you know why? Because they are only threat to nature of this unbeatable regime(which have money manpower and religion).but west politicians keep ignoring this fact.Iran society is way ahead of its regime.Maybe far better than turkey in term of progressiveness And regime knows perfectly. Not Isis.not USA.not Israel.non of them is serious threat for them in long term.but a huge young population with secular believes is THE most threat for regime nature.people who use internet and spend time behind porn sites and don't give fuck about Islam is the most threat (and lose) for Iran regime.
You want change middle east . change their fucking -stupid- culture with internet, with porn.
If you want to change the West's attitude towards Iran, a good first step would be to push for the release of Jason Rezaian, and the end of state support for terrorism.[3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_involvement_in_the_Syr...
[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/pb/stories-jason-rezaian/
I personally believe there is no answer to this question other than Iran's own population.
You cannot believe me , but I can see with my own eye. Every time USA or international community interfere in something all people are suspicious and whole community turn to regime supporters (you may know , being against foreign powers in middle east is one of the effective way to stay in power , and Iran's supreme leader does this in extremely effective way).
If you want to fight you can only throw this regime with only academia and liberal people through a push for reform. There is no other alternative.They cleverly managed to stop and destroy every other opposition in country.Even parties which was more than 100 years old.
I will guarantee you other way of fighting against this regime is not effective and will not effective.You want military invasion ? hell no , they will harm your military very badly , they will turn Iran worse than Vietnam and Germany in second WW.Even after changing regime they will remain active force like Al-Quada , suicidal force in society, which can change or throw government very easily.
But the increasing liberal force in Iran want reform more than ever , they pushing even badly. I am not saying it is going to be successful.No , not yet, but I am saying it can be if west does not provoke people against reform and provide platform for free information flow (which is regime nightmare)
Hang on... the USA sent armed forces 9,500 km across the globe to unilaterally invade a country literally across the border from Iran, and you reckon it's Iran's fault they were killed?
Of course Iran was going to take advantage of the situation. It's their backyard, the USA was thrashing around aimlessly and they saw an opportunity to achieve an objective to their benefit. After all they have to live beside the self-imploding remains of Iraq, they can't just climb into C-17s and say it's over.
US killed a lot more of the American soldiers since. You make it seems like 1000 US soldiers' concerns somehow makes huge difference in the overall geopolitics. That is just propaganda.
Many of those solders were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan invasion. Others were sent home traumatized mentally and physically.
> soldiers killed by Iranian proxies in Iraq
In general mentioning "killing by proxy" and US in the same comment is not a good idea if it is supposed to support the US position. US has killed by proxy a lot more and supported brutal regimes and dictators for many decades on almost all continents.
Speaking generally, in any such situation the challengers appear to be behaving badly because they are disruptive - they have to disrupt the status quo to bring change. In the end, neither side necessarily has a more legitimate claim to power and both would do the same in the other's shoes.
I'm also not sure either side behaves better. Remember the U.S. played a major role in overthrowing a (mostly) democratic Iranian government in the 1950s, then supported a dictator who brutally oppressed the people of Iran for decades. The U.S. supports insurgent groups in and near Iran, sabotages their infrastructure (the nuclear program), imposes crippling economic sanctions, and very likely participated in the assassination of Iranian scientists. I happen to think the actions against Iran's nuclear weapons program are necessary, and Iran's government is generally a danger to many people's lives in the Mideast, but the West can hardly complain about Iran behaving badly. (And don't forget the U.S. misleading the world and invading a neighboring Mideast country for no good reason.)
And how 'bout all the Iranian soldiers killed by our friend and alley, Saddam Hussein, during the Iran-Iraq war? We didn't even get upset at Saddam for the USS Stark incident!
I believe they find in each other an enemy that helps with their narrative, without the detriment of having to deal with the danger of an erratic or unreasonable enemy.
That's not the sort of thing that is easily forgotten and it is one of the cornerstones of West/Islam conflict.
After that it was mostly a downward spiral, with some recent relaxation on both sides of the line.
But that didn't happen in a vacuum either. The U.S. engineered or facilitated the overthrow of a mostly democratic Iranian leader in 1953, and put in his place a mini-dynasty of dictators who brutally oppresssed Iranians, with U.S. support, until that day in 1979. I'm not saying the Iranians should have taken those innocent Americans hostage but they didn't pick the American embassy and take hostages in a random act of violence.
... and I'm sure the 1953 coup didn't happen in a vacuum either.
If you mean "US/Iran resentment" means "US resentment of Iran but not Iranian resentment of the US", I now understand what you intended. Unfortunately, your syntax is undocumented and not defined in the language standard. :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
2. It's the same here in the U.S. With all the nagging cost of education is not that high. I'm paying for my wife college.
3. You are attacking me for no reason. Once you called me dumb. But you know how the entry exam works, it is certainly not the best system for pickup up the most talented people. I'm not saying I'm talented or anything but your basis of judgment is wrong
Back to your original point in which you suggested we have decent education for cheap of free in Iran. I still disagree with you. There is only a handful of schools (Sharif and maybe Tehran) with decent teachers and some decade old equipments, other than that most of schools in Iran are inefficient and I consider them a waste of time. Azad university is more like a religious school than an art and science college. So no, we don't have "free or cheap" "decent education" "for everyone". If we had we wouldn't have such terrible society. You went to a "decent" school and living in Canada. You're considered "elite" or counted in brain drain stats! Yet, you are attacking people on internet for no reason. That's why I'm saying we have a terrible society.
To be a good contributor to this site it's best to make sure you've read the following:
We don't want to ban you! Your comments indicate a perspective that doesn't often show up here. Diverse perspectives are good for HN. But to participate effectively, you need to learn and follow the local conventions, and also understand that HN has rules, the foremost of which is civility.
I don't think you were intentionally uncivil. I do think you were unintentionally uncivil. That's nowhere near as bad, but still needs correcting.
This notion from an etiquette guide to foreign culture I think is relevant.
The Ahwazi Arabs (Sunni, coincidentally) are stripped of nearly all basic human rights, enclosed in their own state essentially within Iran's borders [1]. Even the Shia in Saudi Arabia are treated better than how Iran handles the Ahwaz region.
Further, Iran loves fighting wars by proxy for some reason. Hezbollah and the Revolutionary Guard are roaming around Syria like they own it. Hezbollah's hold on Lebanese politics is undeniable. And of course, the funding of Houthis in Yemen who hilariously failed to execute an easy coup, the result of which started a full-blown war.
The region is in turmoil, and both sides are at fault. I personally believe that the US is entirely aware of the troubled sectarian relations in the region, and is using that as a way to get cheap oil and sell arms, which is a valid strategy.
This has to stop. The only lasting solution is dialogue.
So you would rather have ISIS expanding in Syria? That's what the Iranians are fighting there.
Furthermore they were invited by the legitimate and UN recognized Syrian government to help fighting the Sunni extremists.
I think lessons learned in Iraq changed the calculus for Tehran and Washington. Keeping in mind there are at least 18m Sunni muslims in Iran vulnerable to ISIS message and good number of disaffected Shia, the focus may be on stability now.
The U.S. did not 'set up' the Shah; he was the legitimate ruler of Persia. Nor did the U.S. overthrow a 'democratically-elected leader'; the Shah's legitimate government successfully defeated a coup attempt by his prime minister Mossadegh, who died peacefully under house arrest years later.
I'm asking because I don't see any markers indicating that it is and I get this wrong every 3rd comment or so.
If it isn't sarcasm you are somewhat mis-informed. If it is sarcasm then please ignore this comment.
As for the Shah, he was very much there with the support of the oil industry, but that doesn't make him all bad. He wanted to make Persia a modern state and in doing so upset the Mullahs which culminated in the return of banished Ayatollah Khomeini (who resided in Paris, of all places during his exile), and how that ended we probably all already know.
IIRC, he oppressed, imprisoned, tortured and killed people in large numbers, for decades.
An Introduction to the Modern Middle East: History, Religion, Political Economy by David S. Sorenson (Page 202) http://bit.ly/1S9HrTA
The Cold War Museum http://www.coldwar.org/articles/50s/OperationAjax.asp
If the U.S. didn't overthrow Mossadegh, why did the CIA admit to doing so years later in declassified documents?
Temper runs high and patience is thin when it comes to questions like this, so it's understandable when people boil over—but it also breaks the rules of this site, which are there for good reason. Please don't post comments unless they are civil and substantive.
Iran held US personnel as hostages for a year and imprisons our visitors. They are also sworn enemies to US Allies like Israel.
Iran is "bad" because they are our enemy. And they see the US as "bad" because we've been their enemy in the past.
There is absolutely nothing strange about the hate-filled relationship between Iran and the US. It is simple politics and history.
American was at war with Japan and Germany not to long before as well. Now we are best buddies. Things can change if the money's right.
Neither of those solutions was 'all good' so at some point the people will say 'enough'. It can take a while.
The purpose of the Guardian Council [0] is precisely to prevent such a turnaround.
All countries (or other groups) can find reasons to hate or love each other. Look at France and Germany, close allies now but plenty of opportunity for hate. All it takes is an effective political leader to manipulate the public in whatever way suits them.
The beginning of Mohammad Reza's reign was in 1941 and had nothing to do with the US. The coup (by both the US and UK) was about reversing the nationalization of Iran's oil industry, not about installing Mohammad Reza as king. Britain and the Soviet Union did that in WWII.
I have been following the politics/culture of the region for a while. I totally agree. Two examples of women, of Iranian origin, being in the news in the recent past for the best reasons.
Maryam Mirzakhani[1], who won the fields medal in Math last year. Remember reading an article, where she spoke about the Math culture at her home and College in Iran.
Another one is this US Entrepneur Anousheh Ansari[2], who also went to the ISS, and identifies herself as a dual national.
I would love to know of any examples of women in Arab (or nearby countries) having made similar achievement. Sadly, I suspect, the culture does not allow it.
The hard part will, of course, be Israel's influence on western politics, since the situation is worsening there with the recent spate of stabbings and the new walls going up to protect settlements in the west bank.
With Iran and Lebanon's ties to Hezbollah, Israel will (quite reasonably, all things considered) react badly to inroads made between these countries and Israel's allies.
Source: four generations in the state department. With a majority of my father's familiar peers living in Tehran in the late 60s, fluent in Farsi...
Iranians are amazing people. Fuck that, people are amazing people... Some People are horrid humans.
I have no mercy for said horrid humans...
What people lack is a true measure of what makes a sound or terrible human in an objective way...
What is your reasoning behind this claim?
They will eventually transform into a relatively free society if we don't interfere.
I just comment on the fact that there is obviously a conflict between the well educated masses in Iran and the strict religious laws.
Can't just imagine your society will still be cutting of hands of thieves and hanging homosexuals publicly in 50 years.
Also I would appreciate it if you wouldn't insult me. -- A non-nationalist guy
As for being a slave to credit card companies and banks: that's optional where I live.
I'm not claiming other nations are completely free, they're not. But Iran is free? Not even close.
Iran has geopolitical conflict with the West, but it's a false equivalent of Saudi Arabia. Iran is a theocracy trying to control a population that growingly wants to be secular. Women in Iran go to university at higher rates than men, can drive, hold office, and vote. Life in Iran for a women is not perfect but is heaven compared to Saudi Arabia.
Iranian sponsored militias like hezbollah are in geopolitical conflicts as Iran wants more regional influence. They want regional islam. They are not trying to establish a global Shiite islamic state.
Like most things it comes down to money and power. Saudi plays ball with America economic hegemony and Iran does not. So rather than allying with the more moderate/educated nation with huge potential to be progressive, we ally with the one that is best for big business and willing to cede military control of the region to us.
The Iranian theocracy is fucked, don't get me wrong. But we really have our priorities in a mess.