The not being an ICBM piece has been addressed. It’s also not part of the deal. The ballistic missile piece is related to United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231. It’s at best a related piece not part of the deal itself. It’s also a pretty tough piece to clearly lock down. Developing the missile for conventional payloads is not against that resolution.
Turkey, one of their regional competitors, tested a tactical ballistic missile earlier this year with conventional warhead. That’s part of a longer term program of developing longer ranged ballistic missiles. Saudi Arabia already has systems purchased from the Chinese.
The US military has looked at conventional warheads on long range ballistic missiles as part of Prompt Global Strike. That’s included both the Trident II and an actual ICBM, Minuteman III. We’ve also got a tactical (300km range) ballistic missile,ATACMS fired from the MLRS platform, using conventional payloads. Apparently we think there is a use for ballistic missiles with conventional payloads.
It’s a bit hard to look at Iran with a straight face and say the only possible reason for the program is to deliver nukes.
It’s a bit hard to look Iran in the face period; the USA/UK overthrew the Iranian democracy in 1953 and replaced it with a freakin puppet King: 1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia
I see the typo for “the Saudi puppet faction with al qaeda ties” was written as Yemen, the same faction that supports the Ibn Saud bombing civilian districts without discrimination and other war crimes.
Of course the Sunni supremacist, Shia and all other religious minorities oppressing Ibn Saud are against anything that reduces their ability to manipulate the americans into play into their hands, so it is not any surpise.
To cite them as some kind of flag of honor, it is funny though.
He is leading, thats what leaders are supposed to do.
His cabinet may not like it, with Korea on the horizon. If Kim was more settled, I think Mattis and other cabinet members would have been on board. Pelosi is the official opposition, I seriously doubt that she would cheerlead a course of action led by Trump. No idea why you included a quote from Albright, its not like she got Somalia right.
The other leaders don’t like Trump period, so I am less inclined to see their views on the subject. All I see is waaah waaah Trump.
Well that makes sense.
If someone doesn’t like Trump, there is literally not a way that person could be right about anything.
Just because Trump’s cabinet has much more knowledge and experience than Trump in international affairs, that’s no reason to think they have any cogent points related to that field.
Just look at Rumsfeld, Cheney, et al.
The so-called “experts” in the State Department with their “experience” in the ME tried to tell that Admin that we would some serious post invasion planning and efforts, that we needed to get that stuff in place before we invaded.
Rumsfeld and Cheney showed those ivory tower pencil-necks in the State Department what for.
After all, what harm can come from a little hubris be in international affairs?
It’s totally cool that Trump’s winging it with his straight talk.
See thats the thing, they gave their two cents and he made his choice. Theirs would either be to resign or follow through with policy. If no one resigns, I would think that they gave him a conservative or a safe opinion.
Trump was a CEO, what did you expect an Obama cabinet deciding by concensus.
I’m not sure why you feel the need to frame it in terms of how certain people are inclined to react to Trump generally. As far as I have been able to discern, there is no upside whatsoever to attempting to cancel the deal at this time. The only parties cheering are those who just really really want to stick it to Iran in any possible way. Nobody actually benefits.
Trump was the head of a family business that when it had to take on the serious complex business of moving from the flipping of the real estate speculation to the operational businesses like the casionos, the airline, every effort ended in the bankruptcy failure, from the childish decision making.
Serious CEO of the real operating companies, they do not have the childish high school level ideas of decision making. But it is more often the case of the family business.
Of Trump I expect him to continue to act like a YouTube comments section come to life.
Of a good PotUS, I expect them to be humble enough to know the limits of their knowledge and judgment and to yield to the advice of those who’re experts in the relevant fields.
Maybe Trump should have an art major in his cabinet. How big companies run their operations is irrelevant, as I was only concerned about how Trump ran his, and he is transfering that experience over to running the white house.
No, its not literally life and death, the sky is not falling and the sun will come up tomorrow. I remember this same paranoia when Bush was supposed to hit Iran any day now. It takes two to tango, and Iran will not start anything.
Like North Korea, Iran is gaming the system to see what it can get away with. Failure to get the best deal means they go back under their respective rocks, and wait out the administration and reboot in 2020 if someone else is elected.
Two to tango? Um… since when? The entire controversy regarding the Iraq War, and the reason tens of millions protested, was that it was “pre-emptive” war. Every nation we’ve attacked since - Pakistan, Libya, Syria, Nigeria, Yemen - have been nations that did not attack us. And for which there was no evidence that they ever *would attack us; not even fantasies drummed up by unreliable intelligence sources and presented to the U.N., as in the case of Iraq.
The prevailing foreign policy now is that it does not take two to tango, nor does it require an act of Congress to go to war; any time you want to bomb or invade, just call it a part of the “War on Terror” and tack it on to the 2001 authorization of force given for Afghanistan.
I knew our media was doing a bang-up job not reporting any of our wars, but man, I figured at least one would ring a bell.
We dropped 26,000 bombs just on Syria in 2016 alone - so many we literally ran out:
Most have been primarily predator drones and more conventional airstrikes, but we did commit significant ground troops in Libya…you don’t remember Obama overthrowing Gaddafi?
It is doing well, with the revenues of over USD 3 billion and profit of the one half billion, but this is 100 percent a sad straw man to distract as whatever problem of the equifax company it does not indict the leadership structures of the type of large successful over a century companies in the Forture 1000 or the failures of the no structure family company of multiple bankruptcies.
also sad straw man of no relevance as a response, a bad attempt at distraction and some attempt to imply that “art major” as the implied useless knowledge is being advanced as something relevant.
Waving the flag of Trump was CEO then should not be used as a sad means to justify the poor and childish high school level type ideas of leadership that the person displayed.
yes, like a poorly run multiply bankrupt family business with no demonstration of the actual leadership skill in the business environment such as the skills of the CEO as it is usually understood, that of persons like the CEO of the Exxon or the CEO of the GE, etc.
so it was a failure of an attempt of justification of what is in the final clarity, bad leadership, not ‘CEO’ leadership, just bad leadership.
There’s a difference between attacking a sovereign nation and peacekeeping, especially when the latter is done at the request of the local government.
Yes, a lot of US foreign policy has been despicable, but not all of it, and the discussion needs to move beyond crude absolutes.
I expect you’ll probably say I’m being naive. If so, what was the self-serving, mega-profit reason for the intervention in Somalia?
I don’t believe I mentioned a profit motive. I only pointed out that the idea of “two to tango” required for a war is preposterous in light of the last two decades of U.S. foreign policy.
And I fail to see the “difference between attacking a sovereign nation and peacekeeping” in regards to years of bombing, and supporting cluster-bombing in Yemen. The civilians killed certainly don’t see the distinction. It strains credibility to suggest that in all these cases the local governments *requested that we bomb their countries. In the case of Libya, we actually *replaced their government. We have been pushing to do the same in Syria for years, so far unsuccessfully.