Trump warns 'emboldened' Iran to comply with nuclear deal

[Babak]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trump-warns-emboldened-iran-comply-nuclear-deal-005724220.html

By Steve Holland

YOUNGSTOWN, Ohio (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump issued a veiled threat against Iran on Tuesday, warning Tehran to adhere to the terms of a nuclear deal with world powers or else face "big, big problems."

A week after certifying Iran as complying with the 2015 agreement negotiated by Democratic President Barack Obama, Trump made clear to thousands of raucous supporters that he remains extremely wary of Tehran.

Trump administration officials, briefing reporters last week, said new economic sanctions against Iran were being prepared over its ballistic missile program and for contributing to regional tensions.

Trump devoted part of his speech in Youngstown, Ohio, to Iran.

"If that deal doesn’t conform to what it’s supposed to conform to, it's going to be big, big problems for them. That I can tell you. Believe me," Trump said.

"You would have thought they would have said 'thank you United States. We really love you very much.' Instead, they've become emboldened. That won’t take place much longer," he said.

Fresh from a rare legislative victory in Washington when the Senate voted to start a debate on repealing Obamacare, Trump called on Democrats to end their opposition to his efforts but doubted they would.

"It's time for Democrats to stop resisting. That's their term, resist, resist. They have to do finally what's right for the American people, but probably we'll do it ourselves," he said.

Trump used his speech to revisit some of the themes that helped him to his improbable victory in the presidential election in November.

He railed against "radical Islamic terrorists" and vowed he wanted to keep them from entering the United States after the "total devastation" he said they had caused in Europe.

"We only want to admit those into our country who share our values," Trump said.

Trump came to Ohio amid a simmering feud with his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, and facing a prolonged investigation into Russian meddling in the presidential election.

He cast himself as an anti-establishment figure fighting entrenched special interests in Washington, a point that his wife, Melania Trump, stressed when she introduced him on stage.

"Washington has fought him every step of the way, but I know my husband and he will never give up," she said.

Throughout the crowd were reminders of the campaign from chants of "drain the swamp" to "CNN sucks." Several protesters were ejected, including a youth waving a Soviet-style flag.

"Boy, he's a young one," Trump said. "He's going back home to mommy. And I bet mommy voted for us."

Trump rejected criticism that he has a style as president that is not politically correct. He routinely draws criticism for his tweets.

"I'd say with the exception of the late great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s held this office," he said. "But we have to move a little faster than that. We will never be beholden to the lobbyists or the special interests."

[N1019]

See how most of the stuff we've been discussing seems to fit together?

Trump is warning Iran to comply with the JCPOA. Meanwhile, he has already assigned a team to lay out the intellectual framework for declaring that Iran has breached the JCPOA. Furthermore, H.J. Res 10 is lying dormant, waiting to be activated when it's time to strike.

[Kamal900]

I see he's going in the same path as Bush. Ironically, AIPAC wants a war against Iran for Israel, and the orange hypocrite complies to their demands. So much for "America first", huh?

[Babak]

Pretty sad guys. This makes me pretty upset. I thank my ancestors of keeping the culture and language intact despite many harsh invasions in the past. Honestly, I think this is the end for Iran.

Fuck these smelly retarded illiterate mullahs.

http://payvand.com/news/09/aug/Iran-Freedom-logo1.jpg

[N1019]

I see he's going in the same path as Bush.

Well, yeah, basically, when a Republican president says stuff like this:

"If that deal doesn’t conform to what it’s supposed to conform to, it's going to be big, big problems for them. That I can tell you. Believe me," Trump said.

"You would have thought they would have said 'thank you United States. We really love you very much.' Instead, they've become emboldened. That won’t take place much longer," he said.

It pretty much means war is coming.


Ironically, AIPAC wants a war against Iran for Israel, and the orange hypocrite complies to their demands. So much for "America first", huh?

They're going down, Israel or no Israel. The British were changing regimes and invading Iran before Israel even existed.

[N1019]

Pretty sad guys. This makes me pretty upset. I thank my ancestors of keeping the culture and language intact despite many harsh invasions in the past. Honestly, I think this is the end for Iran.

Fuck these smelly retarded illiterate mullahs.



It is very sad. The lesson here is, I think, that despite assertions that the world is different now, it really isn't. The most powerful countries still do what they always did, it's just masked in a lot of bullshit. Anyone who stands up to the US is putting himself in great danger, and that is what Iran has done on many occasions over the years. People around the world cheer them on while they are doing it, but they are not the ones facing the wrath of the F-22, B-2 stealth bomber, cruise missiles, and tactical nukes.

I don't want to think about how nasty it could get, but we have seen what happened to neighbouring countries in recent times.

If you want to visit Iran, do it soon. I ought to go myself.

[Kamal900]

Well, yeah, basically, when a Republican president says stuff like this:

"If that deal doesn’t conform to what it’s supposed to conform to, it's going to be big, big problems for them. That I can tell you. Believe me," Trump said.

"You would have thought they would have said 'thank you United States. We really love you very much.' Instead, they've become emboldened. That won’t take place much longer," he said.

It pretty much means war is coming.



They're going down, Israel or no Israel. The British were changing regimes and invading Iran before Israel even existed.

But Americans are not doing this in their own accord, that's the issue. The founding fathers NEVER wanted the country to go to wars and conflicts on behalf of any country. Jewish influence in the UK and America is very high to say the least, and Trump is nothing but a pawn of their game. America has a great economic debt that no one is able to pay, and yet, orange boy want to go to war against Iran for Israel? Where is the prospect of "making america great again" by invading other countries that has no absolute benefit to anybody except for Israel? RIP to Jim Traficent, one of the most patriotic Americans in the modern world:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQOwlpQHx9w

[N1019]

But Americans are not doing this in their own accord, that's the issue. The founding fathers NEVER wanted the country to go to wars and conflicts on behalf of any country. Jewish influence in the UK and America is very high to say the least, and Trump is nothing but a pawn of their game. America has a great economic debt that no one is able to pay, and yet, orange boy want to go to war against Iran for Israel? Where is the prospect of "making america great again" by invading other countries that has no absolute benefit to anybody except for Israel?


I'm afraid the US has moved on from the anti-imperialist, isolationist days of the founding fathers. It has long been an imperial power, in fact it has been an imperial power since the 19th century, which changes everything. People are still taught the national creation myth as if those fundamental ideas still apply in their entirety, when they don't. In any case, the creation myth was a myth - it was only ever partially true. The US freed itself from the British Empire, then started its own.

There is a benefit to the US taking out an anti-American regime in Iran, that's the thing. Even without Israel, there would still be a benefit to the US. They want total control of and unfettered access to the energy resources of the region, because the entire world depends on those resources, so whoever controls them has a lot of influence on the rest of the world. Protecting the security of that kind of global political clout is worth spending billions of dollars on and the loss of thousands of lives. Israel is only one part of the equation.

[Babak]

It is very sad. The lesson here is, I think, that despite assertions that the world is different now, it really isn't. The most powerful countries still do what they always did, it's just masked in a lot of bullshit. Anyone who stands up to the US is putting himself in great danger, and that is what Iran has done on many occasions over the years. People around the world cheer them on while they are doing it, but they are not the ones facing the wrath of the F-22, B-2 stealth bomber, cruise missiles, and tactical nukes.

I don't want to think about how nasty it could get, but we have seen what happened to neighbouring countries in recent times.

If you want to visit Iran, do it soon. I ought to go myself.

Lets go together. Sad world we live in man

[Loki]

The sanctions against Iran is for it "contributing to regional tensions". I wonder what that is... perhaps beating ISIS? You can't make this stuff up. Countries like Iran and Russia can never do right in the eyes of America, because they've been judged even before they started doing anything.

[Babak]

The sanctions against Iran is for it "contributing to regional tensions". I wonder what that is... perhaps beating ISIS? You can't make this stuff up. Countries like Iran and Russia can never do right in the eyes of America, because they've been judged even before they started doing anything.

Interesting video btw. He explains it pretty accurately. He pretty much says that the U.S is somehow "losing", but i believe it has to do with the sanctions in place. Iran is doing something right that America doesn't like.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8LamODok5UU

[Loki]

It pretty much means war is coming.


I'm not so sure about that. Despite talk, there isn't really appetite for another Middle Eastern war in America I think. Unless Trump wants to use it to deflect from other issues, like his personal problems with Congress.

[N1019]

I'm not so sure about that. Despite talk, there isn't really appetite for another Middle Eastern war in America I think. Unless Trump wants to use it to deflect from other issues, like his personal problems with Congress.

We've already gone over how public opinion is either manipulated or of little relevance. The American public initially weren't interested in WWI or II either, and if not for 9/11 may not have been interested in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it still happened.

As I have said before, if shit starts blowing up and Iran is blamed, there will be the usual anti-war activities but American patriots will want blood. In any case, false flags and a war with large numbers of American boots on the ground are not the only options, as we saw in Libya, Syria and Yemen - at least three whole countries were destroyed and the public's consent was neither sought nor necessary. In light of that, I think concerns relating to public opinion can be largely discounted.

Have you read H.J. Res 10? It was introduced by a Democrat in early January, before Trump even took office.

[Loki]

Unlike George W Bush, Trump is not trigger-happy, despite appearances. However he may not have much of a choice, the "deep state" already owns his ass.




Have you read H.J. Res 10? It was introduced by a Democrat in early January, before Trump even took office.

No, what is it?

[N1019]

Unlike George W Bush, Trump is not trigger-happy, despite appearances. However he may not have much of a choice, the "deep state" already owns his ass.

Well, yeah... since when has the President really been in charge?

It wouldn't have mattered who won the last election. The plan is in action.




No, what is it?

From H.J. Res 10:
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as the President determines necessary and appropriate in order to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

It's an important piece of the puzzle but most people haven't even heard of it. It's just sitting there, ready to be activated when the time is right.

It fits in with Trump's apparent creation of a new team to make the case that Iran is in breach of the nuclear deal. Once Iran has been found guilty of breaching the JCPOA it can then be argued that Iran is, despite being made a supposedly great offer, still pursuing nuclear weapons and deserves to be punished. Enter H.J. Res 10. This is exactly the formula set out in the Brookings Institution's 2009 paper Which Path to Persia?

[Drawing-slim]

See how most of the stuff we've been discussing seems to fit together?

Trump is warning Iran to comply with the JCPOA. Meanwhile, he has already assigned a team to lay out the intellectual framework for declaring that Iran has breached the JCPOA. Furthermore, H.J. Res 10 is lying dormant, waiting to be activated when it's time to strike.More specifically you have described how it will go exactly right so far but i still remain that war with iran will not and cannot happened.
On the other hand if US is being out to test around the world is a good play for america to go to war and it is a fact US is being out to test a lot. South china sea, russia, syria, iran will play it smart i think and comply with US.

[N1019]

More specifically you have described how it will go exactly right so far but i still remain that war with iran will not and cannot happened.
On the other hand if US is being out to test around the world is a good play for america to go to war and it is a fact US is being out to test a lot. South china sea, russia, syria, iran will play it smart i think and comply with US.

The problem with Iran's trying to play it smart and comply is that the US doesn't care what Iran is really doing, unless it serves their cause.

As I wrote in my last post, Trump has reportedly created a new team to make the case that Iran is breaching the nuclear deal. We have seen the US "make the case" before, with other leaders who were removed (you know whom) and whose countries were destroyed. The truth may not be of any relevance whatsoever.

I'm not claiming to have definitive proof of anything, but the evidence and arguments I have presented should be cause for some alarm at the very least.

[RN97]

I see he's going in the same path as Bush. Ironically, AIPAC wants a war against Iran for Israel, and the orange hypocrite complies to their demands. So much for "America first", huh?

Relax friendo. He doesn't want a war, but we can't let Iran get a hold of nuclear weapons that just goes against logic. After all they are the enemy of the west so as long as they stay in their lane, it should be fine. I don't think he's agitating for war, he's just beating his chest like "I'm the man here, don't forget that or I'll put you in your place". This thing is common, we should be afraid once he starts talking about how Iran is getting worse and how they're advancing their weapon development and soon they'll have no choice. That's what Bush did with Iraq and that's what agitating for war looks like. Right now he's just trying to intimidate them to appease neo-cons and make it known who's the boss. That's how I interpret it.

[Babak]

Even though Iran still complied, sanctions are still being used-probably to increase pressure and for iran to give up the deal.

[Wanderer]

Well, yeah, basically, when a Republican president says stuff like this:

"If that deal doesn’t conform to what it’s supposed to conform to, it's going to be big, big problems for them. That I can tell you. Believe me," Trump said.

"You would have thought they would have said 'thank you United States. We really love you very much.' Instead, they've become emboldened. That won’t take place much longer," he said.

It pretty much means war is coming.



They're going down, Israel or no Israel. The British were changing regimes and invading Iran before Israel even existed.

It means no such thing. Trump is incredibly unpredictable - more so than many people give him credit for. Appealing to what "a Republican president" would say just doesn't work with Trump. By what I've gathered, the Syrian strike back in April, for example, occurred on Trump's whims, after he saw certain television footage. I doubt he has a coherent worldview. He merely has impulses.

[Babak]

It means no such thing. Trump is incredibly unpredictable - more so than many people give him credit for. Appealing to what "a Republican president" would say just doesn't work with Trump. By what I've gathered, the Syrian strike back in April, for example, occurred on Trump's whims, after he saw certain television footage. I doubt he has a coherent worldview. He merely has impulses.

Yea but he knows he has to be careful.

[N1019]

It means no such thing. Trump is incredibly unpredictable - more so than many people give him credit for. Appealing to what "a Republican president" would say just doesn't work with Trump. By what I've gathered, the Syrian strike back in April, for example, occurred on Trump's whims, after he saw certain television footage. I doubt he has a coherent worldview. He merely has impulses.

Even if Trump is unpredictable and acts on impulse, that doesn't mean he wasn't serious. However, you can dismiss Trump's words if you like, because yes, he does make many off-the-cuff remarks. My position on Iran doesn't rely on Trump's words anyway. They are a very insignificant piece of the overall picture.

I'd like your help. Two questions:

1. If Trump's words meant no such thing, what do you think they really meant? Were they just vacuous fluff?

2. Leave Trump's words aside and look at everything else. Where does it leave us?

[N1019]

Yea but he knows he has to be careful.

The thing is, Trump's words alone can be ignored and it wouldn't change a thing.

But look at Trump's words in conjunction with everything else that has been happening, and they do fit.

[Babak]

The thing is, it just fits with everything else that is happening.

Trump's words alone can be ignored. It doesn't change a thing.

Yea i just thought about it. It doesnt what he says

[N1019]

More on the subject of the original linked article:


President Trump suggested the U.S. could have reason to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal, he said in an interview published Tuesday and Wednesday.

“I think they’ll be noncompliant,” Mr. Trump told the Wall Street Journal, in reference to Iran’s observance of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, which comes up for recertification in three months.

“I think they’re taking advantage of this country,” the president said.

Trump thinks Iran will be non-compliant with the JCPOA in October.

Sure, it could be just more off-the-cuff bullshit from the President, but it also fits with the Foreign Policy report and H.J. Res 10.

[Babak]

More on the subject of the original linked article:



Trump thinks Iran will be non-compliant with the JCPOA in October.

Sure, it could be just more off-the-cuff bullshit from the President, but it also fits with the Foreign Policy report and H.J. Res 10.

Im curious to see what happens tbh

[N1019]

Im curious to see what happens tbh

The last week was a very active one for Iran-US relations in the media.

Here are a few more articles:

Think tank AEI may be sending a hidden message here, e.g. that a false flag event might be necessary to ensure the anti-Trump elements of the American intelligence community (and foreign allies) are on board with the US to start war with Iran
https://www.aei.org/publication/trump-iran-and-us-intelligence-payback-time/


It's starting to look like Iraq all over again
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/trump-iran-deal-iraq-war-run-up-2017-7?r=US&IR=T


Trita Parsi having a cry, but there is merit in what he says about the path to war
https://www.niacouncil.org/mask-off-trump-seeking-war-iran/


Trump:

“If it was up to me, I would have had them noncompliant 180 days ago,” Trump told The Wall Street Journal Tuesday, adding: “I would be surprised if they were in compliance” in 90 days.


Senator Bob Corker is even more hawkish than Trump, and his words seem to reveal the general strategy for nuking the JCPOA, shamelessly:

“you can only tear the agreement up one time. So when you’re going to tear it up since nothing bad is happening today.” He continued, “We gave up all of our leverage already. So wait until you have your allies aligned with you. Radically enforce it. If you radically enforce it, they’re liable and right now, I know that we’re asking — I know we’re asking to get into various facilities in Iran. If they don’t let us in, boom.”
http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/27/top-senator-this-is-how-trump-should-tear-up-the-iran-deal/

[zhaoyun]

I think Trump will ratchet up tensions and perhaps make things hard for Iran in the region, either through proxies or more sanctions. But there won't be a war.

[N1019]

I think Trump will ratchet up tensions and perhaps make things hard for Iran in the region, either through proxies or more sanctions. But there won't be a war.

It's wishful thinking to expect Iran to be spared when the others weren't and it's the last one left, but I hope you're right.

[zhaoyun]

It's wishful thinking to expect Iran to be spared when the others weren't and it's the last one left, but I hope you're right.

Iran isn't Iraq. It would be a significant commitment on the part of the US. It will be a prolonged war and no doubt a sinking morass for the American military.

Undoubtedly, it would also be the end of America's reign as a superpower. If a weakened and disunited Iraq was a drain, Iran would be 6X more so considering it is far larger, far more populated, far more powerful, far more united and far more mountainous.

[N1019]

Iran isn't Iraq. It would be a significant commitment on the part of the US. It will be a prolonged war and no doubt a sinking morass for the American military.

Undoubtedly, it would also be the end of America's reign as a superpower. If a weakened and disunited Iraq was a drain, Iran would be 6X more so considering it is far larger, far more populated, far more powerful, far more united and far more mountainous.

That's actually mullah propaganda. They are always saying Iran is way bigger and tougher than Iraq and Libya. And there is truth in it. Iran is bigger, and tougher. But too big for America to destroy without imploding on itself? I don't think so. I think it's easy to underestimate what is meant by "most powerful nation/military force in world history", the true gravity of their military, political and economic power and just how far ahead of second place they are.

Every major Iranian city could be on fire before the Iranians even knew what hit them. This is the reality. If the US really goes for it, Iran is done for, and the US will still be standing afterwards. I laugh when the Iranians boast about their small purchase of Russian S-300 surface to air missile systems that can only protect a small part of the country, and in any case would probably be useless against the B-2 and F-22, F-35 etc. along with the rest of their arsenal. Then we hear stories of F-22s creeping up on IRIAF F-4 Phantoms without the Iranian pilots even noticing. In terms of air superiority there's just no comparison; in military technology they are at least two whole generations behind generally speaking. So, if they wanted to bomb Iran to the stone age, I have no doubt it could be done, and it could be done in conjunction with the support of rebels as in Syria as opposed to an Iraq-style war.

This is the thing - we need to remember that there are many options when it comes to regime change in Iran. No-one said it had to be an Iraq-style invasion and occupation, nor involve Iraq-style death and destruction.

[zhaoyun]

That's actually mullah propaganda. They are always saying Iran is way bigger and tougher than Iraq and Libya. And there is truth in it. Iran is bigger, and tougher. But too big for America to destroy without imploding on itself? I don't think so. I think it's easy to underestimate what is meant by "most powerful nation/military force in world history", the true gravity of their military, political and economic power and just how far ahead of second place they are.

Every major Iranian city could be on fire before the Iranians even knew what hit them. This is the reality. If the US really goes for it, Iran is done for, and the US will still be standing afterwards. I laugh when the Iranians boast about their small purchase of Russian S-300 surface to air missile systems that can only protect a small part of the country, and in any case would probably be useless against the B-2 and F-22, F-35 etc. along with the rest of their arsenal. Then we hear stories of F-22s creeping up on IRIAF F-4 Phantoms without the Iranian pilots even noticing. In terms of air superiority there's just no comparison. In terms of military technology they are at least two whole generations behind generally speaking. So, if they wanted to bomb Iran to the stone age, I have no doubt it could be done, and it could be done in conjunction with the support of rebels as in Syria as opposed to an Iraq-style war.

This is the thing - we need to remember that there are many options when it comes to regime change in Iran. No-one said it had to be an Iraq-style invasion and occupation, nor involve Iraq-style death and destruction.

Give me a fucking break. The US invading Iran won't make the US implode, but it will bog the US down, waste our resources needlessly while other countries like China will invest more on their economic competitiveness and by the time we pull out of Iran, which will be a complete disaster undoubtedly, we will be losing the economic war on many fronts because of our distraction and inability to invest in our own infrastructure.

All of these idiotic wars have drained the US. You're a warhawk for whatever reason, I don't know, personally I think you are personally vested in Middle Eastern politics in some way, probably an ethnic from the region, but these interventions have proved disastrous for the US time and time again and Iran will be a far greater disaster than anything we've been involved in since Vietnam.

[N1019]

Give me a fucking break. The US invading Iran won't make the US implode, but it will bog the US down, waste our resources needlessly while other countries like China will invest more on their economic competitiveness and by the time we pull out of Iran, which will be a complete disaster undoubtedly, we will be losing the economic war on many fronts because of our distraction and inability to invest in our own infrastructure.

All of these idiotic wars have drained the US. You're a warhawk for whatever reason, I don't know, personally I think you are personally vested in Middle Eastern politics in some way, probably an ethnic from the region, but these interventions have proved disastrous for the US time and time again and Iran will be a far greater disaster than anything we've been involved in since Vietnam.

lol... now you've resorted to ad hominem. I'm disappointed in you.

IF, and it's a very big IF, the US goes all-out against Iran, which is far from guaranteed, I don't want to think about the carnage for all involved.

But like I said, no-one is saying it has to be an Iraq-style war.

[zhaoyun]

lol... now you've resorted to ad hominem. I'm disappointed in you.

IF, and it's a very big IF, the US goes all-out against Iran, which is far from guaranteed, I don't want to think about the carnage for all involved.

But like I said, no-one is saying it has to be an Iraq-style war.

No doubt the US can destroy Iran. The question is, what will happen next? Is the US just going to bomb Iran and withdraw? Or will it try to occupy Iran? If the US attempts an occupation, it will be the next Vietnam. Absolutely no doubt about it. The US will be a far weaker, poorer and more tired nation coming out of that ten years from now.

[N1019]

No doubt the US can destroy Iran. The question is, what will happen next? Is the US just going to bomb Iran and withdraw? Or will it try to occupy Iran? If the US attempts an occupation, it will be the next Vietnam. Absolutely no doubt about it. The US will be a far weaker, poorer and more tired nation coming out of that ten years from now.

Yeah... two points in relation to that:
- invasion/occupation would be hugely expensive in terms of money, material and human life, but I'm not sure that would stop it from happening
- for the third time, there are options other than an Iraq-style war, as we have already seen elsewhere in the MENA region

[zhaoyun]

Yeah... two points in relation to that:
- invasion/occupation would be hugely expensive in terms of money, material and human life, but I'm not sure that would stop it from happening
- for the third time, there are options other than an Iraq-style war, as we have already seen elsewhere in the MENA region

If you are thinking of Libya style regime change, that's not going to happen in Iran. Iran is more united and sophisticated than Libya or many of the other MENA states.

If Trump wants regime change, it will require a full scale invasion and occupation. PERIOD.

[Kamal900]

No doubt the US can destroy Iran. The question is, what will happen next? Is the US just going to bomb Iran and withdraw? Or will it try to occupy Iran? If the US attempts an occupation, it will be the next Vietnam. Absolutely no doubt about it. The US will be a far weaker, poorer and more tired nation coming out of that ten years from now.

After Iran, the Zionist west would go after Assad and Hezbollah, then Israel would have total monopoly and hegemony in the middle east. Trump is just a pawn in their game, and he accuses things on Hilary that he hypocritically is all of these things. Here's a former Jewish christian, Nathaneal Kapner, who tells the absolute truth on Trump and the whole political fiasco in the US:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWuU-KGD6AE

[N1019]

If you are thinking of Libya style regime change, that's not going to happen in Iran. Iran is more united and sophisticated than Libya or many of the other MENA states.

If Trump wants regime change, it will require a full scale invasion and occupation. PERIOD.

Don't be so sure about that. How much research have you done on that matter? All is not as the mullahs would have you believe. If you do a little reading, you may find indications that alternatives to an Iraq-like scenario are being explored.

[zhaoyun]

Don't be so sure about that. How much research have you done on that matter? All is not as the mullahs would have you believe.

I am absolutely sure of that. Maybe you're too caught up in your wishful thinking.

I actually greatly dislike Iran's theocratic regime but I think removing it would be a disaster for Iran. Gradual change through economic development would be most ideal.

[N1019]

I am absolutely sure of that. Maybe you're too caught up in your wishful thinking.



If you do a little reading, you may find indications that alternatives to an Iraq-like scenario are already being explored.

Come on. From someone with an IQ of 140 I'd expect better than this.


I actually greatly dislike Iran's theocratic regime but I think removing it would be a disaster for Iran. Gradual change through economic development would be most ideal.

I agree that destroying the current regime would be a disaster for Iran, at least as bad as the last revolution proved to be, but probably worse.

[zhaoyun]

If you do a little reading, you may find indications that alternatives to an Iraq-like scenario are already being explored.

Come on. From someone with an IQ of 140 I'd expect better than this.



I agree that destroying the current regime would be a disaster for Iran, at least as bad as the last revolution proved to be, but probably worse.

Iran's government is stable and in full command of the entire country, and society. Their opposition is weak, small and disorganized. Also, any attempts by the CIA to use the opposition to foment some kind of "Iranian" Spring will easily be seen through by the majority of Iranian society as foreign intervention and they will side with their government.

So yes, different tactics are being explored and undoubtedly many in the US government, particularly the neocons, are so full of hubris that they will believe their own delusions. But the reality is, if regime change is the ultimate goal, there really is no way other way than a full scale invasion and occupation.

[Kamal900]

Iran's government is stable and in full command of the entire country, and society. Their opposition is weak, small and disorganized. Also, any attempts by the CIA to use the opposition to foment some kind of "Iranian" Spring will easily be seen through by the majority of Iranian society as foreign intervention and they will side with their government.

So yes, different tactics are being explored and undoubtedly many in the US government, particularly the neocons, are so full of hubris that they will believe their own delusions. But the reality is, if regime change is the ultimate goal, there really is no way other way than a full scale invasion and occupation.

The US did that sort of things when they helped Pahlavi to oust the real Shah of Iran back in the 50's to install a puppet dictator in Iran, but it backfired in 1979 when the Iranians ousted Pahlavi and his family out. The US then installed Saddam in power to fight against the Iranians, but later, he went against the US by attacking Israel and being sympathetic to Palestinians and all that which the Jewish neo-cons were pushing for war against Iraq for many years which they got their war in 2003. I like to tell people to not to hate the American people, because they're not doing these things in their own accord. It's the (((chosenites))) that are in control of most of the country.

[zhaoyun]

The US did that sort of things when they helped Pahlavi to oust the real Shah of Iran back in the 50's to install a puppet dictator in Iran, but it backfired in 1979 when the Iranians ousted Pahlavi and his family out. The US then installed Saddam in power to fight against the Iranians, but later, he went against the US by attacking Israel and being sympathetic to Palestinians and all that which the Jewish neo-cons were pushing for war against Iraq for many years which they got their war in 2003. I like to tell people to not to hate the American people, because they're not doing these things in their own accord. It's the (((chosenites))) that are in control of most of the country.

Iran in 1951 is a very different country than Iran in 2017. A CIA induced regime change is not in the cards. Zilch possibility of succeeding.

[N1019]

Iran's government is stable and in full command of the entire country, and society. Their opposition is weak, small and disorganized. Also, any attempts by the CIA to use the opposition to foment some kind of "Iranian" Spring will easily be seen through by the majority of Iranian society as foreign intervention and they will side with their government.

So yes, different tactics are being explored and undoubtedly many in the US government, particularly the neocons, are so full of hubris that they will believe their own delusions. But the reality is, if regime change is the ultimate goal, there really is no way other way than a full scale invasion and occupation.

The Trump Administration's Iran policy is likely to be regime change, as Tillerson has already hinted they are pursuing it.

Even if an Iraq-style scenario is seen as the only option, and it seems it isn't by the American warmongers at the moment despite your insistence that it is, so be it. It can be done, and it will not destroy America nor cause her to lose her superpower status. Moreover, Russia and China might be involved somehow on Iran's side but they aren't going to stop it, just like they (and Iran) didn't stop the destruction of Syria. I'm not insisting that one option will be chosen over another, I'm insisting that there are several options.

Also, things can change. I don't think anyone saw the total destruction of other states at the hands of terrorist mercenaries in conjunction with Western aerial bombardment, either. Unfortunately for Iran they have already had two terrorist attacks in Tehran with possible links to ISIS, and it seems there are enough disenfranchised Kurds and others that the mullahs already have a problem on their hands. Iran is an ethno-sectarian patchwork quilt. It might not be easy to start picking it apart, but once started, things could become very messy. The Iranians are also notoriously fractious politically. There are opportunities. They might not work in isolation (without US military action), though.

[zhaoyun]

The Trump Administration's Iran policy is likely to be regime change, as Tillerson has already hinted they are pursuing it.

Even if an Iraq-style scenario is seen as the only option, and it seems it isn't by the American warmongers at the moment despite your insistence that it is, so be it. It can be done, and it will not destroy America nor cause her to lose her superpower status. Moreover, Russia and China might be involved somehow on Iran's side but they aren't going to stop it, just like they (and Iran) didn't stop the destruction of Syria. I'm not insisting that one option will be chosen over another, I'm insisting that there are several options.

Also, things can change. I don't think anyone saw the total destruction of other states at the hands of terrorist mercenaries in conjunction with Western aerial bombardment, either. Unfortunately for Iran they have already had two terrorist attacks in Tehran with possible links to ISIS, and it seems there are enough disenfranchised Kurds and others that the mullahs already have a problem on their hands. Iran is an ethno-sectarian patchwork quilt. It might not be easy to start picking it apart, but once started, things could become very messy.

It will end America's sole superpower status, which is already questionable at this point. If you disagree, you're not paying attention. I also don't understand what the end goal and what benefits there are for the US to be involved in such carnage.

[N1019]

It will end America's sole superpower status, which is already questionable at this point. If you disagree, you're not paying attention. I also don't understand what the end goal and what benefits there are for the US to be involved in such carnage.

Yeah, we'll see about that.

By the way, have you read H.J. Res 10? It's one of the options being explored by the US in nuking the JCPOA. It's a military option.

[zhaoyun]

Yeah, we'll see about that.

By the way, have you read H.J. Res 10? It's one of the options being explored by the US in nuking the JCPOA. It's a military option.

Haven't read it. But my intuition says all of this maneuvering is aimed to just stoke tensions and destroy the Iran Nuclear deal. Possibly place new sanctions to contain Iran. I doubt it will lead to a full scale invasion or regime change.

[N1019]

The US did that sort of things when they helped Pahlavi to oust the real Shah of Iran back in the 50's to install a puppet dictator in Iran, but it backfired in 1979 when the Iranians ousted Pahlavi and his family out.

This is a Marxist revisionist account of history. In truth, Mossadegh reneged on an international oil deal because it wasn't favourable to Iranian interests, but the other party to the agreement - Britain - wasn't going to have it. The US was drawn in by the British on concerns of the spread of communism and because they feared contagion - the repudiation of similar deals in other countries - and it was an opportunity for the US to board the Iranian oil gravy train. The Marxist line then runs that 1953 caused 1979 but no proof is offered.

Put simply, Mossadegh was a fool for thinking he could get away with taking on the British, who blockaded the country and had him removed. He was courageous but still a fool, and eventually many Iranians turned against him due to economic hardship and they had a fair idea what was coming next.

Last but not least, we have 1979. Again the Marxists insist this was a triumph of the Iranian people who got what they wanted, yet to me it seems it was probably another product of the MI6 and CIA after they lost control of the Shah, then he got terminal cancer and a replacement was needed. Time will tell on that one.

The biggest problem with Western Marxist/anti-imperialists and Iran is that they always cheer on the mullahs for standing up to America (usually from the safety of America), but they aren't the ones in the line of fire.

[Kamal900]

This is a Marxist revisionist account of history. In truth, Mossadegh reneged on an international oil deal because it wasn't favourable to Iranian interests, but the other party to the agreement - Britain - wasn't going to have it. The US was drawn in by the British on concerns of the spread of communism and because they feared contagion - the repudiation of similar deals in other countries - and it was an opportunity for the US to board the Iranian oil gravy train. The Marxist line then runs that 1953 caused 1979 but no proof is offered.

Put simply, Mossadegh was a fool for thinking he could get away with taking on the British, who blockaded the country and had him removed. He was courageous but still a fool, and eventually many Iranians turned against him due to economic hardship and they had a fair idea what was coming next.

Last but not least, we have 1979. Again the Marxists insist this was a triumph of the Iranian people who got what they wanted, yet to me it seems it was probably another product of the MI6 and CIA after they lost control of the Shah, then he got terminal cancer and a replacement was needed. Time will tell on that one.

The biggest problem with Western Marxist/anti-imperialists and Iran is that they always cheer on the mullahs for standing up to America (usually from the safety of America), but they aren't the ones in the line of fire.

Indeed. I'm not a fan of the current regime of Iran, but at the same time, one should realize that Americans are not doing these things in their own accord. In Australia, you don't have the absolute freedom of speech like in America which puts anyone in prison for saying something tha offends protected minority groups like this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N25_gpnsIQ

It's the Zionist Jews who are in control of most of the country by proxy, and patriotic Americans should wage a revolutionary war against the ZOG government of theirs.

[N1019]

Indeed. I'm not a fan of the current regime of Iran, but at the same time, one should realize that Americans are not doing these things in their own accord. In Australia, you don't have the absolute freedom of speech like in America which puts anyone in prison for saying something tha offends protected minority groups like this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N25_gpnsIQ

It's the Zionist Jews who are in control of most of the country by proxy, and patriotic Americans should wage a revolutionary war against the ZOG government of theirs.

lol... Brendan O'Connell is another fool. He's a loose cannon who doesn't know when to shut up or stop himself going overboard, and I think he overestimates his own intelligence. His trouble is due to his own excesses, which turn people off, even if he has a point. He does have some interesting experiences to share on Iran, and provides good insight on various issues, but if you look at some of his recent videos, they are just nuts. At least he is not falling for the spell of Putin, whom he recognizes won't be coming to anyone's rescue.

[N1019]

It will end America's sole superpower status, which is already questionable at this point. If you disagree, you're not paying attention.

I'm paying attention, and disagree. Not possible in your mind, but it happened.


I also don't understand what the end goal and what benefits there are for the US to be involved in such carnage.

Who knows? We can and do speculate about oil, the petrodollar, Israel etc. but can we be sure? I'm not going to pretend that the destruction of other countries was essential. They do it anyway, whether we understand why or not.

[StonyArabia]

This is legacy of George W.Bush who actually strengthened Iran. Let's not forget he also allowed Iranian proxies to basically take control of Iraq. Trump is just saying that, but in reality Iran is just controlled opposition. Because it was the Anglo-Americans who have imposed the Mullahs in 1979. The Americans and British helped bring down the Shah, and even refused refuge from him and it was only Egypt that took him in. Iran will not to be touched, it will only be used a propaganda means

[Babak]

I know you guys want the best for Iran and I understand. But looking at the current situation, we have to face reality. Iran isn't going to last despite how "sophisticated" or how big the nation is. Look at the nations around Iran, they're all fucked.

[N1019]

This is legacy of George W.Bush who actually strengthened Iran. Let's not forget he also allowed Iranian proxies to basically take control of Iraq. Trump is just saying that, but in reality Iran is just controlled opposition. Because it was the Anglo-Americans who have imposed the Mullahs in 1979. The Americans and British helped bring down the Shah, and even refused refuge from him and it was only Egypt that took him in. Iran will not to be touched, it will only be used a propaganda means

You need to look at the history of puppet rulers and their imperial masters more closely. Iran is a good example. The masters instal their puppets, then remove them later when circumstances change (usually because they go rogue). It seems it happened to two Shahs, so why not the mullahs? The controlled opposition theory has merit, but when it comes to Iran, we're dealing with far more than a few off-the-cuff remarks from Trump.


I know you guys want the best for Iran and I understand. But looking at the current situation, we have to face reality. Iran isn't going to last despite how "sophisticated" or how big the nation is. Look at the nations around Iran, they're all fucked.

The problem is, too many people have fallen for the notion of Iranian exceptionalism - the idea that, somehow, Iran is too big for America to tackle and will be spared when everyone else who stood up to America was destroyed. It's just mullah and Marxist propaganda. To admit the truth does not mean one wants to see the destruction of Iran. It's about honesty.

[catgeorge]

USA just needs to find an enemy to keep money flow and armament business going .. this keeps jobs afoot. Afghanistan 1% of NATO power and still struggling to overcome it

There has been over 15,000 fatalities and over 900,000 registered wounded (meaning out of permanent action) in Iraq and Afghanistan

I am just wondering whether any hearts and minds have been captured as it seems to me these IED's in asymmetric unconventional warfare by guerrillas is proving too tough for NATO.