But that is not logically consistent. The regime has always supported terrorism regardless of sanctions. Frankly, their support increased after sanctions.
You just made the point upthread that Iran wanted relief from sanctions
so that it could purchase weapons.
Okay, again, the economic unrest in 2009 was caused by a global recession, not our sanctions. But, even if you are right, and our sanctions cause enough unrest to create protests and possible regime change, that means the people who take over will hate the United States more than the current clerics. That does not look like a wise choice on my end....
....But if you are wondering why people would hate the United States after Washington continued to sanction the shit out of their business try to give these people some human agency. Iranians are not robots. If the clerics are overthrown, whoever is in charge won't love the United States, especially if they suffered from sanctions. That's not to say they will fund terrorism. Turkey has not historically been a huge funder of terrorism, neither have China or Russia, they still act on anti-American sentiment.
First, the purpose of sanctions isn't to give Iranians "human agency", but to avoid helping the regime finance terrorism. Sanctions would have a much greater effect now than they did before because of the collapse of oil prices.
Second, I think it is perfectly moral/justifiable to refuse to do business with a regime that sponsors terrorism. If that pisses off some Iranians, well, too bad. It's their nation that is engaging in that conduct. We should make it clear that we have no quarrel with the Iranian people, but will impose harsh sanctions as long as that regime funds terrorism. If that stops, so will the sanctions. If that nevertheless pisses people off against us, too bad.
So third, whether they hate us for imposing sanctions isn't all that important as long as they don't export violence against us, and to other countries, which you agree they probably wouldn't. And if one of the major goals of these revolutionaries is to get all sanctions lifted, it seems
extremely unlikely they'd bother overthrowing a regime only to take actions that would prevent the lifting of sanctions.
My argument is that removing sanctions will provide the business class with more resources that will eventually allow them to stage a significant opposition to the regime. What you clearly are ignoring, even though I've thrown source (EIU, Vali Nasr, etc.) that present the data at you, is that sanctions have killed the business class. The business class did not like the regime before sanctions. The relationship has always been contentious. This is not a new phenomenon. But they can't make enough money to gain political power and rebel against the regime.
It seems to me you are making an extraordinary leap by saying that Iranian businessmen who manage to get sanctions lifted, and so have their businesses boom, are going to toss all that newfound economic prosperity away by throwing down with the basij and Revolutionary Guard. Why would they do that? I'd grant you that those businessmen still wouldn't like everything about the regime, but a civil war places everything they've earned at even greater risk.
You keep pushing the theory of linkage between increased wealth and revolution, but there is absolutely no actual evidence of that. The didn't rebel
prior to the 2009 downturn, when things were good, the same regime was in place, and they were doing well economically. They only rebelled
after.
So because I don't like Obama I am not allowed to be very happy living in America? I'm sorry but that is a completely idiotic statement. Iranians are very happy in Iran.
I don't understand your point. I'm talking about the conditions necessary to trigger a revolution. I'm not 'happy' with Obama either, but us otherwise very happy Americans also aren't being expected to start a revolution. Nor would we -- it takes more than not liking your leadership for a revolution. It usually takes being very pissed off and unhappy.
Yet, starting a revolution is exactly what you're asking/expecting of a bunch of otherwise "very happy" Iranians who would be finding themselves even happier because sanctions would be lifted, and business booming.
I'm not sure how else to say it other than
"very happy" people generally don't toss everything away to start a violent revolution against an entrenched dictatorship.
The GM was a reflection of the historically contentious relations between the business class and regime being magnified from bad economic times.
Seriously, please reread what you just wrote and consider the implication. If
bad economic times
magnified those "historically contentious relations", then wouldn't the
better economic times that come from a lifting of sanctions
reduce that contentiousness? Improving economic conditions generally don't trigger revolutions.
Okay, so you are saying by purposefully weakening Iran's economy people will protest against the regime and then, after they overthrow, will be moderate and pro-United States? They would be so thankful that we made their life a living hell?
Well, do they hate us now?
Because sanctions have been in place since the embassy fell more than 35 years, so if
your point is correct, their hatred of Americans should already be boundless. But if not, then I'd suggest the idea that sanctions against the regime cause average Iranians to hate us is mistaken.
And just to be clear, I'm sure there are expatriate Iraqis, members of the Iraqi business class, and/or people sympathetic to either, who use the argument that "sanctions will make Iranians hate the U.S.")in an effort to convince us to lift sanctions. But that's a completely self-serving argument given that they want sanctions lifted for their own sake. They tell us what they think will get us to do what they want.
But again, as long as Iran isn't exporting terrorism to us and other nations, I don't care if they
like us or not.
That is patently false. Like, laughably incorrect. Have you read what Sisi is doing to his population? ANYONE who has an opposition to him is being jailed. There are reports saying he has overtaken Assad in number of torture chambers. Morsi was no saint, do not get me wrong, but Sisi is worse than Mubarak.
Sisi may be worse than Mubarak, but he is less of a danger to the nations around him than was Morsi, under whom the treatment of religious minorities was rapidly worsening. He was removed before it got even worse.
Unfortunately, I think you are viewing things in sectarian lenses way more than is necessary. Saudi opposition to Iranian groups and vice-versa stem back to the Arab Cold War in the 60s-80s. Neither one triggered the other's support of terrorists. They are both equally bad.
I don't agree, nor do I believe there are many in the military or intelligence community who believe that the governments of Iran and Saudi Arabia are
equally bad. The Saudis exiled OBL, if you recall. They've engaged in gun battles with radicals in their own country. And as I said upthread, one consideration in evaluating a regime is who would replace it. In Saudi Arabia, the primary opposition are highly radical Islamic extremists. In Iran, the primary opposition are those who oppose Islamic extremism. That tells you something about what we'd get if those respective government fell.
I stated previously that this was part of a broader debate regarding stability vs. humanitarian ideals in U.S. foreign policy. In my belief, Washington needs a broader respect for human rights over stability. This leads to my opposition to the Iran deal because it still allows them to support the Syrian and Yemeni civil war.
The problem is that getting rid of a regime that does not respect human rights does not mean that what replaces it will be any better. It may well be worse, so simply pointing to imperfect allies doesn't address the tougher questions. Additionally, there is a major risk that withdrawn U.S. support would be replaced by support from a nation that cares much less about human rights, like China.
No, that's not what I said. Do I think Israel is probably a better ally than Iran? Yeah, most likely. But that won't last if they continue to oppress their populations!
Well, they've lasted for 65 years, perhaps because they don't oppress their populations nearly as much as do most of their neighbors in the region.
Now, I do think Iran could be a better ally than Saudi Arabia.....
Iran has come flat-out and said that it is not going to change its behaviors, and that it has a fundamentally different view of that region than we do. When some insisted that Iran recognize Israel's right to exist, the President responded by saying that was impossible because Iran was not going to "fundamentally transform".
That contradiction is just
amazing to me. On the one hand, the Administration apparently holds out this hope that Iran will fundamentally transform (because that what it would take) and become a regional partner for peace. But then the President himself comes out and flatly admits that we
can't expect Iran to fundamentally transform.
Yeah, I hope you are not taking my comments to be disrespectful. I really do respect your thoughts and ideas and am enjoying the discussion.
Oh hell no. This is just discussion.
By the way, I'm curious if you've studied the arms for hostages deal Reagan ended up cutting with Iran. Though some of the stuff we sold them didn't work, it was still a bad deal. And it was based on what turned out to be a very naïve U.S. belief that doing deals with Iran would somehow strengthen moderates within the nation. Turns out it was just a scam their leadership ran -- successfully -- against ours, so that they could get stuff from us they really wanted.