Trump tells Iran threats 'can come back to bite you' in nuclear standoff

[BestB]

2 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Except, oddly enough, the remaining signatories seem oddly reluctant to do so. Which doesn't exactly square with your suggestionss that support for Iran is tepid because they are regarded as a bad actor in the region.

European leaders had urged Iran not to breach the terms of the deal. They will watch to see whether Tehran commits further breaches on 7 July, as it has threatened.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/iran-breaks-nuclear-deal-and-puts-pressure-on-eu-over-sanctions

[Enoon]

5 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

Iran has been invading middle eastern countries for centuries...they, Persia, ransacked the Jewish state before the time of Christ...enslaved those they did not kill...cut off the legs of the craftsmen so they could not flee their country...

 

Armed with nuclear weapons...what could possibly go wrong?

 

You seem to be confusing The Persian Empire with Assyria/Babylon.

 

The unified Jewish State had previously split in 930BCE, due to its own internal issues.

 

After which:

 

"The Kingdom of Israel (or Northern Kingdom, or Samaria) existed as an independent state until 722 BCE when it was conquered by the Assyrian Empire, while the Kingdom of Judah (or Southern Kingdom) existed as an independent state until 586 BCE when it was conquered by the Neo-Babylonian Empire."

 

The Babylonian "Oppression/Exile/Captivity" resulted.

 

Then Persia arrived on the scene:

 

"The Achaemenid Empire is noted in Western history as the antagonist of the Greek city-states during the Greco-Persian Wars and for the emancipation of the Jewish exiles in Babylon.

 

"According to the book of Ezra, the Persian Cyrus the Great ended the exile in 538 BCE, the year after he captured Babylon."

 

"............. in 539 BCE, exiled Judeans were permitted to return to Judah"

 

Under Persian rule, and at Persian instigation, the Second Temple was constructed (Babylonians had destroyed the First).

 

The Romans destroyed the Second.

 

 

 

[billd766]

3 hours ago, habanero said:

The day after Trump is re elected, Iran will cease to exist.

IMHO I don't think that either of those events will happen.

[Morch]

49 minutes ago, BestB said:

Stop posting nonsense, what dispute resolution? who will be the arbitrator?

 

Its called negotiations most certainly not some imaginary dispute resolution arbitration.

 

 

The mechanism for dealing with infractions is detailed in the agreement. So are options for its termination etc., and consequences. Arguing over whether it's arbitration or negotiation - you say potato.

[Puchaiyank]

7 minutes ago, Enoon said:

 

You seem to be confusing The Persian Empire with Assyria/Babylon.

 

The unified Jewish State had previously split in 930BCE, due to its own internal issues.

 

After which:

 

"The Kingdom of Israel (or Northern Kingdom, or Samaria) existed as an independent state until 722 BCE when it was conquered by the Assyrian Empire, while the Kingdom of Judah (or Southern Kingdom) existed as an independent state until 586 BCE when it was conquered by the Neo-Babylonian Empire."

 

The Babylonian "Oppression/Exile/Captivity" resulted.

 

Then Persia arrived on the scene:

 

"The Achaemenid Empire is noted in Western history as the antagonist of the Greek city-states during the Greco-Persian Wars and for the emancipation of the Jewish exiles in Babylon.

 

"According to the book of Ezra, the Persian Cyrus the Great ended the exile in 538 BCE, the year after he captured Babylon."

 

"............. in 539 BCE, exiled Judeans were permitted to return to Judah"

 

Under Persian rule, and at Persian instigation, the Second Temple was constructed (Babylonians had destroyed the First).

 

The Romans destroyed the Second.

 

 

 

Bowing my head in shame here...????

[BestB]

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

The mechanism for dealing with infractions is detailed in the agreement. So are options for its termination etc., and consequences. Arguing over whether it's arbitration or negotiation - you say potato.

So in other words you agree but feel

the need to make it sound as if you are an expert ? Or maybe you missed the link which clearly shows what the options are and arbitration it is not. 

 

If you do not know the difference between negotiations and arbitration , I suggest to look it up , to also note which one is legally binding and which one is not 

[Morch]

18 minutes ago, BestB said:

The UK, France and Germany are expected to issue a formal response. The three have the option of referring Iran’s decision to an appeals body set up by the signatories to the deal, which could take up to two months to examine the dispute before Europe could reimpose sanctions that were lifted in 2015.

But the Iran deal is not an international treaty with the force of law, so either side could take unilateral steps without direct legal consequence.https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/01/iran-breaks-nuclear-deal-and-puts-pressure-on-eu-over-sanctions

 

Taking unilateral steps paves the way for the agreement to be nullified. This can happen either via the specified mechanism detailed in the agreement (and in your post above), or by Iran withdrawing from the agreement.

 

The current situation got the remaining parties walking a tightrope. The Europeans really, but really, don't want to go there. Hence they try and accommodate Iran's infractions, and react diplomatically. I think they can do so only up to a point.

[expatfromwyoming]

Trump is sliding into an increasingly obvious pattern in his dealing with small or rogue states who oppose the United States. In his presidency so far, Trump has already picked fights with four such countries – Syria, North Korea, Venezuela, and Iran. In each case, after extraordinary bluster and threats of force, Trump ultimately refused to attack these supposedly grave threats as he portrayed to the world (barring a minor missile strike on Syria in 2017).

It is now increasingly apparent that Trump, despite all his posturing, does not in fact want to start a serious conflict on his watch. Much of the world can see this now. By the time Trump got around to threatening the “obliteration” of Iran late last month, it sounded canned, and no one, not even the Iranian government, took it seriously.

[BestB]

12 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Taking unilateral steps paves the way for the agreement to be nullified. This can happen either via the specified mechanism detailed in the agreement (and in your post above), or by Iran withdrawing from the agreement.

 

The current situation got the remaining parties walking a tightrope. The Europeans really, but really, don't want to go there. Hence they try and accommodate Iran's infractions, and react diplomatically. I think they can do so only up to a point.

EU can not do anything , because US pulled out from the deal. Up until now they kind of remained hopeful and did not fully adhere to American sanctions . Now game is over for Iran as Iran has breached the conditions of the deal. EU is not going to convince US and US is not going to bow down to Iranian threats.

 

US has offered a number of times to have talks , Iran refused.

 

whats next is anyone’s guess.

 

in my personal view , this was yet dumbest move by Iran to date.  Right up till now they at least had some EU support which they about to lose.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, BestB said:

EU can not do anything , because US pulled out from the deal. Up until now they kind of remained hopeful and did not fully adhere to American sanctions . Now game is over for Iran as Iran has breached the conditions of the deal. EU is not going to convince US and US is not going to bow down to Iranian threats.

 

US has offered a number of times to have talks , Iran refused.

 

whats next is anyone’s guess.

 

in my personal view , this was yet dumbest move by Iran to date.  Right up till now they at least had some EU support which they about to lose.

It's only over if the signatories to the deal say it is. Doesn't seem they have much incentive to do that. One reason certainly being that they don't want to gratify the US. Especially since it's clear that without US actions none of this would have happened.

[Morch]

4 minutes ago, BestB said:

EU can not do anything , because US pulled out from the deal. Up until now they kind of remained hopeful and did not fully adhere to American sanctions . Now game is over for Iran as Iran has breached the conditions of the deal. EU is not going to convince US and US is not going to bow down to Iranian threats.

 

US has offered a number of times to have talks , Iran refused.

 

whats next is anyone’s guess.

 

in my personal view , this was yet dumbest move by Iran to date.  Right up till now they at least had some EU support which they about to lose.

 

I mostly agree.

 

Were we may differ is in that I think Iran wants (or rather, have to) negotiations. Entering such negotiations from a position of having some leverage, and/or making it more of a crisis are good for their position if such negotiations materialize.

 

What they seem to shoot for is for the other signatories to come of with some face saving way to conduct negotiations.

 

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I mostly agree.

 

Were we may differ is in that I think Iran wants (or rather, have to) negotiations. Entering such negotiations from a position of having some leverage, and/or making it more of a crisis are good for their position if such negotiations materialize.

 

What they seem to shoot for is for the other signatories to come of with some face saving way to conduct negotiations.

 

Just wonder whose face it is that is going to be saved if negotiations happen. Iran can make Trump's aspirations to a second term a lot harder to realize.

[IAMHERE]

The deal was 6 nations plus Iran. So one nation pulls out and the other 5 stay to the agreement. That'd mean Iran can have 1/6th of their uranium go over the limit; keep 5/6th of the deal.

[Srikcir]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

Experts said Iran has no legitimate use for uranium enriched beyond the level permitted by the deal.

Not true.

Who are these "experts?"

U-235 enrichment of no more than 20% is commonly used in nuclear reactors for R&D and to produce nuclear products for the medical, industry and agricultural sectors.

For example Thailand has a nuclear reactor that uses enriched U-235 uranium fuel of about 19.7%.

The Iran nuclear deal as it currently stands was a bad deal commercially if not for the lifting of economic sanctions by the G5+1 (now reimposed by the US).

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/33/004/33004584.pdf?r=1&r=1

https://energyeducation.ca/encyclopedia/Separative_work_unit

But there's an obvious concern even with legitimate enrichment of no more than 20%.

From the above it's apparent that the greater the level of enrichment, the less the level of "effort" is required.

Thus, taking U-235 enrichment from no more than 20% to weapons grade 90% is relatively only slightly greater "effort." Going from uranium's natural state of 0.7% concentration to 20% takes approximately 90% of the total effort required to reach weapons-grade U-235. However, such effort for enrichment beyond 4% also relies on a much greater number of centrifuges than the 5,060 centrifuges currently allowed by the Iran nuclear deal. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-48776695

There has been no mention as yet whether Iran is adding more centrifuges. If it's not, it will remain a much longer period (years?) to produce even significant amount of 20% enriched U-235.

 

 

[jany123]

10 hours ago, ezzra said:

Trash talk for a trash talk, Iran has forever been chanting death to America, death to Israel vowing armageddon and total annihilation, now there's a president, who's crazy enough to talk the iranian language and put them on notice...

Not since “forever” old chap, but rather, on and off again, depending on the amount US meddling over time, since 1979, which was, coincidentally, when Iran threw out the CIA backed shah.

 

but... if you don’t believe in coincidence, then one could say that chanting “death to America” by Iranians,  is (commonly) directly relatable to US interference within its (Iran’s) sovereign borders, or against its allies or interests, since 1979

 

the chant is a reaction, not an action.

[jany123]

10 hours ago, BestB said:

Yes it frees them, only then they can not expect for EU to continue trading or helping them and expect for EU to join in on all the current and future sanctions. 

 

I believe even Russia may not like the idea .

 

One might say they are digging their own grave 

How are the EU continuing to maintain trading as things stand?

 

Perhaps you could make the argument if the US weren’t threatening EU countries who did attempt to uphold their side of the pact.

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Not since “forever” old chap, but rather, on and off again, depending on the amount US meddling over time, since 1979, which was, coincidentally, when Iran threw out the CIA backed shah.

 

but... if you don’t believe in coincidence, then one could say that chanting “death to America” by Iranians,  is (commonly) directly relatable to US interference within its (Iran’s) sovereign borders, or against its allies or interests, since 1979

 

the chant is a reaction, not an action.

Actually it goes back to 1954 when the USA & the UK conspired to overthrew the elected government of Iran headed by Mosaddegh and install the self-styled "Shah".

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

[jany123]

9 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

Iran has been invading middle eastern countries for centuries...they, Persia, ransacked the Jewish state before the time of Christ...enslaved those they did not kill...cut off the legs of the craftsmen so they could not flee their country...

 

Armed with nuclear weapons...what could possibly go wrong?

Wow.... a 2500 year old “that’ll teach em!”... you do know that two of the nuclear capable countries had a war that officially went for 116 years, right.... and that was much much more recently than the times of Christ.... and both of those were profiteering from slavery until the nineteenth century. (I call outright BS on the chopping off of craftsmens legs claim)

 

and... you are aware that we already have both ideological adversaries with nukes, as well as the politically opposed groups with nukes.... and dictators with buttons... right?

 

we can only trust those entrusted with a nuclear button, when we can see verifiable and transparent checks and balances of power... and this does not include the madmen made in America, who are currently demonstrating their determination to circumvention checks and balances, as well as a general disdain for the law.

 

but what could possibly go wrong? well... for one, America has “lost” a shed load of nukes... Russia has lost even more, so a lot could go wrong..... so you need to ask instead “what else could go wrong?”, because the current players aren’t necessarily assuring anyone that they are safe,  and they don’t appear to be following the original concept visualized by the original nuclear non proliferation pact ( to denuclearize) as they still possess 22000 weapons. 

[Srikcir]

All this pressure by Trump to stop Iran from potentially developing a nuclear weapon.

When on the other hand Trump seems ready to accept the status quo of an already nuclear-armed North Korea similar to the one POTUS Clinton had negotiated¹ and tacitly accept the North Korea as a nuclear power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/30/world/asia/trump-kim-north-korea-negotiations.html    

    

¹  https://www.cfr.org/timeline/north-korean-nuclear-negotiations

[billd766]

2 hours ago, jany123 said:

How are the EU continuing to maintain trading as things stand?

 

Perhaps you could make the argument if the US weren’t threatening EU countries who did attempt to uphold their side of the pact.

What IMO would be a nice thing to do would be that if every country threatened with sanction by the USA would turn around and apply sanctions TO the USA and ignore any sanctions from the USA.

 

The main players would be Russia, China and the EU.

 

Russia and China are both on the UNSC and can veto any move that the USA makes and between the 3 of them they make up at least half the world market that the USA trades in

[Dumbastheycome]

12 hours ago, Tug said:

Donald you broke the agreement not Iran that frees them to do as they please and they can look to n Korea as an example little Kim threatened to burn us alive exploded nukes tested perfected refined icbms to threaten us and the region as you gave away the farm for nothing now you say you are (in love) dude they are laughing at you as is the rest of the world

Keep it straight .When the US broke the agreement it absolved Iran  from  compliance to the conditions of that with the US. Iran  has until now  complied with the agreement in essence with the remaining  nations as signituries to that  agreement. But as the US  has pressured those  signituries to bow to threats by the US who still uses the conditions of the agreement as if it were still party to that as a justification to impose sanctions on them beyond those of the  agreement  but  compliant  with US  dictate. Iran is quite rationally questioning any faith in continuing to comply with an agreement, that in essence  all but themselves have done so,so is effectively void.

This situation is a  contrived further attempt to embroil all in the ambitions of the US that were so definitely quashed  by the popular  "peoples revolution" against the  installed Shah that  tossed them out.

Despite the propaganda life was not bliss in the time of the Shah nor was it before which assisted that installation  of a  puppet Shah. How then  could  the US   "save" a  population  from a  popular  uprising?

In real terms  who has  made life hard in Iran?

Now it has  created a propagandist issue as a method to  achieve the  long term ambition of Middle East domination. Iran is  neighbored  by Israel who possesses a relatively  unknown and never questioned nuclear arsenal and other US  dominated  nations who are either in possession of  or have such territorialy imposed positioned  weapons on US military installations. Iran has  repeatedly denied any ambition  to  possess such. It is a  fact that in the  time of the Shah it was he who announced the ambition  to acquire nuclear  power electric energy production despite  being a  major oil producing nation with forethought as to the  ongoing  resource and  the future  limitations of  it. In that  time with US approval and  assistance the  goal was  for up to 22  nuclear power stations freeing up the sale of  oil reserves  for  export  to....the avaricious US .

Currently they are denied  either  by sanctions that contravene even the  Geneva Convention by  imposing economic and  living standard conditions  on the general population. Little different to that  being inflicted  on Venezuela. There is a  simplistic explanation. OIL and DOMINATION.

There are events in the wind that will make this and others  a very puerile effort.

 

 

 

[Ulic]

Not sure how much of a nuclear standoff it is with only one side having nuclear weapons, and as the US has already withdrawn from the agreement the terms of the deal have already been breached. So just two adversaries in a pissing match for the moment. Not really sure why it is OK for 8 countries to have nuclear weapons and not the rest. As the NRA would say, nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. Personally I would feel much safer if nobody has nuclear weapons, but that is just me.

[Morch]

21 hours ago, jany123 said:

Wow.... a 2500 year old “that’ll teach em!”... you do know that two of the nuclear capable countries had a war that officially went for 116 years, right.... and that was much much more recently than the times of Christ.... and both of those were profiteering from slavery until the nineteenth century. (I call outright BS on the chopping off of craftsmens legs claim)

 

and... you are aware that we already have both ideological adversaries with nukes, as well as the politically opposed groups with nukes.... and dictators with buttons... right?

 

we can only trust those entrusted with a nuclear button, when we can see verifiable and transparent checks and balances of power... and this does not include the madmen made in America, who are currently demonstrating their determination to circumvention checks and balances, as well as a general disdain for the law.

 

but what could possibly go wrong? well... for one, America has “lost” a shed load of nukes... Russia has lost even more, so a lot could go wrong..... so you need to ask instead “what else could go wrong?”, because the current players aren’t necessarily assuring anyone that they are safe,  and they don’t appear to be following the original concept visualized by the original nuclear non proliferation pact ( to denuclearize) as they still possess 22000 weapons. 

 

Did "we" have religious zealots with nukes as adversaries as well? With all due respect to Communism (both the Russian and the Chinese versions), I don't think it's quite the same.

 

As for trusting those entrusted with a nuclear button etc. - I seriously doubt "verifiable and transparent checks and balances of power" applies to Iran, with or without nuclear weapons.

 

For all the "gone wrong" things, there was no nuclear war. No global disaster related to military elements of nuclear tech and hardware. And the number of countries having nuclear arms is limited.

 

Bashing the USA won't make a nuclear Iran any more of a reasonable proposition.

[Morch]

21 hours ago, Srikcir said:

All this pressure by Trump to stop Iran from potentially developing a nuclear weapon.

When on the other hand Trump seems ready to accept the status quo of an already nuclear-armed North Korea similar to the one POTUS Clinton had negotiated¹ and tacitly accept the North Korea as a nuclear power.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/30/world/asia/trump-kim-north-korea-negotiations.html    

    

¹  https://www.cfr.org/timeline/north-korean-nuclear-negotiations

 

 

There's that. And then one can see it as a demonstration of how difficult it is to deal with such things once a country gets hold of nuclear weapons.

[Morch]

19 hours ago, billd766 said:

What IMO would be a nice thing to do would be that if every country threatened with sanction by the USA would turn around and apply sanctions TO the USA and ignore any sanctions from the USA.

 

The main players would be Russia, China and the EU.

 

Russia and China are both on the UNSC and can veto any move that the USA makes and between the 3 of them they make up at least half the world market that the USA trades in

 

And they all share the same goals, philosophy and basic sentiment toward the USA. Oh, and they also trust each other to allow such cooperation. Fantasies are all some posters got.

[Morch]

19 hours ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Keep it straight .When the US broke the agreement it absolved Iran  from  compliance to the conditions of that with the US. Iran  has until now  complied with the agreement in essence with the remaining  nations as signituries to that  agreement. But as the US  has pressured those  signituries to bow to threats by the US who still uses the conditions of the agreement as if it were still party to that as a justification to impose sanctions on them beyond those of the  agreement  but  compliant  with US  dictate. Iran is quite rationally questioning any faith in continuing to comply with an agreement, that in essence  all but themselves have done so,so is effectively void.

This situation is a  contrived further attempt to embroil all in the ambitions of the US that were so definitely quashed  by the popular  "peoples revolution" against the  installed Shah that  tossed them out.

Despite the propaganda life was not bliss in the time of the Shah nor was it before which assisted that installation  of a  puppet Shah. How then  could  the US   "save" a  population  from a  popular  uprising?

In real terms  who has  made life hard in Iran?

Now it has  created a propagandist issue as a method to  achieve the  long term ambition of Middle East domination. Iran is  neighbored  by Israel who possesses a relatively  unknown and never questioned nuclear arsenal and other US  dominated  nations who are either in possession of  or have such territorialy imposed positioned  weapons on US military installations. Iran has  repeatedly denied any ambition  to  possess such. It is a  fact that in the  time of the Shah it was he who announced the ambition  to acquire nuclear  power electric energy production despite  being a  major oil producing nation with forethought as to the  ongoing  resource and  the future  limitations of  it. In that  time with US approval and  assistance the  goal was  for up to 22  nuclear power stations freeing up the sale of  oil reserves  for  export  to....the avaricious US .

Currently they are denied  either  by sanctions that contravene even the  Geneva Convention by  imposing economic and  living standard conditions  on the general population. Little different to that  being inflicted  on Venezuela. There is a  simplistic explanation. OIL and DOMINATION.

There are events in the wind that will make this and others  a very puerile effort.

 

 

 

 

 

Neither Iran's past actions and choices (those leading to the JCPOA) nor its JCPOA obligations were "absolved" following the USA's withdrawal from the agreement. The USA's withdrawal doesn't imply Iran may develop nuclear weapons, or even go back to to its previous nuclear program. Not, at least, without consequences.

 

There's no international support for a nuclear military capable Iran. There very little international trust that Iran will keep obligations (those would be the pre-JCPOA obligations Iran breached) without strict inspections regime.

 

If Iran withdraws from the agreement, or other signatories see it as breaching current (JCPOA) obligations - it ultimately leads to international sanctions reimposed. And no, Russia and China cannot veto that, that's in the agreement as well.

 

So far, Iran avoids either withdrawing from the agreement, or engaging in breaches which would trigger actions. It walks a fine line of pressuring the Europeans (who wish the JCPOA to be upheld), while at the same time responding to USA challenges. Whether this is wise and whether it will pay off, remains to be seen.

 

Yes, Iran repeatedly denied ambitions to posses nuclear arms. That's not quite the same as it being true.

 

But sure, "Keep it straight". lol.

[Morch]

19 hours ago, Ulic said:

Not sure how much of a nuclear standoff it is with only one side having nuclear weapons, and as the US has already withdrawn from the agreement the terms of the deal have already been breached. So just two adversaries in a pissing match for the moment. Not really sure why it is OK for 8 countries to have nuclear weapons and not the rest. As the NRA would say, nuclear weapons don't kill people, people kill people. Personally I would feel much safer if nobody has nuclear weapons, but that is just me.

 

So the "terms of the deal have already been breached" following the USA's withdrawal, and yet (even if one accepts the premise) the remaining signatories - most notable, Iran - aren't in a rush to pronounce it void. So which is it?

 

As for "wondering" about the unfairness of a few countries having nuclear weapons while the rest do not - chalk it up to the world being imperfect. Still a much better option than all having them, or even more having them. To expand on your last remark: yes, and it we can't have that, the closest would do.

[jany123]

17 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Did "we" have religious zealots with nukes as adversaries as well? With all due respect to Communism (both the Russian and the Chinese versions), I don't think it's quite the same.

 

As for trusting those entrusted with a nuclear button etc. - I seriously doubt "verifiable and transparent checks and balances of power" applies to Iran, with or without nuclear weapons.

 

For all the "gone wrong" things, there was no nuclear war. No global disaster related to military elements of nuclear tech and hardware. And the number of countries having nuclear arms is limited.

 

Bashing the USA won't make a nuclear Iran any more of a reasonable proposition.

By “We” i include everybody in the here and now, in referencing my post. 

 

and your right, I don’t see Iran as applying checks and balances, either, nor was I suggesting that they did. I was saying that those with the button should be constricted by checks and balances. (Britain would qualify herein.)

 

and yes, given everything that’s gone wrong, we have been very lucky, considering almost every nation has access (through its allies) to nuclear weapons, which are currently circling the globe, so.... My comment is still valid... ask instead, what else could go wrong? (Perhaps rather than delude ones self into thinking everything’s just peachy, as things are)

 

And sure... bashing the USA might not make Iranian possession of a nuke a reasonable proposition... especially as I’m condemning in this post, and the one you quoted, the possession of a nuke button by autocrats without constricts to checks and balances.

 

Where I have commented separately that if Iran had a nuke, it would serve as a foil to isreal and it’s allies. (Two adversaries equally opposed are less likely to engage), I was by no means suggesting that as an ideal outcome.... an ideal outcome would begin with reimplementing the 2015 agreement conditions

 

 but... bashing the USA over its handling of the Iranian situation, might (in tiny ways) raise awareness to US mismanagement and international recklessness and disregard for its partners, especially given its (A45) current attempts to circumvent congress and side step checks and balances, with disdain for the law.

 

staying silent is to be in league with the great satan.

[Morch]

5 minutes ago, jany123 said:

By “We” i include everybody in the here and now, in referencing my post. 

 

and your right, I don’t see Iran as applying checks and balances, either, nor was I suggesting that they did. I was saying that those with the button should be constricted by checks and balances. (Britain would qualify herein.)

 

and yes, given everything that’s gone wrong, we have been very lucky, considering almost every nation has access (through its allies) to nuclear weapons, which are currently circling the globe, so.... My comment is still valid... ask instead, what else could go wrong? (Perhaps rather than delude ones self into thinking everything’s just peachy, as things are)

 

And sure... bashing the USA might not make Iranian possession of a nuke a reasonable proposition... especially as I’m condemning in this post, and the one you quoted, the possession of a nuke button by autocrats without constricts to checks and balances.

 

Where I have commented separately that if Iran had a nuke, it would serve as a foil to isreal and it’s allies. (Two adversaries equally opposed are less likely to engage), I was by no means suggesting that as an ideal outcome.... an ideal outcome would begin with reimplementing the 2015 agreement conditions

 

 but... bashing the USA over its handling of the Iranian situation, might (in tiny ways) raise awareness to US mismanagement and international recklessness and disregard for its partners, especially given its (A45) current attempts to circumvent congress and side step checks and balances, with disdain for the law.

 

staying silent is to be in league with the great satan.

 

Trump, regardless of what his supporters wish for, is a temporary fixture. An anomaly. To take Trump's term in office as the norm for the USA is wrong. Arguments that run along the Trump-therefore-the-USA line often are. He might be pushing the limits and putting some strain on them checks and balances, but the fact stands that the USA got them.

 

Russia (de facto), China, North Korea, and Iran - all have leaders which are permanent installations. Not a whole lot by way of checks and balances there, and not likely to change much.

 

There was no suggestion anything was "peachy". Considering all the things that could have gone wrong, I think it is reasonable to say that as far as international efforts go, non-proliferation is generally working. Perfect it ain't. Just the best available. Beats the alternative.

 

It's about proportions, perspective and correctly targeting the criticism.

[jany123]

29 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Trump, regardless of what his supporters wish for, is a temporary fixture. An anomaly. To take Trump's term in office as the norm for the USA is wrong. Arguments that run along the Trump-therefore-the-USA line often are. He might be pushing the limits and putting some strain on them checks and balances, but the fact stands that the USA got them.

 

Russia (de facto), China, North Korea, and Iran - all have leaders which are permanent installations. Not a whole lot by way of checks and balances there, and not likely to change much.

 

There was no suggestion anything was "peachy". Considering all the things that could have gone wrong, I think it is reasonable to say that as far as international efforts go, non-proliferation is generally working. Perfect it ain't. Just the best available. Beats the alternative.

 

It's about proportions, perspective and correctly targeting the criticism.

Yep... I agree... the trump is an anomaly.

 

but unfortunately, and disconcertingly, he has crystallized the inherent failure in the system to adequately deal with that anomaly.

 

Expecting other countries to once again trust the US, whilst there is still the potential for a trumpian anomaly in the future, is naive.

 

the US must overhaul its systems of checks and balances, before trust can be restored, as they have been shown to be flawed.

 

i realize that other actors have a dictators finger on the trigger (so why not another in Iran, if you wish to play that card)... and I condemn that... once again... transparency is needed to have trust in the trigger man... (Russia, China, NK, USA, Pakistan, India, isreal... limited to nil transparency... bad ju ju.) and I realize that this won’t change much... but not requiring our own leaders to act transparently, is wrong, and that can change (taking the US of my impromptu list above).

 

and whilst I freely acknowledge your balanced perspective, I would point out that not all posters are as well centered, and that some do actually think things are peachy, just as they are. (Sometimes, to scare myself, I watch interviews of people wearing red maga hats) 

 

i also still dispute the impact of the nuclear non proliferation pact, which was supposed to prevent new actors from getting the bomb, as well as getting rid of the bomb. So... in half of that, it’s failed miserably, with some 22000 nukes spread around the globe (that’s some proliferation, that), and access to nukes by a significant number of nation, in need, thru alliances. (Eg... Australia doesn’t have a bomb... but in need, Britain or the USA, will deliver one wherever it’s needed by Australia.... so, by default, Australia has a bomb)