The ME narrative

[Marvin the Martian]

One narrative mentioned often is that Iran has been emboldened to act because of the money involved in the nuclear arms deal. I am not discounting that the said money hasn't been at least partially spent on Iranian proxies. But that isn't the only thing pushing Iran, and Mike Pence admitted so in the video below (go to the -1:33 mark). Pence says, "In the last six months, in the wake of President Trump's maximum pressure campaign, we have seen a rise in violence all being driven by Soleimani." It seems clear to me that Pence is suggesting that the Iranian violence is a direct result of the actions of this administration. Doesn't that seem to damage the narrative that the violence rise is timed to signing the nuclear deal?

The video is from GMA's Facebook feed, so I can't embed it. But it is at .

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/09/us-...-state-of-iranian-economy-amid-sanctions.html

 

[Marvin the Martian]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/09/us-...-state-of-iranian-economy-amid-sanctions.html

Right, it shouldn't surprise us that a country being hurt like that would attack us. I would think Pearl should have taught us there is risk. Not that we were (or even are) wrong, but it shouldn't be a surprise.

 

[UncleMark]

Right, it shouldn't surprise us that a country being hurt like that would attack us. I would think Pearl should have taught us there is risk. Not that we were (or even are) wrong, but it shouldn't be a surprise.

I'm curious why we would want Iran's (or anyone else's, for that matter) economy to suffer.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

I'm curious why we would want Iran's (or anyone else's, for that matter) economy to suffer.

What's the alternative? There's diplomatic/economic pressure or physical force (war). What are the other options?

 

[UncleMark]

What's the alternative? There's diplomatic/economic pressure or physical force (war). What are the other options?

Alternative to what?

What is it we hope to accomplish?

 

[hoot1]

What's the alternative? There's diplomatic/economic pressure or physical force (war). What are the other options?

Supposedly by making the people suffer the Iranians will overthrow the corrupt regime.

The alternative being the Iranians blame us instead of the corrupt regime.

Now why would come to this conclusion when everyone knows we are the good guys? Silly them.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Alternative to what?

What is it we hope to accomplish?

I suspect it is to stop the nuke program, though we tore up the treaty to do that. If it is regime change, I'm curious who can point to a single example of sanctions leading to regime change.

 

[toastedbread]

I suspect it is to stop the nuke program, though we tore up the treaty to do that. If it is regime change, I'm curious who can point to a single example of sanctions leading to regime change.

Have you considered that perhaps there are elected and unelected officials who simply enjoy human suffering?

 

[UncleMark]

I suspect it is to stop the nuke program, though we tore up the treaty to do that. If it is regime change, I'm curious who can point to a single example of sanctions leading to regime change.

For lack of a better term, I think it's all based on butt hurt from 1979.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

For lack of a better term, I think it's all based on butt hurt from 1979.

It's not butt hurt from 1979, though that barbaric beginning of the current Iranian regime should be noted. It's the thousand of Americans and allies killed and many more thousands of Americans and allies injured by direct and (mostly) indirect actions of Iran since 1979. They have not tried to be a responsible country on the international stage since 1979. I think we've been far to easy on them. I'll admit that I wouldn't have questioned sending my Tomahawk missiles into Iran to take out key sites if our National Command Authority ever gave that order.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

For lack of a better term, I think it's all based on butt hurt from 1979.

I know you aren't that ignorant. Iran has been a terrible actor for many years, both directly and indirectly, against America and her allies.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Supposedly by making the people suffer the Iranians will overthrow the corrupt regime.

The alternative being the Iranians blame us instead of the corrupt regime.

Now why would come to this conclusion when everyone knows we are the good guys? Silly them.

So what do you suggest we do hoot, other than letting the Iranians continue to fund terrorism, commit terrorist acts and irresponsibly kill people across the ME. And before anyone says it, if it were up to me, S.A. would be in the same position.

 

[hoot1]

So what do you suggest we do hoot, other than letting the Iranians continue to fund terrorism, commit terrorist acts and irresponsibly kill people across the ME. And before anyone says it, if it were up to me, S.A. would be in the same position.

For starters, I don't think we "are letting" Iran sponsor terrorism. All the U.S. political factions oppose Iran's use of terrorism. On this we are in agreement.

Where we disagree is how to persuade Iran from using terrorism. Do we use power politics, or diplomacy, or both.

In my view, diplomacy is more important in dealing with enemies than it is in
dealing with allies. We passed up a great opportunity for diplomacy from 1997 to 2005 when Mohammed Khatami was president of Iran. Hopefully we can escape an all out war, and diplomatic pursuits will again have an opportunity in the years ahead.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

For starters, I don't think we "are letting" Iran sponsor terrorism. All the U.S. political factions oppose Iran's use of terrorism. On this we are in agreement.

Where we disagree is how to persuade Iran from using terrorism. Do we use power politics, or diplomacy, or both.

In my view, diplomacy is more important in dealing with enemies than it is in
dealing with allies. We passed up a great opportunity for diplomacy from 1997 to 2005 when Mohammed Khatami was president of Iran. Hopefully we can escape an all out war, and diplomatic pursuits will again have an opportunity in the years ahead.

Diplomacy is a very vague term. Can you be more specific? How would the use of such a tactic affect change where a head of state is not actually in control?

 

[hoot1]

Diplomacy is a very vague term. Can you be more specific? How would the use of such a tactic affect change where a head of state is not actually in control?

JDB, here is an essay about diplomacy which fits into our discussion nicely.

Granted Khatami may not have been in control of Iran, but his views were popular with the Iranian people along with other leaders at the time of his being elected.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

For starters, I don't think we "are letting" Iran sponsor terrorism. All the U.S. political factions oppose Iran's use of terrorism. On this we are in agreement.

Where we disagree is how to persuade Iran from using terrorism. Do we use power politics, or diplomacy, or both.

In my view, diplomacy is more important in dealing with enemies than it is in
dealing with allies. We passed up a great opportunity for diplomacy from 1997 to 2005 when Mohammed Khatami was president of Iran. Hopefully we can escape an all out war, and diplomatic pursuits will again have an opportunity in the years ahead.

I can’t think of any example where diplomacy worked with an enemy anywhere in the world—ever. Unless healthy dose of appeasement was part of “diplomacy”.

 

[dahldc]

I can’t think of any example where diplomacy worked with an enemy anywhere in the world—ever. Unless healthy dose of appeasement was part of “diplomacy”.

Well **** it then. Nuke 'em.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I can’t think of any example where diplomacy worked with an enemy anywhere in the world—ever. Unless healthy dose of appeasement was part of “diplomacy”.

Real quick, recall 54 40 or fight? That border was solved by diplomacy. So I am one up on just 10 seconds of thought over sanctions working.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Real quick, recall 54 40 or fight? That border was solved by diplomacy. So I am one up on just 10 seconds of thought over sanctions working.

You forgot the Pig War.

do you put sanctions in the “diplomacy” category?

 

[UncleMark]

I can’t think of any example where diplomacy worked with an enemy anywhere in the world—ever. Unless healthy dose of appeasement was part of “diplomacy”.

Define "worked ".

 

[hoot1]

I can’t think of any example where diplomacy worked with an enemy anywhere in the world—ever. Unless healthy dose of appeasement was part of “diplomacy”.

Sadly, CoH, diplomacy may not work in our conflict with Iran given circumstances which currently exist. So your observation about diplomacy never working may be correct in this case.

Diplomacy is about settling conflicts and preventing war

Conflicts can occur with both allies who share the same valies and those with conflicting values. A historical example of conflict of values being religion.

I would argue that war as a way to settle conflicts has become so devastating due to modern warfare as to be unacceptable. In today's world the nations and. non national crusades (think terrorists such as Hezbollah and Isis) lack devastating modern warfare. Nevertheless, these terrorists can be proxies for nation's such as Iran.

Consequently Iran which lacks the devastating warfare of say the U.S. and Russia looks to terrorist proxies and alliances with nation's such as Russia. Further complicating this is Iran's conflict with Israel.

In conclusion I see diplomacy as a way to settle our conflicts with Iran to be an uphill battle from an Iranian perspective. Uphill because Iran is not a military powerhouse and lacks support from countries which don't share their religious values and find its proxy terrorism to unacceptable.

I can’t think of any example where diplomacy worked with an enemy anywhere in the world—ever. Unless healthy dose of appeasement was part of “diplomacy”.

Diplomacy along with peace through strength are practiced because it is believed they prevent wars.

Cannot give up either for fear of the consequences.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

You forgot the Pig War.

do you put sanctions in the “diplomacy” category?

Samctions are economic warfare.

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

I can’t think of any example where diplomacy worked with an enemy anywhere in the world—ever. Unless healthy dose of appeasement was part of “diplomacy”.

Cuban Missile Crisis?

 

[UncleMark]

I can’t think of any example where diplomacy worked with an enemy anywhere in the world—ever. Unless healthy dose of appeasement was part of “diplomacy”.

Camp David Accord.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Cuban Missile Crisis?

Camp David Accord.

Our navel blockade was an act of war; no?

Camp David accord was a peace agreement to end a state of war between Egypt and Israel.

 

[UncleMark]

Our navel blockade was an act of war; no?

Camp David accord was a peace agreement to end a state of war between Egypt and Israel.

You can't help yourself.

 

[hoot1]

Diplomacy is like settling a dispute through a mediator and not going to court (war).

Why would an attorney who makes a living going to court find diplomacy (meditation) akin to a practice which doesn't work?

 

[anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa]

Our navel blockade was an act of war; no?

Camp David accord was a peace agreement to end a state of war between Egypt and Israel.

There is no diplomacy without the military and State working together. Yes act of war. Could’ve been a lot worse but diplomacy won the day.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

There is no diplomacy without the military and State working together. Yes act of war. Could’ve been a lot worse but diplomacy won the day.

Agree. Many people call that negotiating leverage. Diplomacy is like any negotiation except with diplomacy the leverage usually involves the military in some fashion.

Some people are better with creating and applying leverage than others.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Agree. Many people call that negotiating leverage. Diplomacy is like any negotiation except with diplomacy the leverage usually involves the military in some fashion.

Some people are better with creating and applying leverage than others.

Military and economy.

It took over 40 years but it was mainly economics that brought down the Soviets. If we are to take down the Mullahs, it will be the same in Iran. I want to continue to place maximum pressure on them and keep them boxed in militarily with strategic strikes (like taking out Soleimani to set boundaries on their behavior) and hopefully, over time, their own people will take care of them.

I think if you removed the leadership structure from Iran and replaced it with people less inclined to be a pain in the ass, that Iran would be a dominant force in the Middle East. I think a moderate Iran would be much more desirable than the Saudis. Given our history (the Shah), they probably would not be our best buddies but we could at least work with them.

To be honest though, our energy sector is starting to make our involvement in the ME less and less of a priority. The Chinese are the ones who are increasingly becoming dependent on ME oil. Let them start to pay the costs to keep that oil flowing.

 

[hoot1]

Agree. Many people call that negotiating leverage. Diplomacy is like any negotiation except with diplomacy the leverage usually involves the military in some fashion.

Some people are better with creating and applying leverage than others.

Having read Trump's "Art of the Deal", I was surprised he didn't mention using the leverage of being too big (already owing the banks too much) to fail.

Is this an example of being good at applying leverage?

I would argue Trump has way more leverage as president (think military power} than he did when he had a ghost writer compile " The Art of the Deal".