- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Iran, 6 world powers reach deal on Iranian nuclear program
And, if the Obama administration fails to reinforce the vacated sanctions, then I will be the first to say that they are wrong for doing it and screwed the pooch. However, right now, the onus is on Iran. If they follow the agreement to the law, and I realize that's a big if, then we extend the deal another time period. So on, so forth. You act as if Iran has been given a blank check and the ability to run wild. That's not the case. Very few of the sanctions leveled against them have been removed and, according to the POTUS, will be reinstated if they violate the agreement. I realize that trusting Pres Obama and Iran is probably futile. But Im willing to give it a shot.This is, of course, the rationale used for time immemorial to justify capitulating to tyrants. In the real world the US Administration has every interest in maintaining the appearance that their peace gambit worked for political reasons and will be unwilling to admit that their opposition was correct about Iran all along when (not if) Iran breaks the deal. The administration will carry on this charade for as long as possible claiming they brought peace when, in the end, all they have done is embolden the bloodthirsty Iranian leadership.
And look what it got them. No one supports them at all, they are isolated and won't hold out forever with the way they live, and they had one friggin weapon that couldn't reach us anyway. Also, looks like South Korea (who would be the equivalent of Israel in this situation) is doing fine.All Iran is doing is using the same playbook used by North Korea during it's run up to nuclear weapons. They claim they want peace, get billions of dollars in frozen assets and aid in an agreement to stop the weapons program, and then use that money to accelerate their nuclear weapon program. Wash, rinse, repeat until the weapon is created.
Yes, one small nuke (which is what they would have) would equal the take over of Iraq, Saudi, etc. Gimme a break man. You act as if they will have the arsenal we have in 6 months or something.If this "thing is screwed up" it wouldn't be our troops in Afghanistan that would be the target. What would follow the creation of the weapon would be a systematic takeover of the middle East by Iran under threat of nuclear annihilation of the surrounding states. This has always been the goal of the Iranian leadership. We know this because this is what the Iranian leadership says it wants. They seek the reestablishment of the Caliphate.
It's plain and simple. Not all of the cultural crap you bring up. Iran sought to nationalize their oil in the 50's. That's where all of this other stuff started up. The Brits, nor the US, liked that because oil prices would rise. So, we overthrew the gov't attempting to do this. That's it. Heck BP contributed money to the bribing of their officials. What more do you need to see that will show that this was nothing more than an attempt at controlling oil? I suggest you stop sensationalizing a simple black and white situation.The reason for the Iranian uprising in the 1960s and 70s was not due to our meddling in Iran, if anything the revolution was delayed a few decades by our meddling. The Iranian Revolution was sparked by the Shah's plan to grant legal status and voting rights to minorities and women. The Ayatollah spun up a revolution in the country on the grounds that this moderation and secularism was a direct threat to Islam and that the state needed to be overthrown and replaced with a theocracy, which is what they did. It's no surprise that in the months leading up to the toppling of the SHah that the approval rating of the Shah was on the rise given the Ayatollah as the alternative. What Carter's Secretary of State did at that point borders on criminal negligence.
I would suggest you read a good deal more history of the Iranian revolution than you appear to have done thus far. Your "meddling for oil" understanding of what happened in Iran in the 50s 60s and 70s indicate a critical absence of key details in your evaluation of the events. The Shah was supported by the US as a counter to the rising trend towards Islamic radicalism in the Iranian state. The end result of a brutal theocracy in Iran was due to bungling by the State Department under Jimmy Carter that is eerily similar to the events unfolding in Egypt and Iran today.