Jump to content
BANGKOK
webfact

Exclusive: Trump plans executive order to punish arms trade with Iran - sources

Recommended Posts

Fake news, didn't happen.  And DT had nothing to do with it.

 

 

Edited by bendejo
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, tonray said:

Let's see if he sanctions Putin, who is Iran's primary supplier

thats funny...that makes this whole thing a farce.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

what finer point am i missing?

Trump! (If that is a finer point or a big ar5e point, ......hmmmm up to you) 😉

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

How about arms trade with Saudi Arabia? Or how about all the military equipment which is worth billions of dollars which the USA gives to Israel for free? Bloody double standards. 

 

I understand some posters have trouble coming to terms with countries and governments having interests rather than ideals. This often goes hand in hand with ignoring facts in service of narrative or making some 'point'.

 

The two other countries mentioned are generally allied with the USA. Neither was under similar embargo as applied to Iran.

 

So yes, fair enough to assert that the USA cannot both ditch the agreement and insist on terms being seen to. That said, the rationale behind the decision not to extend or renew the arms ban seems to be at least partially motivated by contrarianism to USA wishes. Again, fair enough - the Trump administration earned this. But it's not like these are absolutely lacking merit.

 

Sure, past incidents may be cited to try and bolster claims that it"s exactly the same. Only it isn't. This is not about what was, but rather what is. And at present, Iran is both at odds with the USA and acts as a problematic party with regard to several regional players.

 

It would have been easier for the USA to affect such policies had it remained within the framework of the agreement. Obviously a problem given Trump's policies, fixations and temperament.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


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

confused asks....The United States abandoned the nuclear deal in May 2018 so how can they trigger a "snap back"?
what finer point am i missing?

 

The Trump administration either truly feels that the USA is strong enough to force its policies and views on relevant countries, or banking on said countries' reluctance putting it to the test. If going by the example set in the past, such assertions are not all that far-fetched, if not fool-proof.

 

Then there are the upcoming elections, and playing Tough Guy on the Iran card could gain some support.

 

There are no real fine points to this, I think. More like an administration who's grasp of diplomacy is a bit on the limited side.

Share this post


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

 

I understand some posters have trouble coming to terms with countries and governments having interests rather than ideals. This often goes hand in hand with ignoring facts in service of narrative or making some 'point'.

 

The two other countries mentioned are generally allied with the USA. Neither was under similar embargo as applied to Iran.

 

So yes, fair enough to assert that the USA cannot both ditch the agreement and insist on terms being seen to. That said, the rationale behind the decision not to extend or renew the arms ban seems to be at least partially motivated by contrarianism to USA wishes. Again, fair enough - the Trump administration earned this. But it's not like these are absolutely lacking merit.

 

Sure, past incidents may be cited to try and bolster claims that it"s exactly the same. Only it isn't. This is not about what was, but rather what is. And at present, Iran is both at odds with the USA and acts as a problematic party with regard to several regional players.

 

It would have been easier for the USA to affect such policies had it remained within the framework of the agreement. Obviously a problem given Trump's policies, fixations and temperament.

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, there is no black and white, just a lot of grey.

However I think we can agree that Iran followed the international agreement and then Trump ripped it up. And then somehow Trump plays surprised that Iran is not willing to give 100% if they don't receive a little in return. It does not work like that and even Trump should understand that. If the people who vote for him understand it is obviously a another question...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, there is no black and white, just a lot of grey.

However I think we can agree that Iran followed the international agreement and then Trump ripped it up. And then somehow Trump plays surprised that Iran is not willing to give 100% if they don't receive a little in return. It does not work like that and even Trump should understand that. If the people who vote for him understand it is obviously a another question...

 

On that part, we have no argument. But I will add this - back when this administration broadcasted its aim to enforce sanctions on Iran, and other sanctions on parties dealing with Iran, many posters were angered by it and at the same time derisive when it came to prospects. The bottom line is that, that generally speaking, they pulled it off. Not fully, of course, but enough to give pause - and exert negative effects for the Iranian economy.

 

That set of sanctions had to do with oil, business ventures, investment and finance. All seen as legitimate, and relatively less controversial than arms sales. So granted, the USA's international standing might not be the same as it was back then (the UNSC flatly rejecting the USA's position is a good indicator) - but it can still muster enough clout to make this work, sort of.

 

If Trump wins another term, and countries realize they need to deal with him for four more years, then it's quite possible they'll rethink positions. Sure, there are profits to be made selling arms to Iran, and more influence to be gained. But weighed against the negatives - maybe less worthwhile than it seems.

 

I'm not saying this is a great move by Team Trump. IMO, more like posturing and being semi-committed to a course of action. It's not a righteous move given the USA's ditching of the agreement, even if the goal, specifically, is not a bad one. But for all that, it could work.

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...