What is the US up to with regard to Iran?

[EnglishEdward]

Hrothbern & Kyriakos

You are both making good points.

But as an inhabitant of a large island in the North Atlantic, the issue merely provides an
incentive to press the accelerator in reversing away from the Euro-Asian continent.

There are a lot of problems in the UK, getting involved in other problems does not help.

 

[Hrothbern]

Hrothbern & Kyriakos

You are both making good points.

But as an inhabitant of a large island in the North Atlantic, the issue merely provides an
incentive to press the accelerator in reversing away from the Euro-Asian continent.

There are a lot of problems in the UK, getting involved in other problems does not help.

I cannot escape the horseshoe thought that the more you guys drift towards the US, the more you are back on the Euro-Asian scene with military interventions in our Balkan-Turkey-Middle East backyard.
Ofc after rolling the dice whether the Tories are in power or not

 

[EnglishEdward]

I cannot escape the horseshoe thought that the more you guys drift towards the US, the more you are back on the Euro-Asian scene with military interventions in our Balkan-Turkey-Middle East backyard.
Ofc after rolling the dice whether the Tories are in power or not

I entirely understand that logic.

Prior to joining the European Project one way or the other, countries such as the
Republic of Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland very sensibly adopted policies of neutrality.

Unfortunately, too many of our politicians still have delusions of grandeur.

Anyway, according to many, Brexit is supposed to make us go bankrupt,
so we won't have any army, navy or air force to intervene with.

 

[Hrothbern]

I entirely understand that logic.

Prior to joining the European Project one way or the other, countries such as the
Republic of Ireland, Sweden and Switzerland very sensibly adopted policies of neutrality.

Unfortunately, too many of our politicians still have delusions of grandeur.

Anyway, according to many, Brexit is supposed to make us go bankrupt,
so we won't have any army, navy or air force to intervene with.

No way that the UK is going bankrupt !
Too rich and developed.

Some kind of neutrality would indeed be an interesting option.
I think Japan, Canada, Australia could be good examples.

 

[red_elk]

Over to you EU27?

They didn't say it officially, it was just a statement "who is going to compensate our losses?"
And they probably understand it won't be Russia, although they will surely try to demand money from Russia as well.

Ukraine also feels betrayed after Russia's full membership in PACE was restored last month. But that's another hilarious story.
PACE deprived Russia of voting rights in 2014, but demanded Russia to continue paying membership fees. It didn't work, surprisingly
Russian delegation said either you expel us completely or restore full membership. In the end, PACE decided that money is more important.
Ukraine even sent a guy who was explaining how Russia is dangerous, wearing hazmat gloves.

Didn't help.
Now Ukraine threatens to leave the organization, but I think they'll probably change their mind.

 

[Rashiminos]

The deal wasn't made, though. The US did not make the deal. Obama's administration did. The constitution requires treaties to go through Congress, one effect of which is prevent exactly what you have complained about here: the fickleness of elections, because it is much harder to repeal laws than it is to just stop upholding your predecessor's unauthorized deals. Another effect of this stricture is to prevent the US from making these bad deals. The Iran deal would not have gotten through the Senate. If it were good but the Republicans held out on it, McCain would have assembled another Gang of 8 and gotten it through, but he didn't. Because it was a bad deal.

As awful as the deal was, that's crap. The Obama administration was acting on behalf of the US, only to be undermined by the incoming administration. Fickleness is not a good addition to foreign policy, even if Iran was milking the opportunity presented by US rapprochement.

Isn't a considerable (libertarian and other) part of Trump's base specifically anti-war? He sort of was elected on a no-war pledge as well. That he is a bad president isn't in question, yet he seems to be less of a warmonger than the typical republican.

Not exactly. They may be opposed to foreign wars in Middle Eastern deserts, but could probably be talked into something local (Mexico) or even domestic.

 

[Tristan_C]

As awful as the deal was, that's crap. The Obama administration was acting on behalf of the US, only to be undermined by the incoming administration. Fickleness is not a good addition to foreign policy, even if Iran was milking the opportunity presented by US rapprochement.

Fickleness was the result of congress not accepting the bad deal. And they wouldn't have, since it was bad. Saying a post is crap doesn't address its point that the constitution requires treaties to pass through congress. You can take solace in the fact that the constitution works both ways: any deals or executive orders Trump does without congress can also be reversed by the next administration; just as Trump dismantled Obama's executive orders the same thing can happen to him. In such a case, I wonder how would you react if I chastised that administration for fickleness.

 

[Rashiminos]

Fickleness was the result of congress not accepting the bad deal. And they wouldn't have, since it was bad. Saying a post is crap doesn't address its point that the constitution requires treaties to pass through congress. You can take solace in the fact that the constitution works both ways: any deals or executive orders Trump does without congress can also be reversed by the next administration; just as Trump dismantled Obama's executive orders the same thing can happen to him. In such a case, I wonder how would you react if I chastised that administration for fickleness.

Requires in theory... In practice American discourse will accept initiative on the part of the Executive when Congress is gridlocked. I'm confident all shrieks of executive overreach will suddenly trail off if the administration changes parties in 2021.

 

[Tristan_C]

Requires in theory... In practice American discourse will accept initiative on the part of the Executive when Congress is gridlocked. I'm confident all shrieks of executive overreach will suddenly trail off if the administration changes parties in 2021.

Yes, whoever is out of power screeches executive overreach and becomes the deficit hawk. Normal.

Personally I am happy with complete partisan deadlock. The US government is not adequately suited for the goals people envision for it, and most of what it does is either wrong, ineffective, or perverse. For instance if the constitution's enumerated powers restrictions had been followed and all the clawing for handouts and free medicine were confined to the state and local government levels, then presidential and US congress elections would be more focused on foreign policy.

My point here with preventing bad foreign policy deals was that if congress commits on a treaty, it has two layers of protection that executive orders lack. There are these non-term-limited congressmen who are unlikely to repeal votes they themselves made in the past, and even if they do, there is the veto power of the executive. In fact when the constitution is followed the US would generally be characterized as at risk of a ponderous and inflexible foreign policy, the opposite of fickle. This controversy dates all the way back to the Louisiana Purchase, a good deal that Jefferson worried Congress would be too slow to leap for.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yes, whoever is out of power screeches executive overreach and becomes the deficit hawk. Normal.

Just how many times do we need to go through the cycle of Republicans tax cuts, deficit, deregulation before the US realize that it is one party that is the problem ?
How much do you want the executive power to expand under Republicans ? Trade wars ? deceleration of public emergencies ? shifting funds from one organization to another ?
How much will you tolerate the abuse of power ? Stealing a supreme court seat ? Nepotism ? Emoluments ?

You sure about this ? Because the next democrat president is going to use these new tools / norm.

 

[r16]

The pipeline story is most likely a consequence of Russian support, not the reason for it. Qatar/SA and Assad have many other reasons not to like each other.

the only pipeline to be built would have the Kurdish one after Syria was demolished . The talk of pipelines were an extra incentive for the Sunni to rise , Iran's reaction -which came late- called for a Russian oversight so that it wouldn't go awry and ı do remember a sense of surprise on my part when people "close by" talked good of a Qatari pipeline , after Saudis made New Turkey shoot down a Russian plane with Qatari blessing . A Kurdish nation state is still "away" , the regular Israeli fragmenting of the Arab countries is not that successful with the thousands of airstrikes still being flown , so the narrative is now that the West only wanted to market Eastern Med gas and all the bloodshed was for that and they do not look like defeated .

 

[Tristan_C]

Just how many times do we need to go through the cycle of Republicans tax cuts, deficit, deregulation before the US realize that it is one party that is the problem ?

I have some dopamine-driven partisanship issues, but I'm not this bad.

 

[Socrates99]

Just how many times do we need to go through the cycle of Republicans tax cuts, deficit, deregulation before the US realize that it is one party that is the problem ?
How much do you want the executive power to expand under Republicans ? Trade wars ? deceleration of public emergencies ? shifting funds from one organization to another ?
How much will you tolerate the abuse of power ? Stealing a supreme court seat ? Nepotism ? Emoluments ?

You sure about this ? Because the next democrat president is going to use these new tools / norm.

Mitch has all but admitted that Gorsuch's seat was stolen. When asked what he'd do if a seat opens in 2020 he responded "We'd fill it." with no hesitation.

Fox News' hypocrisy is on full display with Trump's DPRK meetings. When Obama said he'd be willing to talk to Kim and they acted like that itself was a crime.

I just hope more of the spineless dems get primaried in the future. Joe Manchin constantly breaks rank to vote with Republicans and all he gets in return is Pence stumping against him back in 2018. Its dumb, there's no reason to play ball anymore.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Fox News' hypocrisy is on full display with Trump's DPRK meetings. When Obama said he'd be willing to talk to Kim and they acted like that itself was a crime.

Bowing to Saudi Monarch is weak
But curtising like a girl is strong
MAGA

 

[r16]

but bowing to the Saudi Monarch makes the whole Middle East tremble with sexual joy , they have arrived and America trusts them Sunnis to kill all the Shia . Except , you know , the arrival seems somewhat delayed , once again or something .

 

[Commodore]

I think Japan, Canada, Australia could be good examples.

Those nations are far from neutral though. Each one of those nation's is a member of at least one major military alliance.

 

[Hrothbern]

Those nations are far from neutral though. Each one of those nation's is a member of at least one major military alliance.

Yes
That's why I said: "some kind of neutrality"
Meaning not neutrality by ignoring, isolationism for reality or neglect.

Some kind of neutrality would indeed be an interesting option.
I think Japan, Canada, Australia could be good examples.

I think neutrality is an area on one side of the scale.
Looking back at the "neutral" countries in Europe during that full blown war WW2... most of them were involved in some way.

So again yes to what you say with those alliances, and I take an alliance as the NATO very seriously, like my government.
How you stand in such an alliance, how you stand outside the prime reason for that alliance, especially how you weight in UN resolutions, gives still a huge room for positioning in real terms (like military) and influencing terms (like silent diplomacy, economical positions, generous humanitarian actions and aid, and statements for the public newsmedia).
Taking international law, and widely supported UN resolutions seriously, makes it almost impossible to be fully neutral. Not doing something as much not-neutral as doing something.

"neutrality" can be very active... and the effect of any small steering signal is most effective if done fast, whether silent or in public.
Is a matter of political style and culture of the involved country as well, domestic and foreign.
Countries and their peoples do differ there in style, also when they agree on the objectives.
Countries, their politicians and their civil services do differ in professionality and the way they act and how effective that is, also when they agree on the objectives.

Trump's strategy regarding Iran has a forcing character... lessening the room for all the grey shades, forcing binary loyalties.
Erdogan is doing the same. Whether with those S-400 or Cyprus gas drilling. Betting the house of his NATO and EU relations.

 

[Tristan_C]

Are we talking about dementia-plagued late warmonger McCain?
He seemed to want to go to war against all enemies of Israel or whatever.

I was referring to a specific thing about him.

If there was something the Democrats needed very badly, John McCain now-and-then bestirred himself to assemble a small group of moderates to cross the aisle. He rendered this service on several high-stakes occasions, so the media rewarded him with the attractive epithet, "the maverick senator." Rather stupidly, McCain thought the media would continue to treat him favorably after he got the Republican nomination in 2008. He came back into the media's good graces like a beaten spouse in subsequent years. He never recognized the media in the US for what it was. He never asked himself why no Democrat who crossed the aisle, as he did, was ever lauded by them as a "maverick."

 

[r16]

mcCain , even as warmonger , was twice better of many , considering he would know where to stop . You know , the guy could not raise his arms above his shoulders or something . Considering Trump has never given himself a chance to discover he was cowardly enough to be taken as a prisoner of war by the North Vietnamese or whatever .

it regularly takes pages long rants on how S-400 or that gas drilling things are not "crises" , they are done in full confidence that there will nothing to pay .

and Putin has spoken ! Says Solar Energy or Wind Power are dangerous to the Nature . Wind props kill countless birds and their vibrations cause worms to surface , perhaps causing their deaths . The Turkish Russian war will end in the destruction of every single Russian export pipeline , but ı guess windmill thingies will survive due to their sheer numbers . And nothing about r16 , too ... See , there's a renewable energy meeting in Turkey and some no doubt New Turkey guy says we will be the "Arabia" of renewable energy . Putin , imagining himself to be the future master of lands around here , the Czar who reached warm ports must be offended .

and it being Thursday , them Brits claim they repelled an Iranian attack on a British tanker , arrested the captain of the ship captured off Spain as revenge and said people must come and protect their ships . America nods the nod , you know , Trump being the greastest and yugest Coalition maker and nobody coming to coalitionize . See , Indians are not bragging how they ended the Gulf troubles , with you know , sending two warships after the first two weeks , because :

View attachment 524809

 

[Broken_Erika]

New leak claims Trump scrapped Iran nuclear deal 'to spite Obama'
Donald Trump abandoned the Iran nuclear deal to spite Barack Obama, according to a leaked memo written by the UK's former ambassador in the US.

Sir Kim Darroch described the move as an act of "diplomatic vandalism", according to the Mail on Sunday.

The paper says the memo was written after the then Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson appealed to the US in 2018 to stick with the deal.

The latest leak came despite the Met Police warning against publication.

The first memos criticising President Trump's administration, which emerged a week ago, prompted a furious reaction from the US president and resulted in Sir Kim resigning from his role.

The Mail on Sunday reports that Sir Kim wrote to Mr Johnson informing him Republican President Trump appeared to be abandoning the nuclear deal for "personality reasons" - because the pact had been agreed by his Democrat predecessor, Barack Obama.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48978484