The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[macbdog]

Meh, that's just cultural, like Mericans starting 'U S A' chants at sporting events. And all this just fits in line with his 14 point plan he posted on Twitter about how to wipe out Israel. He didn't mean genocide when he says it, he just means the government (and any citizens within proximity).

 

[gourimoko]

Meh, that's just cultural, like Mericans starting 'U S A' chants at sporting events. And all this just fits in line with his 14 point plan he posted on Twitter about how to wipe out Israel. He didn't mean genocide when he says it, he just means the government (and any citizens within proximity).

Totally get where you are coming from; and I agree.

But, I think it's really important to never underestimate the extreme amount of intolerance and frankly hatred there exists towards Jews since 1967 in the Middle East.

Iran is actually one of the more tolerant Islamic nations, but in countries like Egypt where my family predominantly lives, it's... unsettling.

Honestly, sometimes when I talk with them I just feel sad... like "man, you can't really believe this about another human being."

But, I understand that it's more akin to two rival nations/philosophies rather than abject racism. Similar to how we were in the 1950s towards the Soviets and communism.

 

[gourimoko]

He also personally endorsed the "Death to America" chant as well. Unless he has since issued a clarification/retraction, I can't quite figure out why this isn't a bigger deal.

Why should it be a bigger deal?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Why should it be a bigger deal?

Because we're in the midst of negotiations for the lifting of sanctions, and the Administration claims to be concerned about Iranian support of terrorism and militancy in the region.

 

[Jordan]

I'll leave this here. Great read about Islamists in Lebanon.

http://al-manshour.org/node/6196

 

[gourimoko]

Because we're in the midst of negotiations for the lifting of sanctions, and the Administration claims to be concerned about Iranian support of terrorism and militancy in the region.

And you don't think the Administration's "claims" are valid?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

And you don't think the Administration's "claims" are valid?

Not sure what you're asking. I think we should be concerned about Iranian support of terrorism and militancy in the region, and that we should not be lifting sanctions against Iran except as part of an Iranian pledge to stop doing that. And I believe those statements are also relevant to whether or not Iran can be trusted on a nuclear deal.

I think the Administration's view is probably pretty close to what machdog stated, which is pretty fucked up.

Actually, if I had to guess, I'd suspect the President is more sympathetic to Iran than he is to Israel.

 

[brownindian]

Iran, world powers reach initial deal on reining in Tehran's nuclear program

(Reuters) - Iran and world powers reached a framework agreement on Thursday on curbing Iran's nuclear program for at least a decade, a step toward a comprehensive accord that could end 12 years of brinkmanship, threats and confrontation.

The tentative agreement, after eight days of marathon talks in Switzerland, clears the way for talks on the future settlement that should allay Western fears that Iran was seeking to build an atomic bomb and in return lift economic sanctions on the Islamic Republic.

The framework is contingent on reaching an agreement by June 30 and all sanctions on Iran remain in place until a final deal is reached.

Many details still need to be worked out and diplomats close to the negotiations said the deal was fragile. It could not be ruled out that the understandings reached could collapse between now and June 30. Experts believe it will be much harder to reach a final deal that it was to agree the framework accord.

U.S. President Barack Obama said the outcome was a good deal, comparing it to nuclear arms control deals struck by his predecessors with the Soviet Union that "made our world safer" during the Cold War.

"Today, the United States, together with our allies and partners, has reached an historic understanding with Iran, which if fully implemented, will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon," he declared.

Under the outline deal, Iran would shut down more than two-thirds of its installed centrifuges capable of producing uranium that could be used to build a bomb, dismantle a reactor that could produce plutonium, and accept intrusive verification.

The negotiations went right down to the wire, with no certainty that they would not end in failure.

 

[Jordan]

Not sure what you're asking. I think we should be concerned about Iranian support of terrorism and militancy in the region, and that we should not be lifting sanctions against Iran except as part of an Iranian pledge to stop doing that. And I believe those statements are also relevant to whether or not Iran can be trusted on a nuclear deal.

I want to start by saying I totally agree with your assessment of Iran's state-sponsering of terrorism. Where I do disagree is that sanctions, in my opinion are the wrong move. I think sanctions have worked on other countries but Iran is odd. We are effectively sanctioning the big business capitalists in Iran who already oppose the regime. Sanctions don't hurt the leadership. So all the sanctions do is harm the people who are already more moderate/pro-US.

I think the Administration's view is probably pretty close to what machdog stated, which is pretty fucked up.

Actually, if I had to guess, I'd suspect the President is more sympathetic to Iran than he is to Israel.

What makes you say this? The $3.5+ billion we send to Israel up-front at the beginning of the year with no checks on how it is spent or what Israel does internationally?

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

I want to start by saying I totally agree with your assessment of Iran's state-sponsering of terrorism. Where I do disagree is that sanctions, in my opinion are the wrong move. I think sanctions have worked on other countries but Iran is odd. We are effectively sanctioning the big business capitalists in Iran who already oppose the regime. Sanctions don't hurt the leadership. So all the sanctions do is harm the people who are already more moderate/pro-US.

1. If sanctions don't hurt the leadership, why are they so willing to put restrictions on their nuclear program to have them lifted?

2. We agree that the Iranian regime does a lot of very bad things apart from this nuclear deal, and that there's nothing in this deal that's going to change that. The only way to change that is for the regime itself to change, and to change in favor of a more moderate replacement. Yet after this deal, it was reported that the more moderate elements of the country were dancing and celebrating. In other words, this deal just made that regime more popular among those we'd have to count on to change it. It reduces the pressure on the regime to moderate.

The only real challenge to the mullahs came when average people started resisting in 2010, and that came while Iran was under sanctions.

What makes you say this? The $3.5+ billion we send to Israel up-front at the beginning of the year with no checks on how it is spent or what Israel does internationally?

The President inherited a policy of supporting Israel that has been in place for over 50 years. It would be politically impossible for the President to cut off support for Israel, so the mere fact that the United States as an entity had continued support does not give much of a window on the views of this particular President. Remember, this is the guy who was against gay marriage until the political winds changed.

As for why I believe he's more sympathetic towards Iran (and that's something not capable of being proven either way, so it's just an opinion), it's a few things. But the most recent really stuck with me: the "words have consequences" double standard.

When Netenyahu made his election-eve statement about a two-state solution not being possible under current conditions, the Administration pounced on it with borderline glee. Even though most observers said it was made for domestic political reasons, and even though Netanyahu clarified/walked back his remarks almost immediately, the Administration still wouldn't let it go. Josh Earnest couldn't even hide the smile on his face when asked about the clarification --"words have consequences" is the talking point he pushed regarding Israel, even after reporters pointed out the clarification/walking back of those comments.

Except when those words are uttered by Iran's leadership. The Iranian leadership can endorse "death to Israel" (which certainly suggest Iran doesn't support a "two-state" solution), "Death to the U.S.", and all the similar statements they make, including jews not even being human. They don't even attempt to clarify or walk-back those statements. Instead, they actually come out and say they're not changing any of their actions in the region. And they continue funding/supporting terrorism in the region.

And yet, the Administration's response to Iran's words is essentially nothing. The excuse-mongers say (with no evidence at all, I might add) that they don't really mean it, it's just for domestic political consumption (sound familiar?), so it doesn't really matter. I'd personally say such rhetoric matters very much, even if they didn't "mean" it, because you have an entire generation of children being exposed to absolute hatred by much of their adult leadership.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Obama gave an interview to Thomas Friedman of the NYT over the weekend. This commentary on that interview sort of encapsulates the other reasons I think he's more sympathetic to Iran than to Israel:

Obama just revealed his 'blind spot'

US President Barack Obama detailed his foreign policy to Tom Friedman of The New York Times over the weekend, saying that the US "will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities."

David Rothkopf, a prominent historian of US foreign policy and author of "National Insecurity," immediately noticed a pattern in the interview: Obama chose to elevate Iran at the expense of traditional regional allies, such as the Sunni kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel.

"Takeaway from Friedman Obama interview will be worst in Sunni states," Rothkopf tweeted. "Obama clearly has more faith in Iran than them."

Obama told The Times that America's Sunni allies in the region should concern themselves with internal problems since "the biggest threats that they face may not be coming from Iran invading."

Rothkopf, who has previously characterized Obama's team as being in over its heads, added that the president acknowledged a blind spot in his foreign policy.

"Obama reveals blind spot, seeks to encourage Iran by saying they don't need nukes to be regional powerhouse," Rothkopf, who is also the CEO of Foreign Policy Group, noted....

....The Obama administration has appeared willing to embrace Iran as a regional power while negotiating a nuclear deal that would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon while giving them a chance to reenter the international community.

"And so what we’ve seen over the last several years, I think, is the opportunity for those forces within Iran that want to break out of the rigid framework that they have been in for a long time to move in a different direction," Obama said. "It’s not a radical break, but it’s one that I think offers us the chance for a different type of relationship, and this nuclear deal, I think, is a potential expression of that....”


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama-just-revealed-blind-spot-150636389.html

In short, I think he believes that Israel is a bigger threat to regional stability than is Iran, that Iran has a legitimate desire to be a regional power, and that there is a reasonable chance that Iran will become a positive force in the region. So, his sympathies are more with Iran than with Israel.

Again, I know that cannot be proven. I just think that's probably the case, based on this kind of thing and my prior post

 

[gourimoko]

In short, I think he believes that Israel is a bigger threat to regional stability than is Iran,

Nonsense.

that Iran has a legitimate desire to be a regional power,

Of course they do.

and that there is a reasonable chance that Iran will become a positive force in the region.

Why not?

So, his sympathies are more with Iran than with Israel.

Lol....

Your conclusion doesn't remotely follow.

Again, I know that cannot be proven.

Ahh.. okay, nevermind then; we're talking about faith and belief then.

I just think that's probably the case, based on this kind of thing and my prior post

Which I think is pretty insane, personally.

 

[Jordan]

1. If sanctions don't hurt the leadership, why are they so willing to put restrictions on their nuclear program to have them lifted?

Because it would benefit Saudi Arabia to be able to trade more with Russia. They aren't hurting because of sanctions but they want to be able to trade weapons with other countries. Most Iranians I've met, and I've met a ton of them, are divided into two groups: 1) the business class who oppose the regime and 2) the hardliners who support the regime. Obviously there is more nuance and maybe I am totally wrong; but, the sanctions hurt the business class so they don't have money and power necessary to mobilize. Now, you also are assuming Iran's judgement is solid. To be honest with you, I think the removing of sanctions will eventually lead to the falling of the regime, but it could be a long time before that occurs.

2. We agree that the Iranian regime does a lot of very bad things apart from this nuclear deal, and that there's nothing in this deal that's going to change that. The only way to change that is for the regime itself to change, and to change in favor of a more moderate replacement. Yet after this deal, it was reported that the more moderate elements of the country were dancing and celebrating. In other words, this deal just made that regime more popular among those we'd have to count on to change it. It reduces the pressure on the regime to moderate.

I think your causal link is wrong. The groups that are moderate are the business class, this deal helps the business class, of course they were celebrating. You really, really should read Vali Nasr's Islamic Capitalism because he dedicates chapters to understanding the business class in Iran.

The only real challenge to the mullahs came when average people started resisting in 2010, and that came while Iran was under sanctions.

Yes, and they were crushed because they did not have money to buy weapons. You want to know why? Partially, not entirely, because since the sanctions took an upswing in the early 2000s the business class has made less and less money.

The President inherited a policy of supporting Israel that has been in place for over 50 years. It would be politically impossible for the President to cut off support for Israel, so the mere fact that the United States as an entity had continued support does not give much of a window on the views of this particular President. Remember, this is the guy who was against gay marriage until the political winds changed.

So why does it matter? If the President cannot change his policy towards Israel, but can towards Iran, why does it matter if he supports the latter more? If the policy towards Israel won't change then they have nothing to fear. I'm confused about why you made that statement in the first place.

Listen, I'm not going to address your points about the regime because I do agree on most of it. The Iranian regime is terrible, has supported the massacre in Syria and other countries, sponsors terrorism, etc. Butttt, where we disagree, is that I do not think sanctions have ever lead to regime change and I do not see why Iran will be any different.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Because it would benefit Saudi Arabia to be able to trade more with Russia.

You've lost me here. I asked why the Iranian leadership would care so much about sanctions if it didn't help the regime. Responding that it would benefit Saudi Arabia to trade with Russia seems a non sequitor to me, so you'll have to explain that more.

They aren't hurting because of sanctions but they want to be able to trade weapons with other countries.

First, the sanctions cover a lot more than just the trading of weapons. That still leaves unanswered the question of why they're willing to (allegedly) give up their nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of all those other sanctions that, according to you, don't really affect the regime.

Second, if they want the sanctions lifted so that they can supply weapons to different terrorist groups, why should we do that?

Most Iranians I've met, and I've met a ton of them, are divided into two groups: 1) the business class who oppose the regime and 2) the hardliners who support the regime. Obviously there is more nuance and maybe I am totally wrong; but, the sanctions hurt the business class so they don't have money and power necessary to mobilize. Now, you also are assuming Iran's judgement is solid.

No offense, I'm assuming that Iran's leadership knows more than you do about the effect of the sanction on their country. I think that's a very solid assumption given that the regime has managed to maintain ironclad control over that country for 35 years. So unless they've suddenly lost all that knowledge/skill overnight, I'm assuming they know more about their own country than you do.

To be honest with you, I think the removing of sanctions will eventually lead to the falling of the regime, but it could be a long time before that occurs.

You're certainly welcome to think that, but you haven't presented any evidence of that other than a supposition. And your supposition includes believing that the Iranian leadership -- which has managed to maintain an ironclad grip on power for 35 years now -- doesn't know how to preserve its power.

I think your causal link is wrong. The groups that are moderate are the business class, this deal helps the business class, of course they were celebrating. You really, really should read Vali Nasr's Islamic Capitalism because he dedicates chapters to understanding the business class in Iran.

The only causal link I identified is the business class celebrating because the sanctions might be lifted. Are you saying that's not why they were celebrating?

Yes, and they were crushed because they did not have money to buy weapons.

I'd say they were crushed because the army and basij stayed loyal, and because they didn't receive any outside aid. The fact that we didn't see any weapons, and they surely could have afforded some, suggests to me that the problem was something other than the business class not making enough money. And again, I find it very difficult to believe that the regime is stupid enough to have sanctions lifted, then let the money go to the business class, then let them import weapons for a revolution.

So why does it matter? If the President cannot change his policy towards Israel, but can towards Iran, why does it matter if he supports the latter more?

Because supporting/trusting the Iranian leadership to be a regional partner is a very bad idea.

If the policy towards Israel won't change then they have nothing to fear. I'm confused about why you made that statement in the first place.

I didn't say the Administration's policy towards Israel won't change, or hasn't changed. It has changed in some respects, even though we still give them aid. And especially as the President gets nearer the end of his second term, he may feel more inclined to change it further.

In any case, forgetting Israel, changing policy towards Iran itself affects both us and the stability of the entire region. If he truly views Iran as a better partner than Israel, that's relevant because it suggests to me that he has a completely warped perspective on the goals/intentions of the Iranian regime, and that he isn't correctly distinguishing friend from foe.

 

[Jordan]

You've lost me here. I asked why the Iranian leadership would care so much about sanctions if it didn't help the regime. Responding that it would benefit Saudi Arabia to trade with Russia seems a non sequitor to me, so you'll have to explain that more.

Sorry I meant Iran, not SA. My bad on this one. I was writing a paper on SA at the same time.

First, the sanctions cover a lot more than just the trading of weapons. That still leaves unanswered the question of why they're willing to (allegedly) give up their nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of all those other sanctions that, according to you, don't really affect the regime.

Right, that's fair. Iran wants to be taken seriously on a world stage. So weapons deal with that. Overall, though, sanctions prevent it. Iran wants to rival up against the Saudis for more control in the Middle East.

Second, if they want the sanctions lifted so that they can supply weapons to different terrorist groups, why should we do that?

Which is the only reason I support sanctions. But, how much they will actually be able to empirically support is uncertain. If there was a study that could quantifiably prove it then I really would listen.

No offense, I'm assuming that Iran's leadership knows more than you do about the effect of the sanction on their country. I think that's a very solid assumption given that the regime has managed to maintain ironclad control over that country for 35 years. So unless they've suddenly lost all that knowledge/skill overnight, I'm assuming they know more about their own country than you do.

Yeah, we did happen to find WMDs in Iraq... Last I checked government's don't hold monopolies on information. The regime is not as totalitarian as you seem to be making it out to be. Most people, surprised or not, really enjoy living in Iran. Their control, up until 2009, was supported by most citizens. In 2009, following sanctions and the global recession, the business class revolted and were crushed by the regime.

You're certainly welcome to think that, but you haven't presented any evidence of that other than a supposition. And your supposition includes believing that the Iranian leadership -- which has managed to maintain an ironclad grip on power for 35 years now -- doesn't know how to preserve its power.

I was pretty certain I did supply evidence in the name of a book by Vali Nasr, Islamic Capitalism. He spends three chapters on the subject I just briefly touched upon using Iranian economic documents and U.S. trade documents. If I forgot to bring him up that was my mistake.

The only causal link I identified is the business class celebrating because the sanctions might be lifted. Are you saying that's not why they were celebrating?

That is why they were celebrating. The sanctions hurt their well-being.

I'd say they were crushed because the army and basij stayed loyal, and because they didn't receive any outside aid. The fact that we didn't see any weapons, and they surely could have afforded some, suggests to me that the problem was something other than the business class not making enough money. And again, I find it very difficult to believe that the regime is stupid enough to have sanctions lifted, then let the money go to the business class, then let them import weapons for a revolution.

That's a fair point. And again, why I support removing sanctions. I'll buy your argument for the sake of an internet debate (although, please do read Vali Nasr's book if you get a chance because he addresses it in more detail) and it leads to the same conclusion. Washington has not attempted in any way to aid the powerful and numerous middle-class and youth in Iran who oppose the regime (this is statistically valid. Most people living in the Middle East are young and most youth in Iran are engaged in capitalist enterprises. For more info check out the Economist Intelligence Unit's stats on this). Sanctions hurt the business classes that currently oppose the clerics.

Because supporting/trusting the Iranian leadership to be a regional partner is a very bad idea.

Are they really worse than any of our other regional partners? I don't think the Saudis are anymore trustworthy than Iran.

I didn't say the Administration's policy towards Israel won't change, or hasn't changed. It has changed in some respects, even though we still give them aid. And especially as the President gets nearer the end of his second term, he may feel more inclined to change it further.

In response to my statistics you said "It would be politically impossible for the President to cut off support for Israel." Note, I never said cut off all aid but, more specifically, focused on how the aid was allocated. Care to explain your point? Can or can't the U.S. change its policy towards Israel?

In any case, forgetting Israel, changing policy towards Iran itself affects both us and the stability of the entire region. If he truly views Iran as a better partner than Israel, that's relevant because it suggests to me that he has a completely warped perspective on the goals/intentions of the Iranian regime, and that he isn't correctly distinguishing friend from foe.

Two points: First, can you provide any evidence suggesting the president views Iran as the better ally than Israel?

Secondly, and perhaps more important to the impact our debate can have on the region, do you really value the stability of regimes like the Saudis? Does that stability outweigh humanitarian goals to you? I do not think Obama is a humanitarian, and as you and I have agreed on, that is a huge issue with this nuclear agreement. I guess I am not disagreeing with your argument here, but moreso, your value-criterion. I do not value stability of totalitarian regimes, whether they be the Saudis, Iranians, Assad, etc. over pretty much anything else, ever.