Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
SaintsInDome2006

Iran - The Nuke Deal & The Future

Recommended Posts

It looks like HT killed his rather nice Iran thread here and older good Iran threads are stuck in FFA or archives so I hope this can serve for future discussions of the nuclear deal, foreign policy and hopes for democracy there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Israel is saying they never stopped, and basically just stole all that cash.  How long after until the country collapses / is overthrown after Trump kills the deal?  If the mullahs were wise they would be negotiating a surrender or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far this follows the pattern of what I am calling the Trump Doctrine: Trump threatens the worst, yet is very cautious. He's hoping that there will be some concession on Iran's part.

That being said, the intelligence that Netanyahu has presented puts a huge wrinkle in this whole thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

always seems to come back to Russia...

 

Louise Mensch‏Verified account @LouiseMensch

I used to be a fervent opponent of the Iran deal, as I remain of Saudi Arabia, but I got educated on the geopolitics. The country that TRULY detests the Iran deal and wants it gone? Russia. @Netanyahu is under investigation by Mossad for @PutinRF collusion.

12:39 PM - 30 Apr 2018 from Manhattan, NY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what this all means, but the fact that Israel got 110,000 documents, over half a ton of papers, maps, drawings and CDs out of Iran is an espionage success of unbelievable skill.  Obviously they had a lot of help from within in Iran, which makes me optimistic that the support for the regime is weak.

Edited by worrierking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bucky86 said:

What's next? War?

It's getting a little Iraqish. Israel has intelligence, which our IC should do an assessment of. But they may not be allowed, or if they do we may not see it. Yet Trump will waive it in the air as he cancels the deal. That could happen, I hope not and it may not but that's one imaginable avenue.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Punxsutawney Phil said:

I think an over throw or transition is imminent.  The mullahs power grip is gone.

Yes...and a lot of the momentum to do this is coming from inside the country, the growing, westernized middle class.   If we #### this deal, it is going to set this movement back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

The senior Israeli official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a secret mission, said that Israel’s Mossad intelligence service discovered the warehouse in February 2016, and had the building under surveillance since then.

Mossad operatives broke into the building one night last January, removed the original documents and smuggled them back to Israel the same night, the official said.

President Trump was informed of the operation by the Mossad chief, Yossi Cohen, on a visit to Washington in January, the official said. The official attributed the delay in making the material public to the time it took to analyze the documents, the vast majority of which were in Persian.

 

Sounds very tidy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, timschochet said:

So far this follows the pattern of what I am calling the Trump Doctrine: Trump threatens the worst, yet is very cautious. He's hoping that there will be some concession on Iran's part.

That being said, the intelligence that Netanyahu has presented puts a huge wrinkle in this whole thing.

What are you referring to? There was nothing in the evidence today that Iran has violated the nuclear deal, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, urbanhack said:

If we #### this deal, it is going to set this movement back.

How do you figure.  No deal will make them lose money, which would cause the mullahs to lose power.  An uprising would soon follow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No biggie.

Michael Wilner‏Verified account @mawilner

FollowFollow @mawilner

More

The White House tells me it has corrected its statement: #Iran had, not has, a “robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program.”

5:56 PM - 30 Apr 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Punxsutawney Phil said:

Israel is saying they never stopped, and basically just stole all that cash.  How long after until the country collapses / is overthrown after Trump kills the deal?  If the mullahs were wise they would be negotiating a surrender or something.

It was their own money, Phil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, whoknew said:

What are you referring to? There was nothing in the evidence today that Iran has violated the nuclear deal, right?

I didn’t hear it. Conservative pundits sure make it sound like there was.

But hear is my prediction, based on my “Trump Doctrine” theory: During the next 12 days Trump will continually threaten to pull the plug on the agreement, and even announce that he is going to do so- though he won’t actually do it. During that time he is counting on France and Germany to pressure Iran into offering a concession- if that happens Trump will declare victory and his supporters will shout “MAGA!” Trump will accept the concession no matter what it is. 

If however Iran refuses to concede, Trump will find a way to delay ending the agreement. And what’s important here is follow the news very carefully: Trump will announce that he is ending the agreement, and the headlines will say he has ended it, but Trump’s actual words will leave some sort of wiggle room- he will end the agreement next week unless...etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Netanyahu dog and pony show was done for one person...Trump.  He did it in English after Macron and Merkel made their case.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Punxsutawney Phil said:

This is a logical fallacy and it’s basically a domestic policy point. Let’s say Iran was lying then. Ok that doesn’t mean they are in violation of the deal *now. And apparently there is no claim of that, even from Bibi. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Bucky86 said:

No biggie.

Michael Wilner‏Verified account @mawilner

FollowFollow @mawilner

More

The White House tells me it has corrected its statement: #Iran had, not has, a “robust, clandestine nuclear weapons program.”

5:56 PM - 30 Apr 2018

Seems important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Seems important.

just words...had, has what's the difference? 

Edited by Banger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Punxsutawney Phil said:

Israel is saying they never stopped, and basically just stole all that cash.  How long after until the country collapses / is overthrown after Trump kills the deal?  If the mullahs were wise they would be negotiating a surrender or something.

That's not what they're saying. If you view the whole Bibi dog and pony show, they didn't uncover anything suggesting that Iran isn't complying with the deal. Simply that the deal isn't good because they didn't have to turn over this evidence that they were attempting to produce nukes:  Which is asinine because the international intelligence community already knew this. 

You can make the legitimate case that the Iran deal sucks if you're Israel but you can't say that Iran isn't abiding by it, based on what was presented yesterday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Workhorse said:

That's not what they're saying. If you view the whole Bibi dog and pony show, they didn't uncover anything suggesting that Iran isn't complying with the deal. Simply that the deal isn't good because they didn't have to turn over this evidence that they were attempting to produce nukes:  Which is asinine because the international intelligence community already knew this. 

You can make the legitimate case that the Iran deal sucks if you're Israel but you can't say that Iran isn't abiding by it, based on what was presented yesterday.

Also- it’s not Israel. It’s Netanyahu and the Israeli right wingers who back him (and like Trump as well.) There’s a whole lot of Israelis who liked the Iran Deal, loved Obama and despise Donald Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Also- it’s not Israel. It’s Netanyahu and the Israeli right wingers who back him (and like Trump as well.) There’s a whole lot of Israelis who liked the Iran Deal, loved Obama and despise Donald Trump. 

Come on. Don't let them off the hook that easily. I don't know the details of Israeli politics as well as you do, but the Israeli people obviously elected his party to the most seats in the Knesset. And then he was able to form a coalition with the other elected politicians. 

Just as the American people have to take responsibility for their actions in electing Trump - so do the Israelis with Netanyahu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I was assured on this very board that it was a good deal and they wouldn't produce nuclear weapons. 

This place shifts goalposts like nothing I've ever seen. 

The "intelligence community" knew? 

It's almost like the left -- on this board and others -- wants to cast geopolitics with a nulcear-capable Iran. It's silly. 

This place can be an utter dump at times.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

I thought I was assured on this very board that it was a good deal and they wouldn't produce nuclear weapons. 

This place shifts goalposts like nothing I've ever seen. 

The "intelligence community" knew? 

It's almost like the left -- on this board and others -- wants to cast geopolitics with a nulcear-capable Iran. It's silly. 

This place can be an utter dump at times.  

It’s a good deal and they’re not going to produce nuclear weapons. What’s changed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

It’s a good deal and they’re not going to produce nuclear weapons. What’s changed? 

It's a terrible deal and our Secretary of State just said they were pursuing it. I watched the video Ren posted. They have enriched uranium. 

I'll wait five years. I hope I'm still alive to post multiple threads specifically mentioning the fools today.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, whoknew said:

Come on. Don't let them off the hook that easily. I don't know the details of Israeli politics as well as you do, but the Israeli people obviously elected his party to the most seats in the Knesset. And then he was able to form a coalition with the other elected politicians. 

Just as the American people have to take responsibility for their actions in electing Trump - so do the Israelis with Netanyahu.

Sure, he’s got the majority behind him. Not necessarily on this issue but in general. 

But that wasn’t my point. More and more conservatives like to paint Israel and Netanyahu as one and the same. That’s not a fair representation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

It's a terrible deal and our Secretary of State just said they were pursuing it. I watched the video Ren posted. They have enriched uranium. 

I'll wait five years. I hope I'm still alive to post multiple threads specifically mentioning the fools today.  

What was the alternative to this deal, rockaction? War with Iran? For that matter, a unilateral war, without allies, since the rest of the world was going to resume trade with them anyhow? 

Thanks largely to the efforts of Hillary Clinton, we had for the first time since 1979 isolated Iran to the point where they were willing to make concessions. The rest of the world was with us, but we only had a small window to make a deal because our allies were going to bail. I think the deal we made was very good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

What was the alternative to this deal, rockaction? War with Iran? For that matter, a unilateral war, without allies, since the rest of the world was going to resume trade with them anyhow? 

Thanks largely to the efforts of Hillary Clinton, we had for the first time since 1979 isolated Iran to the point where they were willing to make concessions. The rest of the world was with us, but we only had a small window to make a deal because our allies were going to bail. I think the deal we made was very good. 

We let them supervise their own nuclear program. That's the proverbial fox in the henhouse. What we should have done was worked with allies to either a) come up with sanctions or b) further isolate them. 

Instead, we cut a "deal" that was useless in fact and on paper.  I swear I heard the argument by one of the more astute members of this board (who knew they'd do this) that a nuclear Iran wasn't that bad and we should just get used to it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rockaction said:

We let them supervise their own nuclear program. That's the proverbial fox in the henhouse. What we should have done was worked with allies to either a) come up with sanctions or b) further isolate them. 

Instead, we cut a "deal" that was useless in fact and on paper.  I swear I heard the argument by one of the more astute members of this board (who knew they'd do this) that a nuclear Iran wasn't that bad and we should just get used to it.  

I made that argument for North Korea, but not for Iran. A nuclear Iran would be very bad, though we might have to get used to it anyhow, because ultimately the only way to truly prevent a nation from acquiring nukes is military force, and IMO that is an untenable option for us with regard to Iran. 

As to your specific point: Iran was never going to let us inside to inspect. Like most autocracies they are far too paranoid (and too proud.) so it was either take what we could get or continue the sanctions, eventually without our allies. We took what we could get on the notion that opening up trade with Iran is a greater opportunity to eventual peace than isolating them is. I think that’s a good approach in general in the nuclear age, for China, for Vietnam, for North Korea, for Cuba, for Iran. It would have been a good approach, IMO, for Saddam’s Iraq. 

As an added note: this insistence on inspections of nuclear facilities has never really worked during the last several decades that we have tried it. Most nation-states are too prideful of the indignity involved- we certainly would never allow international inspectors to come here and tell us what to do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, timschochet said:

I made that argument for North Korea, but not for Iran. A nuclear Iran would be very bad, though we might have to get used to it anyhow, because ultimately the only way to truly prevent a nation from acquiring nukes is military force, and IMO that is an untenable option for us with regard to Iran. 

As to your specific point: Iran was never going to let us inside to inspect. Like most autocracies they are far too paranoid (and too proud.) so it was either take what we could get or continue the sanctions, eventually without our allies. We took what we could get on the notion that opening up trade with Iran is a greater opportunity to eventual peace than isolating them is. I think that’s a good approach in general in the nuclear age, for China, for Vietnam, for North Korea, for Cuba, for Iran. It would have been a good approach, IMO, for Saddam’s Iraq. 

As an added note: this insistence on inspections of nuclear facilities has never really worked during the last several decades that we have tried it. Most nation-states are too prideful of the indignity involved- we certainly would never allow international inspectors to come here and tell us what to do. 

Dr. D made it for Iran. He said Israel has nukes, why shouldn't Iran? 

As for the bolded, they don't think like you do. They don't want to be international players. They're clerisy. They want a religious caliphate, one that includes destruction of Western institutions and religion. It's really so simple. How is opening up trade going to do anything other than on the off chance, as urban hack suggested upthread, the middle class revolts and there's revolution in the streets.  

Share this post


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

And yes, I meant clerisy, not clerics.  

I understood what you meant. But I think the government of Iran is a little more complicated than what you painted here. Since 1979 there have been opposing factors, including a democratic republican element that wants more  openness and internationalism. For the most part the Mullahs have had the upper hand, but not enough of an upper hand to completely eliminate the more moderate elements. We should be trying to encourage the moderates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Dr. D made it for Iran. He said Israel has nukes, why shouldn't Iran? 

And are you sure you’re not taking this out of context? I don’t remember the quote, but Dr. Detroit is as knowledgeable as any person on this board when it comes to other countries and their geopolitical and military situations. I believe he has spent years working in or around the Pentagon, if I’m not mistaken. I don’t always agree with him, but I doubt he’d ever be that simplistic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

And are you sure you’re not taking this out of context? I don’t remember the quote, but Dr. Detroit is as knowledgeable as any person on this board when it comes to other countries and their geopolitical and military situations. I believe he has spent years working in or around the Pentagon, if I’m not mistaken. I don’t always agree with him, but I doubt he’d ever be that simplistic. 

Yep. I remember the debate with him. Yes, he is as knowledgeable as anyone on the board. I was surprised. Go check the old threads.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, rockaction said:

Yep. I remember the debate with him. Yes, he is as knowledgeable as anyone on the board. I was surprised. Go check the old threads.  

Too much work, lol. 

I think we need to reassess this whole nuclear question. We’re spending almost all of our time in foreign affairs focusing on a couple of unstable bad actors, and trying everything we can short of war to keep from getting nukes. Even if we succeed it’s only short term- eventually they’re going to try again because what they really want is the stature and supposed security that ownership of nuclear weapons appears to bring: it makes you one of the “players”, the “big boys”. 

I have no idea what we should do as opposed to what we’re doing now, but what we’re doing now seems to me to be an incredible waste of time, resources, and treasure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/1/2018 at 8:59 AM, SaintsInDome2006 said:

Without knowing specifically what’s on the CDs there’s no way to know if the quantity statements are true.  

Not sure why Twitter dude would spend a whole lot of energy trying to deduce a lie out of so little information.

What exactly were you thinking people would get out of that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jonessed said:

Without knowing specifically what’s on the CDs there’s no way to know if the quantity statements are true.  

Not sure why Twitter dude would spend a whole lot of energy trying to deduce a lie out of so little information.

What exactly were you thinking people would get out of that?

Eh I have some experience in that area and I thought the same thing when I saw Bibi. The subject interests me. If you assume printable file types then there’s no way 183 CDs would be what’s represented as a ‘half ton.’ The importance to me is the credibility of the person making claims about the intelligence he claims to be standing in front of both virtually and metaphorically.

Edited by SaintsInDome2006

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aides to Donald Trump, the US president, hired an Israeli private intelligence agency to orchestrate a “dirty ops” campaign against key individuals from the Obama administration who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal

Quote

People in the Trump camp contacted private investigators in May last year to “get dirt” on Ben Rhodes, who had been one of Barack Obama’s top national security advisers, and Colin Kahl, deputy assistant to Obama, as part of an elaborate attempt to discredit the deal.

The extraordinary revelations come days before Trump’s 12 May deadline to either scrap or continue to abide by the international deal limiting Iran’s nuclear programme.

Jack Straw, who as foreign secretary was involved in earlier efforts to restrict Iranian weapons, said: “These are extraordinary and appalling allegations but which also illustrate a high level of desperation by Trump and [the Israeli prime minister] Benjamin Netanyahu, not so much to discredit the deal but to undermine those around it.”

 

Perfectly normal.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.