Iran: P5+1 Overcomes American Enemies, Achieves Nuclear Pact

I figured.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So instead of 62 years of holding a grudge, we have 62 years of severe and continual abuse, to explain any odd little negative thoughts some modern Iranians might have.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Something like that. The thing is that the only real problem about the Iranian course is that it conflicts with American priorities. Other than that, what would any of us do under the circumstances? Extend our influence through semi-covert networks? Maybe; there are merits in terms of regional politics. Pursue deterrents, such as nuclear weapons? Well, shit, why not? Iranian conduct is undoubtedly problematic in a larger geopolitical context, but our American fingerprints are smudged all over that mess; the Iranian people themselves have a legitimate complaint against the United States of America, so we cluck and tsk at the sorry state of the Revolution that was pretty much all they had left after more than a quarter century of purging under Shah Reza.

Digging our way out of this mess is going to be something of a challenge. What I find striking about opposition to the P5+1 accord is that opponents presume existential adversarialism is the only possible future context for American-Iranian relations. The whole point of taking the nuclear issue off the table is to move toward more constructive orbit.

In the end, we're witnessing a really blatant case of empowerment monopoly negotiation: Give us everything we want, right now, forever.

Normally we're a bit more subtle about it. In Ireland and Palestine alike the argument goes, Surrender your fight in order to be admitted to the negotiating table to end the conflict.

In domestic American politics, Republicans tend toward a formula akin to, We will tell you what to do, and you will do it; everybody has a part to play in compromise.

And the underlying complaint pretty much requires that the only acceptable resolution the Obama administration could have attained was everything we want, right now, and forever. Even then, some would still complain.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

On (1) Yes the CIA etc. destroyed elected governments all over the world that "leaned left" for short term benefits, during the cold war era. For example, EVERY government in South America, had small, right-wing, groups, mainly rich land owners opposed to the re-distribution of land, that the CIA armed and financed so they could establish dictatorships, which endured for more than a decade. The long term cost continues still. Few believe the US is a supported of democracy as history speaks louder than words and many hate the US. (Yankee go home.)

(2) Not for Arabs is 62 years a long time. The Sunni / Shiite hatred stems for a murder that happened more than 1000 years ago.

 

Well, Chile isn't all over the world or every government in South America. But as I previously stated, there was a cold war between the Soviet Union to expand spheres of influence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

Yes, 62 years is a long time to hold a grudge. The Sunni-Shite hatred is an ongoing fundamental disagreement over Islamic doctrine. So it would be a mistake to compare it to a one time secular event. Religion tends to bring out the crazy in people.

 

Iran has been continually supplied with fresh grudge material, the entire time. How long is OK, for holding a grudge over 62 years of abuse and assault and infliction of harm?

Is it like a marriage, where one month of recovery for every year of the marriage is the glib rule of thumb? That would entitle Iran to 62 months of grudge, starting whenever the US lifts its boot.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

​

It's sort of a vague theme, I know, but in the United States we do have this weird sort of victim complex. It isn't just the insane fear after 9/11, or the Republican politics of victimhood. It permeates everything, regardless of where one sits on a political spectrum.

For all any of us might feel oppressed and victimized, or claim to see it in our society's treatment of others, that assertion appears to stop at the water's edge for many Americans. It's not that I don't get Joe's sentiment, and even the short forty-some years of my lifetime are such to evoke unease regarding Iran, but at the same time my general complaint with Iran is the same as it is toward any sense of tyranny. In the particular details of how the United States has dealt with Iran through history, I'm uncertain what else I would expect the Iranians to do.

And as we're aware, this acknowledgment places me squarely in an undefined but generally overwhelmed minority market share.

But microcosmically, we just had this fight in a significant American domestic episode, and it turns out there are plenty of people who have no problem with invoking self-defense after picking a fight. Yes, the Iranians want to appear dangerous to Americans. And, yes, they have every reason to do so. But the human sympathy that allows any individual to consider such issues on behalf of people they dispute with does, for many Americans, seem to stop at the water's edge. And while there is certainly good reason to point to the nature of the game we find ourselves playing with the Islamic Republic of Iran, there is a reason you or I or any among our market share might find ourselves constantly reminding that these United States of America are the reason this particular game is afoot in the first place.

Americans might have done a certain amount of this to ourselves, but it would, if not for its mortal potential, be rather quite hilarious to witness so many of our friends and neighbors lining up to do it again.

At the heart of all this fear and loathing toward Iran is the belief that somehow Americans are the victims in all of this.

Then again, we might also consider that sixty-two years is a stupidly long time for Americans to hold a grudge against Iranians for electing Mossadegh. Joe would certainly still have a point.

 

Oh...? I don't suppose you can back that assertion up with something resembling credible evidence?

Surprise me for once, but I think we both know you are making shit up again.

 

Before you two start firing insults - and I'm not checking to see who started it - perhaps you could approach the issue obliquely, relating to violent or confrontational interactions over this period. Airbus, AMIA, Shah, Ayatollah. Perhaps the answer lies between either stance. Perhaps there is room to agree over documented history.

 

Perhaps you should check to see what the stances are, before pretending to recommend compromise or implying that "firing insults" is something "you two" are both prone to do.

Actually, since "firing insults" is the name anyway, and your game in the naming, let's rephrase that: perhaps you should not post in bad faith, pretending to have overlooked the circumstance that my posting already and centrally and non-obliquely "relates" to the period and the events you suggest - among others. Many others. So that's already covered. So take your troll stick and shove it. You don't get to preserve deniability while signing on to Joe's program here.

The claim that Iran's current behavior is insanity-based on a 60 year old grudge from a single historical event is untenable, and in the current US political context is agitprop. Any recognition of documented history conflicts with it, and with the entire warmongering media effort it represents: to establish the delusion that Iran is governed by irrational and suicidal madmen in the grip of apocalyptic visions, from which the world must be saved (by the US, of course).

The US is in the position of having seriously and continually wronged and abused the country, people, and government of Iran for more than 60 years now. It's obviously a difficult position from which to negotiate, with anybody let alone an atavistic theocracy with nuclear capabilities and a desert full of oil. Agitprop will not help.

 

I wrote that to specifically avoid naming names, but don't doubt I know who often rides that horse. I just didn't think it was helpful in the moment to call specific people out. When, exactly, has that helped?

Yes, yes: iceaura doesn't like me. And? How is trying to prevent another flamewar "trolling"?

It's not completely unrelated. Totalitarian regimes prop themselves up with Agitprop. Some are long-standing. North Korea, anyone?

 

No, you didn't. You wrote it to set up two sides of an issue as equivalently prone to flamethrowing in contrast to your reasonable approach, which you will get around to presently, after this:

You're behavior was the point. More trolling.

Sure. You weren't trying to slide in your "crazy Iran" frame while wrongfooting objectors as prone to flamewars, but instead making some reasonable point about something you can't quite put into words,

like this: "It's not completely unrelated. Totalitarian regimes prop themselves up with Agitprop. Some are long-standing. North Korea, anyone?".

Obviously the impression that something at least potentially reasonable had been said about Iranian agitprop, and totalitarian Iran's longstanding pattern of agitprop is the matter at hand - now let's compare it with North Korean - is quite unintentional, perhaps a product of biased reading. As is the framing of Iran's entire litany of grudges and complaints - including the destruction of their democracy and replacement of elected government with dictatorship under a Shah, specifically - as "agitprop". You weren't saying anything that if plainly stated would be so obviously wrongheaded and indefensible as that. Silly me.

 

Sigh.

Here's what was written:

Ice, you seem to be taking this very personally. Earlier, I alluded to joe being more likely to start it, but in point of fact, I don't know what the history of this apparent feud between you and joe is, or why. I'm sorry you don't like my comment. What can I say here? We just witnessed a pointless blood bath between Tiassa and I. Is it not perhaps a tiny bit incumbent on me to try to defuse a succeeding one? If you say you are being the more mature debater, then fine. The point maybe is for everyone to calm down. And, although this is a schoolyard rule, whoever started it here should probably apologize for it. Assertions are needless.

I think you might be being a bit paranoid about this point. I certainly don't think those who object to my characterizing Iran as totalitarian, eccentric and a little fascist are "prone to flamewars". How would that even follow? How would it work?

Well, in point of fact, I don't know that agitprop has to have any defensible (im)moral grounding. One could harp on a true fact for the benefit of the state and it would still be called agitprop. If you took that to mean that Iran has no legitimate grudge against the US and Britain, then I do apologize: that was not my meaning. My impression was that you thought joe was basing his whole argument on that incident, while you were saying that it was rather one element in a long list of grievances. What I was saying is that it is possible for a totalitarian government to base a long-standing grudge of the kind that Iran has against the US based on some original outrage. There have been violations of various kinds after that, of course: my knowledge of Iran's position on the US is based on their ongoing meddling, often against the interests of Iran, which also meddles.

This said, I would also mention (from the bolded section above) that I don't think it would be possible to say that the Iranian theocracy could be incensed about the replacement of Iran's democracy with themselves. They could gripe about the theft of oil wealth, of course - just not the democracy thing. I'm certainly not saying that Iran has no reason to be highly hostile to the Americans. Fair enough?

 

Rather than launch? Yes.

And if I haven't said any such thing or anything like it, and if the entire issue is irrelevant, then you're trolling again, and that's not fine.

No, it isn't. The point is for you to quit posting like that.

Damn straight. But I'm not holding my breath in anticipation.

I don't think Joe has an argument, and I never implied he did.

Since that has nothing to do with Iran, why did you say that in this thread?

Yeah. Instigating and supporting and supplying a full scale military invasion by their thug neighbor, including the components for the mustard and nerve gas he used on them, setting up years of vicious war in their own territory and a million dead - - "meddling". Sanctions, black ops, oil thievery, false flag operations, soldiers and weapons stationed on their border in full combat readiness, cyber hacking and economic warfare, - - - "meddling". Just like Iran does, you know, all those explosions in US nuclear fuel processing centers, the military assaults from Mexico with hundreds of thousands of casualties, the spy planes and satellite surveillance, the cutting off of America's oil supply - - my bad, that was our ally Saudi Arabia, not our enemy Iran - at any rate, the 60 years of hostile and injurious "meddling" in the US that Iran is so famous for.

No. Fairness begins with the explicit recognition of the fact that the US has no good reason to be highly hostile to Iran; then the explicit affirmation that Iran does have good reason to be highly hostile to the US.

 

Oh, and what would those reasons be? You have been repeatedly challenged and repeatedly failed to answer that question.

You like to make these broad overly simplistic assertions, and are really bad at backing them up with fact and reason or being honest.

 

LOL well then you have no excuse for not apologizing to me. So where is your apology?

 

Good. I'm glad we agree.

You already implied that you felt joe tended to personal insults. "Again"? Ice, enough, please. If you want to lodge a complaint, go for it. It may make sense to someone. I'm sorry you feel you have to have a go at my character, but that's something you'll have to work through.

Sorry, but I'll do as I think ethically best and you will simply have to deal with it. Short version: I smelt another needless flamewar smoldering. It would be better for both parties to avoid the confrontation.

The US and British backing of the Shah and the near-pilfering of Iranian oil stocks has nothing to do with Iran? I think it might be one of the central tenets in a story of national outrage. Is this a controversial stance somehow?

If you like. But the initial point was whether the backing of the Shah was sufficient outrage on which to base most of the agitprop against the US by the theocratic government of Iran. You have alluded to the significance of this, above. I think you are taking umbrage where none is being offered. I can tell you feel strongly about this issue.

And, joe, there is no need for you to attack ice's character. Does every argument on here have to devolve to a flamewar?

 

Oh bullshit. Both parties? You mean you and joe? Joe's incapable. You, on the other hand, are going out of your way. You want it to stop? Just stop. I won't follow you around with bullshit innuendo and bad faith insinuations.

Like this poster does:

Which is innuendo, and bullshit - technically. It's what you actually posted that has nothing to do with Iran. It's what you were attempting to establish as the frame, the motive and content of your actual post, the reason you posted it in support of Joe's claim that Iran has been holding a grudge for 62 years - the tendency of totalitarian regimes to hang on to long past outrages for current propaganda advantage - that has nothing to do with Iran.

Your post, for your motives, was the topic of my response. You can tell that because I quoted it.

No, it wasn't. My topic, in the posting you responded to, was the agitprop of the US, not Iran. And - see - I don't believe you don't know that.

 

Precisely.

Ice, I have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, you are getting more than a little heated. If you insist you're more capable than Joe - fine, okay. All right?

That comment is "[following] you around with bullshit innuendo and bad faith insinuations"?

Really lost me on this one. I'm not sure what thoughtcrime I've even committed here. As I understand it, you're mad because I supported Joe's claim that Iran is still pissed about the subversion of their petroleum economy. I think that's partially true, at least: it would certainly be difficult to ignore or forgive. Are you objecting to the characterization of the Iranian government as totalitarian? Well, they are.

Mmm-hmm.

Mmm-hmm.

Ice - may I call you Ice - Ice, I'm a busy fellow. I write the papers, I write the grant apps, I do the sciency thing, it's a long, long, long day. If I've missed on a subtle issue that you consider critical, then I do apologize. I'm not interested - for the purposes of this discussion - in the agitprop of the US. I've seen it. I know it's there. I'm just addressing joe's argument that the Shah etc are important features in the institutional outrage of Iran against the US. I'm not belittling such outrage, nor am I saying that it's the sole and possibly unreasonable cause. It isn't sole nor unreasonable.

And, to be fair, I haven't renewed my Illuminati Reptilloid card in years: sure, we still go out for the coffee, we eat the doughnuts - some choose bagels; ah, to be sure - and then we drink babies' blood, play a little squash and go home to our broods. And that's about it. What you'll make of that, I do not know, but if I have indeed missed that critical subtlety, I will surely stipulate to it.

Now, does all this help at all?

Best regards,

Geoff