Republicans would rather send in soldiers to die, than drop bombs from drones.

Got it.

Agreed!

I don't know specifically what Biden administration statement you're referring to. Iran is a bad actor, but it's also true that the Trump administration pursued a hardline, hostile policy, and one could reasonably conclude that this made Iran lash out in certain circumstances(shooting down our drone comes to mind).

Your truthbombs arent welcome here you racist bigot sexist homophobe white supremashit




Literally every fucking campaign promise and speech you dunce

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Feb 28 2021 09:24am

got any results?

Iran's strategy over the last few years has been heavily dependent on the economic windfall they received from the Obama nuclear deal. The pandemic and fresh sanctions helped deprive Iran of that economic base. The Biden administration faces an Iran that is far weaker today as a result of the policies of the previous administration. One of the few bright spots of American foreign policy in the Middle East has been the gradual, successful encirclement of Iran. Economic pressure was starving the ruling regime of legitimacy; internal desperation was channeled into opposition to the ruling clique and demands for democratic reform. The nuclear deal upended this. It resulted in an immediate and dramatic improvement in the Iranian economy, and destroyed the impetus for internal reform. Planes of cash and international recognition gave the regime new legitimacy and the financial means to carry out a reinvigorated foreign policy. The Trump administration successfully undid the damage of the previous Democratic administration by revoking the deal, imposing fresh sanctions, and aggressively combating Iran's adventures abroad.

My hope is that the Biden administration appreciates the strong position which they've inherited. Iran is far more desperate than we are.

Yes, I've heard all of these criticisms of Obama's policy before. What I've never really understood is the end game of Trump's policy(which apparently you endorse). The idea that we were going to cut a better deal with Iran was silly... the hardliners in Iran were vindicated when we pulled out. I've been told Trump supporters don't like military action, and neither do most Americans, so American troops on the ground on a mission to overthrow another government in the Middle East is not on the table.

So, we're just going to apply unilateral pressure with the hope that the people of Iran overthrow the government? And then Iran will act like a country that doesn't want to dominate the Middle East? Or are we just containing Iran indefinitely, and hoping that they won't pursue a nuclear weapon?

Maybe you could clear it up for me.

The goal was and is to limit Iran's capability to act abroad and put intense domestic pressure on the regime. War with Iran was never the aim nor a viable option. But by applying pressure we limit the damage Iran can achieve and force the regime to negotiate from a position of weakness.

The Iranian nuclear deal did not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, either in the long-term via sunset provisions, or in the short-term, as military sites were emphatically off limits. It is not a decision between Iran being capable of a bomb or not. Iran is and will be capable of generating a nuclear bomb, the only calculation at play is whether Iranian leadership believes a nuclear bomb will increase or decrease regime stability.

It would obviously have been a lot better if the deal had never been struck, but the deal empowers Iran and gives us very little. Iran is in a difficult position, and the economic sanctions will be tough to bear. We should continue to apply pressure until the Iranians are forced to capitulate or the regime is undermined from within.

Negotiate from a position of weakness... for what?

I think my characterization was accurate... The Trump/Bush policy is applying mostly unilateral pressure to a regime that has withstood it for decades and count down the days until they get the bomb.