If I understand you right, you're asking why the state prioritizes enforcement of laws that encourage harm to Iran rather than laws that are supposed to discourage harm to US (and maybe other) consumers?
I think that happens because the state is a tool of the overclass and overthrowing Iran is in their interest while protecting consumers is not. In fact, the lalter is likely counter to their interests.
The question of how overthrowing Iran is useful used to be easier to explain so it deserves some attempt given the current situation. Iran acting independently has some ability to effect oil and gas prices, although this has decreased significantly over time. It's still of interest to the US and especially to some of the US's allies though because alternative sources of energy feed not only Iran but other opponents of the US (e.g. NK, Afghanistan, Syria, etc) and can also still threaten if not decimate smaller producers. In other words, it reduces the geopolitical power of the US and they have less ability to coerce other states. Then there's the the geopolitical game more local to Iran, where Iran is funding multiple opponents to Israel in Gaza, Lebanon and opponent of KSA in Yemen. Why care about Isarel's interests? Well obviously there's significant economic overlap but also consider the famous quote by General (and former Secretary of State) Alexander Haig "Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security." So, again, defeating Iran is consolidation of power in another way. There's more to it than that and it's become more complicated as time goes on but this is what I can think of off the top of my head.
On the other hand, ask yourself why would most of the powerful lobbies in the US be interested in advocating enforcement of the privacy laws and such that you care about? How does that benefit who pays for them? And where there are interests of outright corruption or coercion, why would anyone pay for that to be in your interest rather than prioritize their own?
You can work the logic backwards from realist rules too: Normally, you aren't going to get any result that doesn't benefit the state and those who have most influence over its use. (See neorealism in IR and public choice theory but also all of anarchist and "Libertarian" theory for why.)
So, in some ways it benefits the overclass directly and in other ways it just sharpens (or keeps sharp) their tool.
The notion that Iran's military threat exclusively down to antagonism of Israel is another conspiracy theory - because their actions clearly are much broader.
The concern over Iran is founded in the fact that since their Islamic Revolution, they've been an open antagonist of the US and the West, they constantly threaten the Gulf, Saudi Arabia, the stability of the Middle East. Since they have embarked on their Nuclear Program which they are using to Blackmail the world, it's become a much more significant issue.
Iran's 'problem with oil' is not their ability to supply, it's that they are literally attacking Saudi Arabia both directly and indirectly (via Houthis) and trying to overthrow House of Saud, Bahrain, and eventually the other Gulf states. They're constantly threatening commerce (mostly Oil) in the Gulf.
This antagonism by the way is rooted in centuries-old Shia vs. Sunni conflict over the righteous claim to 'True Islam'.
Iran's destabilizing and support of terrorism against Israel is of course well founded, but their actions against Saudi Arabia are more direct and have much bigger direct repercussions. Of course, the overthrow of Israel has probably the most indirect knock-on effects which would throw the entire region into chaos.
And by the way 'Big Business' in the world would much prefer to end sanctions. All of that Iranian Oil will be spent on US and German 'stuff' and Tim Cook would definitely want to sell them all iPhones.
Protection of individuals privacy, so that their emails and SS numbers aren't accidentally made public, are basically an orthogonal issue - not even business issues are aligned.
This talk of a nebulous 'overclass' is not helpful to your argument if you conflate their own needs especially 'money' - which most of them wold prefer to make in Iran if they could. The US has a complicated leadership class that's not easily lumped into groups. We're seeing more progress on issues of privacy so cross your fingers.
> The notion that Iran's economic actions on 'oil pricing' is any material threat to anything is totally unfounded, as they don't have the economic power to do such a thing.
The 1979 oil crisis [1] is evidence to the contrary, but as I said, that influence has declined with the rise of American and Russian gas, especially the agile dynamism of American fracking. I also explicitly mentioned that it is a threat to minor producers and aide to opponents of the US (Think about those under sanction.) It would certainly effect Saudi Arabia's bottom line to some extent. The exact degree of any of these effects is something hotly debated in IR.
> Iran's 'problem with oil' is not their ability to supply, it's that they are literally attacking Saudi Arabia both directly and indirectly (via Houthis) and trying to overthrow House of Saud, Bahrain, and eventually the other Gulf states. They're constantly threatening commerce (mostly Oil) in the Gulf.
No, the problem is much older than the Houthi rebellion and I did explicitly mention them. The Houthi rebellion began only in 2004. This conflict has existed since 1979 at the absolute latest. Let's not forget that the CIA and MI6 overthrew Mohammad Mosaddegh, replacing him with their proxy the Shah, in 1953. Mossaddegh's most significant policy being the nationalization of oil. [5]
> This antagonism by the way is rooted in centuries-old Shia vs. Sunni conflict over the righteous claim to 'True Islam'.
I can't agree. I think all causes are material and based on the security and economic interests of all actors involved as is basic to modern realist international relations theory. [2] Any flavor of Islam, by these theories, is just a means to an end, just a tool.
> Protection of individuals privacy, so that their emails and SS numbers aren't accidentally made public, are basically an orthogonal issue - not even business issues are aligned.
Yes, as I said, it's not in their interests and contrary to their interests since it would cost, which answers the question that was asked.
> This talk of a nebulous 'overclass' is not helpful to your argument if you conflate their own needs especially 'money' - which most of them wold prefer to make in Iran if they could. The US has a complicated leadership class that's not easily lumped into groups.
That rests on a refuted premise, but I'll say there's nothing nebulous about the section of the capitalist class able to afford lawyers, lobbyists, and bribes to effectively influence foreign policy. [3][4]
Overall, the main thing I think you miss is that all of the Iranian state's actions are perceived by it as being in its material interest. Its goal is to maximize its security and satisfy its economic needs and it's attempting to do that, just as every other state.
Anyway, it was just off the top of my head. The situation is complex and changing. I had no intention of writing a comprehensive dissertation.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979_oil_crisis
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_realism#Main_tenets
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice#Special_interest...
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
In short your 'first' concern about Iran's 'Oil' pricing etc. doesn't have any bearing on the situation.
2. Your response re: Houthi's, completely side-stepped the main point, which is that Iran is currently an antagonizing agent, directly attacking Saudi Arabia - literally knocked out 1/2 their refining capability in a military assault, and that the situation in Yemen is considerably worse than it ever was, with Houthis launching Iranian missiles directly into Saudi Arabian airports.
In any other situation - the result of 'missiles knocking out 50% production, and missiles raining down on major airports' would be war.
This is absolutely 'antagonizing' - they are directs acts of war by Iran - which both your 'It's Israel' premise, and your 'Houthi is an Old Thing' premise have ignored.
Of course, they're also grabbing merchant ships, shooting down airplanes (their own) - all that has to be put in the mix.
3. Finally - that a 'class of lawyers and lobbyists are trying to influence foreign policy' - doesn't make your argument.
There are 'lawyers and lobbyists' of every kind, pushing for policy changes in every direction. That's normal.
You have not provided any evidence that the leadership class, as a whole, is acting to maintain Iranian sanctions, because it's completely contrary to the interest of capitalism.
It's irrational that the 'Capitalist Class' wants to maintain sanctions, it does not benefit them in any way.
Here's is Boeing's loss of billions of dollars in contracts due to sanctions. [1]
The argument that Boeing and other F100 CEO's are pushing for sanctions, which costs them billions ... is not going to work.
Ergo - it's far more complicated than your argument insinuates.
[1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/here-are-the-businesses-most-af...
> In short your 'first' concern about Iran's 'Oil' pricing etc. doesn't have any bearing on the situation.
Iran owns 10% of the worlds oil reserves and 17% of the worlds gas reserves. In 2012 before the embargo, Iran was the second largest oil exporter in OPEC. Natural gas production was skyrocketing, growing vertically to 700 million cubic meter/day by 2012. The US currently produces 766,200 cubic meters/day.
If you don't think Iran had the power to effect oil and gas prices before the embargo then I don't know what to tell you. It's just supply and demand. So far you're just making assertions without any analysis or evidence.
> This is absolutely 'antagonizing' - they are directs acts of war by Iran - which both your 'It's Israel' premise, and your 'Houthi is an Old Thing' premise have ignored.
Again, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not really interested in this "antagonizing" (or not) dichotomy. States act in their own interests. All of these states have resource and security conflicts with each other that aren't new and that aren't going to go away. Also, I said that the Houthi rebellion is a relatively new thing, not old. The conflict predates them. The US and UK orchestrated a coup d'etat in 1953 prior to everything you mention. The Iranian Revolution was in 1979 prior to everything you mention.
> There are 'lawyers and lobbyists' of every kind, pushing for policy changes in every direction. That's normal.
> You have not provided any evidence that the leadership class, as a whole, is acting to maintain Iranian sanctions, because it's completely contrary to the interest of capitalism.
I didn't claim anything about "as a whole." If you re-read what I wrote more carefully, you will see that. Whoever's policy was implemented is the dominant section of the overclass. They won, it's how we know they had (or still have) the most power. That's basically a tautology. Moreover, I refuted the premise for this part of your argument rests on twice now, so I hope that works for you.
I'm not trying to be patronizing, but please read what I've written more carefully before you respond and chill your tone.
This comes off as insulting. One could just as easily come up with a glib derogatory summary of the 'cultural norms' of Western nations too.
Propagating the belief that some cultures don't treasure life is dehumanizing, because it is a direct pathway to rationalize exterminating them ('oh, they value death more anyway').
I fully agree that many and perhaps most of the people don’t feel that way.
Fake moral high ground is aggravating.
If 'let's nuke hundreds of thousands to save millions' is a legitimate option, why has it not been used in any other number of conflicts?
The man who saved Kyoto from the atomic bomb https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-33755182
> "The scientists on the Target Committee also preferred Kyoto because it was home to many universities and they thought the people there would be able to understand that an atomic bomb was not just another weapon - that it was almost a turning point in human history," he adds.
We don't use it because we don't have to but we would if we needed to.
You may not think that is fair. Everyone should have equal amounts of geopolitical power but it doesn't reflect reality. If Iran took over the US their version of fair would be very different from yours.
I'm sorry, to which horrible act are you referring? The Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Second Sino-Japanese War (15,000,000-22,000,000 casualties, whoo), or the invasion of South-East Asia and the Phillipines? But I guess you're right in general; I don't recall any large scale wars of aggression in the last 70-ish years.
I think it is exorbitantly clear from the direct context of this thread that the act I am referring to is the American nuclear bombing of Japan. I'm not sure what your post is, but it seems to be insinuating something like "they had it coming", which is disgusting.
Since WWII, wars of conquest have been rather rare and have not so far grown to the scale as to even appear to justify, in any way, the use of anything like nuclear weapons. World War II, as it is known in the US, was different.
The Empire of Japan had been engaged in an aggressive war of conquest since 1937 (or possibly 1931, depending on how you look at it). (I did mention the death toll in China, right?)
The United States was engaged in a justified war with the Empire of Japan in 1945. (Do you dispute that?)
Both countries were engaged in total (or absolute) war, meaning that both had fully engaged their economies in the war effort. (This is important because, under total war conditions, the civilian economy is a legitimate target of war. Practically speaking, not doing so leads to World War I, a lengthy military stalemate, and the eventual collapse of governments and other ... bad stuff. I admit this is a personal moral viewpoint. On the other hand, fine logic chopping over the ethics and legality of warfare is pretty irrelevant. War is evil.)
The terms under which the Empire of Japan was willing to surrender were essentially that the military government of Japan be allowed to continue unmolested.
In August, 1945, the United States had two (2) options:
1. Invasion of the Japanese Islands. Two things of note: The Battle of Okinawa (which ended the previous month), involving (according to Wikipedia) ~75,000 Japanese soldiers and ~40,000 Okinawan conscripts, resulted in the deaths of between 40,000 and 100,000 civilians, or between 10% and 30% of the islands population. The Imperial Japanese Army had ~900,000 soldiers in Kyushu.
2. Continue with the blockade of the Japanese Islands. Many authors suggest that by 1946, this would have led to the deaths of millions of Japanese civilians. Christopher Clary (https://journals.wichita.edu/index.php/ff/article/download/6...) makes a pretty compelling argument that they were not very near starvation, so there's that. He also quotes,
"Early surrender? With no atom bombs, no Russians, no invasion? Careful inspection of the "testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved"--even that incomplete sample available to the USSBS during its two short months in 1945--shows only [Marquis] Kido [Koichi, Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal] supporting Nitze, everyone else [including more than twenty other high level officials] stating that Japan would have fought on indefinitely. When would Japan have surrendered without the bomb and the Russians? The only credible answer is that given by Robert Butow when Freeman Dyson asked him about it: "The Japanese leaders themselves do not know the answer to that question.""
In any case, both options would have included continued strategic bombing (see also Operation Meetinghouse), of which the use of atomic weapons was an extension (no, really, check out Operation Meetinghouse). The use of large scale bombing of civilians had been settled far, far earlier in the war.
As a final point, consider a role playing exercise: Put yourself in the position of a US government or military official explaining the decision not to use some weapons at your disposal, because they were too horrific, to the mothers of US soldiers who had been killed in subsequent fighting. To criticize someone for (not) doing something, it has to have been possible for them to not do it (or to do it).
They were doing some incredibly heinous shit at that time.
This is not an argument, it's not even rational.
The first reason that 'that decision has not been made again' is because international actors since then have to take into consideration that outcome.
If that situation were duplicated, the bomb would be dropped again.
Eisenhower ordered a demonstration of tactical nuclear weapons which decisively 'ended' direct hostilities on the Korean Peninsula.
Were the Chinese to have continued their advance, then 'nukes would have been used again'.
Though with full 20/20 hindsight, we can dig up historical facts and adjust our historical conclusions, Allied forces were obviously not privy to the immediate situation with respect to Soviet forces.
Moreover, to suggest that the instantaneous destruction of major bases and cities the likes of which history has never seen shouldn't bee seen as a primary impetus in Japanese decision making is irrational.
Japanese Imperialism was effectively a mass murdering machine let loose on the entirety of E/SE Asia and America, and the Americans did the necessary fighting leading to the weakening of the Japanese regime which put them in a state where the threat of some Soviet antagonism would even be a real problem.
If the US had not entered the war against Japan, the Soviets wouldn't be much of a real threat.
The dropping of the bombs was easily justified, and thankfully, since that moment, there have been fewer and fewer major wars.
The odd logic trying to paint the US as somehow antagonists in that situation is anti rational on it's face, it's just petty.
"Truman stated that his decision to drop the bomb was purely military. A Normandy-type amphibious landing would have cost an estimated million casualties. Truman believed that the bombs saved Japanese lives as well. Prolonging the war was not an option for the President. Over 3,500 Japanese kamikaze raids had already wrought great destruction and loss of American lives."
Here is one source which details some of the questions being raised https://nationalpost.com/news/did-the-atomic-bombings-of-hir...
However I was probably wrong in saying most historians disagree, it seems there is still significant debate https://www.historyextra.com/period/second-world-war/atomic-...
The manhattan project involved The US, Canada, The UK and it was headed by a captured German scientist. When the project started the goal was to try to beat Hilter. Near the end of the war the US tanks never went into Berlin. The peace deal signed after the war gave up too much and the Russians never lived up to it creating the conditions for the cold war. The US was hopeful at the time.
An extended war with Japan would cost millions of lives. Japan was never going to give up as they were run by a crazy group at the time. Remember after they dropped the first bomb they refused to quit. The H-Bomb was the only thing that forced them to give up.
The Iranian Government is trying to destabilize the Middle East including threatening the world with an nuclear program, attempting to overthrow House of Saud, having destroyed 50% of it's refinement industry by direct military attack (aka major act of war) with the objective turning Saudi Arabia into a Syrian mess, supporting Houthi rebels towards direct attacks on Saudi civilians, destroying Israel, arming terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah towards that objective, and the United States as well, if they could, among other things including state sponsored terrorist attacks around the world including bombings and assassinations in Europe [1].
AT&T has accidently made public some people's phone numbers, it isn't trying to get nuclear weapons to use as cover to overthrow nations in it's periphery.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terro...
This sounds an awful lot like what the American government is and has been doing for a long, long time...In fact, America's nuclear program didn't just threaten the world, but caused actual harm. Where are the international sanctions?
Which is false of course. It was the key ingredient in ending the worst war the world has ever seen, and since then, major wars have gone by the wayside.
Decade by decade in the US-backed world order, there have been fewer and fewer major conflicts.
The world is inherently unstable, it's barely held together by somewhat organized powers of which the US is by far the biggest pillar.
The world as we know it with open seas, open Panama, Suez, Gulf, peace between Egypt, Israel and Saudi, relative freedom of movement and commerce is an artifact of that order of which the US is the biggest pillar.
Without that order (and possibly just without the US alone, as it's hard to know if Europe+Japan+Korea+Aussie etc. could step up in a coordinated way), it would be something completely different, and in almost every scenario, much worse.
The Iranian Regime is a toxic entity that literally their own citizens would overthrow in an instant given an opportunity to do so - we're all waiting for the time when they collapse so everyone, especially Iranians citizens such as the author of this article, can move forward and participate in FOSS without getting caught up in geopolitics.
Compare this to any number of other egregious events - like the latest rounds of personal data exposure from various corporations on the front page all of this week - and the fact that things like that have zero repercussions for the corporations who failed to secure our data.
Expose the PII of millions of citizens - zero punishment or repercussions. But oh no, if you happen to have someone in Iran working on your project, then watch out!
Why is there such a gaping, borderline incomprehensible, asymmetry here?