“information on this topic”? What topic is that? if a = b, but b does not = c, then a does not = c. Or to put it another way, adding oranges won’t tell you how many pears you have.
If no deal is struck then Iran will continue with its nuclear endeavors. It’s a win-win situation for Iran.
So, “nuclear endeavors” are more important to Iran than pulling its economy out of the dumper? If no deal is struck, they’ll be slapped with even more sanctions so fast it’ll make your head spin. And I assume it spins counterclockwise, being down under and all.
This topic:
Oh, I didn’t notice the first post. So, your contention is that Iran will continue it’s “nuclear endeavors” either way, then the only difference between striking a deal or not is whether the sanctions stay in place (and get tighter) or whether they get removed.
You’re contention, then, is it’s a win-win for Iran regardless of the existence of economic sanctions. That sure makes sense!
*A
*B
*C
*D
The ignorance I was referring to was not ignorance based upon lack of education or literacy levels of the population. I’d like to make that point clear.
I have observed many highly educated and very intelligent people express ignorant ideas and viewpoints quite often. I do not believe for one second that smart folks being lazy or stupid on a matter of foreign policy is a symptom that is found only in Americans. We have the Evangelical Christian political right who are genuinely literate and educated Americans but who show ignorance on political matters in practical terms - most of the time. That may be unique to the USA but that religious/political ignorance is accentuated primarily because the US is the proud owner of the most advanced and powerful military that the world has ever seen. To back up my view on political/military/religious ignorance, I often point to the “Land Letter” which was a letter sent to George W. Bush by five evangelical Christian leaders on October 3, 2002, outlining their support for a just war pre-emptive invasion of Iraq. That letter is shocking in the amount of raw ignorance it contained.
One concept you need to become more aware of about Americans in general is that Americans assumed the role as top military dog in the world after the concept of the usefulness for empire had faded away. However in having the most powerful military at our disposal for defense and yes for offense there imposes a responsibility that all Americans feel to varying degrees to recognize belligerent and hostile nations that potentially could threaten the civil order of the world and disrupt the economic flow of the world’s resources. Hence we have ended up discussing what to do about Iran’s nuclear program and the sanctions that have already been set up to deal with it.
The original post in this thread indeed asks the question: “Congress is considering imposing additional sanctions on Iran. The Obama administration wants more time to negotiate. What to do?”
So what to do? If you look at My Quote *C above you will see that I speak to the recognition of belligerence and the recognition of when a belligerent nation turns to moderation and cooperation. Understanding that most Americans, I believe rightfully so, have recognized Iran just as they did Iraq, to be a belligerent and hostile nations over the course of the past thirty years or so. Where way too many Americans have gone wrong in my view is that much of the more informed and educated ones plus the religion-minded ones, are not predisposed to recognizing that a belligerent nation can attempt to modify and correct itself and try to become cooperative and more moderate. Americans did not recognize it with regard to Iraq and now I am troubled to see that Americans may not recognize Iran’s attempts by Rouhani to moderate their position on Nuclear enrichment and cooperation with the IAEA and the international community. That is why to me the actions of those 76 US Senators who are calling for tougher new sanctions in the light of Iran’s moves to moderation and to put an end to belligerence are contributing to the general public’s non-acceptance of peaceful resolution and diplomacy by knocking down Iran’s moves toward moderation as phony and just throwing the West a bone in order to stall for more time. That is inadvertently supportive of the neocon view the knocking out Iran’s nuclear production capability by military strikes is the only way to resolve this.
Digging into the details and historical facts that you are pointing out Riga Marole (Such as Iran’s assistance in Afghanistan and hooking us up with the Northern Alliance) is important to the discussion to me.
So keep it up and perhaps we all can actually learn a bit or two from one another and help the peaceful resolution to this conflict be the one that prevails.
Iran’s “nuclear endeavors” are important to securing peace and a less hostile environment in the face of American threats. The U.S. has been trying its damnedest to get a clear gun-shot at Iran’s oil industry and Iran has only a knife with which to defend itself. Now, if Iran could get its hands on a gun then the U.S. will be stale-mated. Now that Iran has the makings of a bomb, it has managed (finally!) to put itself into a win-win situation.
I know you like Israel so let’s use their own situation to clarify Iran for you. Israel says to the Palestinians and to the Arab world in general, “We are going to steal your land, build a fence, and to send you to hell … unless you cry uncle, declare your acknowledgement of the state of Israel and cease all hostile operations towards us.” In other words, Israel doesn’t really care what the Arabs do because Israel wins in either case.
Iran is far less demanding saying, “We are going to build a bomb unless you cease all hostile operations towards us.” So Iran wins if they secure real peace, but if they don’t get peace they will win by building their bomb and making agression towards them unprofitable … which is peace by default.
Yes, the irony is that Riga Marole seems unconcerned about the economic chaos in Iran, whereas it is clear the Khameini is very concerned about it; and Rouhani is even more alarmed. His “win/win” comments seem more in line with what the Qods Force leadership probably believes: “Who cares if the unemployment rate is 25% and the government can’t pay its bills? We might get the Bomb soon! Huzzah!”
I’m going to snip this because it seems to be the lynchpin of your argument. And I’m going to ask what you mean by this, and how you have come to this conclusion-- that serious people actually in power in the US have this as their policy.
Securing a deal by diplomatic or by barter cum diplomacy, is lasting. Sanctions are temporary and the longer you live with them the easier they are to endure. Look at Cuba. All it has is bananas and tobacco and it’s isolated. Iran has oil and a growing number of friends within reach.
And, once again, it must be that France and Germany are also “trying their damnedest to get a clear gun-shot at Iran’s oil industry,” since they are full partners with the United States on these negotiations. Who knew that Francois Hollande was such a disciple of Bush and Cheney?
I think you need to read the newspaper more carefully. Cuba has one country with an embargo on it; Iran’s economy is crashing because only a small number of countries are willing to buy its oil today.
Do you even know that the EU has very stringent sanctions on Iran right now?
High-lighting footnotes and absurd conclusions don’t interest me all that much and aren’t detrimental to the case in hand anyway.
Well, besides that key fact that Ravenman already pointed out, let’s look at Cuba. Are you saying Iran aspires to having an economy like that?
Like who?
Operation TP Ajax was all about that, and the U.S. has been waddling and quacking through Middle-East oil fields ever since. With all of that waddling and quacking I say it’s a duck with a propensity for black gold.
Oh Lord! :smack: I don’t believe you asked me that! 
Are you quoting the U.S. in the early to mid 1940’s? 
Got anything more recent than events from 60 years ago?
Events which centered around British control of the Iranian oil industry.
Are you prepared to support any of your claims with, y’know, content? Information? Cites? Answers? Anything?
You missed that part, huh.
No. I didn’t miss it. You said:
If it’s your contention that that is our policy now, I’d like to see a cite. Not really interested in a trip down memory lane.