How much crap should Iran be expected to take from the U.S.?

Iran under the Ayatollahs is hardly a model nation. Domestically, it is repressive and, due largely to sanctions imposed by the United States, impoverished. Its foreign policy is aggressive. It supports groups that Canada has labelled terrorist, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, aids President Bashar al-Assad in Syria's civil war, and does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a state. And it has been accused, but denies, that it intends to develop nuclear weapons. In short, in Western eyes it is a bad actor and, because of its suspected nuclear intentions, has long been subject to sanctions.

The sanctions were greatly eased after the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), an agreement by which Iran promised not to develop nuclear weapons in return for the relief of sanctions. Signatories include Iran, China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and the European Union. Iran has, up until very recently, kept its part of the bargain.

Nonetheless, the United States backed out of the deal and has since imposed crippling sanctions. The Americans want not only to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons but also to confine its foreign policy to what the U.S. considers acceptable.

Certainly Iran pursues an aggressive foreign policy, but it has certain justifications for doing so. As the major Shia nation it sees itself as a defender of Shia interests in a largely Sunni Middle East. It is also a nation that has a history of abuse by foreign powers, specifically Great Britain and the United States, and therefor has a legitimate fear of the West. This also partly explains its antipathy toward Israel which it sees as a colonial intrusion in the Middle East and Hezbollah and Hamas as legitimate opponents of that intrusion. And this is, after all, Iran's backyard. The United States has certainly never shrunk from interfering in affairs in its backyard, to say the least.

The U.S. sanctions amount to putting Iran under siege. The question arises: how much should a nation stand when another nation attempts to strangle it into submission? Must Iran simply accept that might is right?

The Americans have accused Iran of attacking two tankers in the Gulf of Oman, without producing any evidence. Iran denies the attacks. Iran has freely admitted to shooting down an American drone, but it claims the drone was in its air space. More recently, it has announced it would enrich its uranium above the limit in the agreement unless European powers do more to protect its economy from the U.S. sanctions.

The events in the Gulf could be Iran's doing or they could be the usual American strategy of creating an incident to justify an assault. Remember the Gulf of Tonkin incident in Vietnam? Or the babies and incubators scam in Kuwait? Or the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

In any case, the Americans are the ones who reneged on the agreement. They are the provocateurs. The Trump administration has said it will negotiate but why should the Iranians negotiate a new agreement when a perfectly good one is already in effect? And to negotiate under the U.S. sanctions would be negotiating with a gun to their heads. The U.S. demands humiliation. Iran can be forgiven for seeking leverage.

The United States is perhaps the world's most belligerent country. Its military has caused more death and destruction since the end of WWII than any other. By reneging on the JCPOA and imposing brutal sanctions on Iran, it has now thrown a match into the most volatile region in the world. If the Middle East suffers another conflagration as a result, the Americans will have a lot to answer for.