Iran's Rouhani warns Trump about 'mother of all wars'

[Jonmarleesco]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

But the United States has somewhat eased its stance, saying it may grant sanction waivers to some allies that are particularly reliant on Iranian supplies.

Wow, that's big of them. Especially considering the US doesn't own sanctions. Other countries should be following their own agendas, not the US of A's. 

[Tchooptip]

6 hours ago, ballpoint said:

In response, Trump will point out the size of his button, start calling Rouhani "Atom man", threaten fire and fury, and then meet with him on an island somewhere before declaring mutual admiration and love between them and announcing that Iran is no longer a threat.

What you write there is ridiculous, I think you are aware of it too... 

 ...but the most ridiculous part of this story...

...is that it may well be that you're right 

[dexterm]

6 hours ago, ezzra said:

So assuming that Trump was the instigator of all the so called, itching for a fight', dose that give Iran the right to threatened the US with the 'mother of all wars'? which begs the question, who is the aggressor here? Iran is notoriously mindless when it comes to sending soldiers to the battlefields and suffering hundreds of thousands of casualties as in the Iraq-Iran war, suppose Iran had full nuke capabilities, something that the crave very much, Iran will be than holding their nukes against the world doing the N. Korea all over again, and thus be a formidable foe to contain any longer, and thanks to Netanyahu and Trump, this is not going to be the case...

Back in May...

"Weeks after President Donald Trump pulled out of an international nuclear deal with Iran, his administration threatened to impose “the strongest sanctions in history,” and vowed to “crush” Iranian operatives abroad, setting Washington and Tehran further on a course of confrontation."
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-usa/u-s-toughens-stance-on-iran-lists-sweeping-demands-idUSKCN1IM1DE

 

.sounds pretty threatening to me.

 

Iran 7,000 miles away was absolutely no danger to the US, and the Iranian nuclear program was contained under an international agreement that all inspectors agreed was working, until Trump stepped in and renewed the long American history dating back to the 1950s of interfering in Iranian affairs trying to sabotage its economy to effect regime change. All of course on behalf of the usual tail that wags the US dog. 

 

But in the fog of war the timeline will inevitably be muddied, and the victors will rewrite history...just like last time when it was somehow necessary to turn the Middle East upside down, cause millions of civilian casualties and even more homeless, and refugees, spawning militias and terrorists still with us today all in pursuit of the mirage on non existent WMD.

 

It's like deja vu all over again, with the same players pulling the strings...and for the same reasons and pretexts.

Edited July 23, 2018 by dexterm

[IAMHERE]

"Mother" , what a joke when you realize how much esteem they have for any female.

[BestB]

6 hours ago, Thaidream said:

British and American forces crushed the Iraqi Army in 100 hours.  Now Iran is different in that if the Us  goes after Iran- the Iranians will fight to the death. They have modern weapon systems and in a war with the US- the Russians will supply Iran as much as it neds to keep the Americans fighting.

 

Trump made a stupid and dangerous decision to obviate a signed agreement with Iran. Now he is trying to destroy Iran's ability to sell oil which  could be considered an attack on Iran.  As much as I dislike Iran and their system- a country has a right to  exist and Trump is trying to squeeze it. He maybe hoping for Iran to strike militarily- giving ohm an excuse to go to Congress and get the green light for war. Naturally Netanayu and Israel are urging him on- they have been looking for an excuse to strike Iran for a long time I hope Sec Def General Mattis is able to stop this march towards war before it's too late.

Do not be so sure about Russian help . Iranians have pissed off Russia in Syria.

 

have to look at a bigger picture, meeting in Helsinki and statement not long after regarding Iran. 

 

There could be a lot more in play that meets they eye

[BestB]

One just has to look at Iranian revolutionary guard in Syria to know what to expect should there be a war . 

 

And so far, Iranian might is far from being mother of all

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, bluesofa said:

He had a job as a stand-up comic - didn't he? Just that his world tour was as limited as the Iraqi army - he was confined to barracks.

 

And was the last laugh on him? Nostalgic for the days when the US proclaimed Mission Accomplished?

[The Theory]

13 hours ago, webfact said:

Iran's Rouhani warns Trump

 

???

[candide]

Again, a republican president thinks he can solve an overall problem by targeting only one of the stakeholders. Bush did the same mistake by targeting only Irak and created more problems than it solved (including the current strong influence of Iran). Blair tried to lead him towards a more global approach but it was hopeless.

 

There will be no peace in the middle-east until the Palestinian problem is solved and the coexistence problem between Shias and Sunnis is solved. The first problem has been largely commented so I will not comment more. On the Shia/Sunni problem, it can be noted that Saudi Arabia is in no way better than Iran on many aspects: autoritarism, lack of tolerance, abuse of human rights, support of terrorism, etc... At a more global level, it can also be stressed that Shias have been more than often persecuted by Sunnis (except in Syria).

 

The Iran regime may be bad, but its influence flourishes on the fertile ground of the palestinian problem and the domination or persecution of Shias by Sunnis.

[TumblinDice]

I wonder if has Vern's mother on his side.

[BestB]

1 hour ago, candide said:

Again, a republican president thinks he can solve an overall problem by targeting only one of the stakeholders. Bush did the same mistake by targeting only Irak and created more problems than it solved (including the current strong influence of Iran). Blair tried to lead him towards a more global approach but it was hopeless.

 

There will be no peace in the middle-east until the Palestinian problem is solved and the coexistence problem between Shias and Sunnis is solved. The first problem has been largely commented so I will not comment more. On the Shia/Sunni problem, it can be noted that Saudi Arabia is in no way better than Iran on many aspects: autoritarism, lack of tolerance, abuse of human rights, support of terrorism, etc... At a more global level, it can also be stressed that Shias have been more than often persecuted by Sunnis (except in Syria).

 

The Iran regime may be bad, but its influence flourishes on the fertile ground of the palestinian problem and the domination or persecution of Shias by Sunnis.

????

nobody cares about Palestine . They are used as pawns for self gain by selective few.

 

there was never a peace in the Middle East and there never will be.

 

sunnies will never start to love or respect Shia’s and vice versa

[candide]

4 hours ago, BestB said:

????

nobody cares about Palestine . They are used as pawns for self gain by selective few.

 

there was never a peace in the Middle East and there never will be.

 

sunnies will never start to love or respect Shia’s and vice versa

Thank you for your in-depth and challenging analysis! ?

[sirineou]

18 hours ago, ezzra said:

So assuming that Trump was the instigator of all the so called, itching for a fight', dose that give Iran the right to threatened the US with the 'mother of all wars'? which begs the question, who is the aggressor here? Iran is notoriously mindless when it comes to sending soldiers to the battlefields and suffering hundreds of thousands of casualties as in the Iraq-Iran war, suppose Iran had full nuke capabilities, something that the crave very much, Iran will be than holding their nukes against the world doing the N. Korea all over again, and thus be a formidable foe to contain any longer, and thanks to Netanyahu and Trump, this is not going to be the case...

You are right, Only the US and Israel have that right.

[nausea]

The US arms industry must be rubbing its hands in glee.

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, nausea said:

The US arms industry must be rubbing its hands in glee.

Yeah, and Nato members need to know their duty, and buy as much as possible now, and be ready for the call!