GTX0 Announcements | RoadmapFeedbackHelp | SandboxNewest Posts | Replies | Hottest
NIFE UpdatesRoadmapRequests | HelpDiscuss Game Worlds


Politics & Religion


World events, politics and whatever (especially whatever)
WARNING: Posts may contain offensive content and red wine
09/11/2001 WE REMEMBER

"Fear is the foundation of most governments." - John Adams

"My family is more important than my party." - Zell Miller


Can someone, ideally both proponents and opponents, please go over the arguments as to why the Trump administration is reneging on the framework and withdrawing from UNSC Resolution 2231?

Any possible reasoning as to why this is a good idea would be great.

settingsOptions
There are 27 Replies

I don't really want to rehash the arguments for pulling out, and the reasons as to why Trump did it. It happened and it's a disaster.

I think it's more productive to try and think about what can actually come from this.

European powers will probably still stick with the Iran Deal, and probably not change it, like they had suggested before to appease Trump.

Iran won't immediately go into nuclear development. They are threatening to do it if they don't get some sort of concessions, which they probably deserve, and would be worth it to appease them. This will most likely empower the hard-liners in Iran, but we still have till 2021 before the next presidential election.

Israel is probably celebrating. I saw news that there were strikes on Iranian assets in Syria after Trump's announcement, with possible Iranian casualties. That could have just been a rumor, though, but either way, I think Iran and Israel will continue to threaten each other in Syria.

Saudi Arabia is in a similar position, I would think.

Then there's North Korea. This definitely doesn't bode well for Trump and Kim to make a miraculous diplomatic breakthrough. We simply can't be trusted to stick to any deal that could be reversed in three years. If Kim was planning on this whole thing being nothing more than a legitimizing photo-op and wasn't really open to any meaningful deal, then it probably doesn't matter ultimately. However, there are some people who think that pulling out of the Iran Deal may signal to Kim that he won't get a deal as good as Iran; Trump wants more for the US, so to speak.

Posted May 9th by Agis
Agis
 

Any possible reasoning as to why this is a good idea would be great.

Assuming most of the people against the Iran deal are pro-Trump/pro-GOP, gutting the Iran deal puts us closer to war, and an incumbent president is much more likely to be reelected during wartime.

Posted May 9th by pacman
pacman
 

The stated main objective of the Iran Deal was to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. As it will almost certainly not accomplish this, the actual objective of the JCPOA was to buy time. It will now buy less time than expected, considering that its entire existence was predicated on a sympathetic party winning the 2016 election. I hate that everything comes back to this, but it does: The agreement had the character of a treaty but lacked the constitutional legitimacy of one, and so was walked away from just as easily as it was entered into. The previous president, whatever his name was, should have sought the consent of Congress (and by extension, if we want to be quaint, the American people) over this matter if he wanted it to stick.

I believe it was our own Count Dooku that made the following argument with regard to that utterly inconsequential thing we call the Paris Climate Accords: If indeed the accords were as nonbinding and meaningless as conservatives claimed, would it not have still been wise to remain in them and keep up appearances so as to avoid the perception that the United States had become unreliable? It was a compelling point, and one I mostly agreed with. That situation doesn't really translate here except, of course, as it applies once more to our credibility. The Iran Deal may be inadequate, and the regime in Iran may be criminal to its core, but what precisely are we going to do about it that justifies reneging on our word and infuriating our closest allies? The responsibilities of the United States do not usually end with the outgoing administration.

So what now? I do not accept pacman's suggestion that war is necessarily the aim. And unlike many here, perhaps even most, I do not think it is illegitimate for the United States to work to prevent nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. As we have a self professed deal maker in office, I want to know what it is he plans to do to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and if we could do something about all of the state sponsored terrorism that would be great too. It is not a victory to merely to walk out of the Iran Deal.

Anyway we have to give it to the Iranian parliament for demonstrating that, despite claims to the contrary from hawks in the United States, they are rational actors.



Edited May 10th by Famov
Famov

I don't know enough about the deal to claim to hold an informed opinion on it either way, but from what I've read it seems as if the deal only served to buy time while granting the Iranians a substantial cash injection and the lifting of sanctions. I don't see how that's a good deal. Iran is under no obligation to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure or destroy its nuclear resources in the meantime. It does nothing to halt Iran's nuclear ambitions - it merely sets it back a few years.

Well... what then? And what will the Iranians do with all that money?

In tearing up the deal, it seems as if Trump has merely brought the problems of the future into the present, where they will have to be dealt with.

Genuinely interested to hear arguments in favour of the deal. I have yet to hear any beyond "it buys us time".

Edited May 9th by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

https://www.timesofisrael.com/sirens-sound-in-golan-heights-residents-urged-to-enter-shelters/ https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/6239990/israel-airstrikes-iran-base-syria-donald-trump-nuclear-deal-latest/
Interesting timing. I assume I can't find a non-israel source for the first one because it happened not long ago but it's still interesting that it's being claimed regardless.

Also ya getting rid of the deal was stupid.

Edited May 9th by KnokkelMillennium
KnokkelMillennium

So what now? I do not accept pacman's suggestion that war is necessarily the aim

Maybe not the aim (though I do emphasize the term “maybe”), but certainly a possible consequence, much more possible than the neocon warmongers pushing for all this escalation aeound the world would have you believe; in fact, I would say global conflict is inevitable in the long run. An empire can only do so much imperialism (or “humanitarian intervention”) for so long before it comes back to bite them in the ass. To me, it looks like these US elites who can’t resist meddling in other countries for faux-humanitarian and “national security” reasons have been so far up their own asses and so drunk on the power of post-WW2 America that they don’t even see that very power fading in front of them, largely thanks to their own decisions these past few decades. Carroll Quigley referred to this period in a civilization as the “Age of Conflict”:

“The Age of Conflict of any civilization can be identified by the fact that it has four characteristics different from the four characteristics of the Age of Expansion. These four indicators are: (a) decreasing rate of expansion; (b) increasing class-conflicts; (c) increasing imperialist wars among the political units which make up most civilizations; and (d) growing irrationality.”

———

“This third characteristic of an Age of General Crisis (imperialist wars) is but one example, though a major one, of the general tendency of this Stage to seek to increase its rate of expansion by the use of force and of political action, as this rate ceases to be maintained at an adequate level by organizational processes based on accepted structural patterns.”

granting the Iranians a substantial cash injection

We didn’t give them a “cash injection” or “free money”; we simply gave them back their own money that we froze during previous sanctions - money that we pretty much literally stole from them.


Edited May 9th by pacman
pacman
 

from what I've read it seems as if the deal only served to buy time while granting the Iranians a substantial cash injection and the lifting of sanctions

Idiot right wing morons and their freaking "Obama gave them money" carp. QUIT READING FAKE NEWS FROM PROPAGANDA SITES!!!

Posted May 9th by Psygnosis
Psygnosis

Til smiling is okay with people stealing money.

Posted May 10th by A.o.h.
A.o.h.
 

In tearing up the deal, it seems as if Trump has merely brought the problems of the future into the present, where they will have to be dealt with.

Genuinely interested to hear arguments in favour of the deal. I have yet to hear any beyond "it buys us time".

Well, the argument against the Iran Deal is that it's not permanent and doesn't apply to ballistic missile development or any other problems we have with Iran.

But all of those issues are much harder to solve and work on if they are developing nuclear weapons. The fact that it bought us ten years' time to make progress on bettering relations with them, supporting their moderate political factions, and integrating them more into the international community was actually very valuable.

Iran's economy is also doing extremely poorly, even with sanctions being lifted. Like 20% unemployment in the cities and 65% unemployment in the rural areas. This is due in part to the fear sanctions would be put back on and corporations not wanting to make investments based on that uncertainty. But it's also due to the fact that the money the government made was put into military excursions in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc.

So, you can look at that and make an argument that lifting sanctions didn't bear as good of fruit as we expected and we should go back to containment and isolation of their regime. But, sanctions aren't an end in itself, but a means to an end -- and what is that, exactly? Because economic collapse could lead to chaos and even more bloodshed in the Middle East, which is to say nothing of the greater regional dynamic.

Posted May 10th by Agis
Agis
 

Oh btw, it is worth noting (but seldom mentioned) that the IAEA has done several investigations (10 iirc) and found every single time that Iran is complying with the nuclear deal. Meanwhile we slapped new sanctions in 2017. Our word meant nothing to begin with.

Posted May 10th by pacman
pacman
 

Our word meant nothing to begin with.


this has always been the case with the bulk of our treaties and deals lol

Posted May 10th by s.o.h.
s.o.h.
 

We didn’t give them a “cash injection” or “free money”; we simply gave them back their own money that we froze during previous sanctions - money that we pretty much literally stole from them.

Sure, but nonetheless it's money that the Iranians would have been denied were America to continue its sanctions.

Kerry himself admitted that some of this money has been funnelled to terrorist organisations. Surely that's a bad thing?

The fact that it bought us ten years' time to make progress on bettering relations with them, supporting their moderate political factions, and integrating them more into the international community was actually very valuable.

It ought to be clear in the wake of tearing up the deal that the Mullah's anti-American fanaticism is alive and well. I don't think we have any hope of reconciling ourselves with the leadership of Iran - their very identity is bound up with hostility to the West. That's what the Iranian revolution itself was founded on.

However, the Iranian people show every sign of being reasonable and decent. Most of them do not like the regime. I agree that there are genuine moderates in Iran who we can work with and that (unlike in Syria) they appear to hold majority support.

But I don't see how the Mullahs are going to be overthrown any time soon. Certainly not if economic conditions are improved by the lifting of sanctions. Our only hope is another revolution - but the deal would have prevented the necessary conditions for revolution from ever arising.

But, sanctions aren't an end in itself, but a means to an end -- and what is that, exactly? Because economic collapse could lead to chaos and even more bloodshed in the Middle East, which is to say nothing of the greater regional dynamic.

It could lead to pressure from the people of Iran on the Mullahs to stop their nuclear program, backed up by the threat of revolution.

Maybe not the aim (though I do emphasize the term “maybe”), but certainly a possible consequence, much more possible than the neocon warmongers pushing for all this escalation aeound the world would have you believe

I am an anti-interventionist, but I am also anti-nuclear proliferation. If Iran acquired nuclear weapons, Saudi Arabia has openly admitted it would seek them too. The two pillars of Shia and Sunni Islam in the Middle East in possession of nuclear weapons is intolerable - do you not agree? And if so, how should this be prevented?

Edited May 10th by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

Why is it ok if Israel has nukes ?

Posted May 10th by #85
#85

That's not the point. The countries that have nukes, have nukes. There's no going back from that.

What humanity should be seeking is to put a stop to the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Because the more that have them, the more likely nuclear war becomes.

Posted May 10th by Smiling Apple
Smiling Apple

No, #85 is right. The condemnation of "proliferation" is an imperialist argument.
It erves two purposes - one, to ensure that one's rivals are more clearly delineated (two, and not ten) and two, to cudgel backwater countries nobody cares about and paint them as burgeoning threats when needed FOR the purposes of, for instance, replacing their leaders if we don't like them.

Nukes are a danger, but the fewer nukes either country has the less likely *conventional* warfare becomes - which of course leads to the demise of the war economy.

Posted May 12th by Pink Peruvian Flying Bear
Pink Peruvian Flying Bear

The problem with the people on the right in this forum, is that they all support Israel. In what way could Israel be considered an ally?

Attacked our Navy ship, killing dozens of sailors and wounding over 100 (USS Liberty)

Plotting to blow up embassies and blame it on Arabs (Lavon Affair)

Spy on our government

Drain us of 3 bill a year that goes to their military to oppress the Palestinians

Sell our secrets to China

Lobbying our government to intervene militarily in the Middle East essentially on their own behalf.

Edited May 14th by #85
#85

In tearing up the deal, it seems as if Trump has merely brought the problems of the future into the present, where they will have to be dealt with.

Pretty much this. Let's see how the NK talks go now that they know Trump tears up deals like this. Unfortunate.

Posted May 13th by Jahoy Hoy
Jahoy Hoy

Better convert to Marxism before the reptilluminati ZOG drag you down, #85

Posted May 13th by Pink Peruvian Flying Bear
Pink Peruvian Flying Bear

Merkel and Theresa May have attacked Trump for withdrawing from the deal.

To me, this adds legitimacy to Trumps move.

Posted May 16th by #85
#85

To me, this adds legitimacy to Trumps move.

Sounds like some troll logic.

Posted May 16th by Fox Forever
Fox Forever

Merkel is good? Despite the country being flooded with millions of Muslims?

May is good ? Despite her failure to carry out Brexit ?

Posted May 16th by #85
#85

Did I say any of that?

Posted May 16th by Fox Forever
Fox Forever

You didn't say much of anything.

Posted May 16th by #85
#85

What I'm alluding to is the fact that just because others (ones I assume you don't like) are against it, it ends up legitimizing it in your mind. That's what causes a split in people and what makes them not think for themselves. Followers of both big parties do this and it's really stupid. Be against it or in favor of it for its merits. Not because it makes individuals you don't like mad.

Posted May 16th by Fox Forever
Fox Forever

You mean partisanship?

Posted May 16th by Weid man
Weid man
 

If someone is always wrong, it's a good measure.

Posted May 16th by #85
#85

Merkel is good? Despite the country being flooded with millions of Muslims?


Theres a reason why shes been chancellor of germany four times. Disastrous implementation of refugees aside She has done far more good than bad. Its actually pretty impressive where Germany is now due to her leadership than where it was when she first took over. Even more impressive when you see that she has carried out all this progress while running a coalition government.

Meanwhile the republicans over here control all three branches of government (Pending 2018 November Blue wave) and still cant get their head out of their ass.

but please continue your Merkle loves Jihad and destroyed Germany narrative.

Facts prove otherwise. But I dont expect you to take facts into consideration. (shrugs)


Edited Thursday by S.O.H.
S.O.H.
 
Reply to: The Iran Nuclear Deal

Enter your message here


Site Rules | Complaints Process | Register Complaint Facebook Page
GTX0 © 2009-2017 Xhin GameTalk © 1999-2008 lives on