UKH

/ Trump, Iran and a flawed deal...

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Rampikino - on 08 May 2018

So he has done the only thing he could have done and pulled out of the deal ref Iran and their nuclear intentions.  Let’s face it, if he had said he was sticking with it, it would have been a genuine shock.

The deal is flawed, so it had to go.

Has there ever been a deal struck between nations that have not been the best of friends, don’t trust each other, are playing their own games and cannot be truly controlled, that has been flawless?

And for what? Ego? To pander to a pro-Israel agenda? To piss Obama off?

1
GravitySucks - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

All part of his master plan to win the Nobel peace prize.

Rampikino - on 08 May 2018
In reply to GravitySucks:

You are suggesting there is actually a reasoned plan?

GravitySucks - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

I really didn't think the smiley face was necessary ;-) (sic)

Post edited at 22:04
DerwentDiluted - on 08 May 2018
In reply to GravitySucks:

> All part of his master plan to win the Nobel peace prize.

The Trump doctrine explained:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gC4FSwYHCo

Post edited at 22:06
Rampikino - on 08 May 2018
In reply to GravitySucks:

 

To think that he is going to be around for another 6 1/2 years.  (Yes I really believe he will).

2
Tyler - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

> To piss Obama off?

Not just to piss him off but just because he is driven by jealousy of him and wants to destroy everything he has achieved. Also Trump is too thick to see things in anything other than monetary terms, if he sees the USA handing over dollars to third party he can't understand why he is not seeing a pile of gold or some real estate or something in return. He is so lacking in normal human emotion he can't grasp the value of things like peace etc.

When he was elected I assumed things would not be this bad as I thought he wasn't really ideologically driven and was lazy so the country would be run by (admittedly right wing) advisors. However he has turned out to be the worst he could possibly be; too lazy and stupid to try and understand issues but too arrogant to take advice. 

Post edited at 22:22
balmybaldwin - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

I disliked your post

I fear there is a possibility you may be proved right but I still dislike it.

However there is some hope in the form of the Mueller investigation, and the upcoming midterms....if the democrats can get the house or the senate then there's a decent chance of indictment. However it seems the Republicans aren't (wo)man enough to see justice done 

Eric9Points - on 08 May 2018
In reply to GravitySucks:

> All part of his master plan to win the Nobel peace prize.


I was thinking they should invent a new prize for him. The Nobel prize for being a complete turd. Or something like that.

David Cohen - on 08 May 2018
In reply to balmybaldwin:

I'd rather have Trump in the White House than Mike Pence.

2
Rampikino - on 08 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> I'd rather have Trump in the White House than Mike Pence.

I couldn’t possibly imagine why...

1
Rampikino - on 08 May 2018
In reply to balmybaldwin:

It’s ok - I’m not worried about dislikes!

I’m taking the pessimistic line but I genuinely believe that nobody will impeach him, his teflon coating will stand firm and the US public will not vote him out.

balmybaldwin - on 08 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

> I couldn’t possibly imagine why...


To be fair he's not good either - a proper religious nutjob

RomTheBear on 08 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

Unless this is reversed somehow, I just don't see how this doesn't end up in war.

Billhook - on 09 May 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

He'd love that.  

Just what he wants.  Think of the honour and admiration he'll get  from his people, for blasting yet another middle eastern country to rubble and ruin in the name of bring peace and prosperity.

RomTheBear on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

This atlantic fracture is a remarkably novel geopolitical situation, isn't it. The U.K. is (paradoxically) in symbiosis with the EU, and the EU at odds - and isolating - the US.

David Cohen - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

Because you're a bigot?

19
summo on 09 May 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> This atlantic fracture is a remarkably novel geopolitical situation, isn't it. The U.K. is (paradoxically) in symbiosis with the EU, and the EU at odds - and isolating - the US.

Just because you might not want to share currency or fish with Europe, doesn't mean we can't unite in our thinking that Trump is an idiot. People can have things in common and differences at the same time you know. 

1
Rampikino - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

Lazy. Very, very lazy.

Perhaps I responded because your leanings are so transparently obvious.

Pointing out the obvious doesn’t make someone a bigot.

David Cohen - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

Sorry, but it is your prejudice which is transparent.

Trump is dreadful and dangerous but he is inept and will be constrained by his own incompetence and lack of ability to engage effectively politically: Mike Pence is equally dreadful and dangerous (in my view) but he is far more intelligent and able to work as an effective politician and weave through the constitutional controls.

Nothing to do with Israel at all.

9
Rampikino - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

You are lazy.  You cry wolf far too easily.  You have an innate confirmation bias that allows you only to see certain comments as bigoted, prejudiced and anti-Semitic.

But based on the flimsiest of knowledge you throw out you accusations on thread after thread to user after user.

So go on, I challenge you to tell me, with evidence wherever you believe you can find it, that I am a bigot.

Go for it.

2
David Cohen - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

The imputation was that I prefer Trump over Pence because of his stance on Israel, now if that wasn't your reasoning please explain how you were able to divine my intent? Of you go sweetie.

 

13
Rampikino - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

Is that all you have as proof that I am a bigot? Is that it?

Seriously, jog on.

2
smollett - on 09 May 2018

Hoping the other signatories to the deal can hold something together and avoid implementing sanctions. Also hoping China and other countries will continue to buy Iranian oil, as without the money I think the Iranian government will collapse. There are a lot of hardliners in Iran and if its government fails I believe it will be replaced by far worse.

Dave Garnett - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> Nothing to do with Israel at all.

OK, but Mike Pence aside, I can't help noticing the irony of Israel complaining about an undisclosed nuclear weapons policy. 

planetmarshall on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

> And for what? Ego? To pander to a pro-Israel agenda? To piss Obama off?

All three, but mostly, in the words of a BBC Reporter, it's about "Shredding the Obama Legacy". 

I fervently hope that this is the dumbest thing Trump will ever do. God help us all if he ever does anything dumber.

 

RomTheBear on 09 May 2018
In reply to summo:

> Just because you might not want to share currency or fish with Europe, doesn't mean we can't unite in our thinking that Trump is an idiot. People can have things in common and differences at the same time you know. 

I have not said otherwise nor was it the point. Stop obsessing and calm down a bit.

Post edited at 09:40
1
David Cohen - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Dave Garnett:

Writ large isn't it?

2
David Cohen - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

I notice that you can't justify your comments, let me guess have I broken the rules in that only certain people are entitled to 'call out' bigotry?

If you had some moral fibre you'd accept that you formed a prejudiced (which is not to say I am saying an anti-Semitic) view as to why I would x on subject y because of my views on other issues.

As for jogging on, sorry old cock, I don't take a step backwards.

 

17
Rampikino - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

Yawn.

1
krikoman - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> Nothing to do with Israel at all.

Might be easier to believe if, Kushner wasn't currently senior advisor to his father-in-law, if Bibi hadn't been trying to derail the Iran deal from day one, if Israel wasn't so hypocritical about having and developing nuclear weapons, if Israel and the US hadn't released Stuxnet into the world.

It's a bit like the continued embargo on Cuba, it's plainly stupid and a childish playground policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUT4fjmYIwI

Post edited at 10:22
David Cohen - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

Is that your most considered response? I must say, not impressive.

12
David Cohen - on 09 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

The embargo on Cuba is now bloody daft, but you have to see the imposition of it as a thing of its time (taken with the barely concealed corruption in US politics) that said the embargo does nothing to mitigate the disgraceful acts of the Cuban state.

Ex Poster 666 - on 09 May 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Unless this is reversed somehow, I just don't see how this doesn't end up in war.

War in the Middle East?
You don't need to be an old Mother Shipton to predict that!

David Cohen - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Lusk:

War involving Iran and Israel / the US is hugely unlikely. There will be lots of sabre rattling and angry words but no hot conflict.

1
Rampikino - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

Your responses don’t merit anything else than my dreary boredom with the same old, same old.  It’s lazy, lazy posting.  I won’t even call it debating.

For someone who throws around claims of anti-semitism, bigotry and prejudice as often as you do, to talk about moral fibre is laughable.  You have history - your own threads and posts have worn out theme to them.  And your reliance on the “bigot” and “you’re prejudiced” line is lazy.

I don’t need to justify my comments - you accused me of being a bigot without foundation.  This thread speaks for itself.

Feel free to exercise your desperation to have the last word - your “never a step backwards” says a lot. You can have as many last words as you like - I’m not going to respond to you.

1
jkarran - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

> And for what? Ego? To pander to a pro-Israel agenda? To piss Obama off?

What's it ever about with Trump? Narrowly defined popularity, looking tough at home for his "F*** yeah, nuke em all! Murica! Murica! Murica! MAGA!" support base. That and wrecking Obama's work, he sure knows how to bear a grudge!

jk

RomTheBear on 09 May 2018
In reply to Lusk:

> War in the Middle East?

> You don't need to be an old Mother Shipton to predict that!

Not sure you are appreciating the ramifications of Iran starting its nuclear program again nor the importance of Iran in the region. Why do you think the stakes on JCPOE are so high ?

That would mean, inevitably, at some point, bombing from the US/Israel on the most important regional power and one of Russia's biggest strategic ally. The Syrian conflict would look like a distraction in comparison.

Now the only thing we can hope is that the US is sufficiently isolated/discredited that this move doesn't jeopardise the whole deal.

jkarran - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> I notice that you can't justify your comments, let me guess have I broken the rules in that only certain people are entitled to 'call out' bigotry?

Just stop, You're making a proper fool of yourself.

jk

1
summo on 09 May 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

I'd say Syria is the warm up, most parties are already loosely engaging each other in a complex web of mixed alliances. Trump has just increased the chances of it spreading. 

Rampikino - on 09 May 2018
In reply to jkarran:

> What's it ever about with Trump? Narrowly defined popularity, looking tough at home for his "F*** yeah, nuke em all! Murica! Murica! Murica! MAGA!" support base. That and wrecking Obama's work, he sure knows how to bear a grudge!

> jk

I think it is interesting to note that, about a week ago when Netanyahu made his pitch, he clearly knew his audience.  If you look at the presentation style, the box file props, the giant letters and the simple phrases, he was clearly appealing to Trump directly.  Netanyahu may as well have summed up his “evidence” using a series of billboard tweets and still had the same effect.

And Trump understands this style.

RomTheBear on 09 May 2018
In reply to summo:

> I'd say Syria is the warm up, most parties are already loosely engaging each other in a complex web of mixed alliances. Trump has just increased the chances of it spreading. 

The situation is fairly new, though, On Syria, there was relative alignement between the US and the EU.

Now we're entering in a new paradagim where the US is clearly isolated and steps back from its role of "policeman of the world". That's a new and profound development.

Rampikino - on 09 May 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

Perhaps his advisors are whispering in his ear about divisions within the EU and that he should take advantage of that...

David Cohen - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

Denial, obfuscation, unfounded accusations and ignorance all beautifully set out in a single burst of ill directed rage.

How do you cope in real life when challenged?

19
MKH - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

This is getting tedious. Do yourself a favour and debate the point, not the person.

Your mindless point scoring after making pointless allegations is ruining discussion and making these threads far less interesting to read.

In response to the thread, I hope this does put pressure on the rest of the world to stop deferring to the US and see that accords and agreements don't need to include them to be effective. Trumps isolationist stance only stands to improve Russia's situation in the world, the price of oil will increase further in reaction to this announcement - something that Russia have been holding out for a long time for.

jkarran - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

You accused him of being a bigot, he's challenged you to evidence that claim. I think you'll struggle, I guess you do too since you've not even tried.

jk

balmybaldwin - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> Denial, obfuscation, unfounded accusations and ignorance all beautifully set out in a single burst of ill directed rage.

> How do you cope in real life when challenged?


How about you stop derailing this thread and we can get back to the main issue rather than whether you feel slighted by something imagined

RomTheBear on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

> Perhaps his advisors are whispering in his ear about divisions within the EU and that he should take advantage of that...

Lol, not sure why forcing the EU to stick together - by necessity - helps him taking advantage of division in the EU.

krikoman - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

What happens if the rest of the world ignore Trump and don't enforce the sanctions?

Is it possible we could do this?

balmybaldwin - on 09 May 2018
In reply to krikoman:

Possible, but with the US threatening sanctions on any company trading with Iran, that's going to hit European etc companies that want to trade with iran and have anything to do with the US

David Cohen - on 09 May 2018
In reply to jkarran:

The basis of my allegation: that is he inferred my support on one subject i.e. that Trump was preferable to pence on the basis of my views on unrelated issues.

Would he (it could of course be a she) have said 'I can't imagine why' if I wasn't Jewish, a supporter of the right of Israel to exist and be judged by commonly applied norms, I doubt it.

I asked him to explain his comments, he has failed so to do and it is reasonable to draw an adverse inference from that.

His and your problem is that solipsitically you seem to only be able to self identify and self define what is unacceptable language.

10
Rampikino - on 09 May 2018
In reply to RomTheBear:

> Lol, not sure why forcing the EU to stick together - by necessity - helps him taking advantage of division in the EU.

True enough.  But it wouldn’t be a first for recent times - I don’t think Russia expected a united front following the Salisbury incident.

Graeme Alderson on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

You/me/we/us were distinctly told not to start a new thread by Alan James so stop trying to derail this thread. Otherwise it will get shut down. As might any of us for ignoring Alan's request.

Rampikino - on 09 May 2018
In reply to balmybaldwin:

It does come down to this.

 

Making a lot of noise about a particular issue is just noise if you have no influence. It is easy to ignore this kind of vacuous noise as there is no jeopardy.  When it leads to trade wars, diplomatic meltdown and potential conflict then that’s a different matter.  The US do wield that economic power.

RomTheBear on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

> True enough.  But it wouldn’t be a first for recent times - I don’t think Russia expected a united front following the Salisbury incident.

I think they were testing the waters.

But surely Trump's decision has nothing to do with the EU, since we all knew where it stood well beforehand.

It is a purely domestically driven decision as far as I can tell.

David Cohen - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Apologies, I missed that. Point taken.

MKH - on 09 May 2018
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> Possible, but with the US threatening sanctions on any company trading with Iran, that's going to hit European etc companies that want to trade with iran and have anything to do with the US

This is possible but also would be more harmful to the US than to the trading partners it has just distanced. I heard tell of it already having potentially cost Boeing approximately US$20bn in sales. 

It is going to take a discussion with higher minded leaders to plan a way to continue the inspections and non-proliferation programme in return for continued cessation of sanctions by the rest of the wold. China would prefer to continue to buy Iranian oil I'm sure, and Russia are fairly strong allies of Iran in a number of fields. If the EU can muster the courage to face down the US on the sanctions that he is suggesting he would impose on those still trading with Iran, then I think Mr Trump may be just isolating the US.

Rampikino - on 09 May 2018
In reply to MKH:

In which case Trump’s decision is an act of hubris irrespective of the motives.

David Cohen - on 09 May 2018
In reply to MKH:

Trump has always had an isolationist streak, isolationism has always played a strong part in US domestic politics, the difference is perhaps more stark now in that the global economy is more connected now than ever before.

Yanis Nayu - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> Is that your most considered response? I must say, not impressive.

I suspect it’s how a lot of us feel. 

1
MKH - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

Certainly, hubris is something that Trump has never been short on.

I think he is really doing all of these things just because he was embarrassed at a dinner in front of a number of powerful people. Could we blame Obama for rising to Trump's passport baiting in the first place leading to all of this? Not really but I think that is all it has taken for the great wotsit to try and bring about the undoing of all of Obama's works.

MKH - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

How will isolationism work in this increasingly global economy? The only way in which this type of protectionism can be brought down is if the rest of the global economy calls its bluff. Whom will it be harming in the long term if the US' trading partners move on without them?

With the announcements of increasing tariffs on steel from the rest of the world the US steel industry reacted by putting its domestic prices up to just below the new tariffed value of the imports. Prices don't improve for the end users as the greed of US corporations know no bounds.

Rampikino - on 09 May 2018
In reply to MKH:

> Certainly, hubris is something that Trump has never been short on.

> I think he is really doing all of these things just because he was embarrassed at a dinner in front of a number of powerful people. Could we blame Obama for rising to Trump's passport baiting in the first place leading to all of this? Not really but I think that is all it has taken for the great wotsit to try and bring about the undoing of all of Obama's works.

This from 2017.  The NYT historical leanings have to be considered, but it is interesting all the same.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/opinion/trumps-obama-obsession.html

 

jkarran - on 09 May 2018
In reply to David Cohen:

> The basis of my allegation: that is he inferred my support on one subject i.e. that Trump was preferable to pence on the basis of my views on unrelated issues.

He did nothing of the sort

> You: I'd rather have Trump in the White House than Mike Pence.

> Him: I couldn’t possibly imagine why...

Can be read many ways. An alternative reading: 'Pence, however much one might dislike his politics or fundamentalism is a capable politician, he's also not a narcissistic man-child under criminal investigation abusing his position to settle petty grudges and stroke his own ego. I can't imagine why anyone would prefer Trump.'.

You have apparently chosen to make it all about Israel and you've decided that if that were the case it would make him a bigot. Your choice in the first instance then a wild leap in the second. From there on out you've just kept digging.

> Would he (it could of course be a she) have said 'I can't imagine why' if I wasn't Jewish, a supporter of the right of Israel to exist and be judged by commonly applied norms, I doubt it.

Doubt away. Or give people the benefit of the doubt before calling them bigots. I know which person I'd rather be.

> I asked him to explain his comments, he has failed so to do and it is reasonable to draw an adverse inference from that.

Not really given how much of a dick you're being.

jk

Post edited at 12:36
1
Eric9Points - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

According to an article I read in the NYT this morning, the US government is pissed off that Iran is using part of the economic benefits gained from the treaty to fund intervention in Syria etc. They hope that by applying economic pressure on Iran the regime will collapse. Presumably they expect that from the ashes of the current regime a new compliant Iran will emerge which will not develop nuclear weapons. Personally I struggle to see this as a credible scenario.

Obama on the other hand believed the lifting of sanctions against Iran would strengthen the hand of moderates in Government and bring closer ties to the West. Which makes sense to me.

I suppose Trump, Bolton and the rest of his vile associates think being nice to people is being weak.

Rampikino - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

History, both long and short term, has shown us many times that pushing for regime changes in order to install one more suited to your own aims, ultimately fails.

Eric9Points - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

> History, both long and short term, has shown us many times that pushing for regime changes in order to install one more suited to your own aims, ultimately fails.


Yes.

I fail to understand how this course of action will not strengthen anti western factions in Iran.

It also makes the US look untrustworthy, backing out of a deal after only a couple of years. What will be going through the mind of wee fatso in N Korea re the impending disarmament talks?

Tyler - on 09 May 2018
In reply to MKH:

> If the EU can muster the courage to face down the US on the sanctions that he is suggesting he would impose on those still trading with Iran, then I think Mr Trump may be just isolating the US.

In theory the signatories to the JCPOA are obligated to continue trading with Iran.

 

In reply to David Cohen:

Please stop trouble making in this thread.

MKH - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Tyler:

That is what I would hope will happen. Problem is the Trumpian threat of sanctions applied to all who trade with Iran (was this threat levelled at businesses or governments?)

Who's going to be the mouthpiece of the coalition that will stand up to Trump?

krikoman - on 09 May 2018
In reply to MKH:

> That is what I would hope will happen. Problem is the Trumpian threat of sanctions applied to all who trade with Iran (was this threat levelled at businesses or governments?)

But wouldn't this hurt the US as well, possibly more than, those who don't tow the line?

Tyler - on 09 May 2018
In reply to MKH:

> That is what I would hope will happen. Problem is the Trumpian threat of sanctions applied to all who trade with Iran (was this threat levelled at businesses or governments?)

'countries' according to a WH statement.

> Who's going to be the mouthpiece of the coalition that will stand up to Trump?

Macron or Merkel, obviously. You didn't think it would be one of the spineless shites we have in govt did you, they can't even stand up to their own right wing wannabe despots.

 

Post edited at 13:37
MKH - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Tyler:

Disappointingly I think you're 100% correct on the last point. Perhaps Xi might be the guy to deliver the smackdown... or maybe Putin would pop up and disappoint his puppet in person.

On your first point I'd like to see how that pans out for brand USA. Anyone got any stats on net imports/exports for Uncle Sam? As the EU, China, Russia, Iran, are all signatories.... 

 

Rob Parsons on 09 May 2018
In reply to Tyler:

> When he was elected I assumed things would not be this bad ...

The fashionable comment when Trump got elected was that he 'should be taken seriously, not literally.' That is, that a lot of his pre-election rhetoric was just hot air, cynically put together to win votes.

But that's not how it's turning out. And, on the issue under discussion here, he is in fact simply honouring a promise he made during his campaign.

That puts anybody who considers him/herself a (small 'd'!) democrat in an awkward position: we might not like the policies; we might consider that the US electorate voted in a selfish way; however, that electorate voted the way that it did, and it is now getting what it voted for.

Rather than railing against Trump (an easy thing to do), it seems more profitable in this case to consider what response the other nations involved - including the UK - should now be making.

 

MarkJH - on 09 May 2018
In reply to Eric9Points:

> I fail to understand how this course of action will not strengthen anti western factions in Iran.

 

I guess the response to that would be that strengthening the hand of moderates through the JCOPA did not do much to hold back the more dangerous Iranian geopolitical ambitions in the region.  Given the political system in Iran, that is hardly a surprise.  Indeed, it has been reported that giving Iran a free reign in Syria was one of the prices that Obama paid to get the deal in the first place.

Current US strategy in Syria seems to be aimed at setting up a semi-permanent presence in the NE of the country; ramping up the costs of supporting Assad to Tehran and Moscow, with the ultimate objective of securing a negotiated political settlement.  That is a fairly ambitious goal, but probably the best chance of avoiding an even worse outcome to the conflict. 

European support is far less important than that of their regional allies, and that (along with applying more pressure on Tehran) is likely to be the basis for this decision.  Whether it is worth the risk of a nuclear armed Iran is another matter...

 

1
Big Lee - on 10 May 2018
In reply to MarkJH:

> Current US strategy in Syria seems to be aimed at setting up a semi-permanent presence in the NE of the country; ramping up the costs of supporting Assad to Tehran and Moscow, with the ultimate objective of securing a negotiated political settlement.  That is a fairly ambitious goal, but probably the best chance of avoiding an even worse outcome to the conflict.

Yes there is that theory that a deliberate stalemate in Syria weakens Iran long-term in the same way Afghanistan weakened the USSR. The US historically made no effort to bomb IS positions for example. I'm not sure who their NE presence actually is these days though. I don't think any of the Syrian groups fighting on the ground are what we would describe as 'moderate'. I don't think any of the regional players have shown much interest in Syria apart from their own political interests and I'm not sure the US is that serious about finding a political settlement, unless strongly on their terms (probably not going to happen). 

On the broader subject, to me the Iranian nuclear thing is partly a red herring. Apart from satisfying voters, I think the US is trying to secure it's financial institutions in the other gulf states by looking to disadvantage their opponent by whatever means. The US doesn't like the fact Iran has gained influence in the region, partly at the expense of themselves. Iraq is the biggest example this. I'm optimistically hoping this just isolates America more and makes the EU stronger.

ian caton on 11 May 2018
In reply to Rampikino:

Maybe it wasn't all Trump. I emphasize maybe. 

Much of the analysis of the situation is from a westocentric perspective. Seeing Iran as fundamentally a second rate outfit.

If you spread a map of the world out on the floor and try to put a finger on the centre of everything. There is a strong argument that that place is Iran.

Maybe the most strategic place on the planet arguably. So it's not coincidental that the us military were against this agreement nor is it coincidental that Russia is very involved in the scenario. After all the point of the 19th Century "Great Game" from a Russian perspective was to gain access to an Indian ocean port.

Just food for thought.

Dave Kerr - on 11 May 2018
In reply to ian caton:

> If you spread a map of the world out on the floor and try to put a finger on the centre of everything. There is a strong argument that that place is Iran.

I thought things had moved on a bit since Halford Mackinder (1861-1947)?

Post edited at 08:08
ian caton on 11 May 2018
In reply to Dave Kerr:

Wrong seemingly. A visionary no less maybe. 

krikoman - on 11 May 2018
In reply to ian caton:

> Wrong seemingly. A visionary no less maybe. 


Well he had the manpower to put the heartland where it belonged


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.