So there are no circumstances where armed rebellion is justifiable and the only legitimate type of resistance to state violence is literally trying to drown the state forces in bodies of non-violent protestors?
At a certain point there ceases to be a middle path between violent resistance and complete surrender.
> Protesters which foreign states (China or Russia)
This type of relativism is dishonest. Of course US is speed running the path to authoritarianism but its not quite there. e.g. morally it would be perfectly acceptable to support weapons to protestors in Russia and not the other way around.
The Iranian regime is objectively evil, period. Regardless of what honest or dishonest motives foreign actors might or might not have.
Economic collapse, failed infrastructure, lack of human rights, ruthless religious dictatorship? All while spending 25% of their budget on military ventures.
My principals is that a government should do what's good for the people of their country.
Are your principals that a government should only focus on self preservation?
What would be better for the people of Iran, sinking an American aircraft carrier or just disbanding their nuclear and long range ballistic missile programs?
US intelligence assessments on the question of whether Iran is building one keep publicly coming out as negative. People who keep repeating that Iran is building one are people who want to see Iran torn apart. Had Iran ACTUALLY been working on one all these decades, we wouldn't be at war with them now because they would have the ultimate deterrence and we'd be too scared. The very fact that we are bombing them every now and then, and are about to launch another massive regime change war campaign against them, is the best confirmation that they are in fact NOT close to having nuclear-armed missiles. Otherwise it would be too risky to start bombing a country that is going to have them in a week, and that is going to also then be VERY pissed that you just bombed the shit out of them, and will want to show you once and for all never to mess with it again. Iran's government is actually REALLY stupid for not having got nuclear weapons already, and they may be about to pay for that mistake with their country's devastation.
Sanctions-wise... When you sanction a society to the degree that Iran has been sanctioned, you force that society to turn to smuggling, black markets, and forces operating outside of usual law and norms, in order for the society to prevent its collapse. That naturally causes corruption to spread because you are involving outlaws in fundamental processes of your economy. This is one of intended consequences of such harsh sanctions, in order to maximize the negative sentiment of the general populace of the targeted country towards their government. It impoverishes the country and makes the populace more likely to accept when approached by foreign agents offering monetary rewards for help in bringing the government down.
Obviously the commenter I responded to is not arguing in good faith so I don't expect anything but an NPC talking point response, so I wish to note that my answer is for a curious passerby.
Pakistan did it secretly. Today I doubt that Pakistan would have been allowed to have nukes. Moreover, just because they have nukes it is huge pain in the ass and that why the US and other countries support Pakistan financially — no one wants collapsing state with nuclear weapons.
If Iran gets nuclear weapons, all big Sunni countries will get them too: Saudis, Qatar, etc. we do not want it to happen, as the next Arab spring can collapse those governments, and you can count on any Muslim radical group getting hands on one of those.
Anyway, there are countries that have nuclear weapons, and this Jinny is out of the bottle. But, it doesn’t mean we want to have more of this crap lying around. We need less.
I think it has more to do with nukes than oil. North Korea is a good example that once you have nukes, no one can touch you. No one wants more nukes, especially in the hands of IR, in this world.
Uh, sorry, no. At the moment you start arguing by 'The Iranian regime is objectively evil, period', you have totally lost the plot.
The statement 'The USA regime is objectively evil, period' is much more justifiable. Measured, e.g. by the number of people it has killed (both directly, and indirectly by sanctions and support for brutal dictators - e.g. Pinochet, but also Saddam while he was waging war with Iran).
Meddling in internal affairs of other countries has a terrible track record, the world would be so much better off without it.
Armed resistance most often leads to a damn bloody affair in which everybody is worse off, unless the state is already so rotten that it has no will to fight for itself. Supporting such resistance just means more life losses, both on the resistance and on the state side (typically, much more on the resistance side). Hence, the true aim is not to help the resistance, but to weaken the state. No consideration for the life of the local people, the show (the grand game) must go on!
> Meddling in internal affairs of other countries has a terrible track record, the world would be so much better off without it
Wishing away "meddling" is on par with wishing away war. Nice in theory. Practically impossible in practice. (Sovereignty has a Schrödinger's element to it. You really only know you have it when you test its boundaries. And the only test of sovereignty is against another sovereign. The world is littered with sovereigns meddling in each others' affairs and those who aren't sovereign.)
The US is evil because it meddles in the affairs of other countries? Uh huh. Tell me about Iran.
The US is evil because of who it supports? Tell me about Iran.
And at least the US didn't murder thousands of anti-government demonstrators so far this year.
You're right in this: The US is not the shining example of goodness and purity that we wish it to be. But when you condemn the US compared to Iran, using those metrics, it looks suspiciously like motivated reasoning.
> with western countries also openly declaring their intent to destabilize Iran
As opposed to standing idly by when the regime 'stabilizes' the country by murdering thousands of people? It's well past the stage where non violent protest or resistance stopped being a viable option..
> your moral principles seem to demand an invasion and subjugation of Israel
There is absolutely no requirement for consistency in geopolitics. Advocating for a position on e.g. Gaza or Iran isn't undermined because that person isn't expending equal efforts on injustice in another theatre.
Dear American, kindly solve your own internal issues first and then - maybe - you can talk on how to "help" some other countries on the literal other side of the world TYM.
I'm cool with that. Let them fight their own battles...but also don't ever ask or expect the US to help.
The problem with your stance is that too many people want it both ways: They don't want the US to intervene, but then also want support in terms of money and special treatment for people emigrating from these countries (and blame the US for the deaths that occur for a terrible government).
You know, maybe it would be just enough if you do not actively work on making their life miserable (sanctions and inciting instability).
There were almost no Syrian refugees before operation Timber-Sycamore.
Thank you USA, our dear friend and freedom-sharing soulmate, for unnecessary refugee crisis in Europe (and another one from Ukraine). With friends like that, who needs enemies. Also, as the above two examples (and Biden's Inflation reduction act, and Nuland's 'f*k Europe'), it is not a Trump thing, its USA thing.
Not really. We absolutely have the option to let things play out in Iran and refuse to intervene. There are many regimes in Africa that are as bad or worse than Iran. We seem to have little interest in "regime change" there. You should think about why not.
Well it's not black and white. Sometimes doing the right thing even if you have ulterior motives is better than doing nothing.
Africa is tricky due to historical reasons, though. Any western power that would intervene there without the explicit invitation of the local government would be accused of neo-colonialism etc.
You know, doing the Syria and Libya (and Iraq and Afghanistan) thing was the 'right thing', right?
Do you really believe that after the violent regime change Iran will become the beacon of prosperity in the ME?
Yes, I believe if the things are really out of hands (like Khmer rouge in Kambodia), external intervention is warranted.
That can be done against small/weak states where the result can be achieved fast and without too much bloodshed (compared to what is already going on), and when agreed on by UN. Will most definitely need boots on the ground.
It is an entirely different matter against a 90million vast state like Iran. Note that boots on the ground is not in the cards, and most probably will never be. The approach is 'bomb and hope'. Which guarantees misery and bloodshed of Iranian blood. And if the result is fall of the ayatollah regime, and replaced by nationalists with socialistic tendencies, that would not really cooperate with USA (= sell oil rights and totally dismantle their military) then what? Bomb more? How can you honestly believe this is the best for Iranian people?
Because those countries are not trying to become a global power, with potential nuclear weapon, ICBM and drone capabilities along with a strategic location?
And all while making "death to america" part of their national slogan.
Those African regimes don't spend billions a year to promote and fund terrorism in other countries. Remember kids, you can kill millions of your own people (Stalin, Mao, etc) and nobody will care. Heck, some will even celebrate you. But don't mess with people in another country, otherwise outsiders will get involved. Iran is the main source of violence and terrorism in the most violent part of the world. Maybe, just maybe your fake moralizing isn't helping.
Iran has committed or contributed to virtually zero terrorism in America. The American people have no legitimate beef with Iran, America is just acting as Israel's rabid attack dog.
there is quite a beef going on between America and Iran if you haven't noticed, such as taking an entire embassy as hostages or killing a whole lot of US troops in Iraq and Lebanon among other things
Iran occasionally attacks Americans in the region or abroad generally, but they don't attack Americans in America despite all of their "death to America" rhetoric (which they are more than entitled to.) If you add up who's fucking with who and who's being fucked with, the imbalance between America and Iran is enormous.
So if a Trump made a Twitter post "exonerating" someone who said something awful about America that would be the same? Because he represents 100% of the country.
Almost half of the countries hates Netanyahu and he's only in charge because of the support from far-right.
Regardless of this you think that a certain limited subsection of Israeli population who share Netanyahu and not the millions of Israeli's who don't let alone all the people who are Jewish are not allowed to have an opinion about his actions? Rather a silly thing to say.
So? Does that means nobody else is allowed to have an opinion about the salute that he made. Sure he's pro Israel, that's not uncommon at all amongst the far right these days.
> who might have been offended by his gesture
What about the people who seem to be highly offended by people who have been offended by his gesture. What do you call them?
Everyone should be free to have whatever opinion they like, or at least, they ought to be. The difference is this, some try to impose their opinions on society, while the rest couldn’t care less and refuse to lose sleep over it. The ability to mind our own business is a virtue, a real one. The world went downhill the moment people started obsessing over others instead of focusing on themselves. And anyone who truly cares about society’s well-being should stop meddling.
> The difference is this, some try to impose their opinions on society
So literally Musk and his pals?
> society’s well-being should stop meddling.
So again, Musk et al.? I'm really confused... what are you trying to say. That only some people are allowed to meddle while everyone else should shut up and mind their own business? How do you determine that? Wealth? Political opinions? Class? Race?
> The world went downhill the moment people started obsessing over others instead of focusing on themselves. And anyone who truly cares about society’s well-being should stop meddling.
The problem is, meddling to interfere with others, and meddling to stop that interference, are not morally equivalent.
If a serial killer is trying to strangle me, and I'm fighting back, you wouldn't deplore "the violence on both sides", would you?
