There were more options then that. And this agreement has done little to nothing to relieve the tension between us and Iran. They keep antagonizing our navy. They have made several “minor” violations to the agreement, etc.
It’s done now, all we can do is watch it unravel.
I am waiting to see what happens when they get all of their $1.7 billion…
Do you not at least agree it should have gotten congressional approval?
If true, what’s the point of the ‘snap-back’ should Iran gravely violate the agreement?
Thanks for the great insight once again…
Do you think you are the only one who knows what they are going to do, Pat?
They are going to continue to support terrorism; sell and disperse arms Worldwide; and keep the Middle East in utter chaos.
This was a nuclear arms control agreement.
I don’t understand the question.
Errr…no. First of all, shias and sunnis have been at each other throats since Ali was killed in an ambush, so slightly over 1300 years.
Iranian geopolitical goals are clear - a shia dominated Iraq (which they’ve achieved thanks to the US) serving as a buffer state and hopefully a connection through Mesopotamia to the shias in Lebanon, thus connecting the Fertile Crescent with the high plains around Zargoz mountains.
Mind you, this geopolitical goal of Persia predates Islam by 1000 years - Romans and Parthians fought bloody wars precisely around these farmlands on both sides of Euphrates and Tigris. Who controls this link, controls.the fertile and rich Syrian coast (Syria as in Ancient Syria).
Also, Saudi Arabia. They hate the sunnis with a passion, but that real, deep, burning hatred is reserved for Arabs from the Arabian peninsula (read: Saudis).
For nationalistic Iranians there was a veritable moment of apocalypse 1280 years ago - a world empire which wyed for dominance with Rome and China brought down by a bunch of desert brigands.
Saddam’s removal was a blessing for them - they regained influence in Iraq and had the sunnis on the defensive until Saudi Arabia pulled out their trump card and suffused nasty sunni militias with thousands of foreign volunteers and rebranded it ISIS.
They have.to constantly keep an eye on Saudi efforts to launch “Saudi infantry” against them (nickname for US armed forces as they believe Saudis are bunch of fat cowards who can’t fight and make.others do their.bidding).
If they can get the US on their side, they can turn the tables on Saudis, check the sunni revival (read: salafi radical islam) and strike a blow against them from which they couldn’t recover neither politically and economically and revert to dirt.poor camel fuckers.
That’s.why informal cooperation between the US and Iran in Iraq freaked the Saudis out.
Wow, loppar.
VERY intriguing and thought-provoking.
Question; where to you feel the Nuclear Agreement fits in the grand scheme of things?
Then it was a mistake to grant them their money. If the nuclear agreement hinged on this then it is a faulty agreement which empowers our enemy. They might not have nuclear arms, but they are going to do everything you and Pat have said.
Come on, how can they do this? Their leaders retain power by their anti-Israeli, anti-American stance & rhetoric. If they go against this, won’t the people turn on them, or do you think they’ll feel it’s a blessing because the people want things the West has, as was seen during the failed Green Revolution there…If there is a thaw in US-Iran relations, do you think the religious leaders can keep their hold on their people?
edit -(for the a holes who insist we have to mark an edited text): The problem that stands in their way is Israel. If the US & Iran resume ties, where does that leave Iran’s hostility toward Israel & support of Hamas & Hezbollah, if this happens where does that leave US-Israeli relations? Please explain your opinion on this also.
Okay
You don’t answer direct questions either.
Another Chlorine barrel bomb killed 16 more people in Syria today.
What Smh and Bismark fail to take into consideration is it isn’t just some random Arab strapping Chlorine bombs to their backs like smh said. And it isn’t a matter of Chlorine being so abunant that there’s no way to police or stop it’s use.
The FACT remains that it is the SYRIAN GOVERNMENT, ASSAD’S ADMINISTRATION if you will who is dropping the barrel bombs on it’s civilian population.
And if Obama’s calculus had any weight behind it, one of three things would have happened which have not happened because it is FACT that his redline threat HAS at this point FAILED.
We would have bombed the Syrian Government’s armed forces for crossing the line when they first used Chlorine against their own people. It hasn’t happened, it won’t happen, and now with the Russians in Syria it will never happen. First reason why Obama’s redline threat has made the US look weak.
The Syrian armed forces, in fear of a massive attack by the U.S. would never have used Chlorine gas against civilians in the first place. Didn’t happen and now with the Russians in Syria it will never happen. The Second reason why Obama’s redline threat has made the US look weak.
Now with the Russian involvement in Syria, the same Russians who because of the mighty calculus of the Obama administration, made a deal and withdrew tons and tons of dangerous, deadly Saran and VX gas from the war torn country. You think if these SAME RUSSIANS, who obviously have influence and some control in Syria, fear Obama’s calculus so much they would use this INFLUENCE to STOP the Syrians from further use of Chlorine Gas. This hasn’t happened, as evidenced by today’s Chlorine attack, won’t happen and will never happen. Third reason why Obama’s redline threat has made the US look weak.
But of course, I don’t know what I’m talking about and supposedly lost a debate about this or something, but enless someone addresses these THREE items, which I know they will NEVER do, I do not think I have lost anything.
edit - Nice to know Assad agrees with me:
“'The Assad regime has learned over the past five years that the Obama administration will do absolutely nothing to protect Syrian civilians from mass homicide,” Fred Hof, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and a former special adviser for transition in Syria under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, told Business Insider via email.'"
and
“Assad’s forces killed nearly 1,500 people in a chemical-weapons attack.”
At least they didn’t kill the 1,500 people with Sarin or VX. That is reassuring. 1,500 killed…a major victory for the Obama Administration! Tell that to the families of the dead.
I ask this as a serious question.
Why do people (politicians, media, writers…you name it) insist on picking “winners” and “losers” in Syria?
EVERYONE is a loser in this Civil War…with the Syrian Civilians at the top of the list.
It sometimes sounds like people are actually getting a hard-on when they talk of how Putin or Assad are “winning”…
Winning what? For who? What do Assad and Putin see as “victory”?
I for one sure a hell don’t want to see what “losing” looks like…
Well, you’re right that the Syrian civilians are losing regardless but wouldn’t Assad maintaining power be a win for Assad?
Wouldn’t Putin keeping a friendly dictator in Assad be a win for Putin? Moreover wouldn’t Putin successfully solidifying Assad be a political win for Russia in regards to their influence in the region?
If you were a ME dictator at the moment who would you rather have supporting you assuming you were dealing with local insurrection?
That is my question, sig…
Power over what and who?
Once he has decimated his countries infrastructure and killed his “subjects” with Chlorine and Barrel Bombs…then what? He’s killing more of “his” own people than he is of anyone else.
So…what exactly is “staying on Power” over a decimated infrastructure and dead, dying and demoralized people look like? Is Putin going to support the rebuilding of Syria and it’s economy?
I’ll say it again…
I sure as hell don’t want to see what “losing” looks like…
I see where you are going with it, the civil war is a loss for Assad relative to his previous rule, when you rule in Assad’s fashion though these uprisings are a given. Him retaining power over a war torn country certainly is a win relative to Gaddafi’s demise though.
Still not seeing much of a downside to Putin’s power play, to quote my favorite GOT villain “Chaos is a ladder” one which Putin is climbing with haste.
A bad one. According to the Iranians, they were never intending to build nuclear weapons in the first place… And they may have been right, or at least not lying. But why not use the specter of a nuclear arsenal to fleece the Americans for $1.7 billion? It’s a great deal for them. We get the assurance that they may hold to the agreement. They can of course, dropout at any time. And the only consequence for doing so will be the ‘snap-back’ of sanctions you said were withering and not working anyway. So once they have their $1.7 billion from us, what’s their motivation to stay? Particularly if they already have arrangements in place? Do you think after countries have negotiated multimillion/ multibillion dollar deals with Iran, that they would cut those deals for us? I doubt it. And those deals may be ‘sanction proof’ anyway. Plus they have Russian and Chinese support.
What deterrent is the ‘snap-back’ sanctions for Iran? You said yourself they were falling apart. So what deterrent is it to Iran if we ‘snap-back’ useless sanctions? That is our only threat deterrent. Once they have their $1.7 billion, they may not even care about the sanctions. Russia will work with them and so will China, the Chinese market alone could make them never miss the west.
And I didn’t say ‘I knew what they were going to do.’ I wondered that out loud, when they have all the money, what will they do with the deal? Like I said, they originally said, they were not interested in nuclear weapons, so why was there a need to make any deal at all? So we get to keep an eye on them, somewhat closely for 10 years, less so for 5 more and after that they are relegated to the IAEA. And that is only if they decide to stay with the deal. And they can quit the deal any time they want. And they can withdraw their membership to the IAEA, just like N. Korea did. What’s their punishment? A sanctions ‘snap-back’, which will, as time goes on, become more and more meaningless.
If the sanctions are as useless and ineffective what is the deterrent?
The only thing keeping Iran relatively on the strait and narrow is that money. Once they have that money… well who knows. They can pursue a bomb if that want to and who is going to stop them, especially if they have Russian and Chinese support?
But they have always maintained they didn’t want to build a bomb in the first place, so why agree to give them so much, for so little assurance?
I addressed this in my other post… But the question is, if this statement of yours is true:
“The International Coalition that supported sanctions against Iran (which is EXTREMELY important for sanctions to truly work…the U.S. can’t do it alone); was beginning to unravel.”
And the only punishment for Iran is that the sanctions “snap-back” should they violate the agreement, how is that a deterrent for Iran? If we snap back sanctions, that were unraveling and the other participating nations decide they don’t want the sanctions, how does that deter Iran from doing anything they want?
And Iran stated repeatedly, they were not interested in making a nuclear weapon, which may have been true, then why make the deal?
Because their leaders don’t retain power because of their anti-American and anti-Israeli rhetoric, they retain it by fear, violence and oppression. So yeah, to the Saudis who potentially hates the Shia more than they hate the U.S., saw this as a thawing. However, they had nothing to fear, Iran hates us just as much, but are happy to take our money…
If you’re a sociopath, like Assad, winning means having the country back under his control, no matter what condition the country is in. You are approaching it like a rational person, but we’re not dealing with rational people.
If you remember, the whole thing started because the Syrians saw the ‘Arab Spring’ and thought they could pull it off there, until Assad started killing his people with zero regard. Winning to Assad is being the dictator of Syria. He does not care about the support of the people, he wants the fear of the people. Support is fleeting, fear lasts much longer.
[quote=“pat, post:661, topic:210298”]
…If you’re a sociopath, like Assad, winning means having the country back under his control, no matter what condition the country is in. You are approaching it like a rational person, but we’re not dealing with rational people…[/quote]
Definitely can agree with that, Pat.
I am looking through the lens of rational people. History has certainly shown us time and time again that irrational people are willing to go down in flames and take millions of Lives with them out of some warped sense of “winning”.