All things Middle East related

[CRedskinsRule]

I agree that Iran is not going to just one day turn around and nuke us. That said, all global wars start locally. And there are a LOT of local tensions building up in 3 distinct areas, China/south sea, Russian western border, and specific to here the Saudi Iranian tension. And because in Russia and Iran specifically there is the government sanctioned propaganda that demonizes the US, its not hard to imagine scenarios where a client state or entity misinterprets or actively pushes upper limits of the major regional powers into irrational actions.

When, for example, Iran takes billions of dollars from the release of sanctions money and feeds it to non state organizations that seek the destabilization or destruction of Israel, and that entity decides attacking us interests is a means to that end. Would Iran acknowledge and take appropriate actions or would we have to respond.

I know that is a hypothetical but my point is that in regional conflicts tensions and missteps are far more likely than on a global scale. And Iran having an influx of money, power and status reminds me a lot of Chamberlains thinking that by appeasing a state that has intents on regional domination you create an environment for peace.

I think you just foster a more dangerous world.

Sent from my S6 Edge

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I agree that Iran is not going to just one day turn around and nuke us. That said, all global wars start locally. And there are a LOT of local tensions building up in 3 distinct areas, China/south sea, Russian western border, and specific to here the Saudi Iranian tension. And because in Russia and Iran specifically there is the government sanctioned propaganda that demonizes the US, its not hard to imagine scenarios where a client state or entity misinterprets or actively pushes upper limits of the major regional powers into irrational actions.

When, for example, Iran takes billions of dollars from the release of sanctions money and feeds it to non state organizations that seek the destabilization or destruction of Israel, and that entity decides attacking us interests is a means to that end. Would Iran acknowledge and take appropriate actions or would we have to respond.

I know that is a hypothetical but my point is that in regional conflicts tensions and missteps are far more likely than on a global scale. And Iran having an influx of money, power and status reminds me a lot of Chamberlains thinking that by appeasing a state that has intents on regional domination you create an environment for peace.

I think you just foster a more dangerous world.

Sent from my S6 Edge

As you are pointing out, it is a ridiculous thought to imagine Iran would curtail rather than expand it's vast terror agenda with the flood of NEW "sanction" money......

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Hog1

As you are pointing out, it is a ridiculous thought to imagine Iran would curtail rather than expand it's vast terror agenda with the flood of NEW "sanction" money......

also covered:
Full text: Obama gives a speech about the Iran nuclear deal - The Washington Post


a lot of the money would be going towards infrastructure and social programs where they have shortfalls now, but there's no doubt some of it would end up with the military or going towards groups we'd rather it not go to. but you've got to take care of the first order problems first.

the general jist is we're not naive, this doesn't solve every problem, don't trust - verify, we're not taking other options off the table if this doesn't work, but we've got to at least try.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by That Guy

also covered:
Full text: Obama gives a speech about the Iran nuclear deal - The Washington Post


a lot of the money would be going towards infrastructure and social programs where they have shortfalls now, but there's no doubt some of it would end up with the military or going towards groups we'd rather it not go to. but you've got to take care of the first order problems first.

the general jist is we're not naive, this doesn't solve every problem, don't trust - verify, we're not taking other options off the table if this doesn't work, but we've got to at least try.

I think Pres. Obama's foreign policy throughout his tenure has been naive. There is no reason to believe that under this agreement Iran's actions regarding there nuclear intentions will change. And their spending while sanctions have been in place shows where their priorities are, and it isn't social infrastructure. Sure they will spend a portion for of the released money on it+ but they also will have easier access and ability to fund organizations that intend to do harm to the Iraq, Saudi and Israeli states.

My concern is that this open the region to a very dangerous non nuclear arms race. And that will be very bad.

Sent from my S6 Edge