Quote (fender @ Jan 6 2020 12:23pm)

sure, that's why i specified 'under a different administration'. trump was obviously never interested in a diplomatic solution, that's why he didn't even TRY to negotiate a 'better deal', despite suggesting it would have been easy to get one.



what iran will do is incredibly difficult to predict imo. on the one hand, the fact that they remained in the deal until now - despite trump's decision to break it, and the additional crippling sanctions america imposed on them - illustrates that there was a genuine interest to normalise relations with the west, and find diplomatic common ground. it will, however, be difficult for the current leadership to justify re-entering negotiations with a possible democratic administration given the precedent trump set, basically demonstrating that a deal with america is barely worth the paper it's written on. in that regard, this administration will have a lasting impact on american foreign policy, even long after trump will be out of office.

for the short term, it seems that trump effectively rallied the iranian population behind their leaders and radical forces within the country, and severely diminished the chances of a new deal having any kind of support. if, however, the adults on the table could convince iranian leadership that this is just temporary, not all might be lost - but i really struggle to see how that would still be realistic given the recent statements out of iran. do you figure that the support for a political solution by 'most people' makes it realistic for democratic hopefuls to address that directly, and promise iran a possible deal, or would that be political suicide because 'most people' just say that, but would still buy into the predictable "they support terrorists over america" narrative that warmongers would inevitably make?

as to consequences for the EU: trump might be reluctant (well, his advisors might be) to start another outright trade war, but isolated sanctions, like he already threatened them with if they ignored US sanctions against iran, and for building a pipeline to russia, are probably still on the table.

Quote (fender @ Jan 6 2020 10:45am)

nice try, but it's more like "incredibly hypocritical that supporters of a so prolific liar are unironically pointing fingers at others".

Which you are doing in turn. Stop blaming others and demonstrate consistency.

Quote

do you actually believe that? you can't possibly be that naive, can you? you think america fabricated evidence to start an unjustified war, invade the country, and topple its regime because you simply wanted a 'functioning iraq that serves iraqi interests'? america's middle east foreign policy for the last couple of decades created massive instability, several terrorist organisations, constant regional unrests, huge general resentment against the west, and immeasurable suffering (economically & physically) for hundreds of millions of innocent civilians in the region. you are NOT the good guys, you are an imperialist occupying force in the middle east - your primary interest is not human rights, but drilling right.

Quote

also, you're completely ignorant concerning the iran deal. obama didn't 'give them hundreds of billions of dollars', that it pure fox news / trump cult propaganda. part of the deal was to release some of THEIR frozen assets: https://apnews.com/f53aeebcb0f64b76a2e2a54b2b002dad
the iranians did, in fact, adhere to the conditions of the nuclear deal - the iaea confirmed that on a regular basis. acting like trump was only "able to touch" it because of iran's behaviour is complete fabrication.

Quote (thesnipa @ 6 Jan 2020 19:35)

a deal by a dem and public support will hinge directly on Iran's response moving forward. saber rattling on twitter wont be a deal breaker, but attacks will be. even if we have only skirmishes short of war any real attacks will make a deal a no go for a while. people wont want a deal until war goes on for a while, sadly.

but im sure it also depends on the democrat. Biden could go ahead with deal making against public interest and get traction because he was involved before im sure.

honestly its a bit hard to predict because everything from Trump and Iran is either a plus or a minus. any attacks will minus public appeal for both sides and change public opinion. but given the celeb support for Iran i think its safe to say MSM will be treating Iran as the victim up until they commit an attack, then who knows.

Quote (fender @ Jan 6 2020 01:04pm)

i guess my question is what dems could realistically do right NOW, in order to signal to iran that trump's course does not have the support of 'most people'. would it be viable for them to make concrete promises for the case they won the presidency, or is what you describe as a general support for a diplomatic solution realistically just a superficial public position, and that majority would evaporate if they actually made such statements? i mean, there is a well documented discrepancy between polling and voting of right wingers, so i would very much suspect that a significant part of those who say they would rather see a diplomatic solution, would still uncritically buy into accusations of lack of patriotism, if a democrat actually tried to reach out to iran in order to prevent further escalation.

also, i'm pretty sure that america's biggest msm outlet is currently pushing FOR trump's course, and one-sidedly demonising iran.

Quote (bogie160 @ 6 Jan 2020 19:58)

Stop conflating issues. This is a constant challenge for you, but you need to be able to analyze and discuss without going off on a rant about historic injustices that are decades, centuries, or millennia old.

Was eliminating a genocidal tyrant in 2003 a good or bad decision? I don't know. It certainly resulted in unintended side effects, some of which we are still experiencing today. It definitely opened Iraq up to Iranian influence, which was not properly understood or accounted for at the time. Unfortunately for all of us, Iran has not wielded that influence in a way that could be remotely described as productive.

I'm going to completely ignore whether or not this constitutes "imperialism". It's nonsense. The United States is allied with Israel and the House of Saud. As the only real defender of economic order, the United States is responsible for maintaining order in the energy markets. Should the United States hans Iraq specifically over to Iranian imperialism? Bigger discussion, but we might as well recognize the alternative for what it is.



Meaningless spin. We froze Iranian assets, ergo, they did not have access to them. We released those assets as a sign of goodwill, and Iran predictably spent that windfall on overseas empire making and violence. Obama obviously needs to own that failure as part of his legacy.

The nuclear deal was a failure in policy making. It was a very good deal for Iran, so no one is surprised that they managed to abide by the very loose constraints put on them. Military sites off limits, advance notice, and sunset provisions, what's not to like? Iran made clear what they would do with more breathing room, and it was to entrust Soleimani with empire building. Now the economic pressure is back on and the architect of its empire dead. It's time for Khamenei to face the music, he has completely destroyed generations of what was once a vibrant people.

Quote (fender @ Jan 6 2020 02:20pm)

again, providing relevant context to the current situation is not 'conflating issues' - america's unjustified wars and regime changes are at the very core of this issue and a main contributor to the instability and conflict that plagued this region for decades. you warmongers can't just decide on a framing of the issue that makes you look less evil, and then expect everyone to just accept that, dismissing everything you don't like as unrelated issue. facts matter. context matters.
that said, i realise you're basically just ghot's spiritual brother, completely immune to reasonable arguments, and 100% in line with right wing propaganda. keep telling yourself that the whole world is wrong, and only american warmongers and imperialists are right, just don't be surprised that every reasonable person sees you for what you really are...

Quote (bogie160 @ 6 Jan 2020 21:03)

You are regurgitating unfiltered the talking points of a corrupt Islamic theocracy best known for it's wanton practice of mass oppression and sectarian violence. I'm not so sure you have as many allies in that department as you think. The German government was quick to note the part Iran plays in this.

Outside of a few gullible Europeans, who exactly do you suppose to be on your side? Russia? China? Poorly educated third world socialists?

Quote (fender @ Jan 6 2020 03:31pm)

this is probably a pointless question, but have you read or listened to ANY political commentary or news outside your little neocon propaganda bubble, when he decided to unilaterally break the iran nuclear deal? it's quite literally the rest of the world (with the exception of israel's extreme right, and the genocidal saudi despots) that criticised the move.

apparently it's even worse than i thought, you don't just ignorantly assume you few are right, and everyone else is wrong, no, you actually deluded yourself into believing it's a popular opinion...