At the time, large portions of centrist Twitter used it as an excuse to claim that Bernie was a Russian agent. Which is a thing they do on a fairly regular basis.
4 Likes
The UK will do as they are told, no matter what, no matter how stupid, as per usual.
Something something special relationship something.
1 Like
11 Likes
…
BTW, for anyone wanting to get a better understanding of modern Iranian history, this is worth half an hour:
8 Likes
This post did not get the attention it deserves. Iran announced 2 weeks ago that they will sell oil in €uros. The USA can run its enormous deficit because the dollar is the world’s money as far as oil is concerned. Coincidence?
Expect somme tensions about the Chinese yuan soon.
11 Likes
Related:
Most relevant bit:
6 Likes
So, let me get this straight. Since taking office he’s pulled us out of the Paris Accord, TPP, UNESCO, not to mention threats to withdraw from NATO and NAFTA, and now he’s breaking the Iran deal? Something that basically had zero downside to the US? It’s as if the only thing he can consistently do in life or in politics is break agreements.
Why should North Korea or anybody else ever feel as if we’re capable of negotiating in good faith when we can’t keep up our side of any of the agreements we help put in place?
The Art of the Deal indeed.
15 Likes
You are aware of our foreign secretary, yes? He’s about as good at international diplomacy as the donald is.
5 Likes
Here’s a quick thread of some relevant history:
Radical twitter, but links to mainstream articles. And this is well-established history, anyway.
…
Also, let’s not forget this little detail…
10 Likes
Ooh, there’s a pile of suitable anagrams in that book title, “Adolf Theatre”, “death floater”, “faltered oath”, “foetal hatred”, and “freeload that”.
5 Likes
But only just about. Nobody is as good at international diplomacy as Spanky.
2 Likes
It means NK will never get rid of its nuclear weapons. The only reason Trump is going to sit down with Pyongyang is the presence of a viable North Korean ICBM. Without that, Kim Jong Un would be powerless against the US.
And don’t think that lesson isn’t being weighed up in Tehran right now where they will be sizing up the risk of making a dash for a relatively simple warhead which could be sent to Jerusalem or Riyadh at short notice.
1 Like
Under the US decision, companies based in the other parties to the agreement will face sanctions if they trade with Iran. So the US has basically told non-US companies they can either do business in Iran or be sanctioned.
Whether or not the Europeans have the balls to threaten the US in response is another question. In the early 1980s, the US threatened sanctions against Rolls Royce when it was part of a massive deal to provide turbines for a gas pipeline from the USSR to Western Europe. Thatcher stood up to them and said that was unacceptable and the US blinked. However, I suspect Trump is too dumb to avoid another trade dispute.
The UK’s reaction will be especially interesting; it has repeatedly said the deal with Iran was working, but is also the US’s lapdog. It would be extraordinary if the UK did not back the US if it came to conflict - however, I suspect that Theresa May’s government could fall as a consequence of UK forces getting involved.
2 Likes
Oil went over $70 per barrel yesterday for the first time in four years.
Donald’s friends in Riyadh will be very happy with his performance.
5 Likes
He’s got to do something about that inverse-raccoon look with the white eyes and fake tan skin. Looks more undead every day. It creeps me out just to look at him.
2 Likes
Very much this. The Iran deal was exceptionally good in the US perspective, but it gave Iran enough (ie. the end of sanctions and access to frozen assets) that they were ready and willing to take it. It was a brilliant foreign policy success by Obama, and one of the biggest achievements of his whole presidency.
So of course Trump fucks it all up for nothing, based on his reflexive hate of everything Obama said and did, and some blatantly obvious bullshit from Saudis and Israel.
4 Likes
I think the issue is not whether the US or someone else ‘leads’. The problem is that Trump has stated that the US will not only not lead, it will actively block.
“We will be instituting the highest level of economic sanction. Any nation that helps Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons could also be strongly sanctioned by the United States.”
In other words, the US will impose sanctions on Iran - that means no trade with US firms or trade with the US for firms that trade with Iran.
What constitutes helping Iran in its quest for nuclear weapons?
By Trump’s speech - basically anything that in any helps anyone in Iran, helps the regime in 'its quest for nuclear weapons". Certainly anything that involves helping their nuclear energy programme would be a big no-no.
If there is no trade or technical assistance with non-weapon nuclear R&D to be offered, what exactly is left for anyone else to use to negotiate with Iran with?
Essentially Trump has done his usual negotiating ploy of saying “I don’t like this deal so I’m not going through with it” in the expectation that the other party really wants/needs the deal and will come crawling back to accept whatever terms Trump wants.
That may work here. It may not.
Trouble is that sort of tactic while fairly despicable is fine when all that happens if it goes wrong is that you argue a bit in court and have to pay some lawyers.
When you’re trying those tactics on nation states, people often end up dying.
No, they couldn’t.
"Making matters worse, the deal’s inspection provisions lack adequate mechanisms to prevent, detect, and punish cheating and don’t even have the unqualified right to inspect many important locations, including military facilities. Not only does the deal fail to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but it also fails to address the regime’s development of ballistic missiles that could deliver nuclear warheads.
Finally, the deal does nothing to constrain Iran’s destabilizing activities, including its support for terrorism."
That’s a fairly hefty shopping list, none of which would be satisfied by Iran simply saying “We are no longer pursuing nuclear weapons”.
2 Likes
True, but…
Trump wasn’t the only one involved in this. While Bolton/Kelly/Mattis/etc are also racist scum, their primary motivation is not Obama. They’ve been itching for a US war on Iran ever since the fall of the Shah.
There’s been a full-court press on anti-Iranian propaganda over the last week. Netanyahu’s speech, the MEK conference, the ridiculous court decision ordering Iran to pay compensation for 9/11, etc.
Netanyahu launched another attack against the Iranians in Syria today, BTW.
http://time.com/5270362/israel-attacked-syria-trump-iran-deal/
4 Likes
I think this is the sort of thing people are worried about:
4 Likes
