"The Saudi proposal went against Biden’s “regional integration” strategy for the Middle East, which has as its cornerstone the appeasement of Tehran under the pretext that the only alternatives are a nuclear Iran or war."
The Iran community has a very interesting way of defining appeasement, and this definition is central to the reactionary, anti-Arab Spring monarchic vision they've advanced as a model for the future (which will fail, but which nicely integrates Assad, and therefore Iran, into their new order).
Under Obama, the United States armed Syrian rebels who liberated most of Syria and killed tens of thousands of Iranian militants, many of their best forces, and over one hundred thousand Assadist security personnel. These are the lower bound for Iranian casualties in Syria alone. Iran is wholly dependent on the Assad regime for its survival, so any action to preserve Assad also preserves Iran's regime, while any action against it also weakens Iran.
Obama also aided the Saudi-led coalition in its war in Yemen against the Houthis, despite his supposed love for Iran and liberal hatred for Saudi Arabia.
Iran's economy shrank precipitously under Obama, depriving Iran of over a decade of sustained growth many other economies its size experienced during this period (though Iran's economy was never important to its exportation of the "Islamic Revolution" and has always run its operations on a shoestring budget).
Iran also suffered enormous casualties in Iraq and failed to fully integrate it into its empire, despite Obama's supposed desire to see Iran thrive.
Obama also maintained the war against the Taliban, despite having withdrawn from Iraq previously.
This all was called "appeasement" and still is by the coterie of deeply reactionary, anti-Arab Spring "nonpartisan" Iran watchers (linking p*lestinians to the Arab Spring is a dead giveaway, as p*lestinians are of a wholly illiberal stock different from those driving the Arab Spring revolutions, some of whom have finally broken free from p*lestinianism).
Meanwhile, the "Iran Hawk" Republicans who took power after Obama declared their campaign of cutting off arms to Syrian rebels and thereby aiding Iran's long, painful reconquest of Syria (and rolling back the only territorial losses Iran suffered in the forty-year history of their regime), ending the antifascist war in Yemen for a Houthi and therefore Iranian victory, allowing Iran to enact the nightmare scenario from the Bush administration (a successful missile attack on Saudi oil facilities disabling a substantial portion of their production) without retaliation, and many more heroic victories against Iran "Maximum Pressure."
When anyone asks these questions, they face the glib response: "Trump killed Soleimani!" (as if Iran wouldn't gladly trade a bishop for the board). And even here, iran had the last word with its direct attack on Al-Asad Airbase, which received now U.S. response and granted Iran the final rung of that escalation round.
No one in the Iran space seems to address these issues or explains how Obama's wars against Iran constitute appeasement, while ending those wars is actually Maximum Pressure. In fact, many even deny any of this occurred, denying Iran's death tolls in Syria particularly, even though they were established by the OSINT community years ago (but long before many of the newly-minted Iran experts showed up to adopt the same "non[artisan" framing of ObamaBiden's appeasement and the heroic Republican Maximum Pressure campaign).
Anyway, if someone could walk me through how Obama liquidating hundreds of thousands of Iranian fighters in several wars against Iran is appeasement, while Republicans ending the fighting on every active front against Iran in the regime's favor isn't appeasement, it would be much appreciated.
"The Saudi proposal went against Biden’s “regional integration” strategy for the Middle East, which has as its cornerstone the appeasement of Tehran under the pretext that the only alternatives are a nuclear Iran or war."
The Iran community has a very interesting way of defining appeasement, and this definition is central to the reactionary, anti-Arab Spring monarchic vision they've advanced as a model for the future (which will fail, but which nicely integrates Assad, and therefore Iran, into their new order).
Under Obama, the United States armed Syrian rebels who liberated most of Syria and killed tens of thousands of Iranian militants, many of their best forces, and over one hundred thousand Assadist security personnel. These are the lower bound for Iranian casualties in Syria alone. Iran is wholly dependent on the Assad regime for its survival, so any action to preserve Assad also preserves Iran's regime, while any action against it also weakens Iran.
Obama also aided the Saudi-led coalition in its war in Yemen against the Houthis, despite his supposed love for Iran and liberal hatred for Saudi Arabia.
Iran's economy shrank precipitously under Obama, depriving Iran of over a decade of sustained growth many other economies its size experienced during this period (though Iran's economy was never important to its exportation of the "Islamic Revolution" and has always run its operations on a shoestring budget).
Iran also suffered enormous casualties in Iraq and failed to fully integrate it into its empire, despite Obama's supposed desire to see Iran thrive.
Obama also maintained the war against the Taliban, despite having withdrawn from Iraq previously.
This all was called "appeasement" and still is by the coterie of deeply reactionary, anti-Arab Spring "nonpartisan" Iran watchers (linking p*lestinians to the Arab Spring is a dead giveaway, as p*lestinians are of a wholly illiberal stock different from those driving the Arab Spring revolutions, some of whom have finally broken free from p*lestinianism).
Meanwhile, the "Iran Hawk" Republicans who took power after Obama declared their campaign of cutting off arms to Syrian rebels and thereby aiding Iran's long, painful reconquest of Syria (and rolling back the only territorial losses Iran suffered in the forty-year history of their regime), ending the antifascist war in Yemen for a Houthi and therefore Iranian victory, allowing Iran to enact the nightmare scenario from the Bush administration (a successful missile attack on Saudi oil facilities disabling a substantial portion of their production) without retaliation, and many more heroic victories against Iran "Maximum Pressure."
When anyone asks these questions, they face the glib response: "Trump killed Soleimani!" (as if Iran wouldn't gladly trade a bishop for the board). And even here, iran had the last word with its direct attack on Al-Asad Airbase, which received now U.S. response and granted Iran the final rung of that escalation round.
No one in the Iran space seems to address these issues or explains how Obama's wars against Iran constitute appeasement, while ending those wars is actually Maximum Pressure. In fact, many even deny any of this occurred, denying Iran's death tolls in Syria particularly, even though they were established by the OSINT community years ago (but long before many of the newly-minted Iran experts showed up to adopt the same "non[artisan" framing of ObamaBiden's appeasement and the heroic Republican Maximum Pressure campaign).
Anyway, if someone could walk me through how Obama liquidating hundreds of thousands of Iranian fighters in several wars against Iran is appeasement, while Republicans ending the fighting on every active front against Iran in the regime's favor isn't appeasement, it would be much appreciated.