War with Iran?

[Dill]

(06-20-2019, 03:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There is an honest debate to be had about whether the former deal with Iran was the best way to achieve nuclear disarmament.  Regardless, that is no longer a possibility, so the choice remains with Iran.  Persist in pursuing nuclear weapons and risk war or abandon attempts to make them and completely avoid any risk of war.

What choice "remains with Iran"? 

Trusting the credibility of the US, they chose to sign a deal explicitly disavowing pursuit of nuclear weapons and allowing their nuclear facilities to be monitored.

The US chose to trash that deal, though by all of our own measures, Iran was holding to it.

Iran then chose to adhere to the deal anyway for another year--i.e., chose not to pursue nukes-- without US cooperation.

But then the US chose to pressure the other signatories to back out as well. Amidst buzz of another goal --"regime change."

And then, in addition to re-instatement of sanctions, the US chose to send more and more military forces into the Gulf, with drones ranging across Iranian territory.

So, without evidence that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, and with much evidence that it has chosen not too,

your message to Iran is that it must stop doing what it has not been doing or risk war. Nevermind whatever paper we signed.

With your blessing, the US has chosen to place military assets all along Iran's coast with apparent readiness to violate their sea and airspace, something most nations would not tolerate.

From the Iranian perspective, how has abandoning pursuit of nukes, signing an agreement, and allowing for inspections, lessened the risk of war?

The only "choice" for Iran now is to surrender or fight. The choice to fight lies, as it always has, with the US, in the words of Pompeo--"at the time and place of OUR choosing."