War with Iran?

[Dill]

(07-25-2019, 10:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, they want to keep the deal alive as a signatory.  As I already stated.  If this greatly increases the chances of Iran succeeding as a bad actor then the shame is on Iran, as the bad actor.  

?? As I stated. As my article stated. right? That is one of the reasons for absence of alliance. ("They" in your statement refers to GB, right?)

Britain's actions increase the chances Iran can hold out until we get a Democratic president again.  Most people in the Gulf care about preventing an unnecessary war and/or a nuclear armed Iran, not "shame on Iran."

(07-25-2019, 10:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:

Quote:Quote:So yes, this should surprise everyone, whether GB "coordinates" with the US or not.  It is a precedent--US allies working out an alternative model for maintaining international stability.

No, it's really not.  It's a certain set of circumstances that lended itself to the exact outcome we got for anyone paying attention.  It's also "ally" at this point, not "allies" as no one else has signed off on joining at this time.  In any event they need US assistance regardless as outside of the UK and France no one in the EU has any naval assets to speak of, so it's a hollow, face saving gesture.  Even those two have a minute fraction of the ability of the US Navy.

Jeremy Hunt's proposal clearly addresses "allies." He is seeks to include Germany, Finland, Denmark and Italy, among others. Too early for them to "sign off." Italy has at least two aircraft carriers, along with minesweepers and destroyers and attack submarines. France has an aircraft carrier and several destroyers. The other countries can muster more submarines, minesweepers and other support ships. May not matter at all if this is a "minute fraction" of the ability of the US Navy.

Nothing italicized argues against my point, bolded above.

Why is the effort to keep Iran to the deal, to separate from US policy, by including fellow Europeans, a "hollow, face saving gesture"?  Why any need to "save face" on a policy consciously decided?

What about US policy would force the US' most important ally to go it alone this way? Are they just being stupid?