[swat535]

Iranian here, I have no love for the IRGC but I am glad they are keeping Americans from destroying our country right now.

We don't need Americans to "save us", we have 90M intelligent people and can resolve our own issues. It would be great if the West started respecting the sovereignty of other nations.

I have a hard time sympathizing with the Pahlavi supporters cheering the bombing of our home.

[throwaway836123]

My comment wasn’t about the West saving us, nor was it about supporting Pahlavi (which I personally did, but of course I’m against the continued bombing of my country).

What I’m saying is that supporting one of the biggest terrorist group in the world by the logic of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is a grave mistake. It legitimizes one of the biggest, if not the biggest, reasons behind the current situation in Iran and some other bad situations in the region.

If you are an Iranian, you know what IRGC has done and keep doing, how good they are at propaganda and how nothing is beyond them including killing (and worse) anyone anywhere in the name of their god.

[swat535]

I know what IRGC has done, my cousin was spent 6 months in the Evin prison after the Mahsa uprising and her entire life was stolen from her. So I don't need a moral lecture.

But the IRGC is the only one defending my home right now. I also find it curious why you are not calling the US or Israel against this illegal aggression against our country?

[throwaway836123]

Then we have both suffered from IRGC. as I have loved ones who were killed by them, and we both have a stake in the country’s security, since my family and most of my friends still live there.

What I’m saying is that we should not legitimize the IRGC. Trump is bad, the current Israeli government is very bad, and the IRGC is very bad.

On another note, the IRGC is defending itself, not us. They’ve killed exponentially more people in days than US or Israel has over in total. Again, all of these are bad.

[sph]

> one of the biggest terrorist group in the world

Clearly the biggest tell that you are anything but Iranian. You might dislike the regime but no one calls their own government a “terrorist group”, a term reserved for foreign agents.

Stop astroturfing behind a throwaway, you coward.

[lejalv]

Don't be so self-centered. Supporting the IRGC to give Trump a presidency-ending war is the rational approach for non-US citizens. Iran has been so far a much more contained risk for them than the US.

Here, have a look for what a terrorist country looks like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_U...

[gpt5]

I don't know if you realize - but the Americans have offered IRGC a pretty generous deal that essentially removes almost all sanctions in return to stop developing nukes, and the IRGC itself is escalating the situation, which could force America to bomb Iran again.

[foo12bar]

The American's ally broke the MoU nearly immediately after the signing by continuing to attack Lebanon.

> Point 1: The United States of America and the Islamic Republic of Iran and their allies in the current war, by signing this MOU, declare the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including in Lebanon, and undertake from now on not to initiate any war or any military operation against each other, and to refrain from the threat or use of force against each other, and ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon. The final deal will confirm the permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including in Lebanon and other provisions of this paragraph.

[mardifoufs]

You forgot to mention a small detail, the US did that only after they started a war. The US is known for its perfidy at this point, so any deals they propose aren't exactly trustworthy, and the US couldn't even contain israel after the latest MoU which made it void.

[gpt5]

Not true. The US has been negotiating with Iran for over a year about a nuclear deal before the war started. This has all been public.

[defrost]

If only the prior P5+1 / Iran JCPOA deal of 2015 that constrained HEU and was backed up by multi country inspectors and tamper resistant / revealing on site instrumentation hadn't been thrown out the window by some fool.

Why on earth would anyone trust a country that reneged on a hard fought deal and followed that up by bombing during negotiations to restore what was lost.

[mupuff1234]

Maybe because signing a new deal is better for your country and your people?

Like what's the worst case scenario that happens to iran if they just signed a new deal? How would it have been any worse than the current situation?

The deal doesn't even require a high level of trust - worst case they just go back to the previous situation. Making a deal only has an upside, even without trust.

Just like employment at will - and yet having a job is better than no job in most cases.

[hardbass]

Yes of course but you are forgetting Iran needs to arm itself to the teeth before the new deal, so that when American does dealy things during the deal they are repelled. Just like the last few times America did a "peace deal" with Iran and then started dropping bomb deals upon them.

[defrost]

So why is the US bringing all the drama here then?

Is it really just for a return to the pre-Trump status quo, only this time with the same deal not cosigned by Obama?

[anigbrowl]

1-800-come-on-now

The current POTUS tore up the last nuclear deal with iran in 2018 for domestic political payoff. I can't take protestations about 'we've been trying to negotiate!' seriously when they come from the same people that created nearly a decade of strategic uncertainty (preceded by years of trash talk) and whose negotiation style oscillates between brutal violence and self-pitying wheedling.

I don't want to be partisan, but the incumbent POTUS is the epitome of dishonesty and the political polarization in US domestic politics is so extreme that even US allies are talking about a generational loss of trust. It would be irrational for a historical antagonist like Iran to bank on negotiating a new agreement with a country that refuses to bind itself by any international norms; it seems to me that it would be far more rational for Iran to breakout in pursuit of a nuke, and having once performed a successful test, reap the benefits of strategic stability that have gradually accrued to North Korea despite its ongoing pariah status. That is to say, once they have a nuke and other countries can no longer casually attack them, more of their economy can be redirected away from acquiring a strategic deterrent and into more normal kinds of economic development.

[simoncion]

Hi, USian here, as I assume you are.

Not only has the US proven itself to be incredibly untrustworthy -both recently and in the past-, the protracted war in Ukraine demonstrates what happens when you give up your nukes and a member of the "nuke-havers" club decides that they want your territory. We're at the point where any country that has a militant nuclear-weapons-equipped neighbor and has both the ability to develop nuclear weapons and the state power to keep control of them would be stupid not to build them.

It's a shame that several of the countries that are supposed to be "the adults in the room" have decided to abandon the various gentlemen's agreements that made nuclear-weapons nonproliferation agreements sensible.

[watwut]

And it started bombing twice during those negotiations. They started war after Iran made concessions. And bombed during first negotiations.

The US idea of peace was regular bombing - I have heard people from defemse sector even use the "lawn moving" term publically. I dont understand an expectation that foreign country should be ok with that.

Plus, Trump dont do good faith deals, he promisses and breaks deals next day.

[Braxton1980]

Didn't the US previously make a deal then Trump broke it?

[toast0]

As an American, I don't see how you can have serious negotiations with the US at the moment. You negotiate to an agreement, and then the terms change after agreement is announced. Or you show up to negotiations and your negotiation team is assassinated. Or your head of state is assasinated or kidnapped.

If you do get to a deal, there's no permanance and no means of enforcement.

[inigyou]

You forgot that the USA broke the deal immediately after making it.

[plandis]

How is attacking a random datacenter keeping the Trump administration from attacking Iran?

[mdp2021]

> we have 90M intelligent people and can resolve our own issues

This seems counterfactual, unless you called the regime for which you state you «have no love for» "satisfactory" or its length "insignificant".

> we have 90M intelligent people

This is also a pretty unbelievable claim - were it so, I and many others would move to Iran immediately. Can we say you are not being literally factual?