61–70 of 309 posts
My God, why didn't Roosevelt and Churchill think of giving billions in relief to the Third Reich. That would have solved everything. Chamberlain was a forgotten hero! Giving Mullahs access to create nuclear weapons. Taking their word for it that they won't. Yeah, this will end well. Just yesterday their Iranian proxies in Baghdad were burning American and Israeli flags. Vowing to destroy The Great Satan(s), why do we…
My God, why didn't Roosevelt and Churchill think of giving billions in relief to the Third Reich. That would have solved everything. Chamberlain was a forgotten hero! Giving Mullahs access to create nuclear weapons. Taking their word for it that they won't. Yeah, this will end well. Just yesterday their Iranian proxies in Baghdad were burning American and Israeli flags. Vowing to destroy The Great Satan(s), why do we…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you punish an entire group of people by weakening their economy until their government does what an external entity wants them to do?. Seems quite a violent approach.
That's only justified because trying to get a nuclear weapon has an impact on everyone's peace. Especially for a country that's been at war with its neighbours for the last 50 years at least, in a chaotic region filled with international terrorists groups and active war zones right at the moment.
It seems to fit all of your criteria.
I think the future of the Middle East is a tense balance between Saudi and Iranian poles, with both countries being normalized in the international community. The USA can't bring either country to heel, but it can hopefully prevent the stalemate from being nuclear along Sunni-Shia lines. But what's also changed is that the US needs a normalized partner in Iran to fully isolate ISIS, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and other fa…
Iran is a country much more aligned with the US in many more ways than Saudi Arabia is. It's really a "natural ally" for the US in the middle east.
Ps :reading some answers, i know about the history of conflicts between usa and iran. I was just pointing the fact that calling Iran a "natural ally" is a bit of a stretch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The Iranians can't be trusted. National stereotypes, pillars of pragmatic diplomacy ever since 2000 BC and the clear mark of logical thinkers the world over. > If Obama cares about Iran, he would have supported their Green Revolution How do you know he didn't? Because he didn't send in bombers to "support demonstrations"? > Yet, strangely, Obama supported the Egyptian coup ... when the alternative would have been m…
US reliance on Turkey is just a strategic position against Russia. You're a fool for thinking any deal with Iran will bring something like that to the Table. Your blind faith is incredibly disturbing.
It's a strategic position against everyone. Look at the map and tell me what other NATO bases you can use to dominate Middle-Eastern airspace if you lose Turkey (after having basically lost Saudi Arabia without gaining really-secure positions in Iraq and Afghanistan). Until we invent bombers with unlimited mileage, Turkey is a required ally in the region.
> You're a fool [...] Your blind faith is incredibly disturbing.
That's ironic, considering faith is the one thing I've always sorely lacked. But thanks for the name-calling.
Iran agreed to provide "Managed access". Iraq inspections all over again.
Hans Blix, Jan 2003: "...access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect... cooperated rather well".
Iran just watched a neighbour get invaded and seriously screwed over for basically no reason. Access for inspections is irrelevant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a back-and-forth on that opinion piece, here [1] and here [2]. [1] http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/blog/iran-op-eds-fatal-f... [2] http://iranmatters.belfercenter.org/blog/misleading-spin-cen...
On the key point of low enriched Uranium, here's the text from the agreement: > During the 15 year period, and as Iran gradually moves to meet international qualification standards for nuclear fuel produced in Iran, it will keep its uranium stockpile under 300 kg of up to 3.67% enriched uranium hexafluoride (UF6) or the equivalent in other chemical forms. The excess quantities are to be sold based on international pr…
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/pdf/LEU_20_percent_upd...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't quite understand your question. You are asking what Iran wanted from the EU and US and what they wanted from Iran? EU&US: Don't develop nuclear weapons. Iran: Stop the sanctions, let us sell our oil. Is that what you were asking for?
I don't understand why there were negociation at all. Usually, with such crucial matters, threatening the world peace, there is no discussion. The strongest simply impose its decision. Eu&us: stop or you'll get destroyed ( militarely or economically). Iran : ok. I don't see how it went any other way. The only reason i could imagine was if other big countries ( russia and china mainly) were saying " we disagree". But…
It is also partly wrong to think that sanctions brought Iran to the negotiating table, Iran has always been negotiating. In fact, most of the development of enrichment was done during UN sanction. Sure, people and economy suffered but again the objective was not the collective punishment it was to reduce Iran program which did not work. What caused Iran to accept to limit its program was the fact that the US accepted peaceful program and research nuclear capabilities which is a matter of pride and recognition.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"
However, I totally agree with you if your approach is to create another North Korea.
Sceptical Iranian here. There are groups that profit from an ongoing tension and conflict on both sides. This time around it seems they have lost the hand, but we would be a fool to think that this agreement settles things for good. This has always been and will always be a fluid situation. I think the work has just begun now, let's hope the sane people inc charge on both sides will keep things positive. Otherwise it…
I worked in Afghanistan at a telecom provider last summer. A lot of my coworkers were young 20-somethings whose parents had fled Afghanistan when the Taliban came to power from 1996-2001. The majority of them had been raised in Iran; the minority, in Pakistan.
The ones who had been raised in Iran were happy for the most part to have been able to return to Afghanistan. They told me stories of a paradoxical society that was quite forward-thinking while at the same time, extremely authoritarian and oppressive, especially with regards to youth education and expression. I kind of started to equate Iran with Singapore in my mind.
Could you shed any light on this perspective?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right now, there's a lot of bubbling neutral-to-pro-US sentiment in the younger, wealthier segments of Iran. If we purposefully, wantonly destroy their economy without even negotiating, that disappears, and we turn potential allies into absolute enemies. The level of currency devastation they've had since the beginning of these sanctions, and resulting unemployment, have already pushed their finances to the brink. No…
"We may not like their government but at least they're rational" Well, a theocracy is almost by definition not rational, in the modern sense. It's based on divine laws, obedience, and absolute faith on an ideology. Not logic, provability, and the scientific method. Dealing with the iranian regime the same way you would deal with an occidental country is the greatest mistake i think. Thinking "sure, they apply shariah…
That's just a casual, amateur take, though. I'm sure there's folks here who have a more detailed opinion.