Global Events & Politics Überthread

[striker42]

This goes back to how incredibly stupid it was for Trump to back out of the nuclear agreement, when all of his advisors including Secretary of State Tillerson, told him Iran had been fully complying and that it would be not good to back out. Trump himself made no real justification for withdrawing from the agreement, but we know Israel and Saudi's played a big part in that decision. Because the man coddles and sucks up to both of them.

Iran's military worked in coordination with ours on some missions to take out Al Qaeda and ISIS. There was a bunch of Shiites from Iran who were helping take cities in Iraq back from ISIS and did the lifting for us without even asking. These are things Fox News doesn't report.

Trump supporters keep thinking these countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, North Korea, are afraid of Trump because he talks a big game. Quite the opposite, they've literally used his stupidity to benefit themselves.

Then again, Trump supporters only seem to care about the temporary boner like this airstrike so they can use the "not benghazi" stuff so they can praise their daddy Don for looking tough.

I don't consider the Iranian groups working with us to fight ISIS to be particularly significant. A bigger evil often makes strange bedfellows. In WWII, we teamed up with Stalin to defeat Hitler. During the Cold War we funded and supplied Mujahideen fighters in their insurgency against the USSR. Some of those same people later orchestrated 9/11. Once the greater evil is gone, the one time allies often fall back into being enemies.

As for the nuclear deal, it was doomed from the start. It wasn't going to prevent Iran from getting nukes if they wanted them. Also, there were inevitably going to be sanctions put back in place against Iran due to their meddling in the region. That would have torpedoed the nuke deal eventually. There was no particular reason to pull out of that agreement when he did but destruction of the agreement is no great loss. It was only going to last as long as it was convenient.

The situation with Iran is bad. I don't think there's any course of action that could have been taken by any President in the last 30 years that would have resulted in a good situation with Iran at this point. The situation is far bigger and more complex than a single treaty or drone strike. There are geopolitical issues centuries in the making underlying this conflict. It's short sighted and simplistic to blame the way things are on any one man be he Trump, Obama, Bush or whoever.

[Metaphysicist]

Pulling out of the nuclear deal was a gift to hardliners in Iran, since it shows that international cooperation is pointless and the US is a faithless actor. Whether it was doomed is irrelevant; by being to the ones to pull out, we've only made things worse.

[Super]

As for the nuclear deal, it was doomed from the start. It wasn't going to prevent Iran from getting nukes if they wanted them. Also, there were inevitably going to be sanctions put back in place against Iran due to their meddling in the region. That would have torpedoed the nuke deal eventually. There was no particular reason to pull out of that agreement when he did but destruction of the agreement is no great loss. It was only going to last as long as it was convenient.

iran was complying with the deal. according to literally everybody, including the US...trump just didn't want to keep it because Obama. if you don't think he's that petty....check out this website called twitter.

he is doing exactly what he claimed Obama would do regarding Iran. it's almost a joke, but it's far too dangerous to be funny. we're now likely getting ourselves into another endless war in the ME. congrats. isn't this what people claimed trump WOULDN'T do? it's hard to keep up with all the flip-flopping in the minds of morons with no true principles or thoughts of course.

[cajunrevenge]

I don't think it's a distraction. There's no way Trump could have orchestrated the sequence of events necessary to have a shot at taking this guy out. An airstrike on a stationary target? Sure, that could be a distraction. You know where a military base or a weapons factory is at all times. The same is not true of an individual.

Think of everything that had to happen. We had to have intelligence assets either inside Iran or, more likely, inside this Iraqi paramilitary group tip us off. We likely have to have someone on the ground confirm his identity before the strike. We then have a brief window of opportunity when he's at a location we can strike with minimal collateral damage. This was an opportunistic strike, not something planned to distract.

Some of the other saber rattling with Iran might have that motive to distract, but I don't see that being the case here.

maybe I used bad english. I was trying to say this is not for a distraction, this is about reelection.

[striker42]

iran was complying with the deal. according to literally everybody, including the US...trump just didn't want to keep it because Obama. if you don't think he's that petty....check out this website called twitter.

he is doing exactly what he claimed Obama would do regarding Iran. it's almost a joke, but it's far too dangerous to be funny. we're now likely getting ourselves into another endless war in the ME. congrats. isn't this what people claimed trump WOULDN'T do? it's hard to keep up with all the flip-flopping in the minds of morons with no true principles or thoughts of course.

I'm not saying he was right to pull out of the nuclear deal or that Iran wasn't complying. I'm saying the nuclear deal was only going to last as long as it was convenient. It was not a real check on Iran getting nukes. They were going to break the agreement as soon as they decided they wanted to. Considering all the other things Iran has been up to in the world, it really was only a matter of time before tempers flared again the the deal was tossed.

I have no doubt Trump scrapped the deal for political reasons. It was something he'd long criticized Obama about. It's a bad reason to be sure. My only point is that the deal wasn't a huge loss. It was only a matter of time before it was going to be torn up.

I do think the arrow is heading in the wrong direction. I want to see a focus on deescalation of tensions in the region. I've long believed that western culture is the biggest weapon we have. Hook the younger generations on our culture and the hard line older generations will struggle to keep their grip.

[thethe]

Iran commits aggressions almost on a daily basis. Without repercussions for those actions they would have continued and escalated.

The nuclear deal was the ultimate lipstick on a pig that should have never happened. Surveillance showed they were lying at the time it was negotiated and signed. Obama administration did it without congressional approval. It was always going to fail.

[striker42]

maybe I used bad english. I was trying to say this is not for a distraction, this is about reelection.

Maybe a more aggressive stance with Iran is motivated at least in part by re-election. I suppose the decision to pull the trigger here instead of letting this guy live could have been part of the more aggressive stance. I've just seen too many people acting as if this was entirely orchestrated by Trump to score political points. The reality is this was an opportunity Trump couldn't have created.

[nsacpi]

A rational person making decisions on economic and political vest interests in Iran would be looking to deescalate right now. Iran might literally not be able to afford to go to war right now. Their economic situation is not good.

However, Iran is not known for rational leadership making decisions on economic realities.

This could easily be seen as a major insult to Iran and honor might outweigh rationality.

There will be consequences. I'm not saying this was the right move or wrong move. But either way, there will be consequences.

I agree the rational move for Iran is to de-escalate. Not sure this is what they do. But their interest is to see the U.S. reduce its presence in the region. They know what happened with the Kurds in Syria. They know that the isolationist trend is growing in the U.S. (manifested not just by chosen one but also by Sanders, Warren, Gabbard, Paul and others). So the smart move is to let that play itself out.

It is also worth looking at this from the perspective of the Iraqis. They asked us to leave once before. But they also know we can be a useful counterbalance to the Iranians. Many Iraqis resent the Iranians' influence in their politics. But they too see what happened to the Kurds in Syria. So I'm not sure they will consider it worth the trouble to allow us to stay. But I'm sure they are weighing the pros and cons.

My deux sous is that taking out Suleimani sends a strong signal. But that kind of signal is vitiated in the context of the what we did with respect to the Kurds in Syria and some of our other moves.

[nsacpi]

I'm not saying he was right to pull out of the nuclear deal or that Iran wasn't complying. I'm saying the nuclear deal was only going to last as long as it was convenient. It was not a real check on Iran getting nukes. They were going to break the agreement as soon as they decided they wanted to. Considering all the other things Iran has been up to in the world, it really was only a matter of time before tempers flared again the the deal was tossed.

I have no doubt Trump scrapped the deal for political reasons. It was something he'd long criticized Obama about. It's a bad reason to be sure. My only point is that the deal wasn't a huge loss. It was only a matter of time before it was going to be torn up.

I do think the arrow is heading in the wrong direction. I want to see a focus on deescalation of tensions in the region. I've long believed that western culture is the biggest weapon we have. Hook the younger generations on our culture and the hard line older generations will struggle to keep their grip.

The nuclear deal was a gamble for all sides involved. But not an unreasonable one.

[nsacpi]

Iran commits aggressions almost on a daily basis.

They also worked with us where our interests coincided. In Afghanistan. Against ISIS.

But yeah, fundamentally they have made things worse in the region. The fault line that we as Americans don't give enough thought to is Sunni vs Shiite. We have to be more aware of how it affects everything. We don't have to take one side or another. But too often we ignore its importance.

[striker42]

The nuclear deal was a gamble for all sides involved. But not an unreasonable one.

It was in everyone's best interest at the time. The west was motivated to deescalate tensions and move Iran getting nukes farther down the road. Iran was motivated by being able to sell oil freely and so get a massive influx of cash into their sanction squeezed economy. It was convenient for all parties.

However, it was only ever going to last as long as it was convenient. As soon as anyone involved had a reason to rip it up, it was going away. If it wasn't Trump ripping it up for political reasons it would have been Iran withdrawing once sanctions were handed down for their support of terrorist groups.

I would like to see a deeascalation of tensions and both sides move towards normalizing relations but I don't see it happening. The influence Iranian proxies give Iran is too tempting and the US isn't going to let that grow unchecked.

[nsacpi]

It was in everyone's best interest at the time. The west was motivated to deescalate tensions and move Iran getting nukes farther down the road. Iran was motivated by being able to sell oil freely and so get a massive influx of cash into their sanction squeezed economy. It was convenient for all parties.

However, it was only ever going to last as long as it was convenient. As soon as anyone involved had a reason to rip it up, it was going away. If it wasn't Trump ripping it up for political reasons it would have been Iran withdrawing once sanctions were handed down for their support of terrorist groups.

I would like to see a deeascalation of tensions and both sides move towards normalizing relations but I don't see it happening. The influence Iranian proxies give Iran is too tempting and the US isn't going to let that grow unchecked.

Nothing lasts forever. Once in a while countries reach an accommodation that endures. But diplomacy is mostly about going from one band aid to another. I didn't and still don't have a strong view as to whether the nuclear deal was wise or not. The best I can come up with is it was worth the try. But it wasn't the sort of thing to have high hopes for.

[striker42]

They also worked with us where our interests coincided. In Afghanistan. Against ISIS.

But yeah, fundamentally they have made things worse in the region. The fault line that we as Americans don't give enough thought to is Sunni vs Shiite. We have to be more aware of how it affects everything. We don't have to take one side or another. But too often we ignore its importance.

This is one of those geopolitical issues centuries in the making I mentioned in another post. There's also ethnic differences. We think of this region as the Arab World. It's anything but.

In the Middle East and North Africa you have Arabs, Turks, Kurds, Persians, and Egyptians just to name a few. You even have sub groups like Bedouins. These groups in many cases have a long and complex history with each other.

Then you have political movements like Islamism (political fundamentalist Islam), the legacy of colonialism, massive disparities of wealth that oil has created, the constant tension Israel creates, and so on. It's so much bigger than a nuclear deal or the killing of a general.

[striker42]

Nothing lasts forever. Once in a while countries reach an accommodation that endures. But diplomacy is mostly about going from one band aid to another. I didn't and still don't have a strong view as to whether the nuclear deal was wise or not. The best I can come up with is it was worth the try. But it wasn't the sort of thing to have high hopes for.

That's where I'm at. I feel like people made too big of a deal of the nuclear deal (whether for it or against it). Worth a try but not something that anyone should really think will solve the problem.

[thethe]

I'm just confused by the narrative that this is an isolated reckless aggression. Iran attacks the US only on a daily basis through their proxies.

[nsacpi]

I'm just confused by the narrative that this is an isolated reckless aggression. Iran attacks the US only on a daily basis through their proxies.

I'm not sure who is pushing that narrative. My view is that taking out Suleimani is a strong move (and yes chosen one deserves credit for a ballsy decision). But we need to do a better job of being a steady, reliable ally.

[thethe]

I'm not sure who is pushing that narrative. My view is that taking out Suleimani is a strong move (and yes chosen one deserves credit for a ballsy decision). But we need to do a better job of being a steady, reliable ally.

Ally to whom?

[nsacpi]

Ally to whom?

surely you are aware of what transpired with respect to the Kurds in Syria

surely you are aware of chosen one's ambivalent statements about article 5 of NATO and about whether the United States would act if certain members of NATO came under attack

the damage done to our credibility has been incalculable

[thethe]

surely you are aware of what transpired with respect to the Kurds in Syria

surely you are aware of chosen one's ambivalent statements about article 5 of NATO and about whether the United States would act if certain members of NATO came under attack

the damage done to our credibility has been incalculable

Thats all well and good and those points are valid. For some reason I assumed you were referencing Iran.

If that was not the case then I apologize.

[goldfly]

I’m old enough to remember thethe praising trump for withdrawing from the Middle East (which we weren’t doing but so be it) and stopping endless wars and thankful that Hillary wasn’t in charge to continue or start Wars