Ed Israel/US Attacks Iran /Yet Another Country/Iran

[jimbob]

Who knows what is happening here.

Exclusive: Iranian source says US has agreed to unfreeze Iranian funds, Washington denies it

A senior Iranian source said on Saturday the U.S. had agreed to release Iranian frozen assets held in Qatar and other foreign banks, but a U.S. official swiftly denied the assertion.

www.reuters.com

Which liar to believe?

Exclusive: Iranian source says US has agreed to unfreeze Iranian funds, Washington denies it
By Parisa Hafezi
April 11, 202610:19 AM GMT+1Updated 3 mins ago

 

[The Great Zaganza]

I think some MAGA heads would literally explode

 

[jimbob]

On think some MAGA heads would literally explode

Well the negotiations are between two of the most bad faith actors since Molotov and Ribbentrop

 

[Ziggurat]

Why was the JCPOA a failed strategy?

Because it never actually prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons. At best it would only slow them down.

 

[angrysoba]

An Iranian co-worker of mine has had the weirdest journey on this.

Before the "12 Day War" she was opposed to the Islamic Republic regime and in favour of the Shah.
But then during the "12 Day War" she was in favour of the regime and opposed to the Israelis, in particular.
Then, when the Supreme Leader was killed, she was in favour of it and began singing the praises of Trump (even though it was the Israelis who actually killed the Supreme Leader).
Now she is saying that she is proud of her country for standing up to Trump and enjoying the fact that they are "making him crazy".

I guess we could call her a swing voter.

And perhaps the fact that there are plenty of people who have never liked the regime who are ambivalent at best with the war on Iran, particularly when you mix in Trump's social media posts that look psychopathic and genocidal.

I think anyone who believes that a serious form of regime change, and a replacement with a compliant Shah, is in the offing is deluding themselves.

I think that the chances were always far higher that the authority of the ruling clerics - "the mullahs" - would have atrophied over time and that some moves towards secularism were more likely.

In my humble opinion, this war is likely to set that back a generation or two.

 

[angrysoba]

Because it never actually prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons. At best it would only slow them down.

What is your evidence for that?

 

[Ziggurat]

What is your evidence for that?

For starters, it didn't stop their enrichment.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think that the chances were always far higher that the authority of the ruling clerics - "the mullahs" - would have atrophied over time and that some moves towards secularism were more likely.

The same people said trade with China would liberalize them.

There's no evidence either strategy works.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

China is better at following international rules than the US.
And it's providing the world with the currently best technology for mitigating climate change.
I think we can safely say that the rise of Chins has been a benefit for the world - though probably not for many of its citizens.

A sanctions free Iran or Cuba would provide many economic opportunities.

 

[Ziggurat]

China is better at following international rules than the US.

Hahahahahaha!

No.

 

[Planigale]

An Iranian co-worker of mine has had the weirdest journey on this.

Before the "12 Day War" she was opposed to the Islamic Republic regime and in favour of the Shah.
But then during the "12 Day War" she was in favour of the regime and opposed to the Israelis, in particular.
Then, when the Supreme Leader was killed, she was in favour of it and began singing the praises of Trump (even though it was the Israelis who actually killed the Supreme Leader).
Now she is saying that she is proud of her country for standing up to Trump and enjoying the fact that they are "making him crazy".

I guess we could call her a swing voter.

And perhaps the fact that there are plenty of people who have never liked the regime who are ambivalent at best with the war on Iran, particularly when you mix in Trump's social media posts that look psychopathic and genocidal.

I think anyone who believes that a serious form of regime change, and a replacement with a compliant Shah, is in the offing is deluding themselves.

I think that the chances were always far higher that the authority of the ruling clerics - "the mullahs" - would have atrophied over time and that some moves towards secularism were more likely.

In my humble opinion, this war is likely to set that back a generation or two.

My worry is that a military dictatorship will emerge. Whilst one may not agree with the morality of the theocrats* they are at least familiar and partly bound by it.

An affluent Iran will become more secular, and I think, the democratic part of the state will strengthen, and the theocratic part weaken. Austerity tends to make people more pious strengthening the theocrats. society does influence religion, the younger mullahs who will become the new ayatollahs will be influenced by society and a happy affluent society will produce less extreme religious.

*Theocrats is I think a better word than mullahs, none of the mullahs will be in power, this is a low level religious position more like being a parish priest. or local doctor, or local lawyer, all those in authority will be Ayatollahs, more like bishops or judges or professors. But not all ayatollahs will be 'ruling' most will be carrying out their religious or educational or legal roles. There is not the split between religion and law there is in the West nowadays (of course there used to be religious courts in many christian countries). All lawyers will be mullahs or if more senior ayatollahs. The american political system is full of lawyers, lawyers often become President. The military has lawyers, businesses have lawyers. It wouldn't be true to say that because lawyers control so much that the US is a legocracy. The Supreme Court can limit the action of the executive and legislature in the US by declaring actions unconstitutional, so too can the council of Grand Ayatollahs, by declaring laws unislamic. Try to think of the Ayatollahs less as religious and more as lawyers. think of the Koran as also being the constitution, both out dated documents written by men of their time. How you interpret those documents can fundamentally change the direction of society.

 

[Planigale]

For starters, it didn't stop their enrichment.

Yes it did. It was only when the US broke the deal and imposed sanctions Iran began enrichment.

 

[Planigale]

Hahahahahaha!

No.

China overtly sticks to the rules more than the current US does. Covertly both break the rules. Remember the US has kidnapped people from foreign countries including NATO allies, imprisoned them without trial tortured them in some cases to death. carries out assassinations including of its own citizens. It funds and arms terrorists. It attacks civilian vessels on the high seas and kills those shipwrecked survivors in the water. It carries out illegal acts of war. How many countries has China attacked this century?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes it did. It was only when the US broke the deal and imposed sanctions Iran began enrichment.

No, it explicitly did not. The level of enrichment was supposed to be capped, but it never stopped them from enrichment. And all those limits were set to expire after 15 years.

So no, BY DESIGN the JCPOA was only supposed to slow them down.

 

[a_unique_person]

Because it never actually prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons. At best it would only slow them down.

It worked. They never had nukes and they still haven't got nukes. They had enough time to develop them. Even if they had them they are only useful as a defensive weapon. A first strike on Israel would result in nuclear retaliation. They only work as a first strike weapon if you are the only country that has them.

 

[angrysoba]

The same people said trade with China would liberalize them.

There's no evidence either strategy works.

Sorry, who are these people saying "trade would liberalize them"?

What is unspoken here is the outcome you want.

For me, I can say that I want a less fundamentalist/eschatological regime with a nuclear weapon. Now, do you think the evidence is that Iran was becoming more fundamentalist and Islamic over time, or less so? My argument is that it was less so. And not only that, but the delay in moving to a nuclear power was for the good.

As you bring up China, your argument seems to be that the country has not liberalized? Really? Not at all? Do you think that China is just as bad as it was under Mao? If you know anything about China, you would know that of course it is not. It does not mean that it hasn't had reverses. Of course it has. And so has the US.

But remember we are comparing one strategy with bombing the ◊◊◊◊ out of them. Do you think that if it had been the US's policy to bomb as much of China as possible that you would have seen greater liberalization?

Or is liberalization not even an outcome you are interested in?

 

[TragicMonkey]

My worry is that a military dictatorship will emerge. Whilst one may not agree with the morality of the theocrats* they are at least familiar and partly bound by it.

An affluent Iran will become more secular, and I think, the democratic part of the state will strengthen, and the theocratic part weaken. Austerity tends to make people more pious strengthening the theocrats. society does influence religion, the younger mullahs who will become the new ayatollahs will be influenced by society and a happy affluent society will produce less extreme religious.

Regality theory. The Iranian people will tolerate an authoritarian regime for as long as they perceive themselves to be under threat by outside forces. The longer the US, Israel, or anybody else wages war --or threatens to-- on Iran, the longer it'll have an authoritarian regime dedicated to keeping that hostility going. It's a self-sustaining cycle, one that's really difficult to get out of.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

any regime that brings in money and gets sanctions removed will get support from the Merchant Class, which has always been powerful in Iran.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Why was the JCPOA a failed strategy?

Because it never actually prevented Iran from developing nuclear weapons. At best it would only slow them down.

What is your evidence for that?

For starters, it didn't stop their enrichment.

The JCPOA required Iran to reduce its stocks of already-enriched (up to 20%) uranium by 97%, limited ongoing enrichment to 3.67% for the next 15 years (through 2030), and limited Iran's possession of 3.67% enriched uranium to 300kg during those 15 years.

In 2018, the United States withdrew from the JCPOA, leaving Iran free of the JCPOA limits: "by the beginning of 2021 its stockpile was more than 12 times the level permitted under the JCPOA, and its enrichment had reached 20 percent purity (against a JCPOA cap of 3.67 percent); and by early 2023 it had stockpiled enough enriched material to reach nuclear breakout in about 12 days," having enriched some of its uranium to 60%. That was when Iran expelled a third of the IAEA inspectors, as it was allowed to do by the NPT Safeguards agreement.

(Thanks, Obama.)

Yes it did. It was only when the US broke the deal and imposed sanctions Iran began enrichment.

No, it explicitly did not. The level of enrichment was supposed to be capped, but it never stopped them from enrichment. And all those limits were set to expire after 15 years.

So no, BY DESIGN the JCPOA was only supposed to slow them down.

JCPOA did slow Iran's enrichment and stockpiling of enriched uranium. Iran accelerated its enrichment program when Trump withdrew from the JCPOA.

It worked. They never had nukes and they still haven't got nukes. They had enough time to develop them. Even if they had them they are only useful as a defensive weapon. A first strike on Israel would result in nuclear retaliation. They only work as a first strike weapon if you are the only country that has them.

With the twelve-day war followed by this fiasco, Iran has two wars it can cite to justify its continued development of nuclear weapons.

(Thanks, Biden.)

 

[Ziggurat]

It worked. They never had nukes and they still haven't got nukes. They had enough time to develop them. Even if they had them they are only useful as a defensive weapon. A first strike on Israel would result in nuclear retaliation. They only work as a first strike weapon if you are the only country that has them.

Nuclear weapons would allow Iran to radically increase their support for terrorism without having to worry about serious retaliation. The idea that nukes aren’t a threat if they aren’t used in a first strike is remarkably ignorant.