Iran called Trump's bluff

There are two key questions.

The first one is, will the U.S. military send up another UAV to spy on Iranian military installations?

The second one is, on June 27 will Iran surpass limits of its stockpile of enriched uranium set by the 2015 international nuclear deal unless European partners in the agreement do more to help it circumvent U.S. sanctions?

What I feared a year ago may happen. When Trump withdrew the U.S. from the JCPOA and sharply increased economic sanctions, he practically invited Iran to do the same. We are now seeing the consequences of that decision.

For more info, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.6d3b9b195630

 

Trump began the provocation toward war with Iran a year ago when the removed the U.S. from the JCPOA and hit Iran hard with economic sanctions.

Now it seems the lunatics are running the asylum.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has said that the United States is "considering a full range of options" regarding rising tensions with Iran, including military options, but emphasized that Trump has said that he does not want to go to war.

Pompeo hasn't learned yet? Americans do not trust anything Trump says. He has lied to us too many times. After all, he was the one who said, “No, it’s not what I meant. It’s what I said."

Pompeo offered a set of actions that could restore deterrence.

Now we are getting to what Trump really wants. "Restore deterrence" is code for trying to force Iran to do what Trump wants them to do. And, if they don't do what Trump wants them to do? Trump is "considering a full range of options, including military options" and regime change.

Here is the lunacy. “We’re not going to have Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters.

We already had an agreement with Iran that permanently barred Iran from making a nuke. Trump trashed it!!!

Is Trump bipolar? Did he forget that he removed the U.S. from the agreement? Does he think Americans forgot that part? Is he nuts?

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani says the White House is "suffering from mental disability" and behaving as "no sane person," in the wake of new sanctions imposed by Trump earlier this week which an Iranian spokesman said have closed the "channel of diplomacy forever."

Hmmm, interesting.

 

You make these statements with absolutely no support for your claims whatever! You say, "That is false." But you provide NOTHING to back your statement up!

Then you meander on to speculate, "Nobakht's comments were meant for home consumption." That is easy for you to claim, without any support for your statement at all, BUT NOBAKHT SAID THIS WITH THE AUTHORITY OF THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT, AND WERE SPOKEN DIRECTLY TO THE ENTIRE WORLD, Sandy!

And, even making the gigantic assumption that you are correct about the intent (to deceive), and that somehow this very important Iranian government official was intending these statements only for a Iranian audience, at the very least, it makes Nobakht and the Iranian government of which he is a part, a bunch of completely untrustworthy, abject LIARS! If they will lie to their own people like that, do you seriously think for one minute that they wouldn't lie to us -- the "Infidels"...?! You can't be that naive!

 

What a load. The agreement never permanently barred Iran from making a nuke. In fact all restrictions are lifted in 2031. Most nuclear restrictions lifted in 2026. As Obama said, the restrictions would slow Iran from making a nuke in 2 to 3 months (the breakout time) to one year. That in itself is laughable.

 

You got a real serious problem, man. Try reading the post again. Let me help you. I quoted a source. That's why the words are in italics. The link is at the bottom.

Nothing to worry about. Just another guy who voted for Trump. Trump attracts these types.

 

Read post 194.

What you are saying is one of Trump's lies. Haven't you learned yet?

 

So you know nothing of the sunset terms of the deal that have been written about extensively. Fascinating.

 

I, for one, think that it takes bigger balls to stand up to cowardly & influential war mongering Chicken Hawks and not attack Iran.

 

I would encourage everyone interested in this thread to read your Post #124, and to read the entire story referenced from its embedded link which came from the Chicago Tribune. It won't take long....

After reading every word in both your post and the Trib story, anyone with even only a basic level of reading comprehension must agree that there is NOTHING -- absolutely NOTHING -- that refutes, rebuts, or supersedes one word of the declaration issued by Iranian government spokesman Mohammad Baqer Nobakht -- "Iran’s military sites are off limits,” he said. “All information about these sites are classified. Iran will never allow such visits. Don’t pay attention to such remarks that are only a dream." Link: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...for-u-n-visit-to-military-sites-idUSKCN1B918E

You, @Sandy Shanks , claim that Nobakht made these statements as a deliberate lie, issued only for "internal consumption" -- but that is not (NOT) what was given out in his Iranian government-backed declaration to the entire world! You refuse to countenance that, and there is no logical reason for you to deny these very words spoken by Mohammad Nobakht, who is the head of the Management and Planning Organization of Iran, and who reports directly to Hassan Rouhani, the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran!

By continuing to deny the truth of Iran's intention to deceive either its own people (as you claim), or the entire world (as every objective media organization in the world has reported), you only make yourself look ridiculous. These delusional, dangerous Islamo-fanatics who rule Iran are not (NOT) to be trusted, Sandy, and the gullibility of your faction only empowers them further....

 

Did you read 194?

What are you talking about? Provide a source? Not a White House source, not a Trump source, a real source. May I suggest the IAEA or any of the signatories of JCPOA.

 

Okay, so you believe the Iranian government instead of the IAEA and America's allies. I understand that.

Trump says the same thing. Trump also agrees with the Iranian government when he says other nations should be be defending the Strait, not the U.S. navy. Do you see the problems you can run into when you support Trump? You can make a complete fool of yourself.

That's assuming you are American. I am beginning to have my doubts.

 

Oh, you mean something like Huff n Puff or you? Why don't you read it instead of continuing to prove you know little about it.

 

USA Today reports, "The man responsible for handling the diplomatic formalities and nuances of presidential meetings with foreign leaders is stepping down – and will not go with President Donald Trump to the G-20 summit in Japan – amid a probe into allegations that he harassed and intimidated staff, according to multiple media reports.

"Sean Lawler, who holds the rank of ambassador within the State Department, has been Trump's chief of protocol since December 2017. He was suspended indefinitely pending an investigation into his alleged harassment and discrimination of staff"

They are leaving like rats leaving a sinking ship.

 

When it comes to saying what Iran will or will not do when it makes official pronouncements about inspections, to everyone in the world, YES, I do believe what a high-ranking member of the Iranian government says. The IAEA is populated by a bunch of internationist bureaucrats who are paid handsomely to loiter in comfortable offices, take trips, conduct scripted demonstrations and other "theater". Like most of their sort, they're neither especially good or bad... they perform pro forma 'dance-steps', and are well-compensated to do so. But would I believe what one of these apparatchiks says about whether or not Iran will allow inspections at any site that it declares to be 'military'...? Naw -- I'll believe the Iranians every time about those kind of statements -- why would anyone NOT believe them?!

Truth (and, no, I can't 'prove' it): the Iranians probably did mention to Kerry's 'negotiators' that there couldn't be any inspections at military sites, but Kerry's people just blew it off as being an unimportant, non-essential detail. They had their "Big Enchilada" -- they had a 'Nuclear Agreement' to lay at the feet of their "Messiah" Obama, insuring that he would shine in the annals of history forever. As it is, though, because of this wholly-negligent, slipshod 'negotiation, he will simply be noted as someone who was more than willing to accept a completely defective, useless 'agreement', purely so that history would forget his stunning embarrassment during his inept, stupid handling of the Syrian "Red Line" affair....

But I'll tell you something, @Sandy Shanks , that may surprise you... The only thing that Iran would have to do now is agree to amend the old 'Obama' agreement so that every single square-inch of Iran is eligible for inspections, and I'd be willing to endorse it! But that idiotic 'military' exclusion was the disqualifying "Achilles' Heel".... Trump was wise to ditch it!

 

I provided a reliable source that proved there was no military exclusion and that Iran was permanently barred from making a nuke.

You keep repeating yourself and offering more rhetoric, but no sources other than an Iranian politician who agrees with Trump.

You are wasting my time.

 

Trump is a draft dodger, a coward, who never served his country. He was a capable athlete who suddenly developed a foot problem when his country asked him for help during the Vietnam conflict. He has virtually no experience with the military.

And now he is the Commander-in-Chief and it shows. "I'm not talking boots on the ground, I'm not saying we're going to send a million soldiers, I'm just saying if something would happen, it wouldn't last very long," Trump said.

"I don't need exit strategies."

"Well I hope we don't (go to war with Iran) but we're in a very strong position if something should happen, It would not last very long."

This is how our President talks about a war with Iran.

In Iraq, Saddam's army and air force were defeated before the war even started. It took less than 30 days to take Baghdad. Yet, the war lasted over eight years and it cost in the trillions. 5,000 Americans were killed, 25,000 more wounded, and an estimated one million Iraqis were killed.

The war in Iraq would be a walk in the park compared to war with Iran.

"it wouldn't last very long."

"I don't need exit strategies."

What a pathetic little man.

 

(*Sigh!*) I READ your information, Sandy, and it proved nothing! It did not countermand, negate, or supersede anything that the Iranian government said through Mohammad Nobakht, the head of the Management and Planning Organization of Iran. He didn't mince his words, Sandy -- he said, " "Iran’s military sites are off limits.” “All information about these sites are classified. Iran will never allow such visits. Don’t pay attention to such remarks that are only a dream."

Those are the words and the statement from the Iranian government, Sandy... not Trump, and not me. You reject thisit all out of hand, and for the life of me I cannot understand your total rejection. As I said earlier, "I can lead a horse to water, but I cannot make it drink".... We are wasting each others' time, Sandy, and I'm exhausted from trying to help you see something so OBVIOUS....

I wish you luck, Sandy, and lots of it. I suspect that life for you is probably very difficult if you have as much trouble understanding everything else as you do something as simple as this....

 

The Hill reports, "The Senate will vote Friday on a measure to block President Trump from taking military action against Iran without congressional approval.

"The amendment from Kaine and Udall would prevent Trump from using funding to take military action against Iran without congressional approval. Supporters of the amendment argue Trump could still use action without approval if American troops are attacked."

It is not likely to pass. It lacks Republican support.

 

Yes, I agree. Donald Trump, like any American President must conform to the War Powers Act (War Powers Resolution of 1973) or be guilty of deliberately breaking that law. The only exception would be if there were a sudden attack on the United States or its territories that requires immediate action in order to defend American lives and/or property. And even then, the president must get Congressional permission to wage war as soon afterward as possible!

At least that's the THEORY....

In 2011, when "Messiah" Obama decided to use American air power to overthrow the legitimate government of Libya, he did it without complying with this same War Powers Act. Libya had not threatened the U. S. in any way, and had, in fact, been at peace with us for many years. Obama should have been impeached and removed from office for this egregious, completely unnecessary military aggression which accomplished nothing of any benefit to the United States or Libya....

At least that's what SHOULD have happened....

But, our wonderous, "progressive" Obama was above the law, as nearly all Democrat Party 'luminaries' consider themselves to be.... (Hint: Democrat candidate Hillary, breaking laws concerning national security and classified information....)

 

The Iranians are very kind, well educated, rational and generous people. I know this because I've been to Iran and enjoyed their hospitality, first hand.
Their government consists of basically 2 elements:
- the secular reformists who have the support of younger Iranians would like to modernize Iran, do away with the morality police & bring Iran into the 21st century
- the religious hard liners who would like to impose Sharia law on all Iranians.

While their religious hard liners may be strict to the point of what Westerners would consider brutal, they are not ignorant nor are they suicidal.

Many aspects you may consider INSANE are simply antiquated cultural differences and the brutal treatment of gays and "wayward" women are no different from Western witch burning, the Inquisition of long ago.
America's unwillingness to support Iran's moderate reformist element that has repeatedly reached out to America(1) is partly responsible for the durability of the religious extremists and their cruelty.

Cultural differences are different from "insanity" & will probably remain.
For example, the first time I was befriended by a young Muslim man who was eager to treat me to, tea, meals & show me the local ancient ruins, he attempted to hold my hand after explaining that the gesture had no homosexual overtones & was simply to communicate that I, an obvious Westerner, was under his protection and that we were friends. After noticing that many men were holding each others hands I became used to that and countless other Islamic cultural differences.

In other words, just because cultural differences like that may seem uncomfortable, irrational or even "insane", it's not up to the US to make Iran like America or impose Western culture on the Iranians.

The ill fated Nuclear deal did as much as anything to support Iran's moderate reformists, improve essential US - Iranian relations & help bring Iran into the 21st century as anything.

Unfortunately, Trump's subsequent AIPAC driven abrogation of the Nuclear & obsessive pandering to Israel's right wing extremists who control US Mid East policy making has only served to strengthen the hand of Iran's draconian religious extremists, make Iran's peace seeking moderate reformist look like fools & increase regional tensions exponentially.



(1) "Iran's President Rouhani Won't Stop Reaching Out to the American People"
https://www.theatlantic.com/interna...ont-stop-reaching-out-american-people/310856/

 

“We’re not going to have Iran have a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters.

There are two key questions.

The first one is, will the U.S. military send up another UAV to spy on Iranian military installations?

The second one is, on June 27 will Iran surpass limits of its stockpile of enriched uranium set by the 2015 international nuclear deal unless European partners in the agreement do more to help it circumvent U.S. sanctions?

Iran will speed up enrichment of uranium and pull further out of the nuclear deal with world powers, Iranian officials said, in a move that could bring additional retaliatory measures by the United States in the form of sanctions or even military strikes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...d-failing-nuke-deal-trump-threats/1568298001/

So, what is Trump going to do now?

Trump is facing two major crises, the Iranian problem and his trade war with China, both are of his own making and both occurring at the same time.

 

It appears you have discovered the "Iran deal" was no deal at all and have jumped to a bunch of speculation again which is something you constantly do.
For the second time today I ask you to just wait and see what happens instead of shouting questions off into the sky.
Hopefully, the Democrats will nominate your choice, Joe Biden, and you can then complain about his curing cancer.

 

It is most likely that we have continued to surveil a variety of sites and activities in Iran with both our satellites in orbit, and with our drones, very much like the one that Iran shot down over internationally-recognized waters, while it was in internationally-recognized airspace. There are other monitoring methods that we can use, too, but they are highly classified.

My guess, based entirely on supposition at this point, is that if Iran engages in any more acts of hostility toward the United States, President Trump will order an appropriate American Armed Forces undertaking that will disable the Iranian ability to conduct any more of them -- for a very long time to come... perhaps, permanently. As soon as possible, the president will call Congress together to inform them of what has happened, request its support, and thus be in compliance with the War Powers Act (or "Resolution", of 1973).

China? Different situation altogether, obviously....

My guess, which is only a guess, is that if Xi Jinping refuses to negotiate with Trump for a full and fair trade deal, which recognizes the requirement of honoring American patents, copyrights, and other ownership of intellectual property, it means the Chinese are convinced that Trump is going to be re-elected.

But, if they appear to acquiesce, seem to negotiate in "good faith" and agree to a few things, request a series of subsequent talks to 'hammer-out-the-details', and other piddling half-measures, it means the Chinese are convinced that a Democrat will be elected in November 2020. Thus, all they would have to do is drag their feet, talk, plan more meetings, talk, attend more meetings, talk, drag their feet some more, and dawdle around until January 2021, when some fly-weight Democrat who has no understanding whatever of the international business world (Obama comes immediately to mind) takes over the White House, and then the Chinese can relax and "have their way" with the "new guy".... .

 

"VIENNA (Reuters) - Iran is still short of the maximum amount of enriched uranium it is allowed to have under its deal with major powers but it is on course to reach that limit at the weekend, the latest data from U.N. nuclear inspectors shows, diplomats say.

"On Wednesday, the U.N. nuclear watchdog verified that Iran had roughly 200 kg of low-enriched uranium, below the deal’s 202.8 kg limit, three diplomats who follow the agency’s work said.

"Two of the diplomats said Iran was producing at a rate of around 1 kg a day, meaning it could go over the line soon after the meeting of senior officials from Iran, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China in Vienna on Friday."

So far, there has been no reaction from the White House. Trump, who pokes his nose into just about everything, hasn't tweeted a word about this development.