You really should read up on the history of Iran, because then all those questions you bring up would be answered and appear crystal clear:


In the 1950s, Iran was a relatively modern, liberal, democratic, pro-western and well-educated country, at least relative to its neighbors and the third world in general. The man in charge at the time was Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, who was trying to nationalize the large, British oil company in the country, so that Iran could use its oil for its own people. Mossadegh was overthrown by a coup instigated by the CIA and the MI6, called Operation Ajax. He was replaced by Reza Shah, the last representative of Iran's traditional house of monarchs. He was a corrupt, brutal and ignorant figure and didnt care for the well-being of his people, but played along nicely with American and British interests.

The brutal rule of the Shah and the hardship of the common man in Iran laid the foundation for the Iranian revolution of 1979, during which anti-American, theocratic hardliners came to power while being cheered on by a large majority of the masses, of which many didnt realize that their life would get even more miserable and dire under the mullah regime. Tensions with the U.S. skyrocketed immediately with the hostage crisis in the U.S. embassy in Teheran, the U.S. support for Iraq's Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran war of the 80s, and so on and on.




So, to answer your questions: Iran had already been on the track you envision for them, the track of forming economic ties with the world and of "moderation through prosperity". It was a CIA-led coup that derailed this development, out of a cynical, short-sighted geopolitical calculus; and the situation in Iran has gone from bad to worse to even more worse ever since. THIS is the reason why the mullah regime feels threatened by the U.S. as long as they dont have nukes, this is also the reason why a big majority of the Iranian population, even many who oppose the mullahs, dont want American influence or interventions of any sorts in their country.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 11 2020 01:51pm

well, it's not like any americans would have acknowledged that moral 'high ground' anyway, so they didn't really lose anything there imo. that said, i am convinced that their leadership is furious about the incident in regards to the international perception of the conflict, and rightfully so. i can totally see how it happened, and why they were justifiably concerned about american bombers / drones / cruise missiles in their air space, but that doesn't even begin to justify it of course.

and while i can only join you in hoping this could be the beginning of an ideally peaceful and democratic revolution, or at the very least reform in iran, i simply don't see it. their authoritarian leadership has demonstrated on more than just one occasion what exteme measures they are willing to implement in order to oppress any meaningful opposition: just last november they shut down the entire internet for a week for example.

it'd be interesting to see some actual numbers, or informed estimates, concerning iranians critical of / opposing their government vs those loyal to it, but i can only assume that after decades of strict theocratic rule there isn't much organised opposition to be found.

The logic doesn't follow. "If we don't get nukes then the Americans will lead CIA coups again" if that's what your justification is for them wanting nukes it's a shitty one.

Yes that was our fuck up during the cold war and that's a good reason to hate the US, that's still a terrible reason, one which doesn't follow on wanting to get nukes. Egypt, a ME country of similar size and in some respects similar profile enjoys a relatively good relationship with all sides precisely because they don't try to go for nukes and upset the ME power dynamics.

It's fine if you want to have regional proxies or measure dicks with Saudi Arabia. It's fine imo to support Assad, Hezbollah or the Houthis, that's part of the game i get it, and i don't criticize them for this. What i do think is idiotic on their part is striving for nukes. Be like Egypt, promote your interest or whatever but don't reach for something that shouldn't be part of the game in the powder keg of the world.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Jan 11 2020 02:28pm

I think new economical sanctions against Iran are unjustified, counterproductive, and only serve the purpose to spread chaos in the area.
Since the time we should know that opening markets is the only way. I see no good reason to side with U.S on this.

Of course it's counterproductive for Iran to strive for nukes. What I laid out was not a justification for their behavior, it was an explanation. We need to look at their history precisely because their nuclear program seems so irrational.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 11 2020 02:45pm

It should be very obvious why Iran wants a nuclear weapon. Take a look at what happened to Qaddafi when he willingly gave up his nukes vs. what happened to the Kim regime. The US is an extremely unreliable partner when it comes to Mid East policy (i.e. they reneged on the Iran deal) and if I were Iran I would do everything in my power to acquire multiple nuclear weapons. If Iran has the capability to destroy multiple Israeli cities and/or deliver nuclear bombs to New York, DC, etc. via terrorism, then the US will think twice before interfering with Iranian interests.

The big problem is that an Iran with nukes would also dramatically shift the power balance in the gulf region. The Saudis would probably go for nukes too if Iran ever acquired them.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Jan 11 2020 06:31pm

Indeed. Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would be a disaster for the US. I was just explaining why it's in Iran's (at least the current regime) best interest to get them. Ultimately, you just can't trust the West unless you're on an even playing field.

The Iran deal was weak and once we withdrew from it, it was obvious how big of a lie it was that all they want is nuclear power. If all you want is nuclear power, even after the US withdrew you could have kept the course to get nuclear power, as in adhere to the heavy water requirements or not build centrifuges used to enrich weapons grade. If that would of happen and all the international experts could confirm and we wouldn't have ground to sanction them. Instead they do those things.

They will never get nukes and they should never get nukes. A country in which elected members and the whole population for that matter chants 'death to Israel' and vows to destroy them should never be allowed to have nukes.

iran actually did that. they kept adhering to the conditions of the deal - even after trump pulled out, and still america imposed additional crippling sanctions on them. funny how facts have a habit of getting in the way of those silly narratives that are trying to justify america's actions in the middle east...

also, why is a deal that demonstrably stopped iran's whole nuclear program 'weak'? that deal was more than any reasonable and realistic person could have expected, so i would really like to hear an argument based in the real world as to why it was 'weak'. 'because obama made it' might be a common sentiment amongst you people, but that doesn't mean it holds any merit.

This post was edited by fender on Jan 11 2020 07:44pm