Praise Ahura-Mazda, we have MASTER OF GEOPOLITICS PFC Gomer Pyle here to explain to us the inner workings of the Farsi mind. Did you do a "Shahs of Sunset" bingewatch on Bravo! prior to typing that up, bro? Incredible that leading every post with "you stupid libtards" gets you this type of dismissive treatment. I will lodge a formal protest on your behalf, Pyle.
Those aren't facts so much as analysis and interpretation. Which isn't to say its useless or baseless. I found it actually pretty interesting. But the writer obviously takes a view on the facts he reports -- which ones he chooses to pay attention to, and how he thinks they relate one to another and what they reveal about motives and goals. Maybe in the end you are right and Obama is wrong, but I have to think you are feeling far more certain and projecting far more confidence than you have any right to, considering the complexity of the situation, the level of dynamism, and how hard it is to predict the future. I think it is naive of you to think the State Department is naive about Russia's geopolitical maneuvers. Every bit of analysis you have available to you the State Dept has as well. For whatever reason, they've looked at the same landscape you have (and then some since they have more access to information) and come to a different conclusion. Maybe it will be a disastrous mistake in the end, but I don't see how you can speak with such certitude that you can call it now.
For the most part, I consider myself a pacifist and a moderate. However, this is pretty darn weak response to a "historic" framework. I mean - how are you going to posture and play tough when your response is "Well, uh, we're considering doing something"? [rQUOTEr] U.S. says it is considering response to Iran ballistic missile test Washington is considering how to respond to an Iranian ballistic missile launch that violated U.N. Security Council resolutions, senior U.S. officials said on Thursday, as senators pressed for a strong reaction. "We are now actively considering the appropriate consequences to that launch in October," Stephen Mull, the State Department's lead coordinator for implementing an international nuclear deal with Iran, told a Senate committee hearing.[/rQUOTEr] Honestly, I am not too concerned about Iran getting the bomb, and in fact it doesn't bother me. Pakistan has nuclear weapons, and so does North Korea (who makes annual threats against the US and our allies). And guess what: no one has used it against someone else who has a nuke.
This like when your kids are grounded and you tell them they can't leave the room, and they stick one foot in the hallway. This is the IRGC, the hardliners who want to scuttle the deal, sticking a foot in the hallway to say F-U to the deal. They are violating the deal in letter, but not in any meaningful way. The question is whether you want to blow up the whole deal over a token foot in the hallway. The US is trying to let them throw their little tantrum without letting them create the scene they are trying to set off. Now that the finding has been made, the UN Council has to come up with a punishment. There is a provision in the deal whereby if a certain time passes with gridlock from the council, the USA is allowed to unilaterally institute whatever sanctions they choose. Nobody that wants the deal to stick wants that. The only people who want that are the people who want the deal to be rescinded.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In response to new US <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/sanctions?src=hash">#sanctions</a> planned against Iran's ballistic missile program, have ordered the Defense Minister to expedite the program</p>— Hassan Rouhani (@HassanRouhani) <a href="https://twitter.com/HassanRouhani/status/682594835044413445">December 31, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Tom Cotton Accepted $1 Million From Israel To Sabotage Iran Nuclear Deal http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/0...on-from-israel-to-sabotage-iran-nuclear-deal/
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">CIA ordered not to support 2009 Green Movement in Iran because Obama wanted to woo Khameini. <a href="https://t.co/V0EdHIAL6V">https://t.co/V0EdHIAL6V</a></p>— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) <a href="https://twitter.com/MaxBoot/status/685823257489051648">January 9, 2016</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Iran fills heavy water nuclear reactor core with cement - Fars DUBAI (Reuters) - Iran has removed the core of its Arak heavy water nuclear reactor and filled it with cement as required under a nuclear deal signed with world powers last year, the semi-official Fars news agency said on Monday, citing an informed Iranian source. Any such move, reducing the plant's ability to produce plutonium, might signal imminent implementation of the nuclear deal and clear the way for Tehran to receive relief from economic sanctions. Separately, the European Union's foreign policy chief said that EU nuclear-related sanctions on Iran could be lifted soon. "I can tell you that my expectation is that this day could come rather soon. The implementation of the agreements is proceeding well," Federica Mogherini said during a visit to Prague. The fate of the reactor in central Iran was one of the toughest sticking points in the long nuclear negotiations that led to an agreement in July between Iran and six world powers, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Under the deal's terms, Iran accepted that the Arak reactor would be reconfigured so it could not yield fissile plutonium usable in a nuclear bomb. China, the United States, France, Britain, Russia and Germany have agreed to participate in the redesign and the construction of the modernised reactor. The Islamic Republic has said that the 40-megawatt, heavy-water plant is aimed at producing isotopes for cancer and other medical treatments. It has denied that any of its nuclear activity is aimed at developing weapons. Behrouz Kamalvandi, the spokesperson for Iran's atomic energy agency, said in an interview with Iran's Etemad newspaper published on Monday that "Iran has met its commitments under the July nuclear agreement earlier than expected". "Implementation of JCPOA will finish in the next 7 days," he added. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said in a speech broadcast live on state television on Monday: "We are hopeful that the sanctions against Iran would be lifted in the next few days." U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said last week that "we are days away from implementation, if all goes well." Some oil traders said oil’s deep slide so far this year, including its 6 percent slump on Monday, was being fuelled in part by signs that Iran might emerge from crushing sanctions sooner rather than later, allowing it to ramp up production after years of constraint. "The firm push for normalization with Iran has taken the last shred of geopolitical risk out of traders' minds," said Clayton Vernon, a trader and economist with proprietary trading firm Aquivia LLC in New Jersey. Iran said last year that it hopes to boost exports by some 500,000 barrels per day as soon as sanctions ease, a move dealers fear will add to a global surplus that has cut prices to 12-year lows near $30 a barrel. More recently officials have suggested they would seek to avoid flooding the world with more unwanted crude, but provided no details on what that would mean in practical terms.
So all the chicken hawks here, question. If we had your way with our relationship with Iran, how long do you think those U.S. Navy Sailors would stay in Iran?
Here's the problem with a lot of observers of politics. They believe that unless America is taking military action, or at least forcing an issue to the brink of military action then America is taking no action at all. And of course, not taking action is weakness. They don't understand or bother to take the time to understand that other actions can be taken. America took action, the sailors were freed. I get that there is a visceral kind of instinct to want to physically punish people that we think of as bad guys. It isn't rational, and often not really the most effective way of actually getting things done... but of course on some level it would feel great to bomb those damn Iranians and show them what they will expect messing with us. Then everyone will see just how tough we are, and that we won't take any s*&* from anyone. It's juvenile schoolyard mentality, but it appeals to people on a basic, juvenile, lack of thinking things through kind of way. Politicians will play on that, and a few politicians may buy into it themselves to varying degrees.
It's good to see how quickly they were released, but I would caution that this action was in context of Iran waiting for sanctions to be lifted (and the US can easily by itself stop that). Obviously, we will know how Iran behavior have changed and will change, if much at all, over the next few years. I wouldn't expect that Iran suddenly become friend with us. They will still be very hostile and we are still enemies but I would hope there are more dialogues and less explosiveness and escalation both ways. But this is a good sign.
It's a mistake to expect that Iran becomes a friend to us or really even to look at geopolitics primarily through the lens of friends and foes. No country's interest will exactly align with those of another country. Especially in the Mid East where interests are very complicated.
