NoneOfUrBusiness

They have rejected monitoring. Rejected negotiating. Rejected reasonable terms that led to sanctions at multiple points.

What? Have you never heard of JCPOA?

Silencing dissent is logical but not creating martyrs in a culture that idolises them.

Authoritarianism is a balancing act between not creating martyrs and making dissent dangerous. You can’t do one without the other, so while the Iranian regime might (or might not) be acting suboptimally the concern is still its own survival.

Clamping down on women for wearing what they choose with violence is not logical.

It gets points with their base of support, but also every regime anywhere does irrational things. The question is how much, so even if this was irrational (which again isn’t guaranteed) it doesn’t contradict with the wider point.

In the case of ideology overriding logic, that could lead to use against Israel.

[Citation needed]. Everything we have from the regime, both statements and actions, states otherwise. Iran can clearly deal significant damage to Israel using its missiles and drones, yet it only does so when threatened. Why would nukes be any different?

Their support of multiple factions in multiple neighbouring countries targeting than working constructively is also illogical and inflammatory

Iran is in direct competition with its Arab neighbors and Israel for regional supremacy; conflict between these camps is basically inevitable, especially with the Arab side being pro-America and Israel. Besides, their neighbors won’t trade with them with Western sanctions in place, making this a moot point. Their support for these militias improves their image domestically and regionally (factions like Hamas and the Houthis are very popular in the Middle East), gives them regional power (Iraq and Lebanon being obvious examples, but also Syria when Assad was around), makes local US presence costly and allows them to open up new fronts against Israel basically on demand. Tf you mean illogical, it’s downright genius (and very often evil, but that’s not what we’re talking about). Your position seems to hinge on the assumption that conflict is illogical, but there is such a thing as rational conflict. It’s not like Iran hasn’t tried to improve relations with its neighbors; it just does so on its own terms rather than America’s. TL;DR: Your point is analogous to asking why Ukraine doesn’t pursue better relations with Belarus.

True, but tbf they do have a lot of Ws. They also have a lot of Ls, but that’s not the subject of this conversation.

I hate to defend Iran, but the Iranian regime is in fact very rational. This is easily apparent when you strip away the religious aspect and look at what they actually do. In all direct confrontations with Israel or the US (at least during Khamenei’s rule, I’m not so sure about Khomeini), Iran has responded with measured actions aimed at de-escalation while saving face domestically and internationally and discouraging further aggression. Your image of Iran seems to be built on Western propaganda more than reality (again, I am not saying this to defend the Iranian regime).

Otherwise there would have been an end to sanctions years ago.

Uh… the sanctions are for daring to control their resources contrary to Western capitalist interests. Iran could be the most secular, most democratic country in the world and Western countries would still find a reason to sanction it. Besides, remember JCPOA? It was the US (and by extension the West) that reneged on that deal. Hell, remember the reason the Islamic Republic exists in the first place? Iran, quite rationally, wants to be an independent regional power not subordinate to anybody’s interests (and, again quite rationally, especially not Western interests). This directly contradicts the Western (especially US) demand that all Middle Eastern states be subordinate to their interests and pro-Israel. There can be no reconciliation between these positions (yet Iran tried anyway, see: JCPOA), so securing its position by force is the only realistic prospect, and frankly you can’t argue with results.

And an end to murdering dissidents and protestors.

Here you seem to be conflating rationality with morality. The Iranian regime is evil as fuck, but it’s rationally evil. Murdering challengers to one’s power is very rational from the perspective of a regime primarily concerned with its own survival. See also: the CCP.

The world is safer with less nukes.

The world is safer with no nukes and infinitely unsafe with infinite nukes. It’s appealing to extrapolate from this that less nukes -> more safety, but that’s an unjustified leap of logic. For example take the case of one nuclear state vs two nuclear states. If there’s only one it can force its will on other states, but if there are two they can keep each other in check and drastically reduce the possibility of nukes actually flying.

What. The. Fuck? Libya under Gaddafi didn’t have fucking slave markets you can’t be fucking serious. Also foreign countries dropping bombs isn’t a “revolution” anymore than Soviet-backed regimes in Eastern Europe were revolutionary.

Are you not capable of learning from history? Again, you could’ve said the same thing about Libya. Does Libya in 2026 look like a thriving democracy to you? Then why do you want to do the same thing in Iran?

The solution with the least harm would be for the USA and other NATO allies to help the Iranians overthrow the despots and cut ties with China.

Only if you don’t take into account harm for Iranians in your idea of “harm.” What you’re describing is basically what happened in Libya.

Tbf the US never had that much power, soft or otherwise, over China. The US is (very fortunately) hemorrhaging soft power, but even if they weren’t China would be jumping at this opportunity.

It’s not quite that simple. This is closer to a more reasonable version of the Houthi blockade; there are more criteria than just which country’s flag is flying.

The US is the one who bankrolled, enabled and protected a literal genocide, which is worse than everything you just said.

America, but Vietnam (and Laos, and Cambodia) is still feeling the destructive impacts to this day.

Stop, don’t vs don’t stop moment.

This is one of the reasons why Donald’s idea of ​​turning around, saying he won, and walking away couldn’t work.

I mean it would—if he actually stopped bombing them and helping Israel bomb them. Unilateral de-escalation only works if you actually de-escalate.

Imagine telling someone even like a year or two ago that in this war Iran would be the “good guys”.

They always have been in conflicts with America/Israel. As it turns out, what America and Israel want for Iran is somehow even worse than the Islamic Republic.

I mean, there’s a good chance that whoever downed the plane did say Allahu Akbar in celebration.

I don’t believe in arrests for speech, but justifying shooting up an airport is not my idea of anti-imperialism. Unless the case is being misrepresented, in which case fuck whoever made this arrest.

Absolutely not. Zionists have a lot of money, but most of those Zionists are not in fact Jews. Western imperialists see their interests aligning with Israel, so they support it with money and influence; it’s really that simple. Thinking Israel controls the West is like thinking the hammer controls the carpenter because he doesn’t want it stolen.

Hell no they didn’t. Hitler and crew didn’t need any help massacring everything that moved, and they were backed by German moneyed interests (you know, the people that stood to gain from his rule), not a worldwide Jewish conspiracy. In the first place, WWII didn’t contribute nearly as much as you’d expect to the creation of Israel; if anything it made the British acquiesce to Palestinian demands to secure their support. WWII was the culmination of European great power politics; besides, interwar Poland was one of Zionists’ most important patrons, and its loss almost destroyed the whole project.

Muslims don’t need places to do so (Friday prayer aside), but they have to pray somewhere and they’re also forbidding praying in the street.

Freedom of religion moment.