War with Iran?

[Dill]

(06-17-2019, 03:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The tanker thing is something I am torn on, but leaning heavily on not believing Pompeo and our government. I want to see some evidence before laying blame at their feet, and that evidence is conspicuously lacking at this moment. As for the nuclear deal, we may have pulled out, but they are still in it with the other signatories. If they violate it, then it is up to those signatories to take action. Trump can feel free to have an "I told you so" moment about that, though the news doesn't sound all that nefarious, to me.

The nuke deal is a bit more complicated. Trump is attempting to force the other signatories to re instate sanctions or face sanctions from the US. If the other signatories do that, then they will in effect be breaking the deal too. Some EU members have created a mechanism for bartering goods with Iran without using currency, but it is not clear if that will prove effective.

The immediate result of the US pull out then would be that Iran had 100 (150?) billion dollars back plus two years of non-sanction economic activity, and then reinstated sanctions as a strong incentive to go back to producing fissile material.

It doesn't matter to me whether the Iranians set the tankers on fire or not.  We are in this confrontation because the US pulled out of a deal that IT engineered, and is openly pushing Iran to confrontation.  One consequence is that the "moderate" forces in Iran have lost face and their radical right is now in ascendance--their Trumps, Boltons and Grahams are running the show now. Like our rightists, they see little incentive to talk to "evil."

(06-17-2019, 03:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know there will be the usual crowd poo-pooing this idea, but Trump is playing out of the autocrat playbook by blustering in this way. His posturing on the global stage and continual use of Iran as a foil is a tool of dictators all throughout history and the world that have attempted to hold power. He isn't the first POTUS to do this by any means, but it's a concerning act. The choice of Iran as the foil probably does have a ton to do with Bolton's proximity to the Oval Office, as he has been a notorious hawk towards Iran for years. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Yes, this is authoritarian foreign policy. But what bothers me about it is that OUR authoritarian is more unstable than most.  A smart chickenhawk would know how to play near, but not right on, the edge of war.  Trump does not have this skill.  He can only rush us to the edge, and teeter there where he is unable to back down if the country we are surrounding with weapons and drones and incrementally increasing military forces "starts something."  He has no historical knowledge to draw on for guidance (maybe the first president since Kennedy who has not read Tuchman's the Guns of August or even watched The Missiles of October), and no impulse control.

I should add this is not just about Iran. We seem to be advancing a right wing Israeli foreign policy as well as the interests of Saudi Arabia in this current stand off.  And looking downrange at the consequences--first off a world oil shortage--this will be another massive disruption affecting our allies and our world markets.

Remember that if the war starts, then we will need to put our petty partisan disagreements aside and back the C in C. I.e., side with America.  Drop any divisive investigations we may have ongoing, not spew hatred of America in online forums by opposing Trump.