7 ms·

I don't think it is that silly. The governments of the West are totally chill with regimes that are just as brutal, if not more brutal, than Iran, like Saudi A

by Assadi 7y ago

I don't think it is that silly. The governments of the West are totally chill with regimes that are just as brutal, if not more brutal, than Iran, like Saudi Arabia. The difference really is mostly just "which side are you on".

stale2002 7y ago
"But another brutal theocracy is able to get away with stuff that is just as bad!" isn't a particularly convincing argument for why we should allow a different brutal theocracy to also get away with bad stuff. Feel free to argue that other bad governments that do bad things, should also be sanctioned or stopped in some way. That does not change the true fact Iran does indeed fund militant groups, and that this is a good justification for opposing them. In my world more bad countries are targeted with economic sanctions, where in your world, less of them are opposed and they are able to get away with the bad things that that do. See the difference?
- Assadi 7y ago
  I am not saying that either Iran or Saudi Arabia should be able to X, Y or Z. I'm not going for a "the Saudis do it so Iran should too" argument. Rather, I am simply saying that the sanctions themselves are just an imperialist American power move. Again, it's not actually about whether Iran is good or bad. If it was simply about good VS evil, nobody would be standing idly as the Saudis yeet missiles into Yemeni civilians. The sanctions are a joke. It is all about American political agenda.
  - stale2002 7y ago
    > I am simply saying that the sanctions themselves are just an imperialist American power move. Ok, and my original point is that it is ridiculous to have sympathy for Iran, given their actions. You can feel free to think that America is doing this for multiple reasons. But that does not change the fact that Iran is indeed funding militant groups. Therefore, nobody should start crying about them being sanctioned, and trying to make people feel bad about a country that is funding a lot of militant groups, being sanctioned.
    - jonathanstrange 7y ago
      You're overgeneralizing, which isn't helpful, and seem to be unable to see the story from the perspective of countries within the region we're talking about. People sympathize with people like the developer this story is about, not with the theocratic apparatus within Iran's government structure. If Iranians in general were as bad as you portray them, then no regime change in Iran could ever have any positive effects anyway. Of course, they aren't. There is also an inability to differentiate between secular power play in the interest of one's country and the influence of religious fundamentalists. There are really two different issues, Iran's ambitions in the region, which are backed up by secular forces in Iran, too, and the theocratic constitution. 1. Some of the actions of Iran's government you describe are pretty much what the US does all the time, except that Iran does it only within their own region. For example, the US sends special forces into all kinds of countries to do their dirty work (e.g. into Iran, Afghanistan), and Iran sends special forces into all kinds of countries to do their directly work, too. There is a slight difference, though. The US has been doing that almost everywhere, whereas the Iranians are mostly trying to fix (in their favour, of course) a mess that was caused by the Second Iraq War initiated by a US aggression. The US basically destroyed the neighbouring country, so for the Iranians this looks similar to e.g. if Russia had just occupied Mexico, put heavy sanctions on the US and would constantly threaten to bomb the US. That's not a good basis for future negotiations, and trying to act against such moves and trying to keep or increase one's own country sphere of influence in neighbouring countries seems like a natural and rational policy. Here we see a power struggle between two nations whose geostrategical goals are not aligned. However, I'd still say, from the eyes of an impartial observer, that Iran clearly has more of a reason and a right to extend their sphere of influence to neighbouring countries in the region than the US, who have just absolutely fucking nothing to do in the region and are biggest reason why it is in turmoil in the first place. The idea that e.g. the US had a special right to control the Strait of Hormuz is, simply put, absurd. 2. Then there is the problem with the theocracy, which has nothing to do with the previous point. Many if not most people in Iran are probably against their theocracy, but unfortunately the constitution is designed as a theocratic regime and that's hard to change. The government of Iran is not necessarily for Ayatolla Khamenei and his verdicts either, and the younger people would like to get more freedom and many of them would like to get rid of the theocractic elements in their constitution and particularly the religious police. US foreign politics and Western foreign politics in general are muddling up the two issues, and that's very regrettable. Allying with Saudi Arabia, who has literally just hacked a US journalist to death, will make you a hypocrite about it anyway in the eyes of Iranians, and then the constant confusion of 1 and 2 makes things even worse. Iran primarily needs change 2, whereas 1 is simply based on a desire to act on their own interests and can only be moderated, e.g. with suitable treaties. The best way of promoting the change 2 would probably be to open up to Iran and do what's best to strengthen women's and LGBT rights in the region (e.g. by guaranteeing asylum, anti-censorship help, diplomatic pressure for human rights, etc.) The US currently is unable to do that, since the current US government is ideologically very close to the theocratic apparatus in Iran.
- tsukikage 7y ago
  The problem is with how we decide which are the "bad" countries. If both "good" and "bad" countries fund militant groups, anyone who tells you that this is how they distinguish between them is lying.
- pushpop 7y ago
  I don’t think anyone on here is in favour of bad people doing bad things. The general point is that when sanctions are used selectively on some regimes and the US buddy up with other regimes that follow the same kind of politics as the first regime; then you have to question if those sanctions are used for the good of the world (ie what is publicised) or for the good of the US (ie financial kick backs, back door deals, etc). The fact that Saudi Arabia literally get away with murder because the US have profitable arms deals with them should speak volumes about the true purpose of sanctions.

by Assadi 7y ago

stale2002 7y ago

"But another brutal theocracy is able to get away with stuff that is just as bad!" isn't a particularly convincing argument for why we should allow a different brutal theocracy to also get away with bad stuff. Feel free to argue that other bad governments that do bad things, should also be sanctioned or stopped in some way. That does not change the true fact Iran does indeed fund militant groups, and that this is a good justification for opposing them. In my world more bad countries are targeted with economic sanctions, where in your world, less of them are opposed and they are able to get away with the bad things that that do. See the difference?

Assadi 7y ago
I am not saying that either Iran or Saudi Arabia should be able to X, Y or Z. I'm not going for a "the Saudis do it so Iran should too" argument. Rather, I am simply saying that the sanctions themselves are just an imperialist American power move. Again, it's not actually about whether Iran is good or bad. If it was simply about good VS evil, nobody would be standing idly as the Saudis yeet missiles into Yemeni civilians. The sanctions are a joke. It is all about American political agenda.
- stale2002 7y ago
  > I am simply saying that the sanctions themselves are just an imperialist American power move. Ok, and my original point is that it is ridiculous to have sympathy for Iran, given their actions. You can feel free to think that America is doing this for multiple reasons. But that does not change the fact that Iran is indeed funding militant groups. Therefore, nobody should start crying about them being sanctioned, and trying to make people feel bad about a country that is funding a lot of militant groups, being sanctioned.
  - jonathanstrange 7y ago
    You're overgeneralizing, which isn't helpful, and seem to be unable to see the story from the perspective of countries within the region we're talking about. People sympathize with people like the developer this story is about, not with the theocratic apparatus within Iran's government structure. If Iranians in general were as bad as you portray them, then no regime change in Iran could ever have any positive effects anyway. Of course, they aren't. There is also an inability to differentiate between secular power play in the interest of one's country and the influence of religious fundamentalists. There are really two different issues, Iran's ambitions in the region, which are backed up by secular forces in Iran, too, and the theocratic constitution. 1. Some of the actions of Iran's government you describe are pretty much what the US does all the time, except that Iran does it only within their own region. For example, the US sends special forces into all kinds of countries to do their dirty work (e.g. into Iran, Afghanistan), and Iran sends special forces into all kinds of countries to do their directly work, too. There is a slight difference, though. The US has been doing that almost everywhere, whereas the Iranians are mostly trying to fix (in their favour, of course) a mess that was caused by the Second Iraq War initiated by a US aggression. The US basically destroyed the neighbouring country, so for the Iranians this looks similar to e.g. if Russia had just occupied Mexico, put heavy sanctions on the US and would constantly threaten to bomb the US. That's not a good basis for future negotiations, and trying to act against such moves and trying to keep or increase one's own country sphere of influence in neighbouring countries seems like a natural and rational policy. Here we see a power struggle between two nations whose geostrategical goals are not aligned. However, I'd still say, from the eyes of an impartial observer, that Iran clearly has more of a reason and a right to extend their sphere of influence to neighbouring countries in the region than the US, who have just absolutely fucking nothing to do in the region and are biggest reason why it is in turmoil in the first place. The idea that e.g. the US had a special right to control the Strait of Hormuz is, simply put, absurd. 2. Then there is the problem with the theocracy, which has nothing to do with the previous point. Many if not most people in Iran are probably against their theocracy, but unfortunately the constitution is designed as a theocratic regime and that's hard to change. The government of Iran is not necessarily for Ayatolla Khamenei and his verdicts either, and the younger people would like to get more freedom and many of them would like to get rid of the theocractic elements in their constitution and particularly the religious police. US foreign politics and Western foreign politics in general are muddling up the two issues, and that's very regrettable. Allying with Saudi Arabia, who has literally just hacked a US journalist to death, will make you a hypocrite about it anyway in the eyes of Iranians, and then the constant confusion of 1 and 2 makes things even worse. Iran primarily needs change 2, whereas 1 is simply based on a desire to act on their own interests and can only be moderated, e.g. with suitable treaties. The best way of promoting the change 2 would probably be to open up to Iran and do what's best to strengthen women's and LGBT rights in the region (e.g. by guaranteeing asylum, anti-censorship help, diplomatic pressure for human rights, etc.) The US currently is unable to do that, since the current US government is ideologically very close to the theocratic apparatus in Iran.
tsukikage 7y ago
The problem is with how we decide which are the "bad" countries. If both "good" and "bad" countries fund militant groups, anyone who tells you that this is how they distinguish between them is lying.
pushpop 7y ago
I don’t think anyone on here is in favour of bad people doing bad things. The general point is that when sanctions are used selectively on some regimes and the US buddy up with other regimes that follow the same kind of politics as the first regime; then you have to question if those sanctions are used for the good of the world (ie what is publicised) or for the good of the US (ie financial kick backs, back door deals, etc). The fact that Saudi Arabia literally get away with murder because the US have profitable arms deals with them should speak volumes about the true purpose of sanctions.