Gulf of Oman incidents
Discussion
“New York Times: Trump abruptly calls off military strikes against Iran after approving them“
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/06/21/politics/trum...
https://edition-m.cnn.com/2019/06/21/politics/trum...
"Exclusive: Trump warned Iran via Oman that U.S. attack was imminent, called for talks - Iranian officials"
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-iran-usa...
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-mideast-iran-usa...
This is all balls.
The USA (well, mainly Israel and the Saudis) want Iran's nuke-building capabilities to be blown to Smithereens.
The JCPOA only put a temporary stop to this. That wasn't acceptable to Israel (because of their inalienable right to bomb whoever they want and not be worried about a backlash). So, as soon as Trump got elected Israel and the NeoCons had somebody they could manipulate (shades of GW Bush...). the plan is as follows;
1. Scrap the JCPOA
2. Put sanctions on Iran
3. Iran responds by restarting nuclear enrichment.
4. The Europeans walk away
5. Create a cassus belli
6. Bomb 7 shades of s
t out of Natanz, Parchin, Arak etc
The USA (well, mainly Israel and the Saudis) want Iran's nuke-building capabilities to be blown to Smithereens.
The JCPOA only put a temporary stop to this. That wasn't acceptable to Israel (because of their inalienable right to bomb whoever they want and not be worried about a backlash). So, as soon as Trump got elected Israel and the NeoCons had somebody they could manipulate (shades of GW Bush...). the plan is as follows;
1. Scrap the JCPOA
2. Put sanctions on Iran
3. Iran responds by restarting nuclear enrichment.
4. The Europeans walk away
5. Create a cassus belli
6. Bomb 7 shades of s
t out of Natanz, Parchin, Arak etcMore sanctions....
"US President Donald Trump has said he is imposing hard-hitting new sanctions on Iran, including on the office of the country's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Mr Trump said the additional sanctions were in response to the shooting down of a US drone and "many other things".
Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's highest authority, was singled out because he was "ultimately responsible for the hostile conduct of the regime".
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said the Americans "despise diplomacy".
In a tweet sent after the announcement, Mr Zarif also accused the Trump administration of having a "thirst for war"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-4874854...
"US President Donald Trump has said he is imposing hard-hitting new sanctions on Iran, including on the office of the country's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
Mr Trump said the additional sanctions were in response to the shooting down of a US drone and "many other things".
Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's highest authority, was singled out because he was "ultimately responsible for the hostile conduct of the regime".
Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said the Americans "despise diplomacy".
In a tweet sent after the announcement, Mr Zarif also accused the Trump administration of having a "thirst for war"."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-4874854...
Well this is awkward for some.....
"An oil tanker damaged in a bombing that was blamed on Iran is back in business. The ship’s first destination: Iran."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-07...
This was the early May bombing as opposed to the more recent ones.
"An oil tanker damaged in a bombing that was blamed on Iran is back in business. The ship’s first destination: Iran."
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-07...
This was the early May bombing as opposed to the more recent ones.
“Iranian boats tried to impede a British oil tanker near the Gulf - before being driven off by a Royal Navy ship, a UK government spokesman has said”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48946051
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48946051
Really? They did a deal, at the risk of challenging the hardliners in the country that were against it. Then get screwed by the US because Trump wants to destroy anything Obama did, and Europe just says "sorry, not possible to do anything". Hardliners can say they were right now.
If it was my country I'd certainly want to cause a little bit of problems that were within my power just to return the favour. What's more crazy - collapsing a deal just because you don't like the person that made it, or putting a tiny bit of pressure on the countries that went back on their agreement?
If it was my country I'd certainly want to cause a little bit of problems that were within my power just to return the favour. What's more crazy - collapsing a deal just because you don't like the person that made it, or putting a tiny bit of pressure on the countries that went back on their agreement?
Countdown said:
This is all balls.
The USA (well, mainly Israel and the Saudis) want Iran's nuke-building capabilities to be blown to Smithereens.
The JCPOA only put a temporary stop to this. That wasn't acceptable to Israel (because of their inalienable right to bomb whoever they want and not be worried about a backlash). So, as soon as Trump got elected Israel and the NeoCons had somebody they could manipulate (shades of GW Bush...). the plan is as follows;
1. Scrap the JCPOA
2. Put sanctions on Iran
3. Iran responds by restarting nuclear enrichment.
4. The Europeans walk away
5. Create a cassus belli
6. Bomb 7 shades of st out of Natanz, Parchin, Arak etc
I'm rather with Trump on this one - the problem with the JCPOA is that it simply delays the Iranians getting a nuclear capability. If it carried on, some time between 8 and 15 years from now, Iran gains nuclear weapons capability on the back of a strong economy, and the expiration of restrictions. The USA (well, mainly Israel and the Saudis) want Iran's nuke-building capabilities to be blown to Smithereens.
The JCPOA only put a temporary stop to this. That wasn't acceptable to Israel (because of their inalienable right to bomb whoever they want and not be worried about a backlash). So, as soon as Trump got elected Israel and the NeoCons had somebody they could manipulate (shades of GW Bush...). the plan is as follows;
1. Scrap the JCPOA
2. Put sanctions on Iran
3. Iran responds by restarting nuclear enrichment.
4. The Europeans walk away
5. Create a cassus belli
6. Bomb 7 shades of s
t out of Natanz, Parchin, Arak etcThe Iranians are in the same box as the North Koreans - they shouldn't have nukes, but at least the Norks seem to just want to be left alone in the main. If the Iranians historically had nukes, they'd have used them on Iraq by now, especially if Iraq didn't have the means to respond. They'd probably not use them on Israel because they know damn fine they'd get nuked back.
If the JCPOA said "you can have reactors, but you'll get the fuel from a controlled source, forever", then fine. What it actually says is "carry on your research, we'll open the taps on your economy and we hope you'll be nice in 15 years".
rxe said:
I'm rather with Trump on this one - the problem with the JCPOA is that it simply delays the Iranians getting a nuclear capability. If it carried on, some time between 8 and 15 years from now, Iran gains nuclear weapons capability on the back of a strong economy, and the expiration of restrictions.
The Iranians are in the same box as the North Koreans - they shouldn't have nukes, but at least the Norks seem to just want to be left alone in the main. If the Iranians historically had nukes, they'd have used them on Iraq by now, especially if Iraq didn't have the means to respond. They'd probably not use them on Israel because they know damn fine they'd get nuked back.
If the JCPOA said "you can have reactors, but you'll get the fuel from a controlled source, forever", then fine. What it actually says is "carry on your research, we'll open the taps on your economy and we hope you'll be nice in 15 years".
But safely after Obama had left office.The Iranians are in the same box as the North Koreans - they shouldn't have nukes, but at least the Norks seem to just want to be left alone in the main. If the Iranians historically had nukes, they'd have used them on Iraq by now, especially if Iraq didn't have the means to respond. They'd probably not use them on Israel because they know damn fine they'd get nuked back.
If the JCPOA said "you can have reactors, but you'll get the fuel from a controlled source, forever", then fine. What it actually says is "carry on your research, we'll open the taps on your economy and we hope you'll be nice in 15 years".
Burwood said:
War is coming. It shows you how hat st crazy Iran is.
They (Iran) wont risk it IMHO. Its just not worth it for them. Other than Israel they have little capability to strike the US or UK.t crazy Iran is. Their military capability is not even close to that of the UK and USA.
Personally I think they will push things as far as they can maybe a few shots might be fired, we might retaliate with a few cruise missiles but I think that's where it will end. Basically a shoving match.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff