Iranian Situation... - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

User avatar
By QatzelOk
#15013913
annatar1914 wrote:Come on now, you're getting in the way of starting a war in the Middle East so that Hindsite can be raptured into Heaven, you should know better than that... What number of lives are lost are unimportant as long as he's ushered into Paradise for his love of God and his fellow man.

Exactly.

Superstitious thinking leads to really stupid and destructive behaviors.

Extinction of our species might be the stupidest thing a species has ever done to itself, and the Magic Kingdoms of mass media and religion might be the main cause.
#15013922
QatzelOk wrote:Exactly.

Superstitious thinking leads to really stupid and destructive behaviors.

Extinction of our species might be the stupidest thing a species has ever done to itself, and the Magic Kingdoms of mass media and religion might be the main cause.


You're turning around the cause and the effect and I have huge caveats about your characterization of ''superstition'' and ''religion'', but you're right to a point.

Truth is, this thinking that influences modern American foreign policy is no older than the 1900's, with the rise of ''Evangelicals'' who became ''Christian Zionists'', especially after Hal Lindsey's book and movie; ''the late great planet earth''
By Hindsite
#15013930
Iran and Israel: A history of the world’s best enmity

The animosity between the two countries dates back to the 1979 overthrow of Iran’s Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi and the establishment of a Shiite theocratic republic by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

When the Shah was ousted, the tone of bilateral Iranian-Israeli relations dramatically changed. In his very first speeches, Khomeini, the supreme leader of the Islamic revolution, singled out the two main enemies of Iran: the US -- the "great Satan" -- and its main ally in the region, Israel, "the little Satan".

Anxious to extend the influence of the Islamic revolution in the Muslim world and to legitimise the power of the clerics, the Iranian leader, an author of many anti-Zionist works, positioned his nation as a defender of the Palestinian cause and Israel's primary enemy. Israel, Khomeini stressed, was a country he wanted to see "disappeared" in order to "liberate Jerusalem".

In the mid-1980s, as the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988) was raging, a scandal erupted in the US. Despite Iran's anti-US, anti-Israeli rhetoric, the Ronald Reagan administration secretly authorised arms sales to Iran, via Israel, to help fund the right-wing Contras in Nicaragua while simultaneously negotiating the release of several US hostages being held in Lebanon by pro-Iranian militias.

At that time, Israel viewed the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq as a more immediate threat. In 1981, Israeli warplanes bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, which was under construction at a site around 17 kilometres southeast of Baghdad.

In 1989, US media revealed that Israel had purchased $36 million worth of Iranian oil in a deal to obtain the release of three Israeli soldiers detained in Lebanon.

In 1994, tensions mounted when Israel accused Hezbollah, backed by Iran, of being responsible for the bombing of a Jewish centre in the Argentinian capital of Buenos Aires, which killed 85 people.

In the early 2000s, tension mounted another notch with advances in Iran’s development of long-range ballistic missiles, capable of being loaded with nuclear warheads. The election of the ultra-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005 to the Iranian presidency plunged relations between the two countries to a new low. Ahmadinejad’s repeated diatribes against Israel as "an artificial creature doomed to disappear," coincided with advances in the Iranian nuclear programme, including Tehran's willingness to pursue uranium enrichment.

In 2006, after the war that pitted the Israeli army against Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Jewish state accused the Islamic republic of supplying Hezbollah, led by Hassan Nasrallah, with an arsenal that enabled the Lebanese Shiite movement to strike deep inside Israeli territory.

In 2009, Tehran criticised Israeli and US secret services for disrupting its nuclear programme with the help of malicious software called Stuxnet. The Iranians, who claim their right to nuclear energy for civilian purposes, also accused Israel of assassinating several physicists and specialised engineers in the Iranian capital.

On several occasions, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested that Israel could strike Iran if the international community did not take responsibility. For its part, Iran, now targeted by international economic sanctions, replied that it would not hesitate to respond to any Israeli strike.

The 2013 election of "moderate conservative" Iranian President Hassan Rouhani opened the door to negotiations with Western nations. Iran meanwhile proceeded to intervene directly and indirectly in neighbouring Iraq against the Sunni jihadist Islamic State (IS) group, as well as in the Syrian conflict, supporting Alawite President Bashar al-Assad.

Israel meanwhile conducted several raids in Syria against the Assad regime, Hezbollah and Iranian forces while Tel Aviv repeatedly stressed its refusal to allow Iranian bases near the Israeli-Syrian border.

The 2015 signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), better known as “the Iran nuclear deal,” was widely welcomed by the international community – except Israel and Gulf Sunni monarchies. Amid frosty personal relations between Netanyahu and then-US President Barack Obama, the Israeli leader slammed the agreement which, he insisted, would not prevent Iran from acquiring the nuclear weapon. "Fix it or nix it," was Netanyahu’s mantra, which he repeated at every opportune moment.

Netanyahu’s message was finally heard across the Atlantic by the Republican candidate in the 2016 US presidential race. Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump made no attempt to hide his pro-Israel position, promising to get the US out of the “worst deal ever”. The rhetoric continued after Trump’s election even as America’s European allies made last-minute efforts to convince the billionaire US president to stick with the deal ahead of Trump’s self-imposed May 12 deadline.

Days before that deadline -- and just days after a Netanyahu presentation from the Israeli Defense Ministry accusing Iran of lying – Trump officially announced the USA’s withdrawal from the Iran deal on May 8. That very night, Israel conducted an airstrike targeting Iranian military interests south of the Syrian capital of Damascus, in an area believed to hold an “arms depot belonging to Hezbollah and Iran,” according to the London-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Nine people were killed in the Israeli strike, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, and the stage was set for the start of the post-Iran nuclear deal season of feverish tensions between Israel and Iran.

https://www.france24.com/en/20180511-ir ... -hostility

Iran–United States relations

Iran and the United States have had no formal diplomatic relations since 1980.

The last Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, maintained close ties with the United States during most of his reign, which lasted from 1941 until he was overthrown by the Islamic Revolution in 1979. He pursued a modernizing economic policy, and a strongly pro-American foreign policy; he also made a number of visits to America, where he was regarded as a friend.

The Shah received significant American support during his reign, and frequently making state visits to the White House and earning praise from numerous American presidents. The Shah's close ties to Washington and his Modernization policies soon angered some Iranians, especially the hardcore Islamic conservatives.

The U.S. helped Iran create its nuclear program starting in 1957 by providing Iran its first nuclear reactor and nuclear fuel, and after 1967 by providing Iran with weapons grade enriched uranium. Iran's nuclear program was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program. The participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran's nuclear program continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the last Shah of Iran.

The United States reached a deal in 2015 to limit Iran's nuclear capabilities. Sanctions relief under the terms of the deal freed over 100 billion dollars in frozen assets overseas for Iran and increased foreign access to the Iranian economy. In return, Iran had to agree not to engage in activities, including research and development of a nuclear bomb. The United States withdrew from the deal in 2018.

The 1979 Revolution, which ousted the pro-American Shah and replaced him with the anti-American Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, surprised the United States government, its State Department and intelligence services, which "consistently underestimated the magnitude and long-term implications of this unrest". Six months before the revolution culminated, the CIA had produced a report, stating that "Iran is not in a revolutionary or even a 'prerevolutionary' situation."

Khomeini, who referred to America as the "Great Satan", instantly got rid of the Shah's prime minister and replaced him with a moderate politician called Mehdi Bazargan. Until this point, the Carter Administration was still hoping for normal relationships with Iran, sending its National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski.

The Shah, suffering from terminal cancer, requested entry into the United States for treatment. The American embassy in Tehran opposed the request, as they were intent on stabilizing relations between the new interim revolutionary government of Iran and the United States. However, President Carter agreed to let the Shah in, after severe pressure from Henry Kissinger, Nelson Rockefeller and other pro-Shah political figures. Iranians' suspicion that the Shah was actually trying to conspire against the Iranian Revolution grew; thus, this incident was often used by the Iranian revolutionaries to justify their claims that the former monarch was an American puppet, and this led to the storming of the American embassy by radical students allied with the Khomeini faction.

On 4 November 1979, the revolutionary group Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line, angered that the recently deposed Shah had been allowed into the United States, occupied the American embassy in Tehran and took American diplomats hostage. The 52 American diplomats were held hostage for 444 days. In Iran, the incident was seen by many as a blow against American influence in Iran and the liberal-moderate interim government of Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, who opposed the hostage taking, resigned soon after. Some Iranians were concerned that the United States may have been plotting another coup against their country in 1979 from the American embassy. In the United States, the hostage-taking was seen as a violation of a centuries-old principle of international law that granted diplomats immunity from arrest and diplomatic compounds sovereignty in the territory of the host country they occupy.

On 7 April 1980, Carter severed diplomatic relations between Iran and the United States and they have been frozen ever since.

The United States contends that Hezbollah, a Shi'ite Islamist organization and client of Iran, has been involved in several anti-American terrorist attacks, including the April 1983 United States Embassy bombing which killed 17 Americans, the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing which killed 241 US peace keepers in Lebanon, and the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. An American district court judge ruled in 2003 that the April 1983 United States Embassy bombing was carried out with Iranian support.

United States District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth declared that the Islamic Republic of Iran was responsible for the 1983 attack in a 2003 case brought by the victims' families. Lamberth concluded that Hezbollah was formed under the auspices of the Iranian government, was completely reliant on Iran in 1983, and assisted Iranian Ministry of Information and Security agents in carrying out the operation. An American federal court has also found that the Khobar Towers bombing was authorized by Ali Khamenei, then ayatollah of Iran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%8 ... _relations
User avatar
By Godstud
#15013932
Your source wrote:Iran and the United States have had no formal diplomatic relations since 1980.
Right, because USA interfered with Iranian politics. Nothing you posted disputes what I posted. in fact, it only shows that the USA is the instigator.

We're not talking about Israel. This topic is about USA.
By Hindsite
#15013933
Godstud wrote:Right, because USA interfered with Iranian politics. Nothing you posted disputes what I posted. in fact, it only shows that the USA is the instigator.

We're not talking about Israel. This topic is about USA.

The topic is about the "Iranian Situation" which also includes Israel because of all the Iranian missiles pointed at Israel and Iranian support of terrorist groups in the region. The USA has only been trying to stabilize the region.
Last edited by Hindsite on 24 Jun 2019 04:34, edited 1 time in total.
#15013939
noemon wrote:Indeed, I doubt anyone even in the US believes that Iran would actively provoke a confrontation with the US or the west especially when the US has been openly provoking Iran unashamedly.

Iran's political objectives involve being the regional hegemon in the Middle East. So they do routinely engage in political and military action. Their use of terrorism is specifically to avoid a military confrontation with Western powers. Their actions in Yemen anger the Saudis, who are a US ally.

noemon wrote:What should be noted here though is that my impression was that Trump supporters were supposedly skeptical against the warmongering of the MSM which is why they allegedly voted for Trump instead of Killary, wasn't it?

That's not all of it. I left the Republican party, because of McCain-Kennedy. It's simply not plausible that the US government is protecting the United States while it allows tens of millions of people to be in the US illegally. The neoconservatives are for open borders too, for all intents and purposes. So we're opposed to electing neoconservatives at this time.

noemon wrote:I guess situations like these make it transparent that it was mostly down to racism and that the rest of the excuses for electing Trump were convenient fig-leafs.

People do not need an excuse for electing someone. I'm not sure why you think they do.

anasawad wrote:But again, talks are useless now, the US is determined to go to war and will use any excuse true or otherwise to do so.

Trump is generally the person who will make that decision, and he doesn't appear to interested in fighting wars.

anasawad wrote:On the plus side, who knows, maybe this will push people into electric cars in mass. :lol:

It may. The US isn't dependent on foreign oil anymore. So strategically, a war there wouldn't hurt us like the OPEC oil embargo did in the 1970s.

anasawad wrote:Most of the strait is within Iranian waters and airspace.

The strait is 35 miles wide at its narrowest point. Countries in the region claim sovereignty over waters beyond 12 nautical miles. The US does not recognize those claims.

anasawad wrote:A US military surveillance drone was shot down over the Strait of Hormuz, where few oil tankers were attacked by Iranian naval mines in previous weeks. Iran has always maintained the ownership of the Strait of Hormuz and this is an issue of freedom of navigation.

That's correct. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 creates a 12 nautical mile limit. Exclusive economic zones extend further, but they do not apply to shipping.

anasawad wrote:The US started these wars to get its hands on oil. The US is the one that needs to change its behavior and stop with its greed.

Which wars? The US has its own oil supply.

anasawad wrote:Your politicians do want war, especially Netanyahu. It's not really a secret you know.

Well, Iran routinely threatens to wipe Israel off the map. So there is going to be some institutional fear of Iran in Israel.

anasawad wrote:The reason why your military doesn't want war, just like the US military doesn't want a war, is because they have this thing called a brain, and they can actually see the massive disadvantage either of their armies would suffer in a mountain war against a heavily armed foe.

It's very unlikely that the US would invade Iran. It's not unlikely that they would bomb strategic points to inflict damage. Fighting in mountainous regions is fraught with peril, and I don't think the US has the resources to do that. We only have one mountain division.

Beren wrote:So Fox News hosts Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity may be competing to influence the POTUS on foreign policy and Trump may have called off a retaliatory airstrike against Iran 10 minutes before it was too late because Carlson won? Is this really going on in the USA? :eek:

It's unlikely that Hannity and Carlson have that much influence. Talking heads tend to overstate things. It's more likely that the president asked his daughter Ivanka's opinion.

Nonsense wrote:It appears 'fortunate', either by accident or design, that the Iranians haven't inflicted human ,dare I say, American casualties in their posturing to date, otherwise the response could be very different.

Right. Trump also comes out of this looking a lot more thoughtful. His poll numbers are up, even according to USA Today's poll, which they don't report when Trump is doing well.

Atlantic wrote:If war does break out in the ME, it'll be the responsibility of one man only. One child man in the white house who cannot find any other way of satisfying his overblown ego. Nero was satisfied with Rome, but this imbecile wants to see the world burn. If the US ever had any mandate to lead the world, it no longer has. Yankee imperialism is the curse of the gods.

Where do you get the idea that Trump is a warmonger?

BigSteve wrote:I'm sure you'll dismiss that, but the fact of the matter is that it kills your stupid point that Trump wants to see the world burn...

Yeah. Trump haters seem to attribute to him or infuse in him whatever it is they dislike and assume that somehow Trump is for all things that they are against. It's weird.

Rugoz wrote:The nuclear deal didn't stop Iran from meddling in the region, but it arguably stopped it from getting nukes, for the time being.

That's really based on the naive assumption that countries will honor a piece of paper.

Rugoz wrote:As far as I can tell only the threat of a ground invasion could force Tehran to make more concessions, but that threat has zero credibility after the Iraq fiasco.

Iran is mountainous. That typically means lots of bridges and tunnels. To impose economic pain is pretty simple militarily. Ground invasions are about holding territory. The US has no significant territorial ambition there, and they aren't going to invade Iran.

Atlantis wrote:I can't believe that there are actually people who believe Trump's lies about calling off an attack on Iran for humanitarian reasons. That so sick. How many people have been killed since Trump decided to move the embassy to Jerusalem? Trump doesn't give a shit even if his decisions result in millions of death.

Embassy locations don't kill people.

Atlantis wrote:The fact is that Trump is shitting his pants because he doesn't have the guts to go against a real country. And his snowflake supporters can't bare to face the facts.

I rather doubt that's the case. He's more or less getting focused on the 2020 election. Former neoconservatives like myself do not trust John Bolton. So when Trump calls for a counter strike and then calls it off, he gains some tactical insights into his political competitors. His detractors criticize him for the proposed counter-attack and criticize him when he doesn't carry it out. It makes his detractors look like fools. Trump may also think that the poison gas attacks in Syria were false flag ops where he took action on false information generated by America's deep state.

annatar1914 wrote:You're right. It's nothing to sing about, modern war and killing people.

Yeah, @Politics_Observer has a pretty strange choice for an avatar given his sentiments.

Beren wrote:In my opinion the US military just wants to keep Iran at bay and the Strait of Hormuz open as long as the shit show lasts, they're not preparing for war.

That's pretty much it.

Pants-of-dog wrote:There is no indication that the Persian Empire is about to come back, and formulating defense policy on that idea is weird.

Iran is in a lot of proxy fights throughout the region. Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine... It's not like they have no plans to influence and control the region.

Political Interest wrote:What threat are they to us?

They aren't a threat to the West, but rather to the allies of the West. Israel, Saudi Arabia, etc. Where Iran could cause problems is by choking off the Strait of Hormuz. So that's where the US would likely use military force.

Political Interest wrote:So called "Western interests" are just the interests of the energy companies.

That's a pretty narrow view of things. Iran's current government is not secular. Western powers want to impose a secular world order. For example, Iran is cool with sex change operations, but they aren't cool with homosexuality. A lot of Western people find that repugnant and want to impose their values on Iran.

Suntzu wrote:Why are trade routes in the Persian Gulf our concern?

Western Europe depends on oil from the Middle East. Without it, their economies would collapse.
#15013940
Another breath of the air of realism and cold hard truths from you, @blackjack21 . There's too many people who want to see a war happen, and while wars have a way of coming about because of human stupidity, I am thinking that this is not one of them. President Trump is using his Neoconservative ''advisors'' as a screen behind which to move in the ways he wishes, not their way necessarily.
User avatar
By noemon
#15013945
blackjack21 wrote:Iran's political objectives involve being the regional hegemon in the Middle East. So they do routinely engage in political and military action. Their use of terrorism is specifically to avoid a military confrontation with Western powers. Their actions in Yemen anger the Saudis, who are a US ally.


Why is Saudi hegemony preferable to Iranian one?

That's not all of it. I left the Republican party, because of McCain-Kennedy. It's simply not plausible that the US government is protecting the United States while it allows tens of millions of people to be in the US illegally. The neoconservatives are for open borders too, for all intents and purposes. So we're opposed to electing neoconservatives at this time.


Trump and his team are neocons.

People do not need an excuse for electing someone. I'm not sure why you think they do.


They needed excuses to hide their racist motives for electing a racist and that is why people kept claiming that they were voting for Trump to allegedly prevent "Killary" from escalating issues with countries in the Middle-East while those very same people have been cheerleading Trump's policy in the Middle-East making things 10 times worse with Jerusalem and Iran. These cheerleaders make it transparent therefore that "Killary's" supposed warmongering was just an excuse and not an actual reason.

Trump is generally the person who will make that decision, and he doesn't appear to interested in fighting wars.


He does not appear to be interested in fighting/sanctioning Turkey, despite the fact that Turkey is threatening US and western interests directly by betraying NATO's rules and by openly harassing American, French and Italian drilling operations in Cyprus but he does seem interested in fighting Iran who is not affecting western interests in any way and who was abiding with the deal it made with the west.

Which wars? The US has its own oil supply.


:lol:

Well, Iran routinely threatens to wipe Israel off the map. So there is going to be some institutional fear of Iran in Israel.


Israel routinely uses its influence to force others to put more sanctions on Iran and to prevent the country from normalising relations with the west. Trump is the only US or western President that has given Israel 2 major concessions by recognising Jerusalem and abandoning the Iran nuclear deal without even taking a concession from Israel for the Palestinians or the Iranians. That is a historical first. It has never happened before for a major power to make concessions to another country without asking that country to make similar concessions to the other parties in the dispute. If what you claim were really true, that Israel has fear instead of outright hatred, then Israel would support the normalisation of relations with Iran instead of supporting the escalation of tensions.

Where do you get the idea that Trump is a warmonger?
That's really based on the naive assumption that countries will honor a piece of paper.


Warmongers like Trump do not honour pieces of paper indeed. The Iran deal had no intention of instructing Iran how to conduct its foreign policy. Only silly and arrogant warmongers believe they have the right to define other people's foreign policy.

That's a pretty narrow view of things. Iran's current government is not secular. Western powers want to impose a secular world order. For example, Iran is cool with sex change operations, but they aren't cool with homosexuality. A lot of Western people find that repugnant and want to impose their values on Iran.


The alliance with Saudi shows this argument to be rather ridiculous and yet another excuse to underplay the fact that Trump is just a warmongering Israeli puppet.
User avatar
By noemon
#15013955
SolarCross wrote:The Saudis are not positioning themselves as enemies.


First of all, it is not the Iranians that have positioned themselves as enemies neither in the past or in the present. It was US money and weapons that bankrolled the invasion of Iran by Iraq and once again it is the US that has withdrawn from the Iranian deal.

Second, from what I recall it is Saudi wahhabism that has positioned itself as an enemy of the west and 9/11 was conducted by Saudi wahhabists. :roll:
By Hindsite
#15013957
noemon wrote:Why is Saudi hegemony preferable to Iranian one?

The USA is presently on good terms with the Saudi leadership so they serve as a good ally against Iranian support of terrorism in the region. Iran has already aligned itself with Syria, Russia, China, and ever North Korea. The iranian leadership has made its hatred for America and Israel very clear.

noemon wrote:Trump and his team are neocons.

That depends on your definition of neocons. There is a difference between conservatives who believe in a strong national defense and neoconservatives who believe in policing the world under the guise of national defense. The neocons believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power—through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. On the other hand, Trump believes America's greatness is measured in our economic power and a strong national defense is necessary to deter others from going to war against us. Trump wants to make deals to make our economy strong and to stay out of wars, if possible. Trump has recently said that he does not want to go to war against Iran and is using maximum economic pressure to bring Iran to the table to negotiate a better deal.

noemon wrote:They needed excuses to hide their racist motives for electing a racist and that is why people kept claiming that they were voting for Trump to allegedly prevent "Killary" from escalating issues with countries in the Middle-East while those very same people have been cheerleading Trump's policy in the Middle-East making things 10 times worse with Jerusalem and Iran. These cheerleaders make it transparent therefore that "Killary's" supposed warmongering was just an excuse and not an actual reason.

I resent the fact that people like you seem to always attribute racism as the motive for disagreeing with the left-wing radicals or voting for a Republican candidate instead of someone like crooked Hillary. Racism has nothing to do with the fact that I prefer to vote for someone that is against open borders and unlimited abortions.

noemon wrote:He does not appear to be interested in fighting/sanctioning Turkey, despite the fact that Turkey is threatening US and western interests directly by betraying NATO's rules and by openly harassing American, French and Italian drilling operations in Cyprus but he does seem interested in fighting Iran who is not affecting western interests in any way and who was abiding with the deal it made with the west.

Trump is not interested in fighting anyone, but only in making a better deal, because the original deal with Iran was a bad deal. Iran used the money they got from that deal to support their proxy terror operations in the region, instead of improving the lives of their own citizens.

noemon wrote:Israel routinely uses its influence to force others to put more sanctions on Iran and to prevent the country from normalising relations with the west. Trump is the only US or western President that has given Israel 2 major concessions by recognising Jerusalem and abandoning the Iran nuclear deal without even taking a concession from Israel for the Palestinians or the Iranians. That is a historical first. It has never happened before for a major power to make concessions to another country without asking that country to make similar concessions to the other parties in the dispute. If what you claim were really true, that Israel has fear instead of outright hatred, then Israel would support the normalisation of relations with Iran instead of supporting the escalation of tensions.

Trump did not give any concessions to Israel. Trump just did the right thing. Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel by moving the American Embassy there had already been promised by previous American presidents, who failed to act. Trump had already stated that the Iran nuclear deal was a bad deal while running for president. Recognizing the Golan heights as Israeli territory was a common sense action that was not even request by Israel.

noemon wrote:Warmongers like Trump do not honour pieces of paper indeed. The Iran deal had no intention of instructing Iran how to conduct its foreign policy. Only silly and arrogant warmongers believe they have the right to define other people's foreign policy.

Trump is clearly not a warmonger. What war has he started?

noemon wrote:The alliance with Saudi shows this argument to be rather ridiculous and yet another excuse to underplay the fact that Trump is just a warmongering Israeli puppet.

Trump's alliance with the Saudi leadership against Iran only makes common sense under the present situation. I disagree that Trump is a warmongering Israeli puppet. I don't see that Trump is a puppet for anyone.
By Rugoz
#15013958
Trump is not a warmonger, he just likes to put up a good show. Truly a postmodern president.

blackjack21 wrote:That's really based on the naive assumption that countries will honor a piece of paper.


No, it's based on IAEA inspections Iran had to subject to.

blackjack21 wrote:Iran is mountainous. That typically means lots of bridges and tunnels. To impose economic pain is pretty simple militarily. Ground invasions are about holding territory. The US has no significant territorial ambition there, and they aren't going to invade Iran.


That's beside the point. The question is whether a) air strikes could reliably destroy an Iranian nuclear program, the answer to that is no, according to military experts* or b) whether air strikes/economic sanctions could lead to the toppling of the current regime, the answer to that is no as well. Hence a ground invasion would be required.

*I read that a few years ago, maybe that assessment has changed.
By Rugoz
#15013960
Zionist Nationalist wrote:If the economic pressure will last for many years and if things get worse the regime in Iran may collapse on its own


Which is delusional and you know it.

The regime wasn't in danger of collapsing the last time and this time sanctions won't be as effective because the rest of the world will circumvent them as far as possible.
#15013961
noemon wrote:First of all, it is not the Iranians that have positioned themselves as enemies neither in the past or in the present. It was US money and weapons that bankrolled the invasion of Iran by Iraq and once again it is the US that has withdrawn from the Iranian deal.

Second, from what I recall it is Saudi wahhabism that has positioned itself as an enemy of the west and 9/11 was conducted by Saudi wahhabists. :roll:

I lived in post-revolutionary Iran, they are definitely positioned as enemies. State sponsored anti-american and anti-israeli propaganda is everywhere. It goes way back to the revolution too re: the embassy hostages.

Wahhabis are at least notionally acting independently of the Saudi government. That's the difference.

Iranian people, at least half of them, are basically very very quietly anti-Islamism (for personal safety reasons) and pro western liberty / liberalism but the government is noisily and angrily of the opposite position.

The near opposite situation exists in Saud. The royal family is the most liberal element in the whole country and the most positioned as a friend of the west at least as far as it safe to do so given the fanatics they rule over.

Thus it makes sense for liberal westerners such as the Americans to oppose the Iranian government and support the Saudi government.
#15013963
Rugoz wrote:Which is delusional and you know it.

The regime wasn't in danger of collapsing the last time and this time sanctions won't be as effective because the rest of the world will circumvent them as far as possible.


They cant get a free pass for the shit they are doing hitting them in their pocket is best option right now

and for the hypocrites here who say the west should leave Iran alone well than leave Israel alone and let it deal with the Arabs on its own way so far it worked fine and everytime the west tried to intervene things got worse

(Oslo and Camp david were big fuckups)
By Hindsite
#15013965
Zionist Nationalist wrote:They cant get a free pass for the shit they are doing hitting them in their pocket is best option right now

and for the hypocrites here who say the west should leave Iran alone well than leave Israel alone and let it deal with the Arabs on its own way so far it worked fine and everytime the west tried to intervene things got worse

(Oslo and Camp david were big fuckups)

I hear on FOX News that President Trump went to Camp David yesterday.
User avatar
By Beren
#15013974
BigSteve wrote:Well, it's great to see you follow his lead, then...

Follow what lead? Making up stories on online platforms? I hope I also can do this as a world leader someday, although I'd rather employ a professional scriptwriter perhaps. :lol:

Your president is not an action movie hero, deal with it.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 13

Poor Erdogan, even his Muslim brothers are deserti[…]

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/xnX[…]

They have every right to protest. I’ll be protest[…]

Syrian war thread

Turkish military operation in Northeastern Syria c[…]