[flagged]
Is punishing a whole country (so including the population) an efficient way to change a regime behaviour? I'm not sure history proved this right... Just look at Cuba ...
Cutting all ties with a country makes the population even more dependant to the actual regime since there's no more direct exchanges with other countries. It also removes some communication bridges would limits the influence of the regime on censorship.
Keeping some economical relationship with the country is not giving full support to the regime, but a way to keep an influence. I'm not saying there's no economical interest behind, of course there is, but the "ban" approach is unlikely to change the situation in a good way in the first place.
The current Iranian regime is there BECAUSE of Western meddling, it would not exist otherwise. You also need to realize that the Gulf states sponsor terrorism to a larger degree and are our allies, so it's not about that.
The U.S. supports 75% of the world's dictatorships.
It simply wants control of Iran's natural resources, same goes for Venezuela, where the opposition isn't really any more popular than Maduro is and also rather violent.
>"The current Iranian regime is there BECAUSE of Western meddling, it would not exist otherwise."
The original Iranian Revolution was a reaction to Western meddling and policies. The current regime is there because of the consolidation of power of the theocracy. The executive branch is actually subordinate to the Supreme Leader and the Supreme leader controls the military. Iranians don't get to vote for the Supreme Leader - that's a position for life. The Islamic Republic borne out of a referendum in 1979. There hasn't been a meaningful referendum since. 60% of the population is under the age of 30, many of which are not interested in living in an Islamic republic.[1]
>"The U.S. supports 75% of the world's dictatorships."
Please provide a single citation for this statistic. This is an absurd statement.
>"It simply wants control of Iran's natural resources, same goes for Venezuela,"
The US doesn't need Iran's oil, neither does it need Venezuela's. The US has been a net exporter of oil for a while now. The US shale boom has been in effect for years.[2]
[1] http://time.com/4046788/iran-revolution-nuclear-deal-youth/
[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-06/u-s-becom...
The current regime is there precisely as a result of the Iranian Revolution.
> Please provide a single citation for this statistic. This is an absurd statement.
http://global-politics.eu/military-assistance-73-percent-wor...
I guess I was off by 2%, it's 73% of the world's dictatorships.
> The US doesn't need Iran's oil, neither does it need Venezuela's. The US has been a net exporter of oil for a while now. The US shale boom has been in effect for years.
It doesn't need the oil itself. But it does need for global oil to be traded in USD in order to help maintain its status as a reserve currency, which is why it still supports the Saudis.
There's also U.S. oil companies who rely on the Venezuelan crude and would like to go back into the country and privatize the oil assets[1].
1 - https://twitter.com/marcorubio/status/1088414772163461120
So you are defending you assertion by simply repeating it?
You show a complete lack of of understanding of the power structure of Iran and the history of the revolution. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini was appointed to be Supreme Leader after the Iranian Revolution. He used the position to consolidate power and shape the judiciary. There current regime is a reflection of this massive consolidation of power and influence. This has continued with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. These have been the only two Supreme Leaders since 1979. The current regime is a reflection of their outsized control, influence and policy over the country. The current regime has very little to do with the ideals of the 1979 revolution and original referendum.
You link is laughable - Vietnam, Thailand, Jordan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia are all listed in that chart and none of them are dictatorships. Did you bother to look at the provenance of this? Here:
>"About the author: Rich Whitney is an attorney, actor, radio commentator and disk jockey, Illinois Green Party activist and former Green Party candidate for governor.
>"Origins of images: Facebook, Twitter, Wikimedia, Wikipedia, Flickr, Google, Imageinjection & Pinterest."
So an attorney, actor, radio commentator and disk jockey compiled some images from social media and "the internet." Brilliant. Perhaps you might read more critically.
No, what you seem to be trying to do is claim that because the regime that is the result of the Revolution did not deliver on all of its promises when the Revolution started, it is somehow a different regime?
Politicians often don't fulfill their promises. Does that make them different? Liars, deceptive manipulators maybe, but they're still them. The reason they were even able to consolidate power was as a result of the revolution that put them there, which is separate from if they delivered on it.
You wouldn't claim that Barack Obama is some different president, or an illegitimate one, because he did not deliver on all of his campaign promises would you?
> You link is laughable - Vietnam, Thailand, Jordan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia are all listed in that chart and none of them are dictatorships.
They're not exactly 'free' countries, are they now? Authoritarian countries would be a better title for you perhaps?
> So an attorney, actor, radio commentator and disk jockey compiled some images from social media and "the internet." Brilliant. Perhaps you might read more critically.
This is based on the Freedom House report of non free countries, it's not some data that the author of the piece made up. In fact there are other reports about it, this is literally just the first link I grabbed.
Maybe you should reread your original where you say "the current Iranian regime." The current regime is the result of policies implemented by the Ayatollah after the revolution and implemented via his appointees on Council of Guardians - the body that oversees Parliament. "Current regime" means exactly that the regime as it exists today. And it is a very different regime than what existed in 1979.
>"They're not exactly 'free' countries, are they now? Authoritarian countries would be a better title for you perhaps?"
Please re-read where you stated the "US supports 75% of dictatorship." It has nothing to do with what's "better for me." Your statement is patently false. Let's not move the goal posts. And just to further illustrate this absurdity, Jordan which is on your "list", is neither authoritarian or dictatorial. It's widely considered to be something of a success story of democracy in the Middle East.
> "Rich Whitney is an attorney, actor, radio commentator and disk jockey, Illinois Green Party activist and former Green Party candidate for governor."
The idea that the US is wanting to overthrow Venezuela for oil is just silly. They output roughly what North Dakota does. I know it sounds cool to claim this, but it's just not reality.
It's not just some 'goods', it's military equipment.
Also, you purposely picked a country with a low volume, when there are countless others with a much higher one on the list, including the likes of Egypt, Saudi Ariabia, the UAE etc.
This is based on the Freedom House report, it's not some data that the author of the piece made up.
> The idea that the US is wanting to overthrow Venezuela for oil is just silly. They output roughly what North Dakota does.
I already said it has little to do with the output, yet you ignore it because it does not fit with your narrative.
Also, how then do you explain the U.S. backed 2002 coup attempt, when Chavez was massively popular at the time?
Or are you trying to claim that the U.S. does not in fact 'meddle' in Latin America?
I have no love for Iran what so ever, but opposing them for having a nuclear program while not opposing the US or any other country who also has nukes, is so extremely hypocritical. I'm so astonished to see that argument over and over again.
You can, and in my opinion should, criticize Iran for a lot. For example for being a theocracy like you mention. But saying "you cannot have nukes, but we can" is still very much hypocritical.
Also, the US has a history of military intervention, suppression, assassinations and overthrowing democratically elected governments.
That the US is more "liberal" is about as reassuring as being told the potion that is being used to poison you is 100% organic and GMO-free.
No, it isn't.
At this point, supporting either side is a problem in itself. Finding a diplomatic solution to end the conflict would be true genius.