Jump to content

Exclusive: Trump plans executive order to punish arms trade with Iran - sources


Recommended Posts

Posted
8 hours ago, tonray said:

Let's see if he sanctions Putin, who is Iran's primary supplier

thats funny...that makes this whole thing a farce.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Posted
1 hour ago, wombat said:

what finer point am i missing?

Trump! (If that is a finer point or a big ar5e point, ......hmmmm up to you) ????

  • Like 1
Posted
6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

How about arms trade with Saudi Arabia? Or how about all the military equipment which is worth billions of dollars which the USA gives to Israel for free? Bloody double standards. 

 

I understand some posters have trouble coming to terms with countries and governments having interests rather than ideals. This often goes hand in hand with ignoring facts in service of narrative or making some 'point'.

 

The two other countries mentioned are generally allied with the USA. Neither was under similar embargo as applied to Iran.

 

So yes, fair enough to assert that the USA cannot both ditch the agreement and insist on terms being seen to. That said, the rationale behind the decision not to extend or renew the arms ban seems to be at least partially motivated by contrarianism to USA wishes. Again, fair enough - the Trump administration earned this. But it's not like these are absolutely lacking merit.

 

Sure, past incidents may be cited to try and bolster claims that it"s exactly the same. Only it isn't. This is not about what was, but rather what is. And at present, Iran is both at odds with the USA and acts as a problematic party with regard to several regional players.

 

It would have been easier for the USA to affect such policies had it remained within the framework of the agreement. Obviously a problem given Trump's policies, fixations and temperament.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Posted
1 hour ago, wombat said:

confused asks....The United States abandoned the nuclear deal in May 2018 so how can they trigger a "snap back"?
what finer point am i missing?

 

The Trump administration either truly feels that the USA is strong enough to force its policies and views on relevant countries, or banking on said countries' reluctance putting it to the test. If going by the example set in the past, such assertions are not all that far-fetched, if not fool-proof.

 

Then there are the upcoming elections, and playing Tough Guy on the Iran card could gain some support.

 

There are no real fine points to this, I think. More like an administration who's grasp of diplomacy is a bit on the limited side.

Posted
1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

I understand some posters have trouble coming to terms with countries and governments having interests rather than ideals. This often goes hand in hand with ignoring facts in service of narrative or making some 'point'.

 

The two other countries mentioned are generally allied with the USA. Neither was under similar embargo as applied to Iran.

 

So yes, fair enough to assert that the USA cannot both ditch the agreement and insist on terms being seen to. That said, the rationale behind the decision not to extend or renew the arms ban seems to be at least partially motivated by contrarianism to USA wishes. Again, fair enough - the Trump administration earned this. But it's not like these are absolutely lacking merit.

 

Sure, past incidents may be cited to try and bolster claims that it"s exactly the same. Only it isn't. This is not about what was, but rather what is. And at present, Iran is both at odds with the USA and acts as a problematic party with regard to several regional players.

 

It would have been easier for the USA to affect such policies had it remained within the framework of the agreement. Obviously a problem given Trump's policies, fixations and temperament.

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, there is no black and white, just a lot of grey.

However I think we can agree that Iran followed the international agreement and then Trump ripped it up. And then somehow Trump plays surprised that Iran is not willing to give 100% if they don't receive a little in return. It does not work like that and even Trump should understand that. If the people who vote for him understand it is obviously a another question...

  • Like 1
Posted
17 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, there is no black and white, just a lot of grey.

However I think we can agree that Iran followed the international agreement and then Trump ripped it up. And then somehow Trump plays surprised that Iran is not willing to give 100% if they don't receive a little in return. It does not work like that and even Trump should understand that. If the people who vote for him understand it is obviously a another question...

 

On that part, we have no argument. But I will add this - back when this administration broadcasted its aim to enforce sanctions on Iran, and other sanctions on parties dealing with Iran, many posters were angered by it and at the same time derisive when it came to prospects. The bottom line is that, that generally speaking, they pulled it off. Not fully, of course, but enough to give pause - and exert negative effects for the Iranian economy.

 

That set of sanctions had to do with oil, business ventures, investment and finance. All seen as legitimate, and relatively less controversial than arms sales. So granted, the USA's international standing might not be the same as it was back then (the UNSC flatly rejecting the USA's position is a good indicator) - but it can still muster enough clout to make this work, sort of.

 

If Trump wins another term, and countries realize they need to deal with him for four more years, then it's quite possible they'll rethink positions. Sure, there are profits to be made selling arms to Iran, and more influence to be gained. But weighed against the negatives - maybe less worthwhile than it seems.

 

I'm not saying this is a great move by Team Trump. IMO, more like posturing and being semi-committed to a course of action. It's not a righteous move given the USA's ditching of the agreement, even if the goal, specifically, is not a bad one. But for all that, it could work.

Posted
6 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

It could be, but I don't recall relevant agencies eager to back up the President's take. Generally speaking it can be said that Iran was following terms. That it may have been seeking ways to circumvent it is quite probable, but doubt that such efforts were the main drive behind Trump's move. Unless mistaken it was stated (by the USA) that Iran breached the 'spirit of the agreement' rather than specific substantial issues being raised.

 

His narrative was that it was a 'bad deal', and that he could force Iran to renegotiate a new, stricter one. The details weren't, IMO, all that central to this.

Relevant intelligence agencies are unlikely to provide support by confirming their intelligence material. That's possibly tipping off the Iranians they have spies in their camp. If Trump says it's a bad deal, it's just dismissed by them as his usual erratic conduct.

Trump is a sociopath, narcissistic, and vindictive. However, I don't think I've ever called him stupid.

Posted
7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Relevant intelligence agencies are unlikely to provide support by confirming their intelligence material. That's possibly tipping off the Iranians they have spies in their camp. If Trump says it's a bad deal, it's just dismissed by them as his usual erratic conduct.

Trump is a sociopath, narcissistic, and vindictive. However, I don't think I've ever called him stupid.

 

Yes, but on the other hand, they weren't over supportive of the President's initial claims either. As far as I'm aware, he had to walk back from quite a bit of that. And, of course, he did extend the agreement shortly after assuming office. It took some time to build the narrative and overcome resistance to the policy he favored.

 

As for not calling him stupid, I could do that for you - but probably unnecessary given he's been displaying such for most of his term. You could say he's got the hand of hooking people, working a crowd, and other stuff. That doesn't make him into much of an international relations expert, or one who can handle details, or a great diplomat. That he routinely claims to know the best or more than professionals, is IMO just one more indication he's not too bright.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Yes, but on the other hand, they weren't over supportive of the President's initial claims either. As far as I'm aware, he had to walk back from quite a bit of that. And, of course, he did extend the agreement shortly after assuming office. It took some time to build the narrative and overcome resistance to the policy he favored.

 

As for not calling him stupid, I could do that for you - but probably unnecessary given he's been displaying such for most of his term. You could say he's got the hand of hooking people, working a crowd, and other stuff. That doesn't make him into much of an international relations expert, or one who can handle details, or a great diplomat. That he routinely claims to know the best or more than professionals, is IMO just one more indication he's not too bright.

IQ is not the only measure of intelligence. Probably the description of cunning as a s##thouse rat fits him best.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Relevant intelligence agencies are unlikely to provide support by confirming their intelligence material. That's possibly tipping off the Iranians they have spies in their camp. If Trump says it's a bad deal, it's just dismissed by them as his usual erratic conduct.

Trump is a sociopath, narcissistic, and vindictive. However, I don't think I've ever called him stupid.

Iran is controllled by the IAEA, which has intrusive investigation power. The US could have discretely leaked information and told them where to investigate.

If there was really some intelligence material, it could also have been given to some of the other signatories. Not to Russia, of course, but I guess to countries such as the UK, which is already more or less integrated in the US intelligence system.

 

None of it happened. Only Trump's word.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

IQ is not the only measure of intelligence. Probably the description of cunning as a s##thouse rat fits him best.

 

I'm quite willing to attribute him with lack of intelligence of multiple measures. Again, he supplies proof of this on an almost daily basis. Cunning? A bit. But as his plans are upset quite often, maybe not a YUGE gap from Baldrick.

  • Haha 2
Posted
7 minutes ago, candide said:

Iran is controllled by the IAEA, which has intrusive investigation power. The US could have discretely leaked information and told them where to investigate.

If there was really some intelligence material, it could also have been given to some of the other signatories. Not to Russia, of course, but I guess to countries such as the UK, which is already more or less integrated in the US intelligence system.

 

None of it happened. Only Trump's word.

 

Controlled is a very strong word, and not quite correct. There are protocols detailing investigative rights and inspections. But ultimately Iran can, if it so chose, to try and hide, delay or limit access. It is a restrictive agreement, but not full-proof.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Morch said:

 

Controlled is a very strong word, and not quite correct. There are protocols detailing investigative rights and inspections. But ultimately Iran can, if it so chose, to try and hide, delay or limit access. It is a restrictive agreement, but not full-proof.

Iraq succeeded in hiding a lot of factories under desert sand. No reason to believe the Iranians can't take a leaf out of their book.

  • Like 2
Posted
16 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Iraq succeeded in hiding a lot of factories under desert sand. No reason to believe the Iranians can't take a leaf out of their book.

 

Yes, but once one country does it, the powers that be become more aware of the possibility. Then there's the level of scrutiny offered by the agreement, which is way beyond the measures that were available in Iraq's case.

Posted
12 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I agree Trump ripped up the international agreement. I don't necessarily agree Iran followed it.

Ask yourself why Trump acted as he did. Consider the possibility his intelligence people had information Iran continued with nuclear weapons development in secret, while publicly professing compliance. Not the first time a nation has reneged on an agreement.

By now I believe Iran more than President Trump. And it seems he gets most of his so called knowledge from fox "news" and he ignores what the intelligence agencies try to tell him.

But then again it does not seem that Trump really cares about the world or even the USA. He cares to have power and be reelected. And he does what he feels is necessary to keep his voters happy.

  • Haha 2
Posted
1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

By now I believe Iran more than President Trump. And it seems he gets most of his so called knowledge from fox "news" and he ignores what the intelligence agencies try to tell him.

But then again it does not seem that Trump really cares about the world or even the USA. He cares to have power and be reelected. And he does what he feels is necessary to keep his voters happy.

 

Making flippant comments does not convey much knowledge or familiarity with things discussed. One can certainly doubt both parties without preference. Given that you do not know what Iran's ruler bases his own assessments on and what are his motivations, the comparison is hollow. And I think you are aware this is not coming from a pro-Trump position.

 

I think what he cares about is his ego, and not getting thrown in jail/face real public censure (the latter is obviously related to the former). All of what he does seem, ultimately, to come down to this.

 

 

Posted
43 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

Making flippant comments does not convey much knowledge or familiarity with things discussed. One can certainly doubt both parties without preference. Given that you do not know what Iran's ruler bases his own assessments on and what are his motivations, the comparison is hollow. And I think you are aware this is not coming from a pro-Trump position.

 

I think what he cares about is his ego, and not getting thrown in jail/face real public censure (the latter is obviously related to the former). All of what he does seem, ultimately, to come down to this.

 

 

The FBI, Justice Department and intelligence services have all been scorned and politicized by him one way or another. IMO if he is not re-elected they will be lining up for a piece of him. He and his cronies know it. Expect even more desperation in the coming weeks.

Posted
2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The FBI, Justice Department and intelligence services have all been scorned and politicized by him one way or another. IMO if he is not re-elected they will be lining up for a piece of him. He and his cronies know it. Expect even more desperation in the coming weeks.

 

As organizations, I doubt they will. People (and even some influential people) being extra active doing their job in this context, sure. I would expect more book deals, too. That's where Iran's ruler got things under so much better control - his authority is both political and religious, the body appointing/confirming anyone who matters is under his thumb, a huge slush fund on the side managed by himself, and a parallel army at his command.

 

 

  • Like 1
Posted
17 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I agree Trump ripped up the international agreement. I don't necessarily agree Iran followed it.

Ask yourself why Trump acted as he did. Consider the possibility his intelligence people had information Iran continued with nuclear weapons development in secret, while publicly professing compliance. Not the first time a nation has reneged on an agreement.

Or if you think as simple as trump does. Obama made the deal so it must be broken, regardless.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


  • Topics

  • Latest posts...

    1. 0

      U.S. Senators Introduce Legislation to Counter UN Actions Against Israel

    2. 0

      Essex Police Under Scrutiny for Domestic Abuse Failures Amid Investigation of Allison Pears

    3. 0

      Accusations of Hypocrisy as Private Jet use Doubles Travelling to Cop29

    4. 0

      Council Tax Bills to Increase by Over £100 in April Amid Cap Freeze

    5. 0

      Elon Musk Embraces New Role as the ‘George Soros of the Right’ Alongside Trump

    6. 0

      Arrest of Suspected Serial Killer in France Sparks Outrage Over Immigration Policies

    7. 0

      Europe’s Right-Wing Leaders Reframe Climate Action to Fit a Nationalist Agenda

  • Popular in The Pub


×
×
  • Create New...