"Hypothetical questions on Iran" Topic

Here's a hypothetical question on US-Iranian relations:

Let's assume that by some fluke next Ayatollah is very moderate and does following things:

1. Cancels nuclear armament program.
2. Stops supporting overtly terrorist groups and militias.
3. Retains support for political allies in Syria and Iraq (a country is entitled to have diplomatic ties with legitimate political entities).

And then the key questions:

a. Would the US attitude to Iran change? Would they cancel all sanctions?

b. Given Sunnis and Shias are effectively at war, how would the USA react to Saudi/Sunni actions that threaten Iran or Shia minorities such as Houthis?

c. Would the US try to curb Arab and especially Israeli actions against Iran? Or would the US turn a blind eye to actions from these players?

It would also depend on who in the US is setting foreign policy. Example: the previous chief executive put the Houthis on the terrorist list. The new guy took them off the list. One guy said Iran was part of an axis of evil, but his replacement sent them a plane load of cash.

USAFpilot, Totally agree.

I don't think the American establishment has an end goal for Iran (much like it clearly doesn't have an end goal for Iraq).

There was no plane load of cash. All that was given was access to Iran's own money. link

Yes, there was a plane load of cash. Yes it was their money and the US should have kept it. link

link

" $1.7 USD-billion payment to Iran was all in cash due to effectiveness of sanctions, White House says"

US attitude vis-a-vis Iran will not change too much unless Israeli-Iranian relations appreciably improve, due to the influence of the JDL and other powerful pro-Israel lobbies.

USAF Pilot is right there was a planeload of cash.
Their money, or our money, it was still cash they did not have to spend until the plane landed.

If Iran stopped their nuclear program and gave up support for terrorist groups, then there would be no more conflict between the US and Iran. If Iran was not sponsoring terrorists, and not building nuclear weapons, then why would Israel act against Iran either? Makes no sense to ask such a question.

None of that is likely to happen.

If North Korea held free and fair elections open to multiple parties under international supervision, cut defense spending 90%, and stopped their nuclear program, and Kim went into exile in France, and opened full diplomatic relations with South Korea would the US change their attitude toward North Korea and would the us curb actions by Japan.

Same question, different location.

Not likely going to happen.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

There is such a long history of the US interfering in Iran, as well as support for various forces that the people of Iran have reason to dislike/hate historically, as well as the existing Iranian government structure, that it is difficult to see any peaceful resolution in the near or middle future.

If Iran was not sponsoring terrorists, and not building nuclear weapons, then why would Israel act against Iran either? Makes no sense to ask such a question.

Because Israel is unlikely to believe Iran and in any case Iran gives Israel a useful enemy to divert attention from the Palestinian issue and justify a whole heap of dubious Israeli military activities.

North Korea is a different kettle of fish entirely.

1. The South Koreans are open to reunification.

2. Japan doesn't do anything militarily against North Korea and in any case the South Koreans have territorial issues and growing animosity against Japan.

Israel on the other hand is engaged in a covert war against Iran whilst the Saudis et al are busy waging a war on Shia Islam.

3. China and Russians would have their own take on the matter as both border with the Norks. Neither would want the risk of US troops rumbling above the 38th Parallel.

Some good comments … Yes the US supported the Shah. But they did overrun our Embassy and held our people hostage for over a year, IIRC. Then supported terrorists and militas that killed US troops in the Mid East. So there is some very bad blood between the US & Iran.

When our hostage rescue attempt failed. When I was in the 101, we and other RDF units did go on Alert Status. Preparing to deploy, etc.

I hope no one in the US gov't thinks it's a good idea to give Iran anymore pallets full of cash again. Or don't make it easier for Iran to get nukes. Which that horse may have let the barn already.

As far as the ROK. There will be no unification as long as the current Nork Regime is run by the likes of Un, etc. Some
of the younger South Koreans don't really see why their should be unification. Many of their relatives that ended up in the North at war's end are dead. Plus just like when the Germanys' became one. There are some economic concerns as well. Bringing those living in a Communist "Workers' Paradise" into modernity on a Western scale. Could cost a lot of money to make that happen.

IMO in both the case of Iran and North Korea, we will see no real change in relations with the US anytime soon. And in both cases the US has to deal from a position of strength with these types of regimes. No appeasement … no apologies, no cash pay offs, etc.,. Hopefully some in the US Leadership have learned from history. But with the current situation … I doubt it …

An interesting look at the whole thing from an Iranian perspective – basically they don't trust the US.

(And to be honest the US is inherently untrustworthy given past behaviour in Kosovo, Iraq, Syria and Libya):

The other issue is that like with Russia, the US expects Iran to capitulate its interests to the US before negotiating,

link

Hopefully some in the US Leadership have learned from history.

Of course not. US leadership is infested with illogical group think.

The real lesson the US should take from the middle east is:

1. US is energy dependent and thus doesn't need the middle east.

2. US meddling only works to protect interest of US enemies like China (US effectively subsidises security for oil exports to China) and does nothing to improve national interests.

3. Withdraw from Middle East and let those who have a vested interest in it like China or Europe pick up the pieces.

And ironically the situation stabilise. Numerous studies show that international involvement in conflicts merely drags them out indefinitely. If you let people win or lose then the situation resolves itself.

There are many who believe that US policy in the ME is driven by the imperative of keeping the US dollar as the dominant reserve currency. According to the "Petrodollar Warfare hypothesis":

The United States dollar remains de facto world currency. Accordingly, almost all oil sales throughout the world are denominated in United States dollars (USD). Because most countries rely on oil imports, they are forced to maintain large stockpiles of dollars in order to continue imports. This creates a consistent demand for USDs and ostensibly supports the USD's value, regardless of economic conditions in the United States.

According to proponents of the petrodollar warfare hypothesis, this in turn allegedly allows the US government to gain revenues through seignorage and by issuing bonds at lower interest rates than supposedly they otherwise would be able to. As a result, the U.S. government, according to this theory, can run higher budget deficits at a more sustainable level than most other countries can. The theory points out that a stronger USD also means that goods imported into the United States are relatively cheap (although the country's exports become relatively more expensive for the rest of the world).

In 2000, Iraq converted all its oil transactions under the Oil for Food program to euros, even though the move was deemed by analysts to "fly in the face of financial logic", since it meant that Iraq would earn less interest on its oil revenues, which were held in a UN-monitored escrow account in New York. Also, the switch would create "cumbersome new administrative processes" because Baghdad decided to keep also its existing deposits in dollars, which meant that the oil-for-food program would maintain two accounts, one in dollars and one in euros.

Several commentators writing contemporaneously with the buildup to the invasion linked Iraq's Nov 2000 re-denomination of oil from USD to euros and the possibility of more widespread adoption of the euro as an oil pricing standard to the risk that that would place on the post-Bretton Woods use of the USD as the international reserve currency and the impact that that would have on the US economy, and theorised that one of the fundamental purposes for war in Iraq would be to force Iraq to revert to pricing its oil in USD.

After the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, Iraq returned the denomination of its oil sales to the US dollar, despite the greenback's then-fall in value.

link

So it was never about WMD's. It's about the almighty dollar.

Iran is only one of a number of democratic governments overthrown by the US government (1953). People seem to resent that.

Here's a list of all governments that the US has either, by itself or with help from others, toppled. link

The big new deal with them:
They just throw themselves in the arms and under the protection of China.
Even with soon "advisors"+ base etc.
China which also has some sort of influence in the newish USa.😘

NK will ever "unite" if the Chinese allow it. And my bet is there is no hurry.
Rok would have to be disconnected enough from the Us, then swamped into the new coprosperity sphere, which is building up, then yes, as it will be such a drain for them as to add to the quiet semi vassal keeping. Nk is, so far, a useful buffer, but also a useless weight, even oozing out to China migrants pbs.

Of course not. US leadership is infested with illogical group think.

And that won't change anytime soon. 'Nuff said or I get DH'd …

So it was never about WMD's. It's about the almighty dollar.

Nothing new there either …

Nk is, so far, a useful buffer, but also a useless weight, even oozing out to China migrants pbs.

I think the CCP also thinks Un et al are "useful dupes" …

The Nork hermit kingdom serves all the major powers hence it was allowed to continue to exist after the fall of East European communists.

China/Russia – Norks serve as buffer but also as a distraction, especially for western media and media-obsessed western leaders.

USA – allows US to maintain a large military presence in South Korea and region as a whole, gives a handy punching bag when necessary.

So it was never about WMD's. It's about the almighty dollar.

Fanatik, very interesting. I've seen some other similar comments regarding US' activities in Africa being designed to keep them using the USD as well but never on Iraq. It does make sense.

I suspect if major countries dump US$ for Euro or even Chinese Yuan en masse, the US$ would collapse as demand for it plummets. That would probably cause a run on the massive US government debt, literally causing the US to disappear as a major economic power overnight (and probably bringing around worst depression in human history).

literally causing the US to disappear as a major economic power overnight (and probably bringing around worst depression in human history).

May happen sooner than you think … 'nuff said …

May you live in interesting times.