What Of Iran?

NK has been making news so the other side of the world is getting little press these days.  Iran is making news just not enough for the MSM to pay attention at least for right now….they will shortly…..

First we need to look at Iran’s priorities……

Iran is ascendant in the Middle East, spreading its influence in a contiguous geographic arc from Tehran to Baghdad, Damascus and Beirut. Its rise, which began with the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and accelerated when civil wars erupted in Syria and Yemen, has generated a perception that Iran aspires to be the region’s hegemonic power. To the U.S. and its allies – Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) – such an ambition constitutes an intolerable threat. Iran, however, sees itself as breaking out of prolonged isolation and stifling sanctions – precipitated by the 1979 Islamic Revolution – that it perceives as historic injustice. It sees a region dominated by powers with superior military capabilities. After the 2011 Arab uprisings, Iran applied military force to protect a longstanding ally, the Syrian regime, viewing its loss as a possible prelude to its own encirclement. It is in part the gap in perceptions that has locked Iran and its rivals in an escalatory spiral of proxy fights that is destroying the region. A first step toward closing the gap is to better understand how Iran debates and fashions its regional policy.

https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/gulf-and-arabian-peninsula/iran/184-irans-priorities-turbulent-middle-east

Then there is the nuke deal that is in place that Trump and the war mongers do not like…..the chances are that this deal will possibly be terminated….if so what then?

With just weeks remaining before President Trump’s May 12 ultimatum to change the Iran nuclear deal, there is little sign major change is coming. This is raising concerns that the president may attempt to blow up the deal outright, as he has long threatened.

Iran is warning against such a move, saying that they are prepared to ‘vigorously‘ resume their enrichment of uranium if the pact collapses. Iran FM Javad Zarif noted that Iran was never seeking a nuclear bomb, but that enrichment to lower levels would probably be stepped up in the fact of the deal falling apart.

That’s unsurprising. Dramatic curbs to enrichment were a big concession made by Iran under the deal, along with giving the IAEA an unprecedented level of access to their nuclear sites. Without the deal, Iran would likely feel obliged to reverse those concessions.

(antiwar.com)

This is very worrying…..we could get a deal with NK and then have another nuke problem on our hands.

4 weeks and this could explode on more than one front.

Advertisements

34 thoughts on “What Of Iran?

      1. I’ll definitely check them out; my day job has me focused [among other issues] Iranian support to proxies in Iraq and Syria and their proximity to Coalition Forces……so this issue has most of my attention at present.

  1. Just seen a news report with the Israeli PM showing lots of files and stuff that ‘prove’ Iran is building nuclear weapons. I just don’t believe anything anymore. Every time I hear this or that, I just think ‘more lies’. Worn out with it all, to be honest.
    Best wishes, Pete.

  2. Trump and the war mongers? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

    We have several different solutions for achieving peace.
    1. The opposition must think I am mean. I will be nice to them. They will be nice to me.
    2. The opposition is poor. If I help them with their economic problems, they will behave.
    3. The opposition is human. If I respect them and expect to be respected in return, they will respect me.

    The first two options involve buying people off. Whatever we might perceive our intentions to be, that’s the way the opposition sees it. Frankly, I think the opposition is right. When Obama unloaded tons of cash on the Iranian mullahs, what do think the mullahs were thinking?

    What happens when we try to people off? Human nature is what it is. Most people just keep demanding more. The more we give in the more our opposition perceives us as weak.

    The third option involves peace through strength. It requires us to understand our vital interests and to have the will and the strength to pursue our interests.

    Do Iran and North Korea have the right to build nukes? No. These two nations are led by characters who are no better than gangsters. They cannot be trusted; we know they support terrorists. Giving Iran billions to spend is just insane. Allowing Iran and North Korea to build nukes — when we can stop them — requires us to ignore the nature of the regimes that run these country.

    China and Russia are not much better, but there is not much we can do about them. We can do something about Iran and North Korea, and we should. Is that war mongering? No. It is just a hard-nosed cost/benefit analysis. Which option will cost us the least in blood and treasure?

    1. The cash was theirs from 1979 it was not a buy off….starting wars all over the global is not protecting anything but the M-IC….no nation needs nukes they have enough firepower without them…you are right about Russia and China they have the resources to takes us on and we do not like that now do we? When war is your only option then it is war mongering.

      1. The cash belonged to the Mullahs? So they could spend it on arming terrorists? When you know someone wants to shoot you, why would you give them a gun?

        Obama left a foreign policy mess in his wake. He would not defend our interests. He did not check the ambitions of Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, or anyone. So Russia attacked the Ukraine, China expanded its territorial waters. Turkey starts moving into Russia’s orbit. Libya crashed and burned. Egypt almost became the domain of the Muslim Brotherhood. And so forth. Yet we don’t accuse Obama of war mongering. No! We accuse the guy of trying to restore stability, peace through strength, of war mongering.
        😣

        Would you accuse policemen of being criminals because they carry guns and know how to use them? It is just about the same thing.

      2. Yep their cash…..but it was theirs you don not want some small minded toad telling what to do with your cash right? Libya crashed and burned because we helped it to do so….Apparently you need to read me more I did indeed accuse Obama of warmongering…..fighting a war for peace is like sex for virginity

      3. Yeah, it was the mullah’s cash.
        🙄

        Frankly, I don’t have any problems with the idea of not helping someone who wants to shoot me to buy a gun to do it.

        My last comment did not address what you had called Obama. I used the word “we”. Have not read what you had to say about Libya, but it was not pertinent.

        “We” don’t ordinarily associate a foreign policy like Neville Chamberlain’s with warmongering. What Obama did in Libya was utterly lunatic. Going after a guy whose arm we had twisted to give up his nuclear ambitions after he had given up those arms was worse than stupid.

      4. But it is for it explains why Obama and his “buds” did what they did in Libya….humanitarian crisis was BS…..chuq

      5. Obama and his cronies lie habitually. I wonder if Obama even understands his motives.

        So why do you think they did what they did. What’s the link?

      6. You mentioned Libya. You mentioned the humanitarian crisis was BS. Curious to see your explanation. What’s the link to your post?

      7. Interesting. Don’t really disagree. Since I cannot read minds, I don’t try. I just could not figure out the point of toppling Libya. Violent revolutions rarely work out. The American Revolution succeeded because the object was to preserve the powers of the colonial governments. That is, the colonists were not actually rebelling. They were preserving their independence.

        Global Research is supposedly something of a conspiracy theorist website. Don’t know. I suppose they could be right about Nicolas Sarkozy, but I don’t see much indication the West wanted to overthrow the government to seize its oil fields and foreign reserves.

      8. Alright….any think tank including the Heritage could be called a conspiracy website….why Libya when a next door neighbor is having just as much problem and we do nothing? South Sudan But it is like anything we believe what we want and disregard the rest…a typical thinking….chuq

      9. The Heritage Foundation generally focuses on the pros and cons of policy, not mind-reading and demonizing Liberal Democrats.

        Conservatives are suspicious of Liberal Democrats because every Liberal Democrat solution seems to require more government power and disregards the Constitutions. No mind reading.

      10. Each are suspicious of the other….there is no one better than the other…all this damn silly tribalism will destroy the nation they are claim to love. Heritage is a mind reader at least according to their white papers….

      11. It isn’t silly tribalism. I wish it were no more serious than that.

        The differences are ideological. What people believe makes a difference.

        Consider Iran, the subject of your post. It is Muslim. Shiite. It is also Persian in national identity, but the Shiite Islam ideology drives its antagonism with the West, Israel, and the Sunnis. It is insane behavior to threaten so many, but they do it anyway. One reason they get away with it is so many in the West don’t take any beliefs seriously.

        Liberal Democrats promote Socialism. They generally give it another name, but Conservatives oppose that ideology, not Progressive tribe. Conservatives seek to maintain a constitutional republic based upon the founding principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and Socialism is completely incompatible with limited government and self-determination.

        Do Liberal Democrats understand why Socialism is completely incompatible with limited government and self-determination? I don’t think most do. Government-run schools don’t do a good job.

      12. You right it is beyond silly……I disagree with everything you have written….there is NO body on the Left that wants to destroy the Constitution that is wishful thinking on the Rights part….when they cannot agree try to destroy…..making anyone that thinks differently as the enemy….like I said silly

      13. Let’s get our language straight. Nazis are on the extreme Right. Communists are on the extreme Left. Do you think either of those two groups have any regard for our Constitution? Can you tell me what the difference is between Nazis and Communists? Do you know what they have in common?

        Of what relevance are the terms Left and Right?

      14. OMG! This is a discussion for the classroom…..do American Nazis/Communists regard our Constitution? Yes they are trying to gain power by using it…….by some thinking they are both authoritarian Policies are different. There are used when trying to pigeon hole a person or group…..it is like the terms liberal and conservative people make up their own definitions of the term…..me I try to use them in the form they were intended I guess it is called classical definitions. Most people would not recognize a communist if it bit them in the butt. A Dem is not really on the Left only in media and print…….I use the terms because it is easier than explain the differences in each post.

      15. My point is that the terms Left and Right are virtually meaningless. What is the difference between Nazis and Communists? They are both totalitarian Socialists, but Nazis use racial differences to divide and conquer and Communist focus on class differences.

        When we want to talk about the political spectrum, there are two problems. The first is identifying appropriate parameters to characterize the differences between differences between the various groups. Since these differences are not one-dimensional, the terms left and right don’t work. It is not even clear what parameter left and right refer to.

        The second problem is trying to characterize what various specific groups stand for and then fit them into the spectrum. Why is that a problem? It is a judgement call, and most of us are hypocritical. What we want to do and how we want to be perceived are two different things, not the same thing.

        Anyway, I am not trying to fit Liberal Democrats and Conservatives into some sort of political spectrum. Too much work. Too little gain. I just think the following is true.

        Liberal Democrats promote Socialism. They generally give it another name, but Conservatives oppose that ideology, not Progressive tribe. Conservatives seek to maintain a constitutional republic based upon the founding principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence, and Socialism is completely incompatible with limited government and self-determination.

        All we have to do is consider the policies that Democrats fight for to understand that they are promoting Socialism. Then we can look at the Constitution and compare that with the Federal Budget. Where does the Constitution authorize spending on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the Department of Education and all those other health, education, and welfare programs? It doesn’t. Democrats and Liberal Republicans have just packed the courts with enough “right-thinking” judges to get what they want.

        Politician gain more power by spending lots f our money than they do by spending small amounts of our money wisely.

        Who is at fault? To some degree all of us. For the sake of getting what we want, we have sacrificed our Constitution. You can call that silly, but if you do you don’t understand the meaning of the rule of law.

      16. It is all a matter of opinion….Dems do not promote socialism no more so than Repubs promote fascism…..I agree that is all our fault we breakdown our politics into tribes instead to working for the better of the country we are only concerned with our party of choice regardless what is is doing to the nation. chuq

      17. Liberal Democrats don’t promote Socialism? It is a matter of opinion? Tribes? Words mean something. If we can agree to use words that are well defined, then “it” is not all a matter of opinion.

        What Socialists want is the ability to redistribute the wealth. That is why Socialists originally sought government ownership of the means of production. What they do now, however, use the power to tax and spend to redistribute the wealth. Instead of directly owning capital assets, they use regulations to control economic activity.

        Consider single payer health care. Such a system puts government absolutely in charge, but government does not own all the assets. Instead, politicians form alliances with capitalists who want cronies in important government positions.

        Do we break down our politics into tribes? No. We fracture along ideological lines. Democrats obviously seek to divide us into different identity groups, and some of the identity groups are racial, but the debate is ideological. Conservatives are not bigots. We are not obsessing on race. We are trying to preserve our constitutional republic.

        What about Republican politicians? Some of them pretend to be Conservatives. Then they govern as crony capitalists. Effectively those Republicans are just as bad as the Democrats. Others just won’t fight. They want to be somebody but they refuse to do anything. A few have some gumption. I wish it were more.

      18. Again definitions…..no politic system is bad…I prefer a country that looks after its citizens instead of this “I got and f*ck you” attitudes…..call it what you like a tribe is a tribe……accusations and mistrust help no one especially the “constitutional republic”……chuq

      19. No political system is bad? Really?

        I prefer a country that allows people — even expects people — to take care of each other.

        The bad attitude you described come from people who think they have a right to what belongs to someone else.

        Look at history. Slavery is normal, and the people most likely to make accusations and sow distrust are slavers.

      20. What you are saying here has some truth. Lobbyists feed off the government. Generally, they represent people who feed off the government. What education and charity require for success is love, not the desire to feed ourselves. When we educate someone or help someone in need, we must make a sacrifice, not feed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.