Iran Nuclear Deal: USA remains out under Biden; Russia and Iran collaborating on nuclear items

[ZoeGod]

Great me too.
WRONG

This notion where you just remove bases is fukking stupid. Especially when we get favorable conditions in places like UAE.
And the bases cut down on reaction time.
an obvious statement devoid of any value.

I guess you have no problem with Russia doing it.

I don't think many of you realize that Russia controlled the Mid East in the 60s and 70s.

...and let Russia dictate the terms?

And give Iran another base to fund terror groups?

Did you know that TODAY Morocco kicked Iran's diplomats out for doing this very thing?

Morocco cuts diplomatic ties with Iran over Western Sahara feud

You are NAIVE.
Absolutely.
Which wars are we in besides Afghanistan?

What you're even advocating for is what we have. The Joe Biden model.

The Forerunner of Trump’s Plan for Afghanistan: Joe Biden’s

Joe Biden Didn't Lose Iraq
History didn't start yesterday.

We just gained some semblance of energy independence and its long term potential isn't known. Thus, this is our fortune for now:

Ok let me start to explain the rationale of my position:
Why close US bases in the Mideast? They are extremely vulnerable to Iran's asymmetrical capabilities. And since Saudi Arabia is our vassal state they will simply try the push the proxy war with Iran as far as possible and know we will have their back in the event of war. They will drag us to war. So they could do something stupid especially with Prince Bin Salman on the cusp of being King. He wants to defeat Iran and the US is dragged into another Mideast misadventure. We have seen the pitiful capabilities of the Patriot missile system in Yemen. The Houthis are firing Scud missiles that the Patriot missiles struggle to shoot down. Iran has a vast ballistic missile arsenal which is spread out across the country and is in deep underground bases. American military bases in the Gulf are not in good position especially in the event of war with Iran. Iran's follows the A2/AD military doctrine. Which is anti-access and anti-denial. Iran would launch a massive combined arms attack. Here is what it would look like:

Iran will likely exploit the element of surprise to subject U.S. forces in the Gulf to a concentrated, combined-arms attack. Using coastal radars, UAVs, and civilian vessels for initial targeting information, Iranian surface vessels could swarm U.S. surface combatants in narrow waters, firing a huge volume of rockets and missiles in an attempt to overwhelm the Navy’s AEGIS combat system and kinetic defenses like the Close-In Weapons System and Rolling Airframe Missile, and possibly drive U.S. vessels toward prelaid minefields. Shore-based ASCMs and Klub-K missiles launched from “civilian” vessels may augment these strikes. Iran’s offensive maritime exclusion platforms could exploit commercial maritime traffic and shore clutter to mask their movement and impede U.S. counter-targeting. While these attacks are underway, Iran could use its SRBMs and proxy forces to strike U.S. airfields, bases, and ports. Iran will likely seek to overwhelm U.S. and partner missile defenses with salvos of less accurate missiles before using more accurate SRBMs armed with submunitions to destroy unsheltered aircraft and other military systems. Proxy groups could attack forward bases using presighted guided mortars and rockets, and radiation-seeking munitions to destroy radars and C4 nodes.
After initial attacks to attrite U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, Iran will likely use its maritime exclusion systems to control passage through the Strait of Hormuz. Mine warfare should feature prominently in Iranian attempts to close the Strait. As with many of its A2/AD systems, Iran could employ a combination of “smart” influence mines along with large quantities of less capable weapons such as surface contact mines. Iran may deploy many of its less sophisticated mines from a variety of surface vessels, while it reserves its submarine force to lay influence mines covertly. Though Iran may wish to sink or incapacitate a U.S. warship with a mine, its primary goal is probably to deny passage and force the U.S. Navy to engage in prolonged mine countermeasure (MCM) operations while under threat from Iranian shore-based attacks. U.S. MCM ships, which typically lack the armor and self-defenses of larger warships, would be unlikely to survive in the Strait until these threats are suppressed.

Iran could deploy its land-based ASCMs from camouflaged and hardened sites to firing positions along its coastline and on Iranian-occupied islands in the Strait of Hormuz while placing decoys at false firing positions to complicate U.S. counterstrikes. Hundreds of ASCMs may cover the Strait, awaiting target cueing data from coastal radars, UAVs, surface vessels, and submarines. Salvo and multiple axis attacks could enable these ASCMs to saturate U.S. defenses. Similar to the way in which Iran structured its ballistic missile attacks, salvos of less capable ASCMs might be used to exhaust U.S. defenses, paving the way for attacks by more advanced missiles.
Undoubtedly aware that the United States’ ability to bring military power to bear is influenced by the demand for forces in other regions, Iran may seek to expand the geographical scope of a conflict in order to divert U.S. attention and resources elsewhere. Iran’s terrorist proxies, perhaps aided by Quds Force operatives, could be employed to threaten U.S. interests in other theaters. Iran could conceivably leverage its relationship with Hezbollah to attempt to draw Israel into the conflict or tap Hezbollah’s clandestine networks to carry out attacks in other regions.

This does not take into account the S-300 which Iran has.

The US can defeat the S-300 system only if they bring more aircraft carriers and have time to plan and build up their forces.I highly doubt Iran will sit quietly like Saddam did and let US forces build up prepping for military operations against Iran. Now the biggest issue is they would not be able to get close to the Gulf since it has pre-laid minefield set, Iran's vast anti-ship missiles clogging pathways and also ballistic missiles. So fighter jets will have to travel at a great distance from the Indian ocean. This is a problem because it wastes time and fuel. Another thing too is that these jets cannot carry heavy bunker buster bombs which would slow them down and have them exposed to Iran redundant and deadly air defense system. Iran's use of S-300 isn't to defeat the US air force. The US will simply use cruise missiles and stealth bombers to take them out. However, the fact that the US will have to destroy the S-300's before sending in conventional air force means that Iran buys time to use its military to retaliate against US interests. Without S-300 much of Iran's offensive abilities wouldn't last past the second or third wave. With the S-300 the first and second wave attacks will be against the air defense and not the offensive abilities. That is to say, it will protect Iran's deterrence ability and increase the cost of a war At serious price.

This is my reason why we should be neutral so we do not get dragged into war. I guarantee you if we let the Saudis and Iran to their own devices they will not go to war. Simply because they want the oil to pass through. They do not want to fukk up their money. However, us backing the Saudis gives them the confidence to keep poking at Iran as far as they can and run to Uncle Sam to save the day if Iran ever lashes out. In regards to Syria. Russia and Turkey are running the show. We have no influence or leverage. Iran already has their land bridge so the US failed to stop that. The Syrian Kurds are more interested in having their own semi-autonomous state than fighting Assad. Us backing the Kurds is making Russia and Turkey closer which is a disaster. The rebels are defeated and lost the war. So even then we have no clue why we are in Syria. Assad,Russia and Iran won. Meanwhile, we are antagonizing a major NATO ally. Seems like another US mid-east failure.
And the US is involved with plenty conflicts in the Mideast. Yemen, Syria,Iraq, Libya etc. US spec ops are stretched over thin in Africa and the Mideast. All of this benefits China. Obama was smart to pivot to Asia because the Mideast is a lost cause. However, we are still entangled in "colonial" wars in the Mideast and North Africa with no end in sight. The constant warfare in the Mideast is draining American resources and manpower while China is slowly building its power in Asia.

In all by backing the Saudis and Israel we are heading towards a confrontation with Iran. Either these two nations will drag us in a bloody war with Iran which will have no benefit on us whatsoever.

dude is making five posts in a row like an unhinged lunatic

it's so bizarre that he's a super nationalist stan for the state when he was a major conspiracy guy on reddit before

How you pro black but support American imperialistic foreign policy that has not benefited black people in America?

 

[hashmander]

israel dikkriders vs russia dikkriders.

i hate both of those codified racist and vile countries.

 

[Pressure]

israel dikkriders vs russia dikkriders.

i hate both of those codified racist and vile countries.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

Iran without nuclear weapons got Israel with nuclear weapons shook AF. America is not gonna go to another costly war. The Persians
are not Iraqis, they are united and will absolutely die for the mullah. May god protect Iran from the forces of destruction.

Millions of people and families enjoying their life right now eventually dying for what? Smh

Persians HAVE and ALWAYS will be superior to Arabs in warfare and everything else.

 

[Bawon Samedi]

America should have not invaded Iraq. They made that mistake and it blew up in their face as usual. Delusional American liberal hegemony of spreading democracy and national building has led to destruction and chaos in the Mideast since 2001.
Can’t complain about Shi’a death squads when you invaded Iran’s arch nemesis and empowered Iran. You reap what you sow.

Yep... Invading Iraq only empowered Iran and now the west is trying to fix that mistake. lol.

 

[Dr. Acula]

How you pro black but support American imperialistic foreign policy that has not benefited black people in America?

Mr Zoe did you happen to witness him defending American Interventionist policy in Haiti?


Let me find that thread..

Edit: China to invest 30 billion USD in Haiti

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Ok let me start to explain the rationale of my position:
Why close US bases in the Mideast? They are extremely vulnerable to Iran's asymmetrical capabilities. And since Saudi Arabia is our vassal state they will simply try the push the proxy war with Iran as far as possible and know we will have their back in the event of war. They will drag us to war. So they could do something stupid especially with Prince Bin Salman on the cusp of being King. He wants to defeat Iran and the US is dragged into another Mideast misadventure. We have seen the pitiful capabilities of the Patriot missile system in Yemen. The Houthis are firing Scud missiles that the Patriot missiles struggle to shoot down. Iran has a vast ballistic missile arsenal which is spread out across the country and is in deep underground bases. American military bases in the Gulf are not in good position especially in the event of war with Iran. Iran's follows the A2/AD military doctrine. Which is anti-access and anti-denial. Iran would launch a massive combined arms attack. Here is what it would look like:


This does not take into account the S-300 which Iran has.

The US can defeat the S-300 system only if they bring more aircraft carriers and have time to plan and build up their forces.I highly doubt Iran will sit quietly like Saddam did and let US forces build up prepping for military operations against Iran. Now the biggest issue is they would not be able to get close to the Gulf since it has pre-laid minefield set, Iran's vast anti-ship missiles clogging pathways and also ballistic missiles. So fighter jets will have to travel at a great distance from the Indian ocean. This is a problem because it wastes time and fuel. Another thing too is that these jets cannot carry heavy bunker buster bombs which would slow them down and have them exposed to Iran redundant and deadly air defense system. Iran's use of S-300 isn't to defeat the US air force. The US will simply use cruise missiles and stealth bombers to take them out. However, the fact that the US will have to destroy the S-300's before sending in conventional air force means that Iran buys time to use its military to retaliate against US interests. Without S-300 much of Iran's offensive abilities wouldn't last past the second or third wave. With the S-300 the first and second wave attacks will be against the air defense and not the offensive abilities. That is to say, it will protect Iran's deterrence ability and increase the cost of a war At serious price.

This is my reason why we should be neutral so we do not get dragged into war. I guarantee you if we let the Saudis and Iran to their own devices they will not go to war. Simply because they want the oil to pass through. They do not want to fukk up their money. However, us backing the Saudis gives them the confidence to keep poking at Iran as far as they can and run to Uncle Sam to save the day if Iran ever lashes out. In regards to Syria. Russia and Turkey are running the show. We have no influence or leverage. Iran already has their land bridge so the US failed to stop that. The Syrian Kurds are more interested in having their own semi-autonomous state than fighting Assad. Us backing the Kurds is making Russia and Turkey closer which is a disaster. The rebels are defeated and lost the war. So even then we have no clue why we are in Syria. Assad,Russia and Iran won. Meanwhile, we are antagonizing a major NATO ally. Seems like another US mid-east failure.
And the US is involved with plenty conflicts in the Mideast. Yemen, Syria,Iraq, Libya etc. US spec ops are stretched over thin in Africa and the Mideast. All of this benefits China. Obama was smart to pivot to Asia because the Mideast is a lost cause. However, we are still entangled in "colonial" wars in the Mideast and North Africa with no end in sight. The constant warfare in the Mideast is draining American resources and manpower while China is slowly building its power in Asia.

In all by backing the Saudis and Israel we are heading towards a confrontation with Iran. Either these two nations will drag us in a bloody war with Iran which will have no benefit on us whatsoever.


How you pro black but support American imperialistic foreign policy that has not benefited black people in America?

None of this is a good enough reason to do anything you're saying

All you've done is describe the battlefield, but you have no goals outside of backing out of everywhere, and always doing nothing.

Thats your answer to all of this.

Abandon the Saudis. Abandon the Middle East. Leave everywhere.

How does this fix or address anything?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

:ALERTRED::ALERTRED:

​

Revealed: Trump team hired spy firm for ‘dirty ops’ on Iran arms deal

Revealed: Trump team hired spy firm for ‘dirty ops’ on Iran arms deal
Julian BorgerSat 5 May 2018 21.00 BST
Israeli agency told to find incriminating material on Obama diplomats who negotiated deal with Tehran

Aides to Donald Trump, the US president, hired an Israeli private intelligence agency to orchestrate a “dirty ops” campaign against key individuals from the Obama administration who helped negotiate the Iran nuclear deal, the Observer can reveal.

People in the Trump camp contacted private investigators in May last year to “get dirt” on Ben Rhodes, who had been one of Barack Obama’s top national security advisers, and Colin Kahl, deputy assistant to Obama, as part of an elaborate attempt to discredit the deal.

The extraordinary revelations come days before Trump’s 12 May deadline to either scrap or continue to abide by the international deal limiting Iran’s nuclear programme.

Jack Straw, who as foreign secretary was involved in earlier efforts to restrict Iranian weapons, said: “These are extraordinary and appalling allegations but which also illustrate a high level of desperation by Trump and [the Israeli prime minister] Benjamin Netanyahu, not so much to discredit the deal but to undermine those around it.”

One former high-ranking British diplomat with wide experience of negotiating international peace agreements, requesting anonymity, said: “It’s bloody outrageous to do this. The whole point of negotiations is to not play dirty tricks like this.”

Sources said that officials linked to Trump’s team contacted investigators days after Trump visited Tel Aviv a year ago, his first foreign tour as US president. Trump promised Netanyahu that Iran would never have nuclear weapons and suggested that the Iranians thought they could “do what they want” since negotiating the nuclear deal in 2015. A source with details of the “dirty tricks campaign” said: “The idea was that people acting for Trump would discredit those who were pivotal in selling the deal, making it easier to pull out of it.”

Benjamin Netanyahu on Israeli television, describing how Iran has continued with its plans to make nuclear weapons. Photograph: Jim Hollander/EPA
According to incendiary documents seen by the Observer, investigators contracted by the private intelligence agency were told to dig into the personal lives and political careers of Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser for strategic communications, and Kahl, a national security adviser to the former vice-president Joe Biden. Among other things they were looking at personal relationships, any involvement with Iran-friendly lobbyists, and if they had benefited personally or politically from the peace deal.

Investigators were also apparently told to contact prominent Iranian Americans as well as pro-deal journalists – from the New York Times, MSNBC television, the Atlantic, Vox website and Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper among others – who had frequent contact with Rhodes and Kahl in an attempt to establish whether they had violated any protocols by sharing sensitive intelligence. They are believed to have looked at comments made by Rhodes in a 2016 New York Times profile in which he admitted relying on inexperienced reporters to create an “echo chamber” that helped sway public opinion to secure the deal. It is also understood that the smear campaign wanted to establish if Rhodes was among those who backed a request by Susan Rice, Obama’s final national security adviser, to unmask the identitiesof Trump transition officials caught up in the surveillance of foreign targets.

Although sources have confirmed that contact and an initial plan of attack was provided to private investigators by representatives of Trump, it is not clear how much work was actually undertaken, for how long or what became of any material unearthed.

Neither is it known if the black ops constituted only a strand of a wider Trump-Netanyahu collaboration to undermine the deal or if investigators targeted other individuals such as John Kerry, the lead American signatory to the deal. Both Rhodes and Kahl said they had no idea of the campaign against them. Rhodes said: “I was not aware, though sadly am not surprised. I would say that digging up dirt on someone for carrying out their professional responsibilities in their positions as White House officials is a chillingly authoritarian thing to do.”

A spokesman for the White House’s national security council offered “no comment” when approached. However, the revelations are not the first time that claims of “dirty tricks” have been aimed at the Trump camp. Special counsel Robert Mueller is leading an investigation into apparent attempts by Trump’s inner-circle to dig up damaging information on Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential campaign.

Missiles are paraded through Tehran on Iran’s annual army day on 18 April. Photograph: Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images
Of particular interest is a meeting involving the US president’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr, his brother-in-law Jared Kushner and then-campaign chair Paul Manafort and a Kremlin-connected Russian lawyer who had promised damaging information about Clinton.

Trump has repeatedly signalled his intention to scrap the Iran deal, denouncing it as “the worst deal ever.” In a January speech the US president accused his predecessor of having “curried favour with the Iranian regime in order to push through the disastrously flawed Iran nuclear deal.”

Last Monday, Netanyahu, accused Iran of continuing to hide and expand its nuclear weapons know-how after the 2015 deal, presenting what he claimed was “new and conclusive proof” of violations.

However, European powers including Britain responded by saying the Israeli prime minister’s claims reinforced the need to keep the deal.

On Thursday the UN secretary general Antonio Guterres urged Trump not to walk away from the deal, warning that there was a real risk of war if the 2015 agreement was not preserved. The following day details emerged of some unusual shadow diplomacy by Kerry, meeting a top-ranking Iranian official in New York to discuss how to preserve the deal.

It was the second time in around two months that Kerry had met foreign minister Javad Zarif to apparently strategise over rescuing a pact they spent years negotiating during the Obama administration. On Sunday Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, will arrive in Washington, hoping to persuade Trump to keep the deal, known as the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA).

Straw, who was foreign secretary between 2001 and 2006, said: “The campaign against the JCPOA has been characterised by abuse and misinformation. It is the best chance of ensuring Iran never develops a nuclear weapons programme, and it is insane to suggest abandoning the deal could do anything but endanger international security.”

 

[ZoeGod]

Mr Zoe did you happen to witness him defending American Interventionist policy in Haiti?


Let me find that thread..

Edit: China to invest 30 billion USD in Haiti

This is why I oppose American foreign policy because since day one the UNited States has done nothing but to screw with Haiti. As a Haitian it would be an insult to support the US’s foreign affairs after what they have done rob haiti. Fomenting civil war and violence in Haiti. We Haitians know and feel what it’s like to be screwed by the US. I oppose American liberal hegemony foreign policy which is spreading democracy at the battle of a gun however at the same time I’m satisfied that it will be a money drain to the US in the long run.

 

[Ya' Cousin Cleon]

This is why I oppose American foreign policy because since day one the UNited States has done nothing but to screw with Haiti. As a Haitian it would be an insult to support the US’s foreign affairs after what they have done rob haiti. Fomenting civil war and violence in Haiti. We Haitians know and feel what it’s like to be screwed by the US. I oppose American liberal hegemony foreign policy which is spreading democracy at the battle of a gun however at the same time I’m satisfied that it will be a money drain to the US in the long run.

How do you feel about China investing money into Haiti breh

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

This is why I oppose American foreign policy because since day one the UNited States has done nothing but to screw with Haiti. As a Haitian it would be an insult to support the US’s foreign affairs after what they have done rob haiti. Fomenting civil war and violence in Haiti. We Haitians know and feel what it’s like to be screwed by the US. I oppose American liberal hegemony foreign policy which is spreading democracy at the battle of a gun however at the same time I’m satisfied that it will be a money drain to the US in the long run.

Don't take it so bad. I have a certain connection to Jamaica.

 

[ZoeGod]

None of this is a good enough reason to do anything you're saying

All you've done is describe the battlefield, but you have no goals outside of backing out of everywhere, and always doing nothing.

Thats your answer to all of this.

Abandon the Saudis. Abandon the Middle East. Leave everywhere.

How does this fix or address anything?

The US policy towards the Mideast should be to let the oil flow through the Persian Gulf. However outside of that do not get involved in social engineering like regime change. For example the Syrian civil war did not directly threaten oil in the Persian Gulf. Syria is oil poor. So what the should have done was simply let regional power figure out Syria. Which we sort of did. There is nothing of value in Syria for the US. That means not backing the rebels or any faction. Let the war play out. Same with Libya. With Yemen only get involve if ISIS or Al Qaeda is a problem. Outside of that let Iran and Saudi fight it out via their proxies.Getting rid of ISIS was the right thing to do however since ISIS is gone pull out. You cannot name one success story in the Mideast except the Gulf war. Which ironically Bush liberated Kuwait and pulled out. He fought against invading Iraq. His idiot son would move on and invade and plunge the region into chaos.

Also by being antagonistic to Iran the US is pushing them further and further to the Chinese camp which in the long term will bite the US.

It really isn't in the US interest to be bogged down in the middle east, fighting iran on behalf of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

It is simply is not in the US' long term interest. This only gives China a freerer hand to dominate the Asian Pacific.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

The US policy towards the Mideast should be to let the oil flow through the Persian Gulf.

yeah...that doesn't work out so well for the US when winds shift. We have to ensure a stable source of resources

I think you forgot what happened in the 70s.

We already tried that strategy.

I highly suggest you either watch the 8! hour documentary or read the book of Daniel Yergin's THE PRIZE.

It changed my entire view on oil geopolitics when the full context of the history of oil was explained to me.

WW1. WW2. Etc. All oil influenced.



The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money, and Power - Wikipedia

However outside of that do not get involved in social engineering like regime change. For example the Syrian civil war did not directly threaten oil in the Persian Gulf. Syria is oil poor.

OIL PIPELINE, SON.

C'mon now.

Gazprom already has deals with the Kurds.

Don't forget the bigger picture here.

So what the should have done was simply let regional power figure out Syria. Which we sort of did. There is nothing of value in Syria for the US. That means not backing the rebels or any faction. Let the war play out.

you contradicted yourself

Same with Libya.

yeah...not sure what that end goal was...not a Gaddafi fan...but...

Blame the French

With Yemen only get involve if ISIS or Al Qaeda is a problem.

So...get involved is what you're saying. Cause Hezbollah damn near has a base there.

Outside of that let Iran and Saudi fight it out via their proxies.

...so you want a nuclear arms race.

Did you forget what the Saudi's said they'd do with Pakistan if Iran pushes for that bomb?

Getting rid of ISIS was the right thing to do however since ISIS is gone pull out. You cannot name one success story in the Mideast except the Gulf war.

Whats up with this pursuit of "success?"

Sometimes you gotta manage bad shyt and take the lumps.

Which ironically Bush liberated Kuwait and pulled out. He fought against invading Iraq. His idiot son would move on and invade and plunge the region into chaos.

Why do keep pretending anyone is defending 2003?

But lets not ignore that the Gulf War never really ended either.

There was a 24/7 no fly zone and countless military skirmishes over the 90s leading up to the 2003 invasion.

Also by being antagonistic to Iran the US is pushing them further and further to the Chinese camp which in the long term will bite the US.

shyt was gonna happen bruh...

Again:

 

[Jammer22]

Don't take it so bad. I have a certain connection to Jamaica.

Jamaica?

 

[hashmander]

Jamaica?

he has no real connection to jamaica other than his parents left and obviously raised him wrong. he's probably never even been there.