Iran says they did not agree to dismantle anything

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, Jan 23, 2014.

  1. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,696
    Ok...let's even play that game. Let's assume this is the greatest deal ever done and Obama's the greatest peacemaker of all time. The Iranians are merely "playing to their domestic audience" with their repeated proclamations that they got the better end of the deal and that the US really didn't just piss away two decades of international coalition-building and genuine diplomacy.

    Assuming ALL that is true...wouldn't you think that, at some point, this brash talk to their domestic audience is counter-productive for the Iranian leadership? After all, it's setting up their leadership for failure when they have to explain to their citizens that "oh...yea, we were just playin' that we didn't have to do anything for our end of the deal, we kinda do have to start dismantling things in like a couple of months."

    Really, if peace were the ultimate goal for the Iranians, you'd think they'd start conditioning their population that the deal comes with some responsibility on their end. That way, people aren't surprised--and disappointed/angry--later on when they've realized their leadership wasn't entirely forthcoming or honest with them.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  2. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,696
    Ah, yes. The old "hope" wish-washy, feel good approach to foreign policy. Or, better yet, the "we need to pass this deal to see how it works out."

    Yup. That ALWAYS works, doesn't it?
  3. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,880
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,177
    If peace is our ultimate goal, then isnt our own public political rhetoric to the contrary counterproductive for us too? Why arent we conditioning our people for peace, by taking military action off the table, or ending our nuclear program? Or conditioning our people for a possible failure by arguing that a nuclear Iran isnt so bad? As far as I know, no one, not even the president has ruled out military action, even a nuclear strike. They do have a theocratic goverment, but at the same time, its really not so different that the same type of public political discourse doesnt take place.
  4. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    23,880
    Likes Received:
    492
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +2,177
    Yup, that's all the hawks have. Calling people hippie-dippy pussies, naive in the way of the world, with a bunch of failed interventions and never-ending wars in their wake.
  5. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,696
    I'm not saying the shoe fits every time--but when certain people are completely blind to reason and facts, it does beg the question.

    Even Congressional Democrats are distancing themselves from the deal, so on this subject at least, it doesn't appear that it's strictly partisan politics either. And that is saying something.
  6. MichiGator2002
    Offline

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    16,932
    Likes Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +3,626
    Our only goal should be Iran having no nuclear weapons. They can not have them in a state of serene bliss or a place of seething rage, and it doesn't matter.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,730
    Likes Received:
    302
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +984
    Kerry was obsessed with making a deal with anyone who would, whether Iran, Syria, Lybia, N. Korea. He was so desperate, he would have traded Theresa for a signature.
  8. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,825
    Likes Received:
    331
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,696
    I think it had more to do with Russia out-smarting us diplomatically on Syria (looking like the responsible regional peacemaker) and the Obama Administration wanted to one-up them and get a deal in place with Iran.

    Unfortunately, in their haste for a deal, they forgot they were the ones in a position of power at the table and abandoned any semblance of negotiating strategy in the process. It's been amateur hour in foreign policy--and from an Administration in their 5th year at that.

Share This Page