The current US-Iran relationship is independent of that history. It is PNAC neocon origins, and pure Israel designed policy. History has little to do with the sanctions and axis of hate towards Iran, and it is disingenuous to suggest that Iran’s resistance is based on long irrelevant issues.
Chill. I don’t disagree with you that the current tensions are heavily impacted by the conflict with Israel, but I’m just supplying additional context that relations have also been bad for decades, for reasons not directly related to that. There’s nothing “disingenuous” to providing historical context, and just because tensions currently are related to something else doesn’t mean that history is irrelevant or that supplying context is “disingenuous.” You don’t get to just declare things to be “independent of history,” that’s not how anything works. If Iran was neutral on Israel, the bad blood would not just disappear overnight.
I’m on your side here, I’m just trying to be accurate about things.
Isn’t that a point for what I’m saying? I assume that the US did not accept, which doesn’t make sense if the US was purely antagonistic because of Israel.
US official position has always been a 2 state solution. It is Israel doing everything it can to avoid it, with US “unofficial” cover, that has Iran resisting. It is Israel not wanting peace, much more than, or central rather than, US devotion to Israel, the root of the problem.
The current US-Iran relationship is independent of that history. It is PNAC neocon origins, and pure Israel designed policy. History has little to do with the sanctions and axis of hate towards Iran, and it is disingenuous to suggest that Iran’s resistance is based on long irrelevant issues.
Chill. I don’t disagree with you that the current tensions are heavily impacted by the conflict with Israel, but I’m just supplying additional context that relations have also been bad for decades, for reasons not directly related to that. There’s nothing “disingenuous” to providing historical context, and just because tensions currently are related to something else doesn’t mean that history is irrelevant or that supplying context is “disingenuous.” You don’t get to just declare things to be “independent of history,” that’s not how anything works. If Iran was neutral on Israel, the bad blood would not just disappear overnight.
I’m on your side here, I’m just trying to be accurate about things.
Iran has offered to end its side of the bad blood with the “official western agreed solution” to Palestine.
Isn’t that a point for what I’m saying? I assume that the US did not accept, which doesn’t make sense if the US was purely antagonistic because of Israel.
US official position has always been a 2 state solution. It is Israel doing everything it can to avoid it, with US “unofficial” cover, that has Iran resisting. It is Israel not wanting peace, much more than, or central rather than, US devotion to Israel, the root of the problem.