Trump pulls the US out of Iran deal.

How about both are backward compared to Western values?

And the U.S can't... or won't sell arms to them? And because the EU is 'balls deep in trade, we should overlook the human rights and terrorist actions?

You are doing a great job of making the U.S look like the nation with morals....
Both maybe behind the US values, but pushing Iran further towards Russia isn't a good idea.

Balls deep in trade is Iranian infrastructure, not weapons. It's developing, do we leave this to the Russians/Chinese?

Human rights and terrorist actions? That's pretty much the norm for the middle east. The US has supported terrorist organisations in the past, it will do in the future.

We need to be talking to Iran not closing its options off, it puts the Arabs and Israel on the back foot a bit.
 
Last edited:
I think if the Euros are more willing to add some teeth to the deal, and if that had happened in the first place it would not have been touched. The problem is the IRBM's and the fact that Iran has the ability to now fund two proxy wars. If the European powers to be were a bit more in touch with American politics they should have demanded Obama take the agreement to the Senate, where it would have been more formal and legitimate in the eyes of Americans. Backdoor executive deals don't garner much support.

The shocking thing for us is the fact that May is throwing her support to France and Germany, and not remaining well neutral. Iran is just not worth a "tiff" that could escalate into some genuine ill will.
I hate to say this but Iran get a vote. If they don’t like the ‘deal’ they can always say no. Maybe it was the best that Obama could get at the time. Maybe the E3 thought it was the best they could get after years of negotiation?

Russia and China also get a vote as the P5, as it is a Resolution and the JCPOA is the annex. They’re not going to support the US bargaining position as they (like DPRK) aren’t in the target set.

As for what May, Macron and Merkel (3Ms) think. It’s pretty clear they want the deal to work. Possibly some ‘good cop, bad cop’ going on.

What the US wants and what the U.K. want can differ quite often. It doesn’t mean we’ll fall out. It means there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
 
I hate to say this but Iran get a vote. If they don’t like the ‘deal’ they can always say no. Maybe it was the best that Obama could get at the time. Maybe the E3 thought it was the best they could get after years of negotiation?

Russia and China also get a vote as the P5, as it is a Resolution and the JCPOA is the annex. They’re not going to support the US bargaining position as they (like DPRK) aren’t in the target set.

As for what May, Macron and Merkel (3Ms) think. It’s pretty clear they want the deal to work. Possibly some ‘good cop, bad cop’ going on.

What the US wants and what the U.K. want can differ quite often. It doesn’t mean we’ll fall out. It means there’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Yes Iran got a vote, and they knew Obama was a weak individual and it was in their best interest to do so.

China and Russia are well the enemy to put it bluntly, so they can scream all they want to but US National Security takes precedence over their own desires.

Business is important to France and Germany they want the money. We know that, and well just don't care about the economic interests of countries that do business with the likes of Iran. Trump will use this issue to bludgeon them over the head to speak, and with him everything is personal. Things are changing here, and people are starting to wonder about the old alliances and why bother with them? You folks, France and Canada with the Poles make up Nato for the most part, the rest are just free riders. Love them or hate them the Saudi's and the Israelis have the hardware to back up their stake in the game which does count.
 
Last edited:
Ediit seen.
Yes Iran got a vote, and they knew Obama was a weak individual and it was in their best interest to do so.
Possibly. I wasn't at the negotiations which started in 2006 after the earlier deal in 2003 failed. Six Resolutions later and talks in 2013 lead to an interim plan and then the JCPOA. That's a lot of negotiating:
1696 July 2006
1737 December 2006
1747 March 2007
1803 March 2008
1835 September 2008
1929 June 2010

China and Russia are well the enemy to put it bluntly, so they can scream all they want to but US National Security takes precedence over their own desires.
I'm not doubting their interests, but like DPRK it's a lot easier to have them onside when it comes to the proliferation of WMD. Hence six UN Resolutions which bring the country to the negotiating table.
Business is important to France and Germany they want the money. We know that, and well just don't care about the economic interests of countries that do business with the likes of Iran.
The problem is, doing business opens up further dialogue. It's not a zero sum game
Trump will use this issue to bludgeon them over the head to speak, and with him everything is personal. Things are changing here, and people are starting to wonder about the old alliances and why bother with them?
If you want to turn into Russia, become a rogue state, that's up to you.
You folks, France and Canada with the Poles make up Nato for the most part, the rest are just free riders.
Couldn't agree more. But until Soviet Russian tanks start rolling through the Suwalki Gap, most will kick that can down the road.
Love them or hate them the Saudi's and the Israelis have the hardware to back up their stake in the game which does count.
As above, it's not a zero sum game. If Iran complies with the JCPOA and Rouhani gets more influence over Khameini and Soleimani, it could lead to them stopping their support of terrorist organisations like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthi's etc. It may not, but there is a chance showing Rouhani as a strong person in international affairs.

It may be that a 'better deal' is negotiated. I don't know. But if it is, it weakens the leader who is (relatively) more progressive. As I said, it may even be there's some 'good cop, bad cop' going on which will aid any deal. At the moment we're in a halfway house and there's a lot at stake.
 
Ediit seen.

Possibly. I wasn't at the negotiations which started in 2006 after the earlier deal in 2003 failed. Six Resolutions later and talks in 2013 lead to an interim plan and then the JCPOA. That's a lot of negotiating:
1696 July 2006
1737 December 2006
1747 March 2007
1803 March 2008
1835 September 2008
1929 June 2010


I'm not doubting their interests, but like DPRK it's a lot easier to have them onside when it comes to the proliferation of WMD. Hence six UN Resolutions which bring the country to the negotiating table.

The problem is, doing business opens up further dialogue. It's not a zero sum game

If you want to turn into Russia, become a rogue state, that's up to you.

Couldn't agree more. But until Soviet Russian tanks start rolling through the Suwalki Gap, most will kick that can down the road.

As above, it's not a zero sum game. If Iran complies with the JCPOA and Rouhani gets more influence over Khameini and Soleimani, it could lead to them stopping their support of terrorist organisations like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthi's etc. It may not, but there is a chance showing Rouhani as a strong person in international affairs.

It may be that a 'better deal' is negotiated. I don't know. But if it is, it weakens the leader who is (relatively) more progressive. As I said, it may even be there's some 'good cop, bad cop' going on which will aid any deal. At the moment we're in a halfway house and there's a lot at stake.

Why would you trust the Ivans, to help prevent the mass proliferation of WMD, when they themselves are always trying to cheat the agreements they signed? New Start is a waste.

IF and I say if the Iranians were not using the money they were making, to fund two proxy wars this issue would not have been quite as serious. The problem is that the damn Iranians don't know when to stop. The US is prob the moderating force in this three nation alliance. The Israelis and the Saudi's would strike Iran on their own if they felt like they needed to, but that would also piss the US off as well.

We are already an International pariah in Europe Scalie. Let's not pretend that the Transatlantic relationship is the best or will get better over time. It does seem like the gradual uncoupling has already started. Business partners is the better term to use these days then allies. We have the military and economic clout to ignore Europe when we need to, and our interests will always come first.
 
Why would you trust the Ivans, to help prevent the mass proliferation of WMD, when they themselves are always trying to cheat the agreements they signed? New Start is a waste.
I trust the current Russian leadership as far as I can throw them. 2 x CBRN attacks in the UK pretty much show their contempt for us. However, getting them to agree on a UN Resolution which can be enforced such as trade embargoes helps. Otherwise they'll just keep supplying everyone.
IF and I say if the Iranians were not using the money they were making, to fund two proxy wars this issue would not have been quite as serious. The problem is that the damn Iranians don't know when to stop. The US is prob the moderating force in this three nation alliance. The Israelis and the Saudi's would strike Iran on their own if they felt like they needed to, but that would also piss the US off as well.
You're probably right. Rouhani being more likely to stop the proxy wars than Khameini and Soleimani.
We are already an International pariah in Europe Scalie. Let's not pretend that the Transatlantic relationship is the best or will get better over time. It does seem like the gradual uncoupling has already started.
With us? Or the other Europeans? I think you need to have a look at how many US and UK forces personnel are embedded in each others Armed Forces. The relationship in the military and on information sharing is high, irrespective of who is in power.
Business partners is the better term to use these days then allies. We have the military and economic clout to ignore Europe when we need to, and our interests will always come first.
Everybodies interest come first, that's the idea. Personally, I don't think in a globalised world, retreating from it is the best COA. But that's just me.
 
I trust the current Russian leadership as far as I can throw them. 2 x CBRN attacks in the UK pretty much show their contempt for us. However, getting them to agree on a UN Resolution which can be enforced such as trade embargoes helps. Otherwise they'll just keep supplying everyone.

You're probably right. Rouhani being more likely to stop the proxy wars than Khameini and Soleimani.

With us? Or the other Europeans? I think you need to have a look at how many US and UK forces personnel are embedded in each others Armed Forces. The relationship in the military and on information sharing is high, irrespective of who is in power.

Everybodies interest come first, that's the idea. Personally, I don't think in a globalised world, retreating from it is the best COA. But that's just me.

Yes the Russians will cheat anyway they can, their signature means nothing.

If Khamenini and Soleimani managed to "disappear" then I think a deal could be reached that would have a good chance of holding up. The Donald is loath to really commit to long term military operations. That being said he is however not afraid to use the ban hammer as required.

My apologies, I don't view the UK as European. You are not them and you are not Americans, you are the go between. However that being said we also share cultural ties that most other countries do not, which is why the relationship is so enduring. We just are taken back by TM siding with Europe on this one. Your not as deep in bed with the Iranians as the French,Germans, and Italians. All it does is create unnecessary friction that distracts from the matter at hand.
 
Yes the Russians will cheat anyway they can, their signature means nothing.

If Khamenini and Soleimani managed to "disappear" then I think a deal could be reached that would have a good chance of holding up. The Donald is loath to really commit to long term military operations. That being said he is however not afraid to use the ban hammer as required.

My apologies, I don't view the UK as European. You are not them and you are not Americans, you are the go between. However that being said we also share cultural ties that most other countries do not, which is why the relationship is so enduring. We just are taken back by TM siding with Europe on this one. Your not as deep in bed with the Iranians as the French,Germans, and Italians. All it does is create unnecessary friction that distracts from the matter at hand.
We aren't big exporters of goods to Iran, but we are big in companies that are investing there. With the lifting of sanctions, there is $600 billion up for grabs over the next ten years, I would imagine this puts a lot of pressure on our government not to tear up the deal.

Ripping up the deal will affect big US companies as well. Iran wants 180 passenger jets, currently, it is looking to order 100 from Airbus and 80 Boeing. Boeing, the 80 will go to Airbus is Trump prevents Boeing from selling them.
 
We aren't big exporters of goods to Iran, but we are big in companies that are investing there. With the lifting of sanctions, there is $600 billion up for grabs over the next ten years, I would imagine this puts a lot of pressure on our government not to tear up the deal.

Ripping up the deal will affect big US companies as well. Iran wants 180 passenger jets, currently, it is looking to order 100 from Airbus and 80 Boeing. Boeing, the 80 will go to Airbus is Trump prevents Boeing from selling them.
Well speaking of that...

New Iran sanctions will kill billions in jet sales. Boeing is ready

Airbus might not be able to make this deal after all either... Boeing will find other customers or just over charge the US Government for their birds!
 
We aren't big exporters of goods to Iran, but we are big in companies that are investing there. With the lifting of sanctions, there is $600 billion up for grabs over the next ten years, I would imagine this puts a lot of pressure on our government not to tear up the deal.

Ripping up the deal will affect big US companies as well. Iran wants 180 passenger jets, currently, it is looking to order 100 from Airbus and 80 Boeing. Boeing, the 80 will go to Airbus is Trump prevents Boeing from selling them.
So we should carry on funding a nation that bankrolls terrorists and wishes the demise of the U.S and its allies...for a few hundred billion in Sales?
 
The Iranian people overthrew the Shar and your lot got all miffed and have continued to fume since


You don't seem to have any problem with Saudi Arabia.
Can you show evidence of the Saudi leaders (political - not religious) calling for the destruction of the U.S?

Iran’s top leader, lawmakers lash out at US on nuclear deal

Saudi is perfect...no, I despise them personally, but they are relatively stable in a region of backwards religious fanatics.

And why would selling arms to Saudi Arabia, justify continuing funding the Iranians? They lie about everything and want to destroy us...but lets sell them some planes, as its good for business?
 
So we should carry on funding a nation that bankrolls terrorists and wishes the demise of the U.S and its allies...for a few hundred billion in Sales?
Have you forgoton the US bankrolled plenty of similar terrorist groups in central a south America? What about the rebels (terrorists) who fought against Russia in Afghanistan? We handed Libya over to terrorist factions that still divide the country. Who's to say FSA we're supporting in Syria won't end up the same. You're like the Russians they make history up as they go along ignoring the bad bits.
 
Can you show evidence of the Saudi leaders (political - not religious) calling for the destruction of the U.S?

Iran’s top leader, lawmakers lash out at US on nuclear deal

Saudi is perfect...no, I despise them personally, but they are relatively stable in a region of backwards religious fanatics.

And why would selling arms to Saudi Arabia, justify continuing funding the Iranians? They lie about everything and want to destroy us...but lets sell them some planes, as its good for business?
They armed and funded Isis along with Qataris until they realised it had got out of hand then needed the US to sort the problem out. How many of the terrorist attacks in the US including 911 can you put down to Iranian sponsorship? They are almost always the same flavour of Islam as the Arabs not the Iranians.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
They armed and funded Isis along with Qataris until they realised it had got out of hand then needed the US to sort the problem out. How many of the terrorist attacks in the US including 911 can you put down to Iranian sponsorship? They are almost always the same flavour of Islam as the Arabs not the Iranians.
Again, this isn't true. You do like to make things up about the Saudis.

Iran opposes just about every foreign policy goal of the US and UK in the Middle East. It does this through a variety of means including deliberately destabilising other states through the use of armed groups. Increased funding to Iran indirectly fuels the conflicts in Syria and Yemen, while making Lebanon increasingly unstable.
 
Have you forgoton the US bankrolled plenty of similar terrorist groups in central a south America? What about the rebels (terrorists) who fought against Russia in Afghanistan? We handed Libya over to terrorist factions that still divide the country. Who's to say FSA we're supporting in Syria won't end up the same. You're like the Russians they make history up as they go along ignoring the bad bits.
I agree supporting FSA was wrong - to be honest my solution for the region would involve something more drastic. I am not ignoring anything - history is history, but you dont make bad decisions and then make more because its become a habit.

This is about Trumps decision, not Reagans/Clintons/Bushes/Obamas... It was a weak deal. Iran didn't want to make the deal stronger ( why would they..) and the deal being finalized put zero pressure on them to amend the deal.

Calling it the Iran nuke deal was deceptive... It appears like the Iran-European trade deal is more apt.
 
Again, this isn't true. You do like to make things up about the Saudis.

Iran opposes just about every foreign policy goal of the US and UK in the Middle East. It does this through a variety of means including deliberately destabilising other states through the use of armed groups. Increased funding to Iran indirectly fuels the conflicts in Syria and Yemen, while making Lebanon increasingly unstable.
Isis are Sunni's. This is what the US State Department said about the Saudi's.

“Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide,” the documents said. “While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) takes seriously the threat of terrorism within Saudi Arabia, it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority …

“More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources.”
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Isis are Sunni's. This is what the US State Department said about the Saudi's.

“Donors in Saudi Arabia constitute the most significant source of funding to Sunni terrorist groups worldwide,” the documents said. “While the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) takes seriously the threat of terrorism within Saudi Arabia, it has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist financing emanating from Saudi Arabia as a strategic priority …

“More needs to be done since Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT, and other terrorist groups, including Hamas, which probably raise millions of dollars annually from Saudi sources.”
You understand that 'donors in Saudi Arabia' provoding money is rather different from 'the Saudis' (which in normal parlance means the Saudi government) funding ISIS/terrorism? That situation is in contrast to Iranian government funding of terror.

Add to this that Saudi is aligned with US foreign policy goals while Iran opposes them and it's not hard to see why the US supports Saudi.
 
I agree supporting FSA was wrong - to be honest my solution for the region would involve something more drastic. I am not ignoring anything - history is history, but you dont make bad decisions and then make more because its become a habit.

This is about Trumps decision, not Reagans/Clintons/Bushes/Obamas... It was a weak deal. Iran didn't want to make the deal stronger ( why would they..) and the deal being finalized put zero pressure on them to amend the deal.

Calling it the Iran nuke deal was deceptive... It appears like the Iran-European trade deal is more apt.
I agree with you about the FSA, it's a disaster waiting to happen,
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top