this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
216 points (97.4% liked)

World News

38553 readers
2700 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Pezeshkian replaced the ultraconservative Ebrahim Raisi, who died in a helicopter crash in May.

During election campaigning, he had vowed to "fully" oppose police patrols enforcing the mandatory hijab headscarf, as well as easing long-standing internet restrictions.

Relations with the West

At his news conference, Pezeshkian briefly touched on other topics including Iran's fraught relations with the United States and the 2015 nuclear deal.

"We do not want to fight with America if it respects our rights," he said. "It is not us who are hostile (to the Americans). We have not built military bases around their country," Pezeshkian added, referring to U.S. bases in the Gulf and in Iraq.

Iran and the United States have had no diplomatic relations since 1980, the year after the Islamic Revolution that toppled its Western-backed Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

'Disarm Israel'

He also insisted on Iran's right to maintain its missile program, which has drawn Western criticism, as a deterrent against its arch-foe Israel.

"They (the West) want us not to have missiles, that is fine, but you need to disarm Israel first," he said, adding that otherwise "they can drop bombs on us whenever they want, like in Gaza."

all 32 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 30 points 2 days ago (1 children)

That’s fun and all, but the office of the President is very weak in Iran. What does the Supreme Leader say?

[–] wick@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Idk anything about Iran but it doesn't seem that simple https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/khameneis-presidential-choice-weak-reformer-or-strong-hardliner

The supreme boofhead seems more concerned with revolutionary guard power grabs. Or maybe this guy is a ploy to increase voter turnout for better optics and he's okay with throwing the IRGC a bone.

Would still be nice if this guy won I guess.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 45 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Talk is cheap. I'll believe it when I see it.

[–] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 31 points 2 days ago

Conservatives will say absolutely anything that serves them in the moment. Never ever believe the word of a conservative. Never.

[–] Eiri@lemmy.ca 22 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Am I... Agreeing? With something an Iranian President said?

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 8 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If be a lot more sympathetic to Iran if they weren't actively participating in Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 day ago

I have a bit more sympathy for the president, since his decisions can all be vetoed by the ayatollah, and he broadly seems to be trying to move Iran in the right direction

[–] hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 days ago

You know what they say about broken clocks.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Later:

Iranian morality police and religious hardliners call xor the arrest of President Pezeshkian

Edit: I’m leaving it because it’s more amusing that way

[–] Andonyx@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

By your logic the president can only be arrested if the morality police and religious hardliners disagree. 🤔

lol yeah, it does look that way

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 1 day ago

I'm on it lads, booking my flight to Tehran now

[–] cyborganism@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago

That sounds like a step in the right direction.

[–] ms_lane@lemmy.world 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

How about just disband the IRGC?

They're a terrorist organisation.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 15 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And roll over for Israel? Very convenient.

Iran agreed to the nuclear deal. America ripped up the agreement.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (2 children)

Trump ripped up the agreement***

When the two major parties have massively different diplomatic policies we have problems like this a lot.

It can also be good sometimes tho like when Jimmy Carter became president and started cracking down on the junta in Argentina and flying out victims and stuff.

[–] IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

We do not apply the same generosity of isolating a president from country policy when it comes to Iranian presidents. But leaving Trump aside there are many other instances where America screwed over Iran.

[–] xor@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 day ago

We do for the ayatollahs though, because they are the ones who actually make the decisions, same goes for Russian presidents and CCP general secretaries

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

America doesn't have a Supreme leader dumbass

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

... And yet, we isolate the president from the country as if the country did.

That's. The. Point.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

*uneducated idiots isolate....

Ftfy

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 6 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Trump ripped up the agreement***

That's true, but also let me just say this.

Whenever the US does something bad, you can't just blame it on the whole US, you have to look at the specific people responsible for it, right? But what about when another country, like Iran, for example, does something bad? Do we say, "Oh well obviously you can't blame Iran in general for it?" Very rarely. Often, people go so far as to not only paint an entire government negatively off a bad action, but to paint and entire culture and people that way, going back even to previous, unrelated governments that governed previous generations, completely different structures doing completely different things. Post-9/11, you saw people painting the entire Muslim world as warlike religious fanatics, even going back to Mideval times. People sometimes fail to make a distinction between the USSR and modern Russia. And likewise in China, I've seen people before trying to argue that China is inherently domineering based on ancient history.

When we're taught history in school, all of our country's decisions are taught with the full context and perspective, we're taught what people were concerned about and why they did it and who were the ones who actually did it, and the conclusion for bad stuff is that it was an unfortunate necessity, or a mistake, or the product of a few bad apples in an otherwise positive project.

You are right, of course, that it was Trump who pulled out of the deal. But I think it's important to understand that that nuance is only really seen from the inside, that from the perspective of Iran, for example, it's just the US being fickle, and that if we expect the world to be understanding of that sort of nuance to our government's actions, it's important to apply the same sort of nuance any time we look at the actions of other countries.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Except that Iran isn't a democracy in practice or really by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe in the 80s, but when a country has a leader with complete and total authority, it really doesn't matter.

We blame Putin for the actions of Russia bc he has supreme authority over Russia. We cannot blame a single president for the same, as 1, they don't have supreme authority in most matters, and 2, unlike Russia the US is actually a representative democracy, whether or not you like the options available.

In essence, I disagree with the premise that this is the norm. It's not only visible from the inside. If people don't care enough to find out, that's a different problem, but in general, diplomatic officials tend to know abt this kind of stuff because it's their job to.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Whether a country is democratic or not doesn't really have anything to do with it. Every country, including non-democratic ones, has different factions and inner workings.

We cannot blame a single president for the same

Is this a typo? You just said that Trump was responsible for pulling out of the Iran deal, which is true, and which he had the power to do unilaterally.

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Nuance. Trump did have that power. He did not, by any means, have power over the entirety of US policy. The fact that the Republicans had significant congressional control also gave him, but actually them, more overall power, but still not absolute by any sense of the imagination. Absolutely every country has different factions and inner workings, but in countries where there is a supreme authority, those are by and large null and void. The US does not have any one supreme authority (except money maybe lol)

I'm basically saying that we can only blame the people that had the power and that took the action in question, or, alternatively, the people with power over them.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

Absolutely every country has different factions and inner workings, but in countries where there is a supreme authority, those are by and large null and void.

That's not true. Even in dictatorships, the person at the top still has people who they need to keep happy in order to stay in power. Nobody gets to or stays at the top on their own, what happens is that they're supported in that position by whatever interests they represent. If someone comes to power in a military coup, for instance, they have to keep the military happy or they'll get replaced.

More to the point, it's not just about who gets blame or credit for stuff, it's about understanding the mechanics of a system, and the history, and the various material factors and interests that go into decision making.

[–] Nuke_the_whales@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Can't he just do it? Look at the camera and tell them "STOP IT YOU WEIRDOS"

[–] lolcatnip@reddthat.com 5 points 2 days ago

US presidents are highly constrained in how they can use their power. Why would you expect Iranian presidents to be any different? They have even less power on paper because Iran also has a Supreme Leader.

[–] xc2215x@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago

Good for him. A move that is needed.