Comment by kelnos | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kelnos | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

If you look at it from Iran's perspective, why should they be responsible for building trust? They got jerked around by the last administration. Their sworn enemy, Israel, has nuclear capability, and the US and other nuclear powers have military bases within striking range of Iran.

While I personally am in favor of nuclear disarmament and anti-proliferation, it's very easy for me to say that, living in a country with nuclear weapons serving as deterrent. Iran logically wants to own that deterrent as well.

And at its base, even if they don't have immediate plans to enrich to the point where they could have a viable nuclear weapon, it's also a case of showing strength (in the negotiation sense): "we're tired of being jerked around; if you want us to come to the table, you have to see us as strong and take us seriously". I don't think they really care about presenting themselves as the "peaceful victim".

> After laying their intentions bare like this, why should anyone trust [Iran] with JCPOA 2.0?

Given what happened with 1.0, why should Iran trust the US with JCPOA 2.0?

> Their sworn enemy, Israel, has nuclear capability

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/sworn... Sworn enemies are people who will always hate each other.

Israel has no issue with Iran or Iranians in general, nor are Israel's policies particularly harmful to Iran.

Iran doesn't want a deterrent, they want to commit an act of genocide against Israel and the Jewish people.

Don't make a false equivalence about this.

Israel openly brags about attacking Israel enrichment. They’ve clearly said the treaty is unacceptable and will strike at Iran.

Words and actions are different things, and the imbalance of power allows Israel to take more destructive actions. When was the last time Iran struck Israel?

I’m no fan of Iran, but Israel is far from a good actor or peaceful nation.

Yes, Israel attacks Iranian enrichment. So does the US. Attacking enrichment centers that aim to produce warhead material is acceptable foreign policy, especially against a nation that calls Israel a cancerous tumor needing to be destroyed. These enrichment programs have a singular goal, and it is not clean energy.

When was the last time Iran struck Israel? Is that a joke? April 13th, 2021 Iran struck an Israeli ship. Iran funds and supplies terror groups -- see https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2.... These groups especially try to kill Israelis via rocket attacks, but also American Civilians (e.g., embassy attack).

Israel is absolutely a peaceful nation, as evidenced by numerous recent peace treaties in the region, but being peaceful does not obligate them to await armed conflict as opposed to taking defensive measure.

Ok, you’re right. They’re both hostile countries. They both fund the destruction of others, whether that’s through terrorism or stealing of land.

We should stop selling bombs to everyone in the region, and pull all of our support. If they want to fight each other, let them. As long as the US blindly supports Israel, they will feel empowered to continue not being peaceful. We won’t though, since Israel is the beachhead of the petrodollar into the region. Just like no US president will stop giving weapons to the Saudis.

Israel is like my chihuahua that is only tough when she is on the leash. Let her off the leash and she is much less vicious to other dogs.

It sounds like your gripe is more with the American system than with Israel.

For what it's worth, Israel may be a chihuahua, but the reason that a chihuahua holds it's own with the big dogs is because the chihuahua has more at stake in a confrontation. Israel is a Nuclear power, and that's not by America's influence. So the notion that Israel is only tough because of American force is patently false.

Further, the notion that Israel stole land (from who? the Iranians?) and that's the source of the aggression is absurd. Hint -- Iran doesn't recognize Israel's title to any land in the region, let alone contested territory. Iran and Israel further used to have friendly relations with Iran pre revolution. Why the policy change then, and not earlier?

Israel steals land from the Palestinians. The entire creation of the state of Israel was the taking of land from the Palestinians and giving it to Israel, which continues today through the illegal settlements in Palestinian territory.

The real question is, why do they have to have a sworn enemy? Its not like israel is going to invade them.

It never ceases to amaze me just how short memories are in the west.

Edit: The only enemy Iran ever had in the ME was Iraq, the decade long war between them was the stuff of nightmares. They sent tens of thousands of child soldiers into trench war fare, to be gassed by Saddam, and run over mines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

You might be shocked at just how few Iranian citizens consider Israel to be an enemy.

> The only enemy Iran ever had in the ME was Iraq

That's false.

Iran was neutral on both WWI and WWII, and yet it was invaded multiple time because their natural resources were needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

Both the US and the UK have manipulated power in Iran in the past multiple times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

Even the Ayatollahs themselves are in power now because we thought regime change is necessary in Iran, hence we did aid their revolution.

Saddam Hussein had direct support from the west for the Iraq invasion of Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

And there are just so many other incidents in between that explains why their relationship with the west is so f...up and the most recent one is JCPOA and the killing of their general and scientists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Of course they will focus on their defense capabilities and military strength knowing that their entire history was manipulated by others. What gives them a reason to trust anyone now?

> You might be shocked at just how few Iranian citizens consider Israel to be an enemy.

Yes, I read they were ally until the revolution in Iran. I think Israel is the enemy Iran needs to increase their political influence in the region. The same way the Iran is the enemy that the US needs to sell arms in the Middle East. The rest is BS.

Iranians are living a misery between a regime that doesn't give them freedom, and sanctions that don't allow them to live. All because we have God knows how much arms sell in the Middle East, and we want to control oil. It's all sad.

Very shocking that the pro-US dictatorship installed by US efforts to overthrow the democratically elected government in Iran was friendly with Israel. And that the inevitable blowback that replaced the dictator left the region with a county distrusting and hostile to the West and Israel. It’s almost like actions have consequences.

People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Unfortunately, imperial hubris blinds people to their own state and its actions.

Iran never had democracy. Soviets were in the picture as well. It's almost like the US is not omnipotent and there is more than one actor.

Historically, ordinary Persian citizens, regardless of regime, were perfectly fine with both Jews in general and Israel in particular. At worst they didn't care, why should they, the two places are very far apart.

Little spoken about in western press even the Ayatollahs initially were not hostile to Israel, as their interests aligned. That's how realpolitik works.

This changed and they made the calculation like any number of colorful despots and dictators in the ME and further afield to distract their populations from their failures with an external foe.

> The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup d'état (Persian: کودتای ۲۸ مرداد‎), was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953.

Just because the US, at the behest of the British, helped orchestrate a coup to reinstall a dictator, doesn’t mean they never had democracy. It’s just that said democracy wanted to profit off the oil in their own land, instead of letting the British continue their imperial theft.

The inevitable blowback from such a cravenly selfish act, means that we get the world the US created.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état

Really, you're going back to WWII and the Anglo-Soviet invasion? Why not go back to the 19th and The Great Game? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game

> Both the US and the UK have manipulated power in Iran in the past multiple times. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

I'll tell you a secret; it wasn't just the US and the UK but several other powers. And not just in Iran but all over the world. There was this little thing called the Cold War as a backdrop, from your own link:

"The British soldiers withdrew from Iran after the end of the war. However, under Stalin, the Soviet Union partly remained by sponsoring two "People's Democratic Republics" within Iran's borders."

> Even the Ayatollahs themselves are in power now because we thought regime change is necessary in Iran, hence we did aid their revolution.

So? What do you imagine this magical aid was? There was quite a lot going on in that part of the world at the time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Iranian_hostag...

I don't know who we is supposed to be, but if you mean the US, certainly it had interests and influence it tried to wield. Very unsuccessfully. Quite an interesting unsavory story to be sure, but scratch beneath the surface and you'll find a quite complicated one as well - it isn't black and white at all.

Iran never had democracy, it is cursed with oil as you point out and geography plays a role as well, as does religion, welcome to how the world actually works.

However Iran ended up with Ayatollahs, one could only ever so gently suggest that perhaps Iranians themselves had some agency and responsibility in this matter, or how North Korea ended up with the Kim dynasty - hardly a reason to be an apologist for these dangerous repressive regimes.

One is not an apologist for a repressive regime when one dispassionately analyzes the realpolitik of their circumstances. It's not a defense of the Ayatollahs to observe that, from the perspective of the Iranian gov't., the U.S. (among many others) has continuously been a hostile power since at least WW2, and it's silly to place expectations on them as a negotiating partner as if that weren't the case.

One is an apologist for a repressive regime when one knowingly or unknowingly repeats their exaggerated talking points.

They are very adapt at exploiting western sensibilities. Their realpolitik is to stay in power at all costs and export terror to deflect from internal instability.

The US has attained energy independence and has been leaving the region.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/13/us/politics/biden-afghani...

Turkey, China, Russia, and now Iran will divvy up the spoils. Iran is an expansionist rising power vying for hegemony in the region and a repressive authoritarian religious dictatorship, it is silly to take their negotiations in good faith as if that weren't the case - whatever historical excuse they might try and shame you with.

Yes, they're an expansionist rising power and a repressive authoritarian religious dictatorship. So what? No one at the State Dep't thinks otherwise, or is shamed by Iranian propaganda, except insofar as that propaganda is effective PR that the U.S. has to counter--and PR is where the U.S. history is relevent and problematic, and where a clear-headed appraisal of the circumstances is necessary.

When you're playing chess, you're not being an apologist for the other player by imagining their best move.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com