Iraqi protesters storm U.S. embassy in Baghdad

[Lord Thesaurian]

It is quite disputable. What we have in reality is a Shia dominated Iran that is trying to keep a level of influence in the region through Shia communities, which is mainly revolving around Iraq. That has been true for centuries that goes as far back the Sunni-Shia division. By isolating Iran further down the rabbit hole simply made it more desperate to keep its influence. That's a conflict that USA can't win without a substantial set back. The same USA, and the British of course, helped topple a democratically elected government in Iran in the 50s. The fact is "Western" governments have always been playing games with regimes in the region. The result of those games have been extremely bloody in a number of chapters. Today's Iran is a result of one of those games turning deadly. Yet, nothing they have done so far comes close to those games.

Repetition of political narratives to air personal grievances against western powers is not an argument against the fact the Iranian regime is founded on global Islamic revolution, independently of the actions or history of any other nation.

The demonization of Iran, even in its current form, by throwing an ISIL-like global Islamism scheme at them, continues to be, well, demonization of Iran. Little knowledge on Iran would prompt anyone from avoiding such an allegation. There isn't much to say about it. Saying that is no deflection. In fact, the response you choose is the deflection. You wanna claim moral superiority for USA from a "we do no bad" perspective and you don't want that to be challenged. This approach is engraved in certain societies though. Operation Ajax is largely either ignored or denied in USA. Sadly, the reality on the ground, USA's involvement in various regimes in the Middle East, have been a net destructive input.

The sourced historical and current facts provided may be inconvenient for someone who doesn’t even accept the label “Islamist” for an Islamic theocracy founded on the export of global Islamic revolution. That doesn’t render acknowledgment of said facts to be an appeal to moral authority. So long as Tehran continues her shadow wars against the US and our allies, and terror campaign around the world, the US will remain bound to common defense by sheer necessity, whether that takes the form of diplomatic pressure, military defense, economic sanctions, or all of the above.

[Aexodus]

Blimey if an Islamic theocracy isn’t Islamist then what is, @POVG?

[Cope]

I don't think that Iran, a country where transparent presidential and legislative elections are regularly held, qualifies as an authoritarian regime (defensive or limited democracy would be a more accurate description), nor do I believe that inventing a foreign enemy is a tactic exclusively reserved for despots. For instance, even today many well-educated American and European citizens are genuinely obsessed with the alleged threat infinitely weaker countries like Iran or Russia pose to their freedom or interests. Moreover, your interpretation is not supported by facts. Iranian-American relations normalised after the common campaign against ISIL began and deteriorated before the eventual disintegration of the Caliphate. The rapprochement is clearly linked to the nuclear deal, which was abandoned by the obviously unreliable Donald administration. The popular unrest in Iran is the direct consequence of the worsening state of the economy, which was itself caused by the negative impact of the recently imposed sanctions.

The government, actually headed by the reformists, is blamed, rightly or wrongly, for economic stagnation and corruption, not for its ideological principles or foreign policy. Actually, as a result of the unprovoked American aggression against the Iranian Republic, according to a statistical analysis of the effects of the "Maximum Pressure" doctrine upon ordinary Iranians, anti-Americanism is on record-high levels, while compromise was rejected by the majority. Several figures strongly tied with the clerical establishment, like former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, were positively viewed, while general Qasem Soleimani was the most popular public figure, even before his illegal assassination in Iraq. Meanwhile, 60% approve of the Iranian military presence in Syria, following the official invitation of Damascus and the actions of the Revolutionary Guards are deemed by an outstanding majority (80%) as vital for protecting the fragile security of Iran. I'd argue that their conclusions are justified, given the uninterrupted hostility of Washington against the interests of the Iranian people, as well as its long history of murdering Iranian citizens, many of whom being civilians, without any serious repercussions.

The self-appointing troika of the Supreme Leader, Guardian Council and Assembly of Experts aren't absolved of their authoritarianism by the existence of a subservient parliament and presidency. As everyone well knows, the Iranian regime is responsible for an extensive list of human rights abuses both domestically and internationally which, despite your poorly supported denials, include (but are certainly not limited to) the aiding and abetting of terrorist organizations, the incarceration of dissidents and the mass killing of protesters.

Turning a blind eye to these abuses (and many others) whilst complaining about the US's alleged "illegal" killing of Soleimani - a combatant who spent his career destabilizing the Middle East - is disingenuous to say the least. If the regime wants the US to leave it alone, it has to stop blackmailing the international community over its nuclear program, stop engaging in proxy wars in the region and stop abusing its own citizens. As Trump says, the ball is in Tehran's court.

You tell me. Shortly after the "Islamic Revolution" Israel was supplying arms to Iran as well as providing Israeli advisers on the ground near Tehran, which was essential for Iran to keep its air force against Iraq flying. One doesn't need scripture to oppose Israel as a state. Israeli leaders repeatedly expressed that distinction. If Iran was really genocidal towards Jews we wouldn't see any Jews in Iran. It's a cliche statement but its also a fact.

A nice attempt to shift the goal posts. I didn't say that Iran was "genocidal towards Jews" (even though almost its entire Jewish population has fled abroad and it has a history of obscene anti-Semitism.) I said that Tehran had "supported Islamist groups for decades" (a point confirmed by every major western country).

Your excuse that "one doesn't need scripture to oppose Israel as a state" is utterly facile: of course one could use some sort of secular reasoning to demand the uncompromising destruction of Israel, but that isn't proof that the Islamist groups I mentioned (such as Hamas) don't justify their opposition toward Israel primarily on the basis of religion. There's a reason why higher degrees of religiosity are associated with support for Hezbollah, approval for destructive levels of force against Israel and a lack of empathy for Holocaust victims.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Source.

In any case, I'm sure there's an innocent, non religious, non-genocidal explanation for Nasrallah claiming that "if they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide"; or Hossein Salami stating that "we will chase you [Israelis] house to house and will take revenge for every drop of blood our martyrs in Palestine, and this is the beginning point of Islamic nations awakening for your defeat"; or Panahian insisting that "The day will come when the Islamic people in the region will destroy Israel and save the world from this Zionist base".

[PointOfViewGun]

Repetition of political narratives to air personal grievances against western powers is not an argument against the fact the Iranian regime is founded on global Islamic revolution, independently of the actions or history of any other nation.

The sourced historical and current facts provided may be inconvenient for someone who doesn’t even accept the label “Islamist” for an Islamic theocracy founded on the export of global Islamic revolution. That doesn’t render acknowledgment of said facts to be an appeal to moral authority. So long as Tehran continues her shadow wars against the US and our allies, and terror campaign around the world, the US will remain bound to common defense by sheer necessity, whether that takes the form of diplomatic pressure, military defense, economic sanctions, or all of the above.

To call pointing out simple facts as airing personal grievances doesn't really construct a well argument. Iranian Revolution was no part of any global revolution in the sense you're pointing at. Abdulmecid I built on that nicely earlier on. It's an oxymoronic situation to tie a global Islamist revolution to a Shia group anyways. I know, I know, there are many "facts" that seem convenient to carry on for your narrative but reality is not based on what sounds convenient and whats not. One thing I need to point out, however, is that we're not talking about whether Iran is an Islamist regime or not but whether they're an exporter of Islamism, two very different things.

Blimey if an Islamic theocracy isn’t Islamist then what is, @POVG?

More like blimey if you care about what people are implied to be saying rather than what they're actually saying.

[Lord Thesaurian]

The choice of the "spread the revolution" calls by Khomeini as the igniting spark is subjective and ultimately arbitrary. In any case, the Ayatollah was referring to the need of overthrowing military or royal tyrannies and of installing popular institutions, designed to represent the will of the people.

I doubt the Ayatollah would appreciate such a muted characterization of his piety and zeal for holy war so that all nations might cry out to Allah.

Diplomatically, it was not a very wise strategy, but, from a moral perspective, I fail to see why his speeches are so harshly criticised. Anyway, Iran has even verbally abandoned her promise to spread the revolution and has been harmoniously with secular states for several decades (including Syria, during the war with Saddam's Iraq). The report of the International Amnesty is as relevant to our debate about the present situation as the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état.

The report and details of ongoing repression of social and political undesirables by the Iranian theocracy is certainly relevant to characterizations of the regime as democratic or uniquely “legitimate” compared to the Shah or any other government.

To call pointing out simple facts as airing personal grievances doesn't really construct a well argument. Iranian Revolution was no part of any global revolution in the sense you're pointing at. Abdulmecid I built on that nicely earlier on. It's an oxymoronic situation to tie a global Islamist revolution to a Shia group anyways. I know, I know, there are many "facts" that seem convenient to carry on for your narrative but reality is not based on what sounds convenient and whats not. One thing I need to point out, however, is that we're not talking about whether Iran is an Islamist regime or not but whether they're an exporter of Islamism, two very different things.

Your argument is that Tehran is not an Islamist regime nor an exporter of such ideology because nothing she’s done is as morally bad as anything western powers have done, according to you. The idea Shiite ideology cannot be revolutionary or Islamist may suit your personal religious preferences, but as an outside observer, I don’t care. The facts are what they are, as cited and referencing direct quotes from primary sources.

[sumskilz]

Ep1c_fail’s post quoted for context:

If you don't think that groups like Hamas and Hezbollah - which demand the thorough destruction of Israel, believe its very existence is an insult to Islam and reject any compromise to the contrary (a view shared by Iran) - don't count as "Islamist" then there really isn't anything left to discuss.

The Israeli side isn't any better in that regard.
The main problem is US committing to unconditionally support Israel at the expense of its own population.

Israel has used proxies to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program and keep Iranian proxies at a distance from its borders, but it isn’t really Israel that is driving conflict between the two states. Even after the 1979 revolution, Israel tried to maintain its alliance with Iran by supporting Iran in the Iran–Iraq War. The last thing Israel wanted was another enemy in the region. Ultimately though, Israel’s foreign policy is constrained by the need to maintain a good relationship with the US, and Iran saw greater benefit in providing support to Israel’s nearby enemies than to maintaining a relationship with a county allied to the Great Satan.

There is very little benefit for Israel to be had in its conflict with Iran compared to a great deal of risk, with the exception that Israel has become closer to some of its other neighbors due to having a common enemy. This latter fact arose long after Iran had initiated conflict with Israel, and was largely mediated by the US. Hezbollah is the enemy with the best chances of overwhelming Israel’s missile defense system precisely because of Iran’s assistance. There is likewise little for Israel to gain in maintaining its conflict with Hezbollah. The Israelis feel trapped in a conflict with Iran and its proxies because they feel they can’t risk preventing a buildup of forces intent on their destruction. Even with current disparity in military strength, Israelis (rightly to some degree) see themselves as vulnerable. They have learned not to assume that threats amount to nothing more than rhetoric, so they maintain an aggressive stance in degrading their enemies’ capabilities.

While the pro-Israeli lobby does have a fair amount of influence, it's a myth that US has aligned its foreign policy to Israel's interests. In fact, Israel has largely adapted its foreign policy to maintaining good relations with the US, by building relationships with US regional allies. When there is friction between the US and Israel, it's largely due to Israel seeing a particular threat as of greater importance than the US does, because to Israel it is. Although this is not always the case, for example, the Israeli defense establishment was (behind closed doors) opposed to the US invasion of Iraq.

[Vanoi]

Arguing whenever Iran spreads Islamism is useless. If they do its rather subtle. Easier to argue they are a destabilizing influence in the Middle East.

[Cope]

Ep1c_fail’s post quoted for context:

Israel has used proxies to sabotage Iran’s nuclear program and keep Iranian proxies at a distance from its borders, but it isn’t really Israel that is driving conflict between the two states. Even after the 1979 revolution, Israel tried to maintain its alliance with Iran by supporting Iran in the Iran–Iraq War. The last thing Israel wanted was another enemy in the region. Ultimately though, Israel’s foreign policy is constrained by the need to maintain a good relationship with the US, and Iran saw greater benefit in providing support to Israel’s nearby enemies than to maintaining a relationship with a county allied to the Great Satan.

There is very little benefit for Israel to be had in its conflict with Iran compared to a great deal of risk, with the exception that Israel has become closer to some of its other neighbors due to having a common enemy. This latter fact arose long after Iran had initiated conflict with Israel, and was largely mediated by the US. Hezbollah is the enemy with the best chances of overwhelming Israel’s missile defense system precisely because of Iran’s assistance. There is likewise little for Israel to gain in maintaining its conflict with Hezbollah. The Israelis feel trapped in a conflict with Iran and its proxies because they feel they can’t risk preventing a buildup of forces intent on their destruction. Even with current disparity in military strength, Israelis (rightly to some degree) see themselves as vulnerable. They have learned not to assume that threats amount to nothing more than rhetoric, so they maintain an aggressive stance in degrading their enemies’ capabilities.

While the pro-Israeli lobby does have a fair amount of influence, it's a myth that US has aligned its foreign policy to Israel's interests. In fact, Israel has largely adapted its foreign policy to maintaining good relations with the US, by building relationships with US regional allies. When there is friction between the US and Israel, it's largely due to Israel seeing a particular threat as of greater importance than the US does, because to Israel it is. Although this is not always the case, for example, the Israeli defense establishment was (behind closed doors) opposed to the US invasion of Iraq.

This being one of the key reasons why conservative Israelis find it so difficult to support, in practice, an independent state of Palestine. The fear is they'll simply be facilitating and legitimizing yet another state which insists upon Israel's annihilation.

[Sar1n]

The choice of the "spread the revolution" calls by Khomeini as the igniting spark is subjective and ultimately arbitrary. In any case, the Ayatollah was referring to the need of overthrowing military or royal tyrannies and of installing popular institutions, designed to represent the will of the people. Diplomatically, it was not a very wise strategy, but, from a moral perspective, I fail to see why his speeches are so harshly criticised. Anyway, Iran has even verbally abandoned her promise to spread the revolution and has been harmoniously with secular states for several decades (including Syria, during the war with Saddam's Iraq). The report of the International Amnesty is as relevant to our debate about the present situation as the 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état.

I don't think that Iran, a country where transparent presidential and legislative elections are regularly held, qualifies as an authoritarian regime (defensive or limited democracy would be a more accurate description), nor do I believe that inventing a foreign enemy is a tactic exclusively reserved for despots. For instance, even today many well-educated American and European citizens are genuinely obsessed with the alleged threat infinitely weaker countries like Iran or Russia pose to their freedom or interests. Moreover, your interpretation is not supported by facts. Iranian-American relations normalised after the common campaign against ISIL began and deteriorated before the eventual disintegration of the Caliphate. The rapprochement is clearly linked to the nuclear deal, which was abandoned by the obviously unreliable Donald administration. The popular unrest in Iran is the direct consequence of the worsening state of the economy, which was itself caused by the negative impact of the recently imposed sanctions.

The government, actually headed by the reformists, is blamed, rightly or wrongly, for economic stagnation and corruption, not for its ideological principles or foreign policy. Actually, as a result of the unprovoked American aggression against the Iranian Republic, according to a statistical analysis of the effects of the "Maximum Pressure" doctrine upon ordinary Iranians, anti-Americanism is on record-high levels, while compromise was rejected by the majority. Several figures strongly tied with the clerical establishment, like former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, were positively viewed, while general Qasem Soleimani was the most popular public figure, even before his illegal assassination in Iraq. Meanwhile, 60% approve of the Iranian military presence in Syria, following the official invitation of Damascus and the actions of the Revolutionary Guards are deemed by an outstanding majority (80%) as vital for protecting the fragile security of Iran. I'd argue that their conclusions are justified, given the uninterrupted hostility of Washington against the interests of the Iranian people, as well as its long history of murdering Iranian citizens, many of whom being civilians, without any serious repercussions.

I recommend reading a bit about Iranian political system before commenting more about "democracy" in Iran. All candidates to elected positions must be vetted by Guardian council, half of which are Islamic law experts directly appointed by Supreme leader and the other half being approved by him, and every elected official must be also approved by Supreme leader.

The position of Supreme Leader is legally considered inviolable, and even just questioning him can lead to arrest. It has vast powers, and in practice it can exert control (and Khamenei frequently does) over any branch of government. Because of that, the succession in the position, while nominally elected for infinite length, is in fact determined by the current Supreme leader. And constitution of Iran demands that the position is filled by an Islamic cleric.

As some cases proved, for any politician, going against wishes of Supreme leader is at least a political, if not literal, suicide.

So in the end, it's a despotic theocracy ruled by an oligarchy of Shia clerics. All the "democratic" institutions serve only to lessen the load on Supreme leader in day-to-day operations, but it's the Supreme leader who dictates the course. There is no effective check on his power, as the one body that nominally has that power is half appointed, half approved by him.

[PointOfViewGun]

A nice attempt to shift the goal posts. I didn't say that Iran was "genocidal towards Jews" (even though almost its entire Jewish population has fled abroad and it has a history of obscene anti-Semitism.) I said that Tehran had "supported Islamist groups for decades" (a point confirmed by every major western country).
Your excuse that "one doesn't need scripture to oppose Israel as a state" is utterly facile: of course one could use some sort of secular reasoning to demand the uncompromising destruction of Israel, but that isn't proof that the Islamist groups I mentioned (such as Hamas) don't justify their opposition toward Israel primarily on the basis of religion. There's a reason why higher degrees of religiosity are associated with support for Hezbollah, approval for destructive levels of force against Israel and a lack of empathy for Holocaust victims.
Source.
In any case, I'm sure there's an innocent, non religious, non-genocidal explanation for Nasrallah claiming that "if they [the Jews] all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide"; or Hossein Salami stating that "we will chase you [Israelis] house to house and will take revenge for every drop of blood our martyrs in Palestine, and this is the beginning point of Islamic nations awakening for your defeat"; or Panahian insisting that "The day will come when the Islamic people in the region will destroy Israel and save the world from this Zionist base".

Your entire premise was built on Iran's desire to utterly destroy Israel. It was not a big leap. Especially since you're talking about Iranian leader of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps talking about killing Jews from house to house. So, yeah, no goal post shifting over here.

Your argument is that Tehran is not an Islamist regime nor an exporter of such ideology because nothing she’s done is as morally bad as anything western powers have done, according to you. The idea Shiite ideology cannot be revolutionary or Islamist may suit your personal religious preferences, but as an outside observer, I don’t care. The facts are what they are, as cited and referencing direct quotes from primary sources.

I haven't argued so far that Iran is not an Islamist regime. Though, if we define Islamism as a dystopian ideology that calls for a global Islamic revolution for Muslims to dominate all nations of the world, yeah, they're not. What I argued that Iran is not an exporter of Islamism. I also haven't argued that Iran have done no morally bad acts. Even my initial statement came from a place indicating that you can accuse Iran of many things but exporting Islamism is not one of them. Distorting my words in such a fundamental manner is not OK.

You can quote people, take them out of context, or outright distort what they say all you want, but to portray Iran as the bastion of a sub-group of Muslims representing only 10% of all Muslims that have been in bloody conflict for centuries with the remaining 90% of having the desire take over the world through Islamic domination is just laughable at lest.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I haven't argued so far that Iran is not an Islamist regime. Though, if we define Islamism as a dystopian ideology that calls for a global Islamic revolution for Muslims to dominate all nations of the world, yeah, they're not. What I argued that Iran is not an exporter of Islamism. I also haven't argued that Iran have done no morally bad acts. Even my initial statement came from a place indicating that you can accuse Iran of many things but exporting Islamism is not one of them. Distorting my words in such a fundamental manner is not OK.

You can quote people, take them out of context, or outright distort what they say all you want, but to portray Iran as the bastion of a sub-group of Muslims representing only 10% of all Muslims that have been in bloody conflict for centuries with the remaining 90% of having the desire take over the world through Islamic domination is just laughable at lest.

You accuse others of misrepresentation while misrepresenting what I’ve said as a segue to some kind of “not all Muslims” tangent. If you want to debate the facts, feel free.

[Cope]

Your entire premise was built on Iran's desire to utterly destroy Israel. It was not a big leap. Especially since you're talking about Iranian leader of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps talking about killing Jews from house to house. So, yeah, no goal post shifting over here.

The fact (as shown) that there is evidence to suggest that Iran and its proxies would, if given the opportunity, commit crimes against humanity in Israel doesn't mean that you didn't try to shift the goal posts from the broader point about Iran's support for Islamism to its alleged support for genocide. At least you appear to have given up the idea that Hezbollah, Hamas etc. are primarily motivated in their desire to see Israel destroyed by something other than religious zealotry. I'd say that was progress.

[PointOfViewGun]

I understand you guys want to present Iran as the spawn of evil standing against the angel of heaven USA is but if you actually attempted to accurately represent Iran and its actions or motives you'd get more support. That's all this latest discussion is revolving around.

The fact (as shown) that there is evidence to suggest that Iran and its proxies would, if given the opportunity, commit crimes against humanity in Israel doesn't mean that you didn't try to shift the goal posts from the broader point about Iran's support for Islamism to its alleged support for genocide. At least you appear to have given up the idea that Hezbollah, Hamas etc. are primarily motivated in their desire to see Israel destroyed by something other than religious zealotry. I'd say that was progress.

That's one way to deflect from your position that if you oppose Israel you're automatically an Islamist. Hiding behind points made in dissection of that debacle doesn't really change how bizarre your position is. Of course, you top that by telling me that I have given up on an argument I never made. Good job.

[Cope]

I understand you guys want to present Iran as the spawn of evil standing against the angel of heaven USA is but if you actually attempted to accurately represent Iran and its actions or motives you'd get more support. That's all this latest discussion is revolving around.

No, you don't understand what I "want". I've been repeatedly critical of US foreign policy and have favoured Gabbard in the Dems' leadership race. The mistakes that the US has made in the Middle East don't entitle you to spread disinformation about the regime in Tehran.

That's one way to deflect from your position that if you oppose Israel you're automatically an Islamist. Hiding behind points made in dissection of that debacle doesn't really change how bizarre your position is. Of course, you top that by telling me that I have given up on an argument I never made. Good job.

Nice straw man. No one has claimed that all opponents of Israel are Islamists. It has been explained to you that the groups under discussion want to see Israel's destruction primarily for religious reasons and that this is why they are classified as Islamist.

[Lord Thesaurian]

“Today, the American soldier is in danger, tomorrow the European soldier could be in danger,” Rouhani said in a televised address to his cabinet.
He did not elaborate, though European soldiers are deployed alongside US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. France maintains a naval base in Abu Dhabi and Britain has a base in Bahrain.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...triggered-iran

When your back’s against the wall, issue thinly veiled threats to the few people left in your corner.....? It’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for them.

[Ἀπολλόδοτος Α΄ ὁ Σωτήρ]

As for the KSA, like I said, Wahhabism was used for internal control by the House of Saud, until it became something else in the wake of Tehran’s Revolution. One can theorize about how the Muslim Brotherhood, Arab nationalism, or internal extremism might otherwise have pushed the formerly isolationist doctrine focused primarily on obedience to the King to become the externalized political force that Wahhabism is today.

For a detailed chronology of Saudi, and that of other states, patronage of Wahhabism and Salafism outside their borders I would like to recommend a book by David Commins, The Wahhabi Mission and Saudi Arabia.

In short, the Saudis have taken an interest in combating secular nationalism in the Arab world since the early 60s. This was at first done more passively, in a manner of providing refuge for various Islamist organizations, including, perhaps most interestingly, their current enemies, the Muslim Brotherhood. During the 70s, spurred by the increasing oil profits, the Saudis started to sponsor Wahhabism and adjacent ideologies, in fact largely Salafism, outside their borders by various means.

In any case, the impetus of KSA for spreading radical Sunni ideologies preceded and was independent of Shia Islamism exhibited by the IRI.

On a side note, the reasons why the Saudis feel the need to counter Iran, and vice-versa, are similar to the reasons why KSA abandoned their support of Muslim Brotherhood, it's less pertinent to religion and more to politics.

[Ludicus]

I recommend reading a bit about Iranian political system before commenting more about "democracy" in Iran.

Even Einet Wilf, a passionate Zionist, anti-Palestinian, former Knesset member, recently recognized that,

Of the non-democracies in Middle East/West Asia, Iran has best chance of successfully transitioning to democracy. As a coherent state with educated population, middle class, high median age, proto-democratic institutions, it is textbook case for successful democratic transition.

----
Trump and the "imminent" threat,Trump puts 'celebrity' terrorism targets ahead of national security

Douglas London, a recently retired senior CIA operations officer, has suggested that the decision to kill the Iranian general may have had more to do with the president’s personality than any security considerations.

[Abdülmecid I]

Indeed, Saudi Arabia's patronage to Wahhabism was meant to counter the appeal of secular Arab populism and to appease the powerful clergy, in order to maintain the fragile stability of the dynasty. The irony is that the United States initially tolerated and even encouraged the reactionary turn towards Islamism, due to their paranoid interpretation of every progressive ideology, as a precursor to Communism and a vehicle for Soviet interference. Accusing Iran of igniting the spark of Sunni extremism is similar to blaming Versailles for the Holocaust or mini-skirts for rape. It's rather worrying how close the jingoist rhetoric of the Atlantic alliance comes with ISIL's victim-complex narrative about Safavid domination and "Rafidah terrorism". After all, it's probably not a coincidence that ISIL was essentially the only organisation that praised Soleimani's killing as a divine gesture.

Turning a blind eye to these abuses (and many others) whilst complaining about the US's alleged "illegal" killing of Soleimani - a combatant who spent his career destabilizing the Middle East - is disingenuous to say the least. If the regime wants the US to leave it alone, it has to stop blackmailing the international community over its nuclear program, stop engaging in proxy wars in the region and stop abusing its own citizens. As Trump says, the ball is in Tehran's court.

Destabilising is a subjective and therefore meaningless verb that depends entirely on your perspective. From the point of view of Syrian jihadists, ISIL or the American invaders and occupiers of Iraq, I can see why the activity of the Revolutionary Guards is perceived as harmful. On the other hand, the vast majority of Iranians consider its activities as vital for their security, while many other Middle-Easterners appreciate its contributions to keeping in check Salafist extremism and protecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Lebanon, Syria and Iraq. As for the assassination of general Qasem Soleimani, I have already explained how the operation violated international law and the diplomatic agreement between Baghdad and Washington, whose clauses dictate the terms, according to which the American military presence in Iraq is tolerated. Instead of repeating a previously disproved claim, it would be more productive to actually address the arguments presented.

I recommend reading a bit about Iranian political system before commenting more about "democracy" in Iran. All candidates to elected positions must be vetted by Guardian council, half of which are Islamic law experts directly appointed by Supreme leader and the other half being approved by him, and every elected official must be also approved by Supreme leader.

This is why I said that the Iranian Republic should be described not as a liberal, but as a limited or defensive democracy, because although many civic rights are curtailed, transparent elections are regularly held. You also strongly overestimate the jurisdictions of the Supreme Leader. His influence and actual power have been steadily declining since the late '80s and he's often incapable of shaping even the most essential principles of the Iranian government. For instance, Khamenei and his circle were actually skeptical, bordering negative towards the nuclear deal, but the agreement was still signed by the Iranian delegates, despite the cold reaction of the Ayatollah. Awkwardly enough, the same thing could not happen on the other side, if the President and the executive branch had not green-lighted.

Your excuse that "one doesn't need scripture to oppose Israel as a state" is utterly facile: of course one could use some sort of secular reasoning to demand the uncompromising destruction of Israel, but that isn't proof that the Islamist groups I mentioned (such as Hamas) don't justify their opposition toward Israel primarily on the basis of religion. There's a reason why higher degrees of religiosity are associated with support for Hezbollah, approval for destructive levels of force against Israel and a lack of empathy for Holocaust victims.

So, to repeat my ignored point, since Israel has also generously supported various Islamist groups, Hamas and al-Qaeda offshoots included, should we assume that Jerusalem is an exporter of Islamic terrorism? The suggestion that, unlike the rest of the word, politics in the Middle East are almost exclusively influenced by religious doctrines always seemed subconsciously orientalist to me and which is probably why so few locals endorses it. Personally, I have yet to meet a well-educated conservative Israeli, who estimates the Iranian clergy's fiery speeches as even remotely sincere.

[Ludicus]

The nuclear deal with Iran was working before Trump's withdrawal of the US from the deal -and now is on the brink of collapse. Sanders is right, it's a deja vu.Trump,the American Netanyahu, knew exactly what he was doing, in his first first step to war.

[Athos187]

Pointless conflict and pointless debate, we need to just get out of there and let them sort it out themselves.

We basically just hang around because we dont want to look weak but all were doing is making things worse. Arabs dont accept foreign occupying forces and all we are doing is kicking an ant pile and then getting mad at the ants for biting us.

Sooner we leave the sooner the various factions can fight it out and come to a peace on their own accord.