Of course it matters whether a country is playing by the rules.
When the US broke international law to invade Iraq, we deserved every amount of distrust we took on because of doing something bad.
The idea that “I’m just sayin’, bad things are going to happen, whether or not it’s right” is something that comes out of the mouth of deplorables. It’s what the KKK says to threaten minorities. It’s what the mafia says to threaten civilians. It’s what MRA jerks tell women about sexual assault. Your off-the-charts hatred of Trump is putting you in association with the “might makes right” sort of philosophy that Trumpists, racists, criminals, and other horrible people embrace.
After all, this amoral attitude applies equally to Trump and his obnoxious advisers: “It doesn’t matter whether separating children at the border is right; it’s just going to happen.” “It doesn’t matter if we go to war because Trump watched too much Fox News one night, these are just things that are predictable and going to happen from time to time.”
I totally reject this embrace of “I’m just telling you the way it is and excusing immoral actions” that you have adopted. It’s a sickening argument that has no place in civilized society… or even the semi-civilized society we are dealing with at the moment.
So the thing is, Iran is doing this because we’re putting the screws to them. They’re trying to demonstrate that if we put the screws to them, they can put the screws to us.
Iran isn’t just attacking all shipping willy-nilly, are they? They aren’t attacking Russian or Chinese or Indian ships, right? So why would the Russians or the Chinese or the Indians feel the need to send in the navy? Russia actually would love to see a shutdown of oil exports from the Persian Gulf, since that increases world oil prices, and Russia gets most of their cash from energy exports to Europe.
Calling this an act of piracy is a very silly way to describe the situation. This isn’t piracy, this is an act directed by the Iranian government, in retaliation for the UK seizure. And why is there a sudden escalation? Because Trump decided there should be an escalation, because his Iran hawk advisers told him he should do it. So maybe Trump should stop trying to provoke a war with Iran? Just a thought.
It’s one thing to impose sanctions on Iran. But the problem for the US is that for the last 40 years we haven’t had any significant trade with Iran due to some small problems that happened back then. So we don’t have any trade with Iran. So our brilliant idea is instead of sanctioning Iran, we sanction our allies who trade with Iran, to force them to stop trading with Iran. Imposing sanctions on our former allies is a super-great plan that will work perfectly, since trade wars are easy to win.
Why do we feel the need to get involved in the Middle East? We have no significant history there. And oil from the region goes mostly to Asia and Europe; we get our oil from the Americas.
But the reality is that we want to be a leading power. We want the perks of other countries listening to us. And that means we need to pay the price, which is helping them with their problems.
If we fail to help them, other countries like China and Russia will see an opening. They’ll step in and help resolve this crisis. And that will mean that the next time we ask our allies to do something, we might be told “We’re going to check with Moscow and see how they feel. We’ll get back to you.”
. You honestly think the US is “playing by the rules” here? Why should all of us assume that the US/UK seizure of the Iranian ship wasn’t a “bad things might happen” moment? The US strong arming the world into going along with their new plan is following the rules? Ok, what rule following path do you see available for the Iranians, outside of complete capitulation?
You have an unparalleled ability to read things into my posts things that I did not say and do not believe.
Hopefully soon, I should hope an entrepreneur like Elon Musk will devise a way to channel this untapped and unbounded predilection of yours to turn a generator fueled only by the vitriol that underlies these rhetorical leaps of understanding. Then all of these nonsensical barbs could effectuate some benefit, such as powering the lights of entire continents from pulling absurd conclusions from thin air.
I would be sympathetic to this argument if you could convince me that Trump, Pompeo, Bolton, and other hawks are interested in establishing a civilized society, or that the US’s decision to impose sanctions on Iran (and any country that tries to do business with Iran) had anything to do with creating a more perfect and more civilized world.
Good luck trying to convince me of that, and I suspect the same is true of other posters and other people more generally.
Doesn’t matter. You seem to have this “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” sort of deal going on. I urge you not to be so simplistic as “Trump sucks so I’m going to give the benefit of the doubt to Iran.”
Did you not argue that right and wrong have no place in Iran defending its national interests? I can remind you of the post.
Strangely, the issue of right and wrong as it pertains to Trump are an obsession of yours.
I contend that if you wish to apply morality to this awful Trump Administration, and not apply it to the odious government of Iran, you are indeed giving one party a pass due to short sightedness.
Okay, we obviously have some interests in the region. But my point is that we’re not being asked to take the lead because the stakes are higher for us than they are for other countries. We’re being asked to get involved because this is what world leaders are supposed to do.
Ravenman, I am interested in your answer to this thought experiment, which puts you in the shoes of the Iranians. So, remember, in this exercise you are Iran.
You (Iran) spend several years negotiating with the international community and finally arrive at a landmark deal that means you won’t develop nuclear weapons in return for the removal of economic sanctions, which have been going on for years and causing economic hardship in your country. The signatories to this deal are: Iran, the European Union, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States (NOTE: this wasn’t a deal between the Iran and the U.S., it was a deal between Iran and the rest of the world).
You (Iran) are abiding by the terms of the deal, economic sanctions have been lifted, and it seems like everything has been resolved in a peaceful and civilized manner through diplomatic negotiation.
Trump reneges on the deal by pulling the United States out of it, imposes harsh economic sanctions on you (Iran) and tells other countries in the world that they can’t do business with you (thus killing the deal you made with the rest of the world). Trump did this is for one or more of the following reasons: he doesn’t like Obama, it was Obama’s deal, so this is just another way in which Trump’s been dismantling Obama’s legacy achievements for reasons of personal spite; Trump intends to force you (Iran) to make a new deal in which you make more concessions, which may include abandoning support for fellow Shia peoples across the region; there are people in Trump’s orbit, such as Bolton, who have openly stated their goal is the toppling of your (Iranian) regime.
So here is my question to you: what would you, as Iran, do next?
Your choices as I see it, are:
A) Capitulate to the United States, and make a new deal with them which forces you to make humiliating concessions (moreover, this is while almost the entire world thinks Trump and the U.S. are the provocateurs and in the wrong)?
B) Something else? If so, please explain what you would do.
I asked him the same question but he snipped it out when he quoted me in his reply. Suspect he doesn’t want to flat out say capitulation is the only option.
He deliberately avoids questions and ignores rebuttals and keeps going back to: “So you’re position is that Trump’s an asshole, therefore you must support Iran.”
He’s done this repeatedly across two threads on this subject. Once? Okay maybe he didn’t read the entirety of the post - it happens. But he does this again and again, so I get the sense he’s not interested in having an honest discussion about this.
B. And there’s a huge range of options, which I haven’t thought out precisely but would probably be pursued in some sort of serial order (as opposed to all at once):
propaganda campaign to show how many deaths the sanctions have resulted in
negotiate special purpose vehicles with non-US countries to all them to evade sanctions
diplomatically and politically isolate the US from my trading partners
engage in corrupt trade practices with those countries (like how Huawei apparently has no problem doing deals in North Korea despite sanctions)
renegotiate the deal excluding the US
withdraw from the deal
If I was a cynical and evil person, then I would entice/threaten/force the US into a war to gain politics support at home. But I’m not, so I think that’s a terrible idea.
But from your post, it sounds like you think that Iran has two main options: capitulate, or violence. If you can, explain to me how you see violence making progress for Iran on sanctions. Putting holes in tankers and drones in the sea isn’t going to lead to Trump ending his pressure campaign, I think we can agree. As I see it, the attacks are probably just going to push Europe, Japan, and others ever so slightly toward the US, and away from Iran. Because, after all, it isn’t the US attacking Norwegian tankers. So walk me through your version of how Iran’s military provocations leads to Profit, because the ??? isn’t clear to me.
Also, let’s not kid ourselves that this is all about the nuclear sanctions. Designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization is without a doubt part of the reason for Iran’s attacks. I’m not sure if it’s 20% of the reason, or 70%, but it sure is part of the issue.