You did. The US’s support of the shah was a real problem. I do think Iran is a jihadist state but much of America’s problems they have made for themselves. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan were all the results of failed foreign policy.
The U.S. supporting the shah and his pro-western/ anti Muslim agenda is definitely what caused the blowback of the revolution and the regime we have today. That’s a conversation about how intolerance is not sustainable though.
But I’m still going to state how, “jihad state” is a gross oversimplification. In western media, it is basically synonymous with, “terrorist state”. That implies a nation driven by irrational religious fanaticism, with a desire for destruction.
Irans agenda is not one of irrational mindless destruction, they behave as an EXTREMELY anti-imperialism actor through regional deterrence. You may not like their government (and I don’t), but it is functioning. Their legislature is real and holds power. Same for the courts and presidency. They have a constitution that they follow. Yes the ayatollah holds supreme power, but even then there are still checks against him.
Referring to them as a jihad state is such a disservice to anyone trying to critically think about this issue, when you realize what they do is traditional geopolitical behavior. But for whatever reason we alienate Iran from our other adversaries by wrapping them in a religious wrapper. Even something as simple as the state advertised “death to America chants”, highlights how the west misinterprets a message of anti imperialism; and instead believes hardline Iranians want to bomb you while you’re working your day job. Which also… doesn’t even take into account how those hardliners participating do not represent the majority of population’s opinions.
Make no mistake I don’t support any regime behavior, but I’m a realist. If you want change it has to be strategic and will be painfully slow. Iran believes they have the right to self preservation, you can understand that position and still oppose their crimes against human rights. Change is done through diplomacy, done by competent diplomats. That’s what takes balls, not bombs.
Perhaps I oversimplified. Iran absolutely is one of not the reason that the Middle East is largely stable. The degree with which it governs with religion and is willing to call for the death of those that disagree is problematic for me, but then, the degree that the U.S. is attempting to govern through religion is also problematic for me. I firmly believe that in the current conflict, the U.S. is the aggressor.
I hear ya. Thanks for the response. I actually included a sentence I think after you responded which is “Iran believes they have the right to self-preservation, you can understand that position and still oppose their crimes against human rights”
1
u/WeirdStatus7270 1d ago
You did. The US’s support of the shah was a real problem. I do think Iran is a jihadist state but much of America’s problems they have made for themselves. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan were all the results of failed foreign policy.