iran

[mikeeod]

Let me start by laying out my bias up front, so that anyone who reads this understands the lens I'm speaking from. First, I'm a 40 year old American male. Next, I've spent the last twenty years of my life in the military, and been numerous times to the Middle East (mostly on combat rotations but I did do an exchange/exercise in Israel). Finally, I am a registered republican but truly disgusted with BOTH parties.

With that out of the way: The majority of Americans haven't thought this issue through, and have zero depth or understanding of the problem set. Most Americans don't even realize that Iranians don't identify as Arabs, they are Persians. Afghanistan is similar in that sense, although Iran is much more modern and less tribal as a society.

Something to keep in mind when discussing this issue is that you have to think strategically, which means you have to remain unemotional. Both sides can point to atrocities or insults from the other. Iran can point out US meddling in Middle East affairs, overthrowing governments and proxy wars. The U.S. Can point to hostage taking, terrorist sponsorship (Hamas and Hezbollah), meddling in other countries' affairs and proxy attacks on U.S. Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strategic leaders understand that yesterday's enemy may be today's ally out of necessity, and that those countries who do not think strategically eventually find themselves isolated.

Next thing to look at is the Middle East in general, and Irans goals. Right now the Middle East is in a civil war, with Iran and the Shia battling with the Saudis and Sunnis for regional supremacy. If you look at which sect actually threatens the homeland, it is the Sunnis, who sponsor Al-Qaeda and ISIS, among other groups. 9/11 was carried out by Saudi sponsored Al-Qaeda, and Saudi has never suffered a moment in retaliation due to US reliance on their oil. If you look at the US's top enemies in the region, Iran is killing them as fast as we are.

Many don't realize how close the U.S. Was to normalizing relations with Iran prior to 9/11. There was unprecedented progress and there were overtures at the SECSTATE level to begin discussions. When 9/11 occurred, it wasn't widely reported that the first flowers to the embassies were from Iran, who pledged full support in the U.S.'s response to the attack. You can point to George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech in 2002 to where Iran and North Korea both restarted their nuclear programs at full speed/force, most likely for a deterrent capability. Which brings us to today. I'm not a big fan of our current president, and I think he has gotten quite a bit wrong. That being said, we are fiscally constrained as a nation, and spread thin militarily. The last thing we can afford is another all out war or proxy fight for the foreseeable future. With that in mind, I think it is smart to partner with Iran, and use diplomacy and financial incentives to get them to abandon their nuclear pursuits, their sponsorship of extremist groups, and death to Israel propaganda/rhetoric.

Understood, but do you really think this is the deal to do it.

Don't think this is the deal, n think we gave up too much, but it's a start. Not sure how much better Obama could've gotten.

[walrus]

Let me start by laying out my bias up front, so that anyone who reads this understands the lens I'm speaking from. First, I'm a 40 year old American male. Next, I've spent the last twenty years of my life in the military, and been numerous times to the Middle East (mostly on combat rotations but I did do an exchange/exercise in Israel). Finally, I am a registered republican but truly disgusted with BOTH parties.

With that out of the way: The majority of Americans haven't thought this issue through, and have zero depth or understanding of the problem set. Most Americans don't even realize that Iranians don't identify as Arabs, they are Persians. Afghanistan is similar in that sense, although Iran is much more modern and less tribal as a society.

Something to keep in mind when discussing this issue is that you have to think strategically, which means you have to remain unemotional. Both sides can point to atrocities or insults from the other. Iran can point out US meddling in Middle East affairs, overthrowing governments and proxy wars. The U.S. Can point to hostage taking, terrorist sponsorship (Hamas and Hezbollah), meddling in other countries' affairs and proxy attacks on U.S. Personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strategic leaders understand that yesterday's enemy may be today's ally out of necessity, and that those countries who do not think strategically eventually find themselves isolated.

Next thing to look at is the Middle East in general, and Irans goals. Right now the Middle East is in a civil war, with Iran and the Shia battling with the Saudis and Sunnis for regional supremacy. If you look at which sect actually threatens the homeland, it is the Sunnis, who sponsor Al-Qaeda and ISIS, among other groups. 9/11 was carried out by Saudi sponsored Al-Qaeda, and Saudi has never suffered a moment in retaliation due to US reliance on their oil. If you look at the US's top enemies in the region, Iran is killing them as fast as we are.

Many don't realize how close the U.S. Was to normalizing relations with Iran prior to 9/11. There was unprecedented progress and there were overtures at the SECSTATE level to begin discussions. When 9/11 occurred, it wasn't widely reported that the first flowers to the embassies were from Iran, who pledged full support in the U.S.'s response to the attack. You can point to George W. Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech in 2002 to where Iran and North Korea both restarted their nuclear programs at full speed/force, most likely for a deterrent capability. Which brings us to today. I'm not a big fan of our current president, and I think he has gotten quite a bit wrong. That being said, we are fiscally constrained as a nation, and spread thin militarily. The last thing we can afford is another all out war or proxy fight for the foreseeable future. With that in mind, I think it is smart to partner with Iran, and use diplomacy and financial incentives to get them to abandon their nuclear pursuits, their sponsorship of extremist groups, and death to Israel propaganda/rhetoric.

Understood, but do you really think this is the deal to do it.

Don't think this is the deal, n think we gave up too much, but it's a start. Not sure how much better Obama could've gotten.

My history runs parallel to yours a bit. I do see Obama's point bringing Iran into talks, I mean the stud quo has gotten us nowhere but I truly believe this deal gives Iran more power and opportunity and puts us behind the nightfall with them. The sanctions were crippling Iran, they wanted to come to the table. Obama and Kerry could have done a lot more to make our allies feel better. The fact that this deal actually brought Israel and several middle eastern countries together says a lot about it. We are now being criticized by the Sauidis for Obama's policy of leading from behind.

[Kirkland Laing]

Ten to twenty years from now Iran will be America's main ally in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf kingdoms are going to crumble away with the demise of OPEC power and turn into failed jihadi nutcase states like Syria/Iraq/Libya.

Israel, who need permanent enemies in the region to justify their refusal to make any peace deals while they continue their slow motion ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians/eventually southern Lebanon


Israel wants a 'permanent stand-off' with Iran, says British Foreign Secretary - UK Politics - UK - The Independent *

will switch from claiming Iran is the world centre of terrorism to yelling about ISIS or whatever ISIS splinters into/various states of parts of states near them run by jihadi nutcases.

I already said this long before we made the first move which was the recent nuclear deal. Also please note this deal is between Iran and six major powers and five of those powers are fine with it, it creates zero political controversy in those countries. It's only controversial in America becase a. Israel have a very powerful lobby there and b. any international deal like this is always trashed by the right wing and likened to Chamberlain at Munich. See attached photo.

*The British conservative party is normally in lockstep with the American right over Israel, sometimes a step ahead. The occasional outbreal of truth like the article above represents just how pissed off even the right are with the way Israel is going. I've never seen a statement like that from the UK/US right since the early nineties and Jim Baker peace be upon him.27-reagan-gorbachev-ad.nocrop.w529.h848.2x.jpg

[walrus]

Ten to twenty years from now Iran will be America's main ally in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf kingdoms are going to crumble away with the demise of OPEC power and turn into failed jihadi nutcase states like Syria/Iraq/Libya.

Israel, who need permanent enemies in the region to justify their refusal to make any peace deals while they continue their slow motion ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians/eventually southern Lebanon


Israel wants a 'permanent stand-off' with Iran, says British Foreign Secretary - UK Politics - UK - The Independent *

will switch from claiming Iran is the world centre of terrorism to yelling about ISIS or whatever ISIS splinters into/various states of parts of states near them run by jihadi nutcases.

I already said this long before we made the first move which was the recent nuclear deal. Also please note this deal is between Iran and six major powers and five of those powers are fine with it, it creates zero political controversy in those countries. It's only controversial in America becase a. Israel have a very powerful lobby there and b. any international deal like this is always trashed by the right wing and likened to Chamberlain at Munich. See attached photo.

*The British conservative party is normally in lockstep with the American right over Israel, sometimes a step ahead. The occasional outbreal of truth like the article above represents just how pissed off even the right are with the way Israel is going. I've never seen a statement like that from the UK/US right since the early nineties and Jim Baker peace be upon him.27-reagan-gorbachev-ad.nocrop.w529.h848.2x.jpg

You sound like Obama.

[Kirkland Laing]

Ten to twenty years from now Iran will be America's main ally in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf kingdoms are going to crumble away with the demise of OPEC power and turn into failed jihadi nutcase states like Syria/Iraq/Libya.

Israel, who need permanent enemies in the region to justify their refusal to make any peace deals while they continue their slow motion ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians/eventually southern Lebanon


Israel wants a 'permanent stand-off' with Iran, says British Foreign Secretary - UK Politics - UK - The Independent *

will switch from claiming Iran is the world centre of terrorism to yelling about ISIS or whatever ISIS splinters into/various states of parts of states near them run by jihadi nutcases.

I already said this long before we made the first move which was the recent nuclear deal. Also please note this deal is between Iran and six major powers and five of those powers are fine with it, it creates zero political controversy in those countries. It's only controversial in America becase a. Israel have a very powerful lobby there and b. any international deal like this is always trashed by the right wing and likened to Chamberlain at Munich. See attached photo.

*The British conservative party is normally in lockstep with the American right over Israel, sometimes a step ahead. The occasional outbreal of truth like the article above represents just how pissed off even the right are with the way Israel is going. I've never seen a statement like that from the UK/US right since the early nineties and Jim Baker peace be upon him.27-reagan-gorbachev-ad.nocrop.w529.h848.2x.jpg

You sound like Obama.

This agreement is entirely controversial in every other major country.

It's only controversial in America due to a. a gigantic Israel lobby and b. the propensity for a large number of Americans to wet the bed over anything they perceive as a threat, no matter how ridiculous. And you have a bunch of politicians willing to pander to and encourage the bedwetters, particularly when there's an election coming up.

[walrus]

Ten to twenty years from now Iran will be America's main ally in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf kingdoms are going to crumble away with the demise of OPEC power and turn into failed jihadi nutcase states like Syria/Iraq/Libya.

Israel, who need permanent enemies in the region to justify their refusal to make any peace deals while they continue their slow motion ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians/eventually southern Lebanon


Israel wants a 'permanent stand-off' with Iran, says British Foreign Secretary - UK Politics - UK - The Independent *

will switch from claiming Iran is the world centre of terrorism to yelling about ISIS or whatever ISIS splinters into/various states of parts of states near them run by jihadi nutcases.

I already said this long before we made the first move which was the recent nuclear deal. Also please note this deal is between Iran and six major powers and five of those powers are fine with it, it creates zero political controversy in those countries. It's only controversial in America becase a. Israel have a very powerful lobby there and b. any international deal like this is always trashed by the right wing and likened to Chamberlain at Munich. See attached photo.

*The British conservative party is normally in lockstep with the American right over Israel, sometimes a step ahead. The occasional outbreal of truth like the article above represents just how pissed off even the right are with the way Israel is going. I've never seen a statement like that from the UK/US right since the early nineties and Jim Baker peace be upon him.27-reagan-gorbachev-ad.nocrop.w529.h848.2x.jpg

You sound like Obama.

This agreement is entirely controversial in every other major country.

It's only controversial in America due to a. a gigantic Israel lobby and b. the propensity for a large number of Americans to wet the bed over anything they perceive as a threat, no matter how ridiculous. And you have a bunch of politicians willing to pander to and encourage the bedwetters, particularly when there's an election coming up.

No, it's controversial in America as the 100 and more pages of the deal have been released make the people wonder why the deal was made. Too many outs for Iran especially when compared to all of the nuke deals the US has signed with Russia. Obama initially started with anywhere, anytime inspections, have you seen what we ended up with. Bibi speaking to congress was actually controversial here for a large amount of the populace.

[Kirkland Laing]