Middle East Running Iranian threat news and discussion thread

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
Nothing has changed except all those hardliners in Iran who were against the treaty? They got proved right. And the moderate faction is now severely jaded with US promises, and that poses a problem for any descalation in the future.

I don't see it as a huge setback. "Hardcore" and "moderates" are relative terms. In the end the leaders (elected and non-elected ones) are steering the country toward expansionism, even the moderate ones.

Until there are moderate voices in Iran that support opening a dialogue with Israel, I will treat the supposed Iranian "moderates" with a huge grain of salt.

Some of Trumps foreign policy measures have had negative results. None of them were as cataclysmically fucked up as this one. He turned an enemy willing to engage into détente into and enemy who knows the US won't play fair and will respond in kind.

But was detente in America's best interests at all? The US is invested in the Middle East, and Iran is basically kind of the fire nation that threatens the Middle East. It's no coincidence that the vast majority of the area hate their guts, and even willing to ally with the evil Zionists against them!

The treaty tied America's hands while allowing the Iranians to do as they wish conventionally, and do as they wish with nukes after a negligible delay. It was untenable.
 

Comrade Clod

Gay Space Communist
The treaty tied America's hands while allowing the Iranians to do as they wish conventionally, and do as they wish with nukes after a negligible delay. It was untenable.

Whereas the lack of a treaty.... allows Iran to do whatevever they want with more internal support and limited international justification?

Sounds like an own goal to me.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
The deal was a large part of the Iranian problem, which Trump thankfully excised.

It's a treaty that shoves the nuclear problem ten years down the road, only then Iran could simply legally pursue nuclear weapons without any consequences and reprecussions. The deal was a turd.

The deal was Obama washing himself of the problem while declaring peace.

He basically sold the Saudis and the Israelis down the river.

I mean, at some point our policies have to part with Israel and SA, but the Iran Deal was pretty fucking cold.
 

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
Whereas the lack of a treaty.... allows Iran to do whatevever they want with more internal support and limited international justification?

Sounds like an own goal to me.
You are assuming Iran gives half a fuck about "international justification".

Besides, how does the dissolution of a treaty with the US "justifies" their fucking around with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon etc exactly?

What changed is that their funding is drying up due to sanctions, there are credible reports of proxies like Hezbollah struggling to pay members, etc. Very, very far from an own goal, the farthest it could be.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
You are assuming Iran gives half a fuck about "international justification".

Besides, how does the dissolution of a treaty with the US "justifies" their fucking around with Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon etc exactly?

What changed is that their funding is drying up due to sanctions, there are credible reports of proxies like Hezbollah struggling to pay members, etc. Very, very far from an own goal, the farthest it could be.

Obama and his administration had a very clear plan in dealing with all this.

Step 1) Fuck Israel.
Step 2) Bury the hatchet with Iran.
Step 3) Leave Saudi Arabia out to dry.
Step 4) FUCK ISRAEL
Step 5) Let Turkey handle it.
Step 6) NO SERIOUSLY, FUCK ISRAEL
 

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
Obama and his administration had a very clear plan in dealing with all this.

Step 1) Fuck Israel.
Step 2) Bury the hatchet with Iran.
Step 3) Leave Saudi Arabia out to dry.
Step 4) FUCK ISRAEL
Step 5) Let Turkey handle it.
Step 6) NO SERIOUSLY, FUCK ISRAEL
Yes. While Obama paid lip service to the idea that Israel is America's ally by increasing military aid, he and his administration did come off as ridiculously one sided, especially vis a vis the Palestine situation (granted, Trump is one-sided in the opposite direction, but that's irrelevant to the current discussion).

There's that "little" issue with Obama knowingly allowing Hezbollah drug trade within US borders because he was afraid to give the Iranians an excuse to not sign the shitty treaty.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Frankly we wouldn't have an Iran problem if Trump had stuck to the deal. Or said problem would be more clearly Iran's fault at any rate.
Iran has a "hardliner" in the position as "supreme leader", so i would take any hopes of "moderates" rising with a grain of salt, they won't get any more influence than he and his Revolutionary Guard allow them to have.

Also know a good explanation of probably the biggest issue in the treaty, and no one has posted it yet, so i will.
Namely, the way it's set up, it gives Iran a favor that is not openly written into it, and it's quite big.
Long story short, the treaty says that Iran stops enriching uranium, and in return USA stops sanctioning Iran. But stop right here and consider it deeply. It doesn't mean that USA stops sanctioning Iran for enriching uranium (nevermind very limited means of finding out if Iran's does keep secret side nuclear program and getting evidence of it, but that's another issue entirely). The way it's constructed, is that USA, to stay within the treaty, now cannot sanction Iran for anything. If USA sanctions Iran for any reason, related to nuclear materials or not at all, now Iran can claim that USA is breaching the treaty where it promised to not sanction Iran.
And that is, coincidentally, pretty close to what actually happened. Iran is leading a proxy war against US allies in Yemen, and also supporting Hezbollah, helping spread its influence into Syria, something another US ally is not ok with, not to mention those Iranian rockets received by Hamas.
In November 2018, the US government re-imposed sanctions on Iran. “Today’s sanctions, in conjunction with economic, diplomatic, and other strategic initiatives, are part of the U.S. government’s long-term maximum pressure campaign to counter the Iranian regime’s influence and destabilizing regional activities, to deny it the funds it uses to bankroll terrorist and militant proxies, and to secure the removal of all Iranian forces from Syria,” noted the related press release.
Note the total lack of mention of anything nuclear related in that statement.
Also note that these are things that Iran was doing both before the treaty was established, and then before it was broken. It's almost as if they are part of Iran's regional strategy, and the treaty or lack of it did not affect it at all...

Overall, Iran with its ambitions of building regional hegemony, and the IRGC's unconventional warfare shenanigans, really could use a license to not get sanctioned for anything by USA, no matter what it does to other countries in the region, including US allies, we know it would make a lot of use of that license. Getting that in exchange for promise to not do something that they already shouldn't be doing according to The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons , is an unreasonably sweet deal, and that's way too sweet of a deal for the other side to accept.
 

Comrade Clod

Gay Space Communist
Iran has a "hardliner" in the position as "supreme leader", so i would take any hopes of "moderates" rising with a grain of salt, they won't get any more influence than he and his Revolutionary Guard allow them to have.

Also know a good explanation of probably the biggest issue in the treaty, and no one has posted it yet, so i will.
Namely, the way it's set up, it gives Iran a favor that is not openly written into it, and it's quite big.
Long story short, the treaty says that Iran stops enriching uranium, and in return USA stops sanctioning Iran. But stop right here and consider it deeply. It doesn't mean that USA stops sanctioning Iran for enriching uranium (nevermind very limited means of finding out if Iran's does keep secret side nuclear program and getting evidence of it, but that's another issue entirely). The way it's constructed, is that USA, to stay within the treaty, now cannot sanction Iran for anything. If USA sanctions Iran for any reason, related to nuclear materials or not at all, now Iran can claim that USA is breaching the treaty where it promised to not sanction Iran.
And that is, coincidentally, pretty close to what actually happened. Iran is leading a proxy war against US allies in Yemen, and also supporting Hezbollah, helping spread its influence into Syria, something another US ally is not ok with, not to mention those Iranian rockets received by Hamas.

Note the total lack of mention of anything nuclear related in that statement.
Also note that these are things that Iran was doing both before the treaty was established, and then before it was broken. It's almost as if they are part of Iran's regional strategy, and the treaty or lack of it did not affect it at all...

Overall, Iran with its ambitions of building regional hegemony, and the IRGC's unconventional warfare shenanigans, really could use a license to not get sanctioned for anything by USA, no matter what it does to other countries in the region, including US allies, we know it would make a lot of use of that license. Getting that in exchange for promise to not do something that they already shouldn't be doing according to The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons , is an unreasonably sweet deal, and that's way too sweet of a deal for the other side to accept.

See opposing Iran nuclearly is understandable.

Why exactly is it wrong for Iran to be doing what US allies like Saudi Arabia and Turkey are doing?
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
See opposing Iran nuclearly is understandable.

Why exactly is it wrong for Iran to be doing what US allies like Saudi Arabia and Turkey are doing?
Where are Turkey and Saudis start waging proxy wars on Iran itself?
Where did i say that it's "wrong" and that's designation a major argument in it"? It's an international power/influence struggle, so whether USA can call Iran doing it "wrong" or not, the fact is that it's reasonable for it to actively side with own and allies' interests in this struggle and take action against the other side. Like sanctioning the other side...
And sanctions are one of the favorite tools of USA and many others to use in such spats, some say they are getting too reliant on that tool despite it's downsides and limitations (see: Russia/Ukraine situation).
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
So when will China be in a position to get involved? They can't be excited about the possibility of the US and its allies taking over the gulf.
China's power projection ability is very limited at best, and the only thing the gulf has that it's interested in is oil to be bought, it doesn't have a proverbial dog in the fight for who is to be the Gulf's local powermonger.
 

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder

If true then a significant attack by Iran on Israel has been thwarted.

Israel seems to take this seriously because Iron Dome batteries have been deployed in the north, I don't think that happens after a "regular" strike in Syria.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
The deal was Obama washing himself of the problem while declaring peace.

He basically sold the Saudis and the Israelis down the river.

I mean, at some point our policies have to part with Israel and SA, but the Iran Deal was pretty fucking cold.
It always amazes me that Obama managed to have the worst foreign policy of any president I've been alive for, and yet his supporters thought he was some sort of diplomatic genius.
 
D

Deleted member 1

Guest
China's power projection ability is very limited at best, and the only thing the gulf has that it's interested in is oil to be bought, it doesn't have a proverbial dog in the fight for who is to be the Gulf's local powermonger.


They are very aggressively building bases in the Indian Ocean, however. Once they have three carriers they will indubitably be able to effectively project power to the Gulf of Oman and Iranian shores.
 

Comrade Clod

Gay Space Communist
It always amazes me that Obama managed to have the worst foreign policy of any president I've been alive for, and yet his supporters thought he was some sort of diplomatic genius.

Depends on the POV, from a non-american his foreign policy wasn't spectacular but it had no glaring faults and kept the US from directly getting into spats with the other powers like Russia and China. Compared to say the current occupant.... yeah it was okay.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
Depends on the POV, from a non-american his foreign policy wasn't spectacular but it had no glaring faults and kept the US from directly getting into spats with the other powers like Russia and China. Compared to say the current occupant.... yeah it was okay.
Bullhonkey; he did nothing but get into spats with other powers, particularly Russia. Everything Trump is dealing with now can be traced to Obama kicking the can down the road, and making things worse in the process. Honestly, I'd argue that Trump's foreign policy, in direct contrast to Obama's, is the best we've had in my lifetime.
 

Comrade Clod

Gay Space Communist
Bullhonkey; he did nothing but get into spats with other powers, particularly Russia and China. Everything Trump is dealing with now can be traced to Obama kicking the can down the road, and making things worse in the process. Honestly, I'd argue that Trump's foreign policy, in direct contrast to Obama's, is the best we've had in my lifetime.

*looks at trade wars, concentration camps, tensions with neighbours, tensions with eu, the greenland fiasco, that time he managed to get the entire UN laughing at him*

You do you man.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
They are very aggressively building bases in the Indian Ocean, however. Once they have three carriers they will indubitably be able to effectively project power to the Gulf of Oman and Iranian shores.
It's a big question mark of when those carriers will be operational, including the matter of China's carrier capable aircraft...
Then there is the question of priorities - China has closer regions in which it is clearly interested and this kind of power projection would be handy, it's as good reason as any to not tie down these carriers to the Middle East by taking solid commitments there if they don't need to.
 
D

Deleted member 1

Guest
It's a big question mark of when those carriers will be operational, including the matter of China's carrier capable aircraft...
Then there is the question of priorities - China has closer regions in which it is clearly interested and this kind of power projection would be handy, it's as good reason as any to not tie down these carriers to the Middle East by taking solid commitments there if they don't need to.

The classic function of the carrier are so-called "Distantial Operations", as they were termed for battlecruisers by the Naval War College before 1914 in the United States when they crafted the argument for their construction for the USN (what became the abortive Lexington class which were oh-so-successful as carriers after conversion). The Chinese are very explicitly building their's for Distantial Operations, the PLAN already has the local seas, including the ability to invade Taiwan, down, or are building to it, without carrier air.
 

Terthna

Professional Lurker
*looks at trade wars, concentration camps, tensions with neighbours, tensions with eu, the greenland fiasco, that time he managed to get the entire UN laughing at him*

You do you man.
You mean the trade war caused by the fact that China has been screwing us from day one, ever since they joined the WTO, and broken every single promise they've ever made? The "concentration camps" (which itself is a horrifically misapplied label) that Obama created? The "tensions" that are mostly caused by said neighbors and the EU? The "greenland fiasco" that is blown way out of proportion (seriously, it wouldn't be the first time we've bought land, and all he did was ask)? The disgusting affront to human decency that is the UN, the organization that ran a child sex-trafficking ring for years, yet keeps insisting that it's drawings of kids we need to worry about, having the gall to pretend that they've got any sort of high ground to point from?

"You do you"? Yeah; I think I will.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top