[briandear]

Have you read the Iran deal? The Iranians were happy about it, this it likely wasn't a good deal for the rest of us. The Iranians can't be trusted. If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution; instead those protestors were executed, tortured or imprisioned. Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup. Honestly, Obama doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to foreign policy. He sort of waddles along weakening the U.S. position whenever possible.

[toyg]

> The Iranians can't be trusted.

National stereotypes, pillars of pragmatic diplomacy ever since 2000 BC and the clear mark of logical thinkers the world over.

> If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution

How do you know he didn't? Because he didn't send in bombers to "support demonstrations"?

> Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup

... when the alternative would have been much more Iran-friendly; yeah, how strange, right? Honestly, how do you make these random mental associations?

> He sort of waddles along weakening the U.S. position whenever possible.

A comprehensive Iran-US 'peace deal' (or even a strategic partnership going forward) would immensely strengthen US standing around the world, dramatically reducing tensions in the Middle East and providing a balance to the uncritical reliance on Saudi Arabia and Turkey that so much pain has brought since the '90s (from Al Qaeda to IS). So uhm, there is that.

But yeah, I agree that it weakens fearmongers' positions, both in US, Israel and Iran.

[mason240]

>> The Iranians can't be trusted.

>National stereotypes, pillars of pragmatic diplomacy ever since 2000 BC and the clear mark of logical thinkers the world over.

The OP clearly means the theocratic regime, not the Iranian people themselves.

[toyg]

Large parts of that theocratic regime are elected.

[AnimalMuppet]

... after controlling who can run for office.

If you let me select both the Republican and Democratic candidates, I'll happily let the people vote however they want.

[toyg]

That's exactly how large donors think in the US.

[tome]

> > If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution

> How do you know he didn't? Because he didn't send in bombers to "support demonstrations"?

Come on, it's quite clear that Obama was very low-key during the Green Revolution protests, much lower-key than he needed to be.

[toyg]

In a country where US = "bad", public US support would have been hindrance, not help. We don't know what was going on behind the scenes. Note also that the de-facto sponsor was Rafsanjani, somebody a bit too skillful to "marry unconditionally".

Obama is not a saint (he relies on the same corporate interests and even the same personnel a Clinton would), but it's hard to fault him for his moves regarding Iran.

[rayiner]

Revolution is almost always a bad thing for liberal democracy. See, e.g., the Arab Spring, the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Had those protestors been successful, there is a significant possibility would have been co-opted by elements that executed, tortured, and imprisoned a lot more people. See, e.g., the French Revolution.

Iran, in contrast, is well on its way to having a functional democracy. The power of the ayatollah wanes every year, and every new generation of young Iranians is more liberal than before. The best thing the U.S. can do is be friendly and wait for that to play out. Because if there is any hope for another democracy in the Middle East, it's in a place where people are already accustomed to the benefits of having a functioning government with significant and growing public participation.

[amalag]

Are the republicans really that dumb that if they see Iran telling their people "It is a great deal for us" they think they are telling them the truth.

Guess what, they have to spin deals to their public too.