I'm not so sure it is even in Putler's interests to be doing this. I assume he wants to ratchet up exposure to regime propaganda and deny the ability to use technology to organize opposition to his regime.
Yet the immediate impact of widely unpopular bans coinciding with embarrassing war related losses, exhaustion and economic decline will only trigger the politicization of a population that will increasingly cut against him.
Oh, and I forgot one thing. Iran is quite proud of the amount of enriched uranium it already has, which has reached the point where it would take less than weeks, perhaps to enrich it to weapons grade. If you were paying attention, you could be confused as to why Iran has any enriched uranium that approaches weapons grade, when it's previously agreed not to do so, that it was sanctioned for doing so, and now it claims it has a right to do so in opposition to widespread agreement that it should not by other nations. By its own words. It's telling you that sanctions weren't effective and that they were ignored or subverted. You wanted evidence, listen to Iran's leadership itself if you would.
This is an irrelevant sidecar not responsive to your prior assertions. Nobody including public statements by the Iranians themselves is refuting the fact they enriched beyond the ~4% limit of the JCPOA *after* USA violated the terms of the agreement by pulling out and reimposing nuclear related sanctions.
In response to my statement: "The admissions you are referring to occurred some four years after the US bailed."
You stated:
"But, by most accounts, Iran never stopped enriching uranium. For some of us that would seem to indicate the sanctions were not working well."
"The enforcement mechanisms were subverted and ignored by Iran right along. They kept throwing the investigators and monitors out of the country. You could at least be serious and deal with the facts please"
Now you are changing the subject. Do you have specific credible evidence Iran violated the JCPOA prior to the US violating it or don't you?
Source: Council on Foreign Relations
This article does not mention anything about Iran having violated the terms of JCPOA prior to Trump's violation of the agreement.
What it does say contradicts your narrative.
"The IAEA certified in early 2016 that Iran had met its preliminary pledges; and the United States, EU, and United Nations responded by repealing or suspending their sanctions. "
Iran Sanctions: Fact or Fiction | UANI
This says literally nothing about Iranian JCPOA violations.
Iranâ(TM)s Response to Sanctions? Ignore Them | The Washington Institute
Ditto here, nothing responsive to your claims.
There is more.
More irrelevant gish gallop. What an embarrassment.
It doesn't really matter if there's a moral right or not.
I agree.
That's not why we attacked. Trump wants to be able to say he controls their oil. That's why we bombed them and why we'll invade.
Decoding Trump is an exercise in futility. He is a pathological liar and his statements are often not even self-consistent.
Yep, it was kindness that forced the UK and USA to destroy a democracy and install a blood-thirsty dictator. It was kindness that made the USA idly watch while an Iranian dictator murdered thousands of people every year.
This is factually incoherent nonsense. The "blood-thirsty dictator" was "installed" (e.g. inherited the throne) in 1941 during WWII while Iran was occupied by the British and the Soviets. He came to power when his father abdicated and fled.
The "blood-thirsty dictator" didn't murder thousands of people every year or anything remotely like it. Over the entirety of the "blood-thirsty dictator"'s reign figures are in the low hundreds in total for the political/dissident deaths conducted by his forces.
The USA pretends to buy Israel but Israel super-enriches uranium anyway, builds nuclear weapons anyway,
The non-proliferation issues are explicitly a double standard for obvious reasons. The purpose is limiting proliferation of nuclear weapons into more hands not the enrichment itself. Limiting enrichment amongst those without nukes is a means to that end.
Do you mean the authority for US ICE to arrest US citizens without a warrant, to deport them to a slave-camp in El Salvador, comes from US voters?
No such authority exists. These actions were illegal and halted by the courts. Everyone the US sent to CECOT was returned.
It's fitting that its current target is its own citizens: Now, the USA has a blood-thirsty dictator, albeit, one bad at committing mass murder, so far.
The US has a dictator wannabee as a president.
Let's stipulate that the current government of Iran is horrible and evil. Reportedly 30,000 people killed just for protesting against the government. Does that give the US -- or any other country -- a legal or moral right to attack Iran, or to try to overthrow their government, or to start a war? No, it doesn't. Not at all.
Are you being serious? There is no moral right for intervention in response to the intentional massacre of over 30k injuring over 300k civilians over the course of two days? Murdering injured protestors in hospitals, murdering and raping doctors and nurses for treating them? No moral right to stop barbaric repressions of human beings? Sigheh to 9 year old girls all totally normal.
Of course all the dark age nonsense is by no means limited to the borders of Iran. Iran is the worlds leading state sponsor of terror destabilizing the entire region.
The source of the regimes "right" to massacre civilians is the same as an external powers "right" to intervene. FAFO.
America probably didn't do the targeted assassination, but Israel has done and is still doing plenty! See the bombings on the Supreme Leader and friends in Iran at the start of the war.
Over the last few weeks I've seen a number of RFJ wanted fliers with millions of dollars in reward money produced by the US state department. They have a phone number and a tor address and explicitly target Mojtaba and the IRGC org chart.
If you were more informed about history you would know that not only did Iran ignore the sanctions and agreements, they expelled inspectors and refused to permit follow up inspections as mandated by the agreements they signed.
And many of the dispute resolution mechanisms were subverted or diverted by the other parties involved, the UN and European nations in particular.
This is so widely known that i challenge you to provide evidence of Iran's compliance. But if you cannot, then consider they did not comply in meaningful ways.
What is the point of repeating the same empty rhetoric? No specific claims, no credible citations and now a lame attempt to shift burden of proof. Where are those facts you spoke of earlier?
Oh please. The enforcement mechanisms were subverted and ignored by Iran right along. They kept throwing the investigators and monitors out of the country.
Dispute resolution mechanisms are baked into the agreement. If parties feel subversion is taking place any party can exercise it as was done in 2020 two years after the US violated the agreement.
You could at least be serious and deal with the facts please
If you were serious about "facts" you would provide specific claims and cite credible sources to support your statements.
Bad sentiment, seriously? Trump directly and voluntarily damaged our economies (with tariffs). Trump threatened our national security, more than once! Trump denied us needed help for our friend Ukraine!
So? I think what Trump is doing is embarrassing, dangerous and counterproductive yet unless he starts invading Greenland or Canada or sells F-35s to Russia or some truly crazy shit nothing substantive is going to change because the existing architecture serves everyone's interests. FFS Europeans are still sending cash to America to buy military equipment not at a discount but at a healthy war profiteers markup. There is a lot of noise but nothing as of yet has fundamentally changed.
1. Would Trump invoke NATO Article 5? Really, with his ego? Then would anyone trust him with help right now? Or is he going to impose 200% more tariffs (like he threatened Spain two weeks ago) if he doesn't get exactly the amounts of troops he wants, or the amount of money he demands, or whatever goes through his mind that morning?
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Did you mean to ask would Trump respond in good faith to an invocation of Article 5 by European allies? I'm not sure. He is an amoral shitbag. I wouldn't count on it. Even if there was someone sane in the white house if shit really hit the fan it was never a certainty the alliance would deliver due to selfish balancing of interests. Article 5 makes no affirmative demands of any country... it is all voluntary.
The question of would he invoke it, given all the whining about expecting NATO to come to his aid and help clean up his mess in Iran my guess is he would try.
2. Can you provide any reason why we would actually risk our lives for a war we didn't choose, we were not even be INFORMED OF a minute in advance? I don't see any benefit for any to enter this mess.
When I said shit hits the fan I'm not speaking of the US-Iran war. It would be something crazy like NK lobbing nukes, attacks from China, meat waves from Russia...etc.
If I were a head of state of any European country unless Iran attacked me or my allies I sure as fuck wouldn't enter the war with Iran at this point.
3. We (non-USA part of the world) are at PEACE with Iran right now. Why would we want to become their target?
My best guess you've misinterpreted my remarks.
4. USA is constantly playing Big Boy. What sort of help does Goliath needs against David?
No idea of the relevance of "Big Boy".
4.1 Do you really think European countries will send troops in Iran? We have democracies, we typically have 4+ political parties in a constantly moving equilibrum. If governments do stupid things like this, they fall in a month, someone else becomes the leader and most likely backtracks.
You've already asked this question and I answered it above. I never said shit about anyone sending troops to Iran.
A note to mods please read the FAQ before moderating. Disagreement, being wrong or disliking someone is not a valid reason for down mods. If you can't respect the rules of this site refrain from moderating.
4.2 or do you want European troops to help secure Washington DC while you're busy in Tehran?
Iran had nothing to do with my previous "shit hits the fan" statement.
I do think when there is a common threat and countries with aligned interests don't work together to address it then they can all expect outcomes that serves nobodies interest. The stream of noise and annoyances coming out of the white house does not alter the basic structure of alliances and interests.
4.3 Would you actually have use for a European aicraft carrier, when the USA has 11 in operation, and whole Europe has TWO? (And both are 2.5 times smaller than the American counterparts?) Trump has been constantly belittling European armies. Do you expect Europe to go all-in with... so little investment in defence... as Trump painted it?
This is like saying you made fun of me and that other guy over there is shooting at me so no because you belittled me I don't want you to help me and I won't help you when they shoot at you. Have some perspective. I get people are royally annoyed and pissed off by the demented clown in the white house.
(2) the war expands when Russia (Iran's ally) attacks Europe as retaliation, or seeing an opportunity. That still won't make Europeans enter the Iran war. To the contrary that will make Europe withdraw from wherever else and defend itself.
There is a reasonable chance Putin would attempt if he could to wage endless wars of conquest in a bid to reconstitute the USSR. Iran doesn't even enter into that picture except as an enabler of Russian aggression.
If you think every country for themselves will work against Russia as it slowly annexes neighboring countries and mobilizes their populations to fuel future war efforts... god bless you good luck with that you are going to need it. You are not being attacked (right now) go back to sleep.
Iran is "vulnerable" and "weak"? Really?
Yea, really.
It just took out a $750M E-3 Sentry AWACS using missiles and drones that probably cost it a total of a couple of million bucks.
It downed an F-15E and an A-10. It damaged a Black Hawk helicopter.
So what? The US has lost virtually nothing thus far in context of the overall effort.
The stakes for the Islamic Republic regime are existential. If it survives, it wins.
That's about right.
And in the entire history of warfare, the number of regime changes achieved via air attacks alone is precisely: ZERO.
This isn't true. Japan signed an instrument of unconditional surrender without boots on the mainland.
really. that news site is based in london, funded with saudi money, and their openly stated stance is pro-monarchist,
"That news site" happens to be very popular inside of Iran.
The monarchist talking point ignores critical context and is generally intended to sway low information readers. While there are monarchists who mean it the majority speaking of kings and chanting related slogans are not actually calling for literal return of monarchy. It is a mix of trolling / speaking against the illegitimate regime, nostalgia for the past and generally wanting a new system. Not even RP wants a monarchy and if there is one the version contemplated is a form more ceremonial in nature akin to present day Emperor of Japan or King of England sort of thing.
opposed to the islamic republic
Vast majority of the population is opposed to the current illegitimate regime.
1. It's pissed off most of its allies who will be much less likely to help them out in future. We all helped out after 9/11 and in Afghanistan. That ain't happening in future with the attitude from the Trump regime.
Trump has pissed off a lot of allies and created a lot of bad sentiment. This doesn't change anything. If shit really hit the fan our allies would assist just the same given it would likely be in their direct interests to do so.
2. The USA is sabotaging its own economy, first with ridiculous sanctions and second by blowing up the world economy with this war.
I will agree the issue with traffic thru hormuz is a drag on the worlds economies.
3. The USA may have an impressive industrial base, but dig deeper... pretty much every supply chain in the USA has some dependence on China or some other country, and alienating those countries is not a good strategy.
What country is being alienated to a relevant extent? Is there an actual issue with the supply chain caused by present day alienation? If not how is the USA getting weaker when there is no impact? China cut us off from rare earths for a short time and the result was revitalization of US capacity.
4. The weakening of democracy in the USA and its contempt for the international order is emboldening countries like China and Russia.
RE Russia give me a fucking break. As for everyone else you are correct the world becomes a far more dangerous place with normalization / reassertion of might makes rights / realism / empire building. Yet this isn't currently making the USA weaker. It's not a good idea and it is ultimately counterproductive. It sure as hell is creating additional risk. This USA getting weaker thing just isn't what is actually happening in the real world.
in iran? i doubt that. do you have a link? killing khamenei was like killing the pope,
LOL Khamenei wasn't even qualified to be an ayatollah. A fact he himself admitted. All pretenses went out the window when they picked Mojtaba to inherent the throne as puppet of the IRGC mafia state.
the whole shia community is aghast.
Reza Pahlavi is a Shia. I'm sure he was devastated and heartbroken over the demise of the Zahhak.
here's a video of actual iranians in iran, it's just a few hours old: https://t.me/DDGeopolitics/180...
these videos just keep coming in, i can show you many others if you want. they demonstrate for the regime every day, even under attack. these are very brave and dignified people, they're indeed royally pissed but not precisely with their government atm, and they will not yield.
There is a massive selection bias in the information coming out of Iran. The only people who have working Internet are certified regime loyalists/propogandists. Everyone else is blocked. There are some with Starlink terminals buried in a hole operated at great personal risk as well as those able to pick up cell signals from bordering countries. Yet the vast majority of outgoing is blessed by an illegitimate regime who just massacred over 30k of their own people and injured some 300k more over a two day period.
I have ways of making money that you know nothing of. -- John D. Rockefeller
