announced its intention to wipe Israel of the earth gets more than usual attention from the Israeli's.
If, as an Israeli, one makes claims that the sanctions are justified because Iran is sponsoring terrorism, perhaps it's justified to look at whether Israel is not only sponsoring, but committing terrorist acts on its neighbors, unless Israel is somehow justified to do so, while Iran isn't.
> I can completely understand that a country which repeatedly has announced its intention to wipe Israel of the earth gets more than usual attention from the Israeli's.
Right, but my point is that isn't nor really a one-sided thing. Israel does it too towards not only Iran, but its closest neighbors, they regularly threaten to "bomb Lebanon back to the stone age", as an example.
You must have a very broad definition of "terrorism" if you consider Israeli military operations to be "terrorist acts". Iran sponsors an out-and-proud terrorist organization called Hezbollah. They've committed textbook terrorist attacks around the world.
> Right, but my point is that isn't nor really a one-sided thing. Israel does it too towards not only Iran, but its closest neighbors, they regularly threaten to "bomb Lebanon back to the stone age", as an example.
...as a response to legitimate threats made by Hezbollah in Lebanon. Don't forget that Hezbollah started and escalated the war in Lebanon in 2006. Israel does not threaten Egypt, or Jordan, or even Syria itself except for Hezbollah's presence therein.
I agree, but let's not forget also the ridiculous fixation of Iran with Israel, which is even more senseless. I do not understand where the Irani animosity towards Israel comes from. Both countries are surrounded by arabs that hate them, wouldn't they all be better of as best buddies?
I have studied this very question previously and it's a bit more complex than that.
Iran had a democratically elected government, but in the early 50s, the UK & US orchestrated a coup that ousted that government, since they wanted to nationalize their natural resources and kick foreign oil firms out of the country.
The U.S. the installed the King of Iran as their puppet dictator. The King was a close ally of Israel and Saudi Arabia as well.
After some 20+ years, the dictator was overthrown in the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
Part of Iran's national defense strategy since then, is to have allied forces in some neighboring countries like Lebanon, Iraq etc. These forces are not occupying the territories, they're native to the land, but just ideologically align more with Iran than other countries in the region.
This strategy exists because Iran knows it would not be able to defeat an invasion on its own, were that to ever happen.
Part of how Iran was able to attract their support was by positioning itself as the force to stand against Western abuses in the region, (including Israel).
Because Israel was an ally of the old Iranian dictator, who was hated in Iran and because their abuses against the Palestinians, it was natural for Iran to position itself as against Israeli abuses, both because of its own history and because it strengthened its image as an alternative in the region against Western abuse.
It is therefore far from true that "arabs hate them". Some Arabs hate Iranians, mostly Sunni gulf states, who supported the previous Iranian regime, but some consider them an ally, including a significant portion of Lebanon, Syria, portions of Yemen and the Palestinians.
Looking at it this way, it does at least make some sense.
It's in fact far more complex that what you describe and I strongly urge readers to do their own research.
> Iran had a democratically elected government, but in the early 50s, the UK & US orchestrated a coup that ousted that government, since they wanted to nationalize their natural resources and kick foreign oil firms out of the country.
Iran had had a monarchy for 2500 years. Then, after a brief power struggle, Mohammed Mossadegh (previously appointed prime minister by the Shah himself) became a leader for two years. He did later win an election. Indeed, he was ousted by that coup and monarchy was restored.
> The U.S. the installed the King of Iran as their puppet dictator. The King was a close ally of Israel and Saudi Arabia as well.
Characterizing Reza Pahlavi as a dictator or a "close ally" of Israel is an exaggeration. He was a monarch - and a reluctant one at that.
> These forces are not occupying the territories, they're native to the land, but just ideologically align more with Iran than other countries in the region.
By these "forces", you must be referring to Hezbollah, the terrorist organization that killed over 300 peacekeeping forces in the Beirut bombing during the Lebanese civil war, or the Houthi rebels that played a major role in causing the ongoing the civil war in Yemen.
> Part of how Iran was able to attract their support was by positioning itself as the force to stand against Western abuses in the region, (including Israel).
Almost every Arab country in the region stands against Iran, to the point of covertly cooperating with Israel. Those who align with Iran are virtually all part of the Shia/Alawite religious minority.
Well, Iraq and Syria would be two countries.
And if they could, they would be occupying many more.
Iran is not some entity trying to protect themselves from invaders, they are a theocratic dictatorship and they want to spread their specific brand of revolution throughout the region and the world.
Nukes involve us all so it's less a matter of sovereignty.
Nobody wants Iran to have nukes - not Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China etc which is why they are all signatories to the treaty!
If Iran tried to get nukes in the eyes of the above, they would pull out as well!
The issue here is more or less one of 'what Iran is doing' - not an issue of 'what we should do if Iran is cheating'.
So the headline of 3 major countries doing trade with Iran is not an abnegation of the nuclear issue, it's just a difference of opinion on what is actually going on inside Iran.
No, they wouldn't, Iran is in both countries with the explicit permission of the local governments, (like them or not). That's not what occupation means.
> And if they could, they would be occupying many more.
Given you first statement isn't true, I doubt this one is, beyond the cynical, "who wouldn't"?
> Iran is not some entity trying to protect themselves from invaders, they are a theocratic dictatorship and they want to spread their specific brand of revolution throughout the region and the world.
Look, am not a fan of Iran, but am also trying to be rational about them. Their strategy of having some proxy forces in strategic places is part of their defense strategy, this has been studied.
As for them trying to spread their ideology, sure, that alone doesn't seem to warrant sanctions, given the Gulf states and our relationship with them.
> Nobody wants Iran to have nukes - not Britain, Germany, France, Russia, China etc which is why they are all signatories to the treaty!
Right, and Iran has been complying with the deal, so what's your point? It's the U.S. that pulled out of it.
(For the record, am not sure why Israel should have unacknowledged nukes either.)
Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah towards attacking Israel is part of their defence strategy?
Iran's passing of Hadouthi missiles to targeted at cilivian areas in Saudia Arabia is part of their defence strategy.
Yes 'this has been studied' and I'm afraid you're wrong.
Iran is a antagonistic entity, and they want nukes so they can point them at Turkey, Saudi, Israel, Europe and further embolden themselves.
The reason that 'UK/France/Germany' issue is important is because it undermines almost all of the arguments being made here i.e. that 'Iran is sovereign, a victim, and shouldn't be subject to sanctions'.
The fact that 'the entire world' wants to sanction Iran for pursuing nukes fairly points to their bad acting.
The only reason that trade is possibly going to happen - is because of the belief that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons.
Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah is absolutely part of their defense strategy, so is antagonism towards Israel, not that I agree with it, but it's worth noting that Israel has been regularly threatening to "bomb Lebanon back into the stone age" and attacking Iranians in Syria, so Israel is clearly an antagonizing force as well.
Also see my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19045148 for the broader context.
> they want nukes so they can point them at Turkey, Saudi, Israel, Europe and further embolden themselves
There's no particular reason to think that if they wanted nukes, they'd do so for any other reason, than as a deterrent against an invasion, similarly to the reasons North Korea develops them.
> The only reason that trade is possibly going to happen - is because of the belief that they are not pursuing nuclear weapons.
It is not just a 'belief' as you call it, it has been verified regularly by the International Atomic Agency and Iran is in compliance with the deal. The U.S. is not.
Yes.
Particularly, it's central to their defense strategy against Sunni-dominated neighbors.
Moreover, there are no entities with the ability to even 'cause meaningful harm' (ie Israel) without significant reciprocal damage and serious political blowback.
So the notion of 'attacking neighbours as part of a defence' doesn't hold any water.
Consider that Iran has the open and public position that they want to 'wipe Israel of the map', that they are sending missiles that end up landing over the heads of Saudis and Israelis - it's clear that Iran poses an existential threat to some of their neighbours, not the other way around.
Palestinian issues aside (which will never be resolved through war anyhow) - Israel has proven they maintain very peaceful relations with any neighbours not trying to destroy it, ergo, the very easy path to peace with Israel is just to not antagonize them. Jordan, Egypt, Saudi etc. have zero to fear from Israel.
If Iran wanted peace they would just make peace, but it's clear they do not.
The Saudis are not the nicest bunch, and their funding of extremist activities should draw more ire, but they have no real military capabilities more than a few miles beyond their borders.
Not without allying with and outside power like the United States to do so (which, incidentally, was critical to Saddam’s ability to do so); Iran's influence with dissatisfied groups, which its visible active opposition to Israel is a key component of, is key to it's ability to credibly threaten to impose a high cost for that.
It's also, beyond defence against existing local regimes, a key component of it's strategy to prevent the US from securing a stronger foothold in the region to threaten Iran by displacing or subverting an existing regime both by establishing Iran's positive influence and by poisoning the week against the US.
Israel did this because they understood that once Iraq was gone, Iran was their direct geopolitical rival before that Israel and Iran (even Post-Revolution) were all buddy buddy.
The fact is, Iran is a country compliant with international nuclear guidelines and agreements, to a stronger extend then literally every other country in the world. Israel is a rouge state that stole nuclear secrets and built nuclear weapons.
The US supporting Israel against Iran by claiming the crimes that everybody knows Israel has actually perpetrated.
Be wary of the narrative the media feeds you. There is a lot of spin on what is actually said in Iran and what is reported. For example:
https://www.quora.com/Did-Irans-former-president-Ahmadinejad...
This was later revisited by WaPo:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/did-a...
> So the UN resolution was actually legally compromised and the partition plan was also completely unfair, giving out 70 percent of the land to the immigrant Jews who made up only 30 percent of the population at the time! (See 1947 UN Partition Proposal)
> So people only need to use their common sense to see how wrong this radical and bloody demographic implantation in the Arab world, called Israel, has been!
therefore, I would take whatever other factual claims this writer makes with a grain of salt, since anyone who reads his article can see a clear anti-Israeli agenda.
But even assuming his factutal statements regarding what Ahmadinejad said: that the occupation will vanish from the face of time, and not actually Israel, which is not the same as the occupation - anyone who is a bit versed in Middle-Eastern media knows that “the occupation” is just the way Israel is referred to. In very much the same way that the Iranian regime calls Israel and the U.S. “the small and big devils”. The writer’s point is moot. Any threat about the vanishing of the occupation is the same as the threat of the vanishing of Israel as a state.
The second article is a bit weird, as it seems to argue the finer points of translation:
> Khomeini gave a speech in which he said in Persian “Een rezhim-i eshghalgar-i Quds bayad az sahneh-i ruzgar mahv shaved.” This means, “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.” But then anonymous wire service translators rendered Khomeini as saying that Israel “must be wiped off the face of the map,” which Cole and Nourouzi say is inaccurate.
and
> In 2000, Khamenei stated, “Iran’s position, which was first expressed by the Imam [Khomeini] and stated several times by those responsible, is that the cancerous tumor called Israel must be uprooted from the region.” He went on to say in the same speech that “Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews.”
Wow, I’m so glad the Iranian regime only says that Israel along with the Jews living in it must vanish and be uprooted, but not wiped out.
To make things clear: I am against the control of Israeli military of territories with a Palestenian civilian majority in the West Bank, and I myself call that “occupation”. I believe Israel is very much at fault, even if it is not exclusive fault.
But that doesn’t excuse ignoring or defending actual threats to the very existence of Israel, which Iran does make, and act upon.
It's long been known that Iran doesn't recognize Israel as a country, just like Israel doesn't recognize Palestine, so there should be no surprise here.
I really don't understand why others really think the people of Iran have some overarching goal of attacking Israel and the US versus just trying to live their lives. What will that accomplish them?
Iran is a republic and must answer to it's people, which is why they participate in the international community by e.g. following the Non Proliferation Treaty and making trade deals with the rest of the international community. At the end of the day they don't want to be isolated and straddled with hyper inflation from sanctions just like most countries.
You make the first sound very sterile. Aggressively saying one (a person or country) must not exist is not that far off from saying he must be wiped off, especially if you’re taking actual military steps against that subject.
> It's long been known that Iran doesn't recognize Israel as a country just like Israel doesn't recognize Palestine, so there should be no surprise here.
Who’s surprised? I just demonstrated the so-called receipts the parent OP said one must show.
Regardless, not recognizing something is very different from saying it must not exist and taking steps to advance that desired non-existence.
I think the Israeli regime is also evil in not allowing a Palestenian state to exist, even if it’s not Israel’s exclusive fault.
> I really don't understand why others really think the people of Iran have some overarching goal of attacking Israel and the US versus just trying to live their lives. What will that accomplish them?
I think it’s clear we are talking about the regimes here, not “the people”. Especially in autocratic Iran.
> Iran is a republic and must answer to it's people
False. [1]
> de jure: Unitary Khomeinist presidential Islamic republic
> de facto: Theocratic-republican authoritarian unitary presidential republic subject to a Supreme Leader
1. Denial of Russia's meddling in US election because it runs counter to Trump's ego and he had a weird soft spot for autocrats.
2. The baseless termination of the Iran nuclear Accord as essentially a capitulation to Israel and Israeli interests. There was no violation of the agreement. The best the administrative could come up with was that Iran was violating the "spirit" of the agreement with actions that took place prior to it. WTF?
3. Giving North Korea a pass, a country that actually has unchecked nuclear ambitions and a deplorable human rights record.
4. Giving Saudi Arabia a pass on killing a US permanent resident in Turkey (Trump asked on camera "he's not a citizen right?"). Why? Because they're an ally. Why exactly is that? Well because of Iraq. Why was Iraq an enemy? Well because of Iran. Why was Iran an enemy? Well because we incited a revolution there to remove a democratically elected government leading to a hardline religious revolution so they didn't like is. Then we propped up a dictator and supplied him with arms, commenting a war that killed millions. Yeah ok. But hey MBS is another Putin in the making so that's fine.
Honestly the only bright spot in this (and there really is one) is that China's misdeeds seem to be getting called out.
Anyway the whole Iran thing just makes me angry. The best thing we could do there is work towards normalization is relations. Three internal politics were slowly becoming more moderate. Isolating them gives more power to the hardliners.
But that's really the story of the disproportionate power Israel has over US foreign policy. Gone are the days when Eisenhower told them to get the hell out of Sinai.
Saudi Arabia is an ally because, and for as long as, they happily do their oil business in USD, which does a lot to underpin the USD as a driver in the global economy as a whole.
I agree with you on Iran for the same reasons though.
- Not giving credibility to the North Korean regime
- When Russia kills dissidents overseas in a pretty public way (eg Polonium-210, nerve agents), annexes a sovereign nation (ie part of the Ukraine) and their meddling leads to giving anti-aircraft systems to rebels who use it to shoot down a passenger plane (ie MH17) then they're treated with sanctions and are ostracized to some degree from the international community. To be fair, a lot of this predated Trump. The MBS-Khashoggi affair should be met with a similar amount of condemnation.
Oh and there's the whole Yemen thing too.
There was a time when Saudi Arabia wielded a lot of power due to their oil output and the West's dependence on it. But those days are gone. The US is now a net oil exporter. There are sources other than OPEC for oil (eg Venezuela, Russia although each of them has their issues now obviously). More to the point, Saudi Arabia needs to sell oil to buy off their own citizens.
Supporting an unpopular autocratic regime is part of why many in the Middle East hate the US.
The real tragedy of the Middle East is that the US caused no end of problems and then picked the wrong side (again and again actually). There's a case to be made than Iran would've made the better ally.
But our hands are tied. Because Israel, basically.
How about not increasing the risk of war with N. Korea and Russia? It should not be our job to police other countries. We have enough of our own problems to deal with in the US.
See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Anti-Apartheid_A...
Training manual for the school of the Americas http://www.soaw.org/docs/SOA%20Manejo%20de%20Fuentes%201-60....
https://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/28/opinion/school-of-the-dic...
I understand that dictatorship != fascism.
We, the people, are pretty powerless here. Lobbyists and elected officials have too much power and election cycles are too far apart. So even when recent American military action gets relatively low support from Americans [0], neither congress nor the president has any motivation to do anything about it.
0 - https://news.gallup.com/poll/208334/support-syria-strikes-ra...
Seriously as long as folks are content at home the politicians won’t give a damn about you. Go march in the streets en mass and things will slowly change.
It's even harder when, at the same time, you put your thumb firmly on one side of the business/labor relations scale by pushing at-will employment and right to work efforts.
IMHO not even a US specific issue, people in a whole lot of "western countries" seem to have forgotten how to meaningfully protest.
Sure, there is the occasional "against climate change" or "for this societal issue" marches, but they all have the problem of being incredibly obscure in their goals and demands.
Long gone are the days of large scale peace protests against very specific "interventions", like the invasion of Iraq triggered.
Most US americans have been voting for Democrats or Republicans or not at all for decades. Of course the politics remain the same: Wars and politics that favor the richest.
Please, vote for the Green Party or another reasonable party in 2020.
It's something to think about if you don't like the candidates the major parties are running and thus assume your vote means nothing.
Search for "Minor party candidates" here for the specifics: https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/understand...
https://mises.org/wire/26-percent-eligible-voters-voted-trum...
If you do not vote or vote for someone you do not want, your vote is worse than lost.
There is much potential for other parties. And while the presidential election is most important regarding war and the rest of the world, other elections for local politicians are important too and maybe even more important for US citizens.
Related talk: How To Eliminate The "Spoiler" Vote Phenomenon w/Jill Stein pt. 1 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgYEFxjJaUg
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/politics-industry/
Unfortunately to change the law you need voters who vote for a party that is willing to change it even though it came into power under the current law.
I'm not going to vote for someone just because they're different from the establishment if they have positions I find ridiculous.
Let take 2016 elections for example, your choices were; Hillary, responsible for a failed country right now and rigged primaries or Trump, the less said about him is better. If enough people voted for a different party, that would keep these two main parties in sort of a check as well, knowing they can't get away with whatever they want.
This idea that candidates need to perfectly represent everyone's opinions is just absurd. I don't agree with everything that Hillary did or that Trump is doing. That doesn't mean everything they did was bad or good.
But to suggest Jill Stein as a viable alternative when she has some dubious backing doesn't really empower choosing the 3rd party, does it?
You really believe that the POTUS (notably Jill Stein and the Green Party) could be paid by Russia to enforce Russian policies to the detriment of US citizens ?
This idea is as crazy as the idea that China invented global warming to harm the USA economy.
From https://www.rte.ie/news/analysis-and-comment/2018/0111/93244...
Back in 2012, almost three years before he declared that he was going to run for the White House, Mr Trump tweeted: "The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
You really believe that nothing happened and there wasn't a concerted effort by Russia to significantly impact the election?
Whether or not the POTUS or candidates were complicit is one thing, but it's very clear that a significant impact on this election was made.
Hillary got more votes, and some DNC people were catty about Bernie over private email.
I even voted Bernie, I just can't stand seeing claims repeated without evidence. Put up or shut up.
Also thought the war was a direct consequence of more Democrats voting for Bush than the total number of votes Nader got.[0] Democrats favored Bush over Nader. The number of Democrats who voted for Bush exceeded those who voted for Nader five fold.
In the last state I lived in, Democrats were far more hostile to 3rd party candidates than Republicans were - putting in a lot more effort to ensure they wouldn't get on the ballet.
As someone who grew up in a country where people couldn't vote, I can't imagine acts more hostile to democracy than what I saw the Democrats do to limit choices on the ballot. I may vote Democrat often, but I don't see myself as ever supporting the party.
As far as registered Dems voting habitually R.. yeah, that happens, you should see the south.
And had Nader voters voted for Gore, they would not have gotten what they wanted either had Gore won. They voted Nader because they did not want Gore.
The only thing I can take away from your comment is that if your candidate lost, you wanted the wrong thing.
>As far as registered Dems voting habitually R.. yeah, that happens, you should see the south.
I do - and I see more Dems responsible for Bush than Nader voters.
500k dead Iraqis on account of how that election swung. You sure showed us Democrats.
Trump didn't get elected due to support from lobbyists and elected officials. The Russian interference was mostly noise.
They also want to wipe Israel from the map and are trying to build nuclear weapons.
We need more sanctions, not less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia
“We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.” -- from emails leaked from the office of Hillary Clinton, who was US Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013.
The Iranian people overthrew the shah who ruled for ~38 years and whom the US supported, and seemed to choose theocracy. (I say "seemed" because I'm sure there are two sides to the story. From the little reading I've done, it seems there was significant support for the theocracy.) They now hold elections, though I don't know how free of meddling they are. So they've gone from a US-supported dictatorship, a feeling much of the Middle East and Latin Americas knows, to a partially democratic theocracy.
Negative attitudes towards homosexuality are common across the Middle East; they're not unique to Iran. Neither are negative attitudes towards Israel.
I don't know enough about Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran supposedly building nuclear weapons to comment, so I won't.
For those interested, I highly recommend reading Robert Fisk's "The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East"[0]. The author was in Iran during the revolution which overthrew the Shah and offers a fascinating perspective into the Iranian people. The rest of the book is proving to be amazing too!
[0] https://smile.amazon.com/Great-War-Civilisation-Conquest-Mid...
Which is one of the reasons moves like this by the UK are interesting; much of the current American sentiment towards Iran was shaped by the Chatham House group in the first place.
Also I sat down and actually read all the IAEA reports in 2010 or so and besides the mossad planted laptop fiasco, all indications were that Iran was not seeking weaponization or even virtual breakout mode, and I have yet to see any good evidence to the contrary other than claims of "secret evidence".
The second is pretty much false. Iran has never tried to build nuclear weapons. Iran has been and always was perfectly in accordance with international law.
If you want to sanction Iran for the reason giving in your first line, then you must sanction literally every single ally the US has in the Middle East.
Please stop claiming that this is some moral position that the US holds.
Pretty good evidence there that Iran wants to destroy Israel. Even if they're not trying to build nukes, which is a stretch, they can't be trusted with nuclear power.
I agree that it is not the only homophobic non-democracy in the Middle East. The sooner no-one needs oil and we can stop dealing with those countries, the better.
Iran has shown again and again that they can be trusted as they have join the global communities process from early on and are not the best monitored country. Israel has shown that they can not be trusted with Nuclear power, they have not even signed the NPT.
Iran government might want to destroy Israel, but Israel government would like to destroy Iran as well. They are both regional powers.
But equally, you can't presume innocence as that's just as bad as presuming guilty.
One of the only things both republicans and democrats can agree on is war. They will debate and argue about children drinking lead in Flint, but bombing some small country on the other side of the world and increasing the defense budget and lining the pockets of the defense contractors will always have bipartisan support.
One of the only things both foxnews and cnn/msbnc/nytimes/wapo/etc can agree on is war. They'll call each other fake news and poison the minds of the american people with divisive rhetoric for ratings, but when it comes to war, they'll set aside their differences and speak in one united pro-war voice.
That's the saddest part. The media is the one entity theoretically equipped to shine light on these things. And it's just fallen down hill in a race to the bottom the last two decades.
And for that we must also place some blame on ourselves. We're less and less likely to support good journalism and gravitate to fluff and fake(-able) news ("Who needs newspapers? I get my news from Twitter").
We cannot shift blame exclusively outwards. We are not discerning consumers of information.
These plans of dissociation have been in motion for some time now. I think two ruinous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have caused a shift in American foreign policy that we are now starting to see play out more frequently. This will continue for many decades.
The traditional (not current) left was for disengagement (WTO protests, Iraq protests), it’s strange to see the left now argue for intervention and more internationalism and intervention and hegemony.
Yes, on the face of it, this is about sidestepping sanctions. But the implications of doing so go far deeper. The US posture today basically makes the US weaker in the long run.
That's all a fantasy though. The US isn't stepping back from the world stage. Its $20.5 trillion economy is growing twice as fast as the EU's smaller economy. Its $700 billion military isn't going to be reduced in size. The USD is as strong as a global standard as it has been in the last 40 years, it has no serious currency challenger (including the Yuan).
The US isn't stopping / abandoning trade. The US isn't leaving NATO. The US isn't reducing its economic or military heft. The US isn't leaving the UN or the security council and giving up its permanent seat. The US isn't ending immigration in any regard. Few of the things people pretend are happening re a step-back & isolationism, are actually happening.
Germany + UK + France = $9.5 trillion in economic output, with the combination persistently lagging behind the US in output growth. The global alternatives to the US are all growing weaker, not stronger, with one exception: China. The EU isn't better off today than it was in ~2005, it's weaker.
Trump is gone in 2-6 years. He's opposed by nearly the entire political system when it comes to isolationist policies. There is no actual step back occuring and there isn't going to be one. Trump is a fluke one-off as a politician. The next president - which will be a typical politician from inside the system - is guaranteed to follow the same script every other president has since WW2 when it comes to the US global engagement and power projection. When people write that there is a step-back occuring, it's a projection on their part of what they would like to see happen (it often involves an emotion-based fantasy that the US will soon collapse and be humbled as a superpower).
Who is unreliable here? Why isn't Germany getting their natural gas from the US?
Of course the EU doesn't like Trump. If somebody has been giving you free money for decades and all of a sudden somebody wants to put a stop to it or at least get something in return, of course they aren't going to like the new guy
Be interesting which side Canada chooses. They might even get a wall out of it.
The Yellow Vest movement started in France and has been prominent in the countries listed within the article. The governments of those countries have also been defying popular wishes, particularly regarding Brexit.
So I am curious as to why my comment should be flagged instead of replied to. Interesting indeed - hit a nerve?
[0] - https://web.archive.org/web/20190131120900/https://www.reute...
Conversely opening the market creates bounds between countries and opens the population's mind that will impose the democracy by itself.
If you say the embargo solves the problem of fueling a boogeyman enemy to rationalize military spending and fuel nationalism, then I would say it's a quite elegant solution.
And now it wont
It doesnt really matter if you are subscribed to the merit of the US’ claims or not
The reality is that we are 16t worth of trade and Iran is 440b. They're just not worth it.
Which really obviates the only real reason to have the EU - combined, all the EU countries are stronger in any field than the US (or China).
That being said the US is a basket case. Sure bully the EU. It’ll work today, maybe ten years from now.
But the US is a failing concern, with a completely rotten and corrupt ruling class that lead ppl to vote for an oversized Twinkee for president. World wide hegemony is done in twenty years.
Also, starting from the US emissions per capita, it's really not hard to reduce it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
Which agrees in total tons. I didn't find anything per capita, or relative to current emissions.
That said, I agree with the trade system accounting for CO2 emissions.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-import...
Starting from insanely high emission levels
> and is highly competitive on a per-capita percentage basis.
No. That's just false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
Your link says in 2013 the U.S. was near its neighbor Canada on per capita carbon emissions.
That's still double the EU. But that's also 6 years ago; the gap will have closed somewhat.
So is @anc84 advocating for the embargo of Australia too, whose 2015 pollution is even higher than the United States?
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC?location...
Even though it started lower, Europe has been reducing its emissions at a faster rate. In 2014, Europe was at 63% of its peak of emissions, whereas the US were at 72%.
The slope in log scale gives it away too (from the same data set, comparing US (orange) and Eurozone (blue) since 1971): https://i.imgur.com/099XLIw.png
How about embargo of the EU, which currently pollutes at roughly the same rate?
Did you know that energy production in the US is overall more environmentally friendly than in Germany, for example?
Also, Chinese people don’t drive stupid big SUV and trucks while running the AC on full blast all summer.
The diesel emissions scandal in the US had a European counterpart that was never dealt with. 2018 models are still polluting far above the official limits which themselves are more lax than the US. [1]
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/09/180921140151.h...
That being said I’m much more concerned with trash burning (it still happens, I’ve seen it plenty when driving outside of cities) and the byproducts of the intense construction that can’t be slowed down without seriously hurting their economy. I know multiple Chinese people with their retirement investments in concrete manufacturing companies that are losing big with recent government clamping down on that.
Both of these are anecdotal, sure, but then again I don’t trust official Chinese government data so anecdotal has some value.
The USA and other developed countries went through their own periods of abusing the environment during their industrial revolutions so I have to assume China will get through this as well. Things are already improving. And at least their government acknowledges it’s something they need to improve rather than actively regressing like the USA.
The US is often singled out because of a dogmatic refusal to accept reality, and policies that actively increase emissions.
Time to get up
Do they think that hitting even harder will have any result?
It seems no lesson were learned since...
You also do realize that the U.S. supports 75% of the world's dictatorships, right? You do realize that the U.S./U.K. orchestrated a coup against the democratically elected leader of Iran, right?
Edit: I meant this as a light-hearted, tongue-in-cheek, comment re the Brexit negotiations. It was apparently wrong to do so (?). I even took precious time from the fallacy man (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/9).
Also, we don't even know that most of the EU is united even on Brexit - they've carefully held off their required votes on the Brexit deal until after the UK gets it through Parliament, which doesn't look like happening any time soon.
Britain triggered Article 50 and decided to leave the EU. There's no deal necessary. From the EU's point of view (and a legal one), this isn't a negotiation, just a (sometimes less clearly defined) bureaucratic procedure.
There is of course the question of what Britain's relationship to the EU will look like after Brexit. And it is the EU's responsibility to negotiate a deal which makes that relationship as beneficial for EU member states as possible.
It's simply not their job to care about Britain any more.
Another point worth remembering is that several EU countries don't really have a significant trading relationship with Britain. Imagine if Britain had remained in the EU and Austria was negotiating a 'Brexit-style' deal, for example. How interested would Britain really be in whether that deal was good or bad?
This is what's most frustrating about Brexiters complaining about the "unreasonable" offer by the EU. It's not "the EU" imposing those terms, it's the interested parties.
After all, with little to lose personally from a poor UK-EU trading deal, those uninterested parties have a much stronger incentive to push for other things they find important (such as freedom of movement).
No, the behavior of the EU does not align with the interests of its member states, that is the truth. As with Greece, so now with the UK. Crushed by unaccountable committee.
It's not the EU's job.
The EU's priority is its members' interests. As you rightly point out, those interests are probably not well served by alienating the UK.
But that by no means implies that the EU shouldn't be seeking the best possible deal for the EU that the UK will put up with.
> No, the behavior of the EU does not align with the interests of its member states, that is the truth. As with Greece, so now with the UK. Crushed by unaccountable committee.
Interesting argument. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU. The behaviour of the UK doesn't align with the interests of Scotland. I assume you believe Scotland should therefore be allowed to leave the UK?
That's because full membership was already the best deal the EU had to offer. A lot of UK politicians seem to live inside a dream world where they think the remaining EU members are obliged to make major concessions without anything in return because a no-deal brexit surely hurts them, a little bit, too.
Also the most disliked thing seems to be the backstop, where exactly is the practical alternative proposal for making sure the Good Friday Agreement is not broken?
The UK as a negotiating entity has failed to argue coherently, because the political classes are hopelessly divided and opportunistic.
It's important to note that the EU has not agreed to /anything/ in terms of trade as part of this deal, that's why it's a terrible deal. It's a deal to make a deal, but it includes us agreeing to pay massive outstanding budget commitments. So it's pretty much the UK surrendering their only negotiating leverage (and also the ability to revoke article 50) for absolutely nothing in return.
The EU /can/ enforce this on us, because of their relative size and our political disunity/mismanagement, but it seems obvious that they /should/ not.
An agreement which the British people could agree on would be a comprehensive free trade agreement and customs region(with us paying into budget) but no free movement, no deeper integration, and no ability for the UK to make external trade agreements. There are two fictions preventing this - the EU pretending that this is impossible or unfair (there's no law that free trade has to have free movement, it's a convenient political fiction for the EU), and the right Tories pretending that any external trade agreements would even begin to compensate for the cost of customs checks with the EU.
The UK is screwed but the EU is a malign entity, which seeks to treat us as they have Greece- a banana republic to be screwed by committee. A club which won't allow you to leave is ruler. Sorry for the essay, a remain voter.
edit: The backstop is not at all the most disliked part, it gets the most press because it's the sticking point between T May's attempt to shoehorn her bill through because it seems to lean towards a softer type of deal, which loses her the hard-right Tories and the Irish question loses her the DUP. But it's just a fight between the Tory clans who have power, if you polled the UK population or even parliament, it would not be the most unpopular part of the deal, not even close.
Do they? Nobody wants the UK to leave as far a I know.
> It's important to note that the EU has not agreed to /anything/ in terms of trade as part of this deal, that's why it's a terrible deal. It's a deal to make a deal, > The EU /can/ enforce this on us, because of their relative size and our political disunity/mismanagement, but it seems obvious that they /should/ not.
Why shouldn't the EU act in its own best interest? And why should the EU expect ongoing negotiations would be more productive than what happend the last 2 years and be finished in a pre set schedule? I think the political mismanagement in the UK is fully to blame here. Yes the UK is in no position to simply dictate the terms of an ongoing relationship, everyone knew that (at least who wanted to know). What the EU is willing or able to accept was also known. Despite that article 50 was triggered without a plan, not even speaking of a realistic one while knowing that 2 years are not a lot of time to untangle such a deep relationship even with a solid plan.
> but it includes us agreeing to pay massive outstanding budget commitments.
I think it's reasonable to demand budget commitments already made to be paid for. It's not some arbitrary "exit fee", it's just paying the bill. Would you be willing to sign a new contract with someone who is unwilling to fulfill outstanding obligations of the previous one?
In oe matter. To act like this means other matter cannot be agreed is a false dilemma.
Id suggest to read about logical fallacies: https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/fallacies_list.html
This deal is entirely designed to cut US out the loop of international payments, one step at a time. It is extremely valuable to EU to able to conduct oil payments with Iran directly in Euro, without the US being able to say no.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/oct/02/france-blames-...
https://freebeacon.com/national-security/eu-sanctions-iran-o...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/08/iran-behind-tw...
And on and on and on.
I know the "America is dumb" line works well on HN, but the naivety of some people here around foreign policy is just kind of staggering. Iran's "own destiny" isn't a positive one, so let's not romanticize it.
Iran was Democracy until 1953 when a CIA coup took down the government. Its a myth that Iran was only progressive because of the West. They were progressing without direct Western influence.
The Shah was installed and he was super progressive (in some ways) pushing values on the population and that cause a huge backlash.
The US essentially destroyed the only real democracy in the middle east.
Following allied occupation during WWII, Iran was developing a progressive secular government until the US decided to overthrow it as Iran was trying to regain control over it's oil. This led to 25 years of a pro-west regime that can not remotely be considered progressive, followed by the revolution leading to the anti-west regime that also can not be considered progressive.
Mosaddegh led the nation for two years, half of which he had emergency dictatorial powers, which he used to forcibly reallocate wealth from landowners to tenants. And due to nationalizing oil, he faced a British boycott that caused the economy to fail (and declared the British an enemy... which was unwise). If anything, his short-lived leadership was one of the most rapid and catastrophic failures of leadership of any world nation in recent history. The US led coup was only planned 8 months after the emergency powers were granted to Mosaddegh. 5 months after that, the coup was executed.
Purely because he resisted Western control over the oil fields. The government was secular and progressive, but the west only cares if you're pro-western interests.
The 1979 revolution probably would not had happened had the US and UK not overthrown the Prime Minister in the 50s, because he had the audacity to nationalise his country's oil. How very dare he. Once the Shah returned he turned initial popularity (thanks to an economy spared from the oil nationalisation sanctions) into a repressive dictatorship.
It's probably more positive than a number of the US's allies, and it is a valid question as to why Iran is the one being picked on.
Everything you say is as true and more of Saudi Arabia. And much of it is also more true for Pakistan. In the latter country, a huge portion of the population literally cheer the assassination of a governor who promised to interfere with Asia Bibi's conviction.
Edit: And let's not forget the slap on the wrist Pakistan got for developing nuclear weapons.
Please list how many politicians in Iran are assassinated by their own people, and cheered for it, for opposing blasphemy or apostasy legislation, and for defending minority rights.
It's quite notable how you focus on only one aspect of my comment, and for only one country.
It's also notable on how you appear to think the standards you set are the relevant ones, and don't address others.
As for the list you asked for, I'll let folks from Afghanistan and India answer. It's also quite accessible from the perspective of a Google search. I do not want to be drawn deeply into the conversation, as in my past experience, it always devolves into "No, that's not a terrorist organization. Yes, that is."
If destabilizing a region is a legitimate metric, the US should consider sanctioning themselves. It's silly to accuse Iran of interference of neighbors when the US travels far across continents and invades two countries.
The allies that the US works with to contain Iran are worse in every single category you mention. Claiming the moral high ground over Iran is embracing and only works for people who don't have a clue about the middle east.
Iran has complied with an international process according to international law after being bullied by the US when the US claims were never true. Iran never had nuclear weapons, they never had a program to build nuclear weapons and pretty much everybody including US spy agencies agree with that.
After this international process, the US fucked all its allies, went against everything they had worked towards. Just to hit Iran with more sanctions that were originally about nuclear issues but now they have dropped that pretense.
Iran is not a good country, but the US and allies does worse quite often and consistently and Iran has very real and legitimate complaints about how they were treated since 1979.
It has to do with all the things I've stated. And stating that "Iran never had a program to build nuclear weapons" is just nonsensical. They may no longer be pursuing it, but you're conflating many things.
> "Iran and six world powers known as the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) reached a historic nuclear deal on July 14, 2015 ... Prior to that, Iran had been engaged in efforts to acquire the capability to build nuclear weapons for more than two decades."
https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheet/Timeline-of-Nuclear-Di...
> It has to do with all the things I've stated. And stating that "Iran never had a program to build nuclear weapons" is just nonsensical. They may no longer be pursuing it, but you're conflating many things.
No. I am not. Iran never had nuclear weapons program. That is a fact. At the very most they had a program that did some basic research to understand how you would even build a bomb, far away from what we would consider a nuclear weapons program.
The fact is that Iran didn't want to an enrichment program, they asked France to do it for them, with all enriched uranium being controlled by France and in full view of international supervision.
It was the US who blocked this move by France and did not allow that to happen. Only then did Iran start to invest in enrichment facilities.
The ACA is a lobby group that spreads their point of view as fact.