world

Iranians fear economic hardship, but united against Trump

39 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

39 Comments
Login to comment

My oh my what a global laughing stock the US has become under the insane "leadership" of the screaming old racist orange moron.

Talk about accelerating your own downfall....

Enjoy the isolation.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

My guess is the hardliners in the Senate will demand access to Iranian military facilities, something that no country would ever agree to. Even if they don't make that demand, Trump said he's going to cancel the deal if the extra provisions aren't strong enough, and his negotiating tactic seems to be including non-starters that the other side will never accept, like he's doing with NAFTA.

The editorials in the right wing media are starting to pop up, including this really oddball one from FoxNews.com:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/13/judith-miller-trumps-iran-deal-decision-it-could-have-been-worse.html

Judith Miller: Trump's Iran Deal decision -- it could have been worse

She does a pretty good job of laying out the reasons why the deal is on our best interests and ends the piece by writing, "[desertification] is not great news, but considering the alternative, we should all breathe a bit more easily." There's almost a sense of victory in her that Trump didn't go full retard, as if that's a reason to celebrate.

Trump is pretty much flying solo on this one, and since he can't really explain why it's a good route to take we're all left wondering what his real motivations are.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

There are three reasons for Trump's latest farcical and reckless act. First, it was a campaign promise. Second, the Israeli lobby. Third, and not least, the string attached to the $450 billion arms bribe from Saudi Arabia.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

My oh my what a global laughing stock the US has become under the insane "leadership" of the screaming old racist orange moron. 

Talk about accelerating your own downfall.... 

Enjoy the isolation.

If the Iranians are so committed to peace in the region and to abstain from proliferation, why do they want the Sunset Clause removed? It shouldn't matter if they are truly sincere of not wanting to pursue building nukes.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2017-10-13/donald-trump-was-right-to-decertify-the-bad-iran-nuclear-deal

In November 2016, the IAEA announced that Iran had for a second time that year exceeded the heavy water limits supposedly agreed to in the Iran deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. 

For instance, early on, in February 2015, the IAEA reported that Iran had disconnected controversial reactors that had experts debating whether they were a violation of existing agreements, part of the lead-up to the JCPOA during its negotiation.

Every country has their own interests at stake, I get it, but none of the other countries had a history with Iran or had to deal with a hostage situation as we had to deal with, so if other countries don't understand, too bad. This was a bad deal to begin with, had it not been enacted, we wouldn't be in this mess now.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

If Trump had somehow managed to come up with this deal with Iran, he'd be full of praise for himself and his amazing negotiating abilities. The fact that it happened while Obama was president really seems to irk Trump. The guy seems to be acting out of spite and unraveling so much of the positive work Obama and his team did. Luckily, however, there are a quite a few powerful and sane GOP members who are against Trump and will do their best to stymie his pathetic orders.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Luckily, however, there are a quite a few powerful and sane GOP members who are against Trump and will do their best to stymie his pathetic orders.

Like who?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

America will go to war with Iran.

I sincerely doubt that, BB. War with Iran would make war with North Korea look like a sanpo in the koen. Likely the "deep state" (i.e., the adults in the room) would slap Trump down if he began considering such a foolish thing.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Strait of Hormuz to be shut for a few years, which would position Russia top Global Energy supplier, both gas and oil for Europe, China and Japan.

Yet a pipe dream. We all know this will never happen.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

“... pipe dream”.

Ha! I see what you’ve done there....

2 ( +3 / -1 )

We can hope that it won't happen. I'm not a praying man, but I make an exception in this case. Can you say "full-scale regional conflagration"? (I knew you could.)

Lesson one in negotiation school is "never wager what you can't afford to lose lest your card is called." Trump seems to be moronically blundering in this direction, yet I still think "the adults" will yank him back before he does too much damage. It's not just for the well-being of the United States; it's for reelectability of GOP congressmen.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

LagunaToday  08:49 am JST

what? Iran has no nukes, no icbms, no super power ally that vows to protect them. they are low hanging fruits for the military complex.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Second, the Israeli lobby.

I wonder how much of the millions we give to Israel ends up being used to buy-off the rats in DC?

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Have Trump fans come up with any benefits to leaving the deal? Or are they still being mostly emotional?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

Iran has no nukes, no icbms, no super power ally that vows to protect them. they are low hanging fruits for the military complex.

Seth, Iran has no superpower ally to protect them now, but that doesn't mean they won't if hostilities break out. Both China and Russia would love to exacerbate American bleeding.

And any war would certainly not be limited to Iran. Asymmetrical warfare would close the Gulf to American warships, and SRBMs directed at American bases in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia could well draw them into the fighting. Hezbollah could draw in Iran, Kurds the Turks, and the Iraqi Shia and Sunni might have another go at each other.

With the Gulf off-limits to American warships and its regional land bases located in the midst of fighting, America's staging areas further afield would have to direct a land war in a country three times the size of Iraq and with no internal allies or divisions to exploit (except for the Kurds). This is not to say America wouldn't prevail, given a decade or two or some nukes - but this is most definitely not a scenario Americans would welcome.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Have Trump fans come up with any benefits to leaving the deal? Or are they still being mostly emotional?

The majority of libs seem to be complaining about, so if anyone is being emotional.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Have you figured out why you support this yet? I mean you can always default to libs and Obama to fill in the holes as usual, but, honestly, have you come up with a reason, in your own words, as to why Trump's actions are in America's best interests?

5 ( +5 / -0 )

And the hardliners will seek to oust Rouhani if he does not take a stronger stance against the Dotard's chaotic reneging on the deal.

Well done, Trump. You'll get your war, yet.

But it might be an economic one, with the other signatories to the deal. Because the deal is not a bilateral one.

One wonders is Trump's real aim to Make America Great Satan Again? 'cos he seems hell-bent on doing so in this instance.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

LagunaToday  01:03 pm JST

They are still a far easier target than NK. Harder than Iraq I agree but not in a realm of impossibility like the NK situation we are dealing with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing more to elaborate except for, if Iran is really sincere in not pursuing nukes, why do they need a sunset clause?

Can you explain the sunset clause to everyone?

3 ( +3 / -0 )

They are still a far easier target than NK.

Gotta disagree with you again there, Seth. NK is exactly the opposite of the scenario I outlined above. Their country is small, completely vulnerable on three sides, surrounded by countries that would love to see regime change (even China, if the US played its cards right). The initial salvo - the first week - would be horrific, especially for those in Seoul, but with NK unable to replace any military equipment at all, with its soldiers on the edge of starvation even during peacetime, and with a populace likely apathetic at best to the fate of their government, NK could be neutralized within a few weeks.

Not that I'm advocating this - it would be a horrendous few weeks - but it would be doable. Iran would be worse than Vietnam.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Less arms and missiles for Hezbollah and Hamas, more food and jobs for Iranians. What's so complicated for leftist scardy cats? At least we won't see $1.7 billion surreptitiously paid in ransom cash in the dead of the night anytime soon.

Thought to ponder: What an opportune time for an Iranian spring with the right American president in place! Do it now, great Iranian people, and be done with the mullahs once and for all! Peace and prosperity!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Have you figured out why you support this yet?

Can you explain the sunset clause to everyone?

Read the article I posted again please.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I got to the the second line: "At a news conference this morning, Sec. Tillerson stated flatly, "We don't dispute that they're under technical compliance.""

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I got to the the second line: "At a news conference this morning, Sec. Tillerson stated flatly, "We don't dispute that they're under technical compliance.

Keep searching..

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Keep searching..

Would help if it was a news article and not an op ed.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Would help if it was a news article and not an op ed.

I see. Judith Miller was giving her essentially editorial opinion, you guys are good with that? So what gives? Oh, the allure of hypocrisy.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Oh, now I see it. You posted it in the JT thread itself.

In November 2016, the IAEA announced that Iran had for a second time that year exceeded the heavy water limits supposedly agreed to in the Iran deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. 

Is this the part you're talking about? You're saying that since Iran violated the part about heavy water, then we need to abandon the deal? I didn't realize that that was why you supported Trump's move.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Judith Miller was giving her essentially editorial opinion, you guys are good with that?

Well, we didn't say we were good with that. It was on FoxNews.com, so you'd have to say that Fox was good with it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Is this the part you're talking about? You're saying that since Iran violated the part about heavy water, then we need to abandon the deal? I didn't realize that that was why you supported Trump's move.

Yes, but it doesn’t matter how we feel, Trump did a good thing, Kudos! Whether you or I disagree, doesn’t matter, what matters is that Trump can see through the deception. We all know the Mullahs true intentions.

Well, we didn't say we were good with that. It was on FoxNews.com, so you'd have to say that Fox was good with it.

How would you know that? You hate FNC, so what gives, but now you want to quote her words, or the person loses credibility because she’s a paid contributor on the network? ROFL

You guys....lol

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

How would you know that? 

Well I posted a link from FoxNews.com with her editorial, so that's how I knew Fox was good with that. Did you read it? Pretty creepy stuff.

Whether you or I disagree, doesn’t matter, what matters is that Trump can see through the deception.

Which deception? The heavy water?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

What's so creepy about the deal? Is it the sunset clause? The heavy water?

2 ( +2 / -0 )

What's so creepy about the deal? Is it the sunset clause? The heavy water?

Probably all 3, the main thing is Trump successfully crushed deal. Kudo!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Well, I see the misinformed are out in full force.

Yes, the 'deep state' might be able to reign in Trump if he foolishly orders a change from a Cold War with Iran to a Hot one, but it won't take much more propaganda to get the Democrats back over the line into the 'war camp' again, and if both parties, and their media, are in favor, the 'deep state' will fall in line.

No, an industrialized, resource rich, developed democratic nation with a highly educated population, and skilled technicians is not an easier target than a resource poor unindustrialized one. Indeed, even with the Iranian refusal to even contemplate developing nuclear weapons, attacking such a state (space capable, nanotech using) even if one could task the entirety of the American military with nothing but defeating it, is a risky proposition, and a sure loser if enough of the world's population sees an opportunity to eliminate the biggest threat (The US) to their security by allying with Iran (quietly, if not loudly) , or remaining neutral (effectively, if not officially).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump successfully crushed deal. Kudo!

Why would that make you personally happy?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sigh. Here we are again with the oil being the basis of US war policies.

Lifting of sanctions would bring more of Iranian oil and gas out of hiding and into the world market.

The Saudis and the US simply trying to stop that.

More war for oil.

Evil.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites