New US Government and Iran
Discussion
There are obviously a lot of US politics at the moment so hope you don't mind me posting on this topic which I think is important but not getting that much news at the moment.
President elect Trump seems to be angling to cancel the Iran nuclear deal and seems to have filled some of his team with anti Iran elements, so this might happen in the future. This is a mistake in my view.
If we take a brief synopsis of Iran at the present time we see a country that is rather vilified in the west and quite criticized by the US. Why is this? Looking back at history this is down to originally being the Iran US hostage crisis in 1979 and the failed rescue mission that led to US deaths.
From that point on the Iranians, with their unusual governmental/religious setup that is hard to bond with from a western viewpoint, things have gone downhill. I recall the Iraqi - Iran war and the west was on Saddam's side as the Iranians sank Western important oil tankers whilst Iraq used chemical weapons on civilians (not important west wise). Iraq who was the aggressor. Roll on years and Iraq was the aggressor again in Kuwait. This seems the first stage of what eventually seemed to be the US deciding regime change was in order.
That's history but if we come to today we still have Sunni based extreme groups being offset by Shia militants and Iran. And the US seems to be once again casting off Persian Iran when they need them to balance Sunni arab factions. Another fact is that Iran backs onto Afghanistan, so have an influence against Sunni factions such as IS working in that country too.
It maybe time to be more receptive to Iran and less receptive to Saudia Arabia who are now flexing there claws in Yemen etc. Just for balance. I just don't think the Trump team have this viewpoint though. Too much baggage from the old days.
As an aside Boeing have for the first time in donkeys years got a big Iran deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/world/middleeast...
The way to get Iran into a more Western country is not via threats but by the age old way of making people have a bit more money, revolution from the inside. Remember when China all wore those green suits and rode on bicycles? For Iran Churchill's Jaw Jaw not War War, is a no brainer. I just don't know if the current Trump team can do that.
I think Iran and China have more importance than Russia at the moment for the Trump foreign team.
In summary I think Iran is well worth watching for PH people on here. It's not really a buzzpoint on here at the momemet but I think it will be a good bellwether on how the Trump team is doing in foreign affairs
Interesting times.
President elect Trump seems to be angling to cancel the Iran nuclear deal and seems to have filled some of his team with anti Iran elements, so this might happen in the future. This is a mistake in my view.
If we take a brief synopsis of Iran at the present time we see a country that is rather vilified in the west and quite criticized by the US. Why is this? Looking back at history this is down to originally being the Iran US hostage crisis in 1979 and the failed rescue mission that led to US deaths.
From that point on the Iranians, with their unusual governmental/religious setup that is hard to bond with from a western viewpoint, things have gone downhill. I recall the Iraqi - Iran war and the west was on Saddam's side as the Iranians sank Western important oil tankers whilst Iraq used chemical weapons on civilians (not important west wise). Iraq who was the aggressor. Roll on years and Iraq was the aggressor again in Kuwait. This seems the first stage of what eventually seemed to be the US deciding regime change was in order.
That's history but if we come to today we still have Sunni based extreme groups being offset by Shia militants and Iran. And the US seems to be once again casting off Persian Iran when they need them to balance Sunni arab factions. Another fact is that Iran backs onto Afghanistan, so have an influence against Sunni factions such as IS working in that country too.
It maybe time to be more receptive to Iran and less receptive to Saudia Arabia who are now flexing there claws in Yemen etc. Just for balance. I just don't think the Trump team have this viewpoint though. Too much baggage from the old days.
As an aside Boeing have for the first time in donkeys years got a big Iran deal.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/world/middleeast...
The way to get Iran into a more Western country is not via threats but by the age old way of making people have a bit more money, revolution from the inside. Remember when China all wore those green suits and rode on bicycles? For Iran Churchill's Jaw Jaw not War War, is a no brainer. I just don't know if the current Trump team can do that.
I think Iran and China have more importance than Russia at the moment for the Trump foreign team.
In summary I think Iran is well worth watching for PH people on here. It's not really a buzzpoint on here at the momemet but I think it will be a good bellwether on how the Trump team is doing in foreign affairs
Interesting times.
Iran has probably been the greatest strategic error of the 20th century, even over Suez. In 1953 Iran was a secular middle income parliamentary democracy.
Mohammad Mosaddegh, the prime minister at the time, introduced such draconian measures as unemployment benefit, sick leave, and the end of indentured servitude. He also nationalised the oil industry on account of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company siphoning off a lot of wealth to London. After the Anglo-Iranian Oil company couldn't call itself that (what with not having Iranian holdings any more) it renamed itself the British Petroleum Company. Bear in mind that this was at the same time that the British government was itself nationalising a lot of industries.
Anyway, oil being critical to the UK and the US we decided that democracy that gave the wrong answer simply wouldn't do, and deposed the elected government in favour of giving all of the power to the Shah. We all know how that ended up.
If we'd left them to it, it's possible that Iran would have remained a secular democracy and a good friend of the west.
Mohammad Mosaddegh, the prime minister at the time, introduced such draconian measures as unemployment benefit, sick leave, and the end of indentured servitude. He also nationalised the oil industry on account of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company siphoning off a lot of wealth to London. After the Anglo-Iranian Oil company couldn't call itself that (what with not having Iranian holdings any more) it renamed itself the British Petroleum Company. Bear in mind that this was at the same time that the British government was itself nationalising a lot of industries.
Anyway, oil being critical to the UK and the US we decided that democracy that gave the wrong answer simply wouldn't do, and deposed the elected government in favour of giving all of the power to the Shah. We all know how that ended up.
If we'd left them to it, it's possible that Iran would have remained a secular democracy and a good friend of the west.
The Iranians are far from perfect - their funding of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah for example is troublesome - however it's about time we started to see a bit more balance when it comes to how the West deals with Iran. On one hand we are quick to jump into bed with the Sunni Arab states, states who export their twisted ideology of militant Islamism backed up by petrodollars onto the streets of London, New York and Paris, yet we treat the Iranians like lepers.
Iran's reintegration into the global economy will be good for us all and if Trump lets people like his national security advisor Mike Flynn scupper the Iran deal he's a bloody idiot. When it comes to Iran America needs to look after it's own interests first and not the ones of Saudi Arabia or Israel.
Iran's reintegration into the global economy will be good for us all and if Trump lets people like his national security advisor Mike Flynn scupper the Iran deal he's a bloody idiot. When it comes to Iran America needs to look after it's own interests first and not the ones of Saudi Arabia or Israel.
Edited by BlackLabel on Sunday 20th November 18:13
davepoth said:
Iran has probably been the greatest strategic error of the 20th century, even over Suez. In 1953 Iran was a secular middle income parliamentary democracy.
Mohammad Mosaddegh, the prime minister at the time, introduced such draconian measures as unemployment benefit, sick leave, and the end of indentured servitude. He also nationalised the oil industry on account of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company siphoning off a lot of wealth to London. After the Anglo-Iranian Oil company couldn't call itself that (what with not having Iranian holdings any more) it renamed itself the British Petroleum Company. Bear in mind that this was at the same time that the British government was itself nationalising a lot of industries.
Anyway, oil being critical to the UK and the US we decided that democracy that gave the wrong answer simply wouldn't do, and deposed the elected government in favour of giving all of the power to the Shah. We all know how that ended up.
If we'd left them to it, it's possible that Iran would have remained a secular democracy and a good friend of the west.
Couldn't agree more - a political blunder of epic proportions and an all round disgrace.Mohammad Mosaddegh, the prime minister at the time, introduced such draconian measures as unemployment benefit, sick leave, and the end of indentured servitude. He also nationalised the oil industry on account of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company siphoning off a lot of wealth to London. After the Anglo-Iranian Oil company couldn't call itself that (what with not having Iranian holdings any more) it renamed itself the British Petroleum Company. Bear in mind that this was at the same time that the British government was itself nationalising a lot of industries.
Anyway, oil being critical to the UK and the US we decided that democracy that gave the wrong answer simply wouldn't do, and deposed the elected government in favour of giving all of the power to the Shah. We all know how that ended up.
If we'd left them to it, it's possible that Iran would have remained a secular democracy and a good friend of the west.
davepoth said:
Iran has probably been the greatest strategic error of the 20th century, even over Suez. In 1953 Iran was a secular middle income parliamentary democracy.
Mohammad Mosaddegh, the prime minister at the time, introduced such draconian measures as unemployment benefit, sick leave, and the end of indentured servitude. He also nationalised the oil industry on account of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company siphoning off a lot of wealth to London. After the Anglo-Iranian Oil company couldn't call itself that (what with not having Iranian holdings any more) it renamed itself the British Petroleum Company. Bear in mind that this was at the same time that the British government was itself nationalising a lot of industries.
Anyway, oil being critical to the UK and the US we decided that democracy that gave the wrong answer simply wouldn't do, and deposed the elected government in favour of giving all of the power to the Shah. We all know how that ended up.
If we'd left them to it, it's possible that Iran would have remained a secular democracy and a good friend of the west.
absolutely spot on imo. i lived there as a kid, i have also been to saudi. i know where i would rather live if i had to.Mohammad Mosaddegh, the prime minister at the time, introduced such draconian measures as unemployment benefit, sick leave, and the end of indentured servitude. He also nationalised the oil industry on account of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company siphoning off a lot of wealth to London. After the Anglo-Iranian Oil company couldn't call itself that (what with not having Iranian holdings any more) it renamed itself the British Petroleum Company. Bear in mind that this was at the same time that the British government was itself nationalising a lot of industries.
Anyway, oil being critical to the UK and the US we decided that democracy that gave the wrong answer simply wouldn't do, and deposed the elected government in favour of giving all of the power to the Shah. We all know how that ended up.
If we'd left them to it, it's possible that Iran would have remained a secular democracy and a good friend of the west.
SKP555 said:
Davepoth is spot on in his explanation IMO.
However from where we are now I don't think giving our approval to the current Iranian regime or allowing them to develop nuclear technology is a great idea.
Unfortunately I don't know what is a good idea.
For all of the bHowever from where we are now I don't think giving our approval to the current Iranian regime or allowing them to develop nuclear technology is a great idea.
Unfortunately I don't know what is a good idea.
hing and moaning, the deal we've got with Iran is a good one IMO. They don't really want nukes - no sane country does. They're dangerous to keep, terrorists can steal them, and using them is suicide. What Iran have now is the technology to build them. Everyone knows they can, everyone now respects them like they've already got them. That's plenty. what we do now is play nice. Economic relations with Iran are a double edged sword. In a way they help the regime maintain a grip, but if the people get a taste of wealth and consumerism they're unlikely to want to give it up.
Under the previous status quo, the sanctions, Iran went from 150 centrifuges to just under 20000 in a little over a decade. Going back to sanctions and isolating Iran, like many are now calling for, in an attempt to curb their nuclear ambitions just doesn't work - it has the opposite effect.
davepoth said:
For all of the bhing and moaning, the deal we've got with Iran is a good one IMO. They don't really want nukes - no sane country does. They're dangerous to keep, terrorists can steal them, and using them is suicide.
What Iran have now is the technology to build them. Everyone knows they can, everyone now respects them like they've already got them. That's plenty. what we do now is play nice. Economic relations with Iran are a double edged sword. In a way they help the regime maintain a grip, but if the people get a taste of wealth and consumerism they're unlikely to want to give it up.
I hope you are right, but don't entirely share your optimism for two reasons which you mention but interpret differently. hing and moaning, the deal we've got with Iran is a good one IMO. They don't really want nukes - no sane country does. They're dangerous to keep, terrorists can steal them, and using them is suicide. What Iran have now is the technology to build them. Everyone knows they can, everyone now respects them like they've already got them. That's plenty. what we do now is play nice. Economic relations with Iran are a double edged sword. In a way they help the regime maintain a grip, but if the people get a taste of wealth and consumerism they're unlikely to want to give it up.
Firstly, yes it would be suicide to use them but I don't think that will actually stop them. The regime is corrupt and cynical on one level but it is outright mental on another level. It believes in the final battle heralding the end times. Mutually Assured Destruction will not keep them at bay forever.
Secondly they did give up western consumerism,or at least a more prosperous and open society before. Even after we shafted them over the oil companies throughout the 1960s and 70s Iran was much more open and liberal than it is now. The Islamic revolution expressly rejected both that and the Soviet communist model which was the obvious alternative at the time.
The generation who remember those days are aging fast. You'd have to be well into your 50s to have been an adult in 1979. People always expect the young to be more outward looking and liberal but the young political class in present day Iran have never known anything but Islamic fundamentalism.
That's not to say they all agree with it or that nothing of that era was passed down, but after nearly 40 years of the totalitarian Islamic Republic there isn't a ready alternative or an organised opposition, nor as far as I know any particularly liberal wing of the regime.
SKP555 said:
That's not to say they all agree with it or that nothing of that era was passed down, but after nearly 40 years of the totalitarian Islamic Republic there isn't a ready alternative or an organised opposition, nor as far as I know any particularly liberal wing of the regime.
Odd though it may seem, but the current president is the liberal wing of the regime. Interestingly he studied law at Glasgow Caledonian. Within the constraints he has, he's done a lot to open the country up.
I think there is a lot more at play here. Iran is the centre of the Shia world, Saudi the Sunni. That little 'spat' has been simmering for hundreds of years, & every now & then boils over: Syria, Yemen, Iraq.....
What's in it for the Yanks? Some would mention that Mr Pence, being a full on Bible basher, is rooting for Israel, as many of these Christian types see the Jewish state also as 'protectors of the Holy Land'. There are probably more Christian donators/supporters of Israel than Jews, particularly in the US. Now, the Israeli government, whoever is leader, has a red line: 'Never Again', i.e. the holocaust. Many see Iran as an existential threat, that cannot be allowed to get the bomb. So this I think is influencing Trump's stratergy. How far he can go in tearing up the agreement is another matter.
Also, another good read: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4879369,...
What's in it for the Yanks? Some would mention that Mr Pence, being a full on Bible basher, is rooting for Israel, as many of these Christian types see the Jewish state also as 'protectors of the Holy Land'. There are probably more Christian donators/supporters of Israel than Jews, particularly in the US. Now, the Israeli government, whoever is leader, has a red line: 'Never Again', i.e. the holocaust. Many see Iran as an existential threat, that cannot be allowed to get the bomb. So this I think is influencing Trump's stratergy. How far he can go in tearing up the agreement is another matter.
Also, another good read: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4879369,...
I have this flash back.
When Bush jnr got to be president he did the sensible thing in getting advisors around him. The problem was he then got 9/11 which was a terrible event in a life time and the following advisors -
Colin Powell - generally dove
President Bush - neutral
Condoleezza Rice - neutral
Dick Cheyney - hawk
Donald Rumsfeld - hawk
The hawks won. And then lost
So we had Iraq and the what happened next is still playing out.
But my question is. And it is a big question.
How much will Donald Trump feel the need to rely on people he thinks are more savvy than himself in relation to the middle east and how much will he head up himself?
I have to say that although Tony Blair lost everything on Iraq it does show how a clever man screwed up due to not knowing enough about how things work over there.
Donald has no chance in my opinion.
When Bush jnr got to be president he did the sensible thing in getting advisors around him. The problem was he then got 9/11 which was a terrible event in a life time and the following advisors -
Colin Powell - generally dove
President Bush - neutral
Condoleezza Rice - neutral
Dick Cheyney - hawk
Donald Rumsfeld - hawk
The hawks won. And then lost
So we had Iraq and the what happened next is still playing out.
But my question is. And it is a big question.
How much will Donald Trump feel the need to rely on people he thinks are more savvy than himself in relation to the middle east and how much will he head up himself?
I have to say that although Tony Blair lost everything on Iraq it does show how a clever man screwed up due to not knowing enough about how things work over there.
Donald has no chance in my opinion.
Gandahar said:
I have this flash back.
When Bush jnr got to be president he did the sensible thing in getting advisors around him. The problem was he then got 9/11 which was a terrible event in a life time and the following advisors -
Colin Powell - generally dove
President Bush - neutral
Condoleezza Rice - neutral
Dick Cheyney - hawk
Donald Rumsfeld - hawk
The hawks won. And then lost
So we had Iraq and the what happened next is still playing out.
But my question is. And it is a big question.
How much will Donald Trump feel the need to rely on people he thinks are more savvy than himself in relation to the middle east and how much will he head up himself?
I have to say that although Tony Blair lost everything on Iraq it does show how a clever man screwed up due to not knowing enough about how things work over there.
Donald has no chance in my opinion.
Donald hasn't surrounded himself with PNAC acolytes; they were chomping at the bit to get Hillary in.When Bush jnr got to be president he did the sensible thing in getting advisors around him. The problem was he then got 9/11 which was a terrible event in a life time and the following advisors -
Colin Powell - generally dove
President Bush - neutral
Condoleezza Rice - neutral
Dick Cheyney - hawk
Donald Rumsfeld - hawk
The hawks won. And then lost
So we had Iraq and the what happened next is still playing out.
But my question is. And it is a big question.
How much will Donald Trump feel the need to rely on people he thinks are more savvy than himself in relation to the middle east and how much will he head up himself?
I have to say that although Tony Blair lost everything on Iraq it does show how a clever man screwed up due to not knowing enough about how things work over there.
Donald has no chance in my opinion.
Trump has every change if he tries.No political baggage to worry about he funded his own campagn.
Maybe making friends with Russia and let China be the new enemy.They could put a spoke in the U.S wheels if China and Russia start closer ties.
He wants to take on the C.I.A.Besides the other seventeen security orginasations in the U.S.A.Good luck with that one if they don't turn on him.
He is quick to admit to mistakes and adjust let's wait and see.Remember Obama receiving the Nobel Peace price what a farce.Under his government they created a mini nuclear power device very peacefull.
In my opinion the E.U. won't break up to much invested but Angela Merkel is on a slippery slope.
Maybe making friends with Russia and let China be the new enemy.They could put a spoke in the U.S wheels if China and Russia start closer ties.
He wants to take on the C.I.A.Besides the other seventeen security orginasations in the U.S.A.Good luck with that one if they don't turn on him.
He is quick to admit to mistakes and adjust let's wait and see.Remember Obama receiving the Nobel Peace price what a farce.Under his government they created a mini nuclear power device very peacefull.
In my opinion the E.U. won't break up to much invested but Angela Merkel is on a slippery slope.
scherzkeks said:
Oh yes, we are still reaping the illustrious bounty of our Middle Eastern adventures.
I meant he knew to surround himself with experienced, intelligent people rather than personal cronies across the board. You may not have agreed with their policies, but the likes of C. Rice were not dumb.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff