[bsaul]

Am i the only one amazed at the fact that we actually had to wait for iranians to accept to stop going toward nuclear weapons ?

I mean, why did EU and US insist so much on wanting a deal ? It seemed to be that one side has all the leverage in the negociation and the other has none. We could have simply waited for the iranian regime to get so weakened that they'd simply surrender and accept every measure.

So I don't understand what's the counterpart that the US and EU wanted from Iran, that could get Iran get leverage in the negociations. Anyone ?

[colinplamondon]

Right now, there's a lot of bubbling neutral-to-pro-US sentiment in the younger, wealthier segments of Iran.

If we purposefully, wantonly destroy their economy without even negotiating, that disappears, and we turn potential allies into absolute enemies.

The level of currency devastation they've had since the beginning of these sanctions, and resulting unemployment, have already pushed their finances to the brink.

Normally "sane" countries (Germany, Italy, Russia WW1) that go over the brink economically tend to go batshit crazy, and put into power the worst elements from their society, and invest even more control in authoritarian hands.

I don't think anyone wants a regional power like Iran, controlling the wealth that it does with the military it has, to go bankrupt, and even worse elements to take power.

We may not like their government, but at least they're rational. ISIS shows there's far, far deeper levels of crazy just waiting to be unleashed.

TL;DR: Not being callously destructive of another country's economy, whilst negotiating in good faith, is in our national security interests.

[bsaul]

"We may not like their government but at least they're rational"

Well, a theocracy is almost by definition not rational, in the modern sense. It's based on divine laws, obedience, and absolute faith on an ideology. Not logic, provability, and the scientific method.

Dealing with the iranian regime the same way you would deal with an occidental country is the greatest mistake i think.

Thinking "sure, they apply shariah, and believe islam is the only true religion, and that god leads them, but deep inside they know things aren't that simple" is applying your own logic to them ( and by them, i mean people with guns who are in power, not young iranians looking the web for Game of Thrones episodes).

[toyg]

> a theocracy is almost by definition not rational

Neither it is a monarchy; shall we embargo the Dutch, the Spanish and the Swedes next? As a UK taxpayer, I wholly support your ideas and hope you will accord the same distrust to British governments, removing your NATO bases at once and stopping NSA/GCHQ cooperation.

> Thinking "sure, they apply shariah, and believe islam is the only true religion, and that god leads them, but deep inside they know things aren't that simple" is applying your own logic to them

I grew up in Italy, where the same mindset applies with Catholicism, word by word (down to and including "people with guns"). Please go ahead and embargo them, it worked so well in the the '20s.

Accepting Iranian sovereignty over their own matters would be the first rational move US diplomacy produced in the current millennium.

[bsaul]

Didn't know the pope ruled italy, nor that kings and queens had any true power in any occidental country.

Same can not be said with iranian mollah, which rule every part of the iranian society.

[toyg]

You will find that Italian legislation on subjects like biological research and homosexual unions is dictated by Catholic positions. Even abortion is technically legal but increasingly unavailable, because in the last 30 years the Church adopted a clear policy of helping and promoting friendly medical students in exchange for "conscience objection" when they are supposed to deliver the procedure. The Pope's economic power has been significantly reduced in recent years (the entire country is stagnating) but until the '90s he could influence local politics over large swaths of the country, and basically held unofficial veto powers over the nomination of the local equivalent of Prime Ministers. And I could go on...

Also, look up the "black spider memos" for recent examples of royal influence in UK matters, or the Duchy of Cornwall situation, or the status of land ownership records in Scotland. I expect every European monarchy will have its "quirks" and its "red lines" determining who is really in charge, but it's a fact that aristocracy still holds a certain degree of power without any real justification to do so.

Regarding Iranian authorities, I know they have their problems; however, a lot of executive power resides with elected figures, and the Green Revolution proved that fixing elections is becoming increasingly difficult. The old guard of fanatics is slowly dying, and their anointed successors are very unpopular. Removing sanctions will bolster those sectors closest to real economic activity and reduce the influence of hardliners. This is true for the other side as well: as memories of the Revolution fade, old grudges start to look increasingly irrelevant to generations who didn't witness them. This is similar to what is happening with Cuba, with the additional bonus that Iran is a much more relevant key player in the most critical region.

History is a complicated mess in any country.

[icegreentea]

Democracy don't inherently have any of the traits you flag as rational either. Democracies tend to be based on a constitution which are generally as hard as divine laws to change, require obedience (does it really matter if God or the judge/police hands out the punishment) and absolute faith on an ideology (democracy).

Nothing about democracy is provability optimal, and North American democratic discourse spirals away from logic and scientific method based thinking every day.

Your point that it would be a mistake to approach them exactly as another western democracy is absolutely valid, but it would be mistake to swing too far to the other side. Iran is more like us than the majority of powers in the region.

[namlem]

Iran is not as theocratic as Saudi Arabia or other Mid-Eastern states. The ayatollah is a religious dictator, yes, but the civil government is more powerful in Iran than in many of its neighbors.

[colinplamondon]

From what I read, it sounded like the Green Revolution ended with what amounted to a military coup, and the military holds far more of the cards than they did beforehand.

That's just a casual, amateur take, though. I'm sure there's folks here who have a more detailed opinion.

[jokr004]

> Thinking "sure, they apply shariah, and believe islam is the only true religion, and that god leads them, but deep inside they know things aren't that simple" is applying your own logic to them

So we should just apply your logic to them, then?

[bsaul]

We should apply our logic to ourselves, and theirs to themselves. That means, be rational, and not expect them to be.

[jokr004]

Oh, I think I misunderstood your wording. But in reality, the theocracy in Iran doesn't hold absolute power.. there is some semblance of a democracy and at the end of the day the government does face the scrutiny of its people and the international community, just like every other nation.. saying they are completely devoid of logic is just foolish.

[bsaul]

My main point is regarding matters of life and death. You can't be sure how someone who truely sincerely believe he's going to heaven for spreading islam via murder is going to handle nuclear power.

[user_0001]

The Iranians (along with the Kurds) are the only ones stopping ISIS in the middle east.

I doubt the US really wants to get more involved with troops on the ground (yet again) see as how well that has turned out at every attempt in the last 20 years.

With the easing of sanctions, expect to see better cooperation - probably through intermediaries admittedly or Iran taking the fight to ISIS, stopping their progress.

[sveme]

I don't quite understand your question. You are asking what Iran wanted from the EU and US and what they wanted from Iran?

EU&US: Don't develop nuclear weapons. Iran: Stop the sanctions, let us sell our oil.

Is that what you were asking for?

[bsaul]

I don't understand why there were negociation at all. Usually, with such crucial matters, threatening the world peace, there is no discussion. The strongest simply impose its decision.

Eu&us: stop or you'll get destroyed ( militarely or economically). Iran : ok.

I don't see how it went any other way. The only reason i could imagine was if other big countries ( russia and china mainly) were saying " we disagree".

But in that case negociations wouldn't need to be with iran, but directly with china or russia.

[mpoloton]

Be sure that if they had a chance with military offensive they would have done it (Israel/US). Like what Israel did with Iraqi and Syrian facilitates. Due to nature of Iran spread facilities, it is extremely difficult to destroy Iran's program with an air strike unless there are boots on the ground and occupation which is clearly not an option. According to best estimates it would only delay the program by one year with the outcome that Iran will actually quit NPT. Moreover, an attack would unite all Iranian to support the government. So in any case, this approach is not going to be toward the objective.

It is also partly wrong to think that sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table, Iran has always been negotiating. In fact, most of the development of enrichment was done during UN sanction. Sure, people and economy suffered but again the objective was not the collective punishment it was to reduce Iran program which did not work. What caused Iran to accept to limit its program was the fact that the US accepted peaceful program and research nuclear capabilities which is a matter of pride and recognition.

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

However, I totally agree with you if your approach is to create another North Korea.

[konradb]

Presumably it's an issue of national sovereignty - it is their country, and they are broadly able to do any activities on their land as they see fit, just as the EU and US have seen fit to develop nuclear weapons.

Presumably the alternative is to threaten to invade or impose economic sanctions, but that doesn't seem to me like the beginning of a productive conversation. If anything it might increase the urgency of getting weapons, of any type, to be taken seriously.

[Expeditus419]

A prolonged weakened economy doesn't necessarily prevent a country from developing a nuclear weapons program. Take a look at North Korea.

[bsaul]

North korea is what scares me, because the path seems exactly similar to iran's one. Half-baked embargo , fear of sending soldier or bombing nuclear infrstructures, followed by half-backed agreements, leading to a country lead by insane dictator with nuclear bombs.

Only north korea had china to protect it, whereas iran has (to my knowledge) nobody wanting to risk anything for it.

[vixen99]

And they are untouchable. Lesson for the rest. Whatever you do, by hook or by crook, get a nuclear weapon.

[Tiktaalik]

There's an article in the May issue of Monocle about the luxury fashion market in Iran. There's a vibrantly growing middle class and a surge of interest in luxury clothing and goods. However due to politics, major brands are kept out, and the stock is seasons behind and has to come through non official channels.

I can imagine business interests looking at the huge middle class market in Iran and putting pressure on governments to change the approach and open up the market to the west.

[nabla9]

1. Iran is now geopolitically stronger than it was before Iraq and Afghan wars. It won just by giving only minimal assistance to it's allies. Iraq is now Iran's ally.

2. Other countries are moving ahead. Approximately 10% of China's oil imports are from Iran. 11% of of India's oil comes from Iran. Iran is selling long term exclusive rights to China.

[lentil_soup]

So you punish an entire group of people by weakening their economy until their government does what an external entity wants them to do?. Seems quite a violent approach.

[yoavm]

Every country has a right to forbid business relations with another country due to its government's policy. As an Israeli I think the boycott on Israel is a legitimate way to try influencing our policies even though the boycott hurts me as a citizen that oppose the occupation. You pay a price for having a dumb government.

Just to clarify: I'm all for the deal with Iran, hoping for a better future for the Iranians.

[lentil_soup]

True, you're right. But I guess if you have a way of achieving the same goals without doing that it should be favored?

[yoavm]

Of course, though I think economical sanctions are already much better than starting another preventive war.

[bsaul]

That's only justified because trying to get a nuclear weapon has an impact on everyone's peace.

Especially for a country that's been at war with its neighbours for the last 50 years at least, in a chaotic region filled with international terrorists groups and active war zones right at the moment.

[hni]

Please list all wars initiated by Iran during the last 50 years. As that will probably not take too long, maybe you can also tell us with which neighbours Iran has been at war during the last 50 years.

[jcranmer]

In the past year, Iraq and Syria. Possibly Palestine/Israel, Yemen, and Afghanistan, depending on your definitions. Beyond that, I know they did do the Iraq-Iran war several years back, and I think they were involved in the Lebanese civil war as well.

I don't actually consider myself a particularly knowledgeable individual when it comes to Middle Eastern history. But when people say things like this, they usually include all the marginal entries the US is involved in while ignoring all of the marginal entries other countries, presumably mostly out of ignorance. Particularly if you include "little" conflicts, you'll find that most countries spend most of their time in armed conflict with somebody, and the US isn't particularly abnormal in this regard.

[dsfyu404ed]

Better yet, try listing wars between nuclear armed nations.

When everyone can hurt everyone regardless of size you get a "mexican standoff" which is good for stability

[cies]

While at it, make the same list for the US.

[tome]

Iran has been at war with Israel for at least 30 years via its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas.

[threeseed]

So maybe we should be thinking about disarming Israel then.

It seems to fit all of your criteria.

[1stop]

Why down vote? It fits the EXACT criteria outlined by the GP?

I'd be interested to hear a rational argument for why it's okay for Israel to pursue nuclear weapons but not a neighbouring county? (Please don't resort to some quote about Iran hating Israel, as Israel have said equally extreme things as well).

[rakoo]

> I'd be interested to hear a rational argument for why it's okay for Israel to pursue nuclear weapons but not a neighbouring county?

Stupidly naive answer: because Israel didn't sign the NPT and is voluntarily evasive about the subject, while Iran did.

[Molaxx]

show me a high ranking Israeli that says that the entire Iranian nation should be wiped off the map. I can find many quotes of people like shimon Peres that call the Iranian people friends and that Israel wishes no hostility with Iran. on the other side the highest ranking Iranian officials repeatedly call for the total annihilation of the 'Zionist entity' which is Israel. Your claim that the situation symmetric in this respect is just false. further more there is a huge geographical difference between Israel and iran. the entire area of Israel can be conquered in a day. its tiny compared to Iran, checkout the maps. Combine that with the extremely aggressive rhetorics of israels neighbours that don't even consider Israel as enemy but as an evil entity that should be "wiped off the map" and you might understand Israel's need for a strategic weapon. on the contrary Iran doesn't have any viable enemies that seek to literally destroy it. The only people who need a nuclear weapon in Iran are the leaders of the theocratic regime inorder to cement their rule. this is more similiar to the nuclear ambitions of north Korean leaders.

in short, the situation of the two countries is far from being symmetric due to huge geopolitical differences.

[1stop]

funny that your response was exactly what i cautioned against.

Japan actually invaded half the world, they have nuclear technology and capability to produce weapons. Same as Germany, Russia, and of course the US. You have countries like Pakistan that is a known host to "terrorists", and India that have them. Why is there a special club?

Iran have violent "rhetoric". What violence against israel has Iran actually perpetrated? The israel situation is a controversial one, and there have been threats, and wars. But Israel has generally been the more aggressive one, and always because they are facing "total annihilation" (for fifty+ years, in which their borders have increased rather than decreased)...

[bsaul]

Didn't downvote, but since someone asked : Israel is the target of said terrorists group and hostility, not the initiator or sponsor (like Iran). That's why it's an ally and not an opponent.

I really didn't think i'd ever have to make such obvious statements.

[lentil_soup]

And similar accusations can be made of the US/EU from the other side.

Scaling down the political violence is the only way to get out of that mess.

[mark_l_watson]

I don't think that Iran has ever invaded another country in modern history, right?

I must admit some bias here: I am a U.S. Citizen and I firmly believe that better relations with Iran are in my country's best interest. I am biased in my country's best interest!

[bsaul]

I really wonder what advantage you think iran will bring to the US. Unless you think that radical islamism is a good ideology to spread around the world, and that the shariah may be a good basis for civil laws, because that's certainly where all the oil dollars earned by iran are going in the coming years ( just like saudi arabia spread its vision of islam in the past 30 years).

[mark_l_watson]

Good question, thanks.

Right now, there are many young Iranians who are neutral or slightly pro-USA (they are too young to remember that we helped overthrown their democratically elected premier in the 1950s and installed the Shaw of Iran - we rememebr how that turned out for the Iranian people).

So, yes some risk, but for the USA I think the risk is very worthwhile.

[joosters]

Well, Iran has being saying for years that they aren't working towards nuclear weapons, so there's no obvious change there.

(No idea if they are lying or not; there's been no clear 'smoking gun' evidence proving them wrong, just lots of potential 'dual use' nuclear research that could be for legitimate nuclear development or otherwise...)

[skylan_q]

You have to realize that Iran is threatened by the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia. I won't be surprised when they break this deal and have their own nuclear weapons.

[logfromblammo]

As with most nation-states, the Iranian ruling regime is threatened mostly by its own subjects/citizens. As long as their eyes point outward, they won't as easily see the corruption going on behind their backs.

The biggest actual external threat to Iran is the US becoming a net oil exporter.

[bsaul]

? Are you being sarcastic ? Since when did the US or Israel threatened Iran of anything ?

It seems to me you're inversing causes and consequences. Hopefully looking at events chronologically will help you get things back in order.

[jballanc]

Are you ignorant? or being willingly obtuse? Between the US and Iran, one of these countries supported a successful overthrow of the other country's democratically elected government. I'll let you figure out which country was the aggressor in that situation and then we can reconsider why Iran feels threatened by the US and its allies.

[bsaul]

Are you talking about CIA games dating back to something like 70 years ago, during the cold war, to fight against USSR influence ? I don't think it's that relevant, unless you're willing to accept every pretext told by Iran.

The first consequence of having the nuclear bomb would not be for the Iran/US relationship, it will be local for the region. It'll mean that Iran will have an even bigger local military influence, knowing that no one will be able to attack them on their territory. Aka a highway to a full war between shiites and sunnites (which are probably starting their own nuclear program right at the moment).

Hearing the declaration of Iranien leader with respect to their neighbors, and seeing what's happening right now in Yemen, i wouldn't be surprised to see a new country vs country war coming in the next 5 years.

[jballanc]

Well, it's not as if the CIA participated in the coup in Iran, had a change of heart, and decided to change its ways. Quite the opposite! The CIA has shown a continued willingness to intervene and overthrow regimes that don't toe the line. Here's a list you might be interested in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covert_United_States_foreign_r...

Notice the last item on the list: Bush authorized the CIA to carry out operations aimed at destabilizing the government of Iran. So, yeah...Iran's probably not crazy to be worried about US aggression.

Not only that, but remember when Bush called out the "Axis of Evil"? Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. Of those three, one had nuclear weapons at the time, one was in the process of developing them, and one had disassembled its WMD programs under UN supervision. Since then, one of those three has been invaded by the US, one has only received sanctions from the US, and one has received food and fuel aid from the US.

Do the math...

[bsaul]

I think the axis of evil was designated after 9/11 ( world's biggest terrorist act) and both Iran and Iraq rejoiced, after having spread anti-american ideology in their countries and outside for decades, while commiting terrorist actions for decades throughout the world. It didn't come from nowhere.

Now, to answer the question of why is usa being called the great evil by the iranian regime ( and not why you would find it logical) you simply have to listen to their spiritual leaders : they just hate western values, period. They think our sexual and political behaviors makes us close to the devil.

And that, unfortunately, is not going to change anytime soon.

[lmm]

Israel (whose own illicit nuclear program is far more advanced than Iran's, let's not forget) is widely acknowledged to have assassinated Iranian scientists, no? That goes beyond threats.

[AnimalMuppet]

Don't know about chronologically, but: Between the US and Iran, one country regularly has large groups in the streets, chanting about death to the other country. Which way does that flow, again?

[mahouse]

How exactly do you expect the iranian regime to get weakened?