Quote Originally Posted by joosttx View Post
What then are they about?
Just my $0.043 (inflation adjusted): The US has a tendency to punish countries that don't do what it wants or that oppose it. The two best examples are Cuba and Iran. I think the US message to the world is: "You poke us in the eye, and we'll f**k with you forever. Let this be a cautionary tale to all those who would dare do anything that displeases us."

This needs a little background. As someone recounted above, the US/UK engineering of the 1953 coup was because Iran wanted to nationalize the oil industry. Today the word "nationalize" has negative and communist connotations. The reality at the time was that the Anglo-Iran Oil Company (now British Petroleum) had forced Iran to accept a contract that paid Iran one-third of the normal rate. How did this contract happen? At the point of a gun, literally. The UK conquered Iran before WW1 in order to get access to oil. After the war the UK let is go, but BP kept the oil contracts. In WW2 Iran wanted to stay neutral, but the UK conquered Iran again, and then the US joined in. They hoovered up all the resources (oil and food) to the extent that some Iranians starved to death. After WW2 the UK and US left, but the oil contracts remained. Iran learned that not only was BP paying one-third the normal rate, it was cheating the Iranians by fraudulently reporting the amount of oil it was taking out of the ground. The people were discontent over this state of affairs and voters agitated to elect leaders who would do something about it. The result was that Iran "nationalized" the BP contracts, meaning though the law of eminent domain Iran would pay fair market value for the oil contracts and all of BP's equipment in Iran. Of course, the fair market value price would be based upon the one-third of normal royalty rate and the fraudulent quantities. BP didn't want this, so the coup resulted. Everyone here should be reminded of the quaint British custom of making sure that key UK and US government officials owned lots of stock in companies like BP; it assured prompt attention to company needs.

The Iranian people hated the Shah so they got rid of him in a revolution. They installed a democracy. The UK and US were unhappy. They no longer had access to Iranian oil profits and got a moral black eye in the process. Think about how this ended up. The 1953 coup got America 26 years of good relations (in America's eyes). Then it got America 36 years of bad relations. 26 vs 36. Was it worth it?

Iran's 1979 change to democracy had other effects also. The Arab Peninsula dictatorships have a good thing. They sit on a sea of oil and gas and the dictators get the profits. They jealously guard their position and react strongly to anything that could challenge it. When Iran became a democracy the first Ayatollah preached that Islam is incompatible with dictatorship and that all good Muslims should support democratic rule. The Arab dictatorships, particularly the Saudis, reacted very negatively. This era saw the formation of the Gulf Cooperation Council, a military and economic alliance of the Arabian Peninsula dictatorships. Just look at Egypt. It became a democracy in 2013 and the Muslim Brotherhood party was elected. Let's be clear, the MB is a radical violent group. The key was that the MB party opposed the Saudi king. The Saudis and the US/UK then supported a military coup and now Egypt is a radical Sunni dictatorship.

The US supports Saudi Arabia in all things. For those new to this, remember that Saudi is Arab and Sunni, and Iran is Persian and Shiite. They don't speak a word of the same language. Ethnically this is like the French and the Germans, and religiously this is like Belfast Protestants vs Belfast Catholics. The Saudis have a deep hatred of the Shia and there are recent reports that Saudi government officials are happy that the great reckoning is coming soon. The top two worlds largest arms deals in history have happened recently, with the US selling to Saudi. The UK has done the same. Saudi's military budget is roughly equal to Russia's.

Economically they are at odds. They are competitors in the oil and gas markets. The largest gas fields in the world are under the Persian Gulf, that narrow strip of water between the Arabs and Persians. Think of these gas fields as a giant slurpee with two straws, one straw going to Arab Sunni (Saudi, Qatar, Barhain, UAE, Oman) and one going to Persian Shia. Anything the Arab Sunni can do to slow Iran sucking on that straw means more money for the Arab Sunni dictators and their families.

Even though the US State Department says that Saudi is the largest source of terrorism funding in the world, even though Saudi funded the Pakistani nuclear bomb program (and undoubtedly expects something for its money), even though there is a load of evidence of Saudi/Qatari/UAE/Bahrain funding of ISIS, the US has picked its horse and is riding it. The US and UK view Saudi Arabia as a reliable ally. Remember the pictures of the Saudi ambassador holding hands with President Bush, that they were close personal friends?

From this historical and economic perspective, perhaps we can consider that the sanctions and antipathy towards Iran are not about nuclear weapons. America, the UK, Israel and the IAEA all officially report that Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program. However, creating fear, uncertainty and doubt about future nuclear weapons becomes a wonderful excuse for anything that the war hawks want to do, or anything that certain economic interests want to do.