Trump's Iran Policy: What is the End Game?

[Brutus Buckeye]

He's a "poop and scoot" poster.

[Alabuckeye]

Hit and run........I wish we could get some Liberals in here that would discuss......

Discuss?  With this lot?

Either your positions are defensible or not. Iâ€ve been on majority liberal boards and defended.

[Brutus Buckeye]

If you are a White liberal stereotype, then your positions are not defensible.

[bucklam66]

I doubt Trump himself has any idea what he is doing about Iran past what he saw on Fox News that day.

Those that are actually doing the work are probably split between Bolton types that want regime change and those that want measured responses as usual.

[ScarletHayes]

The Obama/Kerry Iran deal was a joke and everyone knows it.  Wasn't worth the paper it was printed on. When your SoS concedes that it gave Iran the ability to nuke up in the future?   All for the sake of some "deal?"  


What was Obama's end game?  That's the more pertinent question.

[cincydawg]

The immediate thing is to assure FoN of oil tankers through the Straits unimpeded by Iran. That should be easy enough to accomplish. I think it would be useful to present the most convincing case possible that Iran is behind the attacks, which strikes me as being more than a guess already, but a completely convincing case would be helpful.

Then we can take out their fast boats in the area whether at sea or harbor. If their Navy or land forces attempt to interfere, well, they would have a bad day of it also.

[somenole]

Hit and run........I wish we could get some Liberals in here that would discuss......

Discuss?  With this lot?

Either your positions are defensible or not. Iâ€ve been on majority liberal boards and defended.

Look at many of the responses from your brethren. Insults, not discussion. 

Having John Bolton on your staff indicates the tone you want to set forth. 

Obama turned away, somewhat, from Saudi Arabia and eased up on Iran. Which is what Europe, India, China and Russia wanted. Hating Iran but not Saudi Arabia is fine for the neocons but seems like thatâ€s a damned if you do, damned if you donâ€t kind of decision. At least Iran is openly disdainful of the US, whereas SA just sows hatred of the US through their crazy clerics.

[ScarletHayes]

No one is loving the Saudis either.  But would anyone look at the Iran deal and say it was beneficial to the safety of the world?  As a stand alone deal it was pitiful.  All for the sake of some handshake.  

The ME is a nightmare.  We all know it.  There are no perfect answers/solutions, but that Iran deal?  Phew!  Not good.

[cincydawg]

Europe, China, India, and Japan just want easy access to oil. They have a commercial incentive to trade with Iran.

The agreement does not make any sense at all on strategic grounds, none. And it gave Iran access to rather large amounts of money, that's already done.

[somenole]

No one is loving the Saudis either.  But would anyone look at the Iran deal and say it was beneficial to the safety of the world?  As a stand alone deal it was pitiful.  All for the sake of some handshake.  

The ME is a nightmare.  We all know it.  There are no perfect answers/solutions, but that Iran deal?  Phew!  Not good.

See “very large arms deal with SA”. 

I see the Iran deal as a carrot, not stick approach. The stick hasnâ€t really worked but I get why some like that approach when dealing with adversaries. My old ma always said a little honey helps the medicine go down, though.

[cincydawg]

The Iran deal was a carrot? To accomplish what exactly? To end their nuclear weapons program which they claimed not to have had and was never discovered?

To stop their missile testing?

What?

[3rdgensooner]

The Iran deal was a carrot?  To accomplish what exactly?  To end their nuclear weapons program which they claimed not to have had and was never discovered?

To stop their missile testing?

What?

It's why I called it Carteresque. Carter would make concessions to the Soviets thinking they would appreciate that and respond in kind. Yeah. They laughed and took more. Same here. The stick may not work perfectly but when dealing with evil the carrot only gets you one less carrot.

[Alabuckeye]

Hit and run........I wish we could get some Liberals in here that would discuss......

Discuss?  With this lot?

Either your positions are defensible or not. Iâ€ve been on majority liberal boards and defended.

Look at many of the responses from your brethren. Insults, not discussion. 

Having John Bolton on your staff indicates the tone you want to set forth. 

Obama turned away, somewhat, from Saudi Arabia and eased up on Iran. Which is what Europe, India, China and Russia wanted. Hating Iran but not Saudi Arabia is fine for the neocons but seems like thatâ€s a damned if you do, damned if you donâ€t kind of decision. At least Iran is openly disdainful of the US, whereas SA just sows hatred of the US through their crazy clerics.

There are idiots everywhere.  One can choose to ignore them.....

True, John Bolton, and his known stands, sets a tone....no disagreement there.  Just as Barack Obama's continual apologies did.  We could discuss which was more dangerous.

I understand what you are saying.  As I've said before, we have had 'friends' because of the enemies that they keep.  Do you truly think we were friendly with Stalin in WW2?  No, we had a mutual enemy.  In Saudi Arabia's case, you are right.  Their clerics do foment hatred, just as many other Islamic clerics.  At the same time, as a state, they are more stable than Iran or Yemen or Syria.  It's a matter of degrees.

[somenole]

Iran is pretty stable, too. Relatively speaking.

As far as what a carrot accomplishes, nothing if the next president goes back to the stick. Diplomacy requires both, I suppose, but the constant stick or the constant carrot doesnâ€t work. Weâ€ll never know if Obamaâ€s outreach would accomplish anything meaningful, since we simply do we have done in the past and change course when it suits us.

A momentary lull in their program, 5-10 years, might have been a worthwhile building block. Or not.

[Alabuckeye]

Iran is pretty stable, too. Relatively speaking.

As far as what a carrot accomplishes, nothing if the next president goes back to the stick. Diplomacy requires both, I suppose, but the constant stick or the constant carrot doesnâ€t work. Weâ€ll never know if Obamaâ€s outreach would accomplish anything meaningful, since we simply do we have done in the past and change course when it suits us.

A momentary lull in their program, 5-10 years, might have been a worthwhile building block. Or not.

How were we to know if there was a lull in the program?  The verification process was dreadfully lax from what I remember.

And on top of it, we financed their terroristic intents abroad with the over $1b sent to them in cash.