[knowThySelfx]

>> We are talking about a country funding lots of militant groups that kill lots of people

I wish it was so one sided like we wish to paint it here. But starting a thread about this will only contribute to a never ending discussion thread. There is no moral high ground here. What we can do is to step away from this madness and try to make a general sense of it. All this warmongering is unneeded.

[codebolt]

Agreed. If you look at the actions of either Iran, Saudi Arabia or Israel you can easily find many things that seem morally indefensible from a purely humanistic standpoint.

Whatever the mechanism the US has for picking it's allies, it's pretty clear that it's not simply based on some rigorous moral analysis of the different actors. As long as the Iranian regime insists on maintaining "Death to America" as their political slogan, it's understandable that the US will maintain some level of hostility. But to try and paint it as Iran being purely evil and Israel/SA being purely good (or vice versa) is disingenuous.

[stale2002]

> There is no moral high ground here.

Ok, so if there is no moral highground here, then don't play the sympathy card about Iran not "towing the line".

Like fine. Its complicated. You were the one who originally trying to make it out to be one sided. And I am saying that this is ridiculous. They fund militant groups.

> All this warmongering is unneeded.

This is about sanctions. Not a ground invasion of Iran. It is not "warmongering" to support effective economic measures in retaliation against economic funding of militant groups.

[Bootvis]

Implementing sanctions are economic warfare supported by superior force.

[luckylion]

Are you generally against "funding of militant groups", or only when somebody else does it?