• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Article: neither Obama nor Trump right about Iran

GreatNews2night

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
8,761
Reaction score
3,312
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This is an interesting article that blames both Obama for a faulty nuclear agreement with Iran, and Trump for dismantling it without a clear plan.

Obama Should Never Have Appeased Iran - The Atlantic

It matches a lot more my own position that yes, Obama's agreement wasn't good, but instead of pulling out of it, Trump should have renegotiated it while still within it.

Opinions?
 
The regime never did and never would give up pursuing nukes. I believe that must be the premise of any policy discussion.
 
This is an interesting article that blames both Obama for a faulty nuclear agreement with Iran, and Trump for dismantling it without a clear plan.

Obama Should Never Have Appeased Iran - The Atlantic

It matches a lot more my own position that yes, Obama's agreement wasn't good, but instead of pulling out of it, Trump should have renegotiated it while still within it.

Opinions?

As we speak, there are millions of Iranians trying to overthrow their government. Obama turned his back on the protestors and was silent as Soulimani’s crones murdered the leaders.

The agreement itself was a great visual for MSM, but it was not worth the paper it was printed on. The agreement was typical of agreements we were accustomed to giving to hostile countries that allowed us to declare victory on camera, but sell out America’s security for a photo op and a boost in the polls.

At this point, it is a non issue. With Soulimani dead, Iran’s Quds forces are neutered, and the government along with them - at least for awhile.

Now is a good time to start talking again.
 
This is an interesting article that blames both Obama for a faulty nuclear agreement with Iran, and Trump for dismantling it without a clear plan.

Obama Should Never Have Appeased Iran - The Atlantic

It matches a lot more my own position that yes, Obama's agreement wasn't good, but instead of pulling out of it, Trump should have renegotiated it while still within it.

Opinions?

A well-written article, and I certainly find myself agreeing with it. The Iranian regime's nuclear ambitions must be neutered, and their regional ambitions must be contained. And more importantly than anything, the Iranian people must be empowered and emboldened to stand up to their government and overthrow it. I do not think a Velvet Revolution is in the offing, unfortunately, because of the nature of the Regime itself. After forty years of self-dealing corruption and the sheer number of abuses and depredations visited upon the Iranian people, I am sure the Ayatollahs and their lackeys in the Revolutionary Guards are scared to death that they will be put up against the wall and shot if they were to relinquish power. So it is more likely a violent democratic revolution backed by elements within the regular Iranian military would be necessary to unseat the regime.
 
Last edited:
As we speak, there are millions of Iranians trying to overthrow their government. Obama turned his back on the protestors and was silent as Soulimani’s crones murdered the leaders.

The agreement itself was a great visual for MSM, but it was not worth the paper it was printed on. The agreement was typical of agreements we were accustomed to giving to hostile countries that allowed us to declare victory on camera, but sell out America’s security for a photo op and a boost in the polls.

At this point, it is a non issue. With Soulimani dead, Iran’s Quds forces are neutered, and the government along with them - at least for awhile.

Now is a good time to start talking again.

I tend to agree, and I blame Obama for abandoning support for the segments of Iran's population that oppose the mullahs, but the article makes a good point when he blames Trump for his isolationism, finding that it is hard to contain Iran without our allies.

Just today, Angela Merkel was insisting again with the old agreement (which is not sufficient):

German Chancellor urges all parties to back Iran nuclear deal

Trump has alienated our European allies so much, that they won't listen to him and correct course.

That's not good either.

As an independent, I frankly do think that both presidents got it wrong. I'm not looking for any partisan points: I'm looking for a way forward.
 
Last edited:
As we speak, there are millions of Iranians trying to overthrow their government. Obama turned his back on the protestors and was silent as Soulimani’s crones murdered the leaders.

The agreement itself was a great visual for MSM, but it was not worth the paper it was printed on. The agreement was typical of agreements we were accustomed to giving to hostile countries that allowed us to declare victory on camera, but sell out America’s security for a photo op and a boost in the polls.

At this point, it is a non issue. With Soulimani dead, Iran’s Quds forces are neutered, and the government along with them - at least for awhile.

Now is a good time to start talking again.

I used the same graphic (pro work if I say so myself) then.


tiananmen-square.jpg


And, just like I said and happened then, as soon as there's something to take the West's attention for a minute, those protesters will be squashed like bugs.
 
This is an interesting article that blames both Obama for a faulty nuclear agreement with Iran, and Trump for dismantling it without a clear plan.

Obama Should Never Have Appeased Iran - The Atlantic

It matches a lot more my own position that yes, Obama's agreement wasn't good, but instead of pulling out of it, Trump should have renegotiated it while still within it.

Opinions?

Wasn't the renegotiating of their nukes being done by sanctioning?
 
I tend to agree, and I blame Obama for abandoning support for the segments of Iran's population that opposes the mullahs, but the article makes a good point when he blames Trump for his isolationism, finding that it is hard to contain Iran without our allies.

Just today, Angela Merkel was insisting again with the old agreement (which is not sufficient):

German Chancellor urges all parties to back Iran nuclear deal

Trump has alienated our Europea allies so much, that they won't listen to him and correct course.

That's not good either.

As an independent, I frankly do think that both presidents got it wrong. I'm not looking for any partisan points: I'm looking for a way forward.

Well, the problem I have with Germany backing the Iranian Nuclear Deal is that I do not think they take Iranian ambitions seriously (or did not care overmuch about them). Germany and the EU just want cheap energy and a major market for their goods. The same reason that they are rushing to make themselves dependent on Russian energy with Nordstream 2.
 
Well, the problem I have with Germany backing the Iranian Nuclear Deal is that I do not think they take Iranian ambitions seriously (or did not care overmuch about them). Germany and the EU just want cheap energy and a major market for their goods. The same reason that they are rushing to make themselves dependent on Russian energy with Nordstream 2.

Very true. Trump is to blame for alienating them, but part of it is also their fault, because one reason they don't see eye-to-eye with Trump is that Trump doesn't conform to their selfish interests either. And I say so, while being half-European myself (I'm a dual citizen and in addition to US citizenship I also hold European Union citizenship).
 
I used the same graphic (pro work if I say so myself) then.


View attachment 67271739


And, just like I said and happened then, as soon as there's something to take the West's attention for a minute, those protesters will be squashed like bugs.

Yep, and the impeachment trial is just the thing that will take Trump's eyes off Iran. Not good.
 
Very true. Trump is to blame for alienating them, but part of it is also their fault, because one reason they don't see eye-to-eye with Trump is that Trump doesn't conform to their selfish interests either. And I say so, while being half-European myself (I'm a dual citizen and in addition to US citizenship I also hold European Union citizenship).

Every European leader has vowed to prevent the Iranian regime from getting nuclear weapons.
 
Yep, and the impeachment trial is just the thing that will take Trump's eyes off Iran. Not good.

If the trial started? Maybe. Could be anything. Unfortunately, natural disasters are rather regular on the globe.
 
Every European leader has vowed to prevent the Iranian regime from getting nuclear weapons.

But they don't want to do this at the expense of their commerce with Iran. Part of the reason they got upset at Trump for pulling out, is that they wanted to continue the trade. And they originally endorsed a deal that while better than nothing, is frankly faulty, for not addressing Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism and missile program.

At the time the agreement was being put together I remember Kerry saying "it's the best we can do; the Iranians won't accept more" and I was thinking "no, it isn't; gotta be more forceful!"
 
If the trial started? Maybe. Could be anything. Unfortunately, natural disasters are rather regular on the globe.

The trial will start this week, I hear. Pelosi is supposed to transmit the articles of impeachment on Tuesday not to disrupt the Dem debate, and then the trial starts on Wednesday. When I say "not good" it is not that I disagree with the articles, I think that Trump did commit impeachable offenses; I say not good for those unfortunate Iranians who are protesting.
 
Every European leader has vowed to prevent the Iranian regime from getting nuclear weapons.

And do you think that if Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon tomorrow that the governments of the EU as a bloc would cut off all trade, and want to cease importing oil from Iran? Or do you think they would make accommodations in order to obsequiously pursue peaceful rapprochement with the Regime?

I think the latter is more likely than the former, personally.
 
This is an interesting article that blames both Obama for a faulty nuclear agreement with Iran, and Trump for dismantling it without a clear plan.

Obama Should Never Have Appeased Iran - The Atlantic

It matches a lot more my own position that yes, Obama's agreement wasn't good, but instead of pulling out of it, Trump should have renegotiated it while still within it.

Opinions?

Thanks for the link, but it wasn't "Obama's agreement", he was only representing the US as a signatory:
Iran nuclear deal framework - Wikipedia
The Iran nuclear deal framework was a preliminary framework agreement reached in 2015 between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a group of world powers: the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—plus Germany) and the European Union.

I agree it was a bad deal. Appeasement doesn't work. Apparently the Euros are too stupid to remember that lesson, but the US shouldn't be.
 
But they don't want to do this at the expenses of their commerce with Iran. Part of the reason they got upset at Trump for pulling out, is that they wanted to continue the trade. And they originally endorsed a deal that while better than nothing, is frankly faulty, for not addressing Iran's state sponsorship of terrorism and missile program.

At the time the agreement was being put together I remember Kerry saying "it's the best we can do; the Iranians won't accept more" and I was thinking "no, it isn't; gotta be more forceful!"

They all endorse the deal, which is nice and we could pretend it meant something if the regime was on board. But it's not. So maybe it's time we examine some other policies. Like, I dunno, every European leader's vow to prevent the regime from getting nukes. No; too soon?
 
And do you think that if Iran were to obtain a nuclear weapon tomorrow that the governments of the EU as a bloc would cut off all trade, and want to cease importing oil from Iran? Or do you think they would make accommodations in order to obsequiously pursue peaceful rapprochement with the Regime?

I think the latter is more likely than the former, personally.

I think pretending the regime will not pursue nukes is betting on business as usual after. Quite literally as investments take place.
 
This is an interesting article that blames both Obama for a faulty nuclear agreement with Iran, and Trump for dismantling it without a clear plan.

Obama Should Never Have Appeased Iran - The Atlantic

It matches a lot more my own position that yes, Obama's agreement wasn't good, but instead of pulling out of it, Trump should have renegotiated it while still within it.

Opinions?

Trump prefers economic warfare. That is what he is waging with Iran, while using military power when necessary for the safety of Americans. But he WON'T make any deals.

Here is his latest statement:

Donald J. Trump
2 hrs ·
National Security Adviser suggested today that sanctions & protests have Iran “choked off”, will force them to negotiate. Actually, I couldn’t care less if they negotiate. Will be totally up to them but, no nuclear weapons and “don’t kill your protesters.”

Donald J. Trump - Home | Facebook
 
US positions on ME explained:

We support the Iraqi government in the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS)
We don't like ISIS but they are supported by Saudi Arabia, who we view
as our ally.
We hate President Assad of Syria and support the fight against him but not
ISIS which is also fighting against him.
We hate Iran, but Iran supports the Iraqi government in their fight against ISIS.
So, some of our friends and allies support our enemies and some of our
enemies are our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting against
our other enemies, whom we want to lose, but we don't want our enemies
who are fighting our enemies to win.
If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by
people we hate even more.
And all of this was started by us invading a country to drive out terrorists
who weren't actually even there until we went in to drive them out.

By the way, now that Bibi has been INDICTED for corruption I guess we should expect that our anti-corruption warfighting prezzy-dint will withhold that annual four billion dollars in aid to Israel? Or was that really just a convenient excuse for Ukraine?
 
This is an interesting article that blames both Obama for a faulty nuclear agreement with Iran, and Trump for dismantling it without a clear plan.

Obama Should Never Have Appeased Iran - The Atlantic

It matches a lot more my own position that yes, Obama's agreement wasn't good, but instead of pulling out of it, Trump should have renegotiated it while still within it.

Opinions?

After pulling out of the Iran agreement and what has happened since then, Iran will never give up the chance to get a nuke and nor will anyone else who is on the Trump **** list. They all know that without a nuke, Trump can not be trusted to not bomb them. Yes, Trump could have negotiated new terms while living under the old, but Obama's signature on the agreement and that made Trump unable to do so. He hates the fact that Obama is loved while he is not.
 
Thanks for the link, but it wasn't "Obama's agreement", he was only representing the US as a signatory:
Iran nuclear deal framework - Wikipedia
The Iran nuclear deal framework was a preliminary framework agreement reached in 2015 between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a group of world powers: the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—plus Germany) and the European Union.

I agree it was a bad deal. Appeasement doesn't work. Apparently the Euros are too stupid to remember that lesson, but the US shouldn't be.

I don't care if it was Obama's or not. It bothers me when Angela Merkel says of the JCPOA "which is certainly not perfect" but wants to reinstate it. No, it's not perfect, so, do perfect it, dammit!

When I said, let's move forward, I think, ALL parties now should say, "OK, Iran, enough. We tried the JCPOA and it was somewhat beneficial, you acquired many advantages from it with your economy being restored, but then, even though you were technically in compliance with the nuclear part, that actually WASN'T PERFECT because you continued to sponsor nefarious activities in the area and to pursue longer range missiles. So, it's not that we're blaming you for violating it. We are blaming you for NOT becoming a reliable member of the community of nations, and we are revisiting the whole thing to say that your apparent good will while being very nasty players wasn't enough. So, we ALL, as a bloc, are saying, you have now another opportunity to shape up, after having realized that one of us is willing to directly attack you if you misbehave, and we'll endorse that action and more if you misbehave again. So here is what it is: sanctions are back in place and more complete and more stringent than ever, by all of us. They'll be lifted if you:

1. Come back to the table
2. Accept to cease all sponsorship of terrorism
3. Accept to cease all attempts to influence the Middle Eastern states; you Shiites and them Sunnis need to get along and stop undermining each other and infiltrating each other
4. Abandon attempts to increase the range of your missiles; duh, we don't want the range to get to our territories, and you better take it seriously or else
5. Go back to freezing the nuclear program but not for 10 years; rather, permanently. As a matter of fact let's not just freeze it: let's dismantle it.
6. Stop abusing human rights and summarily killing your own citizens who disagree with your policies

Do all six and we'll embrace you in the community of nations.
Don't do even just one of the six, and we'll squish your economy like a bug, relentlessly, and will meet you militarily with overwhelming force if that's the path you pick, until it generates so much hardship for your people that your internal opponents will revolt for good and put you against a wall and execute you.
It's your choice: move forward and you'll be embraced; do not and you'll be destroyed.

And you know what? There is NO room for negotiating anything milder for you. That's it, take it or leave it. No more BS like last time that you won't accept all of our conditions. Like we said, only one of the six you don't agree to, and it's all off and you'll suffer the dire consequences. Period, full stop.
 
US positions on ME explained:

We support the Iraqi government in the fight against the Islamic State (ISIS)
We don't like ISIS but they are supported by Saudi Arabia, who we view
as our ally.
We hate President Assad of Syria and support the fight against him but not
ISIS which is also fighting against him.
We hate Iran, but Iran supports the Iraqi government in their fight against ISIS.
So, some of our friends and allies support our enemies and some of our
enemies are our friends, and some of our enemies are fighting against
our other enemies, whom we want to lose, but we don't want our enemies
who are fighting our enemies to win.
If the people we want to defeat are defeated, they might be replaced by
people we hate even more.
And all of this was started by us invading a country to drive out terrorists
who weren't actually even there until we went in to drive them out.

By the way, now that Bibi has been INDICTED for corruption I guess we should expect that our anti-corruption warfighting prezzy-dint will withhold that annual four billion dollars in aid to Israel? Or was that really just a convenient excuse for Ukraine?

When you put it this way, indeed it is a full blown mess!!! :shock:
 
I tend to agree, and I blame Obama for abandoning support for the segments of Iran's population that oppose the mullahs, but the article makes a good point when he blames Trump for his isolationism, finding that it is hard to contain Iran without our allies.

Just today, Angela Merkel was insisting again with the old agreement (which is not sufficient):

German Chancellor urges all parties to back Iran nuclear deal

Trump has alienated our European allies so much, that they won't listen to him and correct course.

That's not good either.

As an independent, I frankly do think that both presidents got it wrong. I'm not looking for any partisan points: I'm looking for a way forward.

We are there.
 
After pulling out of the Iran agreement and what has happened since then, Iran will never give up the chance to get a nuke and nor will anyone else who is on the Trump **** list. They all know that without a nuke, Trump can not be trusted to not bomb them. Yes, Trump could have negotiated new terms while living under the old, but Obama's signature on the agreement and that made Trump unable to do so. He hates the fact that Obama is loved while he is not.

True. Nobody with some sense doubts that this was the MAIN reason why Trump abandoned the agreement. Even though he is right that it wasn't ideal (even Angela Merkel admits to it), he never tried to perfect it, he tried to implode it because one of the signatures on it was Obama's. Trump is 100% obsessed with demolishing everything that Obama did. Trump ran for president precisely because Obama mocked him in the White House press dinner. Trump is ruled by his own narcissism above ANY other consideration.
 
Back
Top Bottom