What is your opinon on US-Iran foreign policy?

Answer 1

My opinion is that the governments of both the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States benefit from being enemies, although Iran's government, being less democratic and therefore having shakier legitimacy, benefits more.

On the US side:

The US reinstalled the Shah, whose corrupt and oppressive reign led to the Islamic revolution. America doesn't like to admit mistakes, especially morally repugnant ones. By villainizing Iran, the US can claim moral superiority and pretend like its past actions were justified. Also, before the "war on terror", the only justification the war-mongers in Washington could make for our bloated military-industrial complex was "rogue states" in the "axis of evil". To my mind, three countries doesn't make an "axis" but two would be even more flimsy.

Personally, I think america's foreign policy in the middle east in general has been repugnant with the exception of humanitarian aid and trade relations with Israel and Turkey which are at least vaguely democratic and responsive to their people's wishes. We've done nothing but support tyrants and demand unwavering loyalty to AMERICA's economic interests... or at least america's economic interests as perceived by our corporate elite. Villainizing Iran is a consistent part of that pattern. After the Islamic revolution, Iran began looking out for Iran's interests and so America punishes Iran.

On Iran's side:

The Islamic Republic started out as an attempt to reconcile hopes for democracy, rejection of economic and cultural Western Imperialism and the need for wealth/power redistribution. Like most old-world countries that did not go through a communist phase, Iran's feudal elite had largely shepharded their power base through the partial industrialization that Persia had gone through under the Shah. In essence, Persia had gone from feudal monarchy to fascist dictatorship, which is not an improvement for most people.

Like most violent revolutions, the clerics soon became more oppressive than the oppressors they replaced. Although wealth and property was initially redistributed to the (mostly poorer) ultrareligious components of society, those components became entrenched power holders on guard against change which might reduce their power.

To make a long story short... (too late!) by focusing on the "Zionist Conspiracy" of the "great satan" (the USA) and the "little satan" (britain), the clerics who control the Islamic Republic deflect anger and hatred towards outside entities and unify their country. Essentially, they use Britain, Israel and America as what we in America call red herrings, distractions to avoid accountability. By framing Iran's geopolitical situation in black-and-white moral-religious terms, they also seek to prevent reflection as to why or how the West which used to be technologically inferior to Persia, is now in such a position of strength.

For the future:
For now, Iran is content to be "friends of our enemies", China and Russia, while America is still a force to be reckoned with everywhere... but of course that is changing, and not just because of the idiot in the white house. The biggest factor in the loss of America's strategic power is that other countries are catching up and surpassing the United States, not just in technology but more importantly, in communications and governance. We are moving towards a multipolar world and, likely, war over dominance in international affairs. The United States tolerates and, in an ironic way, benefits from the Islamic Republic's absurd demonization of Western powers. (The absurdity makes the West look eminently rational by comparison.)

Iran is falling behind in technology, in governance, in planning; the decisions that are made by the clerics are poor and the effects of those decisions will reverbrate into the future. If events continue to unfold as they have, (which they usually don't but that's all we have to go on when predicting the future) it is inevitable that Iran will become a vassal state of one of the emerging powers in Asia such as Japan, India, Russia or China. The Chinese, the Russians and the Japanese are not so tolerant of others' ridicule as the West is. When Iran becomes a vassal state, I'm afraid they will find out just how much more unforgiving and cruel is Eastern Imperialism than Western.

Answer 2

I think Iraq showed that shoot first and talk later is a bad choice. Sure, sometimes military actions are necessary, but it has to be the last option. The US just can't go around removing leaders they don't like, no matter how awful they might be. The Iraq war demonstrated that. If there is no strong opposition that is backed by the majority of the people to take over, than removing the leader is not going to solve anything. The country will become less stable, with years and perhaps decades of civil war to follow. Unless the invading forces stay there forever as the case in Iraq, and is that really something we want again? Since the war on terror began, terrorism acts have risen in the world, not declined. I know talking doesn't solve everything, and when it does it is a much slower progress than war and invasion, but it makes for a more stable region in the long run. We need to realize that democracy is not the solution to everything, and that it cannot be forced upon people that do not want it/are not ready for it. The best we can do is try and push Iran and other similar countries in the right direction with sanctions, and try to help change coming from within the country. But the people of Iran has to make change happen when they're ready for it, we can't force it on them. If the Iraq war taught us anything, it should be that. Yes, Ahmadinejad is an awful person and president and yes, if they start making real threats of nuclear attacks than perhaps at some point we need to consider other options. But punishing the entire country for something they have not yet even threatened to do is crazy and will only make the situation worse, and it's a bit hypocritical that the country with the most nuclear war heads in the world wants to forbid other countys from even using nuclear power. Again, not saying Iran is a friendly country, just that force at this point will only make things worse.

Answer 3

The USA doesn't have the moral authority to tell Iran that they can or can not develop nuclear energy or nuclear weapons.

The US was the first nation to develop nuclear power and was the first and only nation to use nuclear weapons in a war. The US has more nuclear weapons that any other nation and has carried out more nuclear tests than any other.

Answer 4

I actually hear from friends I have that the U.S. is going to let Iran have nuclear weapons and we will be in another cold war , scary - yes

Answer 5

US-Iran foreign policy is all about oil.

Answer 6

Too much rhetoric and not enough bombs. When will they learn you do not talk to animals that threaten you. The correct action is to remove the threat but our pinko leaders in congress are too dumb to understand that.

Answer 7

The ******* shittiest piece of ******* planning any cock sucking mother ****** has ever ******* imagined.

Answer 8

Really, is there one?