Did Trump handle the Iran crisis correctly?

Good for him, exacerbate the bastards.

 

You mean the best deal that Obama and the 7 other major nations came up with? The sanctions helped bring them to the table in the first place, hence the deal which despite what trump and "a lot of Americans" thought (perhaps they all should have asked the intell community - oh wait, they aren't to be trusted) , until Trump reneged on America's commitment Iran was abiding by the deal. Funny how when one party pulls out of a deal the other party reverts to the very behavior the original deal.

But geopolitics and an actual understanding that other nations are sovereign and have their own motivations are things that trump and the trumpettes can't fathom. I submit your post as confirmation.

That may be true, in that case it was a demonstration of the vulnerability of straits maritime traffic and its dependency on Iran's good will.
I have no idea who did it, it could have been the iranians, but it could just as easily been the saudis or israelis. The Israelis even have a history of it, or at least attempting it.

Regardless, trump's move demonstrates that lack of intellect and understanding, really does negatively impact the ability to manipulate the levers of american power projection. The proverbial bull in the china shop.

 

Lack of intellect and understanding? Really?

I don't think the Israelis drive Iranian boats. The effort to defend Iran while at the same time denigrate the US seems to be the position the left has adopted. Perhaps it isn't all that difficult to decipher, maybe it's just what it looks to have been, the Iranians being Iranians.

 

1. Yes I do
2. My geopolitics include believing in freedom
3. Iran exports its' malign influence throughout the Middle East, trying to widen its' theocratic dictatorship to other countries, it is indefensible and it is not just trying to aid Shia minorities.

 

1. Yes I did and what does that matter here and now?
2. Any evidence this was a false flag beyond you wanting it to be?
3. It remains to be seen, personally it seems obvious that Iran was just stringing us along as NK did.
4. Not my leader and I think you don't you realise that those who do support him aren't fooled at all by him, they know he's a jerk but he's preferable to the alternative.

 

1. Not much of one it seems
2. So you don't like your dear leader arse kissing dictators and trashing democratic allies, either?
3. Iran's foreign ventures are almost entirely about aiding/defending shia minorities and combatting their historic enemies, the biggest being KSA.

 

Not your leader? you mean you aren't american?

I do realize that a lying, cheating,crook who demonstrates his ignorance, arrogance and extreme narcissism daily, is a preferable alternative to the perceived partisan existential threat from democrats trying to destroy the country.

 

I'm just as knowledgeable as you, I just draw different conclusions from the facts. Don't be silly, realpolitik means dealing with such people, Obama did the same allowing the Iranians to fund their proxies who want to dominate the Middle East which is nothing to do with aiding/defending minorities.

 

No of course not. When he was standing I always said I'd never vote for Trump (if I could) but the reaction of the American left has been such that I now realise people were right to vote for him. They did not so much vote for this EXTREMELY flawed man but against the progressive agenda.

 

Oh, brilliant! So it was TRUMP who ordered the attacks on shipping in the Gulf region...?! What a tremendous feat of investigation of all the relevant facts and pure logic!

Since Iran is so near-and-dear to your America-hating heart, Mister "Truth", just be glad that Tehran wasn't turned into a smoking pile of rubble after Iran shot down our drone, which was clearly and demonstrably over INTERNATIONAL waters, in INTERNATIONAL airspace.

One wonders what kind of provocation it would take for a hyperliberal, radical Leftist to agree that the U. S. had a right to counterattack a rabidly out of control theocracy like the Islamic Republic of Iran when it savages international commerce in international waters....

. "Equivocation is always the best policy!"

 

I recall when chemvweapons were an issue in syria. At the time the conservative line was that not pulling the trigger showed weakness

In the end obama seemed effective, but that was because there was a credible threat. I do not think iran feels a credible threat. In fact, i think the want to stand up to the usa.

In the end, i think iran will continue what ever they choose, i think trump will be forced to act, and the results will be disastrous

Of course the fundamental error was trashing the treaty. Trump was sure he could bully iran. And iran leaders cannot be seen to be bullied. So somethings gotta give

Like the treaty or not, the alternatives are not appealing

 

Suspending it and allowing Iran to build up money to fight its' proxy wars and fund its' programme.

 

I reject your opening premise based on the substance of your different conclusions. Yes, realpolitik does mean dealing with the reality of the situation which includes understanding the motivations of all sides.

It seems history isn't to be considered in your "realpolitik" analysis. And naturally nothing that the US and their other major adversaries have done could possibly provide ample experience to shape their hostile attitude towards both America, their historic enemy the Saudis/Sunnis and of course the jews of Israel.

They aren't innocent, but they sure as hell ain't the only ones.

 

Yeah because progress will leave so many behind. Including you it seems.

 

So I must be wrong because I disagree with you? No, nothing that the US and other adversaries have done could ever justify the fanatical extremism, the Shah has been gone for 40 years and they cannot use this anymore as an excuse for their regime which is far worse than his?

 

Because it is only progressive in one direction and only benefits those who believe in it.

 

What? Oh right of course you can't blame the cause for the effect. You have to blame the effect as the cause.

Far worse? Sadly you are serious. Imagine a nation whose supreme leader is the designated head of the shia religion and commander in chief of the armed forces would be at all interested in supporting and protecting his co-religionists being oppressed, killed and raped by their ancient sectarian enemies? Nah, they are just nasty bastards that want to destroy America.

Sadly america and americans often have a hard time getting over themselves. .

 

Well considering going in the other direction is regression, you got that point going for you, I guess.

And I'll be sure to note that a healthy well educated, lower indebted population with equal rights and opportunities for all, only benefits those that believe in it.

 

the Israelis could easily sail in an Iranian boat to provoke this calamity.

 

And the UK is solving the Iranian situation how?

 

Well there we have it.

 

No, the Iranians behaviour creates the way they're treated, not the other way around, you're just making excuses for a disgusting theocratic tyranny that is the bottom of every human rights list in the world.

The Shah recognised Israel, modernised Iran, advanced woman's rights and sought economic reform for the poor. The Iranian government are a just nasty bastards who want to destroy America and the rest of the West. Do tell me how helping the Houthi take over Yemen and oppress everyone or helping Hezbollah dominate the largely democratic Lebanon or propping up Assad is anything but aggressive terrorism?

 

In your opinion, others see it as destroying precious moral values for the sake of the few allowing them to dominate the many.

 

He has done fine so far. At the moment he waiting to see what the remaining signatories are going to do.

 

Huh? I'm sure you have a point, but it appears buried in obtuse obscurity.