I don't understand Iran, Hezbollah's and the Houthis' patience with the US actually. It's absolutely shocking. After the US betrayed ALL of it's own fucking allies, in what world does it make sense to negotiate with them?
The Houthis are still "threatening" to do things today after already being decimated and Hezbollah's strength more than halved.
I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th. They look even more naive than Europeans at this point.
The Iranians are pragmatic. Look beyond their relationship with the US. There are other state actors that Iran wants to remain in good relations with.
They understand that a defensive war is not the same as an offensive war. Besides, going on the offensive isn’t something they - as a regional power - have the firepower or diplomatic “street cred” for.
They are already painted as a so-called irrational actor. Doing something reckless will only prove their detractors right.
The other part to this is keeping the negotiation door open. The idea is to demonstrate to other state actors that they are cool headed & rational - even in wartime conditions.
Rational negotiations have to be based on the relative power of the parties.
It made sense for iran to try to negotiate with the US because the alternative was a war they had no chance to win. Arguably it also made sense for them to not come to an agreement because USA wanted concessesions the Iranian regime probably couldn't do while still staying in power given how weak they are domestically.
> I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th.
Israel's ability to divide and conqour its enemies here has been pretty impressive.
> It made sense for iran to try to negotiate with the US because the alternative was a war they had no chance to win.
They have no chance of winning no matter what. At least inflict some damage on your enemy while you die like Hamas chose (although I disagree with the fact that they chose that for a lot of innocent people too.)
The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
> The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
Well i think this is true in the present moment, i think its also important to recognize that we got to this point by a series of decisions that Iran made. They boxed themselves into this corner via long term strategic blunders.
E.g. if they threatened US & israeli interests less (i.e. did not support proxy groups), US and Israel probably wouldnt find it worth it to go this far. Alternatively if they paid more attention to the home front and kept their people happy, there would be less pressure for them to not lose face during negotiations which might allow them to make concessions they cant currently.
> The US isn't ever going to leave anyone, let alone Iran, alone. The options are a) fight and cease to exist and b) don't fight and cease to exist.
Oh boy, I see we learned nothing from Afghanistan. The US will eventually leave you alone, There will be a power vacuum, and the local warlord will rise to that opportunity.
The "military operations" don't end in decisive vistory. They end with death and destruction for the young men sent into battle, and more enemies in the surrounding areas.
The US hasn't left Afghanistan alone. They were driven out of the country by force. They are still attacking it in multiple different ways and will continue to do so until they are defeated. Time did not end when the US was kicked out. They aren't just going to give up their goals.
I do not understand what argument you are trying to make. Nowhere do I say that time stands still or that the US doesn't still have a policy for Afghanistan. I'm saying that the US (and her allies, my country among them), with their war machine the likes of which has never been seen, could not bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan. Once we left, and we will always have to leave eventually, the existing structures of opression once again asserted themselves.
My country and my Government, sent people from my generation down there to die. My countrymen died in that war, and the only thing we got out of it was more enemies in the region. The Afghan is still getting persecuted for styling their beard wrong, and the Afghan woman is still getting opressed. We have nothing to show for that sacrifice.
I see no reason to believe the same thing isn't going to happen in Iran.
> with their war machine the likes of which has never been seen, could not bring peace and democracy to Afghanistan.
As far as i understand, the US propped up an unpopular governmet that many of the locals did not like (there were rumours about turning a blind eye to moral impropriety because it was politically expediant).
The thing about democracy is its not really democracy when forced from the outside.
> Once we left, and we will always have to leave eventually, the existing structures of opression once again asserted themselves.
The US keeps coming back is what I'm saying. The US was kicked out of Iran in 1953. That's what all this is about. They will do the same to Afghanistan eventually. That's what I meant by time didn't stop. The Taliban isn't safe by any means. It's just a temporary reprieve.
> At least inflict some damage on your enemy while you die like Hamas chose (although I disagree with the fact that they chose that for a lot of innocent people too.)
Ultimately? If the people who are going to kill you were elected into power by those "innocent people", why would you not lash out at them too? Some twisted sense of morality or taking the high road?
I don't know what you're talking about. It sounds like you might be saying Israelis who elected Likud (and the supporting parties) are not innocent. If that's what you mean, then I agree, but that wasn't what I was referring to.
I was speaking of the Gazans who originally elected Hamas to protect them but where Hamas eventually decided to sacrifice masses of them to achieve some of their goals. They knew what would happen and did it anyway, without the people's consent.
No such thing as total war with the USA. Without the means to nuke the USA out of existence, actually engaging them is suicide. Even if by some miracle you start winning, they can just nuke you back to the stone age, thereby ending the conflict.
Better to play the long game, corrupt them from within and wait for them to destroy themselves.
> The world in which America is a military superpower.
No, you missed my point. Iran dies no matter what happens. Better go down after eliminating Israel, taking out a huge % of the world's oil supply and banging up some Americans. Instead they were extremely restrained, squandering their capacities.
> They have been. They've been getting levelled. If the U.S. can staunch the flow of arms to the Houthis, they'll become irrelevant, too.
> Better go down after eliminating Israel, taking out a huge % of the world's oil supply and banging up some Americans
One, they tried. They don’t have the capability. Two, that means more Iranians die. Cultures that choose pointless vengeance over pragmatic survival tend to get weeded out.
Could very well be that, on a diplomatic level, they're far more reasonable and forgiving than we've been lead to believe. Maybe in order to justify an aggressively adversarial posture against them and their interests.
But that's hard to grok without corroborating evidence. Like maybe an analogous social dynamic where the American mainstream maintains a hostile posture towards a particular ethnic group, stereotyping them as violent and irrational and criminals and parasites, and doing things to them that have triggered sustained, armed uprisings in other times and places, but who, in fact, have historically and in-aggregate been steadfast in a commitment to non-violent resistance, integration, and endurance of oppression.
Safe to say that this is the first time America's ever encountered that kind of thing, though, so I guess that we can be somewhat forgiven for not recognizing it.
> Could very well be that, on a diplomatic level, they're far more reasonable and forgiving than we've been lead to believe.
If you have been following Iran over the past two years (and even before), you would know that this is empirically true and not just a hypothetical. American propag- sorry, media does its job well.
Houthi and Huzb do not have the organized armies to wage long-term war where they conquer territories. Their game plan is long term annoyance (at high casualty costs) and co-existence within a “neutral” state that provides cover and logistics for them.
> Houthi and Huzb do not have the organized armies to wage long-term war where they conquer territories.
Hezbollah did. They did it before and they were predicted by all analysts to be able to do it again, which is why Israel took the route they did with the espionage, assassinations and terrorism instead of confronting them on the battlefields.
> Tell that to the 30k+ iranian protestors that were killed.
> Are you actually using "in good faith" and the current horrendous iranian regime in the same sentence?
If US needs to intervene, why are they are not intervening in Ukraine? Far worse things has been happening there for 4 years.
Is the argument that the U.S. should only militarily intervene when conflicts are internal within another country, as opposed to when it’s one country invading another? As that’s the opposite of the established international laws around prohibiting one state from attacking another vs the principle of non-intervention.
1. The Russian position in 2014 was that the Ukrainian people in Donbas were being oppressed by the new Ukrainian central government.
2. There's a lot of domestic political/information suppression in Ukraine but I consider this somewhat normal for a nation in a pretty existential conflict.
3. The Ukrainian military is 70-80% conscripts, increasingly of the "forcibly mobilized" variety (look up "TCC busification" for examples), with almost all military-age males banned from leaving the country. Dudes are getting beaten up, stuffed into vans, and sent to trenches to eat Russian artillery and FABs (air-to-ground bombs)....against their will. I think that definitely counts as suppression.
Lose. Evacuate the government. Then mount a guerrilla, and wait for an opportunity. It'll come, most likely sooner rather than later.
Why is that unthinkable? I can understand people in the US being unable to process such a scenario, but here in Europe, there's not a single nation that wasn't off the map for some time.
I know why Ukrainians don't want that, but the demographic costs of tens to hundreds of thousands of "military age men" dying are so huge that any plausible alternative should be considered, even if it's very unpleasant.
You're suggesting a decades long guerrilla movement under occupation will be better for the Ukrainian people than conscription during an existential defensive war?
> I know why Ukrainians don't want that, but the demographic costs of tens to hundreds of thousands of "military age men" dying are so huge that any plausible alternative should be considered, even if it's very unpleasant.
And you imagine they won’t die in your guerrilla war? Or the next invasion after an emboldened Russia regroups?
> Every country with conscription will do this if you refuse to show up.
Was that MP a draft dodger? The issue isn't them picking draft dodgers, it's them picking up anybody that looks like they might be a draft dodger and the tactics they employ to do it.
What does the Iranian say? If we're all about respecting documents, we should make sure we assess them all equally. The U.S. constitution has a lot to say about many of the things that are happening right now, but those are being happily ignored. We can't even respect our own constitution, the idea that we'd respect others is laughable.
How do you even securely hold an election during a full scale war? Thousands are outside the country or on the front lines. You'd also be creating huge targets at polling stations. Luckily their constitution recognises it's a bad idea to try.
It's nothing to do with Iran being bad or good. US and Iran were negotiating. You don't attack mid negotiation when you're supposedly still trying to fix things by talking.
You might think Iran isn't owed the courtesy of fair negotiation but that's very shortsighted. Next country will not take US's negotiations seriously and will be, frankly, at some level justified in shooting first.
That is utter BS. If you stop negotiating in order to attack, then you are giving the enemy the advantage of knowing exactly when you will attack. This is one of the most incompetent takes I have ever heard - so much that I have to wonder if you are an Iranian agent
US sanctions, US/Moss instigates, makes the Iranis desparate. Irani regime (that is the result of US intervention decades ago) digs in and toughens up.
People die in the streets.
Who's to blame? The Irani regime? C'mon...
It's like crashing your car into a tree and and blaming the tree.
Also: you really think the US/Moss care about dead Iranis in the streets, other than it being a useful pretext to go to war?
It's a cuban-missle-crisis like moment for Russia. And they act accordingly.
I'm not in favor of one or the other: I just notice imperialism when I see it. And Russia+Iran have been much less aggressive than the "allied western forces" for the last 60 years, while they have a lot of reasons to dig in and toughen up not to become the next Libya/Iraq/Syria/etc.
I'd have been sympathetic to that argument up until a few hours ago.
But it turns out that they were actually negotiating in better faith than their counter-party, who have just launched a war whilst still claiming to be interested in a peaceful settlement.
> I'd have been sympathetic to that argument up until a few hours ago
These are somewhat independent variables. America was open about the fact that we were trying diplomacy before force. Either, one or no sides could have been negotiating in good faith and still wound up here with that setup.
If someone takes the first underhanded step, it’s not on the victim to make amends. Iran got burned on JCPOA. Whether we like them or not, you have to address that first before moving on to meaningful talks.
> ran got burned on JCPOA. Whether we like them or not, you have to address that first before moving on to meaningful talks
Sure. I think it was probably politically impossible for Iran to negotiate in good faith. That doesn't change that they were not negotiating in good faith.
no it doesn't "turn out that". They have a long history of hiding their nuke tech and lying while also issuing death threats to israel. Trust but verify doesn't work with this country.
> you don't need an analyst to see who strikes first (and the frequency of that pattern) while diplomats are still at the negotiating table
Of course you do. If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane. My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.
Then the US can formally state that it is ceasing all negotiations. But it will never do that - it always wants to retain the ability to execute a surprise backstab. Done so several times now.
> If the diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions, that's germane.
does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general?
> My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side. But at least this round, Tehran never conceded on any material fronts.
they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track, they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace.
> does this line of reasoning apply to the US only, or in general?
Are you asking serious questions? I think the evidence shows the U.S. was negotiating in good faith in the beginning (and I'm scoping to this round of negotiations only). And then it concluded there was no deal to be had, and we probably started bullshitting as well. At the same time, I think the evidence shows the Iranian side was mostly bullshitting the whole time.
> they had an option to do it and still continue a diplomatic track
Well sure. We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith. (Again, based on what I've seen. Open to changing my mind. But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point.)
> they aren't obliged to devote themselves to the US preferences at the US-preferred pace
War is politics by other means. They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating either realistically or in good faith–you can't just ignore material variables because you don't like that they exist.
Just answer the question whether it applies in general as a principle. Don't "stall and never tell any actual" position on the matter.
> We also had the option to terminate negotiations, ratchet up sanctions and walk away. None of that changes that the Iranians weren't negotiating in good faith
Only according to you, based on the premise that someone didn't meet random timings that only exist in your head.
> But the lack of any discussion of what Iran did in this subthread seems to underline my point
not really, please answer the initial question I asked.
> They aren't obligated to accept the other's timeline. But I wouldn't say that's negotiating in good faith.
Exactly why? You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
> Only according to you, based on the premise that someone didn't meet random timings that only exist in your head
I literally opened the top comment asking for any credible analysis that said the Iranians were negotiating in good faith. I haven't seen anything in any English, European or Asian sources that seemed to suggest they were.
So far, the only one I'm seeing arguing Iran was ready to do anything material is the Omani foreign minister. (I'm keeping an eye out for his substantiation on this point.)
> please answer the initial question I asked
Read past "are you asking serious questions." I literally answer it.
> Exactly why?
Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America. Either way, bad faith.
> You need to be home around 5 so anyone standing in front of you and blocking you in a traffic jam aren't acting in good faith?
Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
> Read past "are you asking serious questions." I literally answer it.
ok, you evaded the answer, I asked specifically about generality of the principle, you kept saying "the US did this, Iran did that". You're stalling and refusing to tell the actual answer on the question I asked, so that's germane.
> I haven't seen anything in any English, European or Asian sources that seemed to suggest they were.
too bad, get better with search
> Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their regime at home has to save face and doesn't think it can survive being seen as giving in to America.
Negotiating in good faith means negotiating with a genuine intent to reach a deal. That requires acknowledging what the other side is saying and respecting reality. Someone can intentionally bullshit. Or they can be forced to bullshit because their political leaders at home have to save face before their donors and don't think they can survive elections being seen as giving in to Iran.
> Bad analogy. Here's a better one: you're my landlord and I'm your tenant. (Ignoring the power imbalance between Iran and America, particularly when America is parking warships, is delusional.) You say I have ten minutes to plead for not being evicted. I genuinely don't think I did anything wrong. But I spend ten minutes talking about why your shoes are stupid. That's not engaging in good faith.
Bad analogy, I walk barefoot and I don't talk to tenants, my representatives do and they end the contract with you on a legal basis of contractual terms and that's about it. That's my property after all.
Now, you in turn are still standing in a traffic jam and getting angry at me and people around you, you claim that we all don't respect your preferences and timings, so we must be acting in bad faith.
> I asked specifically about generality of the principle, you kept saying "the US did this, Iran did that". You're stalling and refusing to tell the actual answer on the question I asked
Uh sure, yes, it generalizes. Not sure what that does for you, but yes.
> get better with search
...do you have a source? The fact that nobody in this subthread has an answer to this and is instead, as you put it, evading the question by getting distracted by whether America is negotiating in good faith should speak volumes to anyone reading this.
> Uh sure, yes, it generalizes. Not sure what that does for you, but yes.
ok, let's see
> do you have a source? The fact that nobody in this subthread has an answer to this and is instead, as you put it, evading the question by getting distracted by whether America is negotiating in good faith should speak volumes to anyone reading this.
No it shouldn't, there's no substance in your position, let alone volumes of any meaning to derive from it: "the other side must be acting in bad faith, because I don't like getting home late".
First off, I'm waiting for you to apply your previously stated principle, that you admitted to be general, to Iranian diplomats' negotiating track. And right after that, let's discuss why you did omit commenting on the other part with the substitutions around "giving in to America or Iran" and the respective interest groups having to save face.
I, as a barefoot landlord, am still wondering: why do you think your timings and preferences are the only ones to be respected?
> I'm waiting for you to apply your previously stated principle, that you admitted to be general, to Iranian diplomats' negotiating track
I've applied it. (That's why you asked for a general principle. Because I'd applied it to this specific case.) They have not been negotiating in good faith.
A case you've sustained by being unable to find any credible sources arguing Iran was negotiating in good faith.
> I've applied it. (That's why you asked for a general principle. Because I'd applied it to this specific case.) They have not been negotiating in good faith.
> My understanding is there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side.
> A case you've sustained by being unable to find any credible sources
Correction: you were unable to find any credible sources, that could be your intentional bias though, as there are other patterns in your replies that suggest it too.
Also, you didn't apply the principle, you sought external validation to your preferred understanding. You appeal to external voices because there's the evident apprehension to come to inconvenient conclusions if you begin applying the principle uniformly by using your own mind.
Actually, let's see it live. Please provide the line of reasoning, starting with "If the US diplomats' job is to stall and never make any actual concessions to Iran, then ..."
> there was a genuine desire for diplomacy on the American side
By the way, how does that "genuine desire" manifest in reality? I hope it's not "I got those people in front of me extra five minutes to get lost and free my way home"
Not a slight against you personally, but it's genuinely frustrating discussing this with people who don't actually follow the conflict. Thank you for probing in an inquisitive manner, but please question the state propaganda, which I'm sad to say includes just about every mainstream outlet.
They're interchangeable the USA and Israel, especially at this time.
Of course I mean at the state level. Individuals is a very different story.
---
Hit the rate limit so I'm attaching my response to the comment below here.
---
Fair enough. I let the current situation cloud my vision, but I genuinely mean they're interchangeable. You can look up the involvement of people like Kushner, Witkoff, Barak with Israel and see where they sit in our government. Leaving aside the major donors.
If you listen to statements made by the USG spokespeople, they literally throw US servicemen under the bus to shield the IDF. That goes both for this admin and the last.
In the previous admin, it was Biden and Blinken that made a break impossible, despite landing on different political sides from Netanyahu. Another president would have cut them off at some point.
Obama was the only one who charted an independent path in recent years (post Bush. Sr.)
> They're interchangeable the USA and Israel, especially at this time
If America and Israel are interchangeable, so are Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. That–I believe–is an overly simplistic approach, particularly when treating even Iran as a cohesive political entity is theoretically fraught.
