Very good Bloomberg News analysis on the Iran situation

Moot · Jan 6, 2020

MovingPictures said:
As I stated before, the reality is that he killed American troops that belonged to a nation that had pledged to decapitate his government, who were setting up shop in a neighboring nations city that was but 100 miles from his border.

We'd never tolerate Russian troops in Mexico city, and we would kill them in efforts to drive them out of the country. It's the same thing in Iraq, much as it's politically incorrect to say so.

I didn't see what you stated before.

There seems several narratives. The one I heard is that after Trump declared victory over ISIS and abandoned the Kurds, it left the Iraqi Kurds and Shiite vulnerable to attacks from ISIS...and so the Iran general was in Baghdad to organize Shia militias to fight against ISIS. Another poster said he was in Baghdad to act as a negotiator for a peace plan and/or deliver a message to the Saudi's. Yesterday, Pompeo was on all the Sunday morning talk shows and cable channels pushing the narrative that the Iran general was an "imminent" threat..but he didn't provide any evidence to back it up. "Imminent"...now where we have heard that before? Imminent is a word the government uses when they want to take people's rights away. IE: Patriot Act.

Speaking of the Patriot Act...another narrative is that the law only gives the president the authority to fight nationless terrorist groups abroad...not to assassinate the highest ranking military commanders of another nation's army....especially without a declaration of war by congress.

So with all these competing narratives about the Iran general...who knows what the real story is....I just don't believe it's Pompeo's.

GreatNews2night · Jan 6, 2020

Moot said:
I didn't see what you stated before.

There seems several narratives. The one I heard is that after the US declared victory over ISIS and abandoned the Kurds, it left the Iraqi Kurds and Shiite vulnerable to attacks from ISIS...and so the Iran general was in Baghdad to organize Shia militias to fight ISIS. Another poster said he was in Baghdad to act as a negotiator and/or deliver a message to the Saudi's. Yesterday, Pompeo was on all the Sunday morning talk shows and cable channels pushing the narrative that the Iran general was an "imminent" threat..but he didn't provide any evidence to back it up. "Imminent"...now where we have heard that before? Imminent is the word the government uses when they want to take people's rights away. IE: Patriot Act.

Speaking of the Patriot Act...another narrative is that the law only gives the president the authority to fight nationless terrorist groups abroad...not to assassinate the highest ranking military commanders of another nation's army....especially without a declaration of war by congress.

So with all these competing narratives about the Iran general...who knows what the real story is....I just don't believe it's Pompeo's.

I read an article yesterday saying that the use of the word "imminent" is meant to get the US in compliance with international law (the UN Charter) and bypass Congress authorization.

There is a lot of doubt regarding whether or not the general posed an imminent threat. He did, in Pompeo's parlance, but like you, I don't trust him, or Trump.

Still, I think it is reasonable to believe that Iran would continue to escalate and continue to hit American interests in the region. How soon remains to be determined; probably not *that* imminent.

Checkerboard Strangler · Jan 6, 2020

Cardinal said:
If I thought that Trump had a long term strategy and policy vision I might almost be able to get on board with your optimism. However, since this appears to be unraveling in much the same vein as North Korea and Syria, I highly suspect that there is no policy vision to justify said optimism. Much more likely is that more unpredictable events, all negative, will continue to unfold in the coming days and weeks. And that's because the person making decision is unpredictable, obsessed with erasing Obama's legacy, and has no policy vision or long term strategy.

All one needs to know about Trump strategies may be found by watching any episode of "The Apprentice".
Nothing in Trump's mind ever extends beyond that script, because Trump's entire life has consisted of him getting whatever he wants within the hour, and screw anyone/everyone else.

Trump has not thought this out because Trump does not think anything out. He makes a gut decision and then throws a tantrum when it doesn't turn out the way he wanted. Then he blames a random person, declares victory, and pockets the difference.

To all who criticize the JCPOA for only being ten years in duration, you are ignoring the fact that at the end, we would clearly seek ANOTHER ten year moratorium, then another, then another, and another after that.

I know, it's very easy to pretend you know more than the generals. Your master programmed that into you.

GreatNews2night · Jan 6, 2020

Wow, we're really isolated. Not even Israel is willing to support us on this, after initial praise:

Netanyahu Distances From Soleimani Slaying, Says Israel Shouldn’t Be ‘Dragged’ Into It: Report

Luckyone · Jan 6, 2020

GreatNews2night said:
That is interesting. Like I said, Bloomberg seems to have independent journalists; some tout the party line so to speak, others write up pieces that contradict the bossman's ideology. I've noticed this before, reading their website.

I read Bloomberg.com and see the TV program every day and now for over 13 years. I have never seen any bias one way or the other. Many of their articles are written by independent sources but I have not noticed a noticeable bias in any direction. To me they are a very good news source for anything that affects the market. I am a stock trader and analyst and that is why I tune in every day.

Athanasius68 · Jan 6, 2020

Luckyone said:
I already answered this silly question but I will answer it again.

Death is one of the sure things in life but just because you know you are going to die does it mean you seek it now or wait for it to come at some future time? In addition, if you know you are going to die, why take care of yourself (eat well, don't do risky things, etc). Last but not least, many deadly illnesses have been cured by medicine so why not wait to see if the medicine for Iran is discovered? It can also be said that progress causes people to change their ideologies. At one time in our history we had slaves and the people that had them believed it was the right thing to have. That mentality has now changed because the people that had slaves have died and their children grew up without slaves. Perhaps in 10 years from now, the Iranians in charge may have died (naturally) and the new people in charge not think the same way. Time and patience often work wonders for solving many problems. waiting is always better than seeking to end it now.

By the same token, you don't go out and do something that brings the hate to the forefront and to the entire population (including the children) so that now there is more hate, and it involves more people that will not forget in their lifetimes.

Mind you, I am not saying do nothing either but for example, Obama did what was possible at the time and postponed the negatives for at least 10 years. There are other solutions if you try strongly to find them but even if no solution is found you don't go out and exacerbate the problem and make it worse and make it come sooner rather than later. Last but not least you respond "in kind" by doing something that shows you are not going to let it continue (a quid pro quo so to say, much like Trump is already an expert at) by bombing an ammunitions depot or an oil field but you don't kill a revered figure that makes things hugely worse for all (including ourselves).

Last but not least, the world respects honor and honor means you keep the agreements in place. The United States (or as some people want to say, Obama did and not the entire government since it was not approved by Congress) made an agreement with Iran and that agreement included 5 other nations. The honorable thing is to honor that agreement, if not for your hated rival but for the fact of the allies that signed as well. An agreement is like a marriage agreement "for good or bad" and should be honored even if you do not like it, especially when the other person has kept their side of the agreement.

This means that in spite of all the other things mentioned above, this proves that Trump is not a man of honor. A man that respects what other men have agreed to and all of this without provocation. It was simply because "he did not like the agreement".

I continue to believe, and now more convinced than ever, that Trump is a man with no ethics, no morals, no principles and no humanity. I am shocked that anyone disagrees with me on this case. There is absolutely no benefit to the people of the United States for him to have done this. There is no additional respect for our military capability given that we have already proven we are the best in the world, there is no benefit to us financially, there is no benefit to our standing with our allies, there is no additional benefit to our security in our nation, there is no benefit to our income, and no benefit to our health. This was all fulfilling Trumps whims and ego for his own benefit in feeling that he is God and can decide the fate of every person in the world.

If you cannot see this, then things are totally hopeless for you in understanding anything. This is about as clear of a sign of a sociopath as you can find.

1. Ok-- so your argument is that Iran will get the bomb, and that they will use it. Nothing can be done to avoid that fate, so let's push the day of reckoning later.

2. I can accept the honor theory. However, we are at a time when we are hearing a lot (from Democrats mainly) about Congress needing to reclaim its authority in things. It would seem a scenario where a president can tie the country to an agreement without it being approved by the Senate, would work against such a desire.

jnug · Jan 6, 2020

AOPC, later AIOC and the precursor to BP was the major shareholder and managed the drilling operations refining and the export of oil from Iran to itself and the rest of the Western oil partners. But after WW2 Britain grew weary of its management role handed it us, the Americans. All Britain cared about at that point was getting their cut and maintaining percentage of the cut in Irani oil revenue they had grown accustomed to without handling the management function.

Apart from demanding a more equitable share of the profits of the company, an issue that did not escape Irani court ministers was that the flow of transactions between APOC and its various subsidiaries deprived Iran of gaining an accurate and reliable appreciation of APOC's full profits. As such, they demanded that the company register itself in Tehran as well as London, and the exclusive rights of transportation of the oil be returned to the Iranian government. In fact in the midst of the negotiations in 1930, the Iranian National Consultative Assembly approved a bill whereby foreign companies would be required to pay a 4 percent tax on prospective profits earned in Iran. So Iran figured it was getting screwed on the actual percentages and had good reason to believe the western powers were never going to show them the real "books" either.

Lots of twists and turns during this period with result that Iran oil could not even be sold on the world market. In fact there were so many shady deals favoring the western partners to the detriment of the Iranians that I cannot list them all. They are all available on line though.

Under pressure from the United States, BP was forced to accept membership in a consortium of companies which would bring Iranian oil back on the international market. BP was incorporated in London in 1954 as a holding company called Iranian Oil Participants Ltd (AIOP). The founding members of AIOP included British Petroleum (40%), Gulf Oil (8%), Royal Dutch Shell (14%), and Compagnie Française des Pétroles (later Total S.A., 6%). The four Aramco partners — Standard Oil of California (SoCal, later Chevron), Standard Oil of New Jersey (later Exxon), Standard Oil Co. of New York (later Mobil, then ExxonMobil), and Texaco – each held an 8% stake in the holding company. As you can plainly see, that did not leave much of a cut for Oil being drilled and shipped out of Iran. If you want to make the case that Iranians were able to get jobs working the fields, you won't want to look at the dif between western oil workings and Iranians working the same oil fields and refineries and every other darned thing to with oil within the borders of Iran.

Other oil consortiums sprang up as new oil fields were discovered. But the motherlode for production was still APOC.

In late December 1950, word reached Tehran that the American-owned Arabian American Oil Company had agreed to share profits with Saudis on a 50-50 basis. The UK Foreign Office rejected the idea of any similar agreement for AIOC. The US really had its hands tied by the Brits. Where would you go within AIOC to give Iran more of a cut? Well to the Brits of course and they would not budge. All of this BS cost Iran their elected reformist leader, Mohammad Mosaddegh who was overthrown in a Coup with the US and the Brits installing the Shah of Iran, thus going fulling back to Monarchy as an actual form of governance in Iran.

But what stung the Iranians was that the US had signed a 50-50 split deal with the Saudis for their oil. The US was now at least on the surface "managing" the AIOC consortium. WHAT GIVES???? Well what gives was that the Brits were always lurking in the background, attempting to manage the consortium under the blanket of cover provided by the US. The only entity you will have distain for the actual entity that is ripping you off is the entity that is allowing it to happen right under their noses and is likely engaged in what amounts to a conspiracy.

Luckyone · Jan 6, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
1. Ok-- so your argument is that Iran will get the bomb, and that they will use it. Nothing can be done to avoid that fate, so let's push the day of reckoning later.

2. I can accept the honor theory. However, we are at a time when we are hearing a lot (from Democrats mainly) about Congress needing to reclaim its authority in things. It would seem a scenario where a president can tie the country to an agreement without it being approved by the Senate, would work against such a desire.

1) Let me get this straight. You think this action will prevent or stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? The way I see it, it will stimulate them more than before.

2) This was not agreement just between the U.S. and Iran. There were 5 other nations involved and they did pass that resolution in "their" nations. You don't want to respect what Obama did? Well then respect what our allies decided on. The entire world will be affected by Iran having nuclear weapons (not just us). As such, Trump needed to get everyone involved and not just make the decision himself and for us alone! His actions in this affect everyone in the world. He has no right to rescind or not honor the agreement made between 6 countries without their approval!!!!!!!!

In addition, Trump supporters have supported what Trump is doing and has done and much of it (if not all) has been done without Congress approval and yet you all say "he was voted as our president and he can do whatever he wants to and we have to live with it" Why is it different with Trump than it was with Obama? Trump's decisions need to be respected but not Obama's? He too won the presidency, and not only the electoral vote but the popular vote as well.

PIPEWRENCH · Jan 6, 2020

Trump should stick to assassinating US citizens like Obama if he wants the democrat approval. What is wrong with Trump attacking our sworn enemies when he should be killing US citizens.

jnug · Jan 7, 2020

PIPEWRENCH said:
Trump should stick to assassinating US citizens like Obama if he wants the democrat approval. What is wrong with Trump attacking our sworn enemies when he should be killing US citizens.

We made them our enemy. I suppose your point is that the Iranians should have just sat silently and taken having their oil ripped out from their territory. That would surely be typical for a Trumpette. "Just take it because we are white Anglo-Saxon Protestants and you are not. Who are you not to take what we give you and like it."

We participated in the rouse of the UK handing over the management control of AIOC to the US. Instead we were in the main just administrators, not managers. Had we not signed a 50-50 deal with the Saudis for their oil the western members of the AIOC consortium might have gotten away with it. Then when the Iranians did finally get access to the books of the AIOC, it became clear as day that not only were they being ripped off in the actual percentages of revenue but that they were being ripped off at every turn. Ripped off in transportation costs being charged to their account, in maintenance fees being charged to their account, every which way you could concieve was loading expense onto the Iranians.

We set ourselves up for this. Nothing like good ole' fashioned Anglo Imperialism to get you into trouble. The JCPOA was without question the most significant single instrument signed between the two countries that could bring us out of this endless spiral into the abyss with Iran. But DonDon ripped it up. Now, we have to climb just to get to the bottom again. Perhaps if we had figured out that Iran was old Persia and thus the home of a proud people with traditions unlike the Saudis who will lift their robes and bend over for just about anybody.

Glitch · Jan 7, 2020

Excast said:
There is absolutely zero incentive for any nation to abandon the pursuit of becoming a nuclear power.

You mean other that holding up their end of the bargain to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they sighed? Iran signed the treaty on July 1, 1968. So not only is Iran a terrorist sponsoring nation, they won't even abide by the treaties they sign. All the more reason to wipe them from the face of the planet.

jnug · Jan 7, 2020

Glitch said:
You mean other that holding up their end of the bargain to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty they sighed? Iran signed the treaty on July 1, 1968. So not only is Iran a terrorist sponsoring nation, they won't even abide by the treaties they sign. All the more reason to wipe them from the face of the planet.

The NPT has been obsolete for decades. The only countries that adhere to it at this point are those that got their nuclear technology from one of the original core big five members. They have their nukes. They are happy. In truth the NPT was doomed the day it was signed as there is simply too much nuclear technology available. If it was not the case before the Soviet Union broke up, it is certainly the case now. Nukes are seen now as necessary to keep one of the big five from conducting regime change operations in your country. Perhaps we should not have been so hell bent on regime change through virtually all of the second half of the 20th Century. I am actually surprised NPT lasted as long as it did as a relevant international document.

Are we done with regime change even today? Nope. We are more brazen and overt in our efforts than ever, actually invading Panama during Bush 41's term in office because we wanted to reneg on the Panama Canal Treaty we had created and signed. Is Russia done with regime change? Clearly NO.

ataraxia · Jan 7, 2020

Excast said:
There is absolutely zero incentive for any nation to abandon the pursuit of becoming a nuclear power.

Hey, if the old adage that an armed society is a polite society is true, then we should have the most peaceful world of all! Right?

After all, nukes don’t kill people. People kill people!

Yay weapons!

jnug · Jan 7, 2020

DonDon's dumbassery continues to plague his entire administration of nitwits and hacks.

The memo that was released from the Pentagon discussing US withdrawal plans from Iraq now reported as a MISTAKE. A MISTAKE....What is this now about a mistake a day for every day this bunch of stumblebums has been in the administration.

The Pentagon in a separate statement said there WILL NOT BE any attacks on Irani cultural sites no matter what the Orange Wild Man says from his playpen.

Lets face it, Trump is trying to goad Iran into a war. Bebe wants it. Pompeo wants it. Bolton still wants it. Sad to say that it takes some sense from Iran's regime to prevent us from making the biggest, dumbest mistake of our lifetimes.

AlphaOmega · Jan 7, 2020

Excast said:
There is absolutely zero incentive for any nation to abandon the pursuit of becoming a nuclear power.

Sure there is. Its called self preservation.

Athanasius68 · Jan 7, 2020

Luckyone said:
Luckyone said:

1) Let me get this straight. You think this action will prevent or stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons? The way I see it, it will stimulate them more than before.

Click to expand...

You make it sound as if Iran had no issues with the USA prior to the actions last week.
One of the Iranian generals was quoted as saying their objective is to drive the USA out of the Mid-east.
Its not like this would be a new policy.
Iran will seek out the bomb regardless; the question is the timing.
As Trump has said, they can't have it.

2) This was not agreement just between the U.S. and Iran. There were 5 other nations involved and they did pass that resolution in "their" nations.

Click to expand...

Its still in effect in their countries.

The entire world will be affected by Iran having nuclear weapons (not just us). As such, Trump needed to get everyone involved and not just make the decision himself and for us alone! His actions in this affect everyone in the world. He has no right to rescind or not honor the agreement made between 6 countries without their approval!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Trump has sought to renegotiate the deal. Even the Iranians recognized this.
They declined. Other countries declined.

In addition, Trump supporters have supported what Trump is doing and has done and much of it (if not all) has been done without Congress approval and yet you all say "he was voted as our president and he can do whatever he wants to and we have to live with it"

Click to expand...

Nobody says that "we have to live with it."
There is an election in November.

snakestretcher · Jan 7, 2020

GreatNews2night said:
Well, that was ONE of his activities. He is also estimated to have ordered actions that have resulted in the killing of between 600 and 1,100 American servicemen. And yes, Iran's provocations were slowly escalating, if you've read the article I linked to. So, their next steps predictably would result in American casualties. The attack on the Iraqi base on 12/27 had already resulted in the death of an American and injuries to four others.

I would suggest that it is Iran which has been systematically provoked since the CIA-orchestrated coup over oil in 1953. I would further suggest that all US issues with Iran stem from that date, and are of America's making; the installation of a US-friendly fascist dictator, the Shah, his eventual ousting after years of state-sponsored torture and murder by the CIA-trained SAVAK secret police, and the subsequent Islamist theocratic government. Joining the dots from 1953 until today really isn't all that difficult.

Luckyone · Jan 7, 2020

Athanasius68 said:
You make it sound as if Iran had no issues with the USA prior to the actions last week.
One of the Iranian generals was quoted as saying their objective is to drive the USA out of the Mid-east.
Its not like this would be a new policy.
Iran will seek out the bomb regardless; the question is the timing.
As Trump has said, they can't have it.

Its still in effect in their countries.

Trump has sought to renegotiate the deal. Even the Iranians recognized this.
They declined. Other countries declined.

Nobody says that "we have to live with it."
There is an election in November.

Click to expand...

For the life of me, I cannot understand how you think.

Let me once again stress a few things:

1) Iran wanted nuclear weapons before but Obama was able to postpone it. How does Trump killing Soleimani resolve that issue? Will this stop them from trying? What did Trump resolve with this action? How does this killing help us?

2) Iran cancelled the agreement totally (and with all countries) as of Sunday. Nonetheless, it really does not matter whether the agreement is with other countries and that they won't use nuclear weapons on them. The issue is that firing a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world will affect everyone, irregardless as to whether the weapon was used on us only. The entire world will be affected by a war. As such, any decision by Trump to cancel the deal, should have been discussed with these other countries given that everyone is involved in the consequences, not just us.

3) Trump sought to negotiate the deal on "HIS TERMS". The other side does not have to agree to those terms. Generally, this would not be a major problem because the consequences would only felt by one side but the threat of Iran getting nuclear weapons has been around for a long time and trying to make a new deal brings a whole lot of possible consequences with it. Trump did not discuss breaking the deal with Iran with the other people involved (all nations) and did not even get our own people. He just did it on a whim. When everyone will suffer from the consequences, you don't think it should have been discussed at least among ourselves (Congress) before the decision was made and a vote taken? That did not happen. Trump made the decision that can affect everyone by his lonesome self. It is like your wife deciding to leave and take the kids along with her because she didn't "like" the marriage. Does she have the right to do that without taking it to court and having a judge decide the issue? Trump never took this issue to any court, he just decided to "take the kids" without running it by the people involved and making a decision that had everyone involved, involved. \

4) Consequences of this decision could affect all of us negatively by December. Some of us could even be dead because of this by then. Are you okay with that?

To me, this is once again proof that Trump is abusing his power!

Let me ask you:

What is the other side of this coin (the one you are supporting)? Give me your thinking? What positives were accomplished by this action? How are we, as a nation, better because of this action? You support one man making decisions for you without your input (through your representatives in Congress)?

jnug · Jan 7, 2020

Once again Trumpkin and his gang members can not square their contradictory statements. Worse they can't square their contradictory policies.

According to Pompeo, "we will continue to confront and contest Iran."

Well OK Mike, how do you square that with the stated policy to bring the troops home!

Now we have as many as 20,000 more troops in the region than we had before Trump took office and those that are fighting ISIS or were can no longer conduct their mission. They are dug in with their heads down and that is that.

Iran for its part will continue to respond through proxies. DonDon the big man, the bully from Manhattan took direct, overt, military action as the United States of America against a sovereign nation. Watch what happens now because of that blunder of bravado. Iran will line up its allies and they will do things like declare the US a Terrorist State for one thing. What will our argument be? "Well our allies are more reliable than your allies so our claims regarding Iran are more reliable than Iran's claims against us". GIVE ME A BREAK.

Somebody needs to explain to DonDon that Iran is not Syria. Does anybody see various and sundry foreign armies and mercenary groups running roughshod over Iran as they are in Syria?

Even worse and so typical of the Trump Administration, he is leaving us with no road back FROM ANYWHERE post Trump. The option he is leaving us in the ME is get out or go to war. We might get the UK to side with us since they started this debacle with Iran and then handed it off to us. Somebody will have to explain to me how they were getting 40% of the Iran oil revenues pie while managing the affairs of the AOIC consortium and still getting 40% of the Iran oil revenues after they "handed" that responsibility to the US. That math does not work. The only thing that makes it work is that behind the scenes, UK was still pulling the strings with the US becoming a front man and an administrator. I don't know which of the two countries were responsible for cooking the books to keep even more revenue away from Iran and it hardly matters.

As it is today, this constant ratcheting up of the pressure by the US is not having the desired effect and well it should not. Iran is not going to capitulate. NK is not going to capitulate. China is not going to capitulate because none of them can capitulate. Maduro is probably saying "Donald Who?" All we are doing in constantly ratcheting up the pressure is putting pressure on our allies, Japan and SK in Asia, All of our European allies relative to the ME and they do not trust us any longer. Smooth Donald, real smooth. So you and your fat putz Sec of State are going to have to come up with a better story than you have come up with to date. It has been 3 years of the same trumpian nonsense slathered over various parts of the globe and there is no sign, repeat NO SIGN that Trump has moved the ball an inch unless you want to consider moving us closer to a war which will ultimately involve the entire ME and more if it happens is somehow PROGRESS. That war should it happen will be WW3.

Luckyone · Jan 7, 2020

jnug said:
Once again Trumpkin and his gang members can not square their contradictory statements. Worse they can't square their contradictory policies.

According to Pompeo, "we will continue to confront and contest Iran."

Well OK Mike, how do you square that with the stated policy to bring the troops home!

Now we have as many as 20,000 more troops in the region than we had before Trump took office and those that are fighting ISIS or were can no longer conduct their mission. They are dug in with their heads down and that is that.

Iran for its part will continue to respond through proxies. DonDon the big man, the bully from Manhattan took direct, overt, military action as the United States of America against a sovereign nation. Watch what happens now because of that blunder of bravado. Iran will line up its allies and they will do things like declare the US a Terrorist State for one thing. What will our argument be? "Well our allies are more reliable than your allies so our claims regarding Iran are more reliable than Iran's claims against us". GIVE ME A BREAK.

Somebody needs to explain to DonDon that Iran is not Syria. Does anybody see various and sundry foreign armies and mercenary groups running roughshod over Iran as they are in Syria?

Even worse and so typical of the Trump Administration, he is leaving us with no road back FROM ANYWHERE post Trump. The option he is leaving us in the ME is get out or go to war. We might get the UK to side with us since they started this debacle with Iran and then handed it off to us. Somebody will have to explain to me how they were getting 40% of the Iran oil revenues pie while managing the affairs of the AOIC consortium and still getting 40% of the Iran oil revenues after they "handed" that responsibility to the US. That math does not work. The only thing that makes it work is that behind the scenes, UK was still pulling the strings with the US becoming a front man and an administrator. I don't know which of the two countries were responsible for cooking the books to keep even more revenue away from Iran and it hardly matters.

As it is today, this constant ratcheting up of the pressure by the US is not having the desired effect and well it should not. Iran is not going to capitulate. NK is not going to capitulate. China is not going to capitulate because none of them can capitulate. Maduro is probably saying "Donald Who?" All we are doing in constantly ratcheting up the pressure is putting pressure on our allies, Japan and SK in Asia, All of our European allies relative to the ME and they do not trust us any longer. Smooth Donald, real smooth. So you and your fat putz Sec of State are going to have to come up with a better story than you have come up with to date. It has been 3 years of the same trumpian nonsense slathered over various parts of the globe and there is no sign, repeat NO SIGN that Trump has moved the ball an inch unless you want to consider moving us closer to a war which will ultimately involve the entire ME and more if it happens is somehow PROGRESS. That war should it happen will be WW3.

Amen brother!

Athanasius68 · Jan 7, 2020

Luckyone said:
Luckyone said:

1) Iran wanted nuclear weapons before but Obama was able to postpone it. How does Trump killing Soleimani resolve that issue? Will this stop them from trying? What did Trump resolve with this action? How does this killing help us?

Click to expand...

In and of itself, it doesn't.
But it also shows Iran their leadership is not safe.

2) Iran cancelled the agreement totally (and with all countries) as of Sunday. Nonetheless, it really does not matter whether the agreement is with other countries and that they won't use nuclear weapons on them. The issue is that firing a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world will affect everyone, irregardless as to whether the weapon was used on us only. The entire world will be affected by a war. As such, any decision by Trump to cancel the deal, should have been discussed with these other countries given that everyone is involved in the consequences, not just us.

Click to expand...

He did attempt to discuss. Russia and China were uninterested in making adjustments.

3) Trump sought to negotiate the deal on "HIS TERMS". The other side does not have to agree to those terms.

Click to expand...

This is true.
Its also true for any negotiations on any subject.
Hence,the importance of Iran not obtaining the bomb.
Postponing isn't sufficient.

When everyone will suffer from the consequences, you don't think it should have been discussed at least among ourselves (Congress) before the decision was made and a vote taken?

Click to expand...

President Obama did not consult with Congress about the deal, and for good reason: many Democrats were opposed to it--it would never have been ratified.

4) Consequences of this decision could affect all of us negatively by December. Some of us could even be dead because of this by then. Are you okay with that?

Click to expand...

Consequences of letting the general plan more attacks on Americans could result in the same.

L

et me ask you:

What is the other side of this coin (the one you are supporting)? Give me your thinking? What positives were accomplished by this action? How are we, as a nation, better because of this action? You support one man making decisions for you without your input (through your representatives in Congress)?

Click to expand...

As above-- President Obama did not consult Congress when making this decision.

Whats better about this? Well, for 40 years we have been having the same arguments about Iran and the same approaches-- sanctions, a few bombings here and there, denunciations of the government, a quest to find and support moderates in the government.
Republicans and Democrats, the same thing.
And nothing has changed.
Maybe the killing of the general changes nothing. Maybe it changes things to the negative. Maybe it changes things to the positive.
Its different

joko104 · Jan 7, 2020

Excast said:
There is absolutely zero incentive for any nation to abandon the pursuit of becoming a nuclear power.

That is why that capability must be militarily destroyed while we still can. Iran openly is trying to conquer the entire ME and N. Africa thru carrot and stick terrorism, arming civil wars and both direct and indirect military action. If Iran gains nuclear weapons they will pursue conquest of the entire world, even if it would cause 5 billion casualties. To create the last Persian/Muslim empire they killed 1/5th of the entire population of earth at the time. Bow down and submit to the Empire and Islam - or be mass murdered and exterminated is the standard.

joko104 · Jan 7, 2020

jnug said:
Once again Trumpkin and his gang members can not square their contradictory statements. Worse they can't square their contradictory policies.

According to Pompeo, "we will continue to confront and contest Iran."

Well OK Mike, how do you square that with the stated policy to bring the troops home!

Now we have as many as 20,000 more troops in the region than we had before Trump took office and those that are fighting ISIS or were can no longer conduct their mission. They are dug in with their heads down and that is that.

Iran for its part will continue to respond through proxies. DonDon the big man, the bully from Manhattan took direct, overt, military action as the United States of America against a sovereign nation. Watch what happens now because of that blunder of bravado. Iran will line up its allies and they will do things like declare the US a Terrorist State for one thing. What will our argument be? "Well our allies are more reliable than your allies so our claims regarding Iran are more reliable than Iran's claims against us". GIVE ME A BREAK.

Somebody needs to explain to DonDon that Iran is not Syria. Does anybody see various and sundry foreign armies and mercenary groups running roughshod over Iran as they are in Syria?

Even worse and so typical of the Trump Administration, he is leaving us with no road back FROM ANYWHERE post Trump. The option he is leaving us in the ME is get out or go to war. We might get the UK to side with us since they started this debacle with Iran and then handed it off to us. Somebody will have to explain to me how they were getting 40% of the Iran oil revenues pie while managing the affairs of the AOIC consortium and still getting 40% of the Iran oil revenues after they "handed" that responsibility to the US. That math does not work. The only thing that makes it work is that behind the scenes, UK was still pulling the strings with the US becoming a front man and an administrator. I don't know which of the two countries were responsible for cooking the books to keep even more revenue away from Iran and it hardly matters.

As it is today, this constant ratcheting up of the pressure by the US is not having the desired effect and well it should not. Iran is not going to capitulate. NK is not going to capitulate. China is not going to capitulate because none of them can capitulate. Maduro is probably saying "Donald Who?" All we are doing in constantly ratcheting up the pressure is putting pressure on our allies, Japan and SK in Asia, All of our European allies relative to the ME and they do not trust us any longer. Smooth Donald, real smooth. So you and your fat putz Sec of State are going to have to come up with a better story than you have come up with to date. It has been 3 years of the same trumpian nonsense slathered over various parts of the globe and there is no sign, repeat NO SIGN that Trump has moved the ball an inch unless you want to consider moving us closer to a war which will ultimately involve the entire ME and more if it happens is somehow PROGRESS. That war should it happen will be WW3.

^ You're a fan of ISIS, are you?

joko104 · Jan 7, 2020

Luckyone said:
Athanasius68 said:

For the life of me, I cannot understand how you think.

Let me once again stress a few things:

1) Iran wanted nuclear weapons before but Obama was able to postpone it. How does Trump killing Soleimani resolve that issue? Will this stop them from trying? What did Trump resolve with this action? How does this killing help us?

2) Iran cancelled the agreement totally (and with all countries) as of Sunday. Nonetheless, it really does not matter whether the agreement is with other countries and that they won't use nuclear weapons on them. The issue is that firing a nuclear weapon anywhere in the world will affect everyone, irregardless as to whether the weapon was used on us only. The entire world will be affected by a war. As such, any decision by Trump to cancel the deal, should have been discussed with these other countries given that everyone is involved in the consequences, not just us.

3) Trump sought to negotiate the deal on "HIS TERMS". The other side does not have to agree to those terms. Generally, this would not be a major problem because the consequences would only felt by one side but the threat of Iran getting nuclear weapons has been around for a long time and trying to make a new deal brings a whole lot of possible consequences with it. Trump did not discuss breaking the deal with Iran with the other people involved (all nations) and did not even get our own people. He just did it on a whim. When everyone will suffer from the consequences, you don't think it should have been discussed at least among ourselves (Congress) before the decision was made and a vote taken? That did not happen. Trump made the decision that can affect everyone by his lonesome self. It is like your wife deciding to leave and take the kids along with her because she didn't "like" the marriage. Does she have the right to do that without taking it to court and having a judge decide the issue? Trump never took this issue to any court, he just decided to "take the kids" without running it by the people involved and making a decision that had everyone involved, involved. \

4) Consequences of this decision could affect all of us negatively by December. Some of us could even be dead because of this by then. Are you okay with that?

To me, this is once again proof that Trump is abusing his power!

Let me ask you:

What is the other side of this coin (the one you are supporting)? Give me your thinking? What positives were accomplished by this action? How are we, as a nation, better because of this action? You support one man making decisions for you without your input (through your representatives in Congress)?

Click to expand...

Because the Democratic Party WANTS Americans killed, killing the #1 Iranian causing American deaths is counter productive to their goal.

Iran has been a war with us for years - and killing Americans for years. The Democrats in Congress are hysterical that he won't be causing any more American and civilian deaths. It seems so are you.

Give us a number. Is the some quota limit to how many people Iran should murder - American and non-American. Would 1 million Americans killed be enough? 10 million?

GreatNews2night · Jan 7, 2020

snakestretcher said:
I would suggest that it is Iran which has been systematically provoked since the CIA-orchestrated coup over oil in 1953. I would further suggest that all US issues with Iran stem from that date, and are of America's making; the installation of a US-friendly fascist dictator, the Shah, his eventual ousting after years of state-sponsored torture and murder by the CIA-trained SAVAK secret police, and the subsequent Islamist theocratic government. Joining the dots from 1953 until today really isn't all that difficult.

I don't dispute any of these facts. I don't know why you felt that spelling them out was a response to the post of mine that you quoted. Historically, that's how we got to where we are. My post was about what is going on now and the predictable next steps, regardless of how we got to where you are in the first place.

Very good Bloomberg News analysis on the Iran situation

Make Video Horizontal Again