Should the USA become friends with Iran?

[James the Red]

Crazy idea, but it seems like there can be a lot to gain from it, friends with benefits. There being some journalists reporting that Iranians overall have a positive view of Americans, and Iran is interested in fighting ISIL. And in the long term a relationship with the US could lead to the United States pressuring Iran to be more liberal and more to western tastes... maybe. Don't forget there would be economic benefits for trade with Iran. Its not like it would be hypocritical since we have relations with Saudi Arabia already.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/18/politics/us-iran-iraq/
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...-america/?_r=0

Sure, Israel probably wouldn't like it. But what are they gunna do? Stop taking our billions of dollars?

[Phier]

Only if our ultimate goal was to undermine the government.

The Iranian people are a lot different than the government itself.

[Visna]

By picking sides in the sectarian conflict, that has engulfed much of the Middle East, the US is already indirectly friendly with Iran. Might as well make it official. The US is aiding groups, that are pretty much every bit as ruthless as ISIS, heck they're even responsible for killing hundreds of US soldiers. It's kinda funny in a sad sort of way.

[Phier]

By picking sides in the sectarian conflict, that has engulfed much of the Middle East, the US is already indirectly friendly with Iran. Might as well make it official. The US is aiding groups, that are pretty much every bit as ruthless as ISIS, heck they're even responsible for killing hundreds of US soldiers. It's kinda funny in a sad sort of way.

[citation needed]

And I don't mean that sarcastically, I'd like to read up on it.

[Visna]

[citation needed]

And I don't mean that sarcastically, I'd like to read up on it.

Iran has it's fingers deep in the Iraqi cookiejar, and Iranian backed Shia militias are operating with impunity. Even more so since the spectacular failure of the Iraqi army. Heck, in a recent report Amnesty International directly accuses the Iraqi government of warcrimes, and that Assad isn't particularly clean around the edges should be clear to anyone.

http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-...g-isis-2014-10
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archiv...kes_in_ame.php'

Wanting to fight ISIS is all well and good I suppose, I don't particularly agree that it's a good idea, but I can understand how it can be seen as such. But just know that by doing so the US (and it's allies for that matter) are helping people who aren't exactly model citizens. And other such scumbags like Assad.

[Gaidin]

For Phier's benefit:

[Flavius Julius Nepos Augustus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promised_Day_Brigade
? but they don't fit the description

On July 21, 2010 General Ray Odierno said Iran supports three Shiite groups in Iraq that had attempted to attack US bases:^[9]US officials believe that of these three groups, the Promised Day Brigades poses the greatest threat to Iraq's long-term security. Imagine if they invaded Iran too...

Why has the American voting system brought G.W. Bus in power? Then it had all looked (a bit) different.

And supportig Saudi and mocking Iran is strange isn't it?

[Stavroforos]

I don't think the need to combat ISIS is a strong enough motivation for the US to become friendly with the current Iranian regime, since they are rivals and competitors in other important areas, like influence in Iraq or relations with Israel.

[Admiral Piett]

Both Iran and Syria were responsible for flooding Iraq with Sunni and Shiite militias that butchered the civilians by the tens of thousands whilest they could turn around and blame the Coalition for them.

I would support shifting our interests to supporting Iran away from Saudi Arabia - if we could help the younger generation remove secular power completely from the mullahs.

[The Despondent Mind]

If US can be friends with Saudi Arabia, then....

[Heathen Hammer]

America's best merchant ally would be rather unhappy, and given the grip that Zionist lobby has on American financial elites, it is pretty much impossible.

[IrishBlood]

I am currently doing a masters in international relations and in my 'US foreign policy' class, its pretty clear that the most important thing that the US looks for in an ally is stability. Iran has stability, it is possibly the most stable country in the region, and as side from Turkey, is the only functioning democracy there too (I use the term democracy loosely).

The US and Iran have been at odds for a variety of fairly obvious reasons since 1979, but now their interests have aligned to some degree. The US has always been anti assad and anti hezbollah, both of whom Iran supported, but now the US needs those groups to fight against ISIS. The enemy of my enemy really is my friend, if only for awhile anyway.

Depending on how long the conflict drags on for, and it wont be over any time soon, then the US and Iran will be drawn closer together by sharing common enemies and allies and I think we will see the anti-western/anti-iranian rhetoric die down on both sides with time.

Isreal and the nuclear program are obvious issues of contention, but they are hypothetical threats that wont materialize any time soon and are just not as important as the hear and now issue of ISIS.

[hellheaven1987]

Well, may be US can sell missiles to Iran again.

[mrmouth]

Cooperation is distinctly different from friendship or even understanding. The US can use the UK and others who can more easily forge something that might look like a friendship, to get what we need done.

its pretty clear that the most important thing that the US looks for in an ally is stability. Iran has stability, it is possibly the most stable country in the region, and as side from Turkey, is the only functioning democracy there too (I use the term democracy loosely)

Stability makes money. The US wants wants stability above all else. Of course that doesn't mean you look at powder keg situations as 'hands off' situations. Sometimes lighting that powder keg now means you can better control it on your terms, as opposed to it going off on its own where you have no way of being a factor in any solution. Those are long games. The exact kinds of things we saw over the last decade-plus.

Of course in an immediate gratification global society, that's a problem.

The long game with respect to Iran already started. The West is cozying up to them and by proxy, the US is too. Especially with the worrying undertones coming out of Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Decades in the future Iran could be the stabilizing force in the region, and the Muslim world that the West looks to. But lets not forget that not long ago they were shooting their own people to keep the status quo.

[KeyKhusro]

Crazy idea, but it seems like there can be a lot to gain from it, friends with benefits. There being some journalists reporting that Iranians overall have a positive view of Americans, and Iran is interested in fighting ISIL. And in the long term a relationship with the US could lead to the United States pressuring Iran to be more liberal and more to western tastes... maybe. Don't forget there would be economic benefits for trade with Iran. Its not like it would be hypocritical since we have relations with Saudi Arabia already.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/18/politics/us-iran-iraq/
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/...-america/?_r=0

Sure, Israel probably wouldn't like it. But what are they gunna do? Stop taking our billions of dollars?

probably.
but you are talking about "impossibles"!

also israel lobbies are too much strong in political and economical affairs and better say, somehow is ruling US government and they see no good reason the public knows about this thing.

[Visna]

It's like the good folks at Wall Street Journal read this thread and decided to bring the story. The original story is behind a pay wall, so I can't, well won't, access it, but here is what Reuters says.

White House says Iran policy unchanged; declines comment on letter

The U.S. policy toward Iran has not changed, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said in response to a report that U.S. President Barack Obama had written a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei about the campaign against Islamic State insurgents.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that Obama sent a letter to the Iranian leader last month describing their shared interested regarding Islamic State.

Earnest said he could not comment on private correspondence between Obama and a world leader.

"I'm not in a position to discuss private correspondence between the president and any world leader," he said at a White House briefing. "I can tell you that the policy that the president and his administration have articulated about Iran remains unchanged."

Earnest said the United States had discussed the campaign against Islamic State with Tehran on the sidelines of negotiations concerning Iran's nuclear program but gave no details.

"The United States will not cooperate militarily with Iran in that effort," he said of the fight against Islamic State. "We won't share intelligence with them. But their interests in the outcome is something that's been widely commented on - commented upon and something that on a couple of occasions has been discussed on the sidelines of other conversations."

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, asked in a separate briefing about the reported letter, said he did not trust Iran's leaders and did not think they should be brought into the fight against Islamic State.

[Heathen Hammer]

US went to war against ISIS for the sole purpose of shoving their foot in the Syria's door. I don't think Americans should be trusted, given how they'll use the first opportunity to stab ISIS's actual rivals in the back.

[Roma_Victrix]

US went to war against ISIS for the sole purpose of shoving their foot in the Syria's door. I don't think Americans should be trusted, given how they'll use the first opportunity to stab ISIS's actual rivals in the back.

Stab them in the back? It's pretty clear that the Assad regime and the US are at odds already with the US backing of the FSA. Plus the threat of bombing Syria before Assad agreed to give up his chemical weapons arsenal to the UN. Or perhaps the US will play devil's advocate and come to realize that Assad, despite his brutality against civilians, actually is a stabilizing force. Hail to the dictator! Him and el-Sisi in Sunni Egypt.

[Heathen Hammer]

Stab them in the back? It's pretty clear that the Assad regime and the US are at odds already with the US backing of the FSA. Plus the threat of bombing Syria before Assad agreed to give up his chemical weapons arsenal to the UN. Or perhaps the US will play devil's advocate and come to realize that Assad, despite his brutality against civilians, actually is a stabilizing force. Hail to the dictator! Him and el-Sisi in Sunni Egypt.

US would be against him because he is backed by Iran. US doesn't have problems with dictators thou, given how they are closely allied with regimes that make Assad look like a liberal democrat.

Assad's Syria is as much a stabilizing force as Netanyahu's Israel.

It is as good as it can get, at least given how artificial Middle Eastern borders are.

[hellheaven1987]

Assad's Syria is as much a stabilizing force as Netanyahu's Israel.