[flagged]
>> 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.