How is it like to be a dev in Iran

sigh... once again, you are making the same argument that everyone else always makes, which is "these other countries over here are doing bad things, therefore lets support more countries doing bad things!".

> are pretty much what the US does all the time

Completely irrelevant.

> the US sends special forces

Completely irrelevant.

> The US has been doing that almost everywhere

Completely irrelevant.

> extend their sphere of influence to neighbouring countries in the region than the US, who have just absolutely fucking nothing to do in the region

Completely irrelevant.

> The idea that e.g. the US had a special right to control the Strait of Hormuz is, simply put, absurd.

Completely irrelevant.

> US foreign politics and Western foreign politics in general are muddling up the two issues

Completely irrelevant

> Allying with Saudi Arabia

Completely irrelevant.

> US government is ideologically very close to the theocratic apparatus in Iran.

Completely irrelevant.

Here, let me explain again. If a country is doing bad thing X, where in this case, the bad thing is "funding militant groups in an area", then I do not feel sympathy for it, if sanctions are levied on them. They are doing a bad thing that I don't want them to do. Therefore I don't feel bad about economic retaliations.

It does not matter how many other countries you bring up who are doing A, B, C, D or Z. It is completely irrelevant to the true fact that Iran is indeed still funding militants in the region, and therefore I do not feel bad for them for suffering under economic sanctions.

In my world, more bad countries get sanctioned. In your world, more bad countries get away with their bad things.

"This other country is also doing a bad thing!" is not an excuse that I will every accept, and if your response is to keep bringing up more bad things that you think others are doing, well I don't care. It is completely irrelevant to the true fact that Iran is indeed funding militants in the area, and therefore I do not feel bad about the sanctions.

There are a whole lot of reasons other than foreign intervention that the middle east is "complete misery".

Box 1: A large western democracy with a free press, who has possessed nuclear weapons since their invention 75 years ago. Has been fully capable of destroying the world all that time... and hasn't. Wants to upgrade existing weapons.

Box 2: A small theocratic dictatorship, ruled by a Supreme Leader for life, who has been at constant war with its neighbors for pretty much all of modern history and still openly calls for the obliteration of some of them. It's a place where people are executed for adultery and homosexuality, and until recently the preferred method was stoning. After losing a half-million people in human wave attacks during its last big war, the country's Supreme Leader wants a bigger badder boom.

If these two things are the same in your mind, you are so far outside the bounds of rational thought that I'll just have to assume you're trolling.

No need for condescending sighs, I kind of know what I'm talking about and to be honest, I'm not quite sure whether I buy into your claims of irrelevance. International rights and their moral justification are to a large extent based on habits, i.e., customary rights, and on the principle of reciprocity. There are also principles of state sovereignity to consider. Finally, there is the problem of only selectively applying moral principles and international rights, which is inherently unjust.

I have argued that people should base their judgements on a better understanding, trying to put themselves into the shoes of e.g. someone in a country that is being threatened to be invaded by the largest military force of the world and has been threatened in the past. I have also suggested to be careful not to confuse geopolitical strategies of countries with moral points, and that any sanctions or other efforts to influence Iran should be targeted against its theocratic structure, which is at the heart undemocratic. In reality, however, the US mostly seeks to increase their sphere of influence for geopolitical reasons and the US has no right at all to do that. There is no international law or any other reasonable construction that would justify that the US does anything in that region of the earth at all. I'm suggesting that sanctions should be justified morally and, if so, extended to countries like e.g. Saudi Arabia, too, in order not to appear to be selective and therefore unjust. I am for sanctions and other non-violent measures to increase democracy in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Russia, and so forth, if these measures promise to be at least moderately successful. Otherwise, I believe that change almost must come from within.

I'm not sure what you ware suggesting in contrast to this. This looks very much like a conflict between the US and Iran that is mostly about geostrategy. This is what I suggested to and you consider it irrelevant. What is it, then, you're suggesting? That the US should act as a world police without any mandate, despite the US's horrendous track record of torture, illegal kidnappings, aggressive wars against other countries, and so on? This doesn't make sense to me, especially given that the US has already created great havoc and chaos in the whole region.

I'm really baffled at what you're trying to argue for. It is obvious that in this conflict both Iran and the US primarily act out of strategic interests in the region and not because of any moral concerns, and accusing the US of hypocricy seems quite justified.

1. Why does this democracy has upgraded its weapons in this particular way? The old weapons were working fine for the purpose of MAD (retaliatory strike against cities), the new ones are fit for a surprise first strike.

This democracy hasn't destroyed the world because it wants to live itself and MAD guaranteed that nobody wins a nuclear war. When it could use nuclear weapons without fear of retaliation, it happily used them on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Now it has gotten closer towards obtaining capability to start and win a nuclear war.

2. Iran hasn't started a war in a hundred of years, the Iran-Iraq war was started by Iraq, in which Saddam, who was supported by the US at the time, has used chemical weapons. You are clearly misinformed by your free press and Iran's desire to possess a nuclear deterrent is more than understandable.