The Iran deal

[*PhilHos*]

(05-08-2018, 03:26 PM)GMDino Wrote: And now the US has thumbed its nose at it's allies and looks untrustworthy when making other deals.

Oh please. Bush supposedly made America look bad to the rest of the world and Obama supposedly repaired our image. Worst case scenario, the rest of the world don't trust Trump but will give the next guy/gal a chance.

[hollodero]

(05-08-2018, 05:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Oh please. Bush supposedly made America look bad to the rest of the world and Obama supposedly repaired our image.

Well, that's kind of true. See: Iraq invasion, torture. When the Bush admin started tolerating torture, that was quite a huge deal. Obama undid that.
Also, Obama didn't tell us we're either with the US or with the terrorists.

(05-08-2018, 05:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Worst case scenario, the rest of the world don't trust Trump but will give the next guy/gal a chance.

Yeah, I guess at some point we're done with that dynamic. We could trust the next guy, but what about the guy after that one. Your two parties are so fundamentally opposed that there's a good chance everything president of party A does is torn up by the follower of party B.
- Not saying it's equally contributed, at least at this point the republican party seems to be the problem. We'd probably be more willing to trust a democrat president, but that doesn't mean we'd trust the presidency or the US as a whole. And why should we, really.

[*PhilHos*]

(05-08-2018, 05:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, I guess at some point we're done with that dynamic. We could trust the next guy, but what about the guy after that one. Your two parties are so fundamentally opposed that there's a good chance everything president of party A does is torn up by the follower of party B.

That's a bit simplified. I'm not saying I disagree, but the deciding factor is the majority party in Congress. If it's the same as the president, then, yes, that president will pretty much get his way. But, yes our 2 political parties seem to be getting farther apart ideologically and if you don't like president A, wait 4-8 years for president B.

(05-08-2018, 05:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: Not saying it's equally contributed, at least at this point the republican party seems to be the problem. We'd probably be more willing to trust a democrat president, but that doesn't mean we'd trust the presidency or the US as a whole. And why should we, really.

No, you only think the Republican party is the problem because your ideology aligns more with the Democrats. BOTH parties are part of the problem. Trump may be the least diplomatic president we've ever had, that doesn't mean that all Republican presidents have and/or will be horrible diplomats.

[Belsnickel]

What baffles me about this is that the Iran deal was working and they had stopped their nuclear weapons program. If they do not reach a new deal with the other signatories, then they will start their program back up. So pulling out of the deal has caused the thing that the deal was preventing, but also what Trump says he doesn't want to happen.

And while this does things to our overall image, that ship sailed with this administration. The diplomatic corps have been so depleted that they have been having a tough go of it. This really doesn't do much either way and that is repairable with a new administration, we just have to hope someone with better sense gets into office.

The real damage, other than Iran likely restarting their nuclear program and giving the religious leaders more ability to foment anti-American sentiment and entrench their power further, is that it weakens Trump's bargaining position in the meeting with North Korea. Kim can go into that meeting saying "why should I trust the US? Look what happened to Iran. None of the other signatories say they were violating the arrangement, but you did and pulled out of it. So why should we trust anything you say?" That's the damage here. It is some terrible timing.

[Bengalzona]

(05-08-2018, 05:43 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Trump may be the least diplomatic president we've ever had, that doesn't mean that all Republican presidents have and/or will be horrible diplomats.

I agree with this.

IMO, things changed shortly after 9-11 during the Bush II admin. In particular, when we went into Iraq (our allies understood our need and desire to go into Afghanistan and generally didn't oppose that out of courtesy). Our country became more willing to take on global actions without having most (or, in some cases, even some) of our allies onboard. All admins since WWII had generally tried to reach some consensus with our allies prior to engaging in such actions. The classic example was Bush I putting together what might have been the largest coalition ever for the Gulf War.

I don't bring this up to flog the Bush II admin. Rather, I mention it to show when the conservative nature changed to the current neo-conservative attitude of "we don't need them". "America First" literally translates to "America Alone" in global diplomacy. And some people are fine with that.

Personally, I think Newton's Third Law of Physics also applies to diplomacy and politics (i.e. "equal and opposite reaction...). When other people get tired of the elephant rolling over in the bed on top of them, history shows that they get rid of the elephant.

[hollodero]

(05-08-2018, 05:43 PM)PhilHos Wrote: That's a bit simplified. I'm not saying I disagree, but the deciding factor is the majority party in Congress. If it's the same as the president, then, yes, that president will pretty much get his way. But, yes our 2 political parties seem to be getting farther apart ideologically and if you don't like president A, wait 4-8 years for president B.

Right, it's a bit simplified, but that's the world's perspective. But sure, "lame duck" presidents are less free in their decisions, but that's not what you have right now, so. I can't really find a major disagreement in our views.

(05-08-2018, 05:43 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No, you only think the Republican party is the problem because your ideology aligns more with the Democrats.

That's fair to mention. But this is not about domestic ideologies like healthcare, taxes, immigration, abortion etc., I tried to blend that out. But at least in younger history, members of the republican party appear as the more undiplomatic ones, and those that honor agreements less, those who are more willing to tell the world that they don't matter.
It was Bush who more or less lied to the world about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction, who tolerated torture and implemented Guantanamo, where the principles of democracy and a lawful state were abandoned (again, our perspective). And it is Trump that tears up the Iran deal. Democrats, presidents or in Congress, don't really do that kind of stuff and appear way more constructive.

(05-08-2018, 05:43 PM)PhilHos Wrote: BOTH parties are part of the problem. Trump may be the least diplomatic president we've ever had, that doesn't mean that all Republican presidents have and/or will be horrible diplomats.

Of course not. There always were great, honest, dignified republicans who I guess would make fine presidents. I'd be hard pressed to find them right now, but in principle, sure. It's just how it looks right now, that a democrat in office is more reliable and more wiling to take the diplomatic approach, while republicans are more hawkish. A John Bolton couldn't be a democrat, a John McCain was the prototype of typical republican warmongering - at least from what we saw. These figures hardly exist on the other side, and I'd also think it very unlikely there will ever be a blue Trump. So yeah, that's most certainly how it looks, if it's entirely fair to see it that way is up for debate.

[hollodero]

(05-08-2018, 06:34 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: IMO, things changed shortly after 9-11 during the Bush II admin. In particular, when we went into Iraq (our allies understood our need and desire to go into Afghanistan and generally didn't oppose that out of courtesy).

Pretty much that. Afghanistan was widely understood or at least tolerated. The Anti-American wave started with the Iraq war and what followed (torture, Gunatanamo). The damage in reputation things like waterboarding or detention without a chance of trial did to US image can hardly be overstated.

(05-08-2018, 06:34 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Personally, I think Newton's Third Law of Physics also applies to diplomacy and politics (i.e. "equal and opposite reaction...). When other people get tired of the elephant rolling over in the bed on top of them, history shows that they get rid of the elephant.

Yeah. As European, I think we desperately need to get rid of US protectionism and take our fate in our own hands now. Starting with defense, but very much including any goodwill deals. There's no trusting this elephant right now. And that problem doesn't go away with Trump.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-08-2018, 06:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What baffles me about this is that the Iran deal was working and they had stopped their nuclear weapons program. If they do not reach a new deal with the other signatories, then they will start their program back up. So pulling out of the deal has caused the thing that the deal was preventing, but also what Trump says he doesn't want to happen.

And while this does things to our overall image, that ship sailed with this administration. The diplomatic corps have been so depleted that they have been having a tough go of it. This really doesn't do much either way and that is repairable with a new administration, we just have to hope someone with better sense gets into office.

The real damage, other than Iran likely restarting their nuclear program and giving the religious leaders more ability to foment anti-American sentiment and entrench their power further, is that it weakens Trump's bargaining position in the meeting with North Korea. Kim can go into that meeting saying "why should I trust the US? Look what happened to Iran. None of the other signatories say they were violating the arrangement, but you did and pulled out of it. So why should we trust anything you say?" That's the damage here. It is some terrible timing.

By pulling out of the deal and making it clear there are consequences for dictatorships seeking nuclear weapons. Trump makes it clear their best move is to disarm with credible ways to enforce.

This deal was sour on delivery. Obama just wanted one positive foreign policy act, so he made any deal possible just for the sake of his legacy. Now we can chalk it up to yet another failure we have been able to escape.

[*bfine32*]

I think the last attacks on Syria may show folks are over-selling "The rest of the world is going to abandon us". I think most countries realize on which side their bread is buttered.

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2018, 07:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: By pulling out of the deal and making it clear there are consequences for dictatorships seeking nuclear weapons. Trump makes it clear their best move is to disarm with credible ways to enforce.

This deal was sour on delivery. Obama just wanted one positive foreign policy act, so he made any deal possible just for the sake of his legacy. Now we can chalk it up to yet another failure we have been able to escape.

So, he makes it clear by ending the deal that prevented them from seeking nuclear weapons? That makes zero sense.

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2018, 07:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, he makes it clear by ending the deal that prevented them from seeking nuclear weapons? That makes zero sense.

Did he end the deal or just pull the US out of the deal. I think the rest of those "don't like us for pulling out" countries can still go through with it.

[Belsnickel]

(05-08-2018, 07:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did he end the deal or just pull the US out of the deal. I think the rest of those "don't like us for pulling out" countries can still go through with it.

He could've effectively ended it. This will all depend what other countries work out with Iran, as they have softened their stance a little but they were initially saying they would start things back up if the US pulled out. We will see what happens in the next couple of weeks.

[Bengalzona]

(05-08-2018, 07:08 PM)hollodero Wrote: The damage in reputation things like waterboarding or detention without a chance of trial did to US image can hardly be overstated.


Yeah. As European, I think we desperately need to get rid of US protectionism and take our fate in our own hands now. Starting with defense, but very much including any goodwill deals. There's no trusting this elephant right now. And that problem doesn't go away with Trump.

Reputation is the key. This is why the progression of administrations since WWII did not diverge much from previous admins before them as far as diplomacy and foreign affairs. They established a brand and bought credibility and trust by maintaining that brand. That is reputation. Our allies knew they could count on us.

Unilaterally breaking international agreements, however, shows that we are chaotic and unpredictable. That we may have 'new' friends which we prefer over our traditional friends. Sort of like going out and paying younger women to sleep with you because you are tired of the demands your wife makes on you or think she is now too old. Those are our new values. The message this sends to everyone, 'former allies' and 'new friends', is "Hey! Don't get close to us! We aren't your friends, dude!".

[Bengalzona]

(05-08-2018, 07:37 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did he end the deal or just pull the US out of the deal. I think the rest of those "don't like us for pulling out" countries can still go through with it.

One party of the coalition pulling out effectively ends the deal for everyone since the terms are "we end sanctions and you stop developing nukes". Since one of the parties is now re-establishing sanctions, there is no reason for them not to build nukes. The sanctions are back for them either way.

[Millhouse]

(05-08-2018, 06:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: What baffles me about this is that the Iran deal was working and they had stopped their nuclear weapons program. If they do not reach a new deal with the other signatories, then they will start their program back up. So pulling out of the deal has caused the thing that the deal was preventing, but also what Trump says he doesn't want to happen.

And while this does things to our overall image, that ship sailed with this administration. The diplomatic corps have been so depleted that they have been having a tough go of it. This really doesn't do much either way and that is repairable with a new administration, we just have to hope someone with better sense gets into office.

The real damage, other than Iran likely restarting their nuclear program and giving the religious leaders more ability to foment anti-American sentiment and entrench their power further, is that it weakens Trump's bargaining position in the meeting with North Korea. Kim can go into that meeting saying "why should I trust the US? Look what happened to Iran. None of the other signatories say they were violating the arrangement, but you did and pulled out of it. So why should we trust anything you say?" That's the damage here. It is some terrible timing.

To play devil's advocate, the deal was only going to last until 2031, which is only 13 more years. In the meantime they would have avoided sanctions which would give them a more sizable income to develop ballistic technology than they currently have. They also would have more money to support Assad in Syria, among other anti-American/Israel/Saudi factions in the region.

As I said though, we shouldn't have pulled out of it yet. Just trying to find a silver lining in it though, because ultimately that deal was nothing more than a temporary bandaid on keeping them from having nukes over a 15 year period, and not a long term solution that a treaty could have provided instead.

[Dill]

(05-08-2018, 05:01 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Oh please. Bush supposedly made America look bad to the rest of the world and Obama supposedly repaired our image. Worst case scenario, the rest of the world don't trust Trump but will give the next guy/gal a chance.

Worst case scenario-- Netanyahu celebrates a great foreign policy victory while the Mossad goes on high alert. World wide oil prices rise, the stock market begins a long drop. Fox does segment after segment on the "bold move" which shows "strength" and contrasting Trump to the "weak" Obama.

Israel wants the US to re-impose sanctions on Iraq, but France, Germany--the EU--Russia, and China don't go along. The US wants to punish countries that ignore the sanctions, but finds it cannot punish everyone. The UN is uninterested in passing US resolutions in support of sanctions. International banks resist US efforts to constrict Iranian assets. The US imposes unilateral sanctions which only hurt US business.  Iran is free to pursue nukes and delivery systems. 

Noth Korea now sees leverage. Doubtful that the US has the diplomatic power to orchestrate a serious sanctions regime anymore.  No one in the Far East understands U.S. foreign/trade policy anymore, or how to respond to US initiatives. They begin figuring out ways to protect their markets without the U.S. The TPP, which excludes the US, becomes a very important part of their future.  And China is now by default the regional leader/power.  Japan resigns from the non-proliferation treaty.

Inside the US government, the Democrats, independents, and "establishment" Republicans resort to increasingly desperate responses to Trump damage to foreign policy and the economy amidst Trump's widening personal scandals. Trump spends all day watching Fox and tweeting about scandals and fake news as the international order re-configures away from US interests.  

Iran, now in the driver's seat, could ignore the US and keep the Deal with the EU, Russian and China. But in a worst case scenario it is angry, the "liberals" and moderates in Iran who risked their careers on the deal are now fully discredited and the hard liners are in complete control. They set about rebuilding Iran's nuclear program, this time with the goal of building a bomb. Trump fires "Mad Dog" Mattis for supporting the Iran Deal. No more adults left in the WH. The Senate will not confirm Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense so we don't have one as the world unravels.

Saudi Arabia decides it needs a bomb too. In August, Trump gives a speech at the WH saying "who knew" the Iran Deal could have been so complicated.

Israel decides someone needs to "take out" Iran's capability--"Before it's too late." During a compaign speech in a southern state, Trump announces the US will back Israel, taking his own state department and DOD by surprise. That means another war in the Middle East. Doubtful that the US can take out sites buried deep in mountains. That would require ground troops. Where will Russia stand in that conflagration so close to its borders?

By next summer Iran has a bomb. What does Israel do? How much back up does the US provide. How far will Iran go in defending itself?   Impeachment of Trump fails. He blames Obama and the Democrats as the chaos of the White House engulfs the world.

[*bfine32*]

(05-08-2018, 07:55 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: One party of the coalition pulling out effectively ends the deal for everyone since the terms are "we end sanctions and you stop developing nukes". Since one of the parties is now re-establishing sanctions, there is no reason for them not to build nukes. The sanctions are back for them either way.

But only sanctions from the US correct? Other countries could agree to lift their sanctions.

As I said I do not hink we should have pulled out. I just got a chuckle over "the rest of the world won't like us now" spin. Hell, show the US that you can do it without them if you don't like them or is the rest of the world that reliant on us? I doubt we'd just stop an agreement made just because Germany pulled out.

[Dill]

(05-08-2018, 07:58 PM)Millhouse Wrote: To play devil's advocate, the deal was only going to last until 2031, which is only 13 more years. In the meantime they would have avoided sanctions which would give them a more sizable income to develop ballistic technology than they currently have. They also would have more money to support Assad in Syria, among other anti-American/Israel/Saudi factions in the region.

As I said though, we shouldn't have pulled out of it yet. Just trying to find a silver lining in it though, because ultimately that deal was nothing more than a temporary bandaid on keeping them from having nukes over a 15 year period, and not a long term solution that a treaty could have provided instead.

The alternative was not "a long term treaty." It was letting them have a bomb by 2015.  Not clear why that is "better" than 2031.

No particular reason to think that an improving economy benefits hardliners in Iran, as it was definitely benefiting liberals and moderates who backed the Iran Deal. Now the "peace mongers" are discredited. Those who said the great satan cannot be trusted were right. They lead the country from now on.

Now they have a 158 billion, a broken sanctions regime, and a green light to the bomb.

[StLucieBengal]

(05-08-2018, 07:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, he makes it clear by ending the deal that prevented them from seeking nuclear weapons? That makes zero sense.

The deal prevented US allies from doing anything about Iran’s nuclear forward motion. If Israel attacked they would be at odds with us.

Plus it did zero for their middle program.

We need to Be strengthening the new ME coalition forming. Leave it to them.

[Dill]

(05-08-2018, 07:49 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Reputation is the key. This is why the progression of administrations since WWII did not diverge much from previous admins before them as far as diplomacy and foreign affairs. They established a brand and bought credibility and trust by maintaining that brand. That is reputation. Our allies knew they could count on us.

Unilaterally breaking international agreements, however, shows that we are chaotic and unpredictable. That we may have 'new' friends which we prefer over our traditional friends. Sort of like going out and paying younger women to sleep with you because you are tired of the demands your wife makes on you or think she is now too old. Those are our new values. The message this sends to everyone, 'former allies' and 'new friends', is "Hey! Don't get close to us! We aren't your friends, dude!".

Nail on the head.

But we are in this situation largely because so many Americans no longer see diplomacy, regional stability in the Middle and Far East, reliable US policy and credible US leadership as important to the domestic economy and US long-term security.