Iran Wants to Talk

I saw that. The timing is, well, interesting. Maybe there’s a signal that their economy can no longer stay in its proxy war footing. Maybe the sanctions have started to work, and maybe their military defeats are enough to make them less aggressive. Who knows.

 

It's a positive signal.

 

Could be. Maybe they fear the Israelis more than DJT, if elected. In all likelihood a Democrat POTUS will keep the same policies in place; so, Israel knows they will have to take care of business on their own. They took care of Hamas, now focusing on Hezbollah....who is next?

 

I really don’t know how to view the issue. I supported the original nuclear deal that Obama admin negotiated given the information that was given. At this point I don’t know if it is better to reduce irans nuclear path at the expense of indirectly funding their proxy wars.

 

Yeah, that's my initial read: Send us money - we won't enrich uranium! We promise.

 

I don't trust Iran, as long as it is essentially a theocracy with an ayatollah in charge behind the scenes. They need to demonstrate a commitment to not supplying weapons to terrorist organizations around the middle east (Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis, and others), not supporting Russia (or China) with weapons and ammunition, and not making nuclear weapons, with full inspections of their nuclear sites. They have a lot of work to do before they can be a trustworthy nation.

 

More nonsense. Take care of business on their own? How do you even type crap like that?

 

My take is a little more nuanced than that.

As to the nuclear deal at the time it was said, by all sides, that the number one foreign policy threat was Iran going nuclear. If that was the case, it would be logical to take some sacrifices to keep them from getting there. By all accounts it was working, but it did give Iran more money for misadventures which was deemed the lesser of 2 evils. Then Trump reversed course negating much of the benefits of the deal.

At the time opponents said we needed “a better deal”, as if we were the only party at the negotiating table. I don’t have any reason to believe there was a better deal to be had.

Would we have been better off with no deal and doing what Trump did, starving them of funds? That certainly helped deter Iran militarily but not as much on the nuclear side.

As to Arab spring Obama as well as many people were naive - but other than some positive rhetoric was there anything we should have done differently? Backing Mubarak against a democratic revolution would have been a bad look.

As to Iraq, we got out too fast, but people forget Iraq govt wanted us out and wouldn’t renew status of forces agreement protecting our troops. Only after ISIS grew did they welcome us back.

As to Syria, I’m not sure there was an alternative play. There were really no “moderates” to back.

 

I don’t think our election has anything to do with anything regarding Iran’s current policy.

 

Well Israel has basically forced their enemies to operate from landlines and dial up internet at this point. Hard to play hardball from a phone or computer plugged into a wall.

 

It’s a bit gory to process, but I read the other day the following quip: Think about this—the leaders of Hezbollah today are the people who were not trusted enough or good enough to hold a communications device yesterday.

 

While there is a lot correct in your assessment it seems like it ignores the undesirability of the alternatives in each of those cases.

 

No. This is a tactic to buy some time to get their finances in order and when we lessen the pressure and they can build up, right back to where they started.
They care more about their ideology than their people, and because of that they will never stop.

 

Just remember, like the CCP, Putin, etc., their first and only real priority is to stay in power. Everything else - including their "religion" - comes a distant second. It may be a sign of weakness or that something internal is brewing that we don't know about.