Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login


>We are talking about a country funding lots of militant groups that kill lots of people.

No, that's Saudi Arabia, our partners in peace.

It's always confused me... Why do you supply weapons, money and military training to the country which 9/11'd you?

In America, nothing is more sacred than cash.

Saudi Arabia following the US method...

>> We are talking about a country funding lots of militant groups that kill lots of people

I wish it was so one sided like we wish to paint it here. But starting a thread about this will only contribute to a never ending discussion thread. There is no moral high ground here. What we can do is to step away from this madness and try to make a general sense of it. All this warmongering is unneeded.

Agreed. If you look at the actions of either Iran, Saudi Arabia or Israel you can easily find many things that seem morally indefensible from a purely humanistic standpoint.

Whatever the mechanism the US has for picking it's allies, it's pretty clear that it's not simply based on some rigorous moral analysis of the different actors. As long as the Iranian regime insists on maintaining "Death to America" as their political slogan, it's understandable that the US will maintain some level of hostility. But to try and paint it as Iran being purely evil and Israel/SA being purely good (or vice versa) is disingenuous.

> There is no moral high ground here.

Ok, so if there is no moral highground here, then don't play the sympathy card about Iran not "towing the line".

Like fine. Its complicated. You were the one who originally trying to make it out to be one sided. And I am saying that this is ridiculous. They fund militant groups.

> All this warmongering is unneeded.

This is about sanctions. Not a ground invasion of Iran. It is not "warmongering" to support effective economic measures in retaliation against economic funding of militant groups.

Implementing sanctions are economic warfare supported by superior force.

Are you generally against "funding of militant groups", or only when somebody else does it?

> Let's be specific what we are talking about here. We are talking about a country funding lots of militant groups that kill lots of people

You know U.S. actually did fund militant groups directly a few times because we thought we can make it a better place. In fact that’s how big, powerful complicated militant groups started to rise in the Middle East and they are out of control now.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone Not to mention, that is kind of still on going with all the support to Saudi Arabia.

When it comes to Iran, 1953, U.S. and UK did overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran only because his interests wasn’t aligned with ours! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

Before that, During the WWII, British and Russians invaded Iran and did overthrow Iranian king because he was neutral and we needed their oil fields. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Soviet_invasion_of_Ira...

And then revolution happened in Iran and this time people did overthrow the last King who was introducing many social, economic, and political reforms in Iran but we hated him because he was moving too fast for our interests. (Skipping some conspiracy theories about how CIA did trigger the revolution by turning people against the king) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=imil1iIpIYA

And then Iraq/Saddam Hossein(Yes! Same guy that U.S. killed after the U.S. invasion of Iraq) was supported directly, intelligence and military, by the U.S. to invade Iran as a counterbalance to post-revolutionary Iran. Which took them 8 years and it was one of the deadliest conventional war ever fought in modern history, and both countries never recovered from it. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

And that’s my friend every single man/government they had in power since 1940. So no wonder why it’s so fucked up in Middle East now. Every single time we thought we can make it a better place, But there are consequences to foreign interventions that we can’t control. One of the the richest regions in the world in terms of natural resources and history consequently is in complete misery as a result.

There are a whole lot of reasons other than foreign intervention that the middle east is "complete misery".

molteanu 62 days ago [flagged]

> funding lots of militant groups that kill lots of people

You're talking about US, right?

I was under the impression he was talking about Saudi Arabia.

Don’t know how this is in other countries but there seems to be a line with local mosques where they preach extremism and always get their funding from people within that country.



I don't think it is that silly.

The governments of the West are totally chill with regimes that are just as brutal, if not more brutal, than Iran, like Saudi Arabia.

The difference really is mostly just "which side are you on".


Assadi 62 days ago [flagged]

I am not saying that either Iran or Saudi Arabia should be able to X, Y or Z. I'm not going for a "the Saudis do it so Iran should too" argument. Rather, I am simply saying that the sanctions themselves are just an imperialist American power move.

Again, it's not actually about whether Iran is good or bad. If it was simply about good VS evil, nobody would be standing idly as the Saudis yeet missiles into Yemeni civilians.

The sanctions are a joke. It is all about American political agenda.


You're overgeneralizing, which isn't helpful, and seem to be unable to see the story from the perspective of countries within the region we're talking about. People sympathize with people like the developer this story is about, not with the theocratic apparatus within Iran's government structure. If Iranians in general were as bad as you portray them, then no regime change in Iran could ever have any positive effects anyway. Of course, they aren't.

There is also an inability to differentiate between secular power play in the interest of one's country and the influence of religious fundamentalists. There are really two different issues, Iran's ambitions in the region, which are backed up by secular forces in Iran, too, and the theocratic constitution.

1. Some of the actions of Iran's government you describe are pretty much what the US does all the time, except that Iran does it only within their own region. For example, the US sends special forces into all kinds of countries to do their dirty work (e.g. into Iran, Afghanistan), and Iran sends special forces into all kinds of countries to do their directly work, too. There is a slight difference, though. The US has been doing that almost everywhere, whereas the Iranians are mostly trying to fix (in their favour, of course) a mess that was caused by the Second Iraq War initiated by a US aggression. The US basically destroyed the neighbouring country, so for the Iranians this looks similar to e.g. if Russia had just occupied Mexico, put heavy sanctions on the US and would constantly threaten to bomb the US. That's not a good basis for future negotiations, and trying to act against such moves and trying to keep or increase one's own country sphere of influence in neighbouring countries seems like a natural and rational policy.

Here we see a power struggle between two nations whose geostrategical goals are not aligned. However, I'd still say, from the eyes of an impartial observer, that Iran clearly has more of a reason and a right to extend their sphere of influence to neighbouring countries in the region than the US, who have just absolutely fucking nothing to do in the region and are biggest reason why it is in turmoil in the first place. The idea that e.g. the US had a special right to control the Strait of Hormuz is, simply put, absurd.

2. Then there is the problem with the theocracy, which has nothing to do with the previous point. Many if not most people in Iran are probably against their theocracy, but unfortunately the constitution is designed as a theocratic regime and that's hard to change. The government of Iran is not necessarily for Ayatolla Khamenei and his verdicts either, and the younger people would like to get more freedom and many of them would like to get rid of the theocractic elements in their constitution and particularly the religious police.

US foreign politics and Western foreign politics in general are muddling up the two issues, and that's very regrettable. Allying with Saudi Arabia, who has literally just hacked a US journalist to death, will make you a hypocrite about it anyway in the eyes of Iranians, and then the constant confusion of 1 and 2 makes things even worse.

Iran primarily needs change 2, whereas 1 is simply based on a desire to act on their own interests and can only be moderated, e.g. with suitable treaties. The best way of promoting the change 2 would probably be to open up to Iran and do what's best to strengthen women's and LGBT rights in the region (e.g. by guaranteeing asylum, anti-censorship help, diplomatic pressure for human rights, etc.)

The US currently is unable to do that, since the current US government is ideologically very close to the theocratic apparatus in Iran.


No need for condescending sighs, I kind of know what I'm talking about and to be honest, I'm not quite sure whether I buy into your claims of irrelevance. International rights and their moral justification are to a large extent based on habits, i.e., customary rights, and on the principle of reciprocity. There are also principles of state sovereignity to consider. Finally, there is the problem of only selectively applying moral principles and international rights, which is inherently unjust.

I have argued that people should base their judgements on a better understanding, trying to put themselves into the shoes of e.g. someone in a country that is being threatened to be invaded by the largest military force of the world and has been threatened in the past. I have also suggested to be careful not to confuse geopolitical strategies of countries with moral points, and that any sanctions or other efforts to influence Iran should be targeted against its theocratic structure, which is at the heart undemocratic. In reality, however, the US mostly seeks to increase their sphere of influence for geopolitical reasons and the US has no right at all to do that. There is no international law or any other reasonable construction that would justify that the US does anything in that region of the earth at all. I'm suggesting that sanctions should be justified morally and, if so, extended to countries like e.g. Saudi Arabia, too, in order not to appear to be selective and therefore unjust. I am for sanctions and other non-violent measures to increase democracy in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, and so forth, if these measures promise to be at least moderately successful. Otherwise, I believe that change almost must come from within.

I'm not sure what you ware suggesting in contrast to this. This looks very much like a conflict between the US and Iran that is mostly about geostrategy. This is what I suggested to and you consider it irrelevant. What is it, then, you're suggesting? That the US should act as a world police without any mandate, despite the US's horrendous track record of torture, illegal kidnappings, aggressive wars against other countries, and so on? This doesn't make sense to me, especially given that the US has already created great havoc and chaos in the whole region.

I'm really baffled at what you're trying to argue for. It is obvious that in this conflict both Iran and the US primarily act out of strategic interests in the region and not because of any moral concerns, and accusing the US of hypocricy seems quite justified.

The problem is with how we decide which are the "bad" countries. If both "good" and "bad" countries fund militant groups, anyone who tells you that this is how they distinguish between them is lying.

I don’t think anyone on here is in favour of bad people doing bad things.

The general point is that when sanctions are used selectively on some regimes and the US buddy up with other regimes that follow the same kind of politics as the first regime; then you have to question if those sanctions are used for the good of the world (ie what is publicised) or for the good of the US (ie financial kick backs, back door deals, etc).

The fact that Saudi Arabia literally get away with murder because the US have profitable arms deals with them should speak volumes about the true purpose of sanctions.

The problem is the report that Iran is a country funding lots of militant groups comes out of the USA and it's recent actions means it has lost all credibility.

Just in recent times we have seen the USA spy on it's own nationals (NSA) and invade a country based on a lies (WMD in Iraq).

The USA also has a long history of propping up murderous dictators (MBS just the most recent) and it now has a president who loves being photographed with tyrants like Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin.

So while the claims being made might even be true, because these are USA claims the statements needs to be taken with a grain of salt.

I don't have to take the statements of the USA. All I have to do is listen to the claims that Iran makes, about who it funds, the actions it is taking, and planning on taking.

The stuff that Iran itself says it wants to do, such as that it wants to wipe Israel from the face of the map, is bad enough.

> All I have to do is listen to the claims that Iran makes, about who it funds, the actions it is taking, and planning on taking.

So what sources are you quoting?

Any link would be good.

"Ahmadinejad says Israel will be "eliminated""


It is very easy to find multiple insano statements that the leaders of Iran make. I found this one in a couple seconds.

You can also just look at their involvement with the Assad regime.


Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact