1 & 2) I do not have any expert knowledge on this, and doing web searches will provide better answers. But I can tell you that the only point of contention that the people also care about is security. The middle-east is a warzone, and people rightly think they need some defenses. The regime goes about this with their (effective) tactics of starting/funding foreign terrorist/militia organizations, and their ballistic and nuclear programs. If the Western block could somehow satisfy this need for security, the regime’s bad actions will become a lot more unpopular. (Of course, the Western bloc can’t do that because they can’t promise anything durable. They also abandoned the Shah, which doesn’t set a reassuring precedent.)
3) Yes. Even compromising is made more dangerous; E.g., Obama definitely paid a risk premium in his deal. The Iranian side factored in the possibility of the US annulling the agreement when they agreed to it. Inconsistency in foreign policy sucks A LOT.
4) A solution to Iran being a shitty country to live in, and things getting worse almost every single year. I also meant a solution to Iran exporting shittiness to the world, but immigration doesn’t help with this part.
3) Yes. Even compromising is made more dangerous; E.g., Obama definitely paid a risk premium in his deal. The Iranian side factored in the possibility of the US annulling the agreement when they agreed to it. Inconsistency in foreign policy sucks A LOT.
4) A solution to Iran being a shitty country to live in, and things getting worse almost every single year. I also meant a solution to Iran exporting shittiness to the world, but immigration doesn’t help with this part.