They’re a regional power that wants a seat at the table. I’m not here to white wash or somehow frame them as the good or whatever, they’re not, they’re self interested but Wahhabism and the US in reality have done much more to destabilize the region during the last 40 years. It’s not even particularly close. Even 2/3 examples you gave Iraq and Syria are in the mess they are because 1. US wars 2. Toxic Sunni Wahhabism.

Also as Goom pointed at, Iran and Shias in general historically, at least in modern history have been the tamer of the two. Pre Syrian war, Syria was very progressive, women lawyers and in other elite professions. We’ve been really brainwashed, when in reality it’s the Sunnis that are much more inhospitable to what we view as western democracy.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jan 30 2024 09:21pm

To be honest, I don't care about guilt questions which lie decades in the past, nor about which side has historically been the tamer one. Over the past 18 years, Iran has been the biggest destabilizing force in the ME. They had a hand in stoking the Shia insurrection in Iraq in 2005ff., they played a significant role in the Syrian civil war since 2011, they funded and logistically supported the Houthi rebellion in Yemen in the lead up to the military intervention of the Saudi-led coalition in 2015, they are the major state actor constantly saber-rattling against Israel, they presumably played a key role in planning and preparing the October 7 massacre carried out by Hamas, their proxies are now trying to shut down the Suez shipping route, they are the ones firing on US bases in recent weeks.

Speaking of the civil wars in Iraq and Syria: both countries were/are artificial constructs drawn up on a map by clueless colonial rulers (most notably the Brits) without a proper national identity or unifying motif. In particular, both countries were subject to the strong gravitational pull of sectarian conflict which was always gonna tear them apart as soon as the dictators who were keeping the countries together with an iron fist were gone (or weakened). Specifically, Syria has a Sunni population majority, but a Shiite ruling class while Iraq has always had a Shiite majority, but a Sunni ruling class during the Saddam era. The West, and the US in particular, only made things worse, but realistically, these places were always destined to blow up sooner or later.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 30 2024 09:42pm

This is revisionism. The Iraq war was the single most destabilizing event and that was entirely on the US/western countries like UK that wanted to get rid of Saddam. Iran played no part in that. The subsequent rise of ISIS and other Sunni islamist groups like al-Nusra in Syria was also as a result of the Iraq war. Saddam's Ba'ath party loyalists remnants served as the backbone for these groups. Iran didn't destabilize Syria by helping Assad maintain status quo it was the Sunnis around that wanted to get rid of Shia Syrian power in concert with western support (remember how for years we sponsored 'moderate rebels'?). Turkey, SA, Israel, US, all wanted Assad gone and were the primary sponsors of that war to upset the power structure in Syria.

Yemen is different, and I probably would agree that without Iran, Houthis don't become the menace they are now. But Iraq had a much bigger impact on the region compared to the Houthis tucked away on the Arabian peninsula.

From a western perspective, when I think of terrorism I think of Muslims blowing them selves up, running people over, etc, in the name of Islam. Reality is, that's mostly Sunnis doing it in the west, not Shias.

My point is that the pseudo-stability in Syria and Iraq (and Libya, for that matter) was fragile and hinged entirely on the iron fist of a ruthless dictator to keep these countries together. Even without the invasion of Iraq, Saddam would have died by now, creating the power vacuum that the Iraqi Kurds and Shiites had been waiting for. We saw in Syria how quickly revolution was in the air as soon as Assad showed a glimpse of weakness. Only then did foreign powers try to seize the moment and steer the conflict in their interest, with the well-known and disastrous results. Still: the initial revolutionary moment was organic.

Yes, the Iraq war was a catastrophic mistake and made things a lot worse. I just disagree with the notion that it is the only reason why the country went to shit; that Iraq today would be a peaceful and thriving place without the US invasion. Iraq was on burrowed time, just like Libya and probably also Syria. Speaking of Iraq: the Shia insurgency stoked by Iran to create a puppet regime on their doorstep has contributed significantly to the decline of the country and suffocated any chance for healing or the development of an Iraqi national identity.




90% of Muslims worldwide are Sunnis, and the Muslim immigrants in Western countries skew even more heavily toward Sunnis. Most terrorist attacks in the West being perpetrated by Sunnis is what we would statistically expect.
Look, I'm not saying that either Sunnis or Shiites are worse, nor am I blind to the malicious influence of Wahhabism and the terror funding from rich Gulf state residents. The key difference is that for the past 15++ years, Iran has been the only state actor in the region that is pro-actively fostering armed conflict and aggressively pursuing an expansionist agenda.

The guiding principle of Obama's pivot on Iran was that they would mellow out if sanctions were lifted, if they got more of a seat at the table and were afforded the financial breathing room to develop economically. Perhaps even become more democratic. The developments of the past 10 years, and the last 2 years in particular, have proven this idea wrong. Iran has used the financial breathing room to extend its proxy wars while their economy is still in the mud and the people keeps being just as oppressed as before. They masterminded the Hamas massacre on Oct 7, have their Houthi lapdogs strangle a crucial global shipping route, intensify their attacks on US bases in the region and keep providing crucial support for Russia's war in Ukraine.

Simply put, something has to be done to clean up the mess created by the miscalculation of Obama/Biden. But how? Well, if I had a good answer to that, I'd be working for a think tank instead of posting on d2jsp.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 31 2024 08:50am

"The key difference is that for the past 15++ years, Iran has been the only state actor in the region that is pro-actively fostering armed conflict and aggressively pursuing an expansionist agenda"

Thanks for the laugh

I don't really think Iran was the mastermind of Oct 7th. That's just an easy bite line to prime western audiences and align it with the neocons against Iran. Same with Houthis. I think Iran backs a lot of these groups but they don't actually control tactical moves nor do they have complete control over them. In the same way Iran doesn't have 100% control over Assad in Syria simply because there's other strong influencers so Assad has to cater to a few actors & internal forces. To me, it's more of a, they have a common enemy(s) Israel, Saudis, US, etc, therefore since our enemies are the same we band together. You think if Iran didn't help the Houthis, the Houthis would magically be friends with the Saudis, that for decades marginalized them out of the power structure in Yemen?

When I look at Iran over a longer stretch of time, to me their actions are reactions. I mean you say, the west has allowed them breathing room (even that framing is very western-centric, who the fuck are we to lord over other countries and regions? Why do we ignore the fact that the reason they have animosity towards us is because we tried to install a puppet regime decades ago?) but what would your country do if your scientists are constantly killed, your oil tankers are seized, random politicians or emissaries are killed? Difficult to be cooperative in that environment and not clap back.

Like I said, that's not to say they are innocent but I prefer to look at geopolitics and try to understand why things are the way they are versus just, okay these people are evil and that's why they do what they do.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jan 31 2024 09:15am

Well, the Chinese seem to believe that the Iranians have enough influence on the Houthis to make them stop the attacks on ships:
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/china-presses-iran-rein-houthi-attacks-red-sea-sources-say-2024-01-26/






Of course not. But without Iranian backup, the Houthis would presumably not have been able to topple Yemen's government in 2014, and they definitely wouldn't have won the war against the Saudi-led coalition.




Their scientists are killed because they're working on Iran's nuclear program, their politicians and emissaries are usually only targeted if they're figures coordinating terrorism or fostering conflict (like general Soleimani that Trump had sent to hell with a missile strike back in 2019).

Since it's our sanctions which diminish their financial breathing room, we are of course the ones lording over it. Whether these sanctions are morally or legally justified to begin with, that's a different question.

I'm well aware that present-day Iran is a monster of our own making, but this doesn't mean that we can allow the monster to go unchecked. Personal responsibility and all that. If a kid which grew up poor and fatherless because his dad was incarcerated on bogus possession laws grows up to become a violent teenager who steals and breaks into homes, you wouldn't let him go unpunished because of his difficult childhood either, would you? You're essentially using the misguided line of reasoning of the contemporary left: if an entity (be it a felon, organization or an entire country) scores enough victim points, all its actions against members of the "oppressor class" are excused, no matter how violent, harmful or evil.

The Iranian people at-large aren't evil, but their current ruling class is... kind of, mostly.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 31 2024 09:46am

Rules for thee but not for me and so much of western thought just kind of accepts this as the standard. Why is a sovereign country not allowed or has to ask for permission to create weapons but others are not? If the UK decided to develop some wonder weapon satellite nuke and Russia or China says they don't like that, does that give them the right to start picking off scientists or seizing oil tankers?

This is why so much of the global south is chaffing at the colonial west and their dictates. If we are going to keep quoting rule based orders rules have to be equally enforced.

Iran has been a regional power since Biblical times. We can't keep a lid on these regional powers in Washington and Brussels, that's not what fairness looks like. I say this as a someone who's pro-Israel and hope Israel prospers and never faces any threat from Iran or anyone else, but so many of the larger conflicts in the world today are driven by basically colonial west maintaining the world order they've set up, for their benefit. Those times are fading.

There is a UN resolution which basically says Iran isn't allowed to get the bomb. And if the UK was working toward a wonder weapon while publicly proclaiming their intentions of eradicating other countries, I would absolutely expect the global community to react harshly.


What you say about the general Western hypocrisy and how the Global South feels about it is definitely true. I just think that the Pax Americana has been a net positive for the world, even if it has produced some losers (Iraq, Iran, Chile). A world in which the mullahs, Putin and Xi set the tone wouldn't be an improvement if you ask me.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 31 2024 10:11am

When you say "those times are fading" does that imply the US Military is just going to "stand down" and hand over the reigns to people who are just as cruel as them or worse? Are they really going to allow the dollar to fall as the world reserve currency? Or are they going to dump fuel on the fire they started in the Middle East and rattle BRICS to the core.

That's where I have serious doubt. As if we aren't the only military power to nuke a city to end a conflict. As if we haven't been subverting governments and creating proxies for decades and decades.

I still believe the US militaries invasion into the Middle East after 9/11 had a lot to do with causing a "black hole power vacuum" literally dead center between countries we would potentially be at war with in a WW3 scenario. Steal as much oil as you can from the region(run em dry). Build huge military installations for any future engagements. Bomb cities to rubble and bring in our corporations to rebuild it. Use the trillions in government money to feed our massive military.






Curious to your opinion on how when it comes to "larger conflicts" why is it that we expect people to "play by the rules of war" we set up post WW2? Seems like every major conflict ever is when someone breaks the rules and then we re-write them to the benefit of the winners. Does Russian/Chinese/Iran military intelligence think, "Oh the United States won't use a nuke again". Iran building nukes when Russia and the US have THOUSANDS.

I don't think people realize how quickly "national accords" and "peace agreements" turn to shreds when a huge war starts.

Especially this "WW3" "Iran" conflict. Most wars started by a false flag.

edit: I should add that like any rational human being I would never want to see these lesser conflicts turn into a regional war but looking back at history the "average citizen" never has a choice. The government does it and like George W Bush said, "You are either with us or your with the terrorist".

edit2: I should also add that I don't think nuclear weapons would be used. The 3 top super powers US/China/Russia have far 2 much 2 lose by being in a massive war. I think it's far more likely EMP's get used. I don't see Russia/China/US worrying about anyone launching a ground invasion on them or each other. I also think its MUCH more likely that all 3 of those militaries "communicate". They always make it seem like the people who run this planet can't communicate. Then you see the Russian and US airforce patrolling each other. US and Chinese Navy just patrolling each other.

It just seems to me that all these conflicts since the Gulf War were inevitable or "planned". Gulf of tonkin. Sinking of the Lousitania. Pearl Harbor. WMD's.

&&& we all can't admit that the US military couldn't just sink one of its own "aircraft carriers" and blame Iran. Pull all personal off the ship. I mean all these militaries have the capacity to do these things. So odd to me I don't know about any of you...

This post was edited by SwamiVivekananda on Jan 31 2024 10:56am