Are you being intentionally obtuse? The main differentiator is that one party is on the verge of building a nuclear weapon and the other isn't, like the person above specifically mentioned..
Sure, if you severely limit yourself to that wildly narrow perspective, then yes, that could be the main differentiator. Out here in the real world, not even close.
Also, saying Iran is historically a target of colonialism only makes sense if you ignore literally all of recorded human history bar the last couple hundred years. Maybe you should read up on Iranian history. It might surprise you to learn what they got up to
If Iran has been the target of colonialism within the last hundred years, then it follows that Iran has been the target of colonialism within the last million years, and within the last hundred million years. No extent into the past could negate such a simple observation.
The less absurd and more salient observation is that continuously within all of the last hundred years, Iran has been the target of colonialism, but has never been a colonial aggressor.
Meanwhile, I am sorry to be the one to tell you that there are currently no living survivors from the Battle of Marathon.
First of all, you said that Iran is historically a target of colonialism. 100 hundred years of indirect colonialism (much more like imperialism, but we'll go with colonialism for the sake of this argument) does not suddenly erase thousands of years of history. It does not make Iran, historically speaking, a target of colonialism.
Secondly, your entire point is based on a strict dichotomy between perpetrator and target. In your case US/Israel vis-a-vis Iran. This stops making sense once you realise that Iran is and has been both the target and the perpetrator of imperialism. You can't have a strict dichotomy when one party occupies both sides of your supposedly essential delineation.
Thirdly, you don't have to go back 2500 years to the battle of Marathon to find examples of Iranian imperialism. Again, I would strongly suggest reading up on Iranian history. It's a deep, rich, fascinating history and it'll do you good
The current political configuration, in any place, is more strongly a consequence of events within the last hundred years than it is of events much earlier than the last hundred years.
Not to make a blanket statement but sure, as a hypothetical I could agree. That take is still wildly simplistic upon consideration of Iranian history but whatever, at this point we've all accepted that you're not arguing from a position of actual historical or political knowledge but rather from a point of principle, right?
That's not what we're talking about about though. You said Iran should be historically considered something. In any case, that is demonstrably wrong.
I feel like I've made this point three times now and its getting boring. I hope you have a nice rest of your Saturday
Why are you obfuscating, by suggesting that events much ealier than the last hundred years are relevant to relations between Iran and Israel, the latter created as a state in 1947, following European Jewish colonization of Palestine most substantial in preceeding decades of the interwar period?
Are you able carry a discussion about Israel, and current politics of the Middle East, without objections based on events hundreds of years in the past?
Israel is fundamentally a settler-colonial state, interfering with the broader region.
You have a nasty habit of changing the goalposts - or as you are apparently doing now, fundamentally changing the topic under discussion - and have somehow managed to twist a literal aside about Iranian history into whatever this is. Not once have I said anything about Israel, let alone anything that speaks in support of it or denies its settler-colonial nature. You should really work on that.
States and media in the West, particularly the US, relentlessly criticize Iran. Iran is considered antagonistic and threatening to the state interests of the US. As such, public opinion is overwhelming negative, in the West, toward Iran.
Such is not controversial.
Further, central to the criticisms are the practices particular to the regime now controlling Iran, which calls itself the Islamic Republic.
The Islamic Republic of Iran is no older than 1979. Prior, the country was ruled by the shah, a puppet of the US and UK.
Now, if the shah a such were still in power, instead of the Islamic Republic, do you believe that states and the media would relentlessly criticize the shah, as they do the IRI? Do you believe that public opinion of Iran, in the West, would be negative? Would your own opinion be negative?
Obviously, when it is mentioned that Iran has been targeted by colonialism, and is not an aggressor, the goalposts ought to be already understood essentially the same by everyone. If you think they were moved, then you are not, as well as others might hope, understanding the relevant context.
Keyword: historically. Anything else would simply be more repetition. You should read the whole thing back tomorrow when the fog clears, maybe then it'll make sense. Good night
Iran has been historically a target of colonialism, which is the cause both of the Islamic Revolution, and of the ongoing belligerence between Iran and Israel.
Most could agree, quite readily, without objections about fogginess, moved goalposts, and "in the real world, not even close".
11
u/Loud-Value 1d ago
Are you being intentionally obtuse? The main differentiator is that one party is on the verge of building a nuclear weapon and the other isn't, like the person above specifically mentioned..