MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > The Peace Deal with Iran

The Peace Deal with Iran

posted 5 years ago by dlancer (2036)
18 replies | jump to latest

Even though Trump pulled out of the deal, and even though the Trump admin has re-imposed sanctions, Iran is still following the guidelines of the Obama deal.

https://apnews.com/cb0b02124c7946088eb942897c3cbfef?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP

The U.N. atomic watchdog says Iran continues to stay within the limitations set by the nuclear deal reached in 2015 with major powers, aimed at keeping Tehran from building nuclear weapons in exchange for incentives.

In a confidential quarterly report distributed to member states Monday and seen by The Associated Press, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran has stayed with key limitations set in the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA.

The issue has grown more complicated since the U.S. withdrew unilaterally in May from the deal and then re-imposed sanctions. Iran’s economy has been struggling ever since and its currency has plummeted in value.

The other signatories to the deal — Germany, Britain, France, Russia and China — are continuing to try and make it work.

The IAEA says the agency had access to all sites in Iran that it needed to visit and that inspectors confirmed Iran has kept within limits of heavy water and low-enriched uranium stockpiles.

I wonder what Trump's next move will be to get Iran to break the guidelines so we can have more excuses to sell Saudis weapons and aid their proxy wars.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

The irony is how much worse the Saudis are than the Iranians.

I would hate to live in either country, but if forced to choose it'd be no contest. I'd choose Iran every time.

[–] Jehosaphet (1055) 5 years ago

Its funny, I don't know that many Americans truly understand the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia...I'm not sure I really get it myself, but it seems like the more you know, the more you understand that the US isn't exactly involved as the "good guy", were it easy enough to assign terms like that.
Seems like its about oil oil oil....and the US just postures and poses in whatever manner it has to in order to serve itself, people of the middle east be damned.

George Bush went on TV after 9/11, assuring us Americans that the people behind the attacks were "jealous" of us. Of the lifestyles we were able to lead. And its hard to get it out of your head just how ignorant the American people need to be of our foreign policy to not only be able to say something like that, but to have it believed. "They're just jealous" lol

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

The proxy war between the Saudis and Iran comes down to religion and who will control the hearts and minds of 1.8 billion Muslims. Think of it like the centuries of intra-religious warfare between the Catholics and Protestants over whose interpretation of scripture shall reign supreme. The schism between Sunnis (Saudis) and Shiites (Iran) is already lopsided as it is, with Sunnis making up 90% of the global Muslim population.

So why do the Saudis presently perceive Iran as such a threat given the extreme imbalance? Well because ever since Bush decided to commit to his disastrous war overthrowing Saddam he essentially eliminated the Middle East equalizer that kept Iranian influence in check. It's why Saddam was previously a CIA asset and given arms and aid in his war against Iran.

The other piece is the Saudis are also now being ruled by a young and power hungry crown prince. Previously the secession of power had always gone to the younger brother of the king upon death. Saudi kings were typically tottering septuagenarians who were generally wise and deferential to US power and kept their draconian domestic affairs in house. But that was before this new tyrant MBS seized power, imprisoning and stripping the wealth of his uncles and relatives so he could take the throne for himself last year at the young age of 32.

He's since attempted a number of foreign policy power grabs that have backfired spectacularly, including holding the prime minister of Lebanon hostage and starting this disastrous war in Yemen bombing the helpless and starving, disease ridden civilian population into abject misery when the country doesn't even have a functional government. The ostensible reason is again, because of religion and power. The prior Sunni led government of Yemen had been taken by a Shiite tribe, so he saw it as an affront to his power. Yemen is just south of Saudi Arabia and shares a fairly large border. But he's just made it far worse for himself as the Yemeni government turned to Iran for help and Hezbollah has completely infiltrated the country sending missiles into Saudi Arabia on a regular basis.

[–] Jehosaphet (1055) 5 years ago

That's informative as hell Eye, thanks for that. You seem really informed...let me ask you something? According to some opinions, the fact that all of the 9/11 attackers were Saudi Arabian is reason enough to be suspicious of Saudi Arabia itself, right?
Yet from what I understand, Osama Bin Laden's hatred for the US stemmed from our relationship with the ungodly Saudi Arabia. Isn't that right?

Which is it? Is Saudi Arabia secretly an enemy of the US, just taking our money and laughing? Should we be suspicious of them due to the 9/11 attackers?
Or is that a nothing-burger. That, although they were from Saudi Arabia, they were devotees of Bin Laden, first and foremost.

Any idea?

Btw, sounds like this prince is going to muck stuff up for his country.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

The thing to remember about Saudi Arabia is that they are a theocratic monarchy that has been able to maintain strict control of their population and outsized influence in the rest of the Muslim world because they control and export a fundamentalist orthodox interpretation of the Quran. Being the homeland of their prophet millions of Muslims make a religious pilgrimage to the Hajj each year. They hold the keys to this kingdom and power over their hearts and minds.

So even while it's true that they've been deferential to US power and have been cooperative in sharing information with the US on domestic Saudi terrorists, they have absolutely refused to budge on allowing more moderate and competing interpretations of the Quran that could pose a threat to their power. Anyone who tries to preach a more moderate version is branded a heretic and publicly beheaded. This has posed a massive conundrum for the US, because part of that orthodox doctrine includes the ideology of Salafism which is a revanchist fundamentalism advocating a return of Islam to the early Quran with a hostile anti-western posture that developed and grew as a response to 19th century British imperialism. This fundamentalism ends up radicalizing a portion of their population to engage in anti-west terrorism. Osama bin Laden was a product of this salafi mindset even if the US had a great deal to do with radicalizing him for the purpose of fighting their proxy war against the Soviets in the 80s.

As I mentioned below to dlancer, the problem is that as bad as the Saudi monarchs are, their population is even more conservative and fundamentalist. That's by design by the monarchs because of the orthodox Wahhabi interpretation of the Quran allows them to maintain their vise grip on power and of course it allows them to horde the country's oil wealth for themselves.

So yes the Saudi leadership are US allies, but the religious doctrine they control indirectly makes them a terrorist factory hostile to the west.

[–] dlancer (2036) 5 years ago

There are libraries full of Wahhabism and Daesh within Saudi borders. I believe there are even television programs dedicated to it.

For the longest time, the Saudis wouldn't even let you in. If you sneaked in, you'd likely be killed by the citizens long before you made it to Riyadh. Your best hope would be to luckily run into the right authority figures who send you back to wherever you came from in the hopes of not revealing how their citizens are beheading maniacs.

In Iran, Americans have been able to take tours for decades. It's not the first place you'd wanna go, but it's only dangerous if you are famous or known to have a lot of money. Even then you'll most likely be sitting in a cell over some fabricated charge, but with your head intact.

Things are changing in Saudi Arabia, but unfortunately it's only in places like Jeddah and Riyadh.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

Yup. And that's the scary thing about Saudi Arabia. As bad as the royals of the House of Saud may appear to us, the majority of their population is even MORE backwards and conservative. Like you mention, it's changing somewhat in their population capitals like Riyadh. But the conservative Wahhabi and Salafi mindset is still pervasive.

In other words, if you remove the House of Saud, in all likelihood it would be replaced with something indistinguishable from ISIS, which would be a great deal worse. That would mean a Saudi Arabia hostile to the West.

This is really an underrated reason the US foreign policy establishment has maintained its staunch alliance with the Saudis over the decades in spite of the lack of shared values. Of course oil has been a primary reason. But the US alliance with the House of Saud and the shared security arrangements confers legitimacy and security to the regime. Should the US bail the alliance and the Saudis be toppled by the fundamentalist Wahhabis that despise them, that could portend a global geopolitical disaster seeing how they sit on a sea of oil.

[–] Jehosaphet (1055) 5 years ago

Goddang, what a predicament.
Just curious, do you see any kind of way out of this predicament for the US? If we shun the house of Saud and it ends up toppled...we're pretty screwed...is what you're saying. Well, not to mention the people that actually live there, women especially, I'd imagine.
What's the answer, do you think?
Can the King replace the prince or is it too late for that?

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

The king for now appears to be content with allowing the young prince to rule. Thing is, if we actually had a president who didn't act like he was totally beholden to the crown prince, the US would be more than capable of exerting diplomatic pressure on the king to change his line of succession. We've twisted arms in behind-the-scenes palace intrigue in the past when it wasn't looking like the next in line would be as receptive to US interests.

But sadly, this is a missed opportunity since Trump is president and that's not going to happen under his watch. By the time we have a sane president inclined to do the right thing the king might be dead and gone with the crown prince succeeding him. There's also the open question as to whether MBS would have acted as brazen and reckless if anyone but Trump were president. I think a good case could be made he wouldn't have dared. He was only emboldened because he already knew he had Trump in his pocket and would face no blowback.

That said, I don't think there would be any plan to 'shun' the House of Saud and break off the alliance completely because of the national security threat that alone would pose should their government be completely overrun by extremists. While we maintain an alliance the US can still exert some measure of moderating influence upon its leadership. Until Trump the approach had been try to prod the Saudi monarchy to modernize with the hopes that modernity and technology would lift their backwards conservative population out of the iron age. The Saudis had been eager to please the West in order to encourage foreign investment. There was industry wide speculation their reserves were falling when their inventories dropped for 3 years straight. That's why MBS initially went on a foreign PR blitz, preaching how he was the new face of Saudi modernization. The most being talked about now is sanctions to curb his worst abuses of power in the foreign policy realm.

But Trump has pretty much given MBS a green light to continue his excesses.

[–] Jehosaphet (1055) 5 years ago

Goddang, imagine that. Real world ramifications for possibly billions of people brought about by people buying into nationalist BS and a generic MAGA slogan recycled from the Reagan campaign.

I'm no fan of Hillary's, but THIS is where it mattered. She wouldn't have put up with Putin's shit for a second and I believe you're probably right about the prince. I don't think its any secret that Trump has a vested interest in keeping himself on the good side of the Saudis, but to hear our leader being the sole voice in defending the possibility of his innocence when everyone else knows damned good and well what happened? This is just embarrassing damnit. We're sorry everyone lol

You've got a great way of communicating information, by the way. I do a lot of reading, generally 3-4 hours a day of rummaging through news stories, interest pieces etc and your style of writing is...pretty much indistinguishable from what I'm used to. It really flows. One sentence leads so perfectly into the next that I could easily read page after page of your text and likely still be looking forward to whatever you had to say next.

Are you a writer by trade, possibly?

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

lolz! No, I work in infosec as an analyst. Following politics and foreign policy is more just a recreational pursuit, even as there's been plenty of overlap over the last couple years. I appreciate your compliment nevertheless. 😄

[–] Jehosaphet (1055) 5 years ago

Isn't it odd that the US is breaking its own deal? That's behavior you'd expect from a dictatorship, a third world country, maybe...
The US breaks its word, lo and behold, Iran keeps theirs. While we're supporting a murdering head of state in Saudi Arabia.
We're starting to seem like the bad guys, IMO. We desperately need new leadership here.

[–] dlancer (2036) 5 years ago

Anything that brings peace closer between Iran and the US is no good for the Saudis, and the Saudis still have too much control over the establishment.

Thankfully, Rand Paul (and a few others) is sticking to his libertarian guns and splitting from the GOP on this issue, and many democrats are going the progressive route by pushing back against the corporate dems who are still neck deep in their donors' pockets.

The agreements we made with the Saudis stems back to a different time when we relied on Saudi Arabia to prevent other Mid-Eastern countries from issuing oil embargoes. Nowadays we get most of our oil from ourselves, Canada and Mexico. But there are still establishment holdovers from when those agreements were made. Fox News, MSNBC and CNN all have Saudi connections that they'd rather not talk about.

[–] Jehosaphet (1055) 5 years ago

So the Saudis own a lot of our institutions here...or...probably just connections, huh? Why do they need the US and Iran to be at odds?
And not sure how related it is, but what is it with the GOP chomping at the bit to go to war with Iran? Maybe I'm wrong, but its certainly seemed like Iran has been targeted time and again, with a preliminary strike even being considered at one point.

There also seems like a LOT of propaganda, with Iran often being made out to be the bad guys. Its been interesting to read comments by Iranians here and there on the internet, talking about how surprised Americans would be if they knew the lengths to which people have gone in ensuring they've been demonized. That American citizens would be surprised at just how ignorant we are of their reality, the reality of the impact our government's interference has had in the Middle East. Like we're brainwashed and don't even know it. That's just kind of a scary thought IMO.

[–] dlancer (2036) 5 years ago

It's the age old Sunni vs Shiite conflict. They've been squabbling for so long that it is no longer about religion and is solely about regional dominance. That's how both sides have allowed themselves to align with non-Muslims. The Saudis are teamed up with Jews of Israel and Christians of the US, and Iran has teamed up with secular Assad of Syria and Russia.

The Saudi royals have gained such a massive fortune that they can pay any government to help them establish their dominance over Iran, but it's such a pointless battle that any country who wages war with Iran is admitting they're doing it for Saudi money and nothing else.

[–] Jehosaphet (1055) 5 years ago

So its fuel for the war machine, pretty much, huh?

[–] dlancer (2036) 5 years ago

If you're talking about our war machine, then yes. The military industrial complex is necessary for our protection, but protection isn't as much of a driving force behind it as much as profits.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 5 years ago

It's true that Americans and the Iranian people have quite a bit in common. That's because up until the 1979 Iranian revolution Iran was a staunch US ally (or more accurately a US vassal and client state) with a fully modernizing secular society along with the rest of the western world. Its population is highly educated in colleges that were originally modeled on European universities with fully secularized curriculum before becoming subject to Islamization since their revolution.

The US enmity against Iran is primarily focused on their theocratic Shiite government which made opposition to the US and Israel a pillar of their foreign policy upon their founding. But I'm guessing any hostility by Americans towards the Iranian people stems from the US hostage crises during their 1979 revolution when 53 members of the US embassy were taken hostage for 444 days. There was a decent movie made about the incident Argo (2012) that ended up winning a bunch of academy awards. It includes scenes that depict how riled up the American public got against Iran throughout that saga. You should check it out.