Total Posts:3|Showing Posts:1-3
Jump to topic:

Iran Arms Embargo -- A Paradox?

Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2015 11:53:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The United States and Iran until recently have seemed close to reaching a deal, which would have been to cut back on U.S. sanctions in exchange for closing down the Iranian nuclear program to a significant extent and allowing open inspections.

(http://www.businessinsider.com...)

One sticking point -- the U.S. doesn't want to let up on the Iranian arms embargo.

The U.S. perspective:
Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. They have provided training, equipment, weapons, and funding for terrorist groups that ravage parts of Iraq and Syria, as well as Hezbollah which is stirring instability and conflict in the Middle East. This violence is a reason why many Middle Eastern allies of the U.S. view Iran with suspicion. Thus the arms embargo against Iran is a just policy.

The Iranian perspective:
The United States also provides weapons, funding, etc. to states in the Middle East. The U.S. is turning the Persian Gulf into an armed fortress, providing tens of billions in military hardware to nations such as Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and others. The U.S. has to a large extent funded the Iraqi military, as well as the Afghanistan forces. Both of these nations surround Iran, and by funding the militants in Iraq and Syria, we (Iran) are only protecting our self-interests by weakening a potential adversary and governments that cozy up to our enemy (the U.S.).

So is the U.S. being hypocritical? Or does the U.S. have the high ground because we supposedly promote democracy and individual freedom?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
slo1
Posts: 4,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 8:46:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/9/2015 11:53:26 PM, Contra wrote:
The United States and Iran until recently have seemed close to reaching a deal, which would have been to cut back on U.S. sanctions in exchange for closing down the Iranian nuclear program to a significant extent and allowing open inspections.

(http://www.businessinsider.com...)

One sticking point -- the U.S. doesn't want to let up on the Iranian arms embargo.

The U.S. perspective:
Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. They have provided training, equipment, weapons, and funding for terrorist groups that ravage parts of Iraq and Syria, as well as Hezbollah which is stirring instability and conflict in the Middle East. This violence is a reason why many Middle Eastern allies of the U.S. view Iran with suspicion. Thus the arms embargo against Iran is a just policy.

The Iranian perspective:
The United States also provides weapons, funding, etc. to states in the Middle East. The U.S. is turning the Persian Gulf into an armed fortress, providing tens of billions in military hardware to nations such as Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and others. The U.S. has to a large extent funded the Iraqi military, as well as the Afghanistan forces. Both of these nations surround Iran, and by funding the militants in Iraq and Syria, we (Iran) are only protecting our self-interests by weakening a potential adversary and governments that cozy up to our enemy (the U.S.).

So is the U.S. being hypocritical? Or does the U.S. have the high ground because we supposedly promote democracy and individual freedom?

The US also has the recollection when Iran kidnapped and held US citizens for quite some time. There was a time where during the cold war and all they proxy fights we were closer aligned with Iran, then that hostage situation happened and really sealed the deal of Iran versus US.

Ultimately the arms embargo is meaningless as Iran just gets weapons from Russia and probably China. It is largely symbolic due to our past irreconcilable differences with Iran.

With that said, it is not hypocritical because one should never arm a country they could conceivably go to war with. Right or wrong this is not an issue of moral right, it is simply one of strategic might.

I would do things very different in the Middle East and in fact would be working on restoring diplomatic relationships due to the shift in Middle East threats. That is another entire different issue though that would have people flipping out.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2015 4:18:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/10/2015 8:46:14 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 7/9/2015 11:53:26 PM, Contra wrote:
The United States and Iran until recently have seemed close to reaching a deal, which would have been to cut back on U.S. sanctions in exchange for closing down the Iranian nuclear program to a significant extent and allowing open inspections.

(http://www.businessinsider.com...)

One sticking point -- the U.S. doesn't want to let up on the Iranian arms embargo.

The U.S. perspective:
Iran is a state-sponsor of terrorism. They have provided training, equipment, weapons, and funding for terrorist groups that ravage parts of Iraq and Syria, as well as Hezbollah which is stirring instability and conflict in the Middle East. This violence is a reason why many Middle Eastern allies of the U.S. view Iran with suspicion. Thus the arms embargo against Iran is a just policy.

The Iranian perspective:
The United States also provides weapons, funding, etc. to states in the Middle East. The U.S. is turning the Persian Gulf into an armed fortress, providing tens of billions in military hardware to nations such as Iraq, Kuwait, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and others. The U.S. has to a large extent funded the Iraqi military, as well as the Afghanistan forces. Both of these nations surround Iran, and by funding the militants in Iraq and Syria, we (Iran) are only protecting our self-interests by weakening a potential adversary and governments that cozy up to our enemy (the U.S.).

So is the U.S. being hypocritical? Or does the U.S. have the high ground because we supposedly promote democracy and individual freedom?

The US also has the recollection when Iran kidnapped and held US citizens for quite some time. There was a time where during the cold war and all they proxy fights we were closer aligned with Iran, then that hostage situation happened and really sealed the deal of Iran versus US.

Ultimately the arms embargo is meaningless as Iran just gets weapons from Russia and probably China. It is largely symbolic due to our past irreconcilable differences with Iran.

With that said, it is not hypocritical because one should never arm a country they could conceivably go to war with. Right or wrong this is not an issue of moral right, it is simply one of strategic might.

Your thoughts here I think make the most sense. With this in mind, it is a reasonable mindset for the U.S. policy in place.

I would do things very different in the Middle East and in fact would be working on restoring diplomatic relationships due to the shift in Middle East threats. That is another entire different issue though that would have people flipping out.

Restoring diplomatic relations with Iran? I can see how that'd be advantageous.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan