Trump has officially abdicated his role as "leader of the free world"

[RedPhoenix]

The democratically elected premier of Iran,

Stop.

There's nothing democractic about the elections in Iran.

Women are removed from ballots for being women. Candidates who promote equality for women or homosexuals are removed from the ballots by Iran's all male, all hardline Muslim Council of Elders, who have the power to do so and do so frequently under Iran's laws.

Iran is one of the most hate fueled theocracies on this planet. They execute people for being homosexual. They have curtailed the rights of women to stone age levels. Obama enabled this with his deal (which he signed incidentally without the approval of our legislature - something he as President knew he had to do to make it binding).

The CIA sponsored the overthrow the previous regime in the 70s because we were afraid the Shah would be too socialist. Iran was once a thriving middle eastern country with universities that were nearly the same as American or European campuses, progressive thinking and considerable steps towards equality and freedom.

That's all gone backwards since America decided that the old Iran needed to be sacrificed to the altar of "leading the free world." This extreme fundamentalist government that runs the country now is the result of our interference. The last thing we should be doing is enabling their arms build up by giving them money to fund their conventional weapons program.

Iran is not unique in this. Half the nations in Africa and Central America that experienced turmoil did it because the United States deliberately destabilized them out of fear of socialist influence. That is the price of securing "the free world" (which has only ever meant North America and Europe), one that liberals once thought was too high of a price to pay. We used to say we don't sacrifice the humanity of three quarters of the planet to ensure the prosperity of the white parts. Now apparently doing the complete opposite is the liberal party line and that's disgusting.

Iran doesn't need nuclear weapons to brutalize its own people or cause unrest and violence throughout the Middle East - which it has happily done ever since the United States gave it a pat on the head and said do whatever you like just don't go nuclear.

Of course Israel opposes this. Israel has been threatened by Iran's hardliners since the time Israel existed. The Jews have been faced with the most violent and frequently expressed prejudice in the history of this planet. They have a right to want to defend themselves. The excuse constantly used by Iran to hate the USA is that our government is run by Jews (an accusation that you used to see echoed by the extreme right wing Americans, now it pops up more frequently on the other side). They're the target here. They aren't confused about this, the rest of us shouldn't be either.

The country most threatened by a nuclear Iran is Israel. That they think this was a horrible deal should tell you everything you need to know. If South Korea was screaming bloody murder about a deal we made with North Korea we'd listen (they aren't incidentally, they're singing Trump's praises). Obama should have listened to Israel about this.

How a CIA-installed hate fueled theocracy that executes homosexuals, removes women from it's ballots, denies basic rights to anyone who isn't the right religion and gender became a darling of so called liberals is beyond me. The Democratic Party I grew up with would have rioted at the idea of cutting a deal with such a nightmarish partner.

Withdrawing from this agreement is the first thing he's done that I can honestly say I support 100% and it's absolutely nuts to me that people are trying to act like this is some sort of catastrophe.

Obama agreed to this deal with Iran without congressional support. Based on the laws of our country that made the deal vulnerable to withdrawal at any time by the next president because it was never ratified by congress. That's how our rules work and anyone making deals with the USA understands this. We, the United States, didn't lose any credibility here, the person who isn't president anymore who was so egotistical to think the next guy would just keep doing what he started and didn't need the support of elected representatives to get it done did. I know that hurts some people but Obama grew a huge ego and abandoned the people who voted him in and he honestly deserves this, and many other slaps to his legacy.

I'm the last person alive who would give credit to Trump he didn't earn, but acting like everything he does is bad makes you no better than the people who blindly support him.

[RedPhoenix]

Bah sorry, didn't realize you were talking about the 1950s in that quote. I'm sorry that was the wrong line to jump on. My bad. :/

[Eye of Horus]

There is a relatively unbiased essay here on why a US withdrawal from the agreement would be counterproductive.

It doesn’t whitewash the corrupt and opppressive nature of the current Iranian government (I won’t say “more”, “less” or “as” oppressive as any other country, because all oppression is bad), and it doesn’t paint President Rouhani as some kind of liberal hero (although he’s the most internationalist leader Iran is likely to get right now, and this deal failing would encourage the Iranians to kick him out in favour of yet another hardliner). But it does explain why Iran’s genuine reformers and it’s general population will be hurt.

Giving the hard-liners an excuse to dig their heels in and become more paranoid is only going to increase their desire to develop a nuke and / or make some kind of nonsensical attack against Israel.

A recent quote from an ordinary Iranian citizen is telling: “The regime tried for 40 years to make us hate America; now they’ve managed it in a day.”

[elone]

The country most threatened by a nuclear Iran is Israel. That they think this was a horrible deal should tell you everything you need to know. If South Korea was screaming bloody murder about a deal we made with North Korea we'd listen (they aren't incidentally, they're singing Trump's praises). Obama should have listened to Israel about this.

How a CIA-installed hate fueled theocracy that executes homosexuals, removes women from it's ballots, denies basic rights to anyone who isn't the right religion and gender became a darling of so called liberals is beyond me. The Democratic Party I grew up with would have rioted at the idea of cutting a deal with such a nightmarish partner.

What Israel thinks should not be the reason for any actions by the United States or the rest of the world for that matter. Israel swore up and down that overthrowing Iraq would lead to peace throughout the middle east. How did that work out? We did the dirty work to get rid of a government that was absolutely no threat to us. Israel lied about their own nuclear ambitions, they sank the USS LIberty, Israel oppresses and occupies people and land in the West Bank, Golan, and Gaza. Israel assassinates anyone who opposes them all over the world. Israel acts like a right wing theocracy as much as Iran. As a matter of fact, Iran has more Jews living there than in any other middle east country other than Israel. They, Christians and others are free to practice their religion. There are some 60 synagogues in Iran serving about 10.000 jews. Because Jews were repressed and killed throughout history does not give them the right to do that to others.

As a historical note, the CIA did not install the current government of Iran. The Iranian Revolutionary guards overthrew the CIA installed Shah in 1979. The Shah was a ruthless dictator, as are most who we put into power.

I don't sing the praises of Iran or Israel. To me they are both repressive regimes that need to go away. Neither one should have nuclear weapons, but only one does. Only one has signed treaties to not have any. Only one has had sanctions put on them. Only one is cooperating with inspections of their facilities. Only one has not attacked their neighbors. Only one occupies lands of another. Only one has declared borders. Only one allows people to live where ever they please. Only one allows equal rights to those it rules. Only one repeatedly slaughters Gazans. It is not Israel.

[TheGlyphstone]

Only one repeatedly slaughters Gazans. It is not Israel.

Either this is a major typo, or Iran has been doing some really weird shit in Gaza that I haven't heard anything about...

[elone]

Whoa, yes a major typo!!

Should read, Only one does not slaughter Gazans. Better yet, just remove that entire sentence. Sorry.

In addition, I need to correct that Israel did not sink the USS Liberty, they merely attacked it, napalmed it, strafed the lifeboats, and then sent torpedoes into in in hopes it would go down with all hands and no witnesses. The ship survived.

Unfortunately I cannot do a correction here.

[TheHighwayHitman]

@RedPhoenix: Well said.

@EofH: Interesting article. It doesn't actually say that pulling out of the deal was bad. Nor does it put any faith in the EU. I could argue that the context suggests that the nuclear deal was a good idea, but that would be intellectually dishonest because it doesn't really mention it at all. The moral of the article is that Iranians who really want change need to lace up their boots and get to work.

@Oni: I didn't miss your point. I understood it entirely. I was suggesting that it was neither good nor bad, simply a case of why bother? Having American weapons inspectors there is redundant. Either we trust Iran is going to avoid making weapons or we don't. We either trust our allies' inspectors or we don't. Iran isn't going to actually show foreign inspectors what they are really doing. Nobody does. There's nothing stopping them from lying about it. Do you think America let's the rest of the world see what it is truly capable of? Of course not. If we let the world see our drones and tanks and helicopters, etc, what are we hiding up our sleeves? See what I am saying below in response to LustfulBride as it bears relevance.

@LustfulBride: I think there is a big difference between alienating allies and making them handle their business. If a country involved (pick one) can't handle inspecting Iran's weapons or holding up to their own terms of an agreement without the United States holding their proverbial hand, what were they a) involved with the agreement for in the first place and b) really hoping to accomplish?

I find your commentary interesting. Maybe a bit impractical, but interesting. The discussion of America needing allies is a good one, and one I am open too, but I don't look at it on a moral scale. I look at it on a practical scale. As unpopular as it may be to say it, the simple truth Is, what good are scrubby allies? The vast majority of American allies need America more than America needs them. If some... let's just randomly say, France, were to go, "America, we don't need you for anything. At all. Ever again." America can go, "Okay. That's fine." On the other hand, if America were to go, "France. We've got beef. We're done with you." The vast majority of the world sucks in a deep breath and goes, "Oh shit."

The thing I'm trying to explain to you here is that yes, there is something to be said for not burning down every bridge, there is also the reality of give and take. America gives a whole lot more than it takes. The billions and billions in foreign aid that is equal to or greater than entire countries' whole economies says so. Pushing around the U.N. has been a long time coming. I don't see it as problematic so much as simply being tired of rude guests in the house. America pushing around the U.N. is similar to saying, "You want a piece of my cake and the luxury of my roof? Cool. But say thank you, mind your manners, and remember whose roof this really Is, or no cake for you. In fact, now that you want to sit there an pout because you don't like my rules in my own house, go sit over at the kids table while the adults are speaking."

I understand that there are points of contention and entitlement going on with that. I personally believe that there would be some benefit of the US withdrawing from the U.N. for 20 years. I could get into why, but it isn't relevant to this discussion. I'm not suggesting America's behavior with the U.N. is perfect. I'm only pointing out the reality of it because it gives context to my response on your point of alienating allies in the Iran deal. Here goes.

What's wrong with letting American allies handle their own business with Iran? Why does the United States need to hold their hand? For that matter, what is stopping an allied country from going, "We supported America because we're allies, but now that America has a leader that says this deal is nonsense, we're in agreement and are backing out too?" Whats stopping an ally from saying, "It's all good. We can handle this, Iran." I would think, that if Trump was that bad, there would be allies who have the stones to carry on regardless of what he says or does. Or are suggesting other countries can't act without American backing?

@Elone: I'll respond to you in my next post. You bring up some interesting bits, and I'd like to devote all of my attention to responding to you.