[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.