Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

After they developed nuclear weapons, yeah that turned out great! In case you missed it, the Iran deal was Iran coming to the table before that happened.

Plus dubious had sanctions anything to do there or was it case of China getting angry when the test site collapsed threatening China with radioactive fallout.

China is the one that can hurt NK most short of invasion. China barks, NK listens at least somewhat.

NK has been ignoring sanctions for decades. Why assume they NOW automatically work when there's alternative reason which is something that has NOT happened before that could very well explain it. Yeah that makes sense. "That thing that never has worked before NOW magically worked. Not at all anything to do with only ally getting seriously angry when they get threatened by radioactive fall. Nope. That's nothing to do with it!"

They have been building nuclear weapons?

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In this thread, simultaneously arguing that the deal was bad because it wasn't ratified by the Senate while also conceding the reality that Obama couldn't have gotten anything whatsoever ratified by the senate because they were operating on a platform of bulk obstruction.

Ta-da!

Not really.

If Obama truly came up with an awesome deal (it wasn't), then the Senate would certainly entertain it. The problem here, seems that this "deal" was architected with the mindset of "building up Obama's legacy" rather that, an objective view of this whole ordeal.

No, the objective view was that this was the best you were going to get. Why do you think people like Netanyahu, Pompeo and the Saudis hated it so much? Because it wasn't punishing Iran, it was actually cooperating to achieve something.

You do realize that Iran also needed a stake in any potential deal right?

You do realize that "no deal" can be better than "any" deal... right?

Iran was *not* fully cooperating and was found to break the agreement numerous times that Obama and the other nations let pass.

Ok so no deal on Iran developing nuclear weapons is better than a deal with international oversight in which they promise not to do so?
I see the utterly awesome side of no deal when put like that.

No it wasn't. You're being misled and lied to. The IAEA has confirmed multiple times that Iran is holding up its end of the bargain:
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/multimedia/videos/press-briefing-by-iaea-director-general-yukiya-amano-on-5-march-2018

5 March 2018. Iran is Implementing Nuclear-related JCPOA Commitments, Director General Amano Tells IAEA Board. Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano told the Agency's 35-member Board of Governors.

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In this thread, simultaneously arguing that the deal was bad because it wasn't ratified by the Senate while also conceding the reality that Obama couldn't have gotten anything whatsoever ratified by the senate because they were operating on a platform of bulk obstruction.

Ta-da!

Not really.

If Obama truly came up with an awesome deal (it wasn't), then the Senate would certainly entertain it. The problem here, seems that this "deal" was architected with the mindset of "building up Obama's legacy" rather that, an objective view of this whole ordeal.

No, the objective view was that this was the best you were going to get. Why do you think people like Netanyahu, Pompeo and the Saudis hated it so much? Because it wasn't punishing Iran, it was actually cooperating to achieve something.

You do realize that Iran also needed a stake in any potential deal right?

You do realize that "no deal" can be better than "any" deal... right?

Iran was *not* fully cooperating and was found to break the agreement numerous times that Obama and the other nations let pass.

So prove it. You keep spouting off like you have some crystal ball that gives you all the answers and you know without a doubt this is a win. When reality has been kicked into your face over and over again and instead you bite down and insist you're not wrong. I get it, it makes you mad, but you're looking pretty dumb here, to the point you're pretty much just trolling.

This is bad. Ontop of the fact NK is getting pissy about Trump claiming their coming to the table was all him, this is just a gak show. "Yeah totally make a deal with us, we'll just break it later but hey that's cool right?"

tneva82 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

After they developed nuclear weapons, yeah that turned out great! In case you missed it, the Iran deal was Iran coming to the table before that happened.

Plus dubious had sanctions anything to do there or was it case of China getting angry when the test site collapsed threatening China with radioactive fallout.

China is the one that can hurt NK most short of invasion. China barks, NK listens at least somewhat.

NK has been ignoring sanctions for decades. Why assume they NOW automatically work when there's alternative reason which is something that has NOT happened before that could very well explain it. Yeah that makes sense. "That thing that never has worked before NOW magically worked. Not at all anything to do with only ally getting seriously angry when they get threatened by radioactive fall. Nope. That's nothing to do with it!"

I would be even firmer, sanctions had absolutely nothing to do with North Korea wanting talks. NK just follows the time honored tradition of coming in for talks to reduce sanctions so that whole song and dance can cover up for the continuing development of their nuclear capability. Talks are just a distraction technique employed by North Korea when tensions rise. They have done this multiple times before. But for some reason some people seem convinced that this time Trump did it guys, no really guys.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In this thread, simultaneously arguing that the deal was bad because it wasn't ratified by the Senate while also conceding the reality that Obama couldn't have gotten anything whatsoever ratified by the senate because they were operating on a platform of bulk obstruction.

Ta-da!

Not really.

If Obama truly came up with an awesome deal (it wasn't), then the Senate would certainly entertain it. The problem here, seems that this "deal" was architected with the mindset of "building up Obama's legacy" rather that, an objective view of this whole ordeal.

No, the objective view was that this was the best you were going to get. Why do you think people like Netanyahu, Pompeo and the Saudis hated it so much? Because it wasn't punishing Iran, it was actually cooperating to achieve something.

You do realize that Iran also needed a stake in any potential deal right?

You do realize that "no deal" can be better than "any" deal... right?

Iran was *not* fully cooperating and was found to break the agreement numerous times that Obama and the other nations let pass.

Ok so no deal on Iran developing nuclear weapons is better than a deal with international oversight in which they promise not to do so?
I see the utterly awesome side of no deal when put like that.

No it wasn't. You're being misled and lied to. The IAEA has confirmed multiple times that Iran is holding up its end of the bargain:
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/multimedia/videos/press-briefing-by-iaea-director-general-yukiya-amano-on-5-march-2018

5 March 2018. Iran is Implementing Nuclear-related JCPOA Commitments, Director General Amano Tells IAEA Board. Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano told the Agency's 35-member Board of Governors.

Last October:

“The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week admitted an inconvenient truth. The U.N. watchdog, said Yukiya Amano, has proven unable to verify Iran’s compliance with Section T of the 2015 nuclear deal, which prohibits activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”

http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/354703-misreading-the-iaea-reports-on-irans-nuclear-program
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-iaea/iaea-chief-calls-for-clarity-on-disputed-section-of-iran-nuclear-deal-idUSKCN1C12AN
Furthermore, the deal itself allows Iran to build ballistic missiles and continually foster terrorism around the Middle East.

Great deal homie!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

lonestarr777 wrote:

So prove it.

That's easy.

Several Iranian military sites were "off limits" in this agreement.

How can you *even* contemplate a monitoring deal when there are off-limit sites?

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

You do realize that "no deal" can be better than "any" deal... right?

Iran was *not* fully cooperating and was found to break the agreement numerous times that Obama and the other nations let pass.

Ok so no deal on Iran developing nuclear weapons is better than a deal with international oversight in which they promise not to do so?
I see the utterly awesome side of no deal when put like that.

No it wasn't. You're being misled and lied to. The IAEA has confirmed multiple times that Iran is holding up its end of the bargain:
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/multimedia/videos/press-briefing-by-iaea-director-general-yukiya-amano-on-5-march-2018

5 March 2018. Iran is Implementing Nuclear-related JCPOA Commitments, Director General Amano Tells IAEA Board. Iran is implementing its nuclear-related commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano told the Agency's 35-member Board of Governors.

Last October:

“The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week admitted an inconvenient truth. The U.N. watchdog, said Yukiya Amano, has proven unable to verify Iran’s compliance with Section T of the 2015 nuclear deal, which prohibits activities that could contribute to the development of a nuclear explosive device.”

http://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/354703-misreading-the-iaea-reports-on-irans-nuclear-program
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-iaea/iaea-chief-calls-for-clarity-on-disputed-section-of-iran-nuclear-deal-idUSKCN1C12AN
Furthermore, the deal itself allows Iran to build ballistic missiles and continually foster terrorism around the Middle East.

Great deal homie!

Seriously, you have gone from claiming Iran is breaking the agreement to shifting goalposts to the IAEA not having complete insight into section T?

There is nothing, not a shred of evidence to back up that Iran is breaking any agreement. Section T is a footnote when Iran can't even enrich uranium to build a bomb with. Great, they might have made a computer simulation in suuper duper secret underground labs, now what?

You think Iran is the only state that sponsors terrorism? Saudi Arabia does it too, Israel engages in frequent state sponsored terrorism. Are you going to slap them with sanctions too because I'm pretty sure Israel has nukes. Dear god, the Iran deal even allows Iran to build tanks! Quick, they might think they are a sovereign nation and not a conquered state on which the US can impose its fickle will!

Listen to the IAEA director man. Access to all locations they need to, 1:03 mark of the video. This is getting ridiculous.

....ooooooooookay.

Ya'll keep on defending Iran.

Ok, don't look surprised once Iran actually develops that bomb, cause they basically promised they would now that Trump reneged on the deal.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ok, don't look surprised once Iran actually develops that bomb, cause they basically promised they would now that Trump reneged on the deal.

Wait... I missed the part where they weren't developing it anyways.

 djones520 wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Ok, don't look surprised once Iran actually develops that bomb, cause they basically promised they would now that Trump reneged on the deal.

Wait... I missed the part where they weren't developing it anyways.

they used to, then they stopped.

From 2007:
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/pressreleases/statement-iaea-director-general-new-us-intelligence-estimate-iran

IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei received with great interest the new U.S. National Intelligence Estimate about Iran´s nuclear program which concludes that there has been no on-going nuclear weapons program in Iran since the fall of 2003. He notes in particular that the Estimate tallies with the Agency´s consistent statements over the last few years that, although Iran still needs to clarify some important aspects of its past and present nuclear activities, the Agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran.

From 2015:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-34988952

The report was a condition of this year's landmark deal between Iran and six world powers.

The July agreement involves the lifting of sanctions in return for Iran curbing sensitive nuclear activities.

In its report, the IAEA said most of the "co-ordinated" work by Iran took place before 2003, with some activities continuing up to 2009.

But it added "these activities did not advance beyond feasibility and scientific studies, and the acquisition of certain relevant technical competences and capabilities".

Well, the best way to stop countries from supporting terrorists or building rockets is to walk away from any agreements about not building nuclear weapons.

Makes sense.

Well at least the oil price going up will help the Saudis finance some more terrorism, so it all balances out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, we're now again in the second year of a Republican Presidency, agitating against a country that has a single letter changed from Iraq and Pompeo doing his best Rumsfeldian "known unknowns" impressions. It sure feels like 2003 all over again.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well at least the oil price going up will help the Saudis finance some more terrorism, so it all balances out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, we're now again in the second year of a Republican Presidency, agitating against a country that has a single letter changed from Iraq and Pompeo doing his best Rumsfeldian "known unknowns" impressions. It sure feels like 2003 all over again.

Yes, and a lot of talk about WMD.... again.

Can they use the same playbook again and will the US public fall for it...again?

Without a shadow of a doubt, this has to be one of the most wretched foreign policy blunders in American history.

It's weapons grade bullgak perpetrated by a man child who bases foreign policy on doing the polar opposite of his predecessor.

Feth me, they must be having a right old laugh in Israel and Saudi Arabia, because once again the American dog is getting wagged by the Israeli and Saudi tail.

What I wouldn't give for a George Marshall or a Cordell Hull, a statesman who knew what they were doing. Hell, I'd settle for Nixon right now. At least he knew what he wanted and had the skill to get it...

Once again I'll remind American dakka members that I sat through the Senate and Congress hearings on the Iran deal, and the GOP had FETHING nothing. No alternative. All they did was jump up and down, throw the toys from the pram and make themseves look like fething idiots.

The Moderates in Iran were gaining some traction, but the hardliners will push them aside. North Korea will look at this and wonder why bother dealing with a nation that breaks its word, and the European allies will not appreciate the USA laying down the law to them on economic sanctions...

And the idea that the USA will negotiate a new deal is pie in the sky nonsense that should be laughed out of town by anybody with more than two brain cells too rub together...

If the American people had any sense, pride, or dignity left in them, then these buffoons should be chased out of Washington with a horsewhip...

How the hell can the nation that gave the world James Madison, John Adams, FDR et al, be reduced to this?

 Easy E wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
Well at least the oil price going up will help the Saudis finance some more terrorism, so it all balances out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, we're now again in the second year of a Republican Presidency, agitating against a country that has a single letter changed from Iraq and Pompeo doing his best Rumsfeldian "known unknowns" impressions. It sure feels like 2003 all over again.

Yes, and a lot of talk about WMD.... again.

Can they use the same playbook again and will the US public fall for it...again?

Well with the amount of plagiarism going on I expect that the playbook doesn't even have the Q's crossed out

As for falling for it, a good 30-40% already convinced themselves years ago. If Trump went to war tomorrow those people would be cheering him on. Man, if we thought Bush's Iraq was bad, I can't imagine what the most incompetent administration ever is going to turn Iran into if it actually escalated. I hope not.

So...the big question now is...what does this actually do and mean?

As far as Iran is concerned, theyre going to take another big financial hit, but as long as the agreement remains in place with the other partners, they can bypass US sanctions and carry on as they were, and there is no compelling reason for them to reenengage. The deal worked because many powers were acting in unison and a lot of work went into that.

As far as the US is concerned...I don't see a game plan, a follow up, a step 2, a plan B, short of violence.

Well reasonably with US sanctions in place Iran willl focus economic development on its relations with Europe and China. US sanctions might hurt, but only US sanctions are far better. So the US is pissing against the wind, losing out on the Iranian economy for zero gain and losing international influence.

The US just sunk its own position and has nothing to show for it. No country is going to negotiate with the US when you basically have to act like a subservient dog. The wider implications for North Korea are there of course. Trump just sunk the peace treaty most likely, maybe he shouldn't have played his role in that up so much

I would expect to see Russia drawing even closer to Iran, even more proxy action in Syria, and China not giving two hoots for the USA's sanctions.

The two armed camps in the Middle East will be even more firmly entrenched, and the EU will be even more determined to have an independent foreign policy free of Washington...

What does the USA get out of this? Feth me if I know.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What does the USA get out of this? Feth me if I know.

"That'll teach Obummer for telling jokes about Trump at the Correspondent's Dinner", probably.

Russia and Iran we're already quite close. I don't think this needs to improve it further. As for proxy action in Syria, I have my doubts, Syria is almost over as Assad has been steadily crushing the last rebel areas and is firmly winning. The reason Israel and Iran clash now is because one of the two rebel areas left is right next to Israel. So of course Iranians are going to be close to Israel, its where the fighting is. I don't think Iran is all too interested in a proxy war with Israel or the others in the Syria region, as it only hurts Iranian allies. Yemen is the place to be, but that won't change much I think.

The EU is certainly keen on exploiting the natural wealth of Iran and China has always been on the side of Iran.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What does the USA get out of this? Feth me if I know.

The USA? Who cares? The GOP certainly doesn't care, this was done for them and them alone. More lobbyists' money, more street cred with their base to keep them in office, etc., etc.

How the hell can the nation that gave the world James Madison, John Adams, FDR et al, be reduced to this?

Read the posts of the person defending this and you'll understand precisely how these things happen.

 feeder wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What does the USA get out of this? Feth me if I know.

"That'll teach Obummer for telling jokes about Trump at the Correspondent's Dinner", probably.

The irony here is that it was a GOP POTUS, GW Bush, who originally proposed the Iran nuclear deal. What the GOP gets out of effectively saying that their own policy is horsegak, is beyond me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

What does the USA get out of this? Feth me if I know.

The USA? Who cares? The GOP certainly doesn't care, this was done for them and them alone. More lobbyists' money, more street cred with their base to keep them in office, etc., etc.

How the hell can the nation that gave the world James Madison, John Adams, FDR et al, be reduced to this?

Read the posts of the person defending this and you'll understand precisely how these things happen.

Iran can never be a threat to the USA because a) the US nuclear arsenal would wipe out Iran 10 times over and b) even in a conventional war, Iran will lose badly. So the USA can't plead self-defence.

Israel's nuclear arsenal and the strength of its military + allied support, is also enough to deter any possible aggression from almost anybody. Israel can't even plead self-defence here.

Was the Iran deal perfect? No, but it gave the moderates something to hang their hat on, but the hardliners will push them aside and gleefully say we told you so. Your average Iranian Joe wpn't blame their government for this, even if they hate the regime...

Were the inspectors getting to see everything? No, but again, having inspectors there gives you a opportunity to be on the ground, get a feel for things, hear things, and possibly even sneak in other stuff so you could have a proper look at what was really going on - embassies do it all the time. That opportunity is now up in smoke...

This is honestly one of those 'dark days' of politics, of world events, that you have to think will be looked back on as a pivotal moment in history.

What are the bets now then on a military action against Iran at some point within the next 5 years? Or should we be talking about a 'when' rather than an 'if' ?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What does the USA get out of this? Feth me if I know.

"That'll teach Obummer for telling jokes about Trump at the Correspondent's Dinner", probably.

The irony here is that it was a GOP POTUS, GW Bush, who originally proposed the Iran nuclear deal. What the GOP gets out of effectively saying that their own policy is horsegak, is beyond me.

Worked for healthcare, right?

No disrespect to American dakka members, but going over the Trump speech again and following the Fox news coverage on this, and God knows why I'm doing this, I do wonder about the quality of American media coverage, because

I've just seen

a) Trump thinking that Shia Iran supports Sunni Al Qaeda

b) Fox news saying that the Iranian President gave his response speech in Arabic


Honest to God, there must be somebody in Washington who knows something about the Middle east? Right?

You're watching Fox News.

Seriously. You don't need to take anything of it seriously because FOX ISN'T NEWS. It's a network that is best described as opinion masquerading as fact.

I think I heard Angela Merkel talk German. What a nazi!

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
What does the USA get out of this? Feth me if I know.

"That'll teach Obummer for telling jokes about Trump at the Correspondent's Dinner", probably.

The irony here is that it was a GOP POTUS, GW Bush, who originally proposed the Iran nuclear deal. What the GOP gets out of effectively saying that their own policy is horsegak, is beyond me.

Worked for healthcare, right?

It's beyond satire. It's like the fall of the Roman Empire.

As I've said before, ordinary Americans are some of the best and most friendliest people I have ever met, but for reasons unknown to me, something goes horribly wrong at election time...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
You're watching Fox News.

Seriously. You don't need to take anything of it seriously because FOX ISN'T NEWS. It's a network that is best described as opinion masquerading as fact.

Well, I hope somebody in Washington knows what language the Persians speak, because it sure as hell ain't Arabic....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
I think I heard Angela Merkel talk German. What a nazi!

Her Russian is also very good by all accounts, and her English is first class as well.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Honest to God, there must be somebody in Washington who knows something about the Middle east? Right?

You'd be surprised.

I know guys who are paid to offer their opinions on Middle Eastern Geopolitics and not one of them actually knows how Iran is politically structured, and trying to explain that there's more than one Ayatollah is like trying to explain quantum physics to a four year old. I'm fairly convinced at this point that US foreign policy in the ME is a walking disaster because the US government actively chooses to seek out yes men when consulting on the subject.