With the US having spent much of the past two weeks threatening an
imminent war against Iran, there have been constant mentions from
officials that the US also wants talks with Iran. President Trump in
particular has emphasized that he wants Iran to “call him.”
Iranian political deputy Rasoul Sanai-Rad, in the semi-official Iranian press, said what the US is doing “is like holding a gun at someone and asking for friendship and negotiations,” adding that Iran believes the US is dishonest in the offer.
Sanai-Rad called it “a political game” by the US, who is constantly
engaged in threats and pressure while feigning their interest in
negotiations “to present a peaceful image of themselves and fool public
opinion.”
It’s not clear that many people are being fooled internationally,
however, with nations that want a US war looking to add fuel to the
fire, and most US allies trying to distance themselves from the US
before the fighting starts.
“The behavior of American leaders is a political game which consists of threats and pressure while showing a willingness to negotiate in order to present a peaceful image of themselves and fool public opinion,” Sanai-Rad said.
We call that Foreign Policy.
So, how did sending them $150 BILLION in cash work out?
Were they moved to negotiate peace with the US and their neighbors?
Are you saying that statement isn’t accurate? That’s ALL we do. But you’re the guy who praised John Bolton and Nikki Haley in our earlier conversations so it wouldn’t surprise me if you thought our foreign policy was seeking peace.
I’m saying foreign policy (between adversaries) usually has that mix,
“threats and pressure”, with “a willingness to negotiate”.
Good cop, bad cop.
And 0bama proved that bowing, apologizing and sending billions,
to a terror sponsoring theocracy, expecting them to be “nice” is the ultimate in gullible lunacy.
Obama proved that he could get the Iranians to take a deal that gave the US everything it wanted (including creating the false impression that Iran had a nuclear weapons program to “limit” in the first place) and the Iranian regime nothing but a little bit of relief from sanctions on its people that should never have been imposed in the first place.
Then Trump came along and proved that he’s the kind of guy who can f–k up a wet dream.
Without VERIFICATION,
0bama proved he was a gullible fool.
A nuclear Iran,
will produce a nuclear Saud,
representing the two “religious” factions who have been at war for over 1387 yrs.
Nuclear weapons(!!!) for both of these intractable enemies,
is that what you want? Is this “antiwar”?
I’m not sure which “verification” you think is missing.
As a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran was already subject to IAEA inspection and remains so under the deal. The IAEA has never found any evidence of an nuclear weapons program. According to both the CIA and Mossad, if Iran ever had a nuclear weapons program, it ceased some time prior to 2004.
The deal imposed additional “verification” measures. The pro-war problem with the deal was that after a decade, Iran would be able to go back to only having the verification measures that had always worked before, instead of the burdensome additional ones.
Neither the deal, nor the breaking of the deal by the US, nor the threats of war by the US, have ever had anything to do with Iran having, or trying to get, nuclear weapons. They’ve always been about punishing Iran for overthrowing the puppet regime the US imposed on them for 25 years and hopefully imposing a new puppet regime on them.
Never mind facts.
From the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/world/middleeast/provision-in-iran-accord-is-challenged-by-some-nuclear-experts.html
From Foreign Affairs:
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/iran/2017-10-03/iranian-nuclear-deals-sunset-clauses
From NPR:
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2017/02/03/513229839/did-irans-ballistic-missile-test-violate-a-u-n-resolution
Iran has no desire to denuclearize, none.
Seriously? None of those links prove your point. None.
“Between adversaries”. How quaint. One adversary makes demands and the other adversary either accepts them or suffers the consequences. And keep saying “terror sponsoring theocracy” and eventually it will come true.
It’s how big league foreign policy has ALWAYS been played,
leverage matters.
I don’t have to say it’s a “terror sponsoring theocracy”
because in FACT-LAND, it is.
But you go ahead and pretend, that they are nice people
who only want to be treated like nice people.
You called them adversaries, which is a joke. One of the “adversaries” is on the other side of the world surrounding the other adversary. One of the adversaries has thousands of nukes while the other has none. One of the adversaries spends more on their spooks than the other adversary spends on their entire military. Yeah, they’re adversaries like Israel and Gaza.
They don’t sponsor terrorism, they support the groups that are being occupied by Israel. Neocons and Israel firsters, like yourself, propagate that myth so Israel can maintain hegemony in the region. The Sunnis dominate the actual list of terrorist groups of which Iran helped to defeat in Syria.
Adversaries definition, a person, group, or force that opposes or attacks; opponent; enemy; foe.
I stand by my characterization.
In 2016 the State Dept. under 0bama, declared Iran the top sponsor of terrorism worldwide, as reported here by CNN.
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/state-department-report-terrorism/index.html
I used your admin and your news source, to prove my point.
Also, for your information,
I consider Sunni’s as contemptible and irredeemable as Shia.
One adversary dwarfs the other. I’ll stand by my characterization.
My administration and my news source? Hardly. Obama was Bush with a darker complexion. He was more like your man Bolton. And my news source is right here at anti-war.com.
Yeah, we get it, you don’t like Muslims.
That $150 BILLION was their own money, not ours.
That’s $150 BILLION of the PEOPLE of Iran’s money.
Not some terror-sponsoring, theocratic, dictatorship.
We didn’t steal it, it was frozen,
until Iran returned to being a civilized govt.
But you didn’t say that the $150 billion was in fact their assets. It’s always convenient for you Bolton apologists to leave out important facts in order to make your case. But nice try.
They were FROZEN Iranian ASSETS,
that should have NEVER been turned over to mad-mullahs bent on destroying the OTHER Muslim sect.
A “religion of peace” that could NEVER find “peace” with the other faction of, “the religion of peace”.
That’s your first clue war.
Frozen by whom and for what reason? And yet we openly call the Saudi headchoppers allies. You know, the real sponsor of terrorism that also wants to destroy the OTHER Muslim sect.
Frozen by the US for taking American embassy workers hostage for the better part of a year, rightly so. When you act like terrorist, expect to be treated like one.
Sunnis and Shia have been in a blood feud for 1387 years,
with no sign of abating.
They hate each other more than they hate the Jews.
Allowing them to nuke up is insanity, not “antiwar” but certain war.
The irony, a “religion” that bills itself as the “religion of peace” has been at war with ITSELF for 1387 yrs!
You’re starting to cross the line between assertions about a religion (which are fine, even if silly) and slurs about that religion’s adherents (which are forbidden under Antiwar.com’s guidelines). Consider yourself warned.
As far as “allowing” Iran to “nuke up,” there are two problems with your assertion.
The first problem is that the evidence Iran has tried to “nuke up” at any point since 2004 comes to zero, zilch, nada, bupkes. “Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons” isn’t a real reason for the conflict, it’s a false excuse for the conflict.
The second problem is the notion that the US gets to “allow” or “not allow” another country to do anything at all.
I accept your warning, and will respect your wishes. No slurs.
However, the 1387 yrs blood feud between two factions of that religion is a fact.
A fact that cannot be dismissed as unimportant. If one of those factions gets nukes the other will also. And given the blood history of 1387 yrs. (!)
it would constitute a grave consequence for the planet.
Those two factions have no desire, whatsoever, to resolve their differences peacefully. If the world community had the best interests of the planet in mind they would sanction and dissuade any actions to obtain nukes.
Re. my problems, first no there is no evidence they are nuking up,
(however the notice requirements and restrictions from some sites is a problem)
but there is plenty of evidence they are building the capabilities and delivery system for AFTER the “agreement” times out.
The second is that it isn’t JUST the US applying sanctions it has been a UN sponsored sanction. It is a global concern.
Now there is a split, between the US and the Euros, but the original concern involve a number of UN nations. The US is more hard line,
the Euros, content to just buy time.
Yes, there has been a long feud between politicians who are adherents of two of the major sects of Islam.
Just like there were long feuds between politicians who followed Constantine’s ruling on Arianism and those who didn’t, between politicians who stuck with the pope and politicians who went with Luther, etc.
None of those feuds putatively centered on religious affiliation indict all members of the respective sects. Most Sunni Muslims, most Shiite Muslims, and pretty much everyone else of every religion and no religion at all are more interested in living their lives than in killing each other en masse. If any religious belief can be said to be uniquely predisposed to war, the religion in question is statism.
There is no feud in history that equals the major faction split in this religion, none.
Whether, statist, imam, Khomeini, Ayatollah, the results have been murderous, longest running, with not a whisper possible accommodation.
And absolutely no threat to the US. Unless of course we have troops and assets in their backyard.
A majority of the world’s oil flows through the Straits,
the US is no threat to Iran unless
the free flow of commerce is interrupted and/or insidious proxy wars continue. Iran wants a fight, and uses proxies to hide behind.
Yes, they hide behind their proxies because they know that the US wouldn’t think of doing anything unless they were forthcoming and came out in the open and fought like men. Plus they’re suicidal in wanting a fight. Where do you get this stuff?
FACT-land,
More like neocon land.
Ya see, that’s not a FACT, it’s your blind reflex.
You’re the one who praised Bolton and Haley. I can’t help it that I have a vivid memory. You’re an Israeli firster also.
but there is plenty of evidence they are building the capabilities and delivery system for AFTER the “agreement” times out.
Right. Because Bibi said so.
They had their chance to make better relations when 0bama returned their money, they remain belligerent taking the US sailors, continuing fund their proxies and building ICBM capability.
Further, Iranian Quds forces met, in BAGHDAD with Shia militia’s telling them to prepare for a “proxy war”.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/16/iran-tells-middle-east-militias-prepare-for-proxy-war
Your JOOOWphobia has nothing to do with it.
Wow. I see your “I’ll believe whatever I want to believe because I want to believe it, facts be damned” malady extends beyond the one subject of Islamic sects.
0bama extended an olive branch, they persisted in belligerence.
Their choice, and their consequences.
They are abiding by the JCPOA which is all they agreed to. I don’t even know what “taking the US sailors” means But funding their proxies and building ICBM capability is something every regional actor is doing. And if we hadn’t sent in so many assets into the region the Quds wouldn’t have any reason to put the proxies on notice. How do you think pip squeaks beat giants?
You don’t remember Iranians taking and threatening US sailors during the 0bama admin, AFTER the 0bama genuflect and $150 BILLION return?
I’m not surprised.
He’s referring to the US special operations unit that the Iranians caught in their waters and briefly took prisoner. Just like US forces would do with a bunch of Iranian commandos found sneaking up Chesapeake Bay.
The incident happened after 0bama’s make nice attempts,
the sailors were threatened and treated abusively.
It was the first indication that in spite of 0bama’s overtures, nothing had or would change for the better between the nations.
And no, the same treatment would not happen if the roles were reversed, and you know it, can’t admit it,
because you would lose your “millennial angst” card.
Are you seriously suggesting that if 10 Iranian commandos were discovered creeping up Chesapeake Bay on Zodiac rafts, they would not be taken prisoner, that they would not be subjected to, at a minimum, the same evil behavior that even domestic criminal suspects undergo every day, and that there would not be a diplomatic row over the matter?
If that’s what you’re suggesting, my suggestion to you is that you talk with your doctor about thorazine.
I am suggesting the US Navy would have been more disciplined
and more humane, yes.
Chesapeake Bay is nowhere near international waters,
bad comparison.
The waters where the sailors got off course were near international waters.
The mouth of Chesapeake Bay is 12 miles from “international waters.” The US Navy troops were captured within three miles of Iranian soil, well out of “international waters.”
Look, I don’t want to argue about the particulars that both of us don’t have.
My point is AFTER 0bama was extending olive branches,
bowing in apology and attempting to craft a mutually satisfactory nuke agreement,
the Iranians used this incident as a slap.
They eventually released the sailors after televised humiliations and threats to demonstrate how tough they are.
They made no effort to reduce tensions, but added to them.
They had 0bama groveling, and wanted to keep him there.
That is my point.
And PS: they were not “commandos”, just sailors.
They were riverine craft. I’ve done special operations on them myself. “Commando” was popular shorthand for “special operations troops.”
The official line is that they “drifted” into Iranian waters after engine problems. The far greater likelihood is that they were on their way to land SEALs, Marine Recon grunts, or other special operators on Farsi Island to do some snooping and pooping and got caught.
No biggie. Countries use special operators to spy on each other all the time. And sometimes those special operators get caught. But the US would respond in a no more friendly manner if it caught a couple of Iranian riverine craft full of spec-ops troops “drifting” into Chesapeake Bay claiming “engine trouble.” Those Iranians would be taken prisoner (or killed if they resisted), and then the phone lines would start lighting up to decide whether to just execute them and burn the bodies, or whether to turn it into a public relations spectacle.
IF—-this craft was used to land SEAL’s etc. you could bet your boots the Iranians would have made a much bigger show out of it. Looking at the photos at the time, those sailors were not equipped like a special ops team,
they looked like panicked standard issue sailors.
If the same occurred 3 miles from US territory, sure they would be arrested and interrogated, and if finding nothing, be returned.
Without the televised humiliation which is against the Geneva Convention.
Ah, finally a valid point.
Except that they supposedly weren’t combatants, which made it just an interesting news story, not a Convention violation.
Let’s further extend the comparison.
Say that the Iranians were bending over backward to improve relations with the US. Just like 0bama was with Iran.
Believe me the US would have jumped at the opportunity to be overly caring, concerned and helpful in returning Iranian sailors who inadvertently strayed into US waters.
EVEN IF, those sailors were equipped like a SEAL team.
The Iranians had no regard for 0bama’s efforts in normalization, hence,
it’s unlikely Trump will follow suit.
“Say that the Iranians were bending over backward to improve relations with the US. Just like 0bama was with Iran.”
That’s pretty easy to say, since it’s completely true.
Hell, they were even willing to go along with the idiotic and evidenceless claim that they had a nuclear program for long enough to “give it up” so that the US could save face and pretend it got something in return for ending the sanctions it should never have put on Iran in the first place.
Wow, any facts for that?
I don’t believe the Iranians cooperated much with the US on anything.
Maybe Ollie North’s Nicaragua’s switcha-roo, but not much else.
Further, Iran could end all tensions by ceasing to fund their proxies,
ending nuclear weapons development and allowing serious verification.
They would be welcomed into the civilized world,
their oil shipped everywhere,
trade flourishing,
their country in a renaissance, BUT, …
that would be counter their religious ideology, so, no dice.
No, Iran could not “end all tensions by ceasing to fund their proxies, ending nuclear weapons development and allowing serious verification.”
Keep in mind who the “tensions” are with:
1) The United States; and
2) Saudi Arabia and its fellow (read: puppet) Sunni-ruled Gulf states.
Obama’s overtures were an ever so slight bending from the 40-year US position, which is that the only way to “end all tensions” is for the regime that took power from the revolution to be replaced with another US puppet regime like the one it overthrew.
Saudi Arabia and Co. won’t settle for anything less than the elimination of Iran as a competing regional power, preferably with the subjugation of its substantially Shiite population (about 10% of Iranian Muslims are Sunni) under Sunni rule a la Bahrain ~30% Sunni) and Saddam’s Iraq (~33% Sunni).
It would be hard for Iran to “end nuclear weapons development” since there’s no evidence that they’re engaging in it. The “nuclear deal” added even more “serious verification” above and beyond the IAEA inspections that found some occasional violations of NPT with regard to uranium enrichment (to nowhere near weapons grade) and such (at one point, Iran was 1 100th of 1% over its allowed amount of heavy water) and no evidence whatsoever of a weapons program.
Well, I do agree things will never improve between Iran and the Sauds,
1387 years of blood feuding proves that.
However, Iran is determined to threaten US interest in the ME and therefore will continue to have problems with us.
Trump recently invited them to talk, “Call me.” he said.
Iran’s response was to continue the “resistance”.
Trump talked with Kim, so he damned sure would talk to the Iranians, but they are too ideologically and theologically opposed.
So, bad things will continue.
WE would talk, THEY will not.
The sailors were not treated abusively and were released unharmed. Now you’re lying like the neocons.
“I don’t even know what ‘taking the US sailors’ means”
He’s referring to the US special operations unit that the Iranians caught in their waters and briefly took prisoner. Just like US forces would do with a bunch of Iranian commandos found sneaking up Chesapeake Bay.
And overthrowing their elected government in 1953 and installing the Shah are what, acts of benevolence? I see your history knowledge stops in 1979. How convenient.
You are correct,
but it was 1953,
and taking embassy hostages was barbaric, unprecedented and unnecessary.
Had Iran instituted a civilized govt, they could have taken the US
(and mostly Britain) to the UN demanding reparations.
But this is a murderous regime that took over and
then took hostages, that sealed their fate.
The current Iranian regime did not take the US embassy hostages. Members of the Muslin Student Followers of the Imam’s Line did.
In fact, the whole embassy hostage situation was resolved more than a year before the regime in question consolidated its power, and was specifically conducted 1) without the prior knowledge of Ayatollah Khomeini and 2) for the purpose of forcing his hand versus the multi-party provisional government by handing him a fait accompli.
Khomeini had previously cooperated with that multi-party provisional government to have police clear the students the FIRST time they took over the embassy. The second time, the conspirators managed to get the deed done and turn out huge crowds of supporters around the embassy before Khomeini could act against them again. That left Khomeini the choice of supporting them or appearing to oppose the consolidation of an Islamic regime and quite likely losing power.
Thank you for the inside story, and I don’t disagree,
however, the animosity
engendered by these various factions, has poisoned the water with regard to Iran and worldwide relations, particularly with the US.
All of it followed by Hezbollah (Marine barracks attack, Beirut)
Hamas and various other jihadi groups etc. which has only solidified international suspicions re Iran.
Bottom line, Trump’s admin doesn’t trust them.
3 weeks ago:
“Iran’s most prominent military leader has recently met Iraqi militias in Baghdad and told them to “prepare for proxy war”, the Guardian has learned.”
https://www.apnews.com/4c33fda1bb6b4d7ab676fa62cbb4ddd1
Followed by a rocket attack yesterday on the US embassy there.
These are not moves a peaceful Iran would employ, they are warlike.
Most nations are “warlike” to some extent.
Iran’s current regime has certainly been willing to engage in proxy war, etc. to keep itself a major player in its immediate neighborhood.
That’s especially true in Iraq, where it has supported Shiite militias versus 1) the US occupation that it would rather not have on its doorstep and 2) resurgence of a Sunni-controlled central government that might suppress Shiites as Saddam’s Ba’athist regime did. In fact, as I have long pointed out, the main effect of the US invasion in 2003 was to make it very likely that large parts of Iraq would become parts of a de facto “Greater Iran.”
On the other hand, it hasn’t openly invaded another country since the early 1970s (when it temporarily occupied a small part of Iraq — it was only a battalion-scale operation — on the claim of suppressing bases from which Kurdish organizations were operating into Iran itself).
It took us decades to stop being prickly about British influence in our area, too.
I don’t disagree, frankly couldn’t care less re Iran in Iraq because I know what will happen there.
A civil war between—-Shia and Sunni’s, is anyone surprised?.
I don’t want the US in involved anyway.
This is what they want to do,
stand aside and let them go.
If the US feels the need for some presence their,
relocate to the Kurds.
That gets us out of harms way,
T’s of Erdogan,
and gives the US a place holder.
They are “warlike” compared to who? The US is responsible for approximately 20 million deaths since WW2. Iran looks like pacifists compared to us.
The US is protecting the free flow of oil,
Iraq is democratic,
ISIS caliphate destroyed,
Syria generally left alone.
Afghanistan in peace talks,
NK talking,
you sound like a crank.
The same tired “Merica bad” blather.
NOBODY is very good,
Iran wants trouble, and is likely to get some, that’s just how it is.
And you sound like John Bolton’s speech writer.
You sound like the Khomeini.
I don’t parrot “the Khomeini” talking points like you do Bolton and the other neocons. My god, I guess Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan must be Khomeini followers also.
You parrot millennial faux hostility
for every thing Israeli and American.
It’s your comfort zone.
And by doing so join the likes of the Khomeini.
Re. Bolton, your go to “boogy-man”, he is just Trump’s “bad cop”.
Iranians fear Bolton,
but Bolton, fears Trump,
it’s so obvious when viewed without “America BAD”jaundiced eyes.
Wow, you judge people by their generation. You really are a moron. But I don’t have “millennial faux hostility” since I’m 64.
You leave out the years of the Shah which takes us to the “barbaric” actions you speak of that amazingly didn’t take one life. Barbarism is our game and we do it from the sky.
Yeah, well there is no changing it,
so what do you and Iran want?
You love it as a cudgel but it helps no one today.
You skipped the 26 years of Iran being ruled by the ruthless Shah that led to the hostage situation and I pointed that out to you. I guess your response told me that Iran should just get over it. Spilled milk thing I guess. I know that’s how we would react.
ALL in the past, what happens NEXT is in their control.
The past was the whole basis of your argument. But only the part of the past that fits your neocon narrative. You’re a tool.
The “past” continues to show Iranian belligerence, even with 0bama’s attempts for positive change between the countries.
Iran doesn’t want peace,
they want dominance. So the future will be rough.
Jesus Christ, you’re talking about the US not Iran. We don’t want peace. We want dominance. Again, we’ve killed millions upon millions since WW2 and haven’t been in one legitimate conflict. Our belligerence is unmatched. Please stop with your neocon talking points.
How many people so far have been murdered over “Ramadan 2019”?
We want peace.
Seriously? That’s all you got. Don’t waste my time.
Hey on the bright side I haven’t seen the classic, “negotiations won’t begin until you agree to the following 7 items” line. It is time for the rest of NATO to get the hell out of Iraq, make the US realize they are alone in this, well except for the Saudis who will cheer us on and watch the progress from rented out rooms in Trump resorts.