r/Republican • u/pashiz_quantum • 21d ago
Discussion Why is it hard to let go of Iran?
Iran may look economically isolated, but geopolitically it sits on major financial pressure points. The Strait of Hormuz has historically carried roughly a fifth of global oil and LNG flows, so disruption around Iran can quickly hit tanker traffic, freight costs, oil prices, investor sentiment, and government policy.
That is why I don’t see Iran as simply a “problem” for powerful interests. It can generate tension across multiple fronts, move markets, and force governments and investors to reposition billions of dollars. That kind of instability can be highly profitable for those positioned to benefit from it.
My view is that too many political and financial interests have grown around this permanent cycle of escalation and de-escalation. Iran is useful because it can move the world without being powerful enough to control it, which may be exactly why the crisis is so difficult to permanently resolve.
This also helps explain why politicians can become invested in prolonged diplomatic “solutions.” Diplomacy itself creates an ecosystem of negotiations, sanctions relief, renewed pressure, mediation, lobbying, reconstruction plans, and repeated rounds of talks. The longer the crisis survives, the longer that ecosystem survives. That’s why I think Democrats are so interested in prolonged negotiations: they create more financial opportunities and economic bubbles around the crisis.
In this model, Europe and China are especially important. Europe would face enormous economic consequences from a major reduction in trade with China, while China remains heavily dependent on energy flows through the Persian Gulf. Energy-producing countries, including Iran, may also benefit from a certain level of instability if it keeps energy prices above a profitable threshold, not necessarily extremely high, but high enough that permanently resolving the Iran issue may not align with every actor’s economic interests.
The important part is that these profits are not broadly shared. They are concentrated among a relatively small circle of political, financial, and strategic interests, while tens of millions of ordinary people absorb the cost.
Before Iran’s 1979 Revolution, the Shah was repeatedly challenged by Western media and officials over energy security and rising oil prices. Yet nearly five decades later, the Islamic Republic appears to have created far greater instability for Western energy security.
At some point, the better question is not how long the crisis can be managed, but how much more value could be created through normal trade, investment, economic relations, and cooperation with the people living through it. That value could extend far beyond the small circle that benefits from permanent instability.
Israel influence over US interests:
Republicans may be able to prevent Israel from lobbying and influencing U.S. policy among Republicans, but they cannot prevent an alliance between Islamists and Democrats.
That is exactly what Democrats want: for Republicans to step back in the hope that Dems will play fair and square. But the two-party political system (a loophole in the system) pushes political actors with values that are at odds with traditional American principles into alliances aimed at defeating Republicans.
For Republicans to govern without Israeli influence, while Democrats also play fair and avoid alliances with Islamist groups, they would need Western European allies to follow the same approach. But Europeans do not, because they have become heavily dependent on China, and their strategic interests are no longer fully aligned with the United States.
So while I do not support Israeli influence over U.S. policy, I also do not think there is any real political solution in simply crawling back from every military conflict and expecting the other side not to bring radical Islamists into the policy-making process.
For example, around the time of the Syrian war, was it Republicans or Israel who started that conflict? No.
My point is that these conflicts are going to happen regardless, because Democrats can also benefit politically from that model and from consequences they believe they can manage within certain expectations: inflation, mass migration, instability, and the political shifts that follow.
So if this kind of conflict is ultimately inevitable, the question that remains is simply this: which side do you want US interests aligned with?
16
u/Xibyn 20d ago
I think your premise isn't bad but maybe flawed. This thing with Iran is going to go on until the people of Iran force a bloody regime change, and that is likely coming sooner than later based on what's coming out from the populace in Iran. Trump won't settle for anything less. People don't understand this because they don't fully, or even partially understand why this is all happening.
If you're looking at financial ecosystems with the situation in Iran you'd want to look at what things will look like once this new regime takes over, what the US and the rest of the worlds place is within that new regime.
10
u/Belt-First 16d ago
Trump was ready to give Iran $300B and unfreeze $24B of their assets just to reopen the straight (MOU back in June).
Sorry to say, his actions are not aligned with the interest of the people of Iran despite how often he might repeat it.
-2
u/Xibyn 16d ago
It isn't about the people of Iran. It's about the people of America and Israel. The people of Iran just pave the safest path for the Americans and Israelis.
5
u/Belt-First 16d ago
I think by not engaging with Trump's attempt to pay-off the Iranians to reopen the strait, you're conceding that Trump would settle for less than "bloody regime change", which undermines your own financial point.
No need to pivot here.
2
1
u/Xibyn 16d ago
No pivot. 2 points. 1. Trump always negotiates starting with the most extreme to get a good deal. It's all spelled out in his book. 2. Opening the strait isn't a finality to the conflict. It's opening the strait.
0
u/Belt-First 16d ago
If the ultimate goal is to force a "bloody regime change", offering the current regime a $300B economic development plan and unfreezing billions in assets is the exact opposite of a hard-line tactic. You don't overthrow a regime by handing them an economic stimulus package.
Furthermore, the MOU wasn't just about the strait. It explicitly called for "immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts".
Agreeing to a permanent ceasefire is the literal definition of allowing the current regime to survive.
5
u/pashiz_quantum 16d ago
I think your premise isn't bad but maybe flawed.
Did you read that while assuming I'm talking about Republicans?
I was talking about mostly Democrats.I'm Iranian myself and I've been observing democrats keep pushing to keep this current model of war-negotiations for so long. and I keep asking myself why?
It seems very counter intuitive to keep a regime that threatens profits of everyone in the west like Europe and USA but I feel like the benefits of Western countries are not aligned anymore. A group of insiders keep earning money on this model while most of the wold lose.
I would love to see my country free of Ayatollahs and I'm coming from a family of executed prisoners.
11
u/H3nchman_24 20d ago
Because every time a Democrat is in the White House, that president ends up financing Irans next terror conquest. Somebody needs to end that cycle of funding terrorism in the Middle East
22
u/moto_becane1 19d ago
This is not a Democrat issue. Reagan's Iran-Contra and funding the Mujahideen are good examples.
2
u/NoBeach7292 15d ago
Aligned with? Israel of course if I understand your question. Why no mention of controlling Iran's nuclear weapons development & the protection of Iran's citizens from being killed by Iran's gov't.
5
u/chaosworld6 20d ago
I think the belief is that Iran, Russia, Venezuela, North Korea and Cuba are allies of chaos. They simply want to be disruptors and keep causing problems with neighboring countries. Trump as crazy as he is wants to keep irritating their alliance with wars and middle of the night abductions.
1
4
u/CoverHuman9771 16d ago
The problem is Islam. That’s the whole conflict boiled down to its root. Iran takes Islam seriously and many of their more successful neighbors do not. We’ve been fighting this war for 1400 years and it’s not stopping anytime soon.
6
u/umwtfjusthappened 16d ago
Iran just proposed a plan to reopen the strait within a week because of the current state of affairs. It was turned down, why you ask?
Here’s the better question, can any of these people actually tell you what’s happened in Iran the last 3 months? No, because other than random tit for tat attacks, there’s not really anything happening outside of the blockade. Iran is being choked much like Cuba. Thus the plea by Iran’s government. (not the IRGC, they practically believe their ordained by god and the world is rightfully theirs)
Because it’s not actually about Iran, it’s about China. They’re being starved for energy imports and having to buy on the global market instead of getting it for pennies on the dollar since they don’t respect sanctions. (One of the major reasons it’s so high priced currently)
Iran is being starved right now as well, the embargo plus just overall being cutoff from their allies and now attacked in the Black Sea by Ukraine is isolating them more and more.
-3
u/Bayushi_Vithar 16d ago
I wish we had not escalated in Iran but I agree that things are starting to bite. Won't be nearly enough to prevent the bloodbath in November. It doesn't help that solensky's attacking the diesel refineries in Russia
2
u/carverofdeath 16d ago
Because that all liberals have to complain about. That, and letting men in womens sports.
1
u/No_Educator_6376 20d ago
It started with Jimmy Carter they had over 100 people hostage and they have been trying to start a war ever since.
14
u/fiveeyesfetti 19d ago
It started with the CIA assassination of Iran's Democratically elected Prime Minister in 1953. And before then the incursion of Britain and Russia into the nation's affairs.
3
1
u/jefsch70 15d ago
The Fallacy of "Sunken Costs".... ""We already invested $36 Billion"... another $25 should make it worth it....
They are a Strong intersection "Pivot Point" for Terrorists Funding / Sanctioned OIL/GAS / Money Laundering / Nuclear Bomb Ambitions (Not just to build; TO USE THEM TO END HUMANITY due to SHiite Muslim beliefs.
1
16d ago
[deleted]
3
u/pashiz_quantum 16d ago
I'm Iranian myself and I would love to see Ayatollahs gone.
God bless and protect all the fighters of USA.
I actually wrote that about democrats.
1
u/Mental_Look3760 16d ago
Man, the whole Middle East is a shit hole if they were living in it theyed hate it
1
u/FixPUNK MAGA! 🇺🇲 16d ago
lol, I didn’t want the war to start, but we can’t exactly walk away now.
2
u/NoBeach7292 15d ago
Exactly. Part of reason for the war was to neutralize Iran's nuclear powers. In addition, it should include longterm security of the strait. And to protect Iran citizens from three gov't.
1
u/TheSimpsonsAreYellow 15d ago
Potentially crazy take: we were at odds with Iran and always have been. The only country we were directly and deeply affiliated with that was actively fighting Iran was Israel.
We got into this conflict because of Israel. We are still in this conflict because Israel would be all by its lonesome if we pulled out, not that they even really need us.
The US, through the war with Iran and doing everything it can to maintain a “US style life” for Israel, so we will maintain our position as not to disrupt Israel.
This also has absolutely nothing to do with Jewish people , literally just the country itself and it’s leader.
Otherwise, I cannot find any truly feasible or real world reason that we are still doing this.
2
u/pashiz_quantum 15d ago
You may be able to prevent Israel from lobbying and influencing U.S. policy among Republicans, but you cannot prevent an alliance between Islamists and Democrats.
That is exactly what they want: for you to step back in the hope that they will play fair and square. But your two-party political system (a loophole in the system) pushes political actors with values that are at odds with traditional American principles into alliances aimed at defeating Republicans.
For Republicans to govern without Israeli influence, while Democrats also play fair and avoid alliances with Islamist groups, you would need Western European allies to follow the same approach. But they do not, because they have become heavily dependent on China, and their strategic interests are no longer fully aligned with yours.
So while I do not support Israeli influence over U.S. policy, I also do not think there is any real political solution in simply crawling back from every military conflict and expecting the other side not to bring radical Islamists into the policy-making process.
For example, around the time of the Syrian war, was it Republicans who started that conflict? No. My point is that these conflicts are going to happen regardless, because Democrats can also benefit politically from that model and from consequences they believe they can manage within certain limits: inflation, mass migration, instability, and the political shifts that follow.
So if this kind of conflict is ultimately inevitable, the question that remains is simply this: which side do you want your interests aligned with?
-1
u/Baller-Mcfly 16d ago
Maybe many of us voted for no new wars. Maybe doing isreals bidding is gonna lose elections for Republicans.
43
u/Santaneria 20d ago
I dont fully understand the political obsession with wanting to have a say in their leader. If the US wants autonomy, then we need to practice what we preach.