Is Biden's "Don't" foreign policy deterring terrorist groups and Iran?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-15-2024, 06:26 PM)Dill Wrote: I think Iran was responding to an attack on one of its embassies,

which killed seven people. That made it "ready to take action."

But you are sure they were responding to Biden policy?

Looks like Iran has showed it is ready to stand down, after signalling its surprise attack to both the US and Israel.

The US shot down most of the drones and missiles. But Biden says he won't support Israeli retaliation.

How will Iran respond to another Israeli attack?  

Could be we are on the verge of the wider ME war that weak liberals are so afraid of.

Israel won't retaliate, Not sure why you think they will and what's with the what if's and scare tactics?  I thought that was only an R thing?

[Dill]

(04-18-2024, 11:23 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Israel won't retaliate, Not sure why you think they will and what's with the what if's and scare tactics?  I thought that was only an R thing?

At the time I wrote that post, the general staff was in favor of retalition.

Biden is telling him to "take the win" and leave it be.

And I've explained that Netanyahu's political interest is separate from the national interest. He is unpredictable.

When people deliberate policy, the venture options and discuss what the possible consequences of each might be.

"what ifs" are then SOP, to help get to the best policy.  

Recognizing danger during policy deliberation is not a "scare tactic"; that's how rational--as opposed to rash--policy is constructed.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-18-2024, 01:40 PM)Dill Wrote: At the time I wrote that post, the general staff was in favor of retalition.

Biden is telling him to "take the win" and leave it be.

And I've explained that Netanyahu's political interest is separate from the national interest. He is unpredictable.

When people deliberate policy, the venture options and discuss what the possible consequences of each might be.

"what ifs" are then SOP, to help get to the best policy.  

Recognizing danger during policy deliberation is not a "scare tactic"; that's how rational--as opposed to rash--policy is constructed.

Do you really think Netanyahu is so dumb that he will retaliate? They killed a high ranking official vs an 11 yr old getting hurt with a minor injury. That is a big win. Netanyahu knows the attack was all about "saving face" for Iran. Now he's just playing the game back and the media is "jumping to conclusions" trying to get some clickbait crap out there and people are swallowing it.

If I'm wrong and he does retaliate then he needs to know he's on his own going forward, which i think Biden made that clear already.  

[Dill]

(04-18-2024, 04:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Do you really think Netanyahu is so dumb that he will retaliate? They killed a high ranking official vs an 11 yr old getting hurt with a minor injury. That is a big win. Netanyahu knows the attack was all about "saving face" for Iran. Now he's just playing the game back and the media is "jumping to conclusions" trying to get some clickbait crap out there and people are swallowing it.

If I'm wrong and he does retaliate then he needs to know he's on his own going forward, which i think Biden made that clear already.  

Apparently a number of Israeli's are worried enough about that possibility to publish op eds warning against it. 
Nothing to do with "clickbait." E.g., look at my last post on the superthread. 

And as I just said, Netanyahu's interest at this point diverges from that of the Israeli people. 

Bombing that Embassy was "dumb" to use your term, and unnecessarily risked the wider war no one but Hamas wants.
Netanyahu has made many mistakes, before and after Oct. 7. 

And he knows that once he is out office, the accounting will come. 

[Dill]

(04-18-2024, 04:51 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Do you really think Netanyahu is so dumb that he will retaliate? They killed a high ranking official vs an 11 yr old getting hurt with a minor injury. That is a big win. Netanyahu knows the attack was all about "saving face" for Iran. Now he's just playing the game back and the media is "jumping to conclusions" trying to get some clickbait crap out there and people are swallowing it.

If I'm wrong and he does retaliate then he needs to know he's on his own going forward, which i think Biden made that clear already.  

Important to remember--Israeli could have "punished" Iran in many ways that would not have required the public escalation which had to follow
from bombing its embassy and killing civilians. 

Israeli missiles hit site in Iran, explosions heard in Isfahan:
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/4/19/israeli-missiles-hit-site-in-iran-explosions-heard-in-isfahan-report

Middle East crisis live: air defences activated in Iran after explosions reported near Isfahan[/color]
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2024/apr/19/middle-east-crisis-live-updates-iran-israel-today-explosions-isfahan

Israel has attacked Iran, US official tells CNN
https://www.cnn.com/middleeast/live-news/israel-hamas-war-gaza-news-04-18-24/index.html

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-18-2024, 09:30 PM)Dill Wrote: Apparently a number of Israeli's are worried enough about that possibility to publish op eds warning against it. 
Nothing to do with "clickbait." E.g., look at my last post on the superthread. 

And as I just said, Netanyahu's interest at this point diverges from that of the Israeli people. 

Bombing that Embassy was "dumb" to use your term, and unnecessarily risked the wider war no one but Hamas wants.
Netanyahu has made many mistakes, before and after Oct. 7. 

And he knows that once he is out office, the accounting will come. 

are you a Muslim? 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-17-2024, 10:12 AM)Dill Wrote: The lesson I take from this is not that “trusting” the media is an option. But neither is distrusting all media and all government. That isn't really practical, and is a step into conspiracy theory. Citizens in a democracy should be vetting sources, understanding how info is collected from sources, comparing contrasting them.  That means more learning (and remembering) FP history and less "already knowing” in advance what Muslims and Muslim countries are like. It means being suspicious of ethnic stereotypes rather than making them the core of policy.
 
And that’s why I keep asking you for sources, specific sources. You claim a great deal of specific knowledge about Iran, which conflicts with US intel and the IAEA. Unless you are reporting directly from Iran yourself, your views have to come from some source (s) which you are “trusting” over the IAEA and our intel agencies. What lines are you “reading between,” as you say? I’m just curious because I think many people share your take on Iran and come to similar evaluations of Trump vs Biden policy.

I don't trust the left or right media 100%. Nor Iran or the US Gov. They all tell us what they want to tell us. And i trust extremists based on Religion even less.

Iran funds/supplies Hamas in their fight against Israel,  If Iran wanted peace so badly or any other nation for that matter, they'd find a way to get it. Yea yea, Muslims will tell you they feel bad for their brothers in P, it's only because they share a common enemy. The reality is Muslims are very intolerant to .... Other Muslims that don't worship the same way. 


This is why I reject your constant attacking of Israel dispossessing the P's as the reason for the war. 
Man always wants power, Iran's Islamist leadership is no different.  Nukes will give them that power. 


As far as the increase in centrifuges:
Might want to check this out:

June 6, 2018: Iran opens a new facility for centrifuge production, an act which does not violate the JCPOA. Reza Najafi, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, tells press June 6 that the decision to open the facility is the “preparatory works for a possible scenario” if the JCPOA fails and reiterated that Iran will not start “any activities contrary to the JCPOA” at this time.


July 18, 2018: Iran's head of the Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, announces that Iran built a new factory to produce rotors for up to 60 IR-6 centrifuges a day. Salehi says building the facility does not violate the JCPOA.



They already had plans to increase their centrifuges and the deal with Obama didn't change that, but TRUMP! 

[Dill]

(04-19-2024, 03:38 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: are you a Muslim? 

??? No. Why prompted you to ask that? 

I am a materialist (in the philosophical sense), atheist to the bone. 

Not even agnostic. 

[Dill]

(04-19-2024, 06:17 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: . . . If Iran wanted peace so badly or any other nation for that matter, they'd find a way to get it. ...
 
Man always wants power, Iran's Islamist leadership is no different.  Nukes will give them that power. 

You argue that if Iran wanted peace they'd have it, but you withhold that logic from their bomb program.

North Korea, with far fewer resources than Iran, got the bomb because it accepted sanctions and prioritized a bomb over peaceful nuclear power.  

When Iran committed to the JCPOA, they shipped 25,000 pounds of enriched uranium out of the country and dismantled two-thirds of their centrifuges.
All that was verified. How did that help them get nukes? 

If Iran REALLY wanted a bomb, why wouldn't it have it now? Why would they willingly reduce capacity and uranium stock, thus crippling
their bomb making capacity for years? 

(04-19-2024, 06:17 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: As far as the increase in centrifuges:
Might want to check this out:
June 6, 2018: Iran opens a new facility for centrifuge production, an act which does not violate the JCPOA. Reza Najafi, Iran’s ambassador to the IAEA, tells press June 6 that the decision to open the facility is the “preparatory works for a possible scenario” if the JCPOA fails and reiterated that Iran will not start “any activities contrary to the JCPOA” at this time.
July 18, 2018: Iran's head of the Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, announces that Iran built a new factory to produce rotors for up to 60 IR-6 centrifuges a day. Salehi says building the facility does not violate the JCPOA.

They already had plans to increase their centrifuges and the deal with Obama didn't change that, but TRUMP! 

Yes. Trump. No one else broke the deal. The factory did not violate the JCOA and the IAEA did not contradict that claim. 

Somehow, you have DISCONNECTED Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA from the building and announcement of the factory,
though that is clearly explained in one of your articles.  (The first appears to be a dead link.)

It is owing to TRUMP that the number of centrifuges capable of full enrichment went from a few dozen to over 9,000. 

You cannot break the Deal, increase threats to Iran, and then claim Iran's consequent return to enrichment is proof the deal couldn't work.

TRUMP, and TRUMP ALONE, is the reason Iran now has tons of 60% enriched Uranium and zero break out time. 
And China and Russia are free now to deal with and support that nuclear program as they wish. 

[Dill]

(04-19-2024, 06:17 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I don't trust the left or right media 100%. Nor Iran or the US Gov. They all tell us what they want to tell us. And i trust extremists based on Religion even less.

Iran funds/supplies Hamas in their fight against Israel,  If Iran wanted peace so badly or any other nation for that matter, they'd find a way to get it. Yea yea, Muslims will tell you they feel bad for their brothers in P, it's only because they share a common enemy. The reality is Muslims are very intolerant to .... Other Muslims that don't worship the same way. 

This is why I reject your constant attacking of Israel dispossessing the P's as the reason for the war. 

I've stated that Iran, or its current leaders, don't want a wider war with Israel and the US. That's not the same as saying they want peace.

You are "trusting" some sources to some degree, and selectively, or you wouldn't be telling me all about Muslim intolerance and Iran funding Hamas.
And I don't see any evidence that you are vetting those sources.

"Muslims" aren't one thing, any more than Christians are. The degree of "tolerance" for other varieties of Islam, or other
religions and ethnic groups, depends a lot on level of development, state form, and exposure to "leftist" secularism, just as it does for non-Muslims. 

Jordan and Egypt are chock full of Arab Muslims who are very tired of the constant war and will embrace peace if it includes a sovereign Palestinian state.
Most of these people are no different from Americans--they own businesses and have jobs and just want to see their families prosper.  People in Egypt and 
Bahrain also see that the "peace" deals, which draw money from the US to their ruling elites to secure Israel, also contribute directly to their own oppression.
So for them it's not just about the Palestinians but a policy structure dominated by Israel and the US. 

In the West Bank, it is not only Muslims but Christians who suffer constant "lawfare" and dispossession--50,000+ in Bethlehem alone. 

Also, I must dispute your inference that absence of peace proves that countries, and especially oppressed peoples, don't really want it. 

No American I know would accept being driven from land and home by massacre and rape, and then willingly give up what little remained to them under a military occupation to achieve "peace."  Astonishing that they expect others to do exactly that.

I've explained several times now that it was Israel, not the Palestinian Authority, which has blocked and subverted the peace process. And like Trump,
Likkud leaders say the quiet part out loud.  In all of these countries, the authoritarian religious Right is the threat to peace.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-19-2024, 11:38 AM)Dill Wrote: I've stated that Iran, or its current leaders, don't want a wider war with Israel and the US. That's not the same as saying they want peace.

You are "trusting" some sources to some degree, and selectively, or you wouldn't be telling me all about Muslim intolerance and Iran funding Hamas.
And I don't see any evidence that you are vetting those sources.

"Muslims" aren't one thing, any more than Christians are. The degree of "tolerance" for other varieties of Islam, or other
religions and ethnic groups, depends a lot on level of development, state form, and exposure to "leftist" secularism, just as it does for non-Muslims. 

Jordan and Egypt are chock full of Arab Muslims who are very tired of the constant war and will embrace peace if it includes a sovereign Palestinian state.
Most of these people are no different from Americans--they own businesses and have jobs and just want to see their families prosper.  People in Egypt and 
Bahrain also see that the "peace" deals, which draw money from the US to their ruling elites to secure Israel, also contribute directly to their own oppression.
So for them it's not just about the Palestinians but a policy structure dominated by Israel and the US. 

In the West Bank, it is not only Muslims but Christians who suffer constant "lawfare" and dispossession--50,000+ in Bethlehem alone. 

Also, I must dispute your inference that absence of peace proves that countries, and especially oppressed peoples, don't really want it. 

No American I know would accept being driven from land and home by massacre and rape, and then willingly give up what little remained to them under a military occupation to achieve "peace."  Astonishing that they expect others to do exactly that.

I've explained several times now that it was Israel, not the Palestinian Authority, which has blocked and subverted the peace process. And like Trump,
Likkud leaders say the quiet part out loud.  In all of these countries, the authoritarian religious Right is the threat to peace.

If they keep running Proxies they will do it to themselves. 
Running them against Israel, Saudi as well. 

Again, the US is a sovereign state. 
The US just used their Veto power and denied recognizing Palestine as a state.

Can't really find any accuracy here, but isn't most of that land the P's claim actually owned by the individuals  (save maybe a few?) 

I know you love yelling Dispossession but didn't Egypt and Jordan contribute to that as well when they claimed Gaza/West Strip, then lost it in the following war? 


and Honestly, i'm waiting to open one of the immigration threads and discover you've found a way to link the P's dispossession to our southern border issues. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-19-2024, 11:23 AM)Dill Wrote: You argue that if Iran wanted peace they'd have it, but you withhold that logic from their bomb program.

North Korea, with far fewer resources than Iran, got the bomb because it accepted sanctions and prioritized a bomb over peaceful nuclear power.  

When Iran committed to the JCPOA, they shipped 25,000 pounds of enriched uranium out of the country and dismantled two-thirds of their centrifuges.
All that was verified. How did that help them get nukes? 

If Iran REALLY wanted a bomb, why wouldn't it have it now? Why would they willingly reduce capacity and uranium stock, thus crippling
their bomb making capacity for years? 


Yes. Trump. No one else broke the deal. The factory did not violate the JCOA and the IAEA did not contradict that claim. 

Somehow, you have DISCONNECTED Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA from the building and announcement of the factory,
though that is clearly explained in one of your articles.  (The first appears to be a dead link.)

It is owing to TRUMP that the number of centrifuges capable of full enrichment went from a few dozen to over 9,000. 

You cannot break the Deal, increase threats to Iran, and then claim Iran's consequent return to enrichment is proof the deal couldn't work.

TRUMP, and TRUMP ALONE, is the reason Iran now has tons of 60% enriched Uranium and zero break out time. 
And China and Russia are free now to deal with and support that nuclear program as they wish. 

Iran funds Hamas, if they wanted Hamas to make peace, they could have simply told Hamas to get to the table, or cut the funding and have been "peace out you on your own brothers".  Not that hard to understand, at least I didn't think it was...

Iran was testing ballistic missiles which was a VOILATION of Obama's deal. Trump warned them to stop more than once. They didn't, so Trump pulled out of the deal and put sanctions back in place. 

I already in another thread posted how Iran only offered up inspections to one of their sites because they got wind that US intelligence discovered it. With that said, it's pretty easy to draw the conclusions that if we didn't know about it, they weren't gonna offer it up for inspections and keep it going on the down low and keep on doing what they were doing. 

What comes their way, they are partially responsible for. OFC I don't want a war to erupt, but until Hamas is gone and Iran stops playing it's proxy games with its neighboring countries, then there's going to be issues there. 


And Yes PS Trump withdrew from the deal and immediately they started making the parts needed for centrifuges?? They were being sneaks and found a way to skirt Obama's deal and were prepared t do what they wanted.

[Dill]

(04-19-2024, 04:06 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Iran funds Hamas, if they wanted Hamas to make peace, they could have simply told Hamas to get to the table, or cut the funding and have been "peace out you on your own brothers".  Not that hard to understand, at least I didn't think it was...

What comes their way, they are partially responsible for. OFC I don't want a war to erupt, but until Hamas is gone and Iran stops playing it's proxy games with its neighboring countries, then there's going to be issues there.

Iran doesn't want to "make peace" while Israel holds 5 million Muslims under military occupation. 

No peace in the ME until the Palestinian question is resolved. Not that hard to understand.

Until Israel takes peace proposals seriously, there will always be some iteration of Hamas with support from Iran.

Why not blame the aggressor for a change, rather than the victims.

(04-19-2024, 04:06 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Iran was testing ballistic missiles which was a VOILATION of Obama's deal. Trump warned them to stop more than once. They didn't, so Trump pulled out of the deal and put sanctions back in place. 

I already in another thread posted how Iran only offered up inspections to one of their sites because they got wind that US intelligence discovered it. With that said, it's pretty easy to draw the conclusions that if we didn't know about it, they weren't gonna offer it up for inspections and keep it going on the down low and keep on doing what they were doing.

And Yes PS Trump withdrew from the deal and immediately they started making the parts needed for centrifuges?? They were being sneaks and found a way to skirt Obama's deal and were prepared t do what they wanted.

I think your time line is a bit confused here. Iran was in compliance with the deal when Trump broke it.
I don't think you have provided a link showing that Iran missile tests violated that deal.

You are referring either to tests not covered in the deal or tests which violated a UN resolution.

Iran had no choice about which sites it could "offer up" to inspection while it was bound to the deal.

You are trying hard to find ways to get around the factual record. Iran was holding to the deal.
Iran gave up 600 kilos of enriched plutonium. Why would they destroy two thirds of their centrifuges
and then build a factory to "secretly" break the deal?

It's crazy to keep claiming they are just "sneaks" period, so we can break any deal with them.

Trump broke it, and our credibility.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-20-2024, 10:16 AM)Dill Wrote: Iran doesn't want to "make peace" while Israel holds 5 million Muslims under military occupation. 

How do you know that? You didn't even know Iran has always been chasing nukes. 

(04-20-2024, 10:16 AM)Dill Wrote: No peace in the ME until the Palestinian question is resolved. Not that hard to understand.

Until Israel takes peace proposals seriously, there will always be some iteration of Hamas with support from Iran.

Why not blame the aggressor for a change, rather than the victims.

Who owns the land where the Palestinians live? It's not the people.

(04-20-2024, 10:16 AM)Dill Wrote: I think your time line is a bit confused here. Iran was in compliance with the deal when Trump broke it.
I don't think you have provided a link showing that Iran missile tests violated that deal.

You are referring either to tests not covered in the deal or tests which violated a UN resolution.

The link it he timeline link i posted with my response to Dino. 
I figured  you looked at it cause you were "questioning the source", but i guess that was more of a knee jerk reaction then, cause i really didn't see much bias in that timeline of events. But if you had looked, you would have known that the ballistic Missile testing was listed there. So which is it, you looked or not? 

(04-20-2024, 10:16 AM)Dill Wrote: Iran had no choice about which sites it could "offer up" to inspection while it was bound to the deal.

Ofc if we knew about it they offered them up. Duh. They weren't going to offer the one up that we found out about until they knew we knew about it. Stop acting like they were were being 100% honest.

(04-20-2024, 10:16 AM)Dill Wrote: You are trying hard to find ways to get around the factual record. Iran was holding to the deal.
Iran gave up 600 kilos of enriched plutonium. Why would they destroy two thirds of their centrifuges
and then build a factory to "secretly" break the deal?

Not at all, actions speak louder than words and Iran's actions don't match up well.
Not dippy, i'm saying Iran already had a plan and way to make centrifuges with out breaking the deal.

(04-20-2024, 10:16 AM)Dill Wrote: It's crazy to keep claiming they are just "sneaks" period, so we can break any deal with them.

Trump broke it, and our credibility.

I didn't say that them being "sneaky" was the reason why we broke the deal did i? I said they are sneaky bastids and I don't trust them.
Yes Trump broke the deal, and when it comes to Iran, we have no credibility, ffs we gave them Nuclear technology in the first place and Iran has little credibility as well. They fund Proxy wars with two of our ME Allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. 
The Arab-Israeli pact and MEAD (Middle East Air Defense) Alliance were created specifically to counter Iran.  Why? Cause Iran is over there causing trouble for their other "Arab brothers" as well as Israel. They aren't funding Hamas out of Love for their fellow brothers, they are using them to strike at Israel. 
You asked me why i think the way i do and i have given it and done my best to not be snarky about it. 
And I am done talking to you about this, make your response and have a great night, we aren't going to see eye to eye on this subject period and I'm tired of going back and forth trying to explain my side. 

[Dill]

(04-21-2024, 12:58 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: How do you know that? You didn't even know Iran has always been chasing nukes. 

I didn't even know Iran has always been chasing nukes because they haven't always been chasing nukes.
They'd have never dismantled 2/3rds of their centrifuges in 2016 were that the case. They'd have already had a nuke.

(04-21-2024, 12:58 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Who owns the land where the Palestinians live? It's not the people.
The link it he timeline link i posted with my response to Dino. 
I figured  you looked at it cause you were "questioning the source", but i guess that was more of a knee jerk reaction then, cause i really didn't see much bias in that timeline of events. But if you had looked, you would have known that the ballistic Missile testing was listed there. So which is it, you looked or not? 
Ofc if we knew about it they offered them up. Duh. They weren't going to offer the one up that we found out about until they knew we knew about it. Stop acting like they were were being 100% honest.
Not at all, actions speak louder than words and Iran's actions don't match up well.
Not dippy, i'm saying Iran already had a plan and way to make centrifuges with out breaking the deal.

I didn't say that them being "sneaky" was the reason why we broke the deal did i? I said they are sneaky bastids and I don't trust them.
Yes Trump broke the deal, and when it comes to Iran, we have no credibility, ffs we gave them Nuclear technology in the first place and Iran has little credibility as well. They fund Proxy wars with two of our ME Allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. 
The Arab-Israeli pact and MEAD (Middle East Air Defense) Alliance were created specifically to counter Iran.  Why? Cause Iran is over there causing trouble for their other "Arab brothers" as well as Israel. They aren't funding Hamas out of Love for their fellow brothers, they are using them to strike at Israel. 
You asked me why i think the way i do and i have given it and done my best to not be snarky about it. 
And I am done talking to you about this, make your response and have a great night, we aren't going to see eye to eye on this subject period and I'm tired of going back and forth trying to explain my side. 

OtherMike, you've conducted yourself well in this discussion, making your points with links and facts and logic, and always civil in your responses.
If you want to bow out because the back and forth has become tiresome, then do so without suspicion of dodgery and denial. You've kept up your end honorably.

I do want to get off a final post though (maybe later this afternoon) on the Palestinian question, based on an earlier post of yours that I still haven't gotten to.  If you don't respond I quite understand.  I'll put it out there for general discussion, though.