Iran

[sean327]

1 minute ago, alum93 said:

Hmmm, opening the markets and trading with them.  What a novel thought.  Do you think our wise president has thought about that while he was busy telling everyone how horrible the previous deal was, only to end up negotiating something that probably looks identical so he can say he's the only one that could ever have done it?  The man is a narcissist and couldn't stand the thought of Obama getting any credit for anything.  He probably doesn't give a flip about health care either, only the name attached.  

Give Obama credit for what? The deal was pure garbage and anyone who doesn’t have a “teams and shit” mindset knows it. 

[Joe from WY]

6 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

Why are we suddenly convinced sanctions can work against Iran? Hasn't the western world been unsuccessfully sanctioning the shit out of Iran forever?

Sanctions don't work to effectuate any sort of change by themselves. They could be used as a potential "carrot and stick" provision, but on their own, they're worthless. To effectuate "regime change" (if that is the goal), the markets need to be opened and we need to flood the place with Levi's, internet poker, and Led Zeppelin albums, etc. Enough of that, and they won't want to be living under a bunch of religious kooks for long. 

 

[alum93]

5 minutes ago, sean327 said:

Give Obama credit for what? The deal was pure garbage and anyone who doesn’t have a “teams and shit” mindset knows it. 

Except it wasn't.  It gave a timeframe for additional negotiations while suspending progress on nuclear development and allowing access for inspections.  Shit is what is happening on the border for a guy who never should have seen the WH and doesn't have the mental capacity for the job.  The deal wasn't perfect, nor should anyone have expected it to be.  It was light years better than twitter threats and getting ready to bomb them like no one has ever seen, or whatever moronic statement he is saying in the latest hour.

[Joe from WY]

Just now, alum93 said:

Except it wasn't.  It gave a timeframe for additional negotiations while suspending progress on nuclear development and allowing access for inspections.  Shit is what is happening on the border for a guy who never should have seen the WH and doesn't have the mental capacity for the job.  The deal wasn't perfect, nor should anyone have expected it to be.  It was light years better than twitter threats and getting ready to bomb them like no one has ever seen, or whatever moronic statement he is saying in the latest hour.

So what is it? 

All the deal did was give them cover to up their proxies across the region in places like Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. They weren't stopping anything re: enrichment/weapons. It just gave them cover. It was another bad deal. Like the deal Clinton made with the North Koreans. 

https://www.history.com/news/north-korea-nuclear-deal-bill-clinton-agreed-framework

That worked out really well. About as well as the Iran deal would have worked out. 

[I am Ram]

3 minutes ago, sean327 said:

Give Obama credit for what? The deal was pure garbage and anyone who doesn’t have a “teams and shit” mindset knows it. 

Not so sure about that. Sometimes you need a garbage deal to start somewhere. There was a period of definite thaw between Iran and the western world. The fact that Rouhani, a moderate, succeeded Ahmadinejad was a small miracle, and there was decidedly less "Death to America" screaming post-deal. Now, if you assume that Iran is trying to build a nuke no matter what, then yes, the deal is completely worthless. But I'm not convinced that's the case. It feels like we've been pissing away a major chance to steer Iran towards reintegration with the rest of the world. 

[Joe from WY]

5 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

Not so sure about that. Sometimes you need a garbage deal to start somewhere. There was a period of definite thaw between Iran and the western world. The fact that Rouhani, a moderate, succeeded Ahmadinejad was a small miracle, and there was decidedly less "Death to America" screaming post-deal. Now, if you assume that Iran is trying to build a nuke no matter what, then yes, the deal is completely worthless. But I'm not convinced that's the case. It feels like we've been pissing away a major chance to steer Iran towards reintegration with the rest of the world. 

A bad deal is worse than no deal at all. Often times, such bad deals result in bigger problems as a result. I just wrote about a 40 page paper for a law review that examined outside powers and negotiations with hostile actors, with a focus on the Middle East in particular. In situations where "bad deals", or "deals for the sake of having a deal" were made, the result was far more brutal and fuct than in situations with no deal made at all. In particular, the UN has a real penchant for making bad deals that get a lot of people killed. The US's track record in the region isn't much better. 

 

[sean327]

5 minutes ago, alum93 said:

Except it wasn't.  It gave a timeframe for additional negotiations while suspending progress on nuclear development and allowing access for inspections.  Shit is what is happening on the border for a guy who never should have seen the WH and doesn't have the mental capacity for the job.  The deal wasn't perfect, nor should anyone have expected it to be.  It was light years better than twitter threats and getting ready to bomb them like no one has ever seen, or whatever moronic statement he is saying in the latest hour.

Please don’t mistake me for a Trump supporter. He’s a complete idiot 99.99% of the time, but he got the Iran Deal right. It was a terrible deal for the west from the start. It gave Iran complete cover to continue their program.

[Orange]

19 minutes ago, sean327 said:

Give Obama credit for what? The deal was pure garbage and anyone who doesn’t have a “teams and shit” mindset knows it. 

The "teams and shit" mindset is what led you to say this in the first place.

[alum93]

5 minutes ago, sean327 said:

Please don’t mistake me for a Trump supporter. He’s a complete idiot 99.99% of the time, but he got the Iran Deal right. It was a terrible deal for the west from the start. It gave Iran complete cover to continue their program.

Yeah, i am not going to get into a deep argument on the Iran deal or name call anyone on this board.  I think Trump wings it or goes with his "gut" all too often, with little thought of repercussions.  Heck, he even used that answer about climate change.  I'll give the man credit when he seems to make sense, which unfortunately means i am almost always left shaking my head with his administration.  But who knows.  The whole blind squirrel and nut, maybe this one works out and no bombing is needed while Iran signs off on some better deal.  We can always hope.

[sean327]

1 minute ago, Orange said:

The "teams and shit" mindset is what led you to say this in the first place.

Why? Because I don’t worship at the feet of Obama? I don’t give a shit which party made the deal. It was nothing more than a polished turd. It still would’ve been crap had a Republican administration signed it.

[Orange]

1 minute ago, sean327 said:

Why? Because I don’t worship at the feet of Obama? I don’t give a shit which party made the deal. It was nothing more than a polished turd. It still would’ve been crap had a Republican administration signed it.

It was better than no deal at all, by a HUGE disparity.  But it's duly noted how you ignored I am Ram's points on the matter, particularly the change in Iranian presidents to a more moderate leader.  That's an opportunity thrown in the trash by Trump.

[sean327]

1 minute ago, Orange said:

It was better than no deal at all, by a HUGE disparity.  But it's duly noted how you ignored I am Ram's points on the matter, particularly the change in Iranian presidents to a more moderate leader.  That's an opportunity thrown in the trash by Trump.

@Joe from WY answered @I am Ram before I got the chance to. His answer covered everything I was going to say so blow me. 

[Joe from WY]

The fact that people call Rouhani a "moderate" just illustrates the great misunderstanding of Middle Eastern politics people have on here. One person in particular. 

[Nevada Convert]

On 6/21/2019 at 8:46 AM, tailingpermit said:

Because we were specifically talking regime change, that would absolutely require boots on the ground.

What you're talking about is a retaliatory strike.

I haven’t heard say a thing about regime change. Maybe I missed it but that’s not something Trump would want to do. Got any links?

FYI, sanctions alone can cause regime change in some cases. If you keep them long enough, the public gets desperate and they blame their leaders leading to a coupe or revolution. Everyone knows it’s been bowling just below the surface for quite a while. 

 

[I am Ram]

36 minutes ago, Joe from WY said:

A bad deal is worse than no deal at all. Often times, such bad deals result in bigger problems as a result. I just wrote about a 40 page paper for a law review that examined outside powers and negotiations with hostile actors, with a focus on the Middle East in particular. In situations where "bad deals", or "deals for the sake of having a deal" were made, the result was far more brutal and fuct than in situations with no deal made at all. In particular, the UN has a real penchant for making bad deals that get a lot of people killed. The US's track record in the region isn't much better. 

 

So what's the solution? Experts have agreed for well over a decade that if Iran is hellbent on building a nuke, they will build one. To prevent this, a loss of life and resources would be required that neither the US, nor Israel, nor anyone else would be willing to bear. 

Again, if you look at the deal in isolation, what you say may be true, but a bad deal can open up new opportunities. This is a stupid example, but I'm tired and can't think of a better one, the first agreement on regulating CFCs was a screaming shit show and would have done nothing to prevent further depletion of the ozone layer. And yet, it turned out to become a global success. I'm not saying the existing deal would have led to better things for sure, but it bugs me that we didn't even seem to try. Now we're worse off than before because in addition to Iran being close to being back in the nuke race, we have a divided western world. 

[Joe from WY]

2 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

So what's the solution? Experts have agreed for well over a decade that if Iran is hellbent on building a nuke, they will build one. To prevent this, a loss of life and resources would be required that neither the US, nor Israel, nor anyone else would be willing to bear. 

Again, if you look at the deal in isolation, what you say may be true, but a bad deal can open up new opportunities. This is a stupid example, but I'm tired and can't think of a better one, the first agreement on regulating CFCs was a screaming shit show and would have done nothing to prevent further depletion of the ozone layer. And yet, it turned out to become a global success. I'm not saying the existing deal would have led to better things for sure, but it bugs me that we didn't even seem to try. Now we're worse off than before because in addition to Iran being close to back in the nuke race, we have a divided western world. 

You solve it by taking a hands-off approach. You open up trade with them. Outside parties making deals in the Middle East are fraught with disaster and rarely, if ever, work out. 

Look at the Schultz Agreement in Lebanon after 1983. Or Sykes-Picot. Or Cyprus. Or the British Mandate on Palestine, or any agreement on Palestine for that matter.  etc etc. They never work. And they almost universally make things worse. 

The Western World isn't very divided either re Iran. The Europeans have fallen in line with Trump on this. 

[Orange]

3 minutes ago, I am Ram said:

So what's the solution? Experts have agreed for well over a decade that if Iran is hellbent on building a nuke, they will build one. To prevent this, a loss of life and resources would be required that neither the US, nor Israel, nor anyone else would be willing to bear. 

Again, if you look at the deal in isolation, what you say may be true, but a bad deal can open up new opportunities. This is a stupid example, but I'm tired and can't think of a better one, the first agreement on regulating CFCs was a screaming shit show and would have done nothing to prevent further depletion of the ozone layer. And yet, it turned out to become a global success. I'm not saying the existing deal would have led to better things for sure, but it bugs me that we didn't even seem to try. Now we're worse off than before because in addition to Iran being close to being back in the nuke race, we have a divided western world. 

trump has said saudi arabia should have nukes....maybe he thinks Iran should, too.

[sean327]

21 minutes ago, Nevada Convert said:

I haven’t heard say a thing about regime change. Maybe I missed it but that’s not something Trump would want to do. Got any links?

FYI, sanctions alone can cause regime change in some cases. If you keep them long enough, the public gets desperate and they blame their leaders leading to a coupe or revolution. Everyone knows it’s been bowling just below the surface for quite a while. 

 

In theory sanctions should cause regime change, but history shows otherwise. Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela...... Sanctions in the end become a club that hurts the average citizens of the targeted country rather than those running the place. Sanctions have their place but they aren’t a very good long term tool.

[Nevada Convert]

17 minutes ago, sean327 said:

In theory sanctions should cause regime change, but history shows otherwise. Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela...... Sanctions in the end become a club that hurts the average citizens of the targeted country rather than those running the place. Sanctions have their place but they aren’t a very good long term tool.

Each situation is uniquely different and isn’t comparable IMHO. And in some cases where they didn’t work was because we didn’t do all we could secretly. Obviously the CIA, and other equivalents in our alliance would have to be helping with an uprising including weapons, if necessary. Iran has already had uprisings, but didn’t have a chance with not enough outside help. 

The last thing you want to do is have collateral damage in bombing Iran’s military targets. That wouldn’t help in them trusting us to help. But in Terrorist 101 class, they learn to put their valuable assets in a children’s hospital or just a lot of civilians around them essentially shielding it. But there’s still plenty of assets we could knock out in retaliation strikes. 

[renoskier]

1 hour ago, sean327 said:

In theory sanctions should cause regime change, but history shows otherwise. Cuba, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela...... Sanctions in the end become a club that hurts the average citizens of the targeted country rather than those running the place. Sanctions have their place but they aren’t a very good long term tool.

First of all, who the phuck are we trying to "cause regime change"? Why don't we ever learn from our past mistakes of meddling in the affairs of other sovereign nations (I know, just my naive rant).

Secondly, even if your motive is to affect regime change, sanctions do the exact opposite. What better way to rally the populace than to have an outside enemy meddling in you're affairs.