Straight Dope Message Board

[KarlGauss]

Originally Posted by Hurricane Ditka

The U.S. is not the world’s policeman or its babysitter, but it doesn’t want to be blindsided by bad actors who think Washington is so preoccupied elsewhere that they can take advantage of the situation. Thus, the U.S. has to demonstrate it is present and capable of acting where it needs to.

Great idea.

Next step is to be sure to leave enough of your troops in harm's way around the world so that the US can demonstrate its might anywhere, for any reason, just by claiming its soldiers are threatened.

And if claims of threats aren't enough, well, false-flags can be waved and not just by the bad guys. 51

[KidCharlemagne]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Abandoning the Iran nuclear deal was IMO the most catastrophic foreign policy blunder since the invasion of Iraq, and with the potential to be even worse. Just incredibly stupid policy.

I think it was a bigger blunder if you weight it for obviousness. At least there was a possibility of a gain from the Iraq war. Leaving the Iran deal was a pretty obvious net loss to the US. 52

[Snowboarder Bo]

This should relieve everyone: Trump tries to tamp down talk of war with Iran.

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he hopes the U.S. is not on a path to war with Iran amid fears that his two most hawkish advisers could be angling for such a conflict with the Islamic Republic.

Asked if the U.S. was going to war with Iran, the president replied, “I hope not” — a day after he repeated a desire for dialogue, tweeting, “I’m sure that Iran will want to talk soon.”

The tone contrasted with a series of moves by the U.S. and Iran that have sharply escalated tensions in the Middle East in recent days. For the past year, national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have been the public face of the administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Tehran.

"We're squeezing really hard right now and we hope they cry "uncle" before we start dropping bombs" is how I read that. 53

[bobot]

I read it more like: "I don't know what the fuck I'm doing, do I sound tough?" 54

[Walken After Midnight]

It's good cop, bad cop. Things are so fucked up that Donald Trump is the "good cop".

On top of that, there's Madman theory going on. Plus general craziness etc. 55

[Gray Ghost]

Trump's a bunch of things. Rude on Twitter, opens mouth and inserts both feet, grabs 'em by the pussy, etc... But running for office, he was fairly alone among Republicans (other than Rand and Ron Paul) by asking what the point of OIF was, why do we still have troops there, why are we in NATO and where are they going to start paying us for the privilege, etc... Contra Mr "Bring em on!", I don't see Trump spinning up a conflict for shits and giggles. He has other things to occupy his time, like the ever skyrocketing federal debt, and whether we're headed to another recession.

I do see all of this as a reaction to increased sanctions against Iran, and those were inspired by the perception the Iranians were cheating their asses off on how much nuclear weaponizeable material they could generate. A deal isn't any good if only one side is following it. I guess your opinion about this depends on whether you think the Iranians were cheating, and if so, does it matter if the Iranian government gains possession of nuclear weapons. If you don't really care about either point, then it's not worth starting sanctions, and having to fade the temper tantrum of the Straits of Hormuz being interdicted.

If you do care, then what's the exit strategy? Iran isn't going to stop enrichment unless they're forced to. Sanctions don't look like they're enough force, as troubling as they threaten to the Iranian regime.. The Sunni nations won't be satisfied, or defer their own special weapons programs, unless the Iranians stop. And clearly these sanctions are enough of a PITA, that Iran is allegedly engaging in overt military action Understandably so: what else have they to sell besides oil/gas, really?

The tanker strikes were a warning. If caused by limpet mines, they were small ones, estimated to not be able to crack a double hulled VLCC. They could easily be larger ones. No one saw the little ones being placed; odds are people won't notice big ones being applied either. The Houthi drone strikes against the cross Arabia pipelines are another attempt to demonstrate that an attempt to bypass a Hormuz blockade will be costly.

Costs are the point. How much is it worth, to continue sanctions, suffer an Iranian oil interdiction campaign, and maybe have Shia sympathizers commit terrorist acts in one's country? 56

[KarlGauss]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

Trump's a bunch of things. Rude on Twitter, opens mouth and inserts both feet, grabs 'em by the pussy, etc... But running for office, he was fairly alone among Republicans (other than Rand and Ron Paul) by asking what the point of OIF was, why do we still have troops there, why are we in NATO and where are they going to start paying us for the privilege, etc... Contra Mr "Bring em on!", I don't see Trump spinning up a conflict for shits and giggles. He has other things to occupy his time, like the ever skyrocketing federal debt, and whether we're headed to another recession.
. . .

How about as a distraction, plain and simple? Whether it comes to military action is just a secondary concern, if it all, to Trump. He just needs to 'rally the nation' except in his case the nation is red. 57

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

Costs are the point. How much is it worth, to continue sanctions, suffer an Iranian oil interdiction campaign, and maybe have Shia sympathizers commit terrorist acts in one's country?

Aye: costs are a point. Another is goals. And the value placed on those goals. 58

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

I do see all of this as a reaction to increased sanctions against Iran, and those were inspired by the perception the Iranians were cheating their asses off on how much nuclear weaponizeable material they could generate. A deal isn't any good if only one side is following it. I guess your opinion about this depends on whether you think the Iranians were cheating, and if so, does it matter if the Iranian government gains possession of nuclear weapons. If you don't really care about either point, then it's not worth starting sanctions, and having to fade the temper tantrum of the Straits of Hormuz being interdicted.

If you do care, then what's the exit strategy? Iran isn't going to stop enrichment unless they're forced to. Sanctions don't look like they're enough force, as troubling as they threaten to the Iranian regime.. The Sunni nations won't be satisfied, or defer their own special weapons programs, unless the Iranians stop. And clearly these sanctions are enough of a PITA, that Iran is allegedly engaging in overt military action Understandably so: what else have they to sell besides oil/gas, really?

It should be noted that essentially nothing you've said here about Iran's nuclear program in anywhere close to accurate. Essentially everyone but Trump and his supporters are of the opinion that Iran is, even now, abiding by the terms of the deal that Trump trashed.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/12...-nuclear-deal/

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-years/533556/

https://news.yahoo.com/iran-still-ho...161005676.html 59

[Snowboarder Bo]

Trump, ever the statesman...

If Iran wants to fight, that will be the official end of Iran. Never threaten the United States again!

"Again?" 60

[bobot]

Oh no, it's easy. Just ask any Republican. All you do is just turn the place into glass, see? Just like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. Piece of cake. All that is required is a Republican level of stupidity. 61

[Walken After Midnight]

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Trump, ever the statesman..."Again?"

Top of the replies to Trump's tweet are some of his own tweets from the past:

Originally Posted by Donald Trump

2011: In order to get elected, @Barack Obama will start a war with Iran.

2012: Now that Obama's poll numbers are in a tailspin - watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.

2012: Don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a war in order to get elected--be careful Republicans!

2013: Remember what I previously said--Obama will someday attack Iran in order to show how tough he is.

Literally every decision Donald Trump has to make is decided by him asking himself: "How can I benefit personally from this?" I believe that issues of ethics or morality have absolutely zero weight in his thinking, and his actions are only ever tempered by what he feels he can get away with.

It's clear that the idea of an opinion poll boost from going to war will be in Trump's mind, and that is the most dangerous factor in this Iran affair. 62

[XT]

Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight

Top of the replies to Trump's tweet are some of his own tweets from the past:

Literally every decision Donald Trump has to make is decided by him asking himself: "How can I benefit personally from this?" I believe that issues of ethics or morality have absolutely zero weight in his thinking, and his actions are only ever tempered by what he feels he can get away with.

It's clear that the idea of an opinion poll boost from going to war will be in Trump's mind, and that is the most dangerous factor in this Iran affair.

I disagree with the conclusions here. Basically, to me, Trump is an isolationist, and I think most of Trump's base is too. On the other hand, however, he's essentially clueless about foreign policy, and allows (or has allowed) himself to be guided by the war hawks in his administration. A lot of folks accused W of this, but I think in the case of Trump it really is him being lead by the nose wrt foreign policy, especially the confrontational policy. Some of it is Trump trying to do a good cop/bad cop thing, with himself as the supposed good cop holding back from folks like Bolton. I honestly don't think Trump wants war, and that a war would hurt him. What he DOES want is to pressure the other country's into doing things his way. The problem, however, is that his cluelessness wrt foreign policy means that folks like Bolton have a huge impact on our stance and what we are doing...and I think they are moving us closer to confrontations that only they want. This is the problem with electing a president who doesn't know what he's doing and has to rely so heavily on others who can use his ignorance to move him and the country where they want him to be. 63

[guizot]

Originally Posted by XT

Basically, to me, Trump is an isolationist, . . .

Trump doesn't have any principles. Everything he says or does is an act. He only talks like an isolationist because he thinks in general that will sound good to his base. If he thinks attacking Iran will be an appealing show for his base, he'll do it. 64

[bobot]

Trump thinks that America's coffer is being padded with "tariff money" that we wouldn't otherwise have. 65

[KarlGauss]

Originally Posted by XT

. . . This is the problem with electing a president who doesn't know what he's doing and has to rely so heavily on others who can use his ignorance to move him and the country where they want him to be.

But Trump is a genius! That's part of his plan . . . 'to be seen to rely so heavily on others who can use his ignorance to move him and the country where they want him to be'. And all the while it's really him who's directing things. It's pure genius!

Oh ye of little faith. 66

[Snowboarder Bo]

Iran has confirmed that it has quadrupled production of enriched uranium.

The Iranian enrichment announcement came after local journalists traveled to Natanz in central Iran, the country’s underground enrichment facility. There, an unidentified nuclear scientist gave a statement with a surgical cap and a mask covering most of his face. No one explained his choice of outfit, although Israel is suspected of carrying out a campaign targeting Iranian nuclear scientists.

The state-run IRNA news agency later quoted Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesman of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as acknowledging that capacity had been quadrupled. He said Iran took this step because the U.S. had ended a program allowing it to exchange enriched uranium to Russia for unprocessed yellowcake uranium, as well as ending the sale of heavy water to Oman. Heavy water helps cool reactors producing plutonium that can be used in nuclear weapons.

Kamalvandi said Iran had informed the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, of the development. The Vienna-based agency did not respond to a request for comment.

Iranian officials made a point to stress that the uranium would be enriched only to the 3.67% limit set under the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, making it usable for a power plant but far below what’s needed for an atomic weapon.

But by increasing production, Iran soon will go beyond the stockpile limitations set by the accord. Tehran has set a July 7 deadline for Europe to come up with new terms for the deal, or it will enrich closer to weapons-grade levels in a Middle East already on edge.

67

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight

It's good cop, bad cop. Things are so fucked up that Donald Trump is the "good cop".

On top of that, there's Madman theory going on. Plus general craziness etc.

Trump says this is his strategy, too:

He described his approach in a speech Friday, saying, “It’s probably a good thing because they’re saying, ‘Man, I don’t know where these people are coming from,’ right?”

68

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by XT

I disagree with the conclusions here. Basically, to me, Trump is an isolationist, and I think most of Trump's base is too. On the other hand, however, he's essentially clueless about foreign policy, and allows (or has allowed) himself to be guided by the war hawks in his administration. A lot of folks accused W of this, but I think in the case of Trump it really is him being lead by the nose wrt foreign policy, especially the confrontational policy. Some of it is Trump trying to do a good cop/bad cop thing, with himself as the supposed good cop holding back from folks like Bolton. I honestly don't think Trump wants war, and that a war would hurt him. What he DOES want is to pressure the other country's into doing things his way. The problem, however, is that his cluelessness wrt foreign policy means that folks like Bolton have a huge impact on our stance and what we are doing...and I think they are moving us closer to confrontations that only they want. This is the problem with electing a president who doesn't know what he's doing and has to rely so heavily on others who can use his ignorance to move him and the country where they want him to be.

Trump may not actually want to go to war, but I also don't think that Trump is being led by Bolton to do anything he wouldn't be doing himself. Even back in the campaign Trump boasted that the as president his primary negotiating tactic would be to leverage the military and economic power of the United States to bully any country that disagreed with him into submission. That has been his tactic with Korea, (I have a bigger button than you), and with regard to trade negotiations (I'll tariff you to death), or with the immigration crisis in Mexico (stop immigrants or I'll invade). So this isn't just Bolton. 69

[Lemur866]

Trump is against war, sure. He doesn't actually want war with Iran, I actually believe that.

The only problem is that he also believes that if you're a tough guy, you can just threaten the weaker guy, and the weaker guy will always back down. Then you win easily without having to fight.

It's the exact same strategy he uses on the Chinese trade deal, it's the exact same strategy he uses on the NAFTA negotiations, Korea, Europe, and on and on.

But the problem here is that everyone knows that he's all talk. He doesn't actually want to pull the trigger, he's just bluffing because he doesn't want war. Which means he's not the tough guy in this movie. What happens when you threaten the other guy and he doesn't back down? Now you either have to follow through on your threats, or humiliatingly back down yourself.

So which course of action is Trump going to choose? Following through on a chancy and avoidable military action, or look like a fucking chump? Your guess is as good as mine, it depends on what they say that day on Fox News. 70

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Horatius

It should be noted that essentially nothing you've said here about Iran's nuclear program in anywhere close to accurate. Essentially everyone but Trump and his supporters are of the opinion that Iran is, even now, abiding by the terms of the deal that Trump trashed.

And even if they weren't, Trump's abrogation relieves Iran of any legal or moral responsibility.

It is the stench of Trump's defecations which have extinguished hopes for peace. Only an American jingoist would blame Iran. 71

[Ludovic]

Originally Posted by KidCharlemagne

I think it was a bigger blunder if you weight it for obviousness. At least there was a possibility of a gain from the Iraq war. Leaving the Iran deal was a pretty obvious net loss to the US.

I don't necessarily think the Iran deal pullout is worse, but I'd agree to that statement with regards to an armed conflict with Iran: it would be bigger when you weight for obviousness, since the strength of the Iraqi insurgency was not inevitable or knowable: even though Iraq was obviously an own goal due to its pointlessness, the size of the blunder was not known until later. 72

[asahi]

Originally Posted by Ludovic

I don't necessarily think the Iran deal pullout is worse, but I'd agree to that statement with regards to an armed conflict with Iran: it would be bigger when you weight for obviousness, since the strength of the Iraqi insurgency was not inevitable or knowable: even though Iraq was obviously an own goal due to its pointlessness, the size of the blunder was not known until later.

I respectfully disagree. Everyone knew that invading and occupying Iraq would destabilize the entire region, which it did. 73

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Horatius

It should be noted that essentially nothing you've said here about Iran's nuclear program in anywhere close to accurate. Essentially everyone but Trump and his supporters are of the opinion that Iran is, even now, abiding by the terms of the deal that Trump trashed.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/12...-nuclear-deal/

https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-years/533556/

https://news.yahoo.com/iran-still-ho...161005676.html

Originally Posted by Snowboarder Bo

Iran has confirmed that it has quadrupled production of enriched uranium.

Originally Posted by septimus

And even if they weren't, Trump's abrogation relieves Iran of any legal or moral responsibility.

It is the stench of Trump's defecations which have extinguished hopes for peace. Only an American jingoist would blame Iran.

So, interesting developments this weekend. But the key point is, even though Iran has decided to increase their production of enriched uranium, they're still (for now, at least) abiding by some of the terms of the Iran Deal, and they're being forthright in informing the relevant international authorities of what they're doing, and exactly why they're doing it.

Iran comes out of this looking far more mature and reasonable that Trump et al. do. Good job, US. 74

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Iran comes out of this looking far more mature and reasonable that Trump et al. do. Good job, US.

Which, sadly, is a very low bar to clear. 75

[Budget Player Cadet]

Have we mentioned that Tom Cotton went on the news to fearmonger about Iran, and democratic senators with access to the same information accused him of exaggerating the evidence?

https://www.vox.com/world/2019/5/21/...murphy-gallego 76

[Gyrate]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Have we mentioned that Tom Cotton went on the news to fearmonger about Iran, and democratic senators with access to the same information accused him of exaggerating the evidence?

https://www.vox.com/world/2019/5/21/...murphy-gallego

That'll be the same Tom Cotton who, with 46 fellow Republicans, tried to undermine Obama's Iran negotiations with a letter and got his ass handed back to him, gift-wrapped, by the Iranians who demonstrated a greater knowledge of US and international law than Cotton and company had. 77

[Budget Player Cadet]

Originally Posted by Gyrate

That'll be the same Tom Cotton who, with 46 fellow Republicans, tried to undermine Obama's Iran negotiations with a letter and got his ass handed back to him, gift-wrapped, by the Iranians who demonstrated a greater knowledge of US and international law than Cotton and company had.

Joke's on Iran (and everyone else who signed the treaty assuming that the word of the US was worth a damn), Cotton was 100% right. Republicans did blow up the deal! 78

[Grrr!]

Originally Posted by Budget Player Cadet

Joke's on Iran (and everyone else who signed the treaty assuming that the word of the US was worth a damn), Cotton was 100% right. Republicans did blow up the deal!

Aaand guess who's back to enriching uranium?

Oh, the irony! 79

[bobot]

A cynic might think that TrumpCo has achieved the desired outcome. Step 1 of it, anyway. 80

[Nava]

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost

why are we in NATO and where are they going to start paying us for the privilege,

Now he's threatening the EU with throwing a tantrum if there's any kind of common defense policy. Make up your what-passes-for-a-mind: do you want Europe to pull more weight, or do you want to keep on being the biggest toddler in the room? I mean, we actually do know: you want to be the biggest toddler in the room and be paid for being the biggest toddler in the room, but…


being the biggest toddler in the room isn't a job. 81

[Snowboarder Bo]

10k plan:

U.S. officials say the Pentagon will present plans to the White House to send up to 10,000 more American troops to the Middle East to beef up defenses against potential Iranian threats.

The officials say no decision has been made and it’s not clear if the White House will approve sending all or just some of the requested forces. Officials say the troops will be defensive forces, and the discussions include additional Patriot missile batteries and more ships.

82

[Snowboarder Bo]

1.5k plan, apparently.

The U.S. will bolster its military presence in the Middle East with an additional 1,500 troops, President Donald Trump said Friday amid heightened tensions with Iran.

Trump said the troops would have a “mostly protective” role as part of a build-up that began this month in response to what the U.S said was a threat from Iran without providing details or evidence.

“We are going to be sending a relatively small number of troops, mostly protective,” the president told reporters at the White House before setting off on a trip to Japan. “Some very talented people are going to the Middle East right now and we’ll see what happens.”

83

[XT]

Well, as you'd need a lot more than either 10K or 1.5K troops for any sort of offensive operations, it probably is defensive. We seem to have backed off of any sort of first strike at this point (though Trump being a total idiot, who knows?), and at least on the US side have calmed things down...to a degree anyway. For a while there it looked like we were working ourselves up to a strike, but that seems unlikely now, at least that's my read on this.

This whole thing has been a cluster fuck, really on both sides but the lions share is definitely on the US IMHO. I'm not sure what was going on in the Administration wrt the nearly frantic tone that Iran was about to attack or strike or do...something...but at least it SEEMS to have toned down. 84

[bobot]

“Some very talented people are going to the Middle East right now and we’ll see what happens.”

This is intended solely to provoke Iran. 85

[Steken]

Originally Posted by XT

This whole thing has been a cluster fuck, really on both sides but the lions share is definitely on the US IMHO.

How has it been a clusterfuck on Iran's part?

Seems to me they've acted honourably throughout the whole ordeal...? 86

[bobot]

This stupidity is as obvious as a bad orange combover.

“The U.S. move to increase its military presence in our region is highly dangerous and a threat against international peace and security,” Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told state news agency IRNA.
The new deployment will consist of surveillance aircraft, a fighter jet squadron and engineers to fortify buildings and other facilities. The military is also extending the deployment of a 600-person Patriot missile battalion in the region, defense officials said."


Ok, looks like the latest in a series of US provocations is landing as hoped by the so-called president.


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u...-iran-n1010276 87

[elucidator]

Originally Posted by Steken

How has it been a clusterfuck on Iran's part?

Seems to me they've acted honourably throughout the whole ordeal...?

Behold! A nation in the grip of deranged religious fanatics behaving more sensibly than us. Da fuq? 88

[HurricaneDitka]

Originally Posted by Steken

How has it been a clusterfuck on Iran's part?

Seems to me they've acted honourably throughout the whole ordeal...?

They very likely blew some holes in ships, their proxies have been firing missiles at various states, etc. 89

[elucidator]

Perhaps you could expand a bit on your "very likely" with some solid evidence? By chance, were any torpedo boats involved? 90

[XT]

Originally Posted by Steken

How has it been a clusterfuck on Iran's part?

Seems to me they've acted honourably throughout the whole ordeal...?

Um...no. Trump didn't just make shit up out of whole clothe for why the US pulled out of the agreement, and it wasn't just because Obama was part of the original deal. Iran has been funding and supplying several terrorist groups in the region who are basically Iranian proxies. This is not acting 'honourably' by any stretch. And this isn't like a big secret either. Most of the folks who were signatories on the deal know that Iran is doing some shady shit. They (well, those who don't have a direct stake in supporting Iran like Russia, China etc) just feel that having the deal outweighs dealing with the other shit Iran does.


Personally, I agree. I think it did outweigh it, which is why I supported Obama and the deal, even though I could see there were a lot of issues with it, and even though I knew the other shady shit Iran was doing. But to hold them blameless and acting honorably, the victim in all this is basically saying you haven't been keeping even nominally informed on this subject. It's about like saying China is the victim in the trade war, and that all of that comes from Trump. It doesn't. 91

[XT]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Perhaps you could expand a bit on your "very likely" with some solid evidence? By chance, were any torpedo boats involved?

No, it was explosives. And no, there isn't (as far as I know) any evidence it was Iran. But it's plausible it was Iran...VERY plausible. It was only a few miles from their coast, after all, and the ships targeted kind of point at likely suspects in and of themselves. Is it conclusive? Nope. Hell, it COULD actually be a false flag operation done by, say, Saudi, to try and bring us in all the way into a shooting war with Iran. But my own Occam's razor says that it probably was Iran, or an Iranian proxy, though we might not ever know definitively. Which is why I didn't mention it, and instead brought up their support of terrorist groups and proxies they support. 92

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by XT

Um...no. Trump didn't just make shit up out of whole clothe for why the US pulled out of the agreement, and it wasn't just because Obama was part of the original deal. Iran has been funding and supplying several terrorist groups in the region who are basically Iranian proxies. This is not acting 'honourably' by any stretch. And this isn't like a big secret either. Most of the folks who were signatories on the deal know that Iran is doing some shady shit. They (well, those who don't have a direct stake in supporting Iran like Russia, China etc) just feel that having the deal outweighs dealing with the other shit Iran does.





Personally, I agree. I think it did outweigh it, which is why I supported Obama and the deal, even though I could see there were a lot of issues with it, and even though I knew the other shady shit Iran was doing. But to hold them blameless and acting honorably, the victim in all this is basically saying you haven't been keeping even nominally informed on this subject. It's about like saying China is the victim in the trade war, and that all of that comes from Trump. It doesn't.

With regards to the terms of the deal, I've seen no evidence that Iran was acting other than "honorably". They do all kinds of other awful shit, but they were sticking to the terms of the deal, and Trump's decision to walk away is catastrophically damaging to US national security. Trump just helped the Iranian extremists who want nukes and got absolutely nothing in return. 93

[asahi]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

With regards to the terms of the deal, I've seen no evidence that Iran was acting other than "honorably". They do all kinds of other awful shit, but they were sticking to the terms of the deal, and Trump's decision to walk away is catastrophically damaging to US national security. Trump just helped the Iranian extremists who want nukes and got absolutely nothing in return.

It was the one time we've actually succeeded in getting Iran to cooperate with the entire international community, including the United States. The Iranians were working on nuclear weapons technology during much of the Bush administration, and Obama actually got them to not only stop but agree to international inspections. The danger is that even if we successfully crush Iran in some confrontation, the lesson that others take away is that it's critical to build nukes before the US stops them. Nukes are the way to get America's respect. Without them, they're prey. 94

[Snowboarder Bo]

"Holy Shit! The Kims were right!" 95

[Chisquirrel]

Originally Posted by XT

Um...no. Trump didn't just make shit up out of whole clothe for why the US pulled out of the agreement, and it wasn't just because Obama was part of the original deal. Iran has been funding and supplying several terrorist groups in the region who are basically Iranian proxies. This is not acting 'honourably' by any stretch. And this isn't like a big secret either. Most of the folks who were signatories on the deal know that Iran is doing some shady shit. They (well, those who don't have a direct stake in supporting Iran like Russia, China etc) just feel that having the deal outweighs dealing with the other shit Iran does.


Personally, I agree. I think it did outweigh it, which is why I supported Obama and the deal, even though I could see there were a lot of issues with it, and even though I knew the other shady shit Iran was doing. But to hold them blameless and acting honorably, the victim in all this is basically saying you haven't been keeping even nominally informed on this subject. It's about like saying China is the victim in the trade war, and that all of that comes from Trump. It doesn't.

And all that could be handled through normal channels. The reasoning given for leaving the Iran deal was because Iran wasn't holding up their end of the bargain. We've yet to see absolutely any evidence of that.

Iran isn't entirely blameless, and I doubt anyone's making them out to be. In the confines of the deal made by Obama, there has been no evidence they had done anything wrong prior to Trump pulling out. 96

[XT]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

With regards to the terms of the deal, I've seen no evidence that Iran was acting other than "honorably". They do all kinds of other awful shit, but they were sticking to the terms of the deal, and Trump's decision to walk away is catastrophically damaging to US national security. Trump just helped the Iranian extremists who want nukes and got absolutely nothing in return.

Well, the thing is, we don't have to continue to honor it if they are doing that other stuff. We can CHOOSE to, but since it wasn't ratified by the Congress then we aren't bound by it. As I said, I think we should have stuck with the deal. But Iran isn't the innocent victim here either. Sort of like North Korea...or China.

I agree that Trump helped the extremist faction while hurting the, well, moderate (for Iranians) faction, but the thing is, they were already doing their shady shit despite the 'moderate'(s). My point is that this isn't coming completely out of Trump's ass with zero justification, just as what we are doing wrt China and the trade war has real world reasons. As does what we are doing with North Korea. And it's not JUST Trump who had issues in the US with any of those groups. Like I said, he's not making this up. He's just, IMHO, mismanaging because he's an ignorant fool who doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't understand anything...and he's surrounded himself with either equally clueless people or with people who do know the score and are using his ignorance to guide him to do things they want...such as hammer Iran. 97

[Snowboarder Bo]

Originally Posted by XT

Well, the thing is, we don't have to continue to honor it if they are doing that other stuff.

What other things that are not part of a contract agreed upon do you think are valid reasons for not honoring said contract? And why should anyone enter into any agreement with you, given that kind of reasoning?

ETA: Can I stop paying my mortgage because of Wells Fargo's transgressions? 98

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by XT

Well, the thing is, we don't have to continue to honor it if they are doing that other stuff. We can CHOOSE to, but since it wasn't ratified by the Congress then we aren't bound by it. As I said, I think we should have stuck with the deal. But Iran isn't the innocent victim here either. Sort of like North Korea...or China.



I agree that Trump helped the extremist faction while hurting the, well, moderate (for Iranians) faction, but the thing is, they were already doing their shady shit despite the 'moderate'(s). My point is that this isn't coming completely out of Trump's ass with zero justification, just as what we are doing wrt China and the trade war has real world reasons. As does what we are doing with North Korea. And it's not JUST Trump who had issues in the US with any of those groups. Like I said, he's not making this up. He's just, IMHO, mismanaging because he's an ignorant fool who doesn't know what he's doing and doesn't understand anything...and he's surrounded himself with either equally clueless people or with people who do know the score and are using his ignorance to guide him to do things they want...such as hammer Iran.

I think your point is wrong. Getting out of the deal helped no one except those in Iran who want nukes and those in both countries who want war. It doesn't matter the justification when the move is so colossally self damaging - it's like debating the justification for stabbing one's self in the hand. 99

[asahi]

Originally Posted by XT

Well, the thing is, we don't have to continue to honor it if they are doing that other stuff. We can CHOOSE to, but since it wasn't ratified by the Congress then we aren't bound by it. As I said, I think we should have stuck with the deal. But Iran isn't the innocent victim here either. Sort of like North Korea...or China.

It's best to avoid use of words like "innocent," as they are loaded with bias and highly subjective. No, Iran and North Korea aren't innocent, but neither is the US. All countries have interests. The great responsibility that we all have is to do what we reasonably can to avoid armed conflict. The framework clearly reduced that risk and Trump's confrontational foreign policy dramatically escalates the risk. 100