Iran, nukes and terrorism

Quote from hoxton_hockler

Iranians, unsurprisingly, have rejected religious extremism and global isolation in favour of economic progress and engagement with the world. Trump was wrong (again) when he called the nuclear deal the worst deal ever, it was probably the best bit of politics that we've seen in the region for a while. Iranians are proud and nationalistic. They don't want to be a pariah state but at the same time don't want superpowers telling them what to do. Bush tried pushing them around and they responded by voting in anti-US firebrand Ahmadinejad, whilst Obama's deal gave them the freedom to move forward and they took it.

Trump has gone back on a lot of the bullshit he spouted though so let's hope he sticks with the deal. He has already skipped an opportunity to tear it up which is heartening, but his closeness to the Saudis is a worry. They are one of the few nations that gains from Middle Eastern instability. Trump should be using all his schmoozing skills to smooth the water between Saudi and Iran. He can do it, let's be honest schmoozing is his only real talent and it's a hugely important one in politics, but is he being advised properly to make sure it happens? Fingers crossed. He's so erratic you can't predict what he'll do.

Meanwhile, well done to the Iranians...!

Well done indeed. But the real leader, the Ayatollah is the real power and I see no sign that he or the other clerics relinquishing power to democratically elected leaders. But as you say, it could have been another character like Ahmadinjad again, so both the Iranians and us have breathed a sign of relief.

I although I agree with in part, that the nuclear deal is worthwhile, I can see it from Trump's point of view too. The Iranians are still sponsoring terrorist groups and are fighting at least one major war via their proxies in Yemen, so Trump is right to hold them to account.

I know its history now, but most of the British soldiers killed in Iraq were due to Iranian made IEDs. We should have sent Iran a little "message" about that.

If there was entente cordiale between Iran and Saudi Arabia, that would pretty much end all of that region's problems in one go, but at the moment there are too many extremists on both sides and I doubt there is anything, should he be inclined to do so, that Trump can do about it.

Quote from Little Wing

Trump has at least made an attempt by launching into a facts first speech in Saudi that asks why Islam is so reluctant to isolate its murderous extremists.

Well we all know that one, the countries themselves support them. Saudi Arabia was created by doing a deal with the devils and we're all suffering because of it.

Ok, well, if it were not already obvious to everyone, I am a interventionist, or some might say a neo-con on such issues.

Keeping Iran nuclear weapons free is important, but sorry to disappoint some, but I think I may be in agreement with Trump here.

Look, all the Islamic violence around the world is coming from two countries. The Suni variant which fuels ISIS, Al Qaeda and whatever comes next, is from Saudi Arabia. Extremist leaflets in the Islington Mosque in London have on the back of them "printed by the Foreign Ministry of Saudi Arabia," I digress...

The Shia variant of radical Islam which fuels Hezbollah, Hamas and others comes from Iran. Iran is spreading death and misery on a unprecedented scale. The millions that may starve in Yemen, is a direct result of Iran's actions. Lets not forget all the British soldiers killed in Iraq by mostly Iranian made IEDs. That in itself, in my opinion, was a declaration of war upon Britain by Iran.

I don't want Iran to get its nuclear weapons back, but the current agreement expires in a few years anyway and the Iranians have all their facilities and can easily be back in nuclear bombing making mode anytime they fancy.

I think other options need to be considered. Overall Iran is a very modern and dare I say, moderate country, but it's not the moderates running things, it's the clerics and their medieval thinking.

I would like to hear more from Trump about what he thinks should be done about Iran and its spread of evil around the region and the world, before coming to a final judgement on this.

The Qatar "issue" is interesting, but briefly (without taking the thread off topic), it seems to me that all the Arab "countries" must adhere to Saudi commands and if they don't, they get the treatment that Qatar is currently getting. There is no real group of Arab countries, in my opinion, there is just one country, Saudi Arabia, who cedes "some" power to others as it sees fit. Compared to Saudi, Qatar is very liberal.

Who knows what's true in this part of the world? One article says that Qatar funds ISIS and the other extremists groups before it, others says its all Saudi and others say it's all Saddam's ex generals causing chaos.

To answer your question and the whole point of your OP, Saudi is no different to Iran in many respects. Both advocate and support an extreme version of Islam that had all but died out centuries ago until a group of Egyptians decided (under British rule) to bring it back.

This is why I want to see what Trump has to say on this issue and I'll dig up the BBC article to give us some context here. Keeping Iran nuclear free is important, but as I said, all their facilities are there and can be brought back online quickly, so the deal is poor but at least its better than the situation we face with North Korea.

As I said, I am a interventionist, but it's western powers who created the mess that is the middle east in the first place, but I fear it will take further interventions to "correct" the mistakes of the past. If we hadn't have installed a king in Iran, the clerics may never have risen to power to begin with. Sins of the father and all that...

In the end, I guess it depends on your definition of "rogue state."

Iran is complying with their nuclear deal, so that doesn't make them a rogue state, corect? But what about Yemen and Iran's actions there causing potentially many millions to die of starvation? Is that not an act of a rogue state, or does the definition only apply when it effects us directly and we couldn't care less what Iran does as it long as it puts its nuclear bombs away for a few years to keep us happy. Sod the millions starving at Iran's hands...

Mod Note

@hoxton_hockler 

I've merged your "Is one rogue state not enough for Trump" thread into here, as they deal with identical subjects.

When creating threads, the software should suggest similar threads, if they exist, on the subject you wish to talk about. If there is an existing thread on the subject you want to discuss or very similar, please use that rather than creating a new one.

Better to have less threads with more replies, rather than lots of very similar topics with few replies.

I understand the point about staying out because it causes more problems than solves, but as the situation in the Middle East is by and large a Western creation, then I think it is incumbent upon us, for our own security reasons, to stay engaged.

If there was no oil, if we didn't install the Shah in Iran etc etc, I am quite sure this region would've been volatile, it always has been. But the problems of today directly stems from western intervention and I think we need to correct the course, for their sake and ours.

Quote from hoxton_hockler

Iranians, unsurprisingly, have rejected religious extremism and global isolation in favour of economic progress and engagement with the world.

That's how Hoxton started off this thread and six months later we have this:

Quote from BBC News

Some anti-establishment protests happening in Iranian cities have turned violent, video footage shows.

They began three days ago - initially in protest at falling living standards - and are the biggest show of dissent since huge pro-reform rallies in 2009.

Is the start of something bigger or, like the Arab spring, will it just fizzle out? The top Iranian general has threatened to crush the protests if things get worse?

How much longer can a people be ruled over by a council of medieval clerics?

Quote from Little Wing

It's no use telling everyone to hug or trying to convince people "we are all the same", because, quite simply, we are not and the sooner liberals acknowledge diversity and their fundamental error the better.

Unfortunately they'll still be putting the candles, teddy bears and flowers after the latest atrocity, a thousand years from now.

Quote from Little Wing

The problem is ancient and rests on invasion and conquest, as usual. The Persian versus the invading Arabs. The Zoroastrians versus Islam. These things don't really go away and they ferment until they reach the point of open revolt. It's no use telling everyone to hug or trying to convince people "we are all the same", because, quite simply, we are not and the sooner liberals acknowledge diversity and their fundamental error the better.

Don't understand how that's related to an internal Iranian issue, ie the people have had enough of the clerics ruling them.

Many Iranians are young and compared to the neighbouring Arab countries, one in particular, have had many freedoms the Arabs can only dream of. They want more, but live in a oppressive regime. Whether that regime now begins to crack, we'll see. There's still plenty of hard-liners in that country.