Trump: The US will withdraw from the Iran deal

Trump's decision to violate the JCPOA is great for Russia: it pushes Iran closer to Russia (after they tried to get closer to the US and EU after the JCPOA was signed), and causes a split between the US and the EU.

Reply 82

username2889590

Get this man a Nobel Peace Prize ASAP

Reply 83

"European officials will "do everything" possible to protect the interests of companies working in Iran, which may now be exposed to new US sanctions against the country, an official in the French presidency said today."

Source.

Blocking regulations a la Cuba are a go!

There was a special briefing with senior officials and the press yesterday after Trump's announcement and it was an absolute mess. This is my personal favourite moment:

Screen Shot 2018-05-09 at 18.44.42.png

Reply 84

username1738583

and the Iranian rial weakens evermore. Upsetting hearing how friends and family of mine in Tehran are struggling to cope.

What has this achieved? As far as I see it, it's just another way of a keeping Israel happy. Let's face it, Israel wont stop until iran is burnt to the ground.

Iran passed multiple inspections and abided by the rules of the deal, all I can see this doing is strengthening hardliners in Iran, strengthening the anti-US sentiment which Rouhani and Obama fought against. Trump's deliberate hostility is sickening.

France, UK, Russia and the EU will hopefully continue economic trade with Iran, but it'll hardly strengthen Iran. Honestly this has set back Iranian development by a good half decade imo.

Reply 85

username1738683

Original post by Palmyra

In exchange for all that, the US are bonding with Saudi and with Israel. The EU is of little interest to them regarding the Middle-East and whether Iran gets even closer with the Russians or the Chinese is of secondary importance to the American bloc: they do not want Iran to develop a nuclear capability at any cost, they do not trust them not to at some point in the future once they have the infra-structure and the deal was not working in terms of preventing any of that. In the same way Iran are talking about resuming their military ambitions now, they can do in ten or twenty years time.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 86

Original post by Palmyra

I think we generally overstate Russia/China/EU's willingness to directly stand up against the US, even when their direct interests are challenged by the US (China and EU both going out of their way to seek compromise over trade tariffs and offer concessions, and Russia posturing in Syria but ultimately conceding American attacks even on Russians (e.g. the 100 Wagner mercenaries killed) with no retaliation).

I wholeheartedly agree with you vis-à-vis the EU, and particularly the big three in Europe - France, Germany and the UK. But that is due to the fact that they have no independent foreign policies - they receive their marching orders from Washington.

China's reluctance to challenge the U.S. is, in my opinion, decreasing; and, as it continues to transfer its economic power into military might, it will undoubtedly flex its muscles more often than not. It is not quite there yet, but once BRI and its blue-water navy take shape, I would be extremely surprised if it does not assert hegemony over Asia. The mistake the U.S. is currently making is pushing Moscow and Tehran into Beijing's arms, because the former has been, and remains, rather worried about the prospects of China throwing its weight around, particularly in Russia's Far East. Washington's balancing coalition should consist of Japan, India, South Korea, ASEAN, Taiwan and Russia, however, it seems as if Moscow and Beijing are now joined at the hip, with the former effectively becoming the junior partner.

As far as Russia is concerned, it has achieved its objectives in Syria, and therefore any minor issues that may appear to make it look weak in the face of the U.S. in that conflict are fairly meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Putin is well aware that his current hand - primarily his economy and military - is no match for his counterpart in Washington, and, consequently, he must play to his strengths instead of attempting to go toe-to-toe with Trump.

I don't think Mattis approves of Pompeo; in fact, during the Syria strikes, Mattis seemed to be in direct opposition to Bolton and Trump etc.

To the best of my knowledge, Mattis was in favour of the strikes, but did not want to the situation to escalate any further.

I don't think it would be a one-off 'now or never' moment for Iran, it would likely be a protracted struggle where the regime could possibly survive. Iran's mosaic defence doctrine shows how they've learned from the Iraq War etc and adapted accordingly:

Screen Shot 2018-05-09 at 04.00.41.png

In the case of overt regime change, the major question is whether or not China and Russia would come to Iran's defence.

Are you of the belief that the regime and its proxies would be able to fend off such an attack without at least one of the aforementioned great powers by its side?

Reply 87

DrMikeHuntHertz

I think the US will likely go for regime change in Iran with heavy economic sanctions rather than a military adventure which likely see Israeli cities leveled by Iranian/Hezbollah missiles.

Reply 88

Napp

Original post by Chucke1992

They been trying to ship C-XXX for a long time and ironic that Turkey got them earlier than even Syria.

Ship what sorry?

Turkey want to buy Patriots and want to joint operation with USA in Manbij. Never believe turks - in the geopolitics there is no allies, only interests. Turkey more close to USA than to Russia and Iran. And it more in its interest to destabilize Russia and Iran.

Until they got fed up with Americans giving them the run around. Strange though considering that the Patriot is rather crappy.
Debatable.

Syrian military for now consists of iranian ground forces and russian air forces. That's why actually Iran trying to keep Russia in Syria (some would argue that those chemical strikes were orchestrated by Iran to blame Russia). Without Russian air support Iran won't last long in Syria.

Pray tell what evidence you have to back this up?

The problem of Russia is that they are trying to be allies of Iran and Israel and at the same time not provoke USA. It is hilarious.

Iran and Russia have a marriage of convenience as opposed to any overt alliance. Neither have forgotten the baggage their relationship comes with. As for allies with Israel? Not by a long shot. They have a quid pro quo relationship, nothing more.

But it is interesting to run into conversation where one side tells that everything is great, while other says that everything is bad.

Pardon?

Reply 89

Napp

Original post by bob072

Regime change from within is far more likely than an invasion. I believe rebuilding a democratic Iran would be far easier than in Iraq.

no it really isnt. If you think the Iranians would like an American puppet government forced down their throats, you're insane.

The Sunni population is much less in Iran, so there's not such a power struggle with Shia (80+ %). Also they would prefer a democracy to the current extremist government.

Are you sure about that? :rolleyes:

Terrorism is not a big problem in Iran, unlike Iraq where you had sects sympathetic to it. In fact, the current Iranian government funds terrorism in Lebanon and Syria.

You sound like a Fox news broadcaster and just as ignorant. Assisting Assad [whilst morally questionable] is not the same as funding terrorism. Even more so in Lebanon where Hizbollah enjoy broad political support and don't even meet the definition of a terror group.

Reply 90

Original post by DrMikeHuntHertz

I think the US will likely go for regime change in Iran with heavy economic sanctions rather than a military adventure which likely see Israeli cities leveled by Iranian/Hezbollah missiles.

Wont work though if either the EU plug the gap or it just builds the hardliners who dont give a monkeys about the people and will let them suffer to pursue nuclear ambitions. Sanctions make it hard for them, but people wont blame the regime they will blame Trump.

Reply 91

Sanctions wont stop iran going for weapons, which only leaves one alternative.

Its a bit ironic that before the election everyone was pummelling Clinton because she was going to cause WW3 and instead nobody bats an eyelid when Trump talks about missiles.

Nobody is going to stand up to the US. Not many people want Iran to have the bomb.

What I think Trump will do is try to punish the EU if they carry on trading with Iran, which by default makes it not worthwhile.

It is to Irans advantage to trade with the EU. They can also plus some of the gap with Russian and Chinese goods.

Not sure he is still up for the Nobel prize.

Reply 92

Original post by 999tigger

If Washington punishes the EU for pursuing its economic interests in Iran, it will have effectively managed to push the EU, Iran and Russia into China's arms.

Talk about grand strategy.

Reply 93

Original post by Stalin

If Washington punishes the EU for pursuing its economic interests in Iran, it will have effectively managed to push the EU, Iran and Russia into China's arms.

Talk about grand strategy.

Not really , although they wont be happy bunnies.
Ties between the US and Europe are just as important politically.
Trump is only going to be in power max 1.5 terms.

Trade with iran is tiny compared to trade with the US.

Reply 94

Original post by 999tigger

Not really , although they wont be happy bunnies.
Ties between the US and Europe are just as important politically.

17.5% of the EU's trade is with U.S., compared to 14.8% with China (2015 numbers). China will become the EU's largest trading partner as soon as BRI comes to fruition.

Many EU member states went against the wishes of the U.S. by joining the AIIB, and if the U.S. imposes sanctions on member states for pursuing their economic interests with Iran, it is plausible that policymakers in Berlin, Brussels and Paris will begin to ask themselves whether their future should be dictated to them by the U.S. or as a partner with the East.

Trump is only going to be in power max 1.5 terms.

What makes you so certain?

Trade with iran is tiny compared to trade with the US.

Not even the Grand Ayatollah himself would dispute that.

(edited 5 years ago)

Reply 95

Original post by Stalin

The EU has far more in common with the US including political, military and cultural ties. It is about way more than money. the US doesnt have to punish people directly it can just force them to make a choice between trade with them or Iran.

He has only got max 1.5 terms left because that is how it works. It isnt Russia where Putin can fiddle it. he will be gone in 7 years tops.

Reply 96

Original post by 999tigger

The EU has far more in common with the US including political, military and cultural ties. It is about way more than money.

If that is true, why is it that the major EU member states ignored America's wishes by signing up to the AIIB?

the US doesnt have to punish people directly it can just force them to make a choice between trade with them or Iran.

The US is not about to force the EU to make a choice between it and Iran; the US is threatening to sanction EU firms that trade with Iran.

It is either a silly threat that the Trump administration will have to back down from, or, if it is moronic enough to implement, it will find itself more and more isolated because EU member states will not drop their economic interests in Iran.

He has only got max 1.5 terms left because that is how it works. It isnt Russia where Putin can fiddle it. he will be gone in 7 years tops.

I misread - I thought you said 1.5 years.

:biggrin:

Reply 97

Original post by 999tigger

As I posted above, the EU have confirmed that they will "do everything" to uphold the deal. They imposed blocking regulations to protect their investments in Cuba, and I predict they will do the same for Iran.

Reply 98

Original post by Stalin

If that is true, why is it that the major EU member states ignored America's wishes by signing up to the AIIB?

The US is not about to force the EU to make a choice between it and Iran; the US is threatening to sanction EU firms that trade with Iran.

It is either a silly threat that the Trump administration will have to back down from, or, if it is moronic enough to implement, it will find itself more and more isolated because EU member states will not drop their economic interests in Iran.

I misread - I thought you said 1.5 years.

:biggrin:

It doesnt matter. being allies and having things in common doesnt mean they have to do everything the same.
You dont know what the US is about to do because Trump is unpredictable. He can quite easily make it more difficult for firms he feels are heavily trading with Iran to transact business in the US.

EU interests in Iran are small compared to the interests they have in the US.

For some reason you seem to think there are more ties with China and iran than there really are. EU countries are going to be keener to do business in the US as they have done for many years than they are with iran, which is an unreliable place to do business.

Reply 99