Trump's Iran "Deal"

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Short excerpt from long read:

The U.S. Loses Its War Against Iran

There’s a lot to unpack in the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding, and almost all of it is bad. Read on, if you dare.​

Trump’s Defeat​

The U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, which began with little warning on February 28, ended with the American president signing a memorandum of understanding with the Iranians in Versailles, France — ironically, the site of the signing of the treaty that ended World War I. (I don’t know if you guys are history buffs or not, but that treaty didn’t work out so well.)​
The terms of the memorandum of understanding are not quite an across-the-board surrender on the part of the United States, but they’re close. I suppose you can’t call it a wholesale surrender, in part because the U.S. government is paying retail prices in its concessions.​
The Iranian regime gets to stay in power and receive a whole host of dispensations from the United States, and the U.S. gets little or nothing, and access to the Persian Gulf is now effectively controlled by Iran. . . .​
As we have seen with this administration, repeatedly, personnel is policy. When you select an idiot to run the Department of Homeland Security, you get bad results at DHS. When you select someone with behavioral issues to run the Department of Labor, you get one embarrassing scandal after another. When you select a yes-woman who overpromises and underdelivers, you get a mess at the Department of Justice.​
And when you select a Manhattan real estate guy who sees previous foreign policy experience as a liability to negotiate with the Iranian mullahs, you end up losing your shirt.​
None of this spares the president any blame; after all, Trump’s the one who entrusted Witkoff with this duty, and Trump’s signature is the one on the memorandum. But when you have an administration thoroughly permeated by the philosophy that knowing a lot about a subject — or consulting those who do know a lot — is a weakness and a liability, you cannot be surprised when endeavors like a war against Iran go terribly awry and leave the United States in a weaker position than when it started.​
By taking the Persian Gulf hostage, and with it, the world economy, Iran effectively won the war.​
 

Idolater

Popetard
Short excerpt from long read:

The U.S. Loses Its War Against Iran

There’s a lot to unpack in the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding, and almost all of it is bad. Read on, if you dare.​

Trump’s Defeat​

The U.S.-Israeli war against Iran, which began with little warning on February 28, ended with the American president signing a memorandum of understanding with the Iranians in Versailles, France — ironically, the site of the signing of the treaty that ended World War I. (I don’t know if you guys are history buffs or not, but that treaty didn’t work out so well.)​
The terms of the memorandum of understanding are not quite an across-the-board surrender on the part of the United States, but they’re close. I suppose you can’t call it a wholesale surrender, in part because the U.S. government is paying retail prices in its concessions.​
The Iranian regime gets to stay in power and receive a whole host of dispensations from the United States, and the U.S. gets little or nothing, and access to the Persian Gulf is now effectively controlled by Iran. . . .​
As we have seen with this administration, repeatedly, personnel is policy. When you select an idiot to run the Department of Homeland Security, you get bad results at DHS. When you select someone with behavioral issues to run the Department of Labor, you get one embarrassing scandal after another. When you select a yes-woman who overpromises and underdelivers, you get a mess at the Department of Justice.​
And when you select a Manhattan real estate guy who sees previous foreign policy experience as a liability to negotiate with the Iranian mullahs, you end up losing your shirt.​
None of this spares the president any blame; after all, Trump’s the one who entrusted Witkoff with this duty, and Trump’s signature is the one on the memorandum. But when you have an administration thoroughly permeated by the philosophy that knowing a lot about a subject — or consulting those who do know a lot — is a weakness and a liability, you cannot be surprised when endeavors like a war against Iran go terribly awry and leave the United States in a weaker position than when it started.​
By taking the Persian Gulf hostage, and with it, the world economy, Iran effectively won the war.​

It was not commonly known before President Trump's joint action with Israel against Iran, how easy it is for Iran to defend the Strait. It would take an occupation of Iran to dislodge them. Trump for almost 10 years has been saying the rest of the West needs to pony up much more defense spending, and it's because we have enemies who are right in the heart of the global economy who have no moral business being there. If we're going to spread peace and harmony and welfare for everybody, and we're going to do it through economic policies rather than morally motivated invasions and impositions and occupations, then what are we supposed to do with Iran? whose strategic position is oh so easy to defend? and who would require an occupying force to dislodge them from that position? and who would asap launch a nuke at Israel as soon as they can? The problem of Iran is dire, if we're going to have peace through economic treaties and cooperation. Iran won't have that. They will level Israel as soon as they can. This is not a reasonable party. But their position is so strategically superior re the Strait, that we must agree to their terms.
 

VladtheDestroyer

Well-known member
There is no war in Iran nor in the USA. We are basically just bombing Iran whenever we want to and they are doing nothing to us (as far as that is concerned, it is as it should be).
 

Nick M

Fully Semi-Automatic
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Obama gave him a few billion dollars on pallets, which they immediately used (minus his kickback) to work on weapons including nukes. Part of this deal is they have to dismantle the weapons they didn't make. Barry essentially paid a bribe to do evil. If it was an incentive not to do it, that might actually sit ok with many.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
The funny part to which I relate, Trump is both a Nazi and a Jew puppet according to those on the left.

He's neither, rather, he's a completely incompetent buffoon who can't even keep track of his own words from month to month. Back in May he claimed that the renovations to the reflecting pool were impervious to vandalism and yet now he's prosecuting people for causing vandalism to it, sans any actual evidence to back those claims up of course. Trouble is, it's all on record...



As for his war with Iran, poll figures suggest that it hasn't gone down too well with Americans overall and why on earth would it?

 
Last edited:

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
He's neither, rather, he's a completely incompetent buffoon who can't even keep track of his own words from month to month. Back in May he claimed that the renovations to the reflecting pool were impervious to vandalism and yet now he's prosecuting people for causing vandalism to it, sans any actual evidence to back those claims up of course. Trouble is, it's all on record...


As for his war with Iran, poll figures suggest that it hasn't gone down too well with Americans overall and why on earth would it?


That swampy mess is the perfect metaphor for Trump and his regime. And his tenuous grip on reality.

 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
That swampy mess is the perfect metaphor for Trump and his regime. And his tenuous grip on reality.


Outgoing GOP senator Thom Tillis summarised things pretty aptly:

"I don't know, what's worse to you: vandalizing a pool or assaulting a police officer?" Tillis said on Tuesday, according to The Hill. "Now we got somebody, let's say they took a pen knife to a damn pool liner, you're going to prosecute them for 10 years?"

"And you've let people that admitted to assaulting a police officer go and think I can take that person seriously? Nuh-uh,"


His views on the MOU aren't positive either...

On the Iran deal, Tillis confirmed what Obama, Pence, and a former NATO ambassador have all said: it's a disaster. "We're back to pre-JCPOA relief on oil sanctions," he said. "I think they're stringing them along." Then he laid out the brutal cost: "Estimated $100 BILLION spent today, 13 service members lost their lives. Over 360 people have been injured. If all we do is get back to the JCPOA, that would be an absolute CATASTROPHE."
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
ce280993bd8d6eabd270056e.jpeg


cjbky1ulph8f1.png


zmft5hwlph8f1.png
 

VladtheDestroyer

Well-known member
Obama gave him a few billion dollars on pallets, which they immediately used (minus his kickback) to work on weapons including nukes. Part of this deal is they have to dismantle the weapons they didn't make. Barry essentially paid a bribe to do evil. If it was an incentive not to do it, that might actually sit ok with many.

What was the reason he gave them that money for in the first place? Did he ever even say?
 

Nick M

Fully Semi-Automatic
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
What was the reason he gave them that money for in the first place? Did he ever even say?
He said why, but you are speaking of a gay muslim sympathizer who hates America with all his being. He did it so they could build more weapons. And attack Christians and Jews around the world. Jews mostly in Israel. They pay groups like Hamas and supply them. I'm sure you are familiar with it.


Her handlers told her don't say yes or no definitively. Don't worry, Hillary has it covered.

 

Idolater

Popetard
It was not commonly known before President Trump's joint action with Israel against Iran, how easy it is for Iran to defend the Strait. It would take an occupation of Iran to dislodge them. Trump for almost 10 years has been saying the rest of the West needs to pony up much more defense spending, and it's because we have enemies who are right in the heart of the global economy who have no moral business being there. If we're going to spread peace and harmony and welfare for everybody, and we're going to do it through economic policies rather than morally motivated invasions and impositions and occupations, then what are we supposed to do with Iran? whose strategic position is oh so easy to defend? and who would require an occupying force to dislodge them from that position? and who would asap launch a nuke at Israel as soon as they can? The problem of Iran is dire, if we're going to have peace through economic treaties and cooperation. Iran won't have that. They will level Israel as soon as they can. This is not a reasonable party. But their position is so strategically superior re the Strait, that we must agree to their terms.

Unless we boots-on-the-ground invade them with the intention of occupying them. They seem to want a monarchy so we give them something like Bob Enyart's proposed constitution, which enshrines the freedom of conscience, and then, we watch them. We wait, and watch them. And whenever they have a law which breaks the freedom of conscience, we make them change it.

This ofc is a big endeavor. It's going to take a lot of money. Which is why Europe and the rest of NATO besides US need to step it up in defense spending, because we can reform Iran, we have successfully reformed both Germany and Japan, at the same time, but it was expensive. It took about 50 years, it's a long project, but it can be done. We would have reformed the South after the Civil War, had Reconstruction not been abbreviated after only 11 years. It was working great, but it needed about 39 years to set in permanently, that's what we learned in Japan and Germany. 50 years. But we need Europe and the rest of NATO to step up their game and help us, to reform Iran.
 
Last edited:

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Karl Rove has chimed in and made some pretty salient points...

"𝐌𝐚𝐲𝐛𝐞 𝐢𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐧'𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐨 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐛𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐌𝐫. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐧'𝐭 𝐚𝐜𝐡𝐢𝐞𝐯𝐞 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐦𝐞 𝐜𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐞 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐞𝐦𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐝 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐫𝐞𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐡𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐚𝐬𝐦. 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬, 𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐌𝐀𝐆𝐀 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐮𝐛𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐬, 𝐬𝐞𝐞 𝐌𝐫. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐚𝐬 𝐚 𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫. 𝐆𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐝 𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐧𝐞𝐠𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐲 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚'𝐬 𝐬𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐧 𝐞𝐧𝐞𝐦𝐲 𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐮𝐧𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭," he argued. "𝐓𝐞𝐚𝐦 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐲 𝐯𝐮𝐥𝐧𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐞𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐨𝐮𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐮𝐩𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐱𝐞𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐦𝐦𝐞𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧 𝐨𝐢𝐥 𝐬𝐚𝐥𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧'𝐬 𝐧𝐮𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐬, 𝐫𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐚𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐧𝐮𝐜𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐮𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐇𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐮𝐳 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐦𝐢𝐝-𝐀𝐮𝐠𝐮𝐬𝐭. 𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭'𝐬 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐟𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭𝐬. 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐧𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞𝐧'𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐮𝐩𝐢𝐝. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐢𝐝𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐦𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞𝐲'𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐨𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭. 𝐓𝐞𝐡𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐚𝐥𝐬𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔.𝐒. 𝐰𝐨𝐧'𝐭 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐫𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐭 𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬."

"𝐓𝐰𝐨 𝐨𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐫 𝐩𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐫𝐲 𝐌𝐫. 𝐓𝐫𝐮𝐦𝐩'𝐬 𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐚𝐠𝐞𝐫𝐬. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐝 $𝟑𝟎𝟎 𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐟𝐮𝐧𝐝 𝐢𝐬 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐲 𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐦𝐛𝐮𝐫𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐝𝐚𝐦𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐛𝐨𝐦𝐛𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞𝐝. 𝐀𝐧𝐝 𝐨𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰 𝐝𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐀𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚'𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐞 𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐤𝐬 𝐚𝐬 𝐢𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐔.𝐒 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐫𝐮𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐞𝐚𝐤𝐞𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐁𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐜𝐤 𝐎𝐛𝐚𝐦𝐚'𝐬 𝟐𝟎𝟏𝟓 𝐝𝐞𝐚𝐥 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐈𝐫𝐚𝐧."

 
Top