Jump to content
BANGKOK 24 June 2019 18:40
webfact

Trump, Saudi Arabia warn Iran against Middle East conflict

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, Tug said:

Ask all the other signatories they seem to think it was working this new Donald fiasco isent

It was never even intended to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons in the long run and allowed them to keep most of their industry. In that sense there have been no detected violations. At least to my recollection it was viewed as a delay to the inevitable, after which Iran would be in a stronger position to obtain weapons quickly. Even the non-allowed equipment was just put in storage.  But yes it was working according to the limited expectations of other signatories.

 

It was a good idea, who does not want peace, but the implementation did little to attain the primary goal. That is why the US congress never supported it. A majority of Congress including all Republicans and some Democrats opposed the deal.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
35 minutes ago, BestB said:

I see. So it’s all trumps fault ? Nothing to do with Iranians or Obama doing a bad deal . Got ya👍

The current situation with Iran is all on trump.

 

The long term Middle East problems, that's on a lot of us.

Edited by Bluespunk
  • Like 2
  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
27 minutes ago, geoffbezoz said:

Known targets removed reliant upon US propaganda.  Collateral damage to civilians ratified by independent reporting.

The targeted research centres engaged in chemical weapons development were fully removed, pictures widely available from all sides.

Edited by rabas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, rabas said:

A majority of Congress including all Republicans and some Democrats opposed the deal.

Senate Democrats delivered a major victory to President Obama when 42 Democrat Senators blocked a Republican resolution to reject the Iran nuclear deal which required 60 votes.

The House passed the first two resolutions:

  • H. Res 411 claiming that Obama did not submit all the elements of the deal to Congress, as required by the Iran Nuclear Review Act
  • H. Res 3460 to prevent Obama from lifting sanctions on Iran

The third resolution failed to pass, with a vote of 162-269:

  • H. Res 3461 to approve the deal

But the resolutions were largely symbolic, as President Obama had enough support to ensure the deal would survive. McConnell also said that the Senate would not debate House legislation without “enough co-sponsors to override a presidential veto.” Although 25 House Democrats opposed the deal, House opponents still fell short of a veto-proof majority.

https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2015/sep/11/congress-votes-deal

 

Republicans against Obama denuclearizing Iran - how ironic today with Republicans failing their own POTUS to denuclearize North Korea who actually has functioning nuclear ICBM's.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

I’m sorry, but what did you expect would happen when you unilaterally withdrew from the nuclear deal and imposed sanctions, trump?

 

Did you seriously believe they would roll over and do your bidding like a whipped dog?

 

I have no support for Iran, it’s theocratic rule of law or the actions of it’s revolutionary guards, but those there are not going to back down to you.

 

They clearly are not afraid of you and hold you in contempt. 

 

The current escalating situation is a direct direct result of your actions and rather than tweeting you usual nonsense you need to let the grown ups get involved and negotiate a lasting settlement. 

 

 

Wouldn't know that the Iranians won't back down. Posturing statements before doing just that would be in line with how things worked out in the past. Yes, including the so-called Iran Deal. Same goes for the "clearly not afraid" bit - if Iran was anywhere as confident as that, it would be more forthcoming with action. In reality, the prospects of an actual military conflict with the USA aren't in the Iranian regime's favor, especially so when it comes to maintaining power. Even the sanctions by themselves are taking a heavy toll.

 

Trump definitely contributed to the current situation coming about, mostly through withdrawing from the agreement and re-imposing sanctions. Making it totally about him, though, is giving Iran quite a free pass with regard to choices made. I think that even with the agreement in place, things would have come to that - perhaps at a slower pace, though.

 

As far as I'm aware, Trump is the side who wishes to negotiate - even if his take on such negotiations seems to be "sign here". The Iranian regime mostly rejects the notion of re-negotiation, and insists on retaining the agreement as is.

  • Thanks 2
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

Known targets removed reliant upon US propaganda.  Collateral damage to civilians ratified by independent reporting.

 

Independent reporting being RT affiliates and the like or official Syrian channels?

:coffee1:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, geoffbezoz said:

I think to be fair to most normal Americans, they are ashamed and embarrassed because of him. Still he will be aware soon but the bigger problem is how long it will take an incoming President to restore the goodwill of the world again ? Could take decades.

 

Not that long, I think. Most countries and governments will be so relieved dealing with anyone reasonably stable, so will probably go along with everything. Might actually be a good time for some USA gains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
50 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Wouldn't know that the Iranians won't back down. Posturing statements before doing just that would be in line with how things worked out in the past. Yes, including the so-called Iran Deal. Same goes for the "clearly not afraid" bit - if Iran was anywhere as confident as that, it would be more forthcoming with action. In reality, the prospects of an actual military conflict with the USA aren't in the Iranian regime's favor, especially so when it comes to maintaining power. Even the sanctions by themselves are taking a heavy toll.

 

Trump definitely contributed to the current situation coming about, mostly through withdrawing from the agreement and re-imposing sanctions. Making it totally about him, though, is giving Iran quite a free pass with regard to choices made. I think that even with the agreement in place, things would have come to that - perhaps at a slower pace, though.

 

As far as I'm aware, Trump is the side who wishes to negotiate - even if his take on such negotiations seems to be "sign here". The Iranian regime mostly rejects the notion of re-negotiation, and insists on retaining the agreement as is.

Partially agree with you, though

 

Iran probably takes the line on a negotiating a new deal they do as they had an agreement that the USA unilaterally withdrew from, can't say I blame them really.

Edited by Bluespunk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Partially agree with you, though

 

Iran probably takes the line on a negotiating a new deal they do as they had an agreement that the USA unilaterally withdrew from, can't say I blame them really.

 

Yes, on this score the Iranians do have a point. I think it would have been better served had they taken a less confrontational approach though, regardless of whether they were in the right about renegotiation.

 

There's some romantic view, often posted on these topic about Iran good at playing the long game etc. Well a better long game might have been to avoid giving Trump something to use as pretext (even if not defined in the Iran Deal), get the economy back on track with Western firms fully back in, lower profile with regard to regional activities. Alas, Iran got it's own hardliners - and as such things go, there's a political symbiosis between them and their counterparts in the USA.

 

There is no real way Iran can win a confrontation, or benefit from one. And I don't think the situation they are in today is a result of careful planning on their part. More like they miscalculated, with some elements pushing for hard-line positions. Given their current predicament and past instances, and barring a flare up (accidental or contrived), it will end with a face-saving formula which will see them renegotiation under a different label.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troll post removed.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could we see a headline ‘trump warns Martians not to threaten or attack...’? Seems impending action against Martians is about as neccesary as this distraction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Troll post has been reported and removed.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/20/2019 at 8:19 AM, webfact said:

Washington has tightened economic sanctions against Iran, trying to cut Tehran's oil exports to zero, and beefed up the U.S. military presence in the Gulf in response to what it said were Iranian threats to United States troops and interests.

Quite right how dare anyone touch world oil & gas it all belongs to US. 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...