The Obama policy is to ship them cash, apply no pressure and count down the days until they get the bomb.

It is not correct to say unilateral. Iran was an isolated pariah. It was the Obama deal that conferred new legitimacy.

Yes... I understand you wish to simply talk about Obama.

Obama signed a sanctions bill in his first term. In his second term, he signed a multilateral deal. I understand right-wingers pretend that because inspectors didn't have immediate access to military sites, the deal did nothing at all. I disagree with that characterization.

Trump pulled out of the Iran deal. He could've tried to negotiate something better... instead he fell back on the Bush doctrine of a hostile, unilateral policy.

What's the likelier outcome from the Trump/Bush policy? Iran's leaders decide to completely abandon their religious/nationalist ideology and become a normal country. Iran's leaders get overthrown and are replaced by people who believe in democracy. Iran continues their malign activity and pursue the bomb.

I don't think it's even a close call.

We are contrasting the positions of respective republican and democratic administrations. Do you expect us to do that without mentioning Obama?

As per Ali Khamenei, the inspectors had no access to military sites. No immediate access, and no prospect of future access. I understand the Iranian point of view, it is hardly something you want foreign inspectors poking around in, but of course it makes enforcing the deal impossible.

The Iranians had no reason to renegotiate a deal they had already negotiated. The United States had no bargaining power. Trump's only path to renegotiate was to tear up the deal and reapply pressure. In the beginning, it must be unilateral, because the previous administration had dismantled the multilateral framework that had brought Iran to the negotiating table in the first place.

The Obama-era policy was to appease Iran, grant them concessions, and hope that Iran became a reformed actor. It backfired spectacularly. Iran did not reform, the financial windfall was funneled into proxy wars and regional imperialism. The religious/nationalist regime remained even more firmly entrenched, and the relaxation of sanctions took domestic pressure completely off the regime.

The difference between the two approaches is to what extent an intransigent Iran is capable of acting on its less acceptable impulses. If Iran wants to dominate its neighbors and spread the jihad they will try to do it. The question is whether we want to enable them by gifting them the financial resources with which to do it. Obama and John Kerry said yes.

You're criticizing Obama far more than you're defending Trump/Bush. You're not articulating some coherent policy from Trump that makes long-term strategic sense. I get it... it's easier to criticize a coherent policy, rather than defend an incoherent policy.

You say you understand the Iranian point of view... but then conclude that Trump scrapping the current deal, and applying unliteral sanctions, is a legitimate path to a better deal. Maybe the experts you read think of it differently... but the ones I read point out how the hardliners in Iran did not favor the nuclear deal in the first place, some moderates did, so the idea now that Iran would agree to another deal is highly unlikely.

I don't know that Iranian reform is a necessary goal to justify the nuclear deal. The whole point is that Iran is a dangerous country who shouldn't have nuclear weapons. So striking a deal that severely limits their capacity to get a bomb(at least for a certain amount of years) is worth it, even though they will still be a bad actor in the region.

Again I'll emphasize, your defense of Trump's policy basically concedes that it's highly unlikely to succeed. Iran will not abandon their nationalist/religious ideas.... the population is not going to overthrow the government. At least the uber hawks have a coherent policy... if Iran gets close enough to the bomb, they are willing to engage military to destroy the program. The hawkish doves(speak strongly and carry a small stick), who want to pursue a hostile policy without anything militarily to back it up, are trying to have it both ways. A hardline policy without any consequences for America. I don't see how this policy will work... because we have two administrations who have pursued it without sufficient outcomes.

The dove thesis is that Iranian aggression is largely a response to American activities in the region. If Iran is indeed, as the thesis purports, an inherently rational and non-aggressive actor, America needs only to make the first move, reintegrate Iran into the wider global community, make amends for past mistakes, and Iran will in turn adhere to international norms and forgo their hyper-aggressive foreign policy goals, which is, after all, but self-defense against unjust American imperialism and interference in Iranian affairs.

This thesis served as the basis of the Iranian nuclear deal. It was put to the test, and it failed. The promised thaw did not take place. Iran did not desist from but rather increased its violent activities in the region. Americans and American allies lost their lives. It contributed to the oppression of Sunnis in Iraq, and the subsequent rise of the Islamic State and the resulting chaos in Syria. Although I disagreed with it vehemently at the time, it was perhaps fair to try. We did, and now it is time to acknowledge reality and take a different tact.

The Trump strategy tried to do too much, but the underpinnings of the hawkish policy view is that Iranian foreign policy interests conflict with those of the United States, and that Iranian ambitions must be restrained with a combination of economic sanctions and the threat of military force. Right or wrong is not relevant, we are not trying to answer a moral question, but a political one.

The goal is not necessarily to overthrow the Iranian regime. It is to prevent undue Iranian interference in the region, protect the Gulf States which are critical to global energy security, and ensure that Iranian aggression (including nuclear bomb research) is punished accordingly with a combination of military strikes and strict economic sanctions. At the very least, this policy aims to protect the United States and its allies from the consequences of Iranian aggression. At most, it is possible that economic sanctions will continue to force domestic concessions as the Iranian public, which has grown increasingly used to a wealthier standard of living, puts increasing pressure of the regime.

This response is bewildering.

I said that Iran is a dangerous country that shouldn't have nuclear weapons. That's why we made the deal. We don't make arms control deals with our friends... we make them with our enemies.

So, our deal with Iran to limit their nuclear advancement is about stifling their weapons program. And the other malign activities from Iran might continue on after this deal, because the most important thing is limiting the nuclear program.

I don't see how this deal aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon means we can't hold them accountable on other issues. We can maintain this deal while combatting Iran's other malign activities.

Can the right-wingers on this sub stop being obsessed with the left for at least 1 minute? There's like 6 threads on the front page specifically about 'democrats', 'leftists', and 'liberals'.

Corn Pop loves hitting the big red button.

I hate everything Democrats touch, love everything Trump does, and will never criticize a Republican.

but I'm a libertarian.

to be fair there were years of "Trump did a thing" posts, each individual issue, that was also already being talked about in the trump 2020 main thread.

the bigger issue here is people NEED to make their own thread for validation. we could secter off PARD into a gun thread, healthcare thread, crime thread, immigration thread, etc. and if kept in those bounds it would be a much better place. but, obligatory:

This forum seriously lacks moderation