Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonh | Hacker News Reader

It depends what you mean by surrender of Iran. Iran is the one with an explicitly stated foreign policy goal of annihilating another state. They are also persistently taking active steps intended to achieve it. That inevitably creates conflict, and in armed conflicts nobody ends up looking good.

View on HN

What they mean by negotiation is sever limit on Iran missile program. They ask Iran to limit its missile range very considerably. At first you may say missile is not defensive but offensive.

But the fact is that Iran has no air force or any other serious military hardware to defend itself. Because simply they wouldn't sell them to Iran. Most Persian gulf countries have military budget per capita orders of magnitude larger than Iran. In addition they have the might of US military behind them. Missiles are the only reason that Iran is not like Iraq or Libya right now. Iran has been on the hit list of Neocons since long time (you can refer to General Wesley Clark)

Iran experienced a very bloody war with Iraq during 80s where everybody was supporting Saddam Hussein from Soviets to the US and persian gulf monarchies. I know personally people that where harmed by Saddam chemical weapons but international community remained silent for too long. I remember seeing Saddam's missile on the Tehran skies but we had no means of stopping them or retaliating because again nobody cared.

About annihilating another state: How can Iran annihilate a state which has 200 nuclear warheads? It might be other way around.

Iran has troops in at least three countries thousands of km of its border, its on the offence. Besides, it's not like these missiles could do more than tickle the American army. Their only use is to menace the other countries of the region, except no country in the region is even capable of invading Iran. In short, their purpose is offensive.

Now, 'Moderate' President Rafsanjani argued that "the use of a nuclear bomb in Israel will leave nothing on the ground, whereas it will only damage the world of Islam". It's best we do not allow such an apocalyptic scenario - such a war could hardly be contained to the Middle East.

I feel this is becoming a geopolitical conversation. I can go on and on, so do you. I don't want to hijack the main discussion of the thread any longer which was the human aspect of the sanctions to a geo-strategical game.

Thanks for a civilized conversation anyways.

If Iran stopped funding active offensive organisations like Hezbollah there would be no reason to restrict their weapons purchases or impose sanctions. The sanctions aren't the root cause, they are responses to specific stated goals and actions of Iran. Goals of destroying specific foreign states, which it insists on pursuing through violent means. No nation has a specific stated goal of destroying Iran, nor are they acting in order to achieve it.

>About annihilating another state: How can Iran annihilate a state which has 200 nuclear warheads? It might be other way around.

If the US or Israel really wanted to destroy Iran they could. The US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, in both cases in response to hideously brutal attacks on themselves or their allies. They could do it to Iran, so why haven't they? Because they don't want to, they have nothing to gain from it. They didn't want to invade Iraq or Afghanistan either, and have been trying to get their troop out as fast as possible ever since. The only reason they attacked Saddam or Afghanistan was because of the invasion of Kuwait and the 9/11 attacks. If Iran would just leave them and their allies alone, they'd be fine just buying their oil and selling them Coca-Cola.

What did Saddam or Afghanistan have to do with 9/11? Saudi Arabia and (I think) Pakistan were connected to 9/11, both countries that are US allies.

Understanding why the US entered Iraq is not hard: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOsWcEoKfp4

General Wesley Clark ran for POTUS on the Democratic ticket and was opposed to the war in Iraq. He also opposed those calling for war with Iran in 2007. His politics don't square with the neo-conservatives at all. Did you mean to refer to him as an opposition movement leader?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com