US-Iran peace agreement discussion, part 4

[RedTagAlan]

Thread 4 for those following and commenting on the above subject.

Excellent debate today. Thank you.

The problem with the West is that they seem to think that their lifestyle and values are the only ones that should count and any country that does not emulate them must be oppressed.

I agree broadly, with this assessment. Personally, I believe in 'horses for courses' with changes being made as economies evolve. I've lived in a country under a dictatorship and others also while not outright theocracies, with active religious police. I also have close family members living in an authoritarian country with significant restrictions on civil liberties and political opposition. There, elections are widely regarded as neither free nor fair by international observers, yet it sits in the middle of the Happiness Index.

In all of these countries, the people, in the main, did not feel oppressed while going about their daily lives, even though there were opposition to certain restrictions eg access to unregulated foreign travel. This attitude could be down to familiarity and acceptance with their country's custom and practices.

The danger in the West is thinking that Democracy is the gold standard everyone should aspire to. Though one could now argue that under Trump (if the US is still a democracy) the definition has changed as it morphs into something more autocratic. Can the genie be put back in the bottle or is it a new political blueprint for other countries to follow.

Should vs Is. That old judgement versus fact argument.

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

‘How can you possibly make a statement that our lives are better than theirs. If you are a religious Muslim, you may be quite happy living a life that you feel is moral and pure. I wouldn't, but I'm certainly not going to say, look at me, I can drink wine, eat roast pork and wear a bikini in public. They might not want to do any of that. They might look at us and think we are morally bankrupt and going to hell. I mean, make people happy. There isn't even consistency in the West as to what makes people happy.’

The key point is that you can live as a religious Muslim if you choose to. They don’t get the luxury of that choice.

I am struggling to believe that you are arguing that life under a brutal theocratic dictatorship is morally equivalent to life in a (relatively) free democracy, regardless kf all its flaws.

@Newbutoldfather, "I am struggling to believe that you are arguing that life under a brutal theocratic dictatorship is morally equivalent to life in a (relatively) free democracy, regardless kf all its flaws".

What part of I have no idea how they feel am I not explaining. Once again, I wouldn't like it as I'm used to a Western lifestyle but at the same time, I don't like living in a big city whereas some people hate the country life. I do not aspire to becoming a billionaire but some people do. If a person has a deep spiritual connection to their religion, they may want to live in a society which adheres to those values. As I said, and this is not a personal attack on you but I have to say it, I don't know and I think it is arrogant to assume that my lifestyle is better than theirs. It just suits me more than theirs would.

I think it should be remembered that universal suffrage is a new thing. It's really only 100 years old at best. In the case of the US, it has only really been universal since the 60s. And Trump is trying to reverse that. Yes, likes of Tynwald is 1k years, but that was not universal till the same 100 years.

And we can see what happens in the system. It ends up with 2 parties, and the policies of each oscillate around a mid point somewhere on the Overton scale. And then boom. It's a 50-50 vote.

But people still want change. Dramatic if possible. We have had changes for the past 100 years that made things better. I DEMAND CHANGE FOR THE BETTER.

But the system can't deliver that. Because it is deadlocked at 50-50. And along comes the far right, same playbook as the Austrian corporal used. And, suddenly we are told that democracy is not really working to make all lives better. Now we are a fractured society.

But we are not really fractured. The main parties are not that far apart. But to win the election, the politicians have to tell us they are far apart.

And then we have other nations with other systems. And as you say, few people actually ask them what their metrics are. We just yell " YOUR SYSTEM IS SHIT, OURS IS BETTER."

And then bomb them. After covertly trying to topple them.

This to me is why the UN is potentially such a strong organization. It has lots of different people at the same table. And along comes Trump saying he will ignore them, do things his way.

But he is doing this without even to trying to understand what a broad Church the UN is. He is the biggest danger to the future of democracy we have had in a long time.

Sorry but a reaction is not enough. Well said!!

Bingo, People tend to forget that Iran ranks top 5 in IQ levels worldwide.

I had this conversation with some Iranian friends both inside and outside of Iran about what they wanted for their country. Some people said that they did want more freedom in certain areas, however they didn't want Iran to become as one person put it so permissive that things like "Onlyfans" were normalised.

This was around the time there were several "free Iran" female influencers dancing around dressed in skimpy clothing calling for liberation. [Full disclosure I'm not a prude and was known to dance on many a table in my clubbing days, so am not judging these women].

Just as we watch Iran, they also see our society allowing people like Jeffrey Epstein the convicted child trafficker free reign within the corridors of power.

They hear the late Madeleine Albright defend economic sanctions against Iraq, and say that 500'000 Iraqi children's deaths were worth the price paid.

I think the general consensus around the region is just that they want to be left alone aka "Yankee, Go home".

"Our" intervention over the last few decades has led to millions dead and displaced.

Quote ""Our" intervention over the last few decades has led to millions dead and displaced."

Are they even counted ?

Re displaced, and this is not directed at any posters on this thread, have you noticed how the most pro bombing people are also the most anti asylum ?

This thread has really become weird!

If it isn’t obvious that free people are happier than people in authoritarian regimes, here is the world happiness index:

https://actionforhappiness.org/happiness-and-democracy

You can also look at any proper research on the matter and it will come to the same conclusions.

If is like arguing that being sick is an equally valid state to being healthy, because it
gives you a better perspective on life.

Definitely new to this board (hard to tell sometimes as people regularly name change).

Threads often become weird. I feel like Alice in Wonderland sometimes.

What we know to be true becomes an untruth in Wonderland.

Red it's my new pastime on other social media, reminding these dumbfucks that they were the ones cheering for the bombs that destroyed these people's countries. They can't cry now, when the victims migrate to safety.

It's called blowback or the unintended consequences of your own Politicians actions.

P.s.We'll never get the real figures of dead and displaced as that would remove the myth of these actions being done to protect the people of the region. It's like you said earlier most of these actions were carried out to install leaders more favourable to the West and not to "bring democracy" as Dubya said.

Quote " This thread has really become weird!"

There is a lull re the peace talks. As in, they ain't happening. So just treading water and chewing the cud as we explore different aspects.

I bet Trump does this all the time as he talks to Melania as they prepare for bed. Discussions about the upsides V downsides of democracy, and how that slots into self determination and so on.

You know, just before he heads to his porcelain golden throne room to TRUTH out some insults.

yes @Newbutoldfather it just got weirder.

You know, just before he heads to his porcelain golden throne room to TRUTH out some insults with Natalie the printer lady.

Fixed it for you.

Oh you have heard the Gossip going around Washington, it appears that Trump must have pissed off someone as the rumour is about his friendly relationship with a younger aide who types his truths.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/08/donald-trump-natalie-harp-jon-ossoff-letters.html

The Iranians do not have this problem of gossip in the free press. No free press.

It confuses me when the Iranian press is referred to as "semi official". I honestly do not know what that means.

It would be interesting to have access to the media that Iranians do in Iran. What is reported and what is not, and more importantly, I wonder if they "try out" ideas to get a reaction. What I mean by that, is I am convinced Trump/Bannon done it first term. Print a story in Breitbart of a potential policy, get the reaction, go with the policy or dump it.

I think it would make sense if they done that. Because even authoritarians have a fear of the population. It is their biggest fear really. So I wonder if they publish peace deal ideas in their media to get a "feel".

Because even authoritarians have a fear of the population. It is their biggest fear really. So I wonder if they publish peace deal ideas in their media to get a "feel".

I would say that this would be unlikely given the unique naure of a theocracy.
'Fear' of the population comes in degrees. In Iran, The authority of the supreme leader transcends constitutional limitations, rendering political accountability virtually nonexistent. (rasanah-iiis.org )
This plus the physical level of military superiority and brutal control the IRGC has in putting down dissent, I would say they have zero fear. Under these circumstances there is no need for even a facade of gathering info to get a feel for political policy. The population gets what the Supreme Leader/IRGC say.

Other authoritarian countries may differ and then use propaganda to make the ideas the leader wants, what the public also want.

Ok, now this thread is really weird. My hidden post was a reply to authoritarian governments floating policy ideas to their people.

Authoritarian regimes tell people what to think and use propaganda to convince them. They have no need of trial balloons.

Orwell understood this perfectly.

This in essence is exactly what my hidden post said.

Love 1984 (& Animal Farm)

[Quick cut and paste from Google AI, taking into account that AI is only as accurate as it is programmed to be]

In Iran, "semi-official press" refers to media outlets that are not directly run by the central government administration but are owned, funded, or controlled by powerful state-backed institutions, military wings, or ideological bodies. [1, 2]
While they claim to be independent news agencies, they operate as heavily regulated mouthpieces for specific factions within the Iranian regime. [3]
🏛️ Why Do They Exist?
The Iranian political system has multiple, competing power centers. Because different institutions want to control the public narrative, they fund their own media channels. [2, 4]
State vs. Semi-Official: The official state press (like the IRNA news agency) represents the direct voice of the presidential government. Semi-official press represents the voice of the military, the judiciary, or religious clerical bodies. [1, 2]
Plausible Deniability: The Iranian government uses semi-official outlets to publish aggressive statements, test public reactions, or threaten foreign adversaries. If the backlash is too severe, the official government can deny responsibility by claiming the agency is "independent". [3, 5, 6]
📰 Major Examples of Semi-Official Press
Tasnim News Agency: Strongly linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iran's most powerful military and economic force. [2, 7]
Fars News Agency: Also closely tied to the IRGC and frequently used to broadcast hardline military stances and domestic security reports. [1, 8]
Mehr News Agency: Owned by the Islamic Development Organization, which answers directly to the Supreme Leader. [2, 9]
Mizan News Agency: The official media wing of Iran's hardline Judiciary. [2]
ISNA (Iranian Students' News Agency): Originally run by university students; it receives state funding but is often viewed as slightly more moderate. [1, 10]
🌍 How the West Views Them
When international media platforms like Reuters or BBC report that an Iranian "semi-official news agency" said something, they treat it as an indirect official statement. It means the news heavily reflects the mindset of Iran's ruling elite, even if it didn't come from a formal government press release. [6, 11]

[1] https://today.lorientlejour.com
[2] https://www.wsj.com
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org
[4] https://www.wsj.com
[5] https://www.facebook.com
[6] https://vdict.com
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org
[8] https://www.unitedagainstnucleariran.com
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org
[10] https://medialandscapes.org
[11] https://www.bbc.co.uk

Thanks Jade.

So according to your AI, I was correct in that the press is used to ", test public reactions,"

This ties in with what I said above, that a reverse VPN would be handy to see what people in Iran are told.

There you go. Living in an authoritarian state does give one an insight that even Orwell did not have. Unfortunately, it also means one does not have access to Iranian news.

At no point did I say that people under an authoritarian regime are happier than those in a democracy but I also said we don't know if they are. A graph based on a Western research group using the much criticised Cantril ladder approach is questionable at best. How can you possibly evaluate something like overall happiness in a simple questionnaire. On a scale of 1 to 10 how happy are you. First person, I'm a 10 (they just won the lottery). Second person, I'm a 1 (their dog just died). Would the fact that suicide rates are higher in democracies not be a better indicator. (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1088767918775465).

Do you really think that nationals of the Gulf Arab States are not happier than someone in the UK working two jobs just so they can afford to eat and heat their house. That comes down to money, not political system. Interestingly, modernization theory explains democracy as a luxury. A good book on the subject is Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics by Seymour Martin Lipset. In it he argues that the more well to do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy. I'm going to give you a quote I used earlier about life in Libya under Gaddafi. "Keep your mouth shut and you live like a king!". Your average Libyan who didn't want to get involved in politics was very happy.

For real? No access, we still do in the UK, though whether an ordinary person can post opinion on IRGC linked channels is now a grey area in the UK since the new laws preventing "support" (The Lords had to add an exception for Journalists as the way the law was originally proposed meant they theoretically could have been charged!).

Funilly enough RT (Russian) is still geoblocked in the UK.

@Squeezingwildoranges ,

I am not claiming that there are no other factors to happiness other than freedom. Obviously health is a huge factor, as is wealth, and those two are also correlated.

So, looking at autocratic regimes based on oil isn’t that helpful. The happiness index controls for compounding factors. It’s also logical that freer people are, on average, happier.

There are also more and less benign autocracies, and a lot are misogynistic. How happy do you think women are in Afghanistan, or Iran for that matter.

Whether wealth or democracy come first is a bit of a chicken-and-egg question.