Is US just tantalizing Iran

1- Regarding the Marathon negotiations between the US and Iran, do you really think that US is just tantalizing Iran? what are your reasons?

2- What’s your predication about the outcome of this extended negotiations?
3- What’s the possibility of III WW in which a battle between Iran + Russia + (apparently China) and US allies could be the fuel of this play-off war?

I think it’s more a case that the US is trying to do everything it can to avoid a military strike on Iran. If we can’t get a decent deal, then we at least tried and have the moral high ground when we start blowing their shit up.

:confused: What are yours? Where does “tantalizing” come into it at all?

And, why is this in the Elections forum?

Not sure it’s possible for the US to have the high ground in the region after the disastrous mess that Bush made of Iraq. A military adventure in Iran would make the Iraq War look like a stroke of genius.

There isn’t going to be an invasion. That’s not what Democrats do. All air power, as long as it takes to get the job done, and if the job doesn’t get done, we just keep on bombing anyway.

If we can drop bombs in five different countries we can drop them in a 6th.

There isn’t going to be an air strike on Iran, even if the negotiations fail.

I’m giving about an 80% chance that the P5+1 and Iran come to an agreement, but what Congress does after that, I’m not sure.

As a general comment on the issue, it just baffles me how self-centered Americans are in their news that it is a common belief that it is just the US and Iran sitting at a negotiating table.

So we were bluffing? I doubt it. Israel sure as hell isn’t bluffing. And the only way an agreement is has an 80% chance of happening is if we’re willing to give up everything.

Who knows but Israel has been threatening action since 2006, nearly a decade later it has no attacked. So I would not be concerned about Israel if a were the mullah in Iran now. I would have taken it seriously in 2006, but not today.

As for military action, if it ever came down to it, it will be massive airstrikes that take out facilities and military sites, command control and stuff of that nature. No invasion.

I feel Obama is dead set on getting a deal, even if it is a sucky one. He has put his heart and mind to it.

I predict we will get a deal because the negotiations are being extended.

World War III, very unlikely. I would bet top dollar on it not taking place. Heck even if attacked, Iran will take a pounding and fight back but the U.S will destroy all targets and Russia and China will moan and groan but won’t come to Iran’s defense.

As for Hassan Rouhani, I think it will make him look good and he will easily get elected to a second term. Iranian elections are boring affairs when there is an incumbent, and he will get a second term, heck even without a deal. The benefits I predict will not be as great as predicted, Iran will not have an economic miracle.

Now what’s your views Reza?

Pretty much agree with that. And especially that last part.

To the OP: Look up “tantalizing”. I’m sure that’s not the word you are looking for, but I’m not sure which word you are thinking.

This is not elections related.
I am (reluctantly) moving it to Great Debates.

If we knew that Iran was actually close to producing a nuclear weapon, the odds of a U.S. and Israeli strike go up by a lot. But at this moment, we don’t seem to have any evidence that they are, or have been in years, working on a weapons program.

If we don’t have good reason to believe they are building a bomb, and we know for pretty sure that bombing them will start a wider war, simply because negotiations fail doesn’t mean we will scramble jets the next week.

And you’re just wrong on the last point. Iran wants an end to sanctions badly. We want transparency and strong limits to their nuclear program. There’s sufficient room for agreement without capitulation. Whether that agreement comes together, however, isn’t certain. Plus even if it does, people will still be lying about what the agreement means to make it looks like Obama is teh wurst.

  1. No, I think that all parties involved - the Iranians, the Chinese, the Russians, the French, the Brits, the Germans, the E.U. and the Americans - are negotiating in good faith.

  2. A deal will be reached. Probably a decent one.

  3. 0.0000000000000001426%.

No WWIII. They’ll find a compromise of some sort of there will be some sort of lower-level form of warfare leading to more terrorism and more refugees, but nothing like destruction of the entire earth.

FWIW, maybe you mean taunting or something? Not tantalising. Don’t trust Google translate and synonym dictionaries too much.

If we don’t think they are building a bomb, there’s nothing to negotiate about. The sanctions are more than justified by Iran’s behavior even absent a bomb. If they aren’t working on a bomb, then we are trading sanctions relief for nothing.

I’m just puzzled why one would weigh in on a debate about a matter of controversy if one isn’t really familiar with the basic facts of the situation.

Are you really not aware that there isn’t any evidence that Iran is currently constructing a nuclear weapon? And yet, you’re confident enough to assert opinions on what should or should not be U.S. foreign policy?

If there is no evidence that they are working on a nuclear weapon, why are we exchanging sanctions relief for the promise that they won’t do what they are already not doing?

Do you genuinely not know, or are you making a jab at obama’s horrible, no good, very awful foreign policy?

not mention that, before the air raid on Iraq at down, all the political analysts were bandying that US would never attack Iraq and it’s all a word cold war !

BUT it tOOK place, didn’t it? ,

So don’t be much into to the surface evidence, action will come when the circumstances call for it !

sorry, I failed to find a suitable spot after rolling up and down …, so it can be redirected !

Like those bunch of mines in the past, which were redirected and I swear I didn’t bat an eyelid !