Iraqi protesters storm U.S. embassy in Baghdad

[Heathen Hammer]

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.

Iran's actions are merely response to US and its proxies destabilizing influence in the first place.

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.

Problem is that US foreign policy in last several decades greatly benefited Israel, even at the expense of US itself fiscally and politically. So it is quite clear that US does, in fact, align its policy with Israel's interests, otherwise US wouldn't really be in Middle East in the first place.
As for Israel's position itself, it is the victim of its own actions, alienating its already cautious neighbors and presenting itself as a de-facto existential threat to a number of Middle Eastern nations. If Israel changed its foreign policy (by ending pointless confrontations and ending occupation of Golan heights), then such conflict would decrease its scale if not seize altogether.

[Lord Thesaurian]

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.

Thank you for the recommendation.

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

In terms of religious history, perhaps. In terms of the history of the region, how Tehran got herself into the current situation, and the spread of militant revivalist Islamic theology, the Iranian Revolution and Khomein’s calls for global Islamic revolution were as significant an impetus to the spread of Islamist theology, terrorism, and western reaction as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The advent of a movement which deposed a monarchy in favor of “pure” Islamic theocracy in Tehran was the first modern aberration of radical Islamic theology as a political ideology. This both alarmed and inspired Sunni observers, including the various Salafist strains in KSA, to retool and accelerate the spread of their own “pure” version externally as a counter to Tehran’s open challenge for religious and territorial hegemony.

To this day, much of Tehran’s quest for hegemony can be called a quest for Shia hegemony, from Syria to Iraq and beyond. It is the latter crusade which shattered the relative tranquility between Sunni and Shia that had characterized the period between the fall of the Ottomans and the 1979 Iranian Revolution, destabilizing the region and drawing in western powers.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979 gave Shia cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini the opportunity to implement his vision for an Islamic government ruled by the “guardianship of the jurist” (velayat-e faqih), a controversial concept among Shia scholars that is opposed by Sunnis, who have historically differentiated between political leadership and religious scholarship. Shia ayatollahs have always been the guardians of the faith. Khomeini argued that clerics had to rule to properly perform their function: implementing Islam as God intended, through the mandate of the Shia Imams.

Under Khomeini, Iran began an experiment in Islamic rule. Khomeini tried to inspire further Islamic revival, preaching Muslim unity, but supported groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Pakistan that had specific Shia agendas. Sunni Islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, admired Khomeini’s success, but did not accept his leadership, underscoring the depth of sectarian suspicions.

Saudi Arabia has a sizable Shia minority of roughly 10 percent, and millions of adherents of a puritanical brand of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism (an offshoot of the Sunni Hanbali school) that is antagonistic to Shia Islam. The transformation of Iran into an overtly Shia power after the Islamic revolution induced Saudi Arabia to accelerate the propagation of Wahhabism, as both countries revived a centuries-old sectarian rivalry over the true interpretation of Islam. Many of the groups responsible for sectarian violence that has occurred in the region and across the Muslim world since 1979 can be traced to Saudi and Iranian sources.

https://www.cfr.org/interactives/sunni-shia-divide#!/

[Love Mountain]

In terms of religious history, perhaps. In terms of the history of the region, how Tehran got herself into the current situation, and the spread of militant revivalist Islamic theology, the Iranian Revolution and Khomein’s calls for global Islamic revolution were as significant an impetus to the spread of Islamist theology, terrorism, and western reaction as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

This particular source is not a strong endorsement of your position.

"Iran’s Islamic Revolution in 1979 gave Shia cleric Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini the opportunity to implement his vision for an Islamic government ruled by the “guardianship of the jurist” (velayat-e faqih), a controversial concept among Shia scholars that is opposed by Sunnis, who have historically differentiated between political leadership and religious scholarship. Shia ayatollahs have always been the guardians of the faith. Khomeini argued that clerics had to rule to properly perform their function: implementing Islam as God intended, through the mandate of the Shia Imams.

Under Khomeini, Iran began an experiment in Islamic rule. Khomeini tried to inspire further Islamic revival, preaching Muslim unity, but supported groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Pakistan that had specific Shia agendas. Sunni Islamists, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, admired Khomeini’s success, but did not accept his leadership, underscoring the depth of sectarian suspicions."

I'm not sure what the issue here is. While theocratic rule is problematic, at best, I fail to see how Tehran is any more responsible for the current crisis in the Middle East than any other group or country. Nor do I see how this supports your antagonism towards Iran.

The advent of a movement which deposed a monarchy in favor of “pure” Islamic theocracy in Tehran was the first modern aberration of radical Islamic theology as a political ideology. This both alarmed and inspired Sunni observers, including the various Salafist strains in KSA, to retool and accelerate the spread of their own “pure” version externally as a counter to Tehran’s open challenge for religious and territorial hegemony.

So in other words, KSA's support of Wahhabism, is not the fault of Iran. In fact, this puts the House of Saud, their tolerance and alliance with clerics even more deplorable, as well as their continued spread of their toxic religion in the world, which, as far as I can tell, eclipses any effort Iran has made to spread its "Islamic Revolution".

To this day, much of Tehran’s quest for hegemony can be called a quest for Shia hegemony, from Syria to Iraq and beyond. It is the latter crusade which shattered the relative tranquility between Sunni and Shia that had characterized the period between the fall of the Ottomans and the 1979 Iranian Revolution, destabilizing the region and drawing in western powers.

You keep trying to establish a link between Iran's geopolitical goals and their religion. I have yet to see evidence for this that's based in modernity, rather than 50-60 years ago on Khomeini's statements.

[Lord Thesaurian]

This particular source is not a strong endorsement of your position.

I don’t know what the point is of copy pasting 2/3 of the quote. If you were going to clip the part about Tehran inducing the further spread of Salafism by introducing and spreading her own Shia brand of Islamism, or the fact that the region’s destabilization can be traced back to Tehran’s reignition of open Sunni-Shia conflict, you probably should also have clipped the part about Khomeini backing proxies in “Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Pakistan” with the goal of spreading Islamic revolution.

So in other words, KSA's support of Wahhabism, is not the fault of Iran. In fact, this puts the House of Saud, their tolerance and alliance with clerics even more deplorable, as well as their continued spread of their toxic religion in the world, which, as far as I can tell, eclipses any effort Iran has made to spread its "Islamic Revolution".

I’m not interested in how much “better” you believe Shia Islamism to be, or how much “worse” you find Sunni Islamism.

You keep trying to establish a link between Iran's geopolitical goals and their religion. I have yet to see evidence for this that's based in modernity, rather than 50-60 years ago on Khomeini's statements.

The continued whataboutist deflections regarding Saudi Arabia don’t detract from my position, nor does the dismissal of historical and current facts as “antagonism.” Given you’ve already indicated your belief that “nothing justifies the antagonism shown Iran post 1979,” there’s not much room for further discussion as to what you consider to be evidentiary or compelling.

My prior posts, including the one you quoted, summarize Tehran’s role in sparking the regional destabilization that reignited Sunni Shia conflict and prompted the spread of militant revivalist Sunni and Shia extremism in a viscous feedback loop that subsequently drew in western intervention. I’m not interested in trying to overcome this red herring concept that the standard of proof lies in whether or not the regime really believes in their religion or not. As I told you, if you really believe Tehran’s “Islamic Revolution” is merely a geopolitical tool, then the only conclusion is she used that tool to herself over from an ideal position of power and wealth to a position of isolation and desperation.

[Cope]

Funny that strictly geopolitical motives aren't treated as exculpatory when it's the United States or Israel in the dock isn't it? Funnier still are these attempts to convince us that Islamism is some sort of fraud or prank unless it's coming from the KSA or Sunni groups not funded by Tehran.

[Heathen Hammer]

Funny that strictly geopolitical motives aren't treated as exculpatory when it's the United States or Israel in the dock isn't it? Funnier still are these attempts to convince us that Islamism is some sort of fraud or prank unless it's coming from the KSA or Sunni groups not funded by Tehran.

That has something to do with US and Israel meddling within Iran's sphere of influence. If it was Iran placing its bases in Canada and Mexico, I'd probably side with US on this one, but for now it is what it is.

[Vanoi]

That has something to do with US and Israel meddling within Iran's sphere of influence. If it was Iran placing its bases in Canada and Mexico, I'd probably side with US on this one, but for now it is what it is.

Last time i checked its Iran meddling in Israel's affairs by supporting armed groups inside and outside its borders

[Heathen Hammer]

Last time i checked its Iran meddling in Israel's affairs by supporting armed groups inside and outside its borders

Which borders? You mean Syrian territory that Israel invaded and occupied?
Iran's actions are merely a reaction to objectively destabilizing influence of US-Israel-Saudi Axis in the Middle East.

[Vanoi]

Which borders? You mean Syrian territory that Israel invaded and occupied?
Iran's actions are merely a reaction to objectively destabilizing influence of US-Israel-Saudi Axis in the Middle East.

Israel's borders. Iran does support Palestinian militant groups in Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Israel and America's actions are merely a reaction to the destabilizing influence of Iran.

[Heathen Hammer]

Israel's borders. Iran does support Palestinian militant groups in Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Hezbollah helped defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression in 2006. It was also one of the key factions behind destroying ISIS. That's not meddling with Israel's affairs, but rather helping countries that were victims of Israel's aggression.

Israel and America's actions are merely a reaction to the destabilizing influence of Iran.

Other way around. I don't recall Iran invading Iraq or backing wahabi groups in Syria.

[Love Mountain]

I don’t know what the point is of copy pasting 2/3 of the quote. If you were going to clip the part about Tehran inducing the further spread of Salafism by introducing and spreading her own Shia brand of Islamism, or the fact that the region’s destabilization can be traced back to Tehran’s reignition of open Sunni-Shia conflict, you probably should also have clipped the part about Khomeini backing proxies in “Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Pakistan” with the goal of spreading Islamic revolution.

It doesn't exactly say that and I don't see how I took anything out of context. The article in general, doesn't support the idea that Iran is spreading an Islamic revolution.

I’m not interested in how much “better” you believe Shia Islamism to be, or how much “worse” you find Sunni Islamism.

I'm not saying that either one is is better or worse. I don't study either religion. My point is that Saudi Arabia's activities are much more focused on spreading their religious dogma than Iran.

The continued whataboutist deflections regarding Saudi Arabia don’t detract from my position, nor does the dismissal of historical and current facts as “antagonism.” Given you’ve already indicated your belief that “nothing justifies the antagonism shown Iran post 1979,” there’s not much room for further discussion as to what you consider to be evidentiary or compelling.

It's not "whataboutism" if it is directly related to the conflict in question. This is akin to calling Pearl Harbor "whataboutism" when talking about America's declaration of war on Japan... It's as if you expect Tehran to simply be a beating boy for every other power in the region. This is an unrealistic expectation and punishing Iran for behaving like literally every other country, and then attempting to claim a moral high ground is absurd. Iran is being punished because their geopolitical goals run directly counter to America's. Not because their conduct is "unacceptable". If we were to punish countries by how appropriately they acted, we'd be at war with every single country in the middle east.

My prior posts, including the one you quoted, summarize Tehran’s role in sparking the regional destabilization that reignited Sunni Shia conflict and prompted the spread of militant revivalist Sunni and Shia extremism in a viscous feedback loop that subsequently drew in western intervention. I’m not interested in trying to overcome this red herring concept that the standard of proof lies in whether or not the regime really believes in their religion or not. As I told you, if you really believe Tehran’s “Islamic Revolution” is merely a geopolitical tool, then the only conclusion is she used that tool to herself over from an ideal position of power and wealth to a position of isolation and desperation.

And like I've said before, focusing on Iran's actions only, ignored everything else that contributed to the mess in the middle east. Tehran doesn't exist in a vacuum. Arguing that Tehran's is somehow exceptional in its role is disingenuous and quite frankly false. Iran is far from the only country in the middle east that funds proxy groups, that fund terrorism, that incorporates theocratic elements in its regime, or has an extensive list of human rights abuses. This can be said about almost every single country in the middle east.

[Vanoi]

Hezbollah helped defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression in 2006.

And before 2006? Iran's been supporting them since their creation.

It was also one of the key factions behind destroying ISIS. That's not meddling with Israel's affairs, but rather helping countries that were victims of Israel's aggression.

I see you left out the Palestinians. What's Iran's excuse for meddling in the affairs of Israel?

Other way around. I don't recall Iran invading Iraq or backing wahabi groups in Syria.

Thats because Iran backs Shia militants. Supporting militant groups against another sovereign nation is not stabilizing. Its the exact opposite.

[Cope]

And like I've said before, focusing on Iran's actions only, ignored everything else that contributed to the mess in the middle east. Tehran doesn't exist in a vacuum. Arguing that Tehran's is somehow exceptional in its role is disingenuous and quite frankly false. Iran is far from the only country in the middle east that funds proxy groups, that fund terrorism, that incorporates theocratic elements in its regime, or has an extensive list of human rights abuses. This can be said about almost every single country in the middle east.

No one has said that the only culpable party is Iran. That's why these deflections to the KSA's behaviour is an example of whataboutery. You aren't disproving that the Iranian regime is Islamist in nature, that it's supporting Islamist proxies, that it's had a destablizing effect on the region (which includes an absolutist attitude toward Israel) or that it's isolated itself by trying to blackmail the international community over its nuclear program. You're just saying "yeah but Saudis/Israel/US too".

[sumskilz]

Hezbollah helped defend Lebanon against Israeli aggression in 2006... That's not meddling with Israel's affairs, but rather helping countries that were victims of Israel's aggression.

Hezbollah caused the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the first place by firing rockets at Israeli towns, raiding across the border, killing some Israeli soldiers and taking others hostage. Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon six years earlier, and the border had been relatively quiet since then.

[Love Mountain]

No one has said that the only culpable party is Iran. That's why these deflections to the KSA's behaviour is an example of whataboutery. You aren't disproving that the Iranian regime is Islamist in nature, that it's supporting Islamist proxies, that it's had a destablizing effect on the region (which includes an absolutist attitude toward Israel) or that it's isolated itself by trying to blackmail the international community over its nuclear program. You're just saying "yeah but Saudis/Israel/US too".

When the only one being targeted is Iran, this “whataboutery” becomes relevant. Especially when US actions in the region are being justified as confronting a “destabilizing” force... Literally every other destabilizing force is being given a pass by the virtue of not being Iran. So if we are suddenly Trying to right every wrong in the region then I have a whole list we can start with.

[Cope]

When the only one being targeted is Iran, this “whataboutery” becomes relevant. Especially when US actions in the region are being justified as confronting a “destabilizing” force... Literally every other destabilizing force is being given a pass by the virtue of not being Iran. So if we are suddenly Trying to right every wrong in the region then I have a whole list we can start with.

Iran isn't the "only one being targeted". There is, and has been, plenty of discussion about the other parties in the region too. For Christ's sake, Washington has spent the best part of five years screeching about Assad and the Russians, and before that they started wars with two of Iran's biggest regional rivals, the Hussein regime and the Taliban.

The reason that the Iranians have come under particular scrutiny over the past couple of years is because IS' caliphate has been destroyed, the nuclear deal has collapsed and Tehran has been lashing out at the US and its allies.

[swabian]

"Literally every other destabilizing force"... ehh. What? Like what, who?

[Lord Thesaurian]

It doesn't exactly say that and I don't see how I took anything out of context. The article in general, doesn't support the idea that Iran is spreading an Islamic revolution.

I'm not saying that either one is is better or worse. I don't study either religion. My point is that Saudi Arabia's activities are much more focused on spreading their religious dogma than Iran.

It's not "whataboutism" if it is directly related to the conflict in question. This is akin to calling Pearl Harbor "whataboutism" when talking about America's declaration of war on Japan... It's as if you expect Tehran to simply be a beating boy for every other power in the region. This is an unrealistic expectation and punishing Iran for behaving like literally every other country, and then attempting to claim a moral high ground is absurd. Iran is being punished because their geopolitical goals run directly counter to America's. Not because their conduct is "unacceptable". If we were to punish countries by how appropriately they acted, we'd be at war with every single country in the middle east.

And like I've said before, focusing on Iran's actions only, ignored everything else that contributed to the mess in the middle east. Tehran doesn't exist in a vacuum. Arguing that Tehran's is somehow exceptional in its role is disingenuous and quite frankly false. Iran is far from the only country in the middle east that funds proxy groups, that fund terrorism, that incorporates theocratic elements in its regime, or has an extensive list of human rights abuses. This can be said about almost every single country in the middle east.

The above narrative focuses on moralistic sophistry featuring themes of crime and punishment. This is the only framing in which whataboutist deflections have any relevance (other countries do bad stuff too so who are we to throw stones). I’m not sure how many other ways I can restate the facts. Tehran is not being “punished.” Indeed she does not exist in a vacuum. She acted, and her neighbors and western powers reacted. As the match that lit the flame, Tehran is not the victim of some grand conspiracy, whether western or Saudi, as she and her apologists allege. Who knows what would have happened if Khomeini had chosen to give himself a pat on the back and govern his new conquest instead of attacking the US and trying to topple neighboring regimes. The facts are what they are, not what Tehran’s victimhood narrative would like them to be.

[Love Mountain]

Iran isn't the "only one being targeted". There is, and has been, plenty of discussion about the other parties in the region too. For Christ's sake, Washington has spent the best part of five years screeching about Assad and the Russians, and before that they started wars with two of Iran's biggest regional rivals, the Hussein regime and the Taliban.

Hardly the case at the moment.

The reason that the Iranians have come under particular scrutiny over the past couple of years is because IS' caliphate has been destroyed, the nuclear deal has collapsed and Tehran has been lashing out at the US at its allies.

Hardly justifies targeting Iran.

"Literally every other destabilizing force"... ehh. What? Like what, who?

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey are some of the biggest sources of terrorism. Not to mention their geopolitical ambitions. All three also happen to be US allies.

[Love Mountain]

The above narrative focuses on moralistic sophistry featuring themes of crime and punishment. This is the only framing in which whataboutist deflections have any relevance (other countries do bad stuff too so who are we to throw stones). I’m not sure how many other ways I can restate the facts. Tehran is not being “punished.”

You can’t claim this, and then in the very next sentence say the following,

Indeed she does not exist in a vacuum. She acted, and her neighbors and western powers reacted.

Acting as if Tehran crossed some sort of red line like that they haven’t (or any other country) over the last decade is an absurdity.

As the match that lit the flame, Tehran is not the victim of some grand conspiracy, whether western or Saudi, as she and her apologists allege. Who knows what would have happened if Khomeini had chosen to give himself a pat on the back and govern his new conquest instead of attacking the US and trying to topple neighboring regimes. The facts are what they are, not what Tehran’s victimhood narrative would like them to be.

A conspiracy would imply there’s a hidden agenda. The blatant anti Iranian agenda that US has supported over the years has become a self fulfilling prophecy. By continuing antagonizing Iran you’ve made Iran into one of the staunchest enemies of American interests. This is despite the fact that some of the most toxic forces in the region today are US allies.

The standard US excuse of confronting destabilizing forces is hypocritical and self serving when its allies are given a blind eye. As amusing as it is to watch US hawks once again light another fuse by seeking a confrontation instead reapparoxhment, I sure hope this is stopped by the next President.