[dotcommand]

> I have to refer back to these long traditional rivals

Long traditional rivals? Iran and iraq are relatively new 20th century european colonial creations. Iran was carved out by the british/russians and Iraq was arbitrarily drawn out on a map by the british and french.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement

> when I read people waxing poetic about the prospect of erasing international borders and becoming a brotherhood of man and then at the same time rejecting homogenization of culture

Even with homogenous cultures, no guarantee of "brotherhood of man". Look at north and south korea. The elites will always find something to fight over.

> Maybe with the right governments they can work out deals like we work out with Canada and Mexico with regard to shared resources

It's not the "right" governments. It's called an insurmountable power differential. Canada and mexico simple have to do what they are told. We've fought wars against canada( british empire ) and mexico and taken significant amount of territory from both to ensure that these countries "share their resources" as told. The only way this power dynamic would change if an outside force with enough power helps either canada or mexico challenge the US. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

> but I’m not holding my breath on this given the Kurds are kind of the out group within the Iraqi family and probably won’t get full support from the central govt.

The kurds are the outgroup everywhere - turkey, iraq, iran, etc. The kurds have been used by the US/Europe as a separatist thorn in the side of many middle east nations to keep them unstable. Similar to what we are trying to do with the uyghurs in china, rohingya in myanmar, the balochs in pakistan, india, africa, etc. One of the benefits of having drawn out nations in africa is that the nations are full of different ethnic groups that can be pit against each other making these african nations easier to control. Not sure it was the original intent, but that's where we are right now.

[jcranmer]

> Long traditional rivals? Iran and iraq are relatively new 20th century european colonial creations. Iran was carved out by the british/russians and Iraq was arbitrarily drawn out on a map by the british and french.

This is completely false when you're talking about Iran. An Iranian state has existed in more or less continuous form as an independent polity since the breakup of the Timurid Empire in ~1500. The three-way contest between the Ottomans, Safavid Persia, and Russia is a staple of the region's politics for virtually the entirety of the Early Modern period.

[dotcommand]

> This is completely false when you're talking about Iran.

I wouldn't say completely false.

> An Iranian state has existed in more or less continuous form as an independent polity since the breakup of the Timurid Empire in ~1500.

More or less? Independent polity? You are independent or you are not independent. You can't be "more or less" independent than you can be "more or less" pregnant.

It certainly wasn't independent after it was invaded and conquered by the british and soviets? It certainly wasn't independent after the british and soviets installed their own puppet to rule over iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Iran

Iran, china, india, etc all love to claim thousand years whatever. Perhaps culturally, historically, etc they have a point but neither iran, china, india, etc are old states.

[jcranmer]

The "more or less" applied to "continuous", not "independent." But if you really want to argue that independence is a simple binary decision... you're just flat out wrong. No, seriously.

Let's take what should be a simple example: Canada. When did Canada become independent? Well... Wikipedia lists no fewer than three separate dates, and that's really understating the matter.

The Canadian Confederation was proclaimed on July 1, 1867 (and this is the date that Canada celebrates as its main independence day, FWIW). This created the basic structure of the Canadian government, but all changes to it required approval by Westminster, and Canada was not allowed autonomy in several areas of law, most notably foreign policy. This changed after the Canadian dissatisfaction with British negotiation of the US-Canada border dispute in the Alaska panhandle, and Canada started entering into international agreements and treaties in its own right in the early 1900s. The Statute of Westminster in 1931 dropped all legislative oversight over Canada, except for constitutional changes which came about in 1982.

So I ask you again, when did Canada become independent? Now, for bonus points, take the same criteria and ask if places such as Greenland, Bermuda, Taiwan, Palestine, Abu Dhabi, or Federated States of Micronesia are independent or not.

[cestith]

Even though the Queen is in many ways only a symbolic head of state, the Commonwealth countries in some important ways are not fully independent today. It varies country to country in which ways specifically. In Jamaica for example laws on the books still grant beaches to the Crown and public lands are still known as "Crown land".

[dotcommand]

> The "more or less" applied to "continuous", not "independent."

Does that make a difference? You are either continuously independent or not continuously independent.

> But if you really want to argue that independence is a simple binary decision... you're just flat out wrong. No, seriously.

No. You either are independent or not independent. It's basic logic.

> Let's take what should be a simple example: Canada. When did Canada become independent? Well... Wikipedia lists no fewer than three separate dates, and that's really understating the matter.

Should be a clue to you that canada isn't independent. No country that worships the queen of another country is. I never considered canada an independent country.

> Now, for bonus points, take the same criteria and ask if places such as Greenland, Bermuda, Taiwan, Palestine, Abu Dhabi, or Federated States of Micronesia are independent or not.

None of these are independent countries. Not sure about abu dhabi as I don't know about about it.

Nice little distraction you took us on. Funny how you completely ignored the part about iran being invaded and conquered. Instead of accepting that you were wrong, you decided to double down and take us on a tangent. Nice. I can see where this is going.

That iran has not been "more or less" continuously independent nation isn't a matter of debate. It's a matter of historical and political and military fact.

[jcranmer]

How is the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran--that resulted in the removal of one monarch in favor of the next-in-line, the continuation of the territorial integrity of Iran, and did not result in any significant changes in the internal political structure of Iran--a complete break in the general continuity of Iran's political existence that renders Iran nothing more than a 20th century Russian/British creation, whereas the 1979 Iranian Revolution--which did many of those things (except for effecting the borders)--is not?

The historical fact is that an Iranian state composed predominantly of Iranian peoples and ruled by Iranians has existed for 2 and a half millennia. And honestly, rather like China, even when Iranians are being ruled by non-Iranians, Iranian culture is still a prestige culture, especially in the Abbasid caliphate. The Iranian nation-state cannot be a mere product of British/Russian influence when it predates the existence of either of those nations (not even countries, nations), and the British and the Russians played no part in effecting the creation of said nation-state, at best merely temporarily disestablishing it.

And this is why I said "more or less continuously." I'm not denying that there are disruptions to continuity--were I to do so, I would not need to modify "continuous." Instead, I'm denying that those disruptions actually matter for the political analysis.

[dotcommand]

You claimed that the iranian state existed independently since 1500s. I proved you wrong.

> the continuation of the territorial integrity of Iran

"The treaty confirmed the ceding and inclusion of what is now Dagestan, eastern Georgia, most of the Republic of Azerbaijan and parts of northern Armenia from Iran into the Russian Empire."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Gulistan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Turkmenchay

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_(1857)

You can find the others. I won't bother with the sphere of influences carved out by russia and britain within iran itself where iran had to grant privileges to russia and britain over a few provinces. If you look at the map, almost 2/3rd of iran proper was under russian or british "influence".

If it is easier for you to see rather than read...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sphere_of_influence#/media/Fil...

> The historical fact is that an Iranian state composed predominantly of Iranian peoples and ruled by Iranians has existed for 2 and a half millennia.

Other than when the arabs and the mongols took charge for a bit. Right? Pretty major events in iranian and world history you completely forgot about.

> The Iranian nation-state cannot be a mere product of British/Russian influence

Sure it can because iran lost a significant portion of its territory to russia/britain in the past few hundred years. Modern iran exists as it is today because of britain and russia. Iran was much bigger before the rise of the west. Nation-state is a modern european concept. Iran's landmass looks the way it does because of all the wars lost to britain and russia.

> I'm not denying that there are disruptions to continuity

Then why are you arguing with me?

> Instead, I'm denying that those disruptions actually matter for the political analysis.

What? That's as ridiculous as saying the opium wars and the european colonization of china doesn't matter for political analysis. That the colonization of india doesn't matter. The partitioning of india doesn't matter? Since the chinese, indians, turks, etc all rule their own countries, european colonization doesn't matter?

What you wrote is so absurd that it's the political/historical equivalent of saying the earth is flat. Modern iran looks the way it does, geographically and politically, because of western expansion/invasion. It's a nation-state and not a empire because of the west.

This will be my last response as I know you'll just find another topic to argue about. To claim that iran had political/state/government, territorial, etc continuity since the 1500s when iran lost tons of land to russia/britain, it collapsed from an empire to a western forced 'nation-state' and had huge swathes of territory cordoned off in sphere of influence is absurd.