J
Jamie5
Guest
I agree with this article. Do you think Trump did this only because it had “Obama’s” name on it? This will no doubt destroy any progress or chance of negotiation for peace with Iran we had made.
Trump’s big new Iran deal policy is both pointless and incredibly dangerous
- Status
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I can’t read his mind, but I think he did it because he truly thinks it’s a bad deal for the U.S. and its allies, which it is.
I doubt there’s a person on this earth who really believes Iran will not become a nuclear power at the expiration of the agreement, and possibly before. In the meanwhile, and because of the agreement, the mullahs who run the place will gain more money with which to build nukes and the missiles to carry them.
What we really should be afraid of is the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. While the mullahs in power currently probably don’t really believe in the apocalyptic end predicted and even desired under Shiite belief, there is no certainty that they don’t, or that some later mullah won’t.
We are told that the U.S. and the Soviet Union came very close to war once because the Russians misinterpreted our actions and we misinterpreted theirs, each thinking the other intended a nuclear strike. It was narrowly averted. And that was by the two most sophisticated powers on earth who had instant communications with each other. What is the compelling reason to believe those perverse mullahs running Iran will not someday imagine some weather balloon or something as being a missile from Israel and launch Armageddon? And what is the reason to believe Israel will not launch everything it has if it sees missiles coming on a Tel Aviv trajectory?
And what is the reason to believe Iran’s achieving nuclear weapons will not lead to every Sunni Gulf state acquiring them as well. Some of the craziest people on earth all armed with nukes and with their fingers on the triggers at all times.
It won’t turn out well if it isn’t somehow stopped. Maybe Trump can prevent it, though it’s doubtful. But maybe things can change.
I doubt there’s a person on this earth who really believes Iran will not become a nuclear power at the expiration of the agreement, and possibly before. In the meanwhile, and because of the agreement, the mullahs who run the place will gain more money with which to build nukes and the missiles to carry them.
What we really should be afraid of is the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. While the mullahs in power currently probably don’t really believe in the apocalyptic end predicted and even desired under Shiite belief, there is no certainty that they don’t, or that some later mullah won’t.
We are told that the U.S. and the Soviet Union came very close to war once because the Russians misinterpreted our actions and we misinterpreted theirs, each thinking the other intended a nuclear strike. It was narrowly averted. And that was by the two most sophisticated powers on earth who had instant communications with each other. What is the compelling reason to believe those perverse mullahs running Iran will not someday imagine some weather balloon or something as being a missile from Israel and launch Armageddon? And what is the reason to believe Israel will not launch everything it has if it sees missiles coming on a Tel Aviv trajectory?
And what is the reason to believe Iran’s achieving nuclear weapons will not lead to every Sunni Gulf state acquiring them as well. Some of the craziest people on earth all armed with nukes and with their fingers on the triggers at all times.
It won’t turn out well if it isn’t somehow stopped. Maybe Trump can prevent it, though it’s doubtful. But maybe things can change.
J
Jamie5
Guest
"Many congressional Republicans, including some fairly influential ones like Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton, loathe the deal, as do a cadre of Republicans grassroots activists. Cotton is already pushing a plan to act on Trump’s request to create an automatic trigger for reimposing sanctions, and his bill might very well force the US to violate its end of the agreement (though since the idea isn’t just a simple reimposition of sanctions, it wouldn’t be quality for the INARA fast-track and thus would likely require 60 votes in the Senate).
The point is that even if Trump and the GOP leadership try to stop reimposition of sanctions, it’s possible they’ll face a revolt from congressional backbenchers and the grassroots base. Decertification does not formally end the Iran deal — but it creates serious threats to its continued existence.
“We are on the very slippery slope that leads to JCPOA collapse,” says Richard Nephew, an expert at Columbia University who worked on negotiations with Iran in the Obama White House between 2011 and 2013."
The point is that even if Trump and the GOP leadership try to stop reimposition of sanctions, it’s possible they’ll face a revolt from congressional backbenchers and the grassroots base. Decertification does not formally end the Iran deal — but it creates serious threats to its continued existence.
“We are on the very slippery slope that leads to JCPOA collapse,” says Richard Nephew, an expert at Columbia University who worked on negotiations with Iran in the Obama White House between 2011 and 2013."
T
Theo520
Guest
Same here. Some mistakes just need to be fixed.
O
OneSheep
Guest
I think Trump did it for the same reason that congress is going to want to reinstate sanctions. The fact is that our foreign policy is completely controlled by the pro-settlement faction in Israel.
Will someone please explain to me what the difference in our stance toward Iran would be if Benjamin Netanyahu was in complete control of our US government?
…That’s right, there would be no difference…
So wouldn’t it be more honest to have Mr. Netanyahu as POTUS, or at least in charge of our State dept and Military?
Will someone please explain to me what the difference in our stance toward Iran would be if Benjamin Netanyahu was in complete control of our US government?
…That’s right, there would be no difference…
So wouldn’t it be more honest to have Mr. Netanyahu as POTUS, or at least in charge of our State dept and Military?
M
marybobo
Guest
That inane comment adds a lot to the discussion.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Easy enough. He would have blown their program to smithereens years ago, just like he did in Syria. Obama could have done it but didn’t. That’s why Iran has a nuclear weapons program and Syria doesn’t.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I don’t think the average American has a clue as to what’s going on in Iran. They depend solely on what Bush and Obama said. And now Trump keeps saying it was a bad deal. So that makes it fact? Is there any way we know that any action we take will provoke or prevent a major war and incur major expenses? We’re not hearing much from the Secretary of State or Defense. Oh wait…
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
The deal is not hard to follow, plenty was written on it.
The deal gave everything to Iran,
their weapons program could be running again in 1 week.
They may already have it going and we won’t know.
J
Jig_Saw
Guest
What’s more inane, making an inane comment or complaining about an inane comment not adding to the conversation? I’m going with the latter.
A
amb4do
Guest
Some could say the same about your statement here.
D
dvdjs
Guest
Compared to what?
D
dvdjs
Guest
Why do you think that Netanyahu has not blown the Iranian program to smithereens. Or Bush? Or Trump?
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
But it seems that you missed it.
T
Theo520
Guest
Last edited:
D
dvdjs
Guest
Thanks for the links. Of course you link to highly polemic articles. Still they don’t seem to specificaly support your claims:
There is more to the story. And that includes an assessment of what it accomplished, what the real alternatives were, and what the continuing actions were to be. Try this:
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
While NPR is for the deal, at least they point out the important components it missed.
D
dvdjs
Guest
The fact that the deal was not the coming of the kingdom was not lost on anyone.
It is a very cheap criticism to say that there were important components missed. What was is the strategy to incorporate them in a deal?
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hmm. Not so fast, Ridge! That move would have put the U.S. at war with Iran, but with Benjamin Netanyahu in complete control of our government, he would be concerned about putting our population at risk when the only real risk is to his own homeland Israel, where fellow Shia are oppressed by his own government.
You have to give BT somewhat the benefit of the doubt on this, Ridge, he would be much more calculating.
And in effect, his calculating is essentially manifested in our withholding taking immediate action. BT knows he can push the U.S. to bomb Iran because he is insulated from being ultimately responsible for the consequences.
On the other hand if he, representing the US, were to bomb Iran, the responsibility would be his. He would have to justify loss of American lives as an expense of the confiscation of land and resource from the Palestinians.
You have to give BT somewhat the benefit of the doubt on this, Ridge, he would be much more calculating.
And in effect, his calculating is essentially manifested in our withholding taking immediate action. BT knows he can push the U.S. to bomb Iran because he is insulated from being ultimately responsible for the consequences.
On the other hand if he, representing the US, were to bomb Iran, the responsibility would be his. He would have to justify loss of American lives as an expense of the confiscation of land and resource from the Palestinians.
- Status