U.S. toughens stance on Iran, lists sweeping demands

[Morch]

8 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>all around the world

...name a country outside the Middle East that Iran has attacked. All the attacks in Europe and USA were carried out by Sunni Muslims financed by countries that are now mysteriously regarded as Trump's friends.

 

Iran has repeatedly called for the destruction of the  racist supremacist ideology of Zionism, not Israel,... and so do I!

 

Iran was involved or suspected of involvement in attacks outside of the ME, directly or by proxy. For the most part the targets were associated with Israel. One such failed attack was botched a few years ago in Bangkok. For other instances, may want to check Argentina, India, Bulgaria and Cyprus. While you may consider this legit, that's not necessarily a hinged position.

 

And whether you like to accept it or not, the ME is part of the world - not clear what's the rationale of excluding Iran's ME actions (directly or by proxy). If there was not rationale other than auto-deflection, please disregard the question.

 

Regarding "carried out by Sunni Muslims financed by countries that are now mysteriously regarded as Trump's friends" - as far as I'm aware, there's not a whole lot of support for state-sponsored terrorism such as you imply. Before going on a "nitpicking"/"pedantry" tantrum, consider that this doesn't imply countries are on their best behavior - just that what you posted isn't accurate, and that the difference is meaningful. Incidentally, Iranian terrorism is state-sponsored, and them Sunni countries were regarded as friends and allies of the US, long before Trump was elected.

But don't let "petty" facts come in the way of a good rant.

 

How one cherry picks or interprets Iran's thereat is a matter of choice. Considering Israelis (and indeed, most hinged people), do not tend to accept your version, presenting it as undisputed fact would be just the usual dishonest fare. Doubt there's a way for Iran to specifically mount a war targeting the nonsense propaganda construct your apply.

 

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

While references to "the rest of the World" are dramatic, there isn't a whole lot by way of a well coordinate international effort to counter Trump's move. Relations between other relevant parties plagued by animosity, disagreements ,distrust and divisions. Competing economic and political interests, or differing goals play their part as well. 

 

Companies (especially European-based) involved are not necessarily as subservient to government (or EU) foreign policy in this case. I doubt many will be thrilled with the the proposition of choosing doing business with Iran, while going on some US black list - government compensation or not. And that's without getting to how such a compensation will be handled and who'll foot the bill.

 

You might see Iran emulating Kim, but IMO, that boat kinda sailed. The other signatories to the Iran Deal remain committed just so long as Iran does. If Iran quits or breaks the agreement, international sanctions will come back again, one way or the other. In essence, it would be a boon to Trump, validating his policy.

 

I think the move is rash, stupid and unlikely to result in anything that couldn't have been managed more diplomatically. On the other hand, most parties involved are in a bind, one way or another - thus limiting their options relative to the US. So despite all the hot air and fiery statements, I think the Europeans (and the Russians) are busy finding ways to produce something which could be marketed to both Trump and Iran. If bearing Kim in mind - we just went through months of baiting, dire warnings of war, and got....well, not a soapy happy ending, but not the Armageddon prophesied.

I doubt the China or the Russia or India will resubscribe to the sanctions if Iran resumes its nuclear program. Unless the US makes huuuge concessions to both. And it's far from a sure thing that the Europeans will either.

[Morch]

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I doubt the China or the Russia or India will resubscribe to the sanctions if Iran resumes its nuclear program. Unless the US makes huuuge concessions to both. And it's far from a sure thing that the Europeans will either.

 

Well, you're entitled to your doubts, although at least on Europe's part, it's hard to see what they are based on. I don't think either China or Russia will directly avoid participating in a renewed sanctions regime, but their participation may certainly be even less "enthusiastic" than before.

 

Iran is not the only issue these countries face, nor the only one in which their interests converge or collide. I somehow doubt, though, that the Trump administration is adequately equipped to handle such diplomatic maneuvering.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Lungstib said:

Do a quick search on the internet for a country with military bases all over the world and guess what......

"Despite recently closing hundreds of bases in Iraq and Afghanistan, the United States still maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad."

There is only one country deeply involved in military aggression across the globe.

 

Unless mistaken, with regard to most of these overseas bases, US forces are there by agreement and invitation. 

[Morch]

8 hours ago, bristolboy said:

That incident ended over 37 years ago. And as for abuse of international law, has anything Iran done been on the scale of the illegal pre-emptive war that the USA waged on Iraq? And threatened to extend to Iranr? Get over it already.

 

Funny enough, no  such "get over it already" comments applied when arguments citing US meddling in Iran are brought up. And, of course, there were other incidents over the years. In a sense, the Iran Deal was somewhat of an attempt to "get over it", but obviously not  a consensus point of view. That Iran does meddle in the ME, and does get involved in actions running counter to US interests is a fact. Whether one is supportive of US interests or sees them as legitimate is not the point - a one-sided call to ignore bad blood between the countries is hardly compelling.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, dexterm said:

What international law is Iran abusing? Pray do tell.

 

So you are suggesting that the US ought to go to war over an incident resolved 40 years ago ...that's some pretext! No mention of course of US interference in Iranian affairs going back decades before the Iran hostage crisis.

 

I don't recall any of the previous incumbents in the White House threatening war with  Iran. In fact the nuclear JCPOA deal was working if all you want is Iran not to be able to produce a bomb in the next few years, then renegotiate the deal as its expiry approaches.

 

But of course it's not about nuclear weapons...that's just a pretext because that deal was working; it's about USA shamelessly interfering in Iranian, religious and Middles East affairs to effect regime change and to protect Israel and American arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

 

The full text of Pompeo's 12 points in OP includes

 

"Mr Pompeo also demanded that Iran cease from a range of activities throughout the Middle East that have long drawn the ire of the US and its allies. He said Iran must end support for Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen, "withdraw all forces" from Syria, halt support for its ally Hezbollah and stop threatening Israel."

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mike-pompeo-us-iran-sanctions-latest-trump-nuclear-deal-a8361791.html

 

 

I don't see any suggestion in the post replied to that the US ought to go to war. That's something you brought into it. And if you wish to cite US interference in Iran, why denounce mention of the hostage crisis? In much the same vein even Pompeo's words do not actually amount to the threat of war.

 

And there you go with them wholesale wide-brush comments: there is no consensus in the US regarding Trump's moves, there isn't even full agreement within his own administration. If you wish to make this a US thing, then the US having interests in the ME is nothing new and precedes current events. Whether you approve of these interests or not is irrelevant.

 

In reply to you question - "what international law is Iran abusing?" - other than that it does support terrorist organizations, and terrorist attacks? Well, there's this thing about arms supplies to the Hezbollah (for example), falling under both support for terrorism, and in contradiction of UN resolutions applying an arms embargo. Some issues of human rights abuse could be mentioned, but eh.

 

[dexterm]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Iran-US relations been hostile for decades, hardly something which came about in conjunction with Trump. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, there's a history of bad blood between the two countries. That Iran may not present an existential threat to the US, does not imply that it is not a threat to US interests. Whether you oppose or support these interests is irrelevant.

 

And while it is hardly surprising you will use any ME related topic to push your "crusade", announcing this is "not about nuclear weapons" is out of sync with facts. The facts being that Iran did violate the NPT, and the sanctions applied as a result were an international effort. You may see this as a minor issue, but then you are not expected to present an even remotely balanced position.

 

Israel can certainly be called out regarding its nuclear activities. But the fact stands that while Israel did not sign the NPT, it obviously didn't violate it either, as Iran did. That you call Israel's nuclear weapons program "illegal" is pretty much meaningless.

 

The US having interests in the ME, and those interests shaping its policies and actions is just how international relations are. If you wish to call that hypocritical, by all means - as long as you apply it all around. It's not as if any other ME player or involved party are bereft of these, or are particularly righteous.

 

I'll take a safe bet that's the first of many upcoming deflections along the same lines.

Interesting that you label any reply you may get as a deflection before anyone even has replied. Weird unless you have ulterior motives.

 

>>Iran-US relations been hostile for decades, hardly something which came about in conjunction with Trump. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, there's a history of bad blood between the two countries.
..quite amusing that you write there's a history of bad blood between the two countries as though it materialised out of thin air. Classic obfuscation...you fail to mention who started the bad blood...the CIA and UK in an attempt to get their hands on Iranian oil. The present attempt at regime change is probably a rerun of 1953.

 

"The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup d'état was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name "Operation Boot") and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project[5] or "Operation Ajax")"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

 

Obama had put a lid on Iranian nuclear ambitions. Trump has just reopened a can of worms of animosities possibly leading to war.
 

>>Israel can certainly be called out regarding its nuclear activities [by whom??].
... notice the passive voice......so call them out then! But here comes the deflection... "But the fact stands that while Israel did not sign the NPT, it obviously didn't violate it either, as Iran did."
Classic doublespeak. 
Like saying I cant be charged with drink driving because I haven't even got a license! Israel joins the elite club of India, Pakistan and North Korea who wont sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty as Iran did.

>>The US having interests in the ME, and those interests shaping its policies and actions is just how international relations are.
..how hunky dory that all sounds, except of course that US ME interests are support for an apartheid state, because the apartheid state is capable of pulling strings back in Washington, $billions of arm sales to corrupt autocratic aristocracies to subdue their citizens and Shia Muslims, and cheap oil if regime change can be effected in Iran. And the great draft dodger in chief is willing to sacrifice American lives and jobs in pursuit of such ignoble aims. Those American interests that the EU and American taxpayers are asked to subscribe to all stink to high heaven. 

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't see any suggestion in the post replied to that the US ought to go to war. That's something you brought into it. And if you wish to cite US interference in Iran, why denounce mention of the hostage crisis? In much the same vein even Pompeo's words do not actually amount to the threat of war.

 

And there you go with them wholesale wide-brush comments: there is no consensus in the US regarding Trump's moves, there isn't even full agreement within his own administration. If you wish to make this a US thing, then the US having interests in the ME is nothing new and precedes current events. Whether you approve of these interests or not is irrelevant.

 

In reply to you question - "what international law is Iran abusing?" - other than that it does support terrorist organizations, and terrorist attacks? Well, there's this thing about arms supplies to the Hezbollah (for example), falling under both support for terrorism, and in contradiction of UN resolutions applying an arms embargo. Some issues of human rights abuse could be mentioned, but eh.

 

Yes, Hezbollah and terrorism.
  In fact, if all terrorist organization had committed as many terrorist acts as Hezbollah has been credited with committing in the last five year, they wouldn't have committed any at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

PTSD much?

[metisdead]

A conspiracy post about the banking system has been removed. 

 

An off topic post was removed. 

[dexterm]

43 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I don't see any suggestion in the post replied to that the US ought to go to war. That's something you brought into it. And if you wish to cite US interference in Iran, why denounce mention of the hostage crisis? In much the same vein even Pompeo's words do not actually amount to the threat of war.

 

And there you go with them wholesale wide-brush comments: there is no consensus in the US regarding Trump's moves, there isn't even full agreement within his own administration. If you wish to make this a US thing, then the US having interests in the ME is nothing new and precedes current events. Whether you approve of these interests or not is irrelevant.

 

In reply to you question - "what international law is Iran abusing?" - other than that it does support terrorist organizations, and terrorist attacks? Well, there's this thing about arms supplies to the Hezbollah (for example), falling under both support for terrorism, and in contradiction of UN resolutions applying an arms embargo. Some issues of human rights abuse could be mentioned, but eh.

 

>>I don't see any suggestion in the post replied to that the US ought to go to war.
..classic obfuscation

So pray do tell how you interpret Pompeio's threats if not ultimately miltary action.
from the OP..
"He warned that the United States would "crush" Iranian operatives and proxies abroad....

 "Should they choose to go back, should they begin to enrich, we are fully prepared to respond to that as well," he said, declining to elaborate.

Pompeo said Washington would work with the Defense Department and allies to counter Iran in the cyberspace and maritime areas.

The Pentagon said it would take all necessary steps to confront Iranian behaviour in the region and was assessing whether that could include new actions or doubling down on current ones."

 

If US ships blockade Iran and Iran resists what do you interpret the necessary steps Pompeo threatens as meaning?

 

Your labelling Iran or Hezbollah as terrorists is irrelevant and meaningless. Yesterdays terrorist is tomorrow's liberation leader with EU and US leaders queuing up to have their photo taken with him.

I label all the parties you support as terrorists, which you probably take with an equal pinch of salt as I do yours..and the EU's and the Us's.

[Morch]

2 minutes ago, dexterm said:

Interesting that you label any reply you may get as a deflection before anyone even has replied. Weird unless you have ulterior motives.

 

>>Iran-US relations been hostile for decades, hardly something which came about in conjunction with Trump. Whether you like to acknowledge it or not, there's a history of bad blood between the two countries.
..quite amusing that you write there's a history of bad blood between the two countries as though it materialised out of thin air. Classic obfuscation...you fail to mention who started the bad blood...the CIA and UK in an attempt to get their hands on Iranian oil. The present attempt at regime change is probably a rerun of 1953.

 

"The 1953 Iranian coup d'état, known in Iran as the 28 Mordad coup d'état was the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United Kingdom (under the name "Operation Boot") and the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project[5] or "Operation Ajax")"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'état

 

Obama had put a lid on Iranian nuclear ambitions. Trump has just reopened a can of worms of animosities possibly leading to war.
 

>>Israel can certainly be called out regarding its nuclear activities [by whom??].
... notice the passive voice......so call them out then! But here comes the deflection... "But the fact stands that while Israel did not sign the NPT, it obviously didn't violate it either, as Iran did."
Classic doublespeak. 
Like saying I cant be charged with drink driving because I haven't even got a license! Israel joins the elite club of India, Pakistan and North Korea who wont sign the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty as Iran did.

>>The US having interests in the ME, and those interests shaping its policies and actions is just how international relations are.
..how hunky dory that all sounds, except of course that US ME interests are support for an apartheid state, because the apartheid state is capable of pulling strings back in Washington, $billions of arm sales to corrupt autocratic aristocracies to subdue their citizens and Shia Muslims, and cheap oil if regime change can be effected in Iran. And the great draft dodger in chief is willing to sacrifice American lives and jobs in pursuit of such ignoble aims. Those American interests that the EU and American taxpayers are asked to subscribe to all stink to high heaven. 

 

Well, your earlier post was a deflection, and based on extensive experience with your posts, there was little doubt as to what would follow.

 

Amusingly enough, on other posts you denounce bringing up historical instances, but quite willing to cite one here - but then consistency isn't your thing. At least you are not denying that there is a history of bad blood.

 

Whether Obama "put the lid on Iranian nuclear ambitions" is doubtful. The Iran Deal certainly put such ambitions on hold, and certainly curbed Iran's ability to pursue  such ambitions in the future - but painting it as a fail-proof solution would be incorrect. It was, perhaps, the best agreement that could be reached - not necessarily an optimal one.

 

Trump's moves are, IMO, rash, irresponsible, and not set to get anything that couldn't have been achieved by diplomacy. And while Trump's actions and rhetoric did unnecessarily inflame things, I don't think that the animosity between Iran and the US went away following the Iran Deal, As to this possibly leading to war - there will have to be a better reasoning offered that one liner comments.

 

While you may wish to make this topic about Israel (as you do with any ME related topic), it actually deals with Iran. So essentially, your comments amount to "but but but Israel". In other words, known as deflection. That you oppose Israel is alright, that you see Israel's conduct as somehow implying that Iran did not violate the NPT or that its nuclear activities and ambitions should not be addressed is not much of an argument. I don't see you, for example, going on that much about the imperative of nuclear disarmament regarding either India, Pakistan or North Korea - although two of these almost came to blows, and all more freely issue related threats.

 

Your supposed "point" was about the US "hypocrisy". What you call "hypocrisy" is what's known in international relations as interests. All countries got them. Including Iran. That you support one set of interests and oppose another, does not necessarily mean a whole lot. Hypocrisy would be pretending to give a toss about supposed loss of US lives, jobs and whatnot, while actually promoting a political agenda.

[Morch]

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Yes, Hezbollah and terrorism.
  In fact, if all terrorist organization had committed as many terrorist acts as Hezbollah has been credited with committing in the last five year, they wouldn't have committed any at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hezbollah

PTSD much?

 

Intentionally obtuse much?

 

Unless you missed it, Hezbollah was called upon by its main sponsor, Iran, to provide support for Assad's regime.

 

Deflect all you like, but the Hezbollah (or various parts of it) are considered a terrorist organization by quite a few, among them - Australia, Canada. the EU, the US, France, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK, US, the Arab League and the GCC. And then there's the relevant arms embargo, routinely ignored by Iran.

 

 

 

[Morch]

27 minutes ago, dexterm said:

>>I don't see any suggestion in the post replied to that the US ought to go to war.
..classic obfuscation

So pray do tell how you interpret Pompeio's threats if not ultimately miltary action.
from the OP..
"He warned that the United States would "crush" Iranian operatives and proxies abroad....

 "Should they choose to go back, should they begin to enrich, we are fully prepared to respond to that as well," he said, declining to elaborate.

Pompeo said Washington would work with the Defense Department and allies to counter Iran in the cyberspace and maritime areas.

The Pentagon said it would take all necessary steps to confront Iranian behaviour in the region and was assessing whether that could include new actions or doubling down on current ones."

 

If US ships blockade Iran and Iran resists what do you interpret the necessary steps Pompeo threatens as meaning?

 

Your labelling Iran or Hezbollah as terrorists is irrelevant and meaningless. Yesterdays terrorist is tomorrow's liberation leader with EU and US leaders queuing up to have their photo taken with him.

I label all the parties you support as terrorists, which you probably take with an equal pinch of salt as I do yours..and the EU's and the Us's.

 

Obfuscation how? The post your replied to said nothing whatsoever about going to war. Or perhaps you meant not subscribing to your hyperbole version? Well, I don't.

 

If the US was actually about to go to war, the language used would have been much more straightforward, probably with Mattis having a say as well. Things are quite yet there, no matter how eager you are to jump the gun. What Pompeo apparently refers to can be separated into two issues:

 

Iran directly resuming its nuclear project - may result in a direct military response. IMO, that was the US position to begin with, whether the Obama administration stressed it or not. So essentially, nothing new here. In such a case, the agreement is void anyway, even with regard to the other signatories. I doubt this will not be taken as seriously by the Europeans as well.

 

Countering Iran's regional activities - there's nothing about full scale war, sorry. It refers to doing what's already done, possibly more intensively, and examining other options. I'd imagine this mostly relates to arms and funds transfers. Things that come to mind are more vigorous searches of maritime shipments, stricter enforcement of sanctions, perhaps cyber warfare.

 

I don't see anything about a blockade. I don't see any imaginary Iranian resistance to said imaginary blockade. Both are things you made up. I don't over-interpret phrases like "necessary steps" because I'm aware that they are intentionally obscure and noncommittal. 

 

Slogans notwithstanding, It is not me labeling the Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. If you consider the views of Australia, Canada. the EU, the US, France, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK, US, the Arab League and the GCC as "irrelevant and meaningless", guess we have a somewhat different concept of reality. Similarly, there is a relevant arms embargo, routinely ignored by Iran. Guess that's "irrelevant and meaningless" as well. To address the inane "point" about shared photos - that usually happens after such organizations disarm, renounce violence and opt for diplomacy instead.

 

And please, don't pout - but as opposed to the above, how you personally label anything is, indeed, "irrelevant and meaningless".

 

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Intentionally obtuse much?

 

Unless you missed it, Hezbollah was called upon by its main sponsor, Iran, to provide support for Assad's regime.

 

Deflect all you like, but the Hezbollah (or various parts of it) are considered a terrorist organization by quite a few, among them - Australia, Canada. the EU, the US, France, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK, US, the Arab League and the GCC. And then there's the relevant arms embargo, routinely ignored by Iran.

 

 

 

And what kind of terrorist organization is it that doesn't commit terrorist acts? In fact, this is the usual thing with organizations that begin as violent revolutionists and over time as they acquire political and social welfare dimensions, the terroristic element recedes. And of course, those determinations of terrorism had nothing to with politics? And are updated regularly to reflect present reality? Or are they a bit dated by now? Who cares what they deem Hezbollah, if in fact, it has committed no acts of terrorism for over 5 years. I certainly hope you're being intentionally obtuse when you ignore this rather huge fact.

There's political reality and then there's actual reality. You might do worse than contemplate the difference.

 

And how exactly does supporting the Assad regime make Hezbollah a terrorist organization? Or did you cite that relationship for some other reason? What that support makes Hezbollah is an organization that saw its existence threatened and acted accordingly. That's called realpolitik, I believe. You gotta problem with realpolitik?

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

And what kind of terrorist organization is it that doesn't commit terrorist acts? In fact, this is the usual thing with organizations that begin as violent revolutionists and over time as they acquire political and social welfare dimensions, the terroristic element recedes. And of course, those determinations of terrorism had nothing to with politics? And are updated regularly to reflect present reality? Or are they a bit dated by now? Who cares what they deem Hezbollah, if in fact, it has committed no acts of terrorism for over 5 years. I certainly hope you're being intentionally obtuse when you ignore this rather huge fact.

There's political reality and then there's actual reality. You might do worse than contemplate the difference.

 

And how exactly does supporting the Assad regime make Hezbollah a terrorist organization? Or did you cite that relationship for some other reason? What that support makes Hezbollah is an organization that saw its existence threatened and acted accordingly. That's called realpolitik, I believe. You gotta problem with realpolitik?

 

Not done with the intentional obtuseness then?

 

You raised the point about Hezbollah's recent track record. I pointed out Hezbollah's investment in the Syrian Civil War. That implies less resources directed to other activities in recent years. Doesn't have anything to do with your nonsense. As for ignoring facts - the fact is that there are a whole lot of countries not seeing things your way.

 

 

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Well, you're entitled to your doubts, although at least on Europe's part, it's hard to see what they are based on. I don't think either China or Russia will directly avoid participating in a renewed sanctions regime, but their participation may certainly be even less "enthusiastic" than before.

 

Iran is not the only issue these countries face, nor the only one in which their interests converge or collide. I somehow doubt, though, that the Trump administration is adequately equipped to handle such diplomatic maneuvering.

Well, I think you're mixing up 2 things. Yes, major European firms that do lots of business with the USA will be constrained. But Europe will not be enforcing an embargo on Iran. But let's hear from Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Administrtion:

"What Pompeo and the Trump administration seem to be forgetting, is that the pressure that led to negotiations with Iran in 2013 was the result of careful diplomacy that crafted global support for tightening the net on Iran. Countries like Russia and China were persuaded to get on board with restrictions, against their economic interest, because preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon was a global imperative.

After Trump’s decision earlier this month to trash effective and verifiable agreement that had near universal international support, other states have little motivation to support a new U.S. sanctions regime—particularly when that agreement is endorsed by the UN Security Council in a resolution that calls upon all states to support the JCPOA and refrain from undermining it."

https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-05-21/pompeos-vision-better-iran-deal-illusion?wpisrc=nl_todayworld&wpmm=1

Davenport then goes on to explain that SWIFT, the organization that is responsible for the lion's share of interbank monetary transfers, will not be enforcing a ban on payments of Iranian oil as it did the last time. 

So, I think my doubts are based on pretty solid facts. Squint a little, if you have to, and you'll see them, too.

[bristolboy]

9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Not done with the intentional obtuseness then?

 

You raised the point about Hezbollah's recent track record. I pointed out Hezbollah's investment in the Syrian Civil War. That implies less resources directed to other activities in recent years. Doesn't have anything to do with your nonsense. As for ignoring facts - the fact is that there are a whole lot of countries not seeing things your way.

 

 

Their investment in war means strains their ability to commit terrorist acts.. How much investment does it take to commit a terrorist act when even teenagers in the USA, unsponsored and alone, can pull that off?

An organization with a powerful militia, a bit social welfare presence, and a popular political party. And over 5 years and no terrorist attacks. They must be the most incompetent terrorist organization in the world. Which would be very strange, given the competence they've demonstrated in their other fields of endeavour.

Edited May 22, 2018 by bristolboy

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Well, I think you're mixing up 2 things. Yes, major European firms that do lots of business with the USA will be constrained. But Europe will not be enforcing an embargo on Iran. But let's hear from Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Administrtion:

"What Pompeo and the Trump administration seem to be forgetting, is that the pressure that led to negotiations with Iran in 2013 was the result of careful diplomacy that crafted global support for tightening the net on Iran. Countries like Russia and China were persuaded to get on board with restrictions, against their economic interest, because preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon was a global imperative.

After Trump’s decision earlier this month to trash effective and verifiable agreement that had near universal international support, other states have little motivation to support a new U.S. sanctions regime—particularly when that agreement is endorsed by the UN Security Council in a resolution that calls upon all states to support the JCPOA and refrain from undermining it."

https://www.armscontrol.org/blog/2018-05-21/pompeos-vision-better-iran-deal-illusion?wpisrc=nl_todayworld&wpmm=1

Davenport then goes on to explain that SWIFT, the organization that is responsible for the lion's share of interbank monetary transfers, will not be enforcing a ban on payments of Iranian oil as it did the last time. 

So, I think my doubts are based on pretty solid facts. Squint a little, if you have to, and you'll see them, too.

 

The Arms Control Association. Unfortunately, the current administration's grasp of arms control isn't as enlightened, informed or realistic.

 

Good on the EU for standing up to Trump. But I take most of what's currently said from all sides as posturing. Decreeing this or that, prior to actual instances of sanctions coming "live", is all very well. How resilient and resolute European leaders are remains to be seen.

 

Granted there will be no similar level of cooperation, enforcement and participation as far as US sanctions go. But IMO, other than being pigheaded, the Trump administration's assessment is that the Europeans will either cave in, or that getting on the US's black lists would deter firms from doing business with Iran. Don't know how effective that  "blocking statute" is, or if it can't be bypassed, but I would guess that future dealings with Iran will take a hit anyway. Perhaps the Trump administration figures this will be enough. Then again, I'm not really all that invested in breaking down what passes for "decision making" in the White House - an exercise in futility.

 

Russia and China will probably not go along, at least not without major concessions (as you pointed out earlier). Is it hard to imagine Trump giving them major concessions? I think not. On the other hand, will we see the same level of international cooperation which brought about the Iran Deal turned about to undo Trump's renewed sanctions? Doubt it.

 

What I think will happen (and some of it is already in motion) is that he EU will try to formulate something that Trump could call a "new" or "improved" agreement, whereas Iran could have something to show for it (example, US sanctions lifted). These efforts will go on while occasional clashes over sanctions etc.

[Morch]

29 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Their investment in war means strains their ability to commit terrorist acts.. How much investment does it take to commit a terrorist act when even teenagers in the USA, unsponsored and alone, can pull that off?

An organization with a powerful militia, a bit social welfare presence, and a popular political party. And over 5 years and no terrorist attacks. They must be the most incompetent terrorist organization in the world. Which would be very strange, given the competence they've demonstrated in their other fields of endeavour.

 

Ok, so now you're arguing for argument sake. Fine.

 

Carrying terrorist acts in a foreign country, or directly against a foreign country, especially one positioned to hit back is a bit more complicated than taking a gun to your classmates. No one claimed Hezbollah leadership to be incompetent or daft as you apparently suggest.

 

And instead of coming up with bogus deflections, how about accepting that you do not have to accept my word for it, simply consult the lists of countries not seeing things your way.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

 

 

And instead of coming up with bogus deflections, how about accepting that you do not have to accept my word for it, simply consult the lists of countries not seeing things your way.

And those designations were made many years ago. Not much incentive to change them. No need to go out of one's way to anger certain parties for very little benefit.That's another factor of realpolitik for you to contemplate.

[The Theory]

11 hours ago, tonbridgebrit said:

And this is the mentality that leads us to World War Three. I hope it doesn't happen, and if it does, I don't want my nation involved in fighting a war against Iran. This war will be a war crime, we've seen it before in Iraq, we don't want to see it again in Iran.

Theresa May, whatever happens, don't have us getting involved in this _____.  Thanks.

Of course

Eropean governments love to save Iran criminal regime for tons of profit by their investments in Iran. is There anything more important than their investments❗️Iran regime is a criminal system against own people. How long Europeans want to support their crim for more bloody money.

Edited May 22, 2018 by The Theory

[Kwasaki]

13 minutes ago, The Theory said:

Iran regime is a criminal system against own people. How long Europeans want to support their crim for more bloody money.

So you have been in Iran and seen your belief of whats happening in Iran. ?

[Morch]

17 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

So you have been in Iran and seen your belief of whats happening in Iran. ?

 

Nothing to see here....move along:

 

Human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_Islamic_Republic_of_Iran

 

2017–18 Iranian protests

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017–18_Iranian_protests

 

At least one dead in southern Iran protest: Fars news agency

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-protests-death/at-least-one-dead-in-protest-in-iran-news-agency-idUSKCN1II292

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Obfuscation how? The post your replied to said nothing whatsoever about going to war. Or perhaps you meant not subscribing to your hyperbole version? Well, I don't.

 

If the US was actually about to go to war, the language used would have been much more straightforward, probably with Mattis having a say as well. Things are quite yet there, no matter how eager you are to jump the gun. What Pompeo apparently refers to can be separated into two issues:

 

Iran directly resuming its nuclear project - may result in a direct military response. IMO, that was the US position to begin with, whether the Obama administration stressed it or not. So essentially, nothing new here. In such a case, the agreement is void anyway, even with regard to the other signatories. I doubt this will not be taken as seriously by the Europeans as well.

 

Countering Iran's regional activities - there's nothing about full scale war, sorry. It refers to doing what's already done, possibly more intensively, and examining other options. I'd imagine this mostly relates to arms and funds transfers. Things that come to mind are more vigorous searches of maritime shipments, stricter enforcement of sanctions, perhaps cyber warfare.

 

I don't see anything about a blockade. I don't see any imaginary Iranian resistance to said imaginary blockade. Both are things you made up. I don't over-interpret phrases like "necessary steps" because I'm aware that they are intentionally obscure and noncommittal. 

 

Slogans notwithstanding, It is not me labeling the Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. If you consider the views of Australia, Canada. the EU, the US, France, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, UK, US, the Arab League and the GCC as "irrelevant and meaningless", guess we have a somewhat different concept of reality. Similarly, there is a relevant arms embargo, routinely ignored by Iran. Guess that's "irrelevant and meaningless" as well. To address the inane "point" about shared photos - that usually happens after such organizations disarm, renounce violence and opt for diplomacy instead.

 

And please, don't pout - but as opposed to the above, how you personally label anything is, indeed, "irrelevant and meaningless".

 

I did not bring up the history of decades of bad blood...your words not mine.

 

And you misrepresent me yet again.

 

I did not say that the USA was going to war. I said USA was threatening to go to war if Iran did not meet its 12 demands which would mean total Iranian capitulation. Trump knows Iranian hardliners will find it impossible to meet these demands and will put pressure on Rouhani to ditch the whole deal. The Trump having precipitated this reaction will turn around and say  "See I told you so"

 

Bernie Sanders thinks along the same lines. Oh how I wish he were President.

 

By ending the Iran deal, Trump has put America on the path to war.
"After 17 years of war in Afghanistan and 15 years of war in Iraq, the American people do not want to be engaged in never-ending wars in the Middle East. They do not want to drawn into a Sunni-Shia, Saudi Arabia-Iran regional conflict. But I am deeply concerned that that is exactly where President Trump is taking us."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/14/nuclear-deal-trump-america-war

 

He then refers to John Bolton's 2015 article “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran”...the new adviser who now has Trump's ear. And points out how we were gradually softened up for previous Middle East wars. Like deja vu all over again. Well worth a read.

 

How Trump’s Iran deal decision may lead to war
"After meeting with President Trump last week, French President Emmanuel Macron made two predictions: The United States would pull out of the Iran nuclear deal — and that decision would lead to war."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/11/how-trumps-iran-deal-decision-may-lead-to-war/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a6730f393050

 

[The Theory]

4 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

So you have been in Iran and seen your belief of whats happening in Iran. ?

What I know about Iran is:

The people asking for their freedom, but the regime is holding for 40 years. 80 mil people are hostage. There Is a small percentage of people who are getting paid by the regime. The regime call that small percentage of own, “the people”. Otherwise no one wants Islamic Republic government. 

Thevreal people have tried several times, but could not take over power since they were killed by regime guards. 

Tank to president Carter, UK and France that helped the current regime settle in Iran under name of “revelation”. They did the same in Ifghanistan by creating Taliban from Pakistan. 

There is much more about what happened in the region during last 40 years. 

And still France and UK are interested in their under table investments with Iranian regime. Non of them actually conciders the people. Nokia company was one of those that sold the tool of spying on communication system to Iran government. That was done just for spying on people and catching activists. 

I hope Trump will do what last presidents did not do since they considered European investors who are actually people of influence in their countries.

 

[bristolboy]

Mike Pompeo claims Iran carrying out 'assassination operations' in Europe

Mike Pompeo’s claim that the Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is carrying out “assassination operations in the heart of Europe” has bewildered security experts and Iranian exiles, who say they are not aware of any evidence for the allegation.

The new US secretary of state referred to the alleged assassinations in his first major speech on Monday, but devoted just a single line to it amid a litany of criticisms of Iranian behaviour, giving no further details.

“Today, the Iranian Quds Force conducts covert assassination operations in the heart of Europe,” Pompeo said, referring to the external operations arm of the Islamic revolutionary guards corps (IRGC).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/22/mike-pompeo-iran-assassination-operations-europe

[Odysseus123]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Mike Pompeo claims Iran carrying out 'assassination operations' in Europe

Mike Pompeo’s claim that the Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is carrying out “assassination operations in the heart of Europe” has bewildered security experts and Iranian exiles, who say they are not aware of any evidence for the allegation.

The new US secretary of state referred to the alleged assassinations in his first major speech on Monday, but devoted just a single line to it amid a litany of criticisms of Iranian behaviour, giving no further details.

“Today, the Iranian Quds Force conducts covert assassination operations in the heart of Europe,” Pompeo said, referring to the external operations arm of the Islamic revolutionary guards corps (IRGC).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/22/mike-pompeo-iran-assassination-operations-europe

He's on a mission from God...and therefore on a somewhat different plane to rational human beings.

 

I hear that they keep the burning bush in the White House basement and consult it daily.

 

 

[bristolboy]

Much of the USA's ability to enforce sanctions stems from the dollar's status as the world's reserve currency. But as the article below points out, China has established institutions that bypass the dollar and the EU is now working on it.

U.S. Sanction Power May Be Reaching Its Limit

The response to the Iran decision shows the global economy won’t be bossed around forever.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-22/u-s-sanction-power-may-be-reaching-its-limit

[dexterm]

3 hours ago, bristolboy said:

Mike Pompeo claims Iran carrying out 'assassination operations' in Europe

Mike Pompeo’s claim that the Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is carrying out “assassination operations in the heart of Europe” has bewildered security experts and Iranian exiles, who say they are not aware of any evidence for the allegation.

The new US secretary of state referred to the alleged assassinations in his first major speech on Monday, but devoted just a single line to it amid a litany of criticisms of Iranian behaviour, giving no further details.

“Today, the Iranian Quds Force conducts covert assassination operations in the heart of Europe,” Pompeo said, referring to the external operations arm of the Islamic revolutionary guards corps (IRGC).

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/22/mike-pompeo-iran-assassination-operations-europe

Pompeo..."giving no further details." and from the OP "declining to elaborate."

 

...can see a pattern here..smear, but offer no proof. His boss has trained him well.

[Morch]

11 hours ago, dexterm said:

I did not bring up the history of decades of bad blood...your words not mine.

 

And you misrepresent me yet again.

 

I did not say that the USA was going to war. I said USA was threatening to go to war if Iran did not meet its 12 demands which would mean total Iranian capitulation. Trump knows Iranian hardliners will find it impossible to meet these demands and will put pressure on Rouhani to ditch the whole deal. The Trump having precipitated this reaction will turn around and say  "See I told you so"

 

Bernie Sanders thinks along the same lines. Oh how I wish he were President.

 

By ending the Iran deal, Trump has put America on the path to war.
"After 17 years of war in Afghanistan and 15 years of war in Iraq, the American people do not want to be engaged in never-ending wars in the Middle East. They do not want to drawn into a Sunni-Shia, Saudi Arabia-Iran regional conflict. But I am deeply concerned that that is exactly where President Trump is taking us."
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/14/nuclear-deal-trump-america-war

 

He then refers to John Bolton's 2015 article “To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran”...the new adviser who now has Trump's ear. And points out how we were gradually softened up for previous Middle East wars. Like deja vu all over again. Well worth a read.

 

How Trump’s Iran deal decision may lead to war
"After meeting with President Trump last week, French President Emmanuel Macron made two predictions: The United States would pull out of the Iran nuclear deal — and that decision would lead to war."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/05/11/how-trumps-iran-deal-decision-may-lead-to-war/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a6730f393050

 

 

I "misinterpret" you?! Other than a a couple of reference to the Syrian Civil War, the OP does not mention war. Your posts (and granted, some other posters) seem to revolve around the word. Your even spin other posters' words as implying "war" even when no such thing was said - https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/1039314-us-toughens-stance-on iran-lists-sweeping-demands/?tab=comments#comment-13007852

 

Disregarding your own "nitpicking" and "pedantry" - the claim that the US was "threatening to go to war" is not factual, but an interpretation. IMO, a misinterpretation. There is no direct threat to "go to war". I doubt that you (as most of us) got much insight as to what goes on in Trump's mind. So asserting what he "knows", or that he's got something resembling a coherent, well laid long term plan is mostly hot air.

 

Since Trump took office, there were various instances which posters announced to be heading toward "war" - North Korea, China, Russia, Syria, Iran - did I miss any? Never mind, the point being that nothing came out of it. IMO, that's down to (a) Trump being a bully - more keen on projecting power than actually getting it on, and (b) Trump treating international relations as high stakes poker/business deals. Both would apply to how he deals with foreign policy crises (and possibly domestic ones as well).

 

That you pretend to "know" how things will unfold, or how Trump expects them to unfold is all very well, but again, not necessarily correct. I doubt your take on Iranian considerations, interests and politics is particularly astute or even well informed. A wee bit more complex then presented.

 

And by the way, Macron's full comment was:

 

Quote

The worst scenario, Macron told DER SPIEGEL, would be if Trump were to simply withdraw from the deal. "That would mean opening Pandora's box, it could mean war." But, he continued: "I don't believe that Donald Trump wants war."

 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/trump-decision-on-iran-deal-vital-for-middle-east-a-1206293.html