Withdrawal from Iran Nuclear Accord - Any Upside?

[Seriati]

I think the really interesting thing is that it's clear some in the administration want a war with Iran and that the President does not.  Does the media jump up and support him for opposing the war mongers?

Of course not, that kind of praise is only for Democrats, instead they called him out for flip flopping on a retaliation for downing a drone that would have killed more than 100 people.  They literally criticized him for not killing people in a manner he doesn't believe is proportionate which, lest we forget, is the standard at international law for retaliation.  So once again the "lawless" President actually follows law, in this case International law, but the media can't find any way to report on it a neutral (let along positive) manner.

[D.W.]

I'd be inclined to agree with this position Seriati if not for his own taunts and saber rattling.  Instead it does come across as mixed messaging.  Does he just follow the advice of the last person he talked to?  Is he the only thing between us and blood thirsty warmongers?  Who knows?

I'd like to give him credit on this one.  I think he does genuinely want to avoid further military engagements in that neck of the woods, but his need to belittle others, while MAYBE stopping short of actually killing people and putting our troops at risk, doesn't inspire confidence.

That and we keep doing everything possible to cut off diplomacy and back them into a corner.  Maybe this is the best he can do to hold back the tide?  If so, that also doesn't inspire confidence in the office.  Or at least his execution of it.

[Seriati]

My twitter hasn't been working, but it's been widely reported that Trump offered to meet with Iran without pre-conditions and Iran turned it down.  I think it's 100% clear from Trump's actions with North Korea that he'd be more than happy to meet with Iran and "solve" a problem that's stumped other leaders for decades. 

Why do you have the opposite opinion?  Can you point to something real (i.e., not just media talking heads that hate him), that indicates he won't talk to them, and even make concessions?

Sure they are using sanctions.  Sanctions have a 4 decade history of effectively curtailing Iranian aggression, both convention and nuclear.  Whereas Obama's "treaty" has a 3 year record of expanding Iranian attacks through out the entire region.  Why is returning to a sucessfull policy and abandoning one that is failed something being painted as bad?

[rightleft22]

Though I’m not sue about the administration’s strategy, which can be debated, are people making the argument that Trump is not willing to meet with Iran Leaders and negotiate?

My understanding of the issue is that Iran feels that it can’t negotiate with a gun pointed to their heads.

Iranians are a proud people. Currently a large number of the Iranian population would like a change in government however I don’t seem them rising to change it. Actually, it’s possible that pushed they may stand behind the government, which might feel they have nothing to lose which is dangerous.   
It possible that all sides to over play their hands and I don't think the traditional allies trusts the current Administration

[rightleft22]

Why is returning to a successful policy and abandoning one that is failed something being painted as bad?

I guess the argument is the question of whether sanctions are a successfully policy.
They had years to work and didn’t and IMO its not clear that the deal was a failed policy.
Regardless. I don’t see doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome isn’t insanity. 
That said Trump’s method of application of sanctions isn’t quite the same as past so I’ll guess well see.     

[Seriati]

I guess the argument is the question of whether sanctions are a successfully policy.
They had years to work and didn’t and IMO its not clear that the deal was a failed policy.

They had years to work and didn't?  In what way did they "not work"?  Iran's regional aspirations were almost completely suppressed.  In what way is a plan that doesn't control - at all - Iran's ability to support terrorism, regional proxy groups destablizing the surrounding countries, and oh yeah their ability to develop missile technology, and gives them an enormous boost both to immediate cash on hand and long term cash pipeline better? 

Oh yeah, I forgot, we got a 15 year slow down in their development of nuclear weapons (assuming that they complied, even though the inspections regime was a joke).

This seems to me to be another of those places, were the media and the Dems are entitled to their own "facts" that don't match with reality.

[rightleft22]

In what way did they "not work"

Iran remained a threat and similar to NK was on their way to getting the nuclear weapons. Its just a matter of time. Sanctions slowed the progress but didn't eliminate it
Success to me would have Iran become a reliable state.

Sanctions are a stop gap not a solution

[Seriati]

Iran is not becoming a reliable state any time soon.

If you define that as success it's all going to be failure.   You need to define success in accordance with reality, and what we could actually expect to achieve.

[D.W.]

Broader question, as I don't dig into regional politics / animosity in that region much beyond the headlines or crisis of the day.  How plausible is it we continue to antagonize Iran, for no other reason than to keep them hostile to us and our "allies", because we ourselves don't trust those allies and want a check in place to balance our "aid" to them?

It seems a silly way to promote our interests, but a saying they trotted out in Game of Thrones seems applicable.  "Chaos is a ladder."

Maybe we aren't trying to make something work at all?  Reckless, yes; but implausible? 

[rightleft22]

If you define that as success it's all going to be failure

I was just thinking I was assuming success was win win however I suspect a argument could be made that keeping Iran hobbled is to the west benefit.

So it begs what is the goal for Iran, how do we define success?

If I remember correctly sanctions on South Africa worked because there was there was a clear goal. But then religion wasn't involved.

[Fenring]

How plausible is it we continue to antagonize Iran, for no other reason than to keep them hostile to us and our "allies", because we ourselves don't trust those allies and want a check in place to balance our "aid" to them?

D.W. is correct. The reason Iran is an "unstable state" is because they've been made into that, and it's the current agenda that they be exactly that. They are what they've been designed to be. If at any time a U.S. administration decided that it was a priority to 'bring Iran into the fold' and make a strong treaty with them I think it wouldn't be very difficult, so long as Iran actually believed that they weren't being thrown under the bus for Israel and Saud. It's this 'alliance against an enemy' that makes them an enemy. It's literally a role that's been cast for them and they are willing to play the part. Not too long ago Iran was a progressive place with people sporting modern fashion, with a first lady who was an international icon of modernism, and a people who wanted progress rather than fanaticism. That 'stock' is still there, it's just that international intrigues have led them to be designated as the enemy and forced them to be just that.

Iran isn't a Pakistan, where truly crazy things happen there on a daily basis in everyday life; where the actual populace is radicalized to such an extent that it's hard to know what an American would even have in common with them. It would be hard to even establish an even rapport with such a people without a slow cultural transition occuring. But such is not the case with the Persian people, as far as I understand it. They are reasonable and far less culturally regressed. I think they would be open to a friendly dialogue if it was initiated in good faith. "Get rid of your program and we won't invade you" is not a good faith negotiation, nor is "we may lift sanctions if you quit resisting". It reminds me of that prototypical police encounter where a person being thrown to the ground, and because their limbs are flailing the officer instructs them to "stop resisting" and beats them further. I don't think the politicians in play seriously want peace with Iran; what they want is for it to stop resisting as it's being beaten.

[Seriati]

D.W. is correct. The reason Iran is an "unstable state" is because they've been made into that, and it's the current agenda that they be exactly that.

Walk through this. 

Not too long ago Iran was a progressive place with people sporting modern fashion, with a first lady who was an international icon of modernism, and a people who wanted progress rather than fanaticism.

I believe you are thinking of Jordan, which Iran actively destablalized.   I mean I'm not aware that the Shah's wife during the Carter regime was an icon of modern fashion, and certainly no woman in post revolution Iran fits that bill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spouse_of_the_President_of_Iran  Here's the list of them, the current picture looks like a grandma in the traditional black garb.

Can you clarify?  Cause what I can say, is that Iran since the revolution has been deliberately seeking out "confrontation" with the great Satan to try and solidify it's own people behind its tyrannical government.

[D.W.]

I'll let Fenring handle this one, but I assume he meant "not too long ago" as PRE revolution.

[Seriati]

It turns out the Shah's wives were fashion icons (very 1930's movie star looks on wikipedia), of course part of the reason the Shah was overthrown was that he sought to modernize Iran (and massive corruption, among other reasons).  I seem to remember * cough * something about the US being thrown out of Iran as supporters of the Shah and a certain embassy being over run as part of the Iranian revolution.  Not sure that's a good historical fact pattern to support Fen's point.

[Fenring]

D.W. is correct. The reason Iran is an "unstable state" is because they've been made into that, and it's the current agenda that they be exactly that.

Walk through this.

I'm not that big on putting lists of links to back up a generalized point, so I'll submit that I can't verify this to your satisfaction. It is my own surmise, much in the way you've said in the past that it's difficult to put a single link up to prove years' worth of various random info you take in.

I mean I'm not aware that the Shah's wife during the Carter regime was an icon of modern fashion, and certainly no woman in post revolution Iran fits that bill.

Good call on that one, got my wires crossed on first ladies. It was Syria I was thinking of for her. Scratch the Iranian first lady comment.

Can you clarify?  Cause what I can say, is that Iran since the revolution has been deliberately seeking out "confrontation" with the great Satan to try and solidify it's own people behind its tyrannical government.

D.W. is right that I'm thinking of pre-revolution. My main point is that these are not crazies; for the most part I think they're more like us than we'd like to think. What the state does there is another matter, and I have a suspicion that the international PR coming out of Iran isn't the same as their internal PR, and that this in turn is different from what their real political intentions are. There's a lot of posturing, although I'll admit I can't be sure exactly what they think their real priorities are. But I don't think the average Persian wants to blow up America, to put it one way.

[Fenring]

It turns out the Shah's wives were fashion icons (very 1930's movie star looks on wikipedia), of course part of the reason the Shah was overthrown was that he sought to modernize Iran (and massive corruption, among other reasons).

Funny that this point happened to correspond to what I said, but I hadn't known that before you mentioned it.

[Seriati]

Walk through this.

I'm not that big on putting lists of links to back up a generalized point, so I'll submit that I can't verify this to your satisfaction. It is my own surmise, much in the way you've said in the past that it's difficult to put a single link up to prove years' worth of various random info you take in.

Wasn't asking for you to throw up a series of links.  History is often interpretative and I'm not seeing how Iran was "made into that," which implies outside forces as being more significant than internal ones.  Based on Wikipedia the Shaw was the end of 2500 years of a dynasty (which is probably a bit more story than reality) and the post revolution Iran's internal forces and decisions and explicit and express rejection of the modern world as personified by the "West" seem to me to have been the primary drivers of their problems.

The modern style of recasting self inflicted wounds as "caused" by third parties does not, in my view, match reality.  Fact is, nothing but Iran prevents Iran from having a modern economy and being a non-rogue state.  I'm not aware of any rebellion inside Iran being fomented by anyone, whereas Iran is fomenting rebellions in virtually all of its neighbors and has a pretty long history as a military aggressor.

D.W. is right that I'm thinking of pre-revolution. My main point is that these are not crazies; for the most part I think they're more like us than we'd like to think.

I don't think their people are crazy, their leaders on the other hand are.  And oddly, that's exactly like us (though we probably all disagree as to which of our leaders exactly are crazy).

What the state does there is another matter, and I have a suspicion that the international PR coming out of Iran isn't the same as their internal PR, and that this in turn is different from what their real political intentions are.

There are people who translate internal communications for others to read.  I've never once found our media to be accurate in putting out the actual messages.  It may translate the internal communication:  "Death to all Americans, we will burn their cities, slay their children and salt the Earth, and lead the world into a new pure future."  As, "Iranian leaders, expressed their desire to work for a better future."

There's a lot of posturing, although I'll admit I can't be sure exactly what they think their real priorities are. But I don't think the average Persian wants to blow up America, to put it one way.

True, but the average person is not a murderer, and yet we still have murders.  The average person is not a thief, and we still have theft.  The average person would never... , yet....   I think you get where this is going.

[D.W.]

Just really quick from Wikipedia land...  Again, I'm no pro in this area but...

RE:  US/Iran relations

During World War II, Iran was invaded by the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, both US allies, but relations continued to be positive after the war until the later years of the government of Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was overthrown by a coup organized by the Central Intelligence Agency and aided by the MI6. This was followed by an era of very close alliance and friendship between Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's regime and the US government, which was in turn followed by a dramatic reversal and disagreement between the two countries after the 1979 Iranian Revolution.[4] During this era, Iran was one of the United States' closest allies

We pushed a regime change.  Got pushed back.  I suppose one could argue that the current state of affairs is more of a reset back before we interfered?  (I honestly don't know)  But we certainly played a part in where that "rogue state" directs its animosity.

[TheDrake]

I'm not aware of any rebellion inside Iran the US being fomented by anyone, whereas Iran the US is fomenting rebellions in virtually all of its neighbors and has a pretty long history as a military aggressor.

[D.W.]

Wait... should I be worried about Canada?

[TheDeamon]

Wait... should I be worried about Canada?

Better watch those western prairie provinces.

[TheDrake]

Ha ha. Here's a list of countries that aren't laughing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change#1954:_Guatemala

[D.W.]

Nothing to see here!  Move along people.  Move along.

[Seriati]

I'm not aware of any rebellion inside Iran the US being fomented by anyone, whereas Iran the US is fomenting rebellions in virtually all of its neighbors and has a pretty long history as a military aggressor.

Sorry I didn't respond I thought this was a joke.  It's completely non-responsive to the passage it's trimmed from (which is about Iran's internal politics), and how Iran controls it's own ability to integrate into the modern world.

The US has a poor history on the global stage, was that even up for debate?  We've had times we have fomented rebellions, overthrown countries, supported dictators and otherwise destabalized the world.  But unless you're saying that was a good thing, I'm not seeing the relevance of the whataboutism?  In any event, it doesn't appear that Trump is pursuing the same kind of Real Politick that dominated the Cold War, or the clandestine wars that they pursued, nor does he seem to be following the Clinton/Obama model of terrorism through superior technology or the open regime change through overwhelming force of Bush.

So what is your beef?  You don't like decades of American policies, which Trump isn't following, sounds like you should be supporting him.  Or do you think that Iran can't make substantial progress on its own issues?

[D.W.]

While I find the idea that Iran controls it's own ability to integrate into the modern world more than a little suspect, the rest is fair. 

There's a lot of daylight shining down on Trump's foreign policy.  No skulking about hinted at.  (Unless we blew up those boats...)   

I can't honestly say open threats and taunts is worse...  I'll give him that.

[TheDrake]

I'm not aware of any rebellion inside Iran the US being fomented by anyone, whereas Iran the US is fomenting rebellions in virtually all of its neighbors and has a pretty long history as a military aggressor.

Sorry I didn't respond I thought this was a joke.  It's completely non-responsive to the passage it's trimmed from (which is about Iran's internal politics), and how Iran controls it's own ability to integrate into the modern world.

The US has a poor history on the global stage, was that even up for debate?  We've had times we have fomented rebellions, overthrown countries, supported dictators and otherwise destabalized the world.  But unless you're saying that was a good thing, I'm not seeing the relevance of the whataboutism?  In any event, it doesn't appear that Trump is pursuing the same kind of Real Politick that dominated the Cold War, or the clandestine wars that they pursued, nor does he seem to be following the Clinton/Obama model of terrorism through superior technology or the open regime change through overwhelming force of Bush.

So what is your beef?  You don't like decades of American policies, which Trump isn't following, sounds like you should be supporting him.  Or do you think that Iran can't make substantial progress on its own issues?

I'm saying that Iran has done a lot less to destabilize the middle east even in the past 20 years than the US has. Iranian hegemony in the region could actually lead to a lot more stability than our meddling. At the very least we have little reason to complain about their actions than our own, we have no moral authority to seethe about it.

[D.W.]

That depends on if we are complaining because they are "bad" or because they aren't doing what we want.  Assuming of course we don't want them doing exactly what they are doing right now... 

[Seriati]

I'm saying that Iran has done a lot less to destabilize the middle east even in the past 20 years than the US has.

Are you really?   I didn't take that away at all from what you said.  It's seem objectively nonsense to me.

Iranian hegemony in the region could actually lead to a lot more stability than our meddling.

Sure, and killing everyone causes it to be quite too.  Still a poor idea.

At the very least we have little reason to complain about their actions than our own, we have no moral authority to seethe about it.

We do have moral authority, you're just wrong.  Our culture has it's failings, but it's objectively superior to any repressive culture.  Unless you're willing to submit your friends and family to involuntary life in Iran subject to their laws, you already know this too.

Again, I don't understand this need to recast other people's bad choices, and Iran has an enormous history of them, as our fault.  We have our own bad choices, but we also have uniformly great ones.  We've pioneered tremendous gains in the rights of all people, particularly women, LGBTQ and minority race, culture and religion.  For as much as we've engaged in disruption, we've done 10 times more in peaceful negotiation.  The UN is largely the result of American idealism, as are most of the global trade agreements.

[TheDrake]

This is really working out great now. Blowing up drones, seizing oil tankers. Kudos. I guess Bolton and his crowd will have their war before we're writing 2020 in our checkbooks.

[D.W.]

The latest is interesting.
We had to shoot down an Iranian drone.
Iran's response?
We're not missing any drones...  Did you shoot down one of your own by mistake?

[TheDrake]

Maybe it was a Chinese drone. Or just a civilian enthusiast.

[TheDrake]

Those sanctions are killing it. Iran hasn't blown anything up lately, but they are moving toward enriching uranium. Any minute now I guess they are going to give in to US demands.