TexasScientist said:
Sam Lowry said:
TexasScientist said:
Sam Lowry said:
TexasScientist said:
Sam Lowry said:
TexasScientist said:
Sam Lowry said:
Gunny Hartman said:
Sam Lowry said:
Gunny Hartman said:
Lol. The same country whose leaders have vowed "Death to America" and refers to us as "the Great Satan?" Yeah, I don't think they're of a mind to have a "better relationship," at least in the way that normal humans think of a relationship. The only way to deal with lunatics like that is through strength, because that's all they understand and respect.
Rhetoric is just that. Their actions have been largely responsible for the decimation of ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
Just because they backed their boy Assad, another ruthless dictator, doesn't make them the good guys all of the sudden.
Of course not. But it all goes back to what our goals are, or what they should be. I say fight terrorism. If Iran can help us do that, it's for the better. If we're more interested in destabilizing Syria and keeping Al Qaeda and ISIS on life support to further the goal of regime change, I admit Iran won't be much help.
It's all about competing religious views and furtherance of those beliefs. Iran's policies have nothing to do with preventing terrorism or assisting us in any shape or fashion in fighting terrorism. They are all barbaric countries with barbaric religous beliefs. Cooperation with the U.S. is contingent to what is expedient at the moment, financially and strategically.
So what? Our cooperation with other countries is contingent on what's expedient for us, or at least it should be.
All I'm pointing out is that none of them should be trusted as long as their societies are held captive to their religion. Terrorism is a part of their way of life. In the case of Iran, their interest in defeating ISIS is for control of competing religious ideology and dominance in the Middle East, not fighting terrorism. They are just as intent on bringing down the U. S. and the Saudis they are ISIS.
I have not seen evidence of that. Iran is actively at war against ISIS; not so against the US.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/09/28/u-s-closes-consulate-southern-iraq-following-attacks-blames-iran/1461122002/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-blames-iran-for-iraq-attacks-threatens-to-respond-decisively/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-iran/iran-attacks-iranian-kurdish-opposition-group-base-in-iraq-idUSKCN1LO0KZ
This only proves my point. You have a couple of attacks, described as "rare," without casualties, against mainly Iraqi assets, by unknown parties, possibly in retaliation for the burning of an Iranian consulate and the offices of a pro-Iran militia, and not necessarily with Iran's knowledge. The third item is an attack on Kurdish rebels and doesn't involve us even indirectly. Sounds far from a determined effort to bring down the US.
You don't understand the Middle East. Iran is doing everything it can to destabilize those aligned with U.S. interests. (Kurds, Iraqis, Israelis, Saudis).
I take your point, but I would add that much of Iran's actions are more understandable through the lens of regional power struggles rather than hatred of the US by Iran's leaders (though this is certainly a factor). And in addition to simple regional power struggles, you can add Sunni-Shia conflict to the dynamic.
The Iranians are fighting a proxy war in Yemen against the Saudis because of both regional power and religious reasons. They're dominating Iraq, as they were inevitably going to do once Saddam was gone and a Shia majority asserted its power, because of religious reasons. And that's also part of the reason for their involvement in Syria. Assad is from a religious minority and was the protector of other religious minorities in Syria (including Christians) against the Sunni majority. That creates a common interest for the Iranians, on top of which is power and influence that gives Iran a lever against both Israel and, to a lesser extent, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.