[acjohnson55]

I think the future of the Middle East is a tense balance between Saudi and Iranian poles, with both countries being normalized in the international community. The USA can't bring either country to heel, but it can hopefully prevent the stalemate from being nuclear along Sunni-Shia lines. But what's also changed is that the US needs a normalized partner in Iran to fully isolate ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other far worse actors. I think we can also be encouraged by the demographics in Iran, which are moving younger and more liberal. I'm cautiously optimistic.

[skylan_q]

Iran is a country much more aligned with the US in many more ways than Saudi Arabia is. It's really a "natural ally" for the US in the middle east.

[bsaul]

Out or curiosity, why does the (religious) iranian regime keeps calling USA "the great devil" then ?

Ps :reading some answers, i know about the history of conflicts between usa and iran. I was just pointing the fact that calling Iran a "natural ally" is a bit of a stretch.

[0xFFC]

Iranian here , and I am commenting from Iran.Iranian people maybe most pro usa people in middle east. and about government, they just need keep people busy because of they systematic corruption. Thats all. 10 years before , Ali Khamneai said following : "anyone who says we should communicate with USA is or idiot or our enemy/traitor".

and guess what ? today , FM Zarif have record in our history for maximum time negotiation with a USA FM.

Thats about it , they just want money , they don't care about Israel or otherwhere a little bit , they don't care about people either , they just care about themselves. Look at the whole picture . When there was serious threat about Iran regime existence , they negotiate , and they accept what they called 10 years ago a traitor would do.

They just love money.And they only weapon they have for keeping people in iran busy and afraid of any kind of protest, is "imaginary" enemy.That's all.

I cannot find the exact link . But I read a DoD Analysis about Iran , and the first paragraph they mentioned was this : "Iran regime only care about himself" (meaning of the first paragraph) .

As Iranian I can assure you , They don't even care even about Israel/Palestine.They just need imaginary enemy keeping people in scared position.

p.s. sorry for my broken English.

p.s-2: Yes I know and accept this is so simplistic, we have all kind of majority in our society , but If you see the level of corruption in our economy , You will understand nothing can stand against money.Not even supreme leader.At the end at least in my view (I served in high-level military base in my mandatory military service_sadly was two year waste of my life), at the very end alls boils down to money and keeping regime safe. They interfere in Lebanon , Just because they want to propagate , NOT BECAUSE OF ISLAM OR ANYTHING ELSE , they just feel safer if they have more poppet.

[danialtz]

It is too simplistic to link all the changes to money or radicals. Every country has all the sides of a normal distribution. You have extremists, and you have general majority, and then many smaller interest groups, leftists etc. In USA even look what the difference between two elections was, clinton and bush and then Obama, and what the world experienced.

What I believe happened is that the remains of the green movement did not die, but thanks to the awareness of folk in Iran, direction of politicians inside, and policy changes of USA and other EU outside (pull out rather than invade), the movement was left to go into direction of democracy rather than anarchy. Despite being hurt in the election I voted for Ruhani, envisioning a slow but necessary passage into democracy, while many people are used to the black and white terms of revolution. The people in power felt this, and saw the movements around them in arabic revolutions, and decided to go on with it rather than against it, with the support of majority.

Today we are not done, but is the day we start seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, that there is hope.

Edit:typo + clarification

[anigbrowl]

I thought it was very interesting recently when FM Zarif, who seems very wise and pragmatic, discussed the nuclear negotiations as a form of diplomatic jihad, presumably to reassure the religious/political factions that that government had not gone 'soft'. As other people said, we have similar factions here in the USA.

I am curious, is awareness of Persian history a regular part of Iranian cultural life? I mean in day-to-day conversation, not just in school or a museum. Anti-Iranian people in the USA often denounce the country because it is an Islamic republic, but every Iranian person I've ever meet seems very proud of their Persian heritage and history, parallel to their religious heritage.

I'm European (living in the USA) and Iran seems culturally much closer to Europe/USA than a country like Saudi Arabia. It seems like religion is very strict in Saudia Arabia because it is the only thing that holds the country together, whereas Iranian people had a strong national identity before Islam existed. Is this accurate?

[el_zorro]

I'm wondering if there's been something lost in translation there, though. The word, in Western understanding, means holy war, but a more apt translation is "struggle", in the same connotation that one would struggle with a cigarette addiction or the like. Extremist groups have claimed the word for more violent connotations, but traditionally is more like a burden that one struggles against.

[anigbrowl]

That's why I thought it was astute of Zarif to use the term in a way that would encourage western audiences to re-evaluate the concept outside of the terrorism frame that people try to erect around it. I get the sense that jihad has a great deal in common with Kantian notions of duty.

[0xFFC]

Traditional Iranian ceremonies always was a great part of our society (at least as far as I can remember , and note that these ceremonies are not approved by Islam most of the time but people kept doing them after revolution).But nationalism became regular part in recent years.I don't think it is dominant part , as far as I see it is important part.

I should mention in recent years Iran became so much wired country in cultural sense. at one side of spectrum we have people who hate religion, at the other side we have people just like Al-Qaeda , but Shia version which are so small in compare the other part , but they have secret regime support)

But despite of regime multi-billion $ media funding and propaganda most people does believe in secularism. and this is the most serious (by far) dead end for this regime will counter in next 20 years.most of people in Iran knows that, regime needs an imaginary enemy. who is better than US, the supporter of Israel (which they believe is root of all evils).by bombing them you just gave them a reason to deceive more people.Give them internet,twitter, porn , facebook,gay tv shows, game of throne, friends tv shows and etc and you will see collapse of regime much much sooner than you can even imagine)

The distance young generation have with religion is far far than most of people outside of Iran can imagine.Despite of 5-6% of hardliners and 25-35% people who make living inside/because of government,in recent years most of people became or atheist or with some kind of their own religion. Majority of young people proud about pre-Islamic history.(personally I don't know about that area and I don't have opinion)

By their "own religion" I mean secular religion, They believe in separation of religion and government at same time they believe on Islam.(some kind of old fashion Shia, before khomeini). At the other hand , we are having (or generating) serious hard liner in other side. People who hates religious, people who hate Islam.(you can search about Shahin Najafi , A singer who sentenced to death by Mullahs like Salman Rushdie)

In Iran despite of west media propaganda you can have every Idea you want in private and most of the time government will not hurt you if you pretend you are normal person in their definition.(You can be an alcoholic , You can be gay) BUT the serious issue here is ,the cost of doing anything other than regime says in PUBLIC is so so so high (most of the time death), and because of that people are afraid of make public their own identity. Just look at the page "My Stealthy Freedom" in facebook.Just imagine the level of government aggressiveness.Taking picture without scarf becomes heroic act here(just imagine , ridiculous thing like this is punishable).Because of this regime. But about saudi arabia , I can assure you Iranian people are far far secular than people at countries like saudi arabia.I can even claim they are secular than Turkye people. Last friday was a demonstration about Israel.The city I live in with population of 2 Million.They only managed to bring ~50,000.Thats all.This is serious defeat for this regime.Because this demonstration is so important for them (all ideology of regime hinges on resistance against US and Israel and for demonstration for showing this , only 1/40 come with all the money the spent).Every Military person have to participate,most of people works for non-military part of regime should too.But that's all , 50 thousands for 2M city.(the important fact here is everybody who believe in regime politic will come to these demonstration , because these are so important for them)

The main problem here is in Iran we have a people-government spectrum , and they both are at other side. One is really aggressive and religious and the other side we have majority people with believe in freedom-secularism. The majority of ordinary and non-educated in people do not believe in religious-regime.

[anigbrowl]

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain and educate me. This is very informative and helpful.

[roymurdock]

Thank you for sharing this.

I believe there should be some sort of Laffer curve that charts the relationship between standard of living & religious extremism.

[tome]

> The city I live in with population of 2 Million.They only managed to bring ~50,000

That's 2.5%. By contrast the biggest protest in British history (against the 2003 invasion of Iraq) was around 1m people, just shy of 2% of the country. I'm afraid I can't see Al Quds days as indicative of anything other than rabid and endemic anti-Israel, anti-American and anti-Western sentiment.

[Jgrubb]

> They just love money.And they only weapon they have for keeping people in iran busy and afraid of any kind of protest, is "imaginary" enemy.That's all.

American here, commenting from America. We have almost the exact same situation here with our political "leadership".

[kbenson]

See, natural allies! ;)

Really, the difference here is trust and competence. The Iranian government doesn't seem to have the trust of it's people (that is, trust it has their best intentions at heart), or the competence to adequately hide the corruption. The U.S. is fairly competent at hiding the corruption, and thus has garnered quite a bit of trust. In the U.S. we know we have corruption, but we don't really know how much, because the politicians and the system are fairly competent and providing alternative narratives that make it hard to come to a definitive answer.

[fit2rule]

Thing is, this is also why America is enemies with Iran - without such an enemy, there is no justification for the $Trillions spent on American war hegemony.

So I think we've found the source of the problem: people want to kill each other because its profitable.

[mc32]

I'm not very versed in ME politics but I think the US's stance is more ideological than pragmatic. The us does not need Iran as imaginary enemy when it has real enemies elsewhere -factions in Pakistan, isil, etc. Even Putin is a bigger threat to US political clout in the world.

On the other hand, because of political history, the U.S. is a very convenient enemy and israel is a good distraction too. But as we know from British and french history, the designation of foe and friend and ally can change when it makes politics sense.

[plesner]

Isn't it the case though that the population is pretty supportive of the government, including its religious policies? Iranian elections aren't exactly free but polls suggest that free elections would give basically the same results.

(See for instance http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeast...)

[api]

American here. Sounds like they are just like our leaders. :)

[andyl]

'And they only weapon they have for keeping people in iran busy and afraid of any kind of protest, is "imaginary" enemy.'

Similar dynamic at work here in the USA, with political leaders stoking the fears of terror, then providing authoritarian 'solutions' like the Patriot Act.

Also relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

[nimrody]

“The people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. All you have to do is tell them that they are in danger of being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” Hermann Goering

[curiousjorge]

This was the impression I got from another Iranian friend. Actually Iranians have a lot of Western ideas and he was totally chill until we tried to get him to watch Bruno which he vehemently protested but asides I felt kinda embarrassed at how ignorant I was about Iran. It's nothing like what's being shown in the media, Iranian cuisine is fantastic, I love hearing Farsi (it's like French but better), women are really beautiful.

edit: wow somebody really doesn't like the fact that I don't view Iran as terrorist that American media loves to paint.

[tome]

> edit: wow somebody really doesn't like the fact that I don't view Iran as terrorist that American media loves to paint.

I tend not to downvote comments, but I always downvote complaints about downvotes.

[rayiner]

It's worth reading up on the structure of the government of Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Iran. The Iranian President or Ayatollah is often portrayed as a dictator, but the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that. Iran has a functional civil service, with the office of the President, a parliament, and independent judiciary. Presidential candidates are vetted by the theocracy, but are elected in pretty legitimate elections. Though the theocracy pulls a lot of strings, the civil government has significant autonomy in areas such as economic policy and the routine administration of justice. And theocracy itself at least as elements that could evolve into a more liberal system. The Supreme Leader is elected by the Assembly of Experts, who are themselves elected by public vote.

Most importantly, Iranians are used to and expect those hallmarks of modern civilization. That makes them very different from the people who live in the other Middle Eastern theocracies, who, prior to establishment of the monarchies, did not have nations with functioning national governments and civil services. Those attitudes towards government are what enable friendships between countries, moreso than relatively transitory conflicts. For example, the U.K., France, and Germany live relatively harmoniously within the structure of the EU, even though as recently as 70 years ago, they killed millions of each others' people.

I don't want to whitewash Iran (it's still a place that executes homosexuals, after all). But I think it's important to look at the example of England, the originator of modern western democracy. It evolved very methodically from a divine-right monarchy into a liberal democracy. It did so because it had the political structures in place to enable that transition. Long before the monarch was relegated to ceremonial status, the civil government was actually running the show. Countries like Saudi Arabia do not have that. Their governments are intimately tied up in their monarchies. Iran, on the other hand, does have the structures in place to enable a successful transition into democracy.

[rospaya]

> Presidential candidates are vetted by the theocracy, but are elected in pretty legitimate elections.

First of all, I wouldn't call any election in a country without free press and with severe censorship legitimate or fair.

Secondly, around a hundred people got killed protesting contested election results in 2009. The democracy Index ranks Iran among the 10 least democratic countries on the planet.

[afarrell]

Partly because we once overthrew their democratically-elected prime minister out of fear he would align with the USSR. In our defense, China had just become communist and Britain was convincing us this would happen because their PM was saying he would nationalize the Anglo-Iranian oil company (now known as BP). Have a CrashCourse video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8w4Ku6l7OEI

[evgen]

It is also worth noting that Mohammad Pahlavi (aka 'the Shah' and the person we backed after the coup) was a really, really heinous individual who did some incredibly nasty shit over a couple of decades as he clung to power. Like many revolutionaries of that period, the people who overthrew him had a lot of very legitimate grievances.

[jballanc]

Furthermore, as most of the student leaders and politicians opposed to the Shah were leftists, the US continued to undermine efforts for them to organize (lest they side with the USSR). So that, when a popular uprising finally did occur, the clergy were the only group with sufficient organizational structure left that they could form a new administration...thus bringing us to today.

[wtbob]

My understanding is that it was exactly the opposite: the Shah was too meek to assert himself and reign in his courtiers, some of whom were up to some very evil stuff. And of course, it didn't help that people really were after him (remember, he was the rightful emperor whom Mossadegh served; it really doesn't deserve to be called a coup when the emperor fires his Prime Minister, as was his constitutional right), and so his government felt justified in searching for people…out to overthrow him.

[user_0001]

> out of fear he would align with the USSR.

oh come on. That was not the fear (although perhaps "portrayed" as that, but it was never the fear by those who commanded the action. The fear was he wanted to use the profits of the resources of their country to benefit the people of the country. This would never do as the profits were being directed to Britain and the US.

It is like China overthrowing the US government because they wanted the control of the oil and profits from the surge in the US oil industry due to fracking.

Then framing the attack and overthrow of a sovereign, elected government as something to do with US being aligned with a fictitious enemy

[afarrell]

> being directed to benefit Britain and the U.S.

I know they were directed to Britain: Anglo-Iranian was a significant chunk of the UK pension system. But what monetary benefit was going to the U.S.?

Most of my understanding here is coming from All the Shah's Men. If you've got additional sources, I'd love to see them.

[throwaway556588]

I meet with a lot of people from that region. From my personal experience almost every Iranian in the US is very Westernized including women who dresses like any other American. But most other Arabs including Saudis I know are still very traditional. Most of Arab women in the US still wear scarves or even burkas. This is just what I have observed, I have no idea how they really think. Not sure if this translates to larger population or not though.

[alricb]

The thing with Iranians is that most of them are ethnically and linguistically Persian. They are mostly Muslim, but then they're Shia, not Sunni; it's the Sunni extremist that tend to go nuts for scarves and burqas.

[simonh]

For similar reasons that the USA is the great pariah in Cuba. In both cases the USA was a primary supporter of a repressive totalitarian government kicked out by a popular revolution. It's just that in Cuba the revolution was communist while in Iran it had a strongly religious dimension. Other than the Iranian's support of the Palestinian cause, there's really no particular reason for them to be a great enemy of the west, except that we totally screwed them over repeatedly for a few generations.

[user_0001]

>For similar reasons that the USA is the great pariah in Cuba.

That should probably read "the great pariah in Latin America". Is there a country in the whole region the US hasn't overthrown, tried to overthrow, propped up a right wing dictator, funded death squads in the last 70 years?

I am failing to think of one....

[AnimalMuppet]

Costa Rica.

I'm not sure there are any others, though. Maybe Belize, though I'm not sure that counts as "Latin America".

[olifante]

As someone who admittedly knows very little about Belize, why would it not count as part Latin America?

[refurb]

In both cases the USA was a primary supporter of a repressive totalitarian government kicked out by a popular revolution.

You're missing the other side of the equation. The USSR used Cuba (and Cuba used the USSR) to repress the people of Cuba. Cuba was just a superpower pawn.

[geff82]

Because they are used to do so and because they are completely detached from the reality of their people. For the average Iranian, USA is the land to go. And you can't image how similar things look! Highways, signs, style of buildings all look like a slightly cheaper copy of the USA. Except for the roads, which are worse in the USA.

[dsfyu404ed]

They even drive a few old American cars and their air force flies a handful of F-14s

[secfirstmd]

Had to laugh at the last sentence.

[rusabd]

I am puzzled why nobody mentioned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27état

60 years is not really that long

[marcosdumay]

Because that's what their supporting base wants to hear.

Must be said that such supporting base wasn't much big, and was losing people very fast until the second Bush said he'd invade the country. Then things changed overnight.

Today Iran is getting progressive again.

[jajool]

because of decades of conflicts between countries as president Obama stated. this vision cannot change over night.

[alexnewman]

Or anyone in that region?

[cpursley]

Yeah, I agree. Also, the US has much more in common with Russia than China. I don't understand painting either of these countries as "the enemy".

[anigbrowl]

I've thought that for years, but I'm undergoing a rapid change of opinion in my geopolitical views. Strategically it makes much more sense for Iran to be aligned with Russia and China right now, which puts it into an oppositional relationship with the US.

I still think this deal is a good thing though.

[wahsd]

Oil strikes again. The CIA / MI6 butt-buddy backed, Oil industry demanded Iranian '53 coup has been resonating through American geo-political policy and ramifications for decades now and has weakened the USA in the long run by, like you mentioned, pushing Iran in the direction of Russia and China, but also the other members of the BRICS block that really are the future.

[eruditely]

I think Iran hides from what they are, they are the Persians after all.

[dba7dba]

It was. Before the revolution.

[seivan]

There are other people there that can deal with radical Sunni muslims (ISIS). You don't want (Shia) Iran to deal with them.

Look at their recent militia activities, check what happens to Sunni civilians in Iraq. I guess we're not mentioning Yemen.

[3pt14159]

I think you need to read more of the leaked cables and dig deeper into foreign policy journals.

The US policy in the middle east is one of destabilization. ISIS is not a threat to American interests, it's a tool created by America to keep the region destabilized. Once energy is either no longer the limit to economic growth, or no longer economically efficient from oil, then the Americans / NATO and the Chinese can allow a more stable middle east. But the threat of foreign control over a very important and wildly swinging energy input, as well as a strategic launching point to many threats, leads to US / NATO foreign policy in the region that leans towards destabilization and fracturing interests in the region.

[ysilver]

>> and dig deeper into foreign policy journals

What journals do you read? I find it hard to believe you are reading mainstream foreign policy journals. Is there an issue of Foreign Affairs that supports your take?

To support your argument I think you'd best be served by referring to history books, not foreign policy journals. I think your argument generally fits with a dated foreign policy regime where weaker nations were seen along lines of resource extraction (see colonialism all the way to the first Gulf War) and ideological domination (see '53 Iran coup, Bay of Pigs attempted coup, VOA).

Fast-forward a few decades and energy security for NATO states has become quite strong primarily due to fracking. Key threats consist primarily in non-state actors radicalizing people abroad and anarchic environments abroad enabling the export of terrorism. Key opportunities consist in stable energy prices and opening new markets for goods/services. It's a lot easier to square the recent Iran deal with that world view.

[thwest]

Greenspan's autobiography goes over this. US DoS/DoD define Middle East "stability" as the stability of the energy markets, not the stability of Middle Eastern national polities.

Foreign Affairs treats this as an implicit assumption. FA wouldn't tarnish their place in the NATO clerk vetting process by making a claim like this explicit. Their profit model depends on it.

In case you missed it, OPEC dumped on the market months ago and US shale production well counts have plummeted.

[selimthegrim]

Er, can you substantiate this? Wouldn't they prefer pocket puppet dictators? It seems keeping the region off balance is a cold comfort.

[colordrops]

Saudi is the puppet dictator that funnels support to the Sunni militants (ISIS). Iran supports the Shia. Pretty simple dichotomy.

[selimthegrim]

Saudi is throwing returning ISIS volunteers in jail and people like al-Maqdisi and al-Odeh have heaped criticism upon ISIS for being an illegitimate caliphate and violating the obligation to obey 'ulu al 'amr

[marcosdumay]

Read the cables.

The US does prefer puppet dictators. But most dictators do not stay puppet-like without a reason.

[selimthegrim]

I've read plenty of cables. I remember them bitching about Syria and listening to Saudi but I can't recall besides maybe giving some sort of ambitious April Glaspie type green light to Saudi Arabia (to support ISIS) anything like what the poster above is saying about ISIS.

[thwest]

The US very publicly supported the FSA, and while under the advisement and training of the CIA, the FSA fizzled out and most anti-Assad fighters left and joined Daesh or al Nusra.

[fapjacks]

This is the most correct interpretation. Keeping the region unstable is a matter of policy for the US government, for various reasons. Instability brings certain circumstances which benefit the US greatly at this time.