|Quoting Grid (Reply 6):|
You mean in the same way that if the U.S. can afford invading Iraq or maintaining troops in dozens of countries, it can afford to, say, maintain its infrastructure? A lot of time it is not a simple as being able to afford something (and who knows in Iran's case - a lot of its fortunes ride on the ups and downs of the price of oil and its refining capacity is limited so it exports oil for refining and imports gas and it has a great number of social programs) but is more a study in what can be done politically. Obviously, in Iran's case, that process is not democratic but it probably requires political capital and negotiation.
Not only am I not a fan of your example (particularly because I avoided politics in my post), but I don't believe it is even relevant. The US can afford to maintain and improve its infrastructure, and particularly so in the better economy of 8-10 years ago when the wars began. The difference is that spending money on a war in Afghanistan to find those responsible for 9/11 is politically more popular than sinking money into infrastructure...yes, the infrastructure in the US does need improvement, but it isn't a safety issue on any kind of large scale, and certainly no more so than most western countries.
In Iran, old airplanes with sketchy (at best) maintenance is creating the deadliest and most unsafe place for aviation in the world. When they're beating Africa, there are some serious problems. In the world of today where air crashes with fatalities in developed countries have become extremely rare, Iran is equaling the poor safety records in aviation of 30-40 years ago. If Iran can afford a nuclear energy program and a space program, in my mind, they are a developed nation. This means that despite the sanctions, they should
have the ability to import relatively new and certainly safe western aircraft from second-hand buyers with little or no difficulty. Until very recently, they chose to ignore the glaring problems with their airline industry despite the body count piling up. It's a wonder that the EU didn't have more of their aircraft on the banned list.
Your comparison of US military engagements and its infrastructure with Iran and its complete failure to provide a safe airline industry despite it being a developed nation is completely out of bounds for many reasons. I highly suggest you leave politics out of your posts as they are not relevant in this forum to begin with. This is an aviation forum
and at no point did your post even remotely reference aviation. The least you could have done was find a comparison that made sense and supported your argument, which you also failed to do. Debating politics with me in this forum is not the place, nor should you, because you would lose.
It seems to me that there must be legal means of circumventing the sanctions. Say, for example, an airline were to have Tehran as one of its hubs, but actually be based in a non-sanctioned nation, possibly Turkey? The airline could then purchase and utilize brand new western aircraft. If the Iranian government granted the airline fifth freedom rights to allow domestic flights, they could charge larger than usual taxes and fees to bring in the at least some of the revenue it would as an Iranian-based airline without the airline having any official economic ties or interests in Iran. Even if the scheme were obvious, the UN would be unable to enforce sanctions on an airline based in a non-sanctioned nation. Just a thought.