As an Iranian, you're quite uninformed here. The Islamic Republic does a lot of small-scale aggression (e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters), and they lead many proxy militias. They also pursue nuclear weapons. Their handling of domestic affairs is also bullshit (e.g., they lured Amadnews's reporter, Zam, to Iraq and then kidnapped and executed him.).
None of these things preclude a great relationship with the US, however.
One could 's/Islamic Republic/KSA' here and it'd be pretty much the same stories. None of these bad behaviors would stop you from being tight allies with the US as long as your oppressive theocratic dictatorship was in the US sphere of influence.
Heck, Iran is objectively far more democratic than KSA, not that it gets them any credit.
> e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters
The rest of the story: Because South Korea is effectively stealing $7B worth of oil from Iran. They're following the sanctions that the US unilaterally imposed after breaking its deal with Iran over nuclear enrichment, which Iran had been following.
>One could 's/Islamic Republic/KSA' here and it'd be pretty much the same stories.
KSA is smart enough not to openly shout 'Death to America'. Nor does it have a nuclear program or keeps hostages or refuses to join anti-terrorist transparency treaties.
>The rest of the story: Because South Korea is effectively stealing $7B worth of oil from Iran.
OK, lets have any country which has a financial dispute with some other country takes hostages. That would be a nice world, right? That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour.
> OK, lets have any country which has a financial dispute with some other country takes hostages. That would be a nice world, right? That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour.
Well, I'd have to point out, when the US told South Korea (and the rest of the world) to cut trades with Iran (or else), it was engaging in this very kind of behavior.
As a South Korean, I'd appreciate if the US and Iran could talk to each other like adults and leave my country out of this, but that's not the kind of world we're living in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Who needs hostages, when you can crush a whole country's economy with your thumbs? America can cause $$$ to instantly evaporate off Korea just by looking at it the wrong way. You think Korea is keeping Iran's 7 billion dollars just because we like to be a jerk?
I don't want to complain too much, because the arrangement is usually mutually beneficial (after all, if you have to keep thousands of foreign soldiers on your own soil, better to be a part of team America than team Iran or team China) - I just think it would be better if we talk about practicality instead of moral outrages.
If only there was some international agency that could have people on the ground that could walk into any place in Iran under any suspicion that they might be enriching uranium beyond the levels needed for nuclear power plants, overriding basically any local laws that might prevent them access. We could call it International Atomic Energy Agency or something.
Now seriously, this was in the deal that the US pulled out of, as well as an agreement that Iran will not enrich uranium beyond like 4% (enough for nuclear power plants, not bombs), reducing their stockpiles of uranium by 97% and much, much more. Now just days ago Iran let IAEA know that they're going to enrich it up to 20%.
Yea. It would be tough for Iran to develop weapons under those conditions, if they existed in reality. What would a smart leadership do to make it easier?
If only there was a deal that wrote down that the international agency needed to ask permission from Iran in advance for inspections of 'military sites'. Also explicitly allow Iran to keep researching enrichment so breakout time would be small. And make that any extra restrictions are temporary. After all, there was that deal with North Korea, and we see how it worked so well - for North Korea.
It's uranium, you can't simply hide it in the matter of days. Not to mention 24/7 video surveillance, satellite images, and that IAEA released quarterly reports and every one of them until over a year after US withdrew from the agreement said the same: Iran complied. Hell, even a year after Iran let IAEA know that they're gonna exceed their limits. Here's the entire timeline for those interested: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Timeline-of-Nuclear-D...
Nothing like the situation was with North Korea, where North Korea was uncooperative with the IAEA, mostly disagreeing on which parts of the plants IAEA can access. Not to mention IAEA had 20 years in between to improve their methods.
US absolutely shot themselves in the foot by withdrawing from the deal no matter how you look at it.
> refuses to join anti-terrorist transparency treaties
It only funds terrorists in Syria, Yemen etc. and constructs radical schools all over, being dubbed fatwa valley but nothing to see here.
> That's the world we'll be at if Iran keeps being rewarded for its behaviour.
It seems to me like they tried to be constructive with the Iran Deal and got betrayed by the U.S. again. They have plenty of reason not to trust the U.S. Iran has not staged a coup in the U.S. as far as I know.
>Try imposing harsh sanctions on them, murdering their generals etc., organizing illegal coups & we'll see then.
The first is after a nuclear program and Iran killing hundreds of American soldiers. The coup is unrelated (would you support bombing a different country over something that happened 60 years ago when both countries had very different governments?), and quite funny when one remembers the Islamists also supported the coup.
>It seems to me like they tried to be constructive with the Iran Deal
If you define being constructive as taking hostages over and over than yes they were.
>There's little credible evidence Iran is trying to actually build a bomb.
Apart from weapon drawings, direct recordings of one the key architects discussing weapons[1], mass uranium enrichment.... SA has nothing remotely comparable.
Objectively, why can't Iran have a nuclear program while Israel, India, and Pakistan can?
> Iran killing hundreds of American soldiers
They are a regional superpower and the United States invaded and destabilized their neighbor causing widespread chaos throughout the region. Civilian casualties from violence in Iraq following the destabilization of the '03 war have been estimated at around 200,000.
> would you support bombing a different country over something that happened 60 years ago
The US did shoot down an Irainian civilian airliner in 1988 and refuse to apologize about it.
They don't need them. They can do whatever they want in the region while the U.S. looks away and sells them the weapons to do it.
"The bomb dropped on a school bus in Yemen by a Saudi-led coalition warplane was sold to Riyadh by the US, according to reports based on analysis of the debris.
The 9 August attack killed 40 boys aged from six to 11 who were being taken on a school trip. Eleven adults also died. Local authorities said that 79 people were wounded, 56 of them children. CNN reported that the weapon used was a 227kg laser-guided bomb made by Lockheed Martin, one of many thousands sold to Saudi Arabia as part of billions of dollars of weapons exports.
Saudi Arabia is the biggest single customer for both the US and UK arms industries. The US also supports the coalition with refuelling and intelligence."
The fact that they don't like or trust the US does not mean they also don't want peace. If your idea of peace however is the US antagonizing in the region, (Iran's backyard if you will) and Iran disarming and sitting on their ass watching the US surround them, without any regional allies, then no I don't think Iran is after that, I also don't think it has anything to do with wanting peace.
“Death to X” is an overly-literal translation of a common Persian idiom of frustration, eagerly and maliciously repeated by motivated parties to make Iranians look as dangerous as possible. It’s essentially the Persian equivalent to “fuck X”, and so this is as though you had your arm bitten off by a shark and said, “Fuck sharks!”, and someone deliberately took that to mean you endorse bestiality.
This is a lie. The chant is literally "Death to X," there is no idiom whatsoever. The only human targets I have ever heard for this chant is the US and some of its allies (KSA, UK), the IR's leader, and some generic terms for the outgroup ("monafegh").
This should may help you, and other interested persons determine whether or not marg bar Amrika is to be taken literally, or is indeed an idiom (btw, it is):
In Persian, "Death to America" is "marg bar Amrika"
Common Persian phrases, and these are everyday phrases in Iran include:
1) Marg! Literally, Death!, closest we have in English: Shut up!
2) Khabare margesh! Literally, the news of his/her death! This is used with someone you don't like, as in, you're only interested in the news of that persons death (perhaps a politician is a typical example).
3) Boro bemir! Literally, Go die! Again, in English, the equivalent is along the lines of Shut Up!
4) Che margeshe? Literally, what's his death? Used mostly for objects, such as when your car won't start.
5) Marge man, literally, my death. Used when you are swearing you are telling the truth.
Iranians have so many idioms/expressions/figures-of-speech related to Death, this is just a small sample.
Are there good secondary sources for this? This alleged perversion strikes me as a significant linchpin in the structural animosity between the two people. I really want it to be true, so am particularly hesitant to accept it without compelling evidence.
In Persian, "Death to America" is "marg bar Amrika"
Common Persian phrases, and these are everyday phrases in Iran include:
1) Marg!
Literally, Death!, closest we have in English: Shut up!
2) Khabare margesh!
Literally, the news of his/her death! This is used with someone you don't like, as in, you're only interested in the news of that persons death (perhaps a politician is a typical example).
3) Boro bemir!
Literally, Go die! Again, in English, the equivalent is along the lines of Shut Up!
4) Che margeshe? Literally, what's his death? Used mostly for objects, such as when your car won't start.
5) Marge man, literally, my death. Used when you are swearing you are telling the truth.
Iranians have so many expressions/figures-of-speech related to Death.
Maybe https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/world/middleeast/some-ira... (there's also a Wikipedia article). I think a good comparison may also be "damn Kubernetes", you're not literally damning some technology. It's less clear in the phrase "damn you to hell". I think it's kind of similar, it's overloaded.
Even if it does literally mean 'death to America,' as an American I always interpreted that as being directed at the American government. I never took it personally. Hell, I could probably wear them out complaining about the federal government.
> None of these things preclude a great relationship with the US, however.
Doesn't it, though? We have great relationships with a relatively small number of countries. Then there are the mutually beneficial relationships.
Maybe our definition of "great relationship" differs. When I think "great relationship" I think five-eyes countries plus maybe Japan. Perhaps arguably a few others.
It is also almost the anniversary of Iran shooting down and killing 176 Iranians/Iranian-Canadians, including people I know.[1]
Iran is in its own right a regional imperialist, though it is nice to get some code interchange going.
Me and my family no longer can go back to the country without risking imprisonment because of speaking out against the regime.
It's worth noting that this was after the U.S. killed their top general illegally and they expected a strike on Iran after hitting some Iraqi bases in response to the U.S. assassination.
So they made us, the civilians, their meat shield, just as they used us to clean minefields in the Iraq war. And then they were so incompetent they shot their own meat shield. After that, they launched massive media campaigns to say the plane had not been shot, but had crashed out of a "technical glitch." Even after the evidence became undeniable, and they issued public apologies, they still continued with their media campaigns, saying this was all because of a US cyber attack. And they did not let people organize proper funerals, and they imprisoned, threatened, and fucked the survivors' families, and they used tear gas and just straight opened fire when people protested at their sheer malicious incompetence, and ...
And random assholes on the internet defend them while seemingly caring for the Iranian people. I don't know, perhaps you're one the of the thousands who directly or indirectly get money/status from the IR?
The gov comes down hard on people saying they don't like him, so the answers people give are biased. How biased, I don't know. I can tell you that even people who liked him still got outraged at the plane shooting.
It's almost like the people of the world should unite in throwing out their leaders. Get rid of all the folks at the top that persist in bad behavior so the rest of us can code in peace.
...except it didn't really work all that well for the French in 1789, or the Chinese in 1911, or the Russians in 1917. Executing their corrupt leaders just led to more dictatorial ones taking their place. Maybe it's more power corrupts than corrupt people seeking power.
It didn’t work well with the Iranians in 1977–1979 either. Originally the overthrow of the Shah was supported by a wide variety of factions in society, including secular ones, and it may well have led to a secular country. But once there was a power vacuum, Khomeini returned from exile in France and managed to install the present Islamic republic.
It sort of, kind of worked with Romania in 1989, though. But in spite of massive popular discontent with the dictator, the actual overthrow of Ceausescu was largely the regime’s elites seeking to get rid of the boss so that they could rule the roost themselves. That Romania eventually became a democratic European nation feels like a happy accident.
Are you Romanian? If you think Romania is or should be a democratic European nation, can you offer your perspective on what could stop the ongoing verbal, legal and sometimes physical harassment of the Hungarian minority? Some of which is described in the last paragraphs of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanianization#Recent_events
I am Romanian.
I don't think there is an "ongoing verbal, legal and sometimes physical harassment of the Hungarian minority". There were isolated conflicts, mainly artificially perpetuated by radicals for (pretty small) political gains.
Also, the Hungarian minority political party (UDMR) is currently a part of the government coalition (not the first time it happens).
That Romania still struggles with a number of flaws – some a holdover from the socialist era, some new after ’89 – is why I wrote "sort of, kind of". Still, even with the grievances of the Hungarian minority, it nevertheless became a multiparty system after violently overthrowing the old dictator instead of another single-party dictatorship.
Unfortunately, in several European countries today ethnic minorities fail to get the recognition and treatment they seek, so Romania’s actions towards the Hungarian minority don’t hinder it from being called today a "modern European state" or whatever.
The proper way to evaluate how successful throwing out leaders is as a way towards peace is not to list cases you can think of where it failed, but to list every place leaders were thrown out with a goal of peace, and seeing how well that fared.
Then to be really honest, see how well that fared against other options.
Then you may reach a different, but demonstrably more accurate, conclusion.
I was curious about how this'd look without the cherry-picking, so I took a look at Wikipedia's list of revolutions from the 1900s on and sampled a few dozen:
Results from the period of 1900-1910 (19 revolutions; I don't have time to do more) is that 12 were outright failures: the revolution was crushed, the leaders executed, oftentimes with significant loss of life for the revolutionaries and nearby civilians. 5 were temporary successes: they led to some reforms or a new government, but the government collapsed within 15 years anyway, leading to either anarchy, dictatorship, or conquest by a foreign power. 2 were an "eventual success" (Young Turk revolution, and revolution in the Kingdom of Poland), where the revolution had modest success but later events achieved "peaceful" (if you can count WW1 & WW2 as peaceful) independence. 1 was a success, the Theriso Revolt that broke Crete away from the Ottoman empire and led to its eventual union with Greece.
I'd come to a bleaker conclusion: most revolutions fail, and lead to the deaths of their leaders and most of the people who support them. Then of the subset that "succeed" (in the sense of not being crushed), a majority lead to government or lack thereof that is just as bad or worse than what came before.
It kind of worked for us Romanians after executing our dictator and his dimwit wife in '89, by scaring them into fleeing, then a fast capture, followed very quick - slightly unfair - trial and then firing squad, on Christmas Day of all days (and all these recorded).
Of course, afterwards, the new elected president was a former communist party member who tricked everyone that he had changed, and of course his anti-west (and east) propaganda helped secure him his win (because "we should not listen to anybody anymore, so vote for me"), and of course, because of his win, the pseudo-communists still ruled/destroyed the country for the majority of the next 32 years but, anyway, I still say it was a win and I am very proud of our revolution.
Sure, there are those who say that most people died in vein for the revolution but such transitions take a lot of time and it would have taken even more if we waited another 5-10-15 years. It did not help that we were right between east and west either.
Now we celebrate 14 years of being in the E.U., which helped a lot, although we mismanaged tens of billions (sorry E.U.), while we are still many years away from managing so much money correctly and without illegal shenanigans... Also around 17 years in the NATO, which helped a lot I'd say (see our neighbor Ukraine for the contrary; Moldova is also behind us by some 15 years, at least).
But, technologically, the new freedom brought us some very interesting 90's and 2000's, catapulting our internet speeds to number one (sometimes two) in Europe [1] due to our giant nation-wide interconnected LAN-party networks, fueled mainly by piracy (or lets call it "hunger for information and everything that we missed before"). But there is a long reddit post which explains those years much better: [2]. Today everybody and their parents have at least 100 Mbps. Our main ISP doesn't include a 100 Mbps plan anymore anyway. Only 300 Mbps up. Even my parents in a small poor city have fiber since 5 years. Welcome to Romania.
These generated a lot of English speaking young people, me included. Lots of us becoming very good at electronics or IT. Sadly, many self-educated IT engineers left for other countries. We even had a running joke (urban legend mainly) that the second language at Microsoft was Romanian, which of course is said by other countries too (e.g. India) but somehow everybody knows somebody at Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, etc. While many of us are still (thinking about) leaving, placing us 2nd after Syria when it comes to mass emigration, still... executing those two bastards was for the best.
That always feels strange to me, why this is considered evil. If there is a strong military might with nuclear weapons on your doorstep threatening you, then also going after nuclear weapons is just logic and self-preserving.
(I mean, not that I want more idiots on this world having nuclear weapons)
Evil is indeed all the other shit they are doing, but I am not sure if collective punishment helps with that. And collectivily banning any person from iran collaborating with the rest of the software world via Github is a very strong collective punishment, which I doubt would make me see the west in a nicer view, if I would be such a developer in Iran. (and never mind all those other bans, like money transfer). Maybe I would even feel a push to close ranks with the hardcore idiots who are in control.
I can understand not wanting more actors that can initiate MAD. I sure would feel safer if my country had nuclear weapons, but the risk of every sovereign being armed is too high.
Korea blocked Iranian assets, fearing US sanctions. Iran was pissed off being robbed, and now confiscated a ship, basically asking Korea to pay its debt (at least through products).
I really don't see much difference in Iran having nuclear power or weaponary compared to Pakistan. Yet we don't see this type of attitude from the US and other countries in the immediate area (other than India) towards Pakistan.
The domestic affairs handling applies equally to both countries, so why should Iran get singled out here?
They're not singled out. North Korea is also being treated similarly in regards to their pursuit and build-up of nuclear weapons. North Korea has been suffering under brutal sanctions and embargo on and off for decades now.
Pakistan already has nukes and they're dangerously unstable. Pakistan is by a large margin the most unstable nuclear power. North Korea by comparison is a stable insular kingdom ruled by a dynasty family that has held power through thick and thin for 70 years. Pakistan is a powder keg always waiting to explode. Applying North Korean style sanctions on Pakistan is a lot more likely to result in an exceptionally bad outcome. And Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons, so if they crack into revolution right now that would not risk potential nuclear war or proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Further, Iran has openly declared their intention to genocide Israel, on repeat. They say it whenever they get the chance. North Korea for decades has declared their desire to conquer South Korea and create one Korea under their rule, they repeat that at every opportunity (and when a country says for decades that they want to conquer you and they have nukes, you have to take them at their word).
> Further, Iran has openly declared their intention to genocide Israel, on repeat.
Based on my understanding, that's based on a misinterpretation so what they're actually saying in Farsi. Even so, the attitude of the population and government in Pakistan towards Israel isn't that much different. Even if you consider the dynamics between Pakistan and India, the last war was 50 years ago and other than some skirmishes, nothing major happened.
If we were to substitute Iran for Pakistan and Israel for India, would the situation be really that different?
> North Korea for decades has declared their desire to conquer South Korea and create one Korea under their rule
To a certain extent, this is what happened in Vietnam and the country appears to be doing okay these days.
> Based on my understanding, that's based on a misinterpretation so what they're actually saying in Farsi.
On Israel, there are very explicit messages around, though it's more of a "Zionist" genocide. The IR will not care if the Jews just go out of the ME, presumably.
It seems they are not using every opportunity to advocate for genocide. Definitely some mixed messaging?
On a more serious note, the notion that Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon so they can throw it on Israel is nonsense. Yes, Israel is perfectly right to be concerned about a country that would act against its security interests whenever given the chance, and would do so at least in part for ideological reasons (though this aspect is also overblown in the common narrative).
But they haven't really declared their intention "to genocide Israel". You'll find that in most quotes that circulate, a defensive posture is implied ("if they dare to attack us"). People argue about whether the original Khomeini/Ahmadinejad quote ("wiping Israel off the map") should be translated as "removed from the pages of time", but it more importantly says "the regime occupying Palestine". Again, no peaceful agenda towards the country of Israel is to be found here, but no need for comically evil holocaust-like plans either.
Iranian leadership has referred to Israelis as "so-called humans"; has demanded a "final solution" to Israel; has repeatedly denied that the Holocaust happened, including hosting a Holocaust denial conference; has referred to Israel as a "cancerous tumor" to be destroyed; ...
You don't have to look hard to find this stuff. These aren't mistranslations or misunderstandings. A lot of these translations were done by the Iranian Republic themselves in press releases!
These are less subtle than Trump's dog whistles about "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" — which was bad enough. These are obvious, repeated, consistent statements and actions.
By the way, being Iranian doesn't give you special understanding of foreign relations and the US role in the middle east. I'm sure it helps, but using it as an appeal to authority of some sort is misguided.
Most states do, and many do much much worse, and still have great relations with their western allies (if not being directly funded to do so). Heck, they were hunky dory with Germany, merely a few years after they started a World War that killed 30+ million people, burned 6 million jews, etc., because "Cold War".
>e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters
After Korea seized some billions of their assets in its banks.
>They also pursue nuclear weapons
That's because any state without them is toast when the big dogs decide.
Plus, they remember their history, like outsiders toppling their democratic leader, because he was getting too "socialist", and establising a lackey into power to play the king.
Or outsiders funding their neighborhood country to go into war with them, praising their leadership, and then come back a decade later, do a u-turn, to invade them, hang their leader that was their ex ally, and occupy the country (that thet turned into a civil war hell-zone).
Plus they have another country nearby with ample foreign support that's used as a proxy for foreign power in the area, and which has nuclear weapons itself.
> Plus, they remember their history, like outsiders toppling their democratic leader, because he was getting too "socialist", and establising a lackey into power to play the king.
If by "they" you mean the IR, they were and are (though nowadays they are more undecided) opposed to Mosadegh. (Check out what streets are in his name. The IR reveals who they favor quite accurately in their naming scheme.). The people mostly don't care that much about Mosadegh, as the school history books are written by the IR, and Mosadegh is not painted all that well. Most Iranians also hate communists now (communism has long since been out of the overton window).
> Or outsiders funding their neighborhood country to go into war with them, praising their leadership, and then come back a decade later, do a u-turn, to invade them, hang their leader that were their ex-allies, and occupy the country (that thet turned into a civil war hell-zone).
A war which brought a lot of power to the IR and especially the Guards. A war that the IR itself protracted for years, perhaps because they were gathering power and clueless, fungible young people were dying, which was quite cheap. Their domestic strategy ever since has been to give merits to a minority that follows their orders, and crush their opposition thoroughly by any means necessary.
>If by "they" you mean the IR, they were and are (though nowadays they are more undecided) opposed to Mosadegh.
I mean the Iran as people (and state with a degree with historical and cultural continuity). The IR might come and go, and leaders or fractions might be opposed to Mosadegh for religious, ideological, etc reasons, but the hummiliation and harm that was instilled in the people by the action influenced later events (and even today).
>A war which brought a lot of power to the IR and especially the Guards.
Yeah, but that's neither here nor there. It did a whole lot of harm to Iran the people - and to the Iraq the people for that matter, and it was fuelled from outside.
> The Islamic Republic does a lot of small-scale aggression (e.g., they just confiscated a Korean ship on free waters), and they lead many proxy militias. They also pursue nuclear weapons. Their handling of domestic affairs is also bullshit
The United States does all these things too, it just has nobody big enough to sanction it.
For the record, I am not a fan of the Islamist Republic, but banning access to GitHub does not punish the government, it puishes civilians. It also doesn't change the fact that it's the U.S. who pulled out of the Iran Deal or that medicine is impacted by the sanctions too.
I mean the U.S. is buddy buddy with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt etc. etc. the behavior you're describing is clearly not the problem here.
Iran also assassinates its critics abroad, or kidnaps them for show trials (France, Germany, Italy and Austria have withdrawn from the Europe-Iran Business Forum over one of these cases). Iran funds Houthi rebels in Yemen to harass the Saudis and attack oil tankers in the Gulf with limpet mines; there was that rocket attack on the US embassy in Iraq... They're also making a big show about issuing INTERPOL warrants agains Donald Trump (futile, of course, but hardly a peace-seeking gesture.)
If you bring up Yemen and Saudi Arabia to make Iran look bad without mentioning the atrocities occurring in Yemen with the support of Saudi Arabia and the USA, I cannot take the rest of your comment seriously.
We are in a thread asserting that it's "worth noting that this is entirely the U.S. not wanting peace."
I remind you to "Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
> We are in a thread asserting that it's "worth noting that this is entirely the U.S. not wanting peace."
In relation to the sanctions that were imposed as part of the U.S. pulling out of the nuclear deal despite Iran complying. But of course you left that part out.
Weirdly, I tend to blame regimes shouting 'death to America' for bad relations with the US.
Remember that the nuclear deal only dealt with nuclear matters* , all the other regime behaviours (hostage taking, supporting terrorists, missile development, etc.) remained. Stable relations between US and Iran are impossible without the regime changing its ways, the regime has no reason to change so long as the deal exists, ergo there won't be stable relations.
* Even the nuclear terms expire in about a decade, leaving Iran free to do whatever. There used to be a similar deal with North Korea, and we saw how that ended up.
Why do America (The only country to actually use a nuke) get to decided who gets national security and who gets "freedom and democracy" delivered by a predator drone.
> Why do America (The only country to actually use a nuke) get to decided who gets national security and who gets "freedom and democracy" delivered by a predator drone.
I believe the moral principle you're looking for is "ad baculum".
It's not entirely the US. Unfortunately there's other people in the region who really don't want anyone being friends with Iran who we'd rather be friends with.
Back when it looked like relations might thaw during Obama every big business was foaming at the mouth over the opportunity to make a buck selling things in a new market. There's a lot of very powerful people who's ideal vision of places like Iran, Cuba, North Korea, etc involves everyday citizens using their iPhones to daytrade on the American stock exchanges over a Verizon tower while driving their Chevrolet trucks, smoking Marlboros and wearing Nikes
Iran just seized a South Korean oil tanker yesterday to give it civilian hostages as leverage in on going negotiations with South Korea, a country that has never engaged in any form of violence against Iran.
If that was more than an obvious propaganda smoke screen then Iran wouldn't hold the crew hostage.
Iran has also failed to provide evidence for their accusation and did not provide either a warning or opportunity to remediate the claimed polution. Evidence for a crime is of course generally considered a requirement.
They also have a strong recent history of this sort of activity.
Well, Iran supporting North Korea, funneling arms and resources to terrorists, and launching missiles at us probably didn't help. The EU disagreement is specifically with the harshness of the sanctions - they still believe Iran should be sanctioned, just not as harshly.
This is why those discussions from a morally neutral standpoint are a waste of time. It’s entirely reasonable for one side to punish the others for having nukes while having those itself. We are not some impartial aliens surveying the planet, each of us is affected by these things.
The US is hardly the sole aggressor here. Iran has conducted many provocations against others, not least of which is directly contributing to destabilizing forces within other countries in the region and relentless pursuit of a nuclear weapons program.
I mean Iran threatens every month or so to literally bomb Israel off the map. Some countries are okay with that kind of rhetoric. In general, the US is not.
Maybe, if they decide to use GitHub as a versioning system for their policy & geopolitical strategy. Perhaps a bunch of pull requests for "don't build nuclear weapons" would get approved, and #73 could be closed as "not a bug"
