Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You tell me? Am I supposed to be privy to all the geo-political actions of Iran, Russia and Syria?
Here is the big question: What has Iran's action in Syria got to do with the nuclear deal??
Yes you are. If you think you can make a full and final analysis of the Iran nuclear deal without examining Iran's interests in Syria, then you have once again dug a hole for yourself. If you took the effort to research, you would know that Russia's massive investments in Iran's nuclear infrastructure will lead to Russia looking the other way and voting no on snap-back sanctions. A Syria that is not under Shiite influence will increase tension with Iran. I guess one course of action that can said about Iran's action in Syria would be that the Iranian deal has empowered Iran in making bolder decisions in the region.
But once again, your deflecting the simple question. The entire summer you touted this deal will strengthen ties with the United States diplomatically, economically, and will give moderation to the Iranian regime. Why then, has Iran decided to end negotiations with the United States (whether vocally or policy) post-nuclear deal?
Yes you are. If you think you can make a full and final analysis of the Iran nuclear deal without examining Iran's interests in Syria, then you have once again dug a hole for yourself. If you took the effort to research, you would know that Russia's massive investments in Iran's nuclear infrastructure will lead to Russia looking the other way and voting no on snap-back sanctions. A Syria that is not under Shiite influence will increase tension with Iran. I guess one course of action that can said about Iran's action in Syria would be that the Iranian deal has empowered Iran in making bolder decisions in the region.
But once again, your deflecting the simple question. The entire summer you touted this deal will strengthen ties with the United States diplomatically, economically, and will give moderation to the Iranian regime. Why then, has Iran decided to end negotiations with the United States (whether vocally or policy) post-nuclear deal?
And if you actually knew what the hell you were talking about (which you do not), you would know that Russia cannot just vote "no" on snap back sanctions
The nuclear deal was just that - a "nuclear" deal, not a deal that included Syria. The hope is that Iran would (will) become more open to western interests but nobody has ever suggested that they would suddenly become our buddy - more that we need to learn how to work with a foe. It will take years and years for the balance to shift (and hopefully the supreme leader will die soon, mostly because he is so at odds with a more moderate President and country as a whole).
As for "ending negotiations with the US" - I am not sure exactly what "negotiations" you are referring to - could you enlighten us? And like I said, actions speak louder than words, especially when it comes to Iran's supreme buffoon.
I still stand by this deal 100%. It was (is) the right thing to do for many different reasons. You need to accept that it is done, understand that this deal is primarily only about Iran's nuclear program, and stop reading more into things that you do not understand.
And if you actually knew what the hell you were talking about (which you do not), you would know that Russia cannot just vote "no" on snap back sanctions
There are two types of sanctions, United Nations Security Council and US/EU sanctions. UNSC sanctions are based on the votes of the UNSC. Russia has major economical and strategic ties to Iran. Once UNSC sanctions are released, they will be very hard to reinstate because of the Iran-Russia strategic relationship. US/EU sanctions will also be decided by a committee and US sanctions through legislature. EU-US sanctions if reinstated would have a limited impact because nations such as China and Russia can fill the void.
Quote:
The nuclear deal was just that - a "nuclear" deal, not a deal that included Syria. The hope is that Iran would (will) become more open to western interests but nobody has ever suggested that they would suddenly become our buddy - more that we need to learn how to work with a foe. It will take years and years for the balance to shift (and hopefully the supreme leader will die soon, mostly because he is so at odds with a more moderate President and country as a whole).
As for "ending negotiations with the US" - I am not sure exactly what "negotiations" you are referring to - could you enlighten us? And like I said, actions speak louder than words, especially when it comes to Iran's supreme buffoon.
I still stand by this deal 100%. It was (is) the right thing to do for many different reasons. You need to accept that it is done, understand that this deal is primarily only about Iran's nuclear program, and stop reading more into things that you do not understand.
If the deal is just linked to Iran, then why are sanctions based on Iranian terrorism on the table of being released? Why were particular terrorist taken off the "Terrorist List" due to the deal? Actions speak louder than words alright, this Rube Goldberg inspection system has given the confidence for Iran to send troops to Syria, in contrasts to U.S interests.
Anyhow, lets try this again. The bolded is where you once again have folded. You claimed moderation will come once Iran's economy flourishes from the release of sanctions. Where is the change in moderation of Iranian foreign policy post-US nuclear deal if they are seeking to ban correspondence with the United States?
Last edited by BMoreJuice; 10-08-2015 at 07:32 PM..
You conservatives need to throw up your hands and surrender. You're NOT gonna get that war with Iran that you've been salivating about for a decade.
And tell ya boy Netanyahu after that fact sinks into your thick skulls.
Conservatives don't want war with Iran. That's just your twisted agenda. Your war monger in Chief is the one who controls troop movements and wont bring the troops home.
Conservatives don't want war with Iran. That's just your twisted agenda. Your war monger in Chief is the one who controls troop movements and wont bring the troops home.
Because you say so. No proof needed right? Who do you think you are, Obama?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
