Obama 's strategy with Iran

[Rukentuts]

As far as I know, Iran is a sovereign country, so I don't see why should they negotiate with the self-declared world's police.

Something about their economy is in absolute ruin.

[Deleted]

Something about their economy is in absolute ruin.

Probably because they have no gay people.

[Deleted]

As far as I know, Iran is a sovereign country, so I don't see why should they negotiate with the self-declared world's police.

Since when negotiating with the worlds leading power is somehow compromising ones sovereignity?
Absurd.

[Deleted]

Some things to read when discussing this topic.

https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russ...s-us-iran-deal
https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/neta...itics-speeches

[ringpriest]

Probably because they have no gay people.

No homosexuals, strongly religious government, and lots of oil? Sounds like Republican paradise!

[Nadiru]

Something about their economy is in absolute ruin.

I wouldn't say absolute ruin, but they could be doing better. The thing about sanctions is that it presumes that a relatively autarkic state like Iran can be ruined from external pressures, when sanctions gives Iranian leaders the political currency they need to force dissidents into line and make deals to preserve Iranian sovereignty.

FWIW, Iran has lasted considerably longer than anybody projected, and the sanctions don't seem to be the reason that Iran's come to the table.

[oxymoronic]

Really? Because it seems like Iran hasn't in the least bit empowered.

Iran has rejected any demand to hold talks in regards to it's nuclear program, the fact that an agreement was made proves that wasn't empowered in the least bit.





Mind you it's the same damn people wanting to bomb and invade Iran that wanted us to invade Iraq. That turned out well didn't it?

actually Iraq was an astounding success... i dont get the drama from some people.

[Rukentuts]

FWIW, Iran has lasted considerably longer than anybody projected, and the sanctions don't seem to be the reason that Iran's come to the table.

Interesting, what was it then? I was under the illusion the low oil prices + sanctions + shitty economy was the reason.

[Deleted]

Since when negotiating with the worlds leading power is somehow compromising ones sovereignity?
Absurd.

I'm sure that Czechoslovakia "negotiating" with Nazi Germany was not compromising its sovereignty.

[Nadiru]

Interesting, what was it then? I was under the illusion the low oil prices + sanctions + shitty economy was the reason.

ISIS and a shift in internal leadership and according shift in policy. I'll be clear: Iran would certainly like to not be sanctioned, but the dynamic between the US and Iran hasn't changed between now and then. The thing that has changed is that ISIS is trying its best to take large chunks of Iraq and Syria, and both Iran and the US have a common interest in stopping them.

The sanctions would've forced Iran to sell its oil at lower than market price anyway, to reflect the fact that it couldn't sell on the open market and to offset risk to the buyers of that oil, so I don't think low oil prices would have the intended effect.

[oxymoronic]

The sanctions would've forced Iran to sell its oil at lower than market price anyway, to reflect the fact that it couldn't sell on the open market and to offset risk to the buyers of that oil, so I don't think low oil prices would have the intended effect.

just reread that a few times and you cant see whats wrong there? lmao... where you from?

[Nadiru]

just reread that a few times and you cant see whats wrong there? lmao... where you from?

That's what happens when you have a producer with low production costs that's banned from a marketplace: They sell under market price to attract a customer base.

[Vyxn]

As far as I know, Iran is a sovereign country, so I don't see why should they negotiate with the self-declared world's police.

when Iran on a regular bases chant death to America you would think we would have the right to be preemptive to keep Iran from obtaining the means to do so
Don't know about you but when some one regularly chants for my death I feel the need to take it serious and sure wouldn't look the other way and ignore when they are trying to obtain the means to do so

[Deleted]

when Iran on a regular bases chant death to America you would think we would have the right to be preemptive to keep Iran from obtaining the means to do so
Don't know about you but when some one regularly chants for my death I feel the need to take it serious and sure wouldn't look the other way and ignore when they are trying to obtain the means to do so

You chant the destruction of every country that doesn't agree with you, maybe the world should preemptively nuke your country.
That's your logic.

The reason they chant your death is because you self-declared yourself as their number 1 enemy.

[Wulfey]

Skroe, so are you for the Iran deal then? It seems like yes. I am for it too, for many of the reasons you suggested. If we can take Iran off the table and have some sort of weapons control and inspector scheme for denying them nukes, then we can focus on the real threats and restore American power. We have had one of our 2-3 deployed carriers off of the Iranian coast for 35 years (reminder: 12 carriers means only 2-3 are underway at any one time). Imagine if we could move that boat (and the rest of our middle east forces) somewhere else.

[Deleted]

Isn't turning the ME into a war zone in its entirety the current US policy? Currently Iran is one of the few countries not dealing with war/rebels on some level.... and if they go to war it's likely the others will as well.

They are currently fighting ISIS afaik

- - - Updated - - -

when Iran on a regular bases chant death to America you would think we would have the right to be preemptive to keep Iran from obtaining the means to do so
Don't know about you but when some one regularly chants for my death I feel the need to take it serious and sure wouldn't look the other way and ignore when they are trying to obtain the means to do so

Have you thought about the threats your country shouts at others?

[Doctor Amadeus]

No homosexuals, strongly religious government, and lots of oil? Sounds like Republican paradise!

Iran or Aryan?

Could be no more bakery and pizza oppression.

[Xar226]

As far as I know, Iran is a sovereign country, so I don't see why should they negotiate with the self-declared world's police.

And indeed, they have the right under international law to pursue nuclear power for peaceful purposes. Our fear that their purposes are not peaceful--whether that is legitimate or not--is not legal grounds for anything. They Iranians owe us nothing.

As far as the "sanctions, sanctions, sanctions!" crowd goes, we tried it in North Korea. At best it forces them to be even more secretive about the fact that they're going to do what they're going to do either way.

There are essentially three choices: 1) Do nothing (or increase sanctions), maintain the status quo and hope for the best from a country who the adherents of this strategy already accuse of pursuing nuclear arms; 2) Make a deal with Iran, do your best to hold them to it and hope that it achieves the goals you're after, or 3) You invade -- and not only topple another Middle Eastern government, throw the entire region into even more chaos than it is already in, create a power vacuum into which the likes of ISIS has already successfully stepped in the past and invest another decade--minimum--of young American lives and trillions of dollars we don't have, but you comb every inch of the desert hoping they don't have an underground facility we're not aware of that is either in the hands of radical elements like the Revolutionary Guard, or that could fall into the hands of terrorists or other groups whose possession of such weapons or materials could well be worse than Iran's government having them.

I don't know the details of the negotiations. Nobody does. We know, at best, broad strokes. I'm not claiming that the deal is perfect. We have no idea what it is, and I'm sure that it could be made better if the parties voicing opposition were legitimate partners instead of just rabble-rousers in election mode. I am saying unequivocally that a deal is a less shitty option than the alternatives, and our efforts should be on making any possible deal better rather than killing it or looking to score points in advance of an election.

[ringpriest]

U.S. promises to beef up defense aid to Persian Gulf allies

Obama administration officials are promising a major strengthening of U.S. defense commitments to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf allies, possibly including a nuclear commitment to their security, in an intensifying effort to win their support for the proposed nuclear deal with Iran.

Officials say they hope to reassure nervous gulf Arab states by providing more military aid and training to their defense forces, and by making more explicit commitments to help them repel external attacks.

The administration is studying whether to make any nuclear assurances, though officials emphasize no decision has been made.

Maybe Obama should offer the Saudi religious dictatorship US help in chopping of the heads of some witches too?