The Iran deal

[Dill]

(05-11-2018, 06:25 PM)hollodero Wrote:  just as promised. America first means tearing up business-friendly peacekeeping deals, go for regime change & nationbuilding and put the military option back on the table. In short, getting involved in the world and be willing to send troops unlike Obama, the weakling.

That shouldn't come as a surprise though. There's also no contradiction to slam-meme Obama for "8 years of war". One could only wish to find a spouse as loyal as the republican voter is to his party. You can do anything.

The one thing I still cannot grasp - why would one seriously believe the moderates will win the fight in Iran because of US backing. The US did everything in their power to be despised there, and especially amongst the more moderate ones who foolishly decided the US can be trusted and one should give that one a try. The people the US wants to see rise are the ones that got betrayed the hardest here, got the rug swept away from under their feet, while the hardliners got their "the US is the devil" stance fully refueled now.

Er, not just a "military option."  "On the table" refers to nukes. That's what would save us the cost of an invasion.  LOL Stupid Bush/Obama would never think of saving money and lives that way.

You offer practical reasons why it is unlikely that people we screwed would be happy to work with us. But it's also not clear that Bolton et al. are really interested in swaying moderate Iranians. They have great difficulty empathizing with or understanding non Western cultures, and tend to view "the good ones" as wannabee Americans who just dress funny. That is, seeing nothing interesting or of redeeming value in other cultures, they assume others secretly want a US lifestyle and Constitution--our culture, not theirs.  How you going to get those Nigerians back to their huts, once they have seen the US? 

In consequence, the Boltons assume they can move the "good ones" with American-style incentives, and if the good ones take power they will want a government and culture more like ours and yours. But if that doesn't work well (See Iraq) , and why would it for the reasons you mention, then so what. We have a leader ready to care of problems without expensive invasions.

That lack of understanding/empathy is also why they construct foreign leadership as intractable liars. No glimpse of how the other's behavior might seem rational on his terms. "John [Bolton] is someone who understands the danger of Iran viscerally, and knows that you're never going to fundamentally change its behavior."

While we are on the subject of ignorant, brutal and unstable leaders making bad decisions that millions must pay for, I might add that scandal seems to disorient Trump, push him to react even more impulsively than usual. Lots of things in play as we all--Europeans too--face a world destabilized by Trump's destruction of a stabilizing international agreement, an impending diplomatic disaster in NK, and a scandal putting money from Russian oligarchs into a pot used to pay off porn stars which peels a few points of Trump's support.

PS "nationbuilding" is Dems. "Regime change" is Republicans.