[dotancohen]

  > Or alternatively, in 2026 Iran would have been hooked on closer economic cooperation and trade, (relative) reformers would be in power, and the deal would have been renewed.

Oh, so you expect to change their culture and their value system. And do that in only 10 years.

That's called imperialism. I believe it's no longer fashionable.

[sofixa]

> Oh, so you expect to change their culture and their value system

What do you mean culture and value system? You think isolation and nuclear weapons are parts of the Iranian culture????

And yes, Iran had multiple bouts of reformer presidents. Reformer within the limits of what the Supreme Leader would allow of course, but there is still a massive gulf of difference between them and the hardliners. A few years of visible economic development under reformers would have nudged things in the reconciliation direction.

Again, yanking the deal, even before the current strikes during negotiations, ensures that Iran will never fully trust the US. So realistically, what other choices do they have other than procure nuclear weapons for protection?

[dotancohen]

You said that "closer economic cooperation and trade" might lead to "(relative) reformers would be in power". Westerners "reforming" other cultures has not been fashionable for about half a century.

[sofixa]

Who is talking about westerners here? What even is your argument, because it seems you're just throwing random catchphrases around.

The topic is Iran. A theocracy with an unelected supreme leader with final say on political decisions and candidates for all elections in the otherwise relatively democratic system. Reformer in their context (hence the relative qualifier I used) is people like Ahmadinejad who are for rapprochement and trade with the world, but without too many concessions. We're not talking about socially progressive or "western" or anything of the like. They are infinitely better than the hardliners aligned with the IRGC who are against anything other than autarky and building more strategic security via stuff like nukes. The reformers got their way with the JCPOA, and were proven wrong by the orange moron destroying that. Since then the hardliners have been in power and they are not going anywhere now.

[anonymars]

> Ahmadinejad

Did you mean Ahmadinejad or Rouhani? The negotiations technically started under Ahmadinejad but Rouhani would be more reasonably considered a reformer, and is probably more relevant in the context of the JCPOA's lifecycle

[dotancohen]

You are talking about reforming Iran. You used the word yourself.

> people like Ahmadinejad

Oh, this guy:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad_and_Israel

- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-23538717

Let's look at some of his policies:

- Holocaust denial

- Calling for the destruction of the state of Israel

- Provided funding, training and arms to Hezbollah and Hamas

- Condemned by the UK, Germany, Austria, and even the UN

- Condemned the Palestinian Authority for holding peace talks with Israel

- A nice quote of his: "In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country."

Thank you for explaining to all those who won't listen to me because I'm Israel and therefore biased, what a "reformed" Iran would look like. Now they can understand just how hateful the current "unreformed" Iran looks like.

[sofixa]

Look, in geopolitics it's good to be realistic.

Is Iran, ran by hateful men, but open to trade, integration, reform, inspections and having a lot to lose perfect? Of course it fucking isn't. But realistically it's the best we could have had.

Instead we have Iran ruled by even more hateful men. Men that saw their families blown up in front of them, and have nothing to lose. The economy is already shit, and they don't care about regular people, and as we saw in the recent protests, power structures are intact and they do not hesitate using them to enforce their rule. Men who were demonstrated multiple times that American promises don't mean anything. Those men also have a pretty clear path on how they'd be left alone - Kim's nuclear weapons / threat of destroying Seoul.

How is that any better? It isn't. It's drastically worse for everyone, from the common Iranian suffering under the regime to every single one of us that will have to live under the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons and worldwide economic disruption via Hormuz and direct sabotage.

[dotancohen]

  > open to trade, integration, reform, inspections

I've never seen an Iranian source claim that Iran is open to integration or reform. Why would Iran change their policies, culture, or government to be like The Great Satan - that's how they refer to the US.

The Iranians are as interested in reforming their society into American ideals, as Americans are interested in reforming American society into Iranian ideals.