Iran v US confrontation

[MDFC Manager]

Why is every iteration of US foreign policy more stupid than the previous one?

 

[2cents]

US vows 'strongest sanctions in history' on Iran
In a speech in Washington, America's top diplomat said Iran would be "battling to keep its economy alive" after the sanctions took effect. He said he would work closely with the Pentagon and regional allies "to deter any Iranian aggression".
He laid out 12 conditions that Washington would need to be met for any "new deal" with Tehran, including pulling all its forces out of Syria and ending support for rebels in Yemen. Mr Pompeo said relief from sanctions would only come when Washington had seen a real change in Iran's policies. "We will apply unprecedented financial pressure on the Iranian regime," he said. "The leaders in Tehran will have no doubt about our seriousness. "Iran will never again have carte blanche to dominate the Middle East."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44200621

That's about as close to a declaration of war as you can get without mobilizing the military.

 

[sun_tzu]

Why is every iteration of US foreign policy more stupid than the previous one?

Because Americans vote for them? ... just a thought

 

[Wengerscoat]

That's about as close to a declaration of war as you can get without mobilizing the military.

Pretty much.

 

[sun_tzu]

That's about as close to a declaration of war as you can get without mobilizing the military.

I could see trump loosing off a few thousand cruise missiles without batting an eye... but I couldn't see him committing troops...

But I can't see cruise missiles changing anything... would he nuke them... I mean I know it's crazy but so is he... would he?

 

[Kaos]

US vows 'strongest sanctions in history' on Iran
In a speech in Washington, America's top diplomat said Iran would be "battling to keep its economy alive" after the sanctions took effect. He said he would work closely with the Pentagon and regional allies "to deter any Iranian aggression".
He laid out 12 conditions that Washington would need to be met for any "new deal" with Tehran, including pulling all its forces out of Syria and ending support for rebels in Yemen. Mr Pompeo said relief from sanctions would only come when Washington had seen a real change in Iran's policies. "We will apply unprecedented financial pressure on the Iranian regime," he said. "The leaders in Tehran will have no doubt about our seriousness. "Iran will never again have carte blanche to dominate the Middle East."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-44200621

Ahh I see they’ve added in the obligatory ties to Al Qaeda accusation, never mind the fact that AQ consider Shi’a heathens and punishable by death for just existing. Also ironic considering the US’ second biggest ally in the region probably has the closest links to AQ.
This smells like a prelude to another reckless adventure.

 

[Adisa]

Trump needs to be removed as a matter of urgency.

 

[Wengerscoat]

Trump needs to be removed as a matter of urgency.

He is on the verge of doing something asoutndingly stupid re: Iran. The above statements are nothing short of war. Had another nation made that statement to the US it'd been considered war.

 

[sun_tzu]

Ahh I see they’ve added in the obligatory ties to Al Qaeda accusation, never mind the fact that AQ consider Shi’a heathens and punishable by death for just existing. Also ironic considering the US’ second biggest ally in the region probably has the closest links to AQ.
This smells like a prelude to another reckless adventure.

Indeed... the only real question is which European countries will call bullshit and not join in... probably Germany. .. possibly France.. . UK will lapdog along in the hope of a belly rub.
Russia... not sure... probably stand aside and let putin take the moral high ground.

 

[VidaRed]

With the rising oil prices, perhaps India can ignore the sanctions and buy oil from iran on the cheap.

 

[bleedred]

With the rising oil prices, perhaps India can ignore the sanctions and buy oil from iran on the cheap.

Only if Europe honors the JCPOA.If they back out, it will be difficult for them to buy as they currently pay through European back channels.

I suppose, they could still buy even if Europe backs out, but it would make the process a lot more complicated. Currently, Iran is India's third largest supplier and if Europe were to back out, they may just buy half of what they get now.

 

[2cents]

The JCPOA is breaking down. Things are going to get very interesting in the next 18 months.

Iran gives JCPOA parties 60 days before reducing further commitments

TEHRAN May 08 (MNA) – Iran has revealed countermeasures to US’ withdrawal from the nuclear deal, removing restrictions on storage of heavy water and enriched uranium, and giving the five remaining parties to JCPOA 60 days before reducing further commitments to the agreement.

“In line with protecting the security and national interests of the Iranian people”, the Supreme National Security Council has ordered stop to implementation of some parts of commitments of the Islamic Republic of Iran under the JCPOA according to articles 26 and 36 of the agreement.

The letter containing the details of Iran’s countermeasures to the US withdrawal from the agreement and its increasing pressure and restrictions against the Islamic Republic since May 2018 was presented to the ambassadors of the five remaining parties to the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) - France, Germany, UK, Russia and China – on Wednesday morning, a few hours before President Rouhani went live on a television broadcast to discuss the decision in length.

According to the decision of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran will no longer commit to the restrictions put on storage of enriched uranium and heavy water under the agreement.

The remaining parties to the nuclear deal have been given 60 days to implement their commitments under the JCPOA, particularly those related to the banking and oil sectors. Failure to do so will prompt the Islamic Republic to stop complying with restrictions on the level of uranium enrichment and the modernization of Arak heavy water reactor, the statement says.

“At any given time that our demands are met, we will resume complying with the stopped commitments; otherwise, we will continue to stop implementing the other commitments step by step,” adds the statement by the Supreme National Security Council.

“Iran is ready to continue its consultations with the remaining parties to the JCPOA on all levels,” the statement notes. “However, Iran will respond decisively and immediately to any irresponsible act, such as referring the issue to the UN Security Council or the imposition of more sanctions.”

The statement further stresses that the failure of the JCPOA and any possible consequence will be fully upon the United States and the remaining parties to the nuclear deal.

 

[Carolina Red]

If US would invade with Israel and SA backing up

It was the diplomatic triumph of a generation for GHW Bush to get those two to peacefully coexist in 1990-1991. You think Trump’s admin is gonna pull off one better...?

 

[sun_tzu]

war with iran... great propaganda for four more years in 2020... those weak ass demz more bothered about turning amurica communist and letting dem damn mexicanz bring all the drugz n rapistz over the border to take our jobz... and letting iranian muslamic terrorists develop nukes and death rays... thats why we need a strong president who will grab em by the pussy erm nuke em erm show them who is boss and MAGA... USA USA USA etc

 

[matherto]

Wonder if he's done this as a distraction to the tax leak that he knew was coming.

 

[2cents]

Wonder if he's done this as a distraction to the tax leak that he knew was coming.

Trump has done nothing vis-a-vis Iran that he didn't promise to do during his election campaign.

 

[Adisa]

16 years since the US invaded another country. Must be a record for them. They're getting itchy.

 

[VidaRed]

16 years since the US invaded another country. Must be a record for them. They're getting itchy.

Is that so ? Don't they have troops in some countries as "occupation forces" ?

 

[Adisa]

Is that so ? Don't they have troops in some countries as "occupation forces" ?

They've had "advisers" in many countries like Syria, Nigeria, Yemen, Chad etc but I don't think they've occupies any new countries since the "War on Terror".

 

[berbatrick]

Trump has done nothing vis-a-vis Iran that he didn't promise to do during his election campaign.

I wish there was an upvote button for this.

Also the entire career of Bolton gives an indication of whether this was a new distraction or old plan.

 

[Redplane]

Does someone have a good article somewhere that properly explains the obsession with Iran anyway?

In my mind I assume that all the obvious aside and knowing a bit about the otherwise historically quite western values of Iran - that the interests are because Iran has all the tools to be the economic power house of the Middle East... Something both the west and other Middle Eastern countries have little interest in becoming a reality.

 

[2cents]

Does someone have a good article somewhere that properly explains the obsession with Iran anyway?

In my mind I assume that all the obvious aside and knowing a bit about the otherwise historically quite western values of Iran - that the interests are because Iran has all the tools to be the economic power house of the Middle East... Something both the west and other Middle Eastern countries have little interest in becoming a reality.

I’m struggling to find a single short article that adequately summarizes the confrontation. There are so many factors at play, and articles tend to be published in response to the latest incident or manifestation of the hostilities without properly delving into the roots of the conflict. I think it’s probably fair to say that the obsession with Iran outweighs the significance of the actual material points of conflict, which means we need to search for contributory factors beyond the realm of straight policy issues, as inflammatory as they can be.

 

[Cloud7]

Does someone have a good article somewhere that properly explains the obsession with Iran anyway?

In my mind I assume that all the obvious aside and knowing a bit about the otherwise historically quite western values of Iran - that the interests are because Iran has all the tools to be the economic power house of the Middle East... Something both the west and other Middle Eastern countries have little interest in becoming a reality.

I’ve been trying to find this out as well, but thus far I’ve been very unsuccessful. I’m really trying to understand what is the obsession with Iran. I read something about some US hostages a long time ago, is that really it?

 

[Redplane]

I’ve been trying to find this out as well, but thus far I’ve been very unsuccessful. I’m really trying to understand what is the obsession with Iran. I read something about some US hostages a long time ago, is that really it?

Appreciate you and 2Cents looking. I'm kinda hoping the issue is far more complex than it seems because I still see very little rationale out there for why I should be so afraid of Iran.

But yes the Iran-contra affair is something that happened under Reagan that has long triggered the Neocons because it was quite the massive scandal for them. I'm sure the Reagan people put the blame solely with the Iranians for that one and haven't forgiven them since.

 

[Dr. Dwayne]

I’ve been trying to find this out as well, but thus far I’ve been very unsuccessful. I’m really trying to understand what is the obsession with Iran. I read something about some US hostages a long time ago, is that really it?

Iran has vowed to destroy the USAs best buddy Israel. That's the crux of it.

Also, Iran dislikes the US for meddling in its internal affairs (the Shah etc) so generally holds to fingers up two them constantly, which drives the Yanks crazy.

 

[2cents]

I’ve been trying to find this out as well, but thus far I’ve been very unsuccessful. I’m really trying to understand what is the obsession with Iran. I read something about some US hostages a long time ago, is that really it?

Appreciate you and 2Cents looking. I'm kinda hoping the issue is far more complex than it seems because I still see very little rationale out there for why I should be so afraid of Iran.

But yes the Iran-contra affair is something that happened under Reagan that has long triggered the Neocons.

Well I think the first thing to understand is that the hostility is a two-way street. The Iranian regime is deeply hostile not just to specific Western policies in the region, but to the Western presence and influence in general, as a matter of principle/ideology.

On the other hand, Iran was once the greatest American ally in the region, the cornerstone of the American approach to securing the steady flow of oil from the Gulf to the rest of the world. There are still American politicians and businessmen who remember trips to Tehran, drinking in bars and enjoying themselves over there, and basically lording it over the Iranians. So the break with the Revolution in ‘79 was deeply traumatic for the American psyche, the only comparable situation I can think of would be with Cuba. As it stands, Iran is the only regional ally of America to flip like that and defy the empire. It’s not something that gets forgotten easily in DC.

So you have this mutual hostility which feeds on itself, and the subsequent flare-ups and side-plots only intensify it. Currently the nuclear program stands as the greatest symbol of Iran’s defiance of America and the West, but previously it was the hostage crisis, the 1982 Beirut attacks, support for anti-Israel Palestinian and Lebanese militants, numerous confrontations with the Saudis, and loads of other incidents. These should probably be regarded as a product of the mutual hostility, not a cause of it. For their part the Iranian regime and people in general have plenty of legitimate grievances, but again I wouldn’t go so far as to lay the blame for the entire confrontation at any one specific episode or policy.

I also have a pet theory that due to their religious and cultural background, Americans tend to find the Shi’ism and politics of Iran incomprehensible and sinister, especially in contrast with their Wahhabi Bedouin Arab rivals in Saudi Arabia.

 

[MTF]

I’ve been trying to find this out as well, but thus far I’ve been very unsuccessful. I’m really trying to understand what is the obsession with Iran. I read something about some US hostages a long time ago, is that really it?

The CIA and MI6 plotted a coup in 1953 that overthrew the PM Mossadegh, who had been elected and was apparently mostly popular. The catalyst of this was Mossadegh forcibly nationalizing the oil infrastructure in the country that was previously operated by British companies. And also Cold War type fears, socialism, bla bla.

The Shah (monarch) inherited the de facto political power (although not immediately) and ran the country until 1979. He was a US ally and was trying to westernize Iran, but was also repressive and corrupt. So in 1979 the population revolted against his government and the shia religious leaders took power. In the process a crowd stormed the US embassy in Tehran and took 52 american diplomats and citizens hostage, demanding the US send the Shah back to Iran to face trial (he had fled the country, wasn't living in the US but visited for medical treatment). They were held for over a year, a failed rescue attempt was made under the Carter administration, and the hostages were released the day Reagan took office resulting from negotiations that unfroze Iranian assets in the US but also Iran paid about $2.5b in reparations to US businesses.

Ever since the two countries have not got along at all. The US formed its regional alliance out of Israel, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, and even helped out Iraq during their war with Iran a few years after the revolution. And as a professor of mine pointed out years ago in college, ever since 2003 when Iran looks at its neighbors it finds that it is kind of bordered by the US to the West (Iraq) and to the East (Afghanistan).

So Iran tries to assert themselves and create trouble for the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia in ways large and small. There are proxy conflicts like those in Lebanon over the years, Syria, Iraq and Yemen more recently, shoot-ups in the gulf that included a US ship downing an Iranian civilian airliner, and others. More importantly there was the major effort the Iranians seem to have started in the early 2000s to acquire at least the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons. So this "rawr, rawr, I'm going to bomb you if you try and get nukes" talk has been going on since at least 2004. Years of negotiation culminated in a deal to sort of defuse the situation in 2015, but then the orange one took office and brought back the crowd that has long had a hard-on for the idea of actually going to war with Iran.

Hope this summarizes it somewhat. If anyone wants to be nit-picky about the details, sort of not the purpose... but if anyone thinks I made any major mistakes then feel free to point out.

 

[Red Dreams]

Iran has complied fully with the treaty.

Trump is manufacturing a crisis to distract from his bucket loads of crimes.

 

[Zlatattack]

Let's hope Iran does not see what it helped inflict in Syria and Yemen. I hope this is all rhetoric.

 

[2cents]

Hope this summarizes it somewhat. If anyone wants to be nit-picky about the details, sort of not the purpose... but if anyone thinks I made any major mistakes then feel free to point out.

I’d say that’s an excellent summary. I’d only really add that Iranian distrust of the West goes back a lot further than 1953, all the way to the 19th century when Britain and Russia meddled in Iranian politics at will, helping to spark the first major popular dissent against Iran’s rulers (then the Qajar dynasty). In a way the story of the Iranian people since then is a struggle for freedom from domestic tyranny and international interference.

 

[Organic Potatoes]

It all goes back to Churchill I think, recognizing the value in switching the Navy from coal to oil powered ships. The Navy was of course central to the UK's projection of power and that was the logical progression for the world's superpower, but it obviously necessitated reliable access to oil. Hence, Middle Eastern oil became fundamental as a source of power, and Britain would go on to control Iranian oil.

Post WWII, the US fully took on that mantle of superpower and by extension responsiblity for securing access to Persian oil. When that industry was nationalized, it was not just an economic setback: it was an affront to Anglo-American hegemony in world affairs. Then the events detailed in the posts above by @2cents & @MTF start to unfold.

Of course, we no longer need that oil for the navy. Power is projected through the air, nuclear powered aircraft carriers, and the economy. The US is now (or will soon be) again the largest producer of oil and gas. But these leaders are operating within a geo-political paradigm that has not evolved much in their minds since the 70's. There's also the small matter of throwing our lot in with the Saudis and Israel, but I've already gone too long...

 

[4bars]

It was the diplomatic triumph of a generation for GHW Bush to get those two to peacefully coexist in 1990-1991. You think Trump’s admin is gonna pull off one better...?

Which too? SA and Israel? If so, not long ago they signed some bi-lateral agreements...nothing to do with Trump

 

[Carolina Red]

Which too? SA and Israel? If so, not long ago they signed some bi-lateral agreements...nothing to do with Trump

They have no official diplomatic relations. There’s rumors of back channel dealings, but even if those exist, they’re back channel for a reason... their people don’t like one another.

 

[Cloud7]

@MTF @2cents Thank you for the detailed explanations. That’s better than that I was able to find online.

 

[2mufc0]

They have no official diplomatic relations. There’s rumors of back channel dealings, but even if those exist, they’re back channel for a reason... their people don’t like one another.

It's obvious they've been in bed behind the scenes for a while now, the Saudis opened up their air space for flights to Israel recently, I think slowly and with baby steps the relationship will begin to normalise.

I think it's pretty obvious the Saudis couldn't give a feck about Palestinians, if they could they would normalise relations with Israel tomorrow.

 

[4bars]

They have no official diplomatic relations. There’s rumors of back channel dealings, but even if those exist, they’re back channel for a reason... their people don’t like one another.

I didn't want to go in depth on how strong their relationship it is (though everything indicates that never had been better). What I am saying is that they don't need Trump to "pull one off better" . A common enemy like Iran can help for example

 

[2cents]

@MTF @2cents Thank you for the detailed explanations. That’s better than that I was able to find online.

Also here’s a pretty good 2009 three part documentary from the BBC:

 

[shamans]

I really have to block myself from the news, especially living in America. Sometimes it feels like a moral dilemma. Am I paying taxes so we can bully oil rich countries?

Please get trump out before he does something stupid.

 

[Synco]

They have no official diplomatic relations. There’s rumors of back channel dealings, but even if those exist, they’re back channel for a reason... their people don’t like one another.

I don't think diplomatic relations with an Arab country are anything controversial in Israel. Netanyahu boasts about it at every opportunity to raise his political profile. These dealings are an open secret, and it's Saudi Arabia that needs to keep up appearances, even if no one actually believes it.

 

[langster]

Trump needs a war.

He needs a country to attack and he also needs one he thinks he could win and profit from.

His sidekick John Bolton has long been championing a war with Iran.

Iran has oil.

It's a Muslim country.

Israel hates Iran and vice versa.

Iran has long been a thorn in the US's side.

A large (or acceptable) percent of the US public would back a war with Iran but the majority wouldn't know why. Many would back It just because of history, many because it's a Muslim country in the Middle East and many just because they would believe anything Trump and co told them. The rest would back It because... Yeeeeehaaaaaa America!

I think it's more likely to happen than not, but I also hope if it does that the rest of the world condemns it and doesn't follow blindly. The UK traditionally follows the US, I just hope this time we don't.