We have a deal with Iran that means they can't work to develop nukes for ten years. It isn't costing us anything. Alternatively we could cancel the deal which allows Iran to reserve work immediately.

It's a tough one, isn't it?

What's in it for the US if they cancel it? Is this a case of following the money?

Imploding Turtle wrote:We have a deal with Iran that means they can't work to develop nukes for ten years. It isn't costing us anything. Alternatively we could cancel the deal which allows Iran to reserve work immediately.

It's a tough one, isn't it?

Your post makes no sense

When was the last time the US, Russia, China, France, Germany, UK and the EU agreed on anything relating to foreign policy like this deal? The only reason one man wants it scrapped is because Obama did the deal.

It's not a case of whether we should 'cancel the deal' or not; it's a case of whether we actually trust Iran to comply by a deal which has little to no checks or credible compliance strategy.

So a better question might be, do we trust the world's largest sponsor of terrorism and who is also the most aggressive power-player in the Middle East to comply with a deal which restricts their power?

As the OP puts it: "It's a tough one, isn't it?"

But of course, it isn't quite as simple as I've put it above and it certainly isn't like the OP put it.

I distrust the Iranian regime immensely. I think, on balance, I'd rather return to a more restrictive system of sanctions rather than cosying up to the Iranian regime. There is a blossoming middle class of the most genuinely liberal kind of people (in the Middle East) in Iran. It would be great if they could overthrow their theocratic dictatorship.

Rowls wrote:.

So a better question might be, do we trust the world's largest sponsor of terrorism and who is also the most aggressive power-player in the Middle East to comply with a deal which restricts their power?

Are you talking about the US or Iran?

Rowls wrote:It's not a case of whether we should 'cancel the deal' or not; it's a case of whether we actually trust Iran to comply by a deal which has little to no checks or credible compliance strategy.

Simply not true.

https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iran" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rowls wrote:It's not a case of whether we should 'cancel the deal' or not; it's a case of whether we actually trust Iran to comply by a deal which has little to no checks or credible compliance strategy.

So a better question might be, do we trust the world's largest sponsor of terrorism and who is also the most aggressive power-player in the Middle East to comply with a deal which restricts their power?

As the OP puts it: "It's a tough one, isn't it?"

But of course, it isn't quite as simple as I've put it above and it certainly isn't like the OP put it.

I distrust the Iranian regime immensely. I think, on balance, I'd rather return to a more restrictive system of sanctions rather than cosying up to the Iranian regime. There is a blossoming middle class of the most genuinely liberal kind of people (in the Middle East) in Iran. It would be great if they could overthrow their theocratic dictatorship.

I was nodding along til that last sentence ...... overthrowing dictatorships has worked immensely in the recent history hasn't it.

I bet its easier to cancel than ******* car insurance.

Imploding Turtle wrote:We have a deal with Iran that means they can't work to develop nukes for ten years. It isn't costing us anything. Alternatively we could cancel the deal which allows Iran to reserve work immediately.

It's a tough one, isn't it?

Are you sure they can't work on nukes? They aren't allowed to work on nukes, but that's not same thing. Do you trust the Iran government.

FCBurnley wrote:Your post makes no sense

resume work*

Rowls

".. do we trust the world's largest sponsor of terrorism and who is also the most aggressive power-player in the Middle East to comply with a deal which restricts their power?..."

Geopolitics isn't really your forte. Stick to serving coffee.

There is a blossoming middle class of the most genuinely liberal kind of people (in the Middle East) in Iran. It would be great if they could overthrow their theocratic dictatorship.

Who have a lot less power and influence when/if sanctions are applied.

Like has been said, I'm slightly suspicious of the motives of the US, but at the same time there isn't a doubt that the regional power squabble between Iran and Saudi Arabia is causing lots of issues in the region. Even more than than the West is to be perfectly honest.

bfccrazy wrote:I was nodding along til that last sentence ...... overthrowing dictatorships has worked immensely in the recent history hasn't it.

I said "they", not "we".

And overthrowing dictators is the 2nd best thing to happen to dictators (save for them stepping down) and yes, despite the recent utter, utter balls up we should continue to challenge dictatorships.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Who have a lot less power and influence when/if sanctions are applied.

I don't know how you work that out but their regime has a lot less power when sanctions are applied.

Not sure it has

And its completely unarguable that sanctions will hit ordinary Iranians harder than the theocracy.

Just hardens anti-Western sentiment in the country.

Rowls wrote:I said "they", not "we".

And overthrowing dictators is the 2nd best thing to happen to dictators (save for them stepping down) and yes, despite the recent utter, utter balls up we should continue to challenge dictatorships.

So we should challenge dictatorships but they should deal with them?

Lancasterclaret wrote:Not sure it has
And its completely unarguable that sanctions will hit ordinary Iranians harder than the theocracy.
Just hardens anti-Western sentiment in the country.

I believe that "anti-western sintiment" isn't that high in the middle classes.

But yeah, sanctions hit the whole country. But they have also been proven to be effective - in may, many examples.

Which is why it's a difficult decision.

bfccrazy wrote:So we should challenge dictatorships but they should deal with them?

It's not a dichotomy.

We should challenge dictators whenever possible and practical.

Rowls wrote:I believe that "anti-western sintiment" isn't that high in the middle classes.

But yeah, sanctions hit the whole country. But they have also been proven to be effective - in may, many examples.

Which is why it's a difficult decision.

The anti-west sentiment might not be too bad in the middle classes as their kids will be travelling* around the world and studying and making lives.

The problem will arise where the majority of the country are not middle class and will have an increased anti-west sentiment.

Massive Explosions Near Military Base Close To Damascus - State Media

"Israeli forces reportedly struck targets near Damascus on Tuesday with missiles, according to Al Masdar News, just hours after US President Donald Trump withdrew from the Iran sanctions deal.

Syria's SANA reports that air defense systems intercepted at least two missiles fired at the al-Kaswa area, which is proximal to southern Damascus"

https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/2018 ... ase-syria/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Warmakers .....The Saker

"....The Israelis are at it again

Amazing, isn’t it? The Israelis have been whining about “imminent” Iranian nukes for years, and they are still at it. Not only that, but these guys have the nerve to say “Iran lied”. Seriously, even by the already unique Israeli standards, that is chutzpah elevated to a truly stratospheric level. If it were just Bibi Netanyahu, then this would be comical. But the problem is that Israel has now fully subjugated all the branches of the US government to its agents (the Neocons) and that they now run everything: from the two branches of the Uniparty to Congress, to the media and, now that Trump has abjectly caved in to all their demands, they also run the White House. They apparently also run the CIA, but there still might be some resistance to their lunacy in the Pentagon. The US is now quite literally run by a Zionist Occupation Government, no doubt about it whatsoever......"

http://www.unz.com/tsaker/the-warmakers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dsr wrote:Are you sure they can't work on nukes? They aren't allowed to work on nukes, but that's not same thing. Do you trust the Iran government.

Every agency responcible for monitoring them say they're complying with the deal. I trust them.

Imploding Turtle wrote:Every agency responcible for monitoring them say they're complying with the deal. I trust them.

You think they're infallible? That no matter how Iran tries to hide it, there couldn't be a nuclear project that these officials can't find? It's a big country.

I despise this idiot that has somehow landed the most important job in the world.
Once again the US are at the behest of the disgusting Saudi regime and Zionist Israel and the majority of the world are too blinkered to see the real agenda.
My sincere wish is that the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia would crawl back under their rocks.
We may pretty soon have to pick a side and it isn't gonna be pretty...

I reckon it would be bloody hard to avoid not giving one away, considering that the US have the best satellites in the world for this kind of thing and Mossad are just the best intelligence service going.

But Trump doesn't care about all that, this is him and his desire to negotiate with the rest of the world using the fist of US Power rather than diplomacy.

Might work, might not, but he needs more proof that Israel have provided so far.

Dejavu wrote:My sincere wish is that the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia would crawl back under their rocks.
We may pretty soon have to pick a side ...

Sounds like you already have!

dsr wrote:You think they're infallible? That no matter how Iran tries to hide it, there couldn't be a nuclear project that these officials can't find? It's a big country.

Jesus Christ, are you even capable of an intelligent discussion? How the **** did infallibility come into it?

This is why you are absolutely worthless in any discussion, this like this. You require infallibility before you'll trust every major nuclear monitoring agency when they say that Iran is abiding by the terms of the agreement.

By your standards there is literally nothing Iran could possibly do, and no amount of confirmation, that would satisfy you that they're abiding by the deal. So why the hell are you even here discussing it?

Interestingly, i bet infallibility isn't a standard you require to be met when it comes to anything you trust. Is it?

I think it says a hell of a lot that personal belief in whatever is now superseding multiple experts and agencies that have spent literally decades doing this kind of thing. dsr will be absolutely gutted, but his beliefs on this are based on nothing more concrete than the bluelabs made up stuff.

I'm not arrogant enough to think I know more than the NSA or Mossad, but no other nation is backing this which suggests that the evidence is skant at best, or just more sabre rattling to distract home issues (both Trump and Nethanyu have big problems that they want to go away)

Christ, just how desperate are the Conservatives in general and Brexiteers in particular for something, anything to take away media attention from the latest cluster ***** going on. But even they realise that you can't just pull out of an international deal with no proof.

Dejavu wrote:I despise this idiot that has somehow landed the most important job in the world.
Once again the US are at the behest of the disgusting Saudi regime and Zionist Israel and the majority of the world are too blinkered to see the real agenda.
My sincere wish is that the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia would crawl back under their rocks.
We may pretty soon have to pick a side and it isn't gonna be pretty...

Sad thing is I cannot think of any middle eastern country that isn't disgusting. Perhaps Jordan but the King has real powers, the rest are bobbins and even Israel due to democracy ends up so often with the religious minority pulling the strings of Government

Imploding Turtle wrote:How the **** did infallibility come into it?

Quite clearly, as you perfectly well know unless you're an actual half-wit instead of just pretending to be one, the "infallibility" bit is in connection with what the inspecting agencies find. I assumed that you meant - as most people would - that you trusted that the agencies would find the nuclear weapons and other nuclear research facilities if they existed. If it turns out that all you meant was that they can be trusted to honestly report all they find but you weren't expressing an opinion as to whether they will find anything, then that's a different issue.

But I'll make the point again, in terms so simple that even you can understand them. I do not trust the Iranian government to tell the truth, and I do not trust these agencies to discover everything they are looking for. Is that understandable, even to you?

Do you trust the British government? Do you trust the EU government? Do you trust the US government? Do you trust the Iranian government? In my case, the answer is no x 4. You may have a greater degree of trust in politicians.

Dejavu wrote:We may pretty soon have to pick a side and it isn't gonna be pretty...

You will never have to pick a side, that choice was made for you a long time ago, when America whistles, we come running.

Bashar al-Assad may be 'assassinated' if Iran stays in Syria, says Israeli minister......May 7th

"Yuval Steinitz, an energy minister and a security cabinet minister, warns the Syrian president that his 'blood would be forfeit' if he allows Iran to establish a military presence....

http://www.middleeasteye.net/bashar-al- ... tays-syria" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MacCruiskeen...."Imagine the outrage in the Western mass media, the banner headlines and the scandalised editorials, if any Syrian minister had threatened to assassinate "Bibi""

JackRiddler....."And now Trump breaks the Iran deal. Israel could provide the U.S. with a pretext for a military confrontation with Iran, claiming some incident in or out of Syria. Whatever the story is, it will almost certainly be on repeater in the U.S. corporate coverage. And every European state especially would have to ask which side they are on.".

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... start=2115" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Bibi" is meeting Putin on Wednesday.

Only Trump is stupid enough to cancel one nuclear deal while trying to negotiate another one with North Korea. What kind of message does that send to Kim Jong-Un?

This is set up for another balanced, polite and measured debate on Up The Clarets

dsr wrote:Quite clearly, as you perfectly well know unless you're an actual half-wit instead of just pretending to be one, the "infallibility" bit is in connection with what the inspecting agencies find. I assumed that you meant - as most people would - that you trusted that the agencies would find the nuclear weapons and other nuclear research facilities if they existed. If it turns out that all you meant was that they can be trusted to honestly report all they find but you weren't expressing an opinion as to whether they will find anything, then that's a different issue.

But I'll make the point again, in terms so simple that even you can understand them. I do not trust the Iranian government to tell the truth, and I do not trust these agencies to discover everything they are looking for. Is that understandable, even to you?

Do you trust the British government? Do you trust the EU government? Do you trust the US government? Do you trust the Iranian government? In my case, the answer is no x 4. You may have a greater degree of trust in politicians.

You're full of ****.

When those agencies conclude that Iran is abiding by the agreement I trust their judgement. Only a retard would think that it would be impossible that they're wrong, and only a retard would think that's what I meant.

Explain to me why I shouldn't trust their judgement.

It's ******* hilarious that you claim not to trust any of those governments or agencies, yet you appear to be arguing against the Iran deal. So you're placing your trust in Donald Trump even though you don't trust him and know that the man is a consistent, compulsive liar. Instead of placing trust on common sense.

Why common sense? Well, with the deal in place there is a chance Iran are still developing nukes without anyone noticing. Without the deal then they'll be definitely developing nukes in front of everyone.
Forget trust, just apply logic and you logically come to the conclusion that the deal is good.

dsr wrote:Quite clearly, as you perfectly well know unless you're an actual half-wit instead of just pretending to be one, the "infallibility" bit is in connection with what the inspecting agencies find. I assumed that you meant - as most people would - that you trusted that the agencies would find the nuclear weapons and other nuclear research facilities if they existed. If it turns out that all you meant was that they can be trusted to honestly report all they find but you weren't expressing an opinion as to whether they will find anything, then that's a different issue.

But I'll make the point again, in terms so simple that even you can understand them. I do not trust the Iranian government to tell the truth, and I do not trust these agencies to discover everything they are looking for. Is that understandable, even to you?

Do you trust the British government? Do you trust the EU government? Do you trust the US government? Do you trust the Iranian government? In my case, the answer is no x 4. You may have a greater degree of trust in politicians.

If you don’t trust anyone on what basis are you arguing that the deal should be cancelled?

martin_p wrote:If you don’t trust anyone on what basis are you arguing that the deal should be cancelled?

I trust the USA not to start a nuclear war. I don't trust Iran not to start a nuclear war.

Do you trust the police DSR?

Teachers?

Priests (or whatever they are called depending on your religion)?

I mean, where does this distrust of everything end? The logical end is you living in a bunker with a tinfoil hat on your head because you don't trust anyone.

You have to have evidence based deductions here. Trump has taken the evidence he has, and decided to dump the deal. Everybody else has seen the same evidence and gone "Thats not enough, or not relevant, or whatever".

I know from previous on this messageboard that you believe in what you want to believe, and nothing evidence based will shake that. Thats fine for you, because you are not the President of the United States. Its not such a good stance to have if you actually are the President of the United States.

Effectively Trump spun a load of lies to get elected, and he's been repeating them so often, and surrounded himself with people who repeat them back to him and he gets huge crowds of people who want to believe its as bad as he makes out, but its actually been proved that he lies nine times a day. NINE. TIMES. A. DAY.

But yeah, he's spot on with this. Do me a favour.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Do you trust the police DSR?

Teachers?

Priests (or whatever they are called depending on your religion)?

I mean, where does this distrust of everything end? The logical end is you living in a bunker with a tinfoil hat on your head because you don't trust anyone.

If you mean "would I trust every single policeman, teacher, or priest absolutely" then the answer is no. Obviously. But if you mean "would I trust them generally to act for the good of society" then the answer is yes, with certain caveats. Trust isn't absolute yes or no - sometimes it's matter of who you trust more or distrust less. But if not trusting any government 100% equates to wearing a tinfoil hat, then a lot of us do it. I don't see you having absolute trust in any of our politicians on various threads - do you live in a bunker?

And then sometimes it's not a matter of trust, it's a matter of belief. I don't necessarily trust Trump to be honest and reliable, but I do believe that he's on our side. I don't believe that of Iran.

dsr wrote:I trust the USA not to start a nuclear war. I don't trust Iran not to start a nuclear war.

So why move to a situation where Iran are definitely developing nuclear weapons from one where they may not be, or at least having to do it so covertly it will slow them down?

There is no doubt that Trump is a bigger ally of ours than Iran is!

But that doesn't mean he's right on this. The evidence (again, the evidence) suggests otherwise. The country you live in thinks Iran is complying with the terms of the deal.

Out of curiosity for those who are against the deal (Rowls and dsr seem to be the main ones), how will tearing up the deal and resuming sanctions stop the enrichment of uranium and possible development of weapons.

I've not followed it that closely but, from what I'm aware, before the deal came into play sanctions were in force and Iran was enriching uranium (it was disposed of as part of the deal) and developing weapons. I assume I've missed something but how will reverting to that previous position stop what was previously happening?

I can't answer for them, but I suspect the hope of the hawks in the US and Israel is that Iran starts doing exactly that, so they can move the debate forward to the next stage.

I profoundly agree btw that Iran is ruled by homicidal religous fucknuggets, but you deal with them by allowing them to into the mainstream and change will happen naturally. Isolating them just keeps them in power longer.

Rowls wrote:
I distrust the Iranian regime immensely. I think, on balance, I'd rather return to a more restrictive system of sanctions rather than cosying up to the Iranian regime. There is a blossoming middle class of the most genuinely liberal kind of people (in the Middle East) in Iran. It would be great if they could overthrow their theocratic dictatorship.

And this is exactly why a nuanced approach was needed, rather than Trumps ham fisted approach. Whilst imperfect, the Iran deal enabled that liberal middle class to flourish, and slowly shift the balance of power in the country to one where they decide the future. Do you know who is celebrating this morning? The Iranian hardliners, as Trump has just given Iran back to them.

Rowls wrote:There is a blossoming middle class of the most genuinely liberal kind of people (in the Middle East) in Iran.

And those people voted for Rouhani and support the nuclear deal. Trump scrapping it strengthens the Iranian hardliners and weakens Rouhani. And if Rouhani goes he'll be replaced by someone much worse with no intention of halting the nuclear program.

The Iranian hardliners are celebrating are they?

Well they looked happy enough when the deal was signed.

Maybe they celebrate either way or maybe some people wouldn't support Trump no matter what he did. His harder policy against North Korea has achieved what Obama never could there.

Rowls wrote:The Iranian hardliners are celebrating are they?

Yes.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... SApp_Other

Rowls wrote:His harder policy against North Korea has achieved what Obama never could there.

Yeah I'm sure Kim is about to sign a nuclear deal any day now. It's not like the US have just shown they'll move the goalposts whenever it suits them...

martin_p wrote:Yes.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... SApp_Other

And here they are celebrating the original deal: