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.
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.