Thank you Roger for another insightful and clear exposition. However, there are other factors which need to be taken into account.
It is true that present day Iran, like many other countries, has a very poor human rights record. We do not have to defend Iran, yet we can acknowledge that IAEA inspectors found no evidence that Iran was flaunting UN rules. There are observers who maintain that the late Ayatullah held a total aversion to nuclear power except for electricity generation.
This may or may not be true, but what is appallingly true is that the current US administration itself has a total aversion to integrity and honest dealing. It is not too extreme to claim that the US human rights record over the last twelve months, the treatment of refugees and migrants, its own citizens, as we saw in Minnesota, verges like Iran's, on the subhuman. We do not need to comment on the US' treatment of erstwhile allies, Canada, UK, Europe, egregious in its transparency.
How can this be ignored?
Secondly, how can Israel's duplicity be ignored? Israel developed its nuclear capability in secret, jailing its whistle blower Mordecai Vanunu, flatly refusing to recognize every UN declaration attempting to hold it to account. Again we do not have to condemn Israel.
But we do need to face facts. From the 1953 overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government by the UK and USA, to the support of the reportedly tyrannical regime of the Shah, history shows that Western nations have determined to outlaw Iran when they could have sought to assist and encourage a fledgling democracy. It would not have been easy. But had it been attempted, today's desperation and potential nuclear nightmare may have been avoided.
Thanks, Peter. The history of Western interference in Iran – from 1953 onwards – is real and relevant, and I do not ignore it. On the IAEA, though, I would be cautious: by the time of the 2025 strikes, Iran had been enriching uranium enriching uranium well beyond any civilian purpose and had significantly restricted inspector access. As I'm sure you'll agree, the picture was far from benign. Your broader point – that the West helped create the conditions for today's desperation – is surely right. But it doesn't tell us what the right response was.
I’m with Peter on this. Your error here Roger, with respect, is to think you can trust this regime. To paraphrase Golda Meir, it’s hard to negotiate with crazy fuckers whose primary goal is to establish a global caliphate and wipe out anyone in their way. President Trump deserves support from western allies, not cowardly snipes.
We may be closer than you think. I am not defending Iran, and I share your scepticism about negotiating with a regime whose goals are what they are. My argument is a narrower one: that regime change without a plan for what follows tends to produce outcomes worse than the problem it was meant to solve. Iraq in 2003 is the cautionary tale. The question is not whether Iran can be trusted – it cannot – but whether what comes next will be better, and whether the costs now compounding against the operation are ones America can sustain.
Agreed, thanks for the reply. What comes next is indeed the question. Regime change is a must imho & the international community/UN and co should be involved (so it is not just a US thing). The majority of the Iranian population are behind this action I think.
'Iran had agreed in principle never to stockpile enriched uranium'
Say one thing and do another. So after saying that, they steadily increased enrichment while protesting it is 'for peaceful purposes'.
Just like German rearmament pre WW2.
Not meaning any disrespect but if you can look at what they were actually doing and then claim to believe what they were saying you must have a very large hole in your head. I would love to be able to believe them and you but there is a huge disconnect.
You think you can trust Trump about anything? Seriously.
I'm not excusing the psychopathic theocratic mullahs, but Trump is about nothing except how he can personally benefit from any decision he makes. And while it's too early to tell if he'll gain anything (unless that was him who did that suspicious trade this week), it would seem that he's managed to screw things up so that the US and the rest of the world will be paying for his utter stupidity here. And for a long time.
There is another option that President Trump had before him, that is to conclude that Iran was stringing along the negotiations and had no intention of following the potential agreement that Oman had mediated. If you take the view that for Iran this is a holy war then that is not an unreasonable conclusion.
Thanks, Vic. Your point is well made, and I do not dismiss it. If, despite Trump's armada in the Persian Gulf, Iran was never negotiating in good faith through Oman, that weakens one of the alternatives to Trump's method. But it does not resolve the deeper question: the objective was regime change, not the elimination of nuclear facilities. That is an open-ended commitment with no clear endpoint and no visible plan for what follows. The case against is not that action was wrong – it is that this action, with this objective, was unlikely to serve American interests in the long run.
I don’t think the ultimate objective is regime change per se, rather it’s to remove Iran’s ability to continue to wage war on other countries including USA. It turns out that in order to achieve this objective not only is there a need to eliminate their missiles and nuclear materials but also to remove the current regime so they can’t re-arm.
Thank you Roger for another insightful and clear exposition. However, there are other factors which need to be taken into account.
It is true that present day Iran, like many other countries, has a very poor human rights record. We do not have to defend Iran, yet we can acknowledge that IAEA inspectors found no evidence that Iran was flaunting UN rules. There are observers who maintain that the late Ayatullah held a total aversion to nuclear power except for electricity generation.
This may or may not be true, but what is appallingly true is that the current US administration itself has a total aversion to integrity and honest dealing. It is not too extreme to claim that the US human rights record over the last twelve months, the treatment of refugees and migrants, its own citizens, as we saw in Minnesota, verges like Iran's, on the subhuman. We do not need to comment on the US' treatment of erstwhile allies, Canada, UK, Europe, egregious in its transparency.
How can this be ignored?
Secondly, how can Israel's duplicity be ignored? Israel developed its nuclear capability in secret, jailing its whistle blower Mordecai Vanunu, flatly refusing to recognize every UN declaration attempting to hold it to account. Again we do not have to condemn Israel.
But we do need to face facts. From the 1953 overthrow of a democratically elected Iranian government by the UK and USA, to the support of the reportedly tyrannical regime of the Shah, history shows that Western nations have determined to outlaw Iran when they could have sought to assist and encourage a fledgling democracy. It would not have been easy. But had it been attempted, today's desperation and potential nuclear nightmare may have been avoided.
Thanks, Peter. The history of Western interference in Iran – from 1953 onwards – is real and relevant, and I do not ignore it. On the IAEA, though, I would be cautious: by the time of the 2025 strikes, Iran had been enriching uranium enriching uranium well beyond any civilian purpose and had significantly restricted inspector access. As I'm sure you'll agree, the picture was far from benign. Your broader point – that the West helped create the conditions for today's desperation – is surely right. But it doesn't tell us what the right response was.
I’m with Peter on this. Your error here Roger, with respect, is to think you can trust this regime. To paraphrase Golda Meir, it’s hard to negotiate with crazy fuckers whose primary goal is to establish a global caliphate and wipe out anyone in their way. President Trump deserves support from western allies, not cowardly snipes.
We may be closer than you think. I am not defending Iran, and I share your scepticism about negotiating with a regime whose goals are what they are. My argument is a narrower one: that regime change without a plan for what follows tends to produce outcomes worse than the problem it was meant to solve. Iraq in 2003 is the cautionary tale. The question is not whether Iran can be trusted – it cannot – but whether what comes next will be better, and whether the costs now compounding against the operation are ones America can sustain.
Agreed, thanks for the reply. What comes next is indeed the question. Regime change is a must imho & the international community/UN and co should be involved (so it is not just a US thing). The majority of the Iranian population are behind this action I think.
Sadly, it would appear we can trust the Iranian regime more than we can trust Trump.
Seriously?
Hey Boris - how’s that Trump support thing going for you?
With you all the way on this Boris.
'Iran had agreed in principle never to stockpile enriched uranium'
Say one thing and do another. So after saying that, they steadily increased enrichment while protesting it is 'for peaceful purposes'.
Just like German rearmament pre WW2.
Not meaning any disrespect but if you can look at what they were actually doing and then claim to believe what they were saying you must have a very large hole in your head. I would love to be able to believe them and you but there is a huge disconnect.
You think you can trust Trump about anything? Seriously.
I'm not excusing the psychopathic theocratic mullahs, but Trump is about nothing except how he can personally benefit from any decision he makes. And while it's too early to tell if he'll gain anything (unless that was him who did that suspicious trade this week), it would seem that he's managed to screw things up so that the US and the rest of the world will be paying for his utter stupidity here. And for a long time.
There is another option that President Trump had before him, that is to conclude that Iran was stringing along the negotiations and had no intention of following the potential agreement that Oman had mediated. If you take the view that for Iran this is a holy war then that is not an unreasonable conclusion.
Thanks, Vic. Your point is well made, and I do not dismiss it. If, despite Trump's armada in the Persian Gulf, Iran was never negotiating in good faith through Oman, that weakens one of the alternatives to Trump's method. But it does not resolve the deeper question: the objective was regime change, not the elimination of nuclear facilities. That is an open-ended commitment with no clear endpoint and no visible plan for what follows. The case against is not that action was wrong – it is that this action, with this objective, was unlikely to serve American interests in the long run.
I don’t think the ultimate objective is regime change per se, rather it’s to remove Iran’s ability to continue to wage war on other countries including USA. It turns out that in order to achieve this objective not only is there a need to eliminate their missiles and nuclear materials but also to remove the current regime so they can’t re-arm.