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

[Dill]

(04-16-2024, 02:58 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Dill Wrote:I live in a world which prioritizes evidence over speculation. I'm going by US intel and IAEA reports. 

I prioritize both, if you think Iran or the US Gov is open and being completely forth coming, you will be mistaken. We aren't going to Jeopardize our agents just so we can sit around and have a cuppa of Tea about it. 

 You are going by a gut assumption which is controverted by existing evidence, offering an "Everybody knows" argument, of the type which convinced Americans Saddam had WMDs. That's not a good basis for evaluating policy. 

Different argument, but I'll bite. Can't fault the public for that, we were mis-informed. Now we could argue whether our Agents were mis-informed or if we were intentionally mis-informed til we are blue in the face. This also happened shortly after 9-11 and we wanted blood for blood. 

Dill Wrote:That's why you are not providing me with authoritative sources. I have read assessments of Iran such as you are providing, but in sources like the Washington Times and the Jewish Virtual Library, which deviate considerably from what the evidence allows.

And? are you saying you don't trust the media? I don't trust either side. Have to read between the lines and form your own opinions whether it's right or wrong. 

Yo OtherMike, thanks for the responses here. They get me to thinking more about these subjects. So I’d like to offer my take with respect to the above. (I’ll address you remakes about Palestinians in a different post.)
 
So regarding Iraq--Not a different argument, rather a history we should be remembering and learning from as we stand once again on the verge of war in the Middle East with potential to entangle China and Russia.
 
The public cannot be faulted for choosing an unnecessary war back then because choice was out of their hands. Bush was already elected and cooked intel to extract permission from Congress to go to war IF NECESSARY. That gave him the leeway to act, as chief exec, despite massive protests.
 
Nevertheless, much of the public CAN be faulted for supporting the war, because there were plenty of MSM and "far left" voices offering more accurate assessments of Saddam’s WMDs and disputing any connection between him and Al Qaeda. That’s why there were massive protests—because people noticed the discrepancy between intel and the administration claims, and were wary of the Islamophobia which sold those claims.  “Traitors” as Hannity called those critical of the war, speaking for many on the right. (So far as I know, he still believes Saddam had WMDs.)
 
Those wanting "blood for blood" were the most easily mislead, for sure, precisely because they were so sure whom they could NOT trust—the “far left” and “Muslims.” The ramped up Islamophobia post 9/11 made it easy for Bush and Cheney to conflate Saddam and his arch enemy Al Qaeda (“Arabs think the enemy of my enemy is my friend!”) and divert a legitimate war in Afghanistan into a pet neo-con project in Iraq.
 
They and their media supporters at Fox behaved as if Saddam’s WMD guilt were too obvious to argue, a “slam dunk,” and people who doubted that simply because the evidence wasn’t there were naïve leftist fools who fell for a dictator’s lies. Bush showed “strong” leadership by not being fooled.
  
So what really “jeopardized our agents” back then was that, in a conflict between people who followed data, facts and intel vs people who "just know" these ME types cannot be trusted, many people went with the latter.
 
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.