Jump to content
Mohamed1993

Future of Iran nuclear deal

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I never trusted this deal to begin with, I knew at some point the American govt. who is used to bullying every nation in the world that doesn't submit to it will use this deal to target Iran on other issues, such as its involvement in Syria and Iraq (both perfectly legal btw). Given Trump's speech at the UN today during which he blamed Iran for being an economically depleted regime that exports violence (funny coming from the US), he stated that we haven't heard the last of the nuclear deal as yet, and given that he just met Netanyahu yesterday whose primary concern was getting the US to withdraw from the deal, my suspicion is that the US will withdraw in October. The unilateral sanctions will come back, I am not sure that other nations will agree to impose multilateral sanctions again, Russia and China seem to want to do business with Iran, France and Germany too, Britain less so, but the latter 3 countries are part of NATO, so if the US does impose sanctions, I suspect they will bite the bullet and bend to the will of the Americans. This leaves Russia and China, whom I don't believe will impose sanctions again. But with US/EU sanctions back up, would Iran restart its nuclear program? It sure seems like Iran apart from lowering of its inflation, hasn't gained much from this deal, further sanctions will surely push them over the edge and force them to restart their program? On the one hand, I hope the deal stays because it lessens the threat of war, which will be more likely if the US withdraws and Iran restarts its program, on the other hand, the US will never allow Iran to experience the benefits of this deal, so I hope they withdraw and lose whatever little international legitimacy they have left. Of course if the US does withdraw, forget getting North Korea to ever negotiate anything over its own program. 

One thing is certain though, people downplayed the influence of AIPAC on american foreign policy after this deal was signed because AIPAC heavily opposed it, if America pulls out, it will just prove the stranglehold this lobby has on these politicians, who have no backbone to stand up to it, just a bunch of cowards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I never trusted this deal to begin with, I knew at some point the American govt. who is used to bullying every nation in the world that doesn't submit to it will use this deal to target Iran on other issues, such as its involvement in Syria and Iraq (both perfectly legal btw). Given Trump's speech at the UN today during which he blamed Iran for being an economically depleted regime that exports violence (funny coming from the US), he stated that we haven't heard the last of the nuclear deal as yet, and given that he just met Netanyahu yesterday whose primary concern was getting the US to withdraw from the deal, my suspicion is that the US will withdraw in October. The unilateral sanctions will come back, I am not sure that other nations will agree to impose multilateral sanctions again, Russia and China seem to want to do business with Iran, France and Germany too, Britain less so, but the latter 3 countries are part of NATO, so if the US does impose sanctions, I suspect they will bite the bullet and bend to the will of the Americans. This leaves Russia and China, whom I don't believe will impose sanctions again. But with US/EU sanctions back up, would Iran restart its nuclear program? It sure seems like Iran apart from lowering of its inflation, hasn't gained much from this deal, further sanctions will surely push them over the edge and force them to restart their program? On the one hand, I hope the deal stays because it lessens the threat of war, which will be more likely if the US withdraws and Iran restarts its program, on the other hand, the US will never allow Iran to experience the benefits of this deal, so I hope they withdraw and lose whatever little international legitimacy they have left. Of course if the US does withdraw, forget getting North Korea to ever negotiate anything over its own program. 

One thing is certain though, people downplayed the influence of AIPAC on american foreign policy after this deal was signed because AIPAC heavily opposed it, if America pulls out, it will just prove the stranglehold this lobby has on these politicians, who have no backbone to stand up to it, just a bunch of cowards.

Im sure russia will find a way to not allow that and even if they do it will be a big mistake because iran will then be allowed to restart their program because of the sanctions that would make 2 nations that are a big threat for america so i dont think it will be the best idea for them to try and impose new sanctions 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Afternoon, Thursday, 05Oct17

Trump in front of cameras said lran has "not lived up to the spirit" of the JAPOC deal and wants more military options from the Pentagon more quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hasanhh said:

"not lived up to the spirit"

I wonder where the words spirit of the deal are in the agreement, its a classic tactic of moving the goalposts, the deal was only about nukes, regional activity was excluded deliberately to not overcomplicate it, you blow up the deal, you won't achieve anything except an even more isolated US that cannot be trusted with its word. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

wants more military options from the Pentagon more quickly.

Iranians have a lot of leverage here, with US troops in Afghanistan and Syria, any military confrontation will probably mean retaliation against these troops.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Iranians have a lot of leverage here, with US troops in Afghanistan and Syria, any military confrontation will probably mean retaliation against these troops.  

US troops are, unfortunately from the Pentagon's view, also exposed in lraq.

Plus, Trump must not be informed that the scholars ruled in the 1990s that an attack on lran is equivalent to an attack on the religion. Same as bombing the Vatican or Canterbury or lstanbul or Lumbini.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hasanhh said:

US troops are, unfortunately from the Pentagon's view, also exposed in lraq.

Plus, Trump must not be informed that the scholars ruled in the 1990s that an attack on lran is equivalent to an attack on the religion. Same as bombing the Vatican or Canterbury or lstanbul or Lumbini.

I'm confident the US has thought deeply about attacking Iran, the reason they haven't done so is because of the consequences it could have, though Trump is irrational in many ways so I can't say what he will do, but if there is an eventual confrontation, the middle east right now is a beacon of peace compared to what it will be then. I expect Israel to be attacked from Gaza/Lebanon and maybe even now Syria, perhaps maybe US bases in Bahrain will be struck, the Iranians may close the strait of Hormuz which could lead to a global economic disaster. I hope someone can convince Trump that he's being incredibly foolish, but he seems to just be all about his ego. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mohamed1993 said:

I'm confident the US has thought deeply about attacking Iran, the reason they haven't done so is because of the consequences it could have, though Trump is irrational in many ways so I can't say what he will do, but if there is an eventual confrontation, the middle east right now is a beacon of peace compared to what it will be then. I expect Israel to be attacked from Gaza/Lebanon and maybe even now Syria, perhaps maybe US bases in Bahrain will be struck, the Iranians may close the strait of Hormuz which could lead to a global economic disaster. I hope someone can convince Trump that he's being incredibly foolish, but he seems to just be all about his ego. 

l am not sure lsrael will get involved. The mullahs and rabbis -including NYC- talk frequently and have regularly scheduled meetings. New York will not want involvement unless lsraeI actually is attacked.

As for the Straits, l do not believe lran will expend the resources to close them, but l do expect lran to run-up-the-cost for the Navy duck-paddling around playing we-keep-the-Straits-open. [Kinda like "the road is open" two generations ago.]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hasanhh said:

l am not sure lsrael will get involved.

If the US attacks Iran, Iran will retaliate against US regional assets, Israel being one of them. A US attack on Iran will be read as an Israeli attack, and vice versa. That's what many intelligence/military officials have stated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mohamed1993 said:

If the US attacks Iran, Iran will retaliate against US regional assets, Israel being one of them. A US attack on Iran will be read as an Israeli attack, and vice versa. That's what many intelligence/military officials have stated. 

Hey Bro, give me a chance to enter a reply. :ranting:    :D

2110hrsEDT 05Oct17 OK, now BBC-America just repeated that the lran nuclear deal is in the US National lnterest, and that lran has complied and is complying.

Now that Trump has better info on lran and the DPRK than when he was running for office, he should use it instead of echoing campaign rhetoric.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Btw brother @hasanhh if you haven't encountered her already, check out Hillary Mann Leverett, she worked on the National Security Council during the Bush admin, she said the US has to come to terms with Iran as an important regional player, in fact it is the only productive path forward. She makes some interesting arguments, she says that the US leads the way in terms of hard military power, but if the invasion of Iraq has shown us anything its that the significance of hard military power is less relevant today, but the soft power of influence in which Iran has advantages is more and more relevant, hence why Iran has effectively gained an ally in Iraq, while the US has in many ways been unable to get the outcome it wanted in Iraq in trying to push it away from Iran and toward the Saudi/Israeli camp. Check it out; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHOuzrbAqdQ.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

If the US attacks Iran, Iran will retaliate against US regional assets, Israel being one of them. A US attack on Iran will be read as an Israeli attack, and vice versa. That's what many intelligence/military officials have stated. 

Referring back to what l wrote tonight, l do not agree with this out look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mohamed1993 said:

Btw brother @hasanhh if you haven't encountered her already, check out Hillary Mann Leverett, she worked on the National Security Council during the Bush admin, she said the US has to come to terms with Iran as an important regional player, in fact it is the only productive path forward. She makes some interesting arguments, she says that the US leads the way in terms of hard military power, but if the invasion of Iraq has shown us anything its that the significance of hard military power is less relevant today, but the soft power of influence in which Iran has advantages is more and more relevant, hence why Iran has effectively gained an ally in Iraq, while the US has in many ways been unable to get the outcome it wanted in Iraq in trying to push it away from Iran and toward the Saudi/Israeli camp. Check it out; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHOuzrbAqdQ.

 

She is one of my favorites. Her husband is good too. l have seen her on Charlie Rose two or more times and have read a couple of her papers.

l took a course on lran and the covert action involved ~35 years ago. Followed it ever since.

Back to Uhty Leverett: where is she now? l last heard her husband was at Penn State but she was working somewhere else.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

Hey Bro, give me a chance to enter a reply. :ranting:    :D

 

Haha just a fascinating discussion. 

2 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

where is she now?

Hillary Mann Leverett is senior professorial lecturer at American University’s School of International Service. With Flynt Leverett, she writes the Race for Iran blog. Their new book, Going to Tehran: Why the United States Needs to Come to Terms With the Islamic Republic of Iran, was published by Metropolitan Books in January. https://www.thenation.com/authors/hillary-mann-leverett/. I don't know if this is still the case though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Mohamed1993 said:

Haha just a fascinating discussion. 

Hillary Mann Leverett is senior professorial lecturer at American University’s School of International Service. With Flynt Leverett, she writes the Race for Iran blog. Their new book, Going to Tehran: Why the United States Needs to Come to Terms With the Islamic Republic of Iran, was published by Metropolitan Books in January. https://www.thenation.com/authors/hillary-mann-leverett/. I don't know if this is still the case though. 

l read the book. Got the cue from the Russian Ambassador (remember the picture?) trump_russia_65769.jpg Date January 2017

l will check their blog.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the US is going to take any military action against Iran.

The American public is overwhelmingly against that, and a vast majority of Americans have no ill-will toward Iranians. Most don't even have an issue with Islam.

This effort against the Iranian regime is orchestrated by Israel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Silas said:

I don't think the US is going to take any military action against Iran.

The American public is overwhelmingly against that, and a vast majority of Americans have no ill-will toward Iranians. Most don't even have an issue with Islam.

This effort against the Iranian regime is orchestrated by Israel

The problem is the Christian Zionist republicans who dominate the congress and their support base are what is driving Trump's policy. Also Saudi Arabia is strongly driving the anti-Iran sentiment too, and they have bribed so many politicians with expensive gifts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It isn't just the Republicans

The Democratic party supports full-scale interventionism in the Middle-East, and is militantly anti-Iran

90%+ Jews in the US are Democrats, and we know how Jews feel about Iran.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Silas said:

It isn't just the Republicans

The Democratic party supports full-scale interventionism in the Middle-East, and is militantly anti-Iran

90%+ Jews in the US are Democrats, and we know how Jews feel about Iran.

 

Both parties are pro-war! But correct me if I am wrong didn't most American Jews support the deal? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only because the deal was drafted by Obama. They would have denounced it if GW Bush had put it together. It was partisan politics.

Israel continues to spread propaganda about Iran, finance and arm ISIS, etc. Obviously, Saudi Arabia is working against Iran as well.

In the town I live in, some Shia Muslims wanted to establish a learning center and mosque. Some people in the community objected to this, and tried to use zoning laws and frivolous lawsuits to stop it. I later found out that these were wealthy Jews who didn't want Persians in their neighborhood. They convinced some paranoid Christians to go along with it.

Ultimately, the mosque was built after other people in the community rose up to support it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Silas said:

The American public is overwhelmingly against that, and a vast majority of Americans have no ill-will toward Iranians. Most don't even have an issue with Islam.

 

I don't know if this is true, http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/ISEC_a_00284?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=New+Campaign&utm_term=*Situation+Report&, most Americans support using nukes against Iran, 47.7% of Americans would prefer to launch a nuclear strike against Iran which would kill 2 million civilians over a ground war which would kill 20,000 US troops (1% of the civilians killed) and 59.1% would approve of such action regardless of what the US did. Of course this depends on how the question was framed and who the audience was, but I don't know if the assertion that most Americans have no problem with Iranians is true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Silas said:

In the town I live in, some Shia Muslims wanted to establish a learning center and mosque. Some people in the community objected to this, and tried to use zoning laws and frivolous lawsuits to stop it. I later found out that these were wealthy Jews who didn't want Persians in their neighborhood. They convinced some paranoid Christians to go along with it.

 

I see. Is this some part of NY? Sorry a little off topic, but I see you're not muslim, is there any faith you ascribe to? I would imagine non-muslims would have a bias against Iran and toward Israel, given that there is no religious element to influence them and also, Iran and Shias are constantly vilified in the US media, in many ways Iran is portrayed as a Shia version of ISIS. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • I just have one question, at this stage: Do Shias believe that their Imams are infallible?
    • What would they do? Send him to prison? Then what? He’ll just divorce my mum and leave. Mum doesn’t work. She’s never worked as she’s a housewife. How would she support our big family. And what ever happens, he remains my father. Prophet Ibrahim still loved and pleaded with Azar even though he wasn’t his biological father so how do you expect me to report him? And if I did, the long court processes and the money difficulties would be too much, how could I bear this while still going to school. I see school as more important than reporting MY father because regardless of anything, at least he still keeps a roof on top of my head. And won’t this be unfair for my siblings who love him as he never hurt them. They won’t understand why I would do that, but they still love him.
    • Here we go again. Because of unfortunately misguided thoughts and assumptions, the discussion/conversation has descended into name calling and insults.  Shias who readily insult, curse and malign others are unfortunately the most cowardly of Our Shia. Ask them to defend innocent Shia being slaughtered by wahabis in Parichinar, Yemen, Syria or Iraq and they have the most convenient excuses. They personify the arrogance of Shaytan towards Adam because of self righteous over inflation of their egos. Humility is a term not native to their vocabulary. Akhlaq, manners, respect, controlling anger, showing others the errors of their ways thru peace and kindness, these are the true legacies of Our Imams. By all means my dear brothers demonstrate your True Nobilty thru Ahlul Bayt like actions, OR alternatively make the Ziosaudis happy and become Shaytan like and show how humans can be described in Sura AT Teen :SUMA RADADNAHO AS FALA SAFEY LEEEN. 
    • ShiaChat has a pinned topic in Jurisprudence with information on Grand Ayatullahs and their websites: http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/71812-grand-ayatullahs/ Another source when doing research to find a marja is this Shia website: http://www.islamic-laws.com/ulamaa.htm
×