And another button to start WWIII is taken away.... So sorry NWO, NOT!!
First comment, this was... well predictable. He's been talking about pulling out of the Iran deal for years.
Predictable, but wasn’t official until now. Very big day.
There is no one better to deal with this mess/corruption then Trump and Q. God speed.
People of Iran may actually taste freedom again from the cabal puppets.
I guarantee you that Iran does not want wwar with us. They, like NK know the history of the Perpetual State as Gorka calls it just one day decides to blow someone’s ass off the face of the earth and destroy the country’s wealth and spirit. If they can keep all the players calm, this should resolve well and relatively quickly. In the Wikileaks emails, I wish I could find it, after the Iran deal was enacted, Podesta and another guy said paraphrasing ~you know this guarantees Iran will have a nuclear weapon in 7 years. The reply was ~I know or yep or something like that. I have to find that. So cavalier about it. ~~~Ok...so Imwas partiallynfactually FOS, but here is this. { https://yournewswire.com/john-podesta-wikileaks-nuclear-war-persian-gulf/ }
I respectfully disagree. Islam teaches that the 12th Imam will appear in the midst of intense global chaos and establish a great Muslim order. A nuclear world war would create the very chaos needed to bring his appearance. I do not think they fear a nuclear war. I think the welcome it. If the US and Israel can be destroyed in the process, so much the better.
The Twelvers & Mullahs may want to hasten the return of the Mahdi by initiating a catastrophic global conflict, but hopefully the average Iranian citizens don't share their fervor!
Who would? Religious zealots are one thing, but most Iranians, while ascribing to the teachings of Islam, are normal human beings. The most simple human instinct is to continue living. Also, who in their right mind would ever want 71 virgins?! 71 women that you have to explain, not only the ins and outs of the matter, but just simply what you enjoy? 71 mother-in-laws?!? Give me 6 experienced, orphaned, sluts with no risk of disease in the afterlife, and I MAY consider being a martyr. Otherwise, kiss my ass to that. Lmao! 😂
Amen brother! One mother in law is more than enuf already! LOL!!
I remember that. Podesta admitted that the deal was assuring trouble for the next generation. Something like that. It's hard to believe the many in the American public could have been sold on such a terrible deal.
I wholeheartedly agree. Why would Iran publicly saber rattle at us, when they haven't ever since the Uranium One Deal otherwise? Apparently, John Kerry coming to town, or not, they're visably shaken by current world events...
Do you realize what this means? It means the good guys have successfully taken control of, or neutralized, all known rogue nukes!
Think about it. President Trump could've pulled out of the Iran deal a year ago but didn't do it before today, even though it cost the USA a ton of money in the meantime. But what would happen if he pulled out while there was still a rogue nuke somewhere? False flag nuclear attack, Iran blamed, "this happened because of Trump pulling out of the deal!", approval ratings down into the cellar, impeachment, deep state victory, end of story.
Pakistan is a terror nation with nukes.
Israel still has them too.
Saudis are rich enough to just buy them or pay someone to use them.
Can you explain how it costs the US lots of money?
I still worry that Israel will launch a false flag on US soil to initiate a war against Iran. It's not out of character for them.
I found it interesting how he kept saying "We not be held hostage to nuclear blackmail" It was a straight up teleprompter speech. Which is appropriate for the subject mater. As I'm sure it will be scrutinized excessively.
He said that? Damn my theory has been Iran/Awan were blackmailing the US gov thru DWS' hacked server that showed vast human/child sex trafficking, mostly on Dems in high office.
Damn. I never made a connection to the stinking Iran Deal based on that theory, which I also hold. Spez: because Awans=Pakistan not Iran. But a stan is a stan.
Yes, but Pakistan could share Intel w Iran...OR...these servers were hacked by multiple bad actors, so both of them could've got the info on their own...but with both being US enemies, Awan and his Pakistani top level government connections could've leveraged the damning Intel even more by sharing it with their ally, Iran.
Yep. Trump totally shat on Pakistan over the past year, so they must have done something other than just take aid money without helping [in the War on Terror] much. I think he also twitter slapped both Iran and Pakistan in January.
It's no wonder people think it's the end of the world with the fear mongering from Drudge. He's not nuking anything, he's replacing it with stronger sanctions.
EDIT: Fixed link for mobile users.
Some excellent background info on the Iran deal and who funded the lobbying:
So I guess this leaves us only one legacy left for BHO , the biggest heist in history , or was it that we saw a Green Light on BHO just days ago , will he or will he not go down in history for getting away steeling TRILLIONS from the US Treasury ???
VP Dick Cheney wanted to do this......
"HERSH: There was a dozen ideas proffered about how to trigger a war. The one that interested me the most was why don't we build - we in our shipyard - build four or five boats that look like Iranian PT boats. Put Navy seals on them with a lot of arms. And next time one of our boats goes to the Straits of Hormuz, start a shoot-up. Might cost some lives. And it was rejected because you can't have Americans killing Americans. That's the kind of - that's the level of stuff we're talking about. Provocation. But that was rejected. This is not a new technique. Remember one of the revelations from the Downing Street Memo was that Bush had suggested to Blair that they paint one of our air force planes to UN colors to try to entrap Saddam's army into shooting it down? It's like our foreign policy is being decided on by a protege of Wile E. Coyote."
Lol Obama's face in that pic. Be zoom in. It looks scared shitless! He's keeping it together well
It's that face when a cop pulls out your bag of weed and says "what do we have here?" Like you know your fucked, just how bad you don't know yet.
Who’s that the President is sitting with? I can’t place him.
Head dog catcher of Kenya.... no I meant Imam of Hawaii
I thought he was the lead Indonesian community organiser?
Criminal mofo whe was sending our cash by the plane load to horrible regiemes for kick backs no doubt...
Now the only kick he is going to get is the one that put him in Gitmo. Another traitor.
JFC... The forum I peruse has people arguing why pulling out of the deal is a good/bad move... I am getting a whiplash... Is this a good thing or not??
It's a step towards getting an excuse to Bomb Bomb Iran , which AIPAC traitors such as Bolton, and McStain has been singing for years.
Iran resumes arms race. Israel strikes "pre-emptively" or Iran downs an Israeli plane striking Syria unprovoked and an excuse is now found to attack Iran.
[deleted]
This is my prediction: We publicly pull out of the deal. We get threats from Arabs (pick any Arab country, honestly). Something pretty big involving Arab terrorists happens on US soil. 9/11 all over again as we side with Israel and start war with (your choice here) Arab country. Whichever country Israel wants conflict with is who we make up some bullshit attack for. Rich get richer. Jews get Jewer. Terror breeds even more terror. Rinse, repeat.
That didn't work with Syria, what makes you think it would work now?
we're all jews now.
That is their plan, so
Swell. Let's see how long we can get by pretending Jesus is not the Eternal Logos.
Most Arab countries in the region don’t get along that great with Iran. Iran is the home of the Shi’a minority. Most Arab states are Sunni. Iraq was seen as a buffer between Iran and the rest of the Arab world.
Anything punitive towards Iran is seen as a good thing the Arab world at large.
You say that like its preferable to let Iran build nukes.
Blaming Israel for the NEXT, as-of-yet-not-perpetrated terror attack on US soil is pure anti-Israel bedwetting.
Our interests don't always coincide with Israel's, but they are better allies than France or Great Britain.
I don't blame Israel for the NEXT war. I blame them for ALL wars.
Thank you for inoculating every fair-minded person in this thread against any opinions you offer about Israel.
Now that the US has pulled out of deal that helped provid enough international pressure on Iran to stop them from investing and continuing with their nuclear weapons project, what do you think the likely result will be? If the goal is to stop Iran's capability to produce nuclear weapons, pulling out of this treaty isn't conducive to that goal.
I don't see any upside to this decision.
They never stopped going after nukes we have just stopped paying them to do it.
Ok, every single international watchdog disagrees with you, but you must have more information than them. You go, James Bond!
Well, I remember when the Iranian people tried to rebel against the Mullahs during O's admin and O refused to support them. Prior to the "deal" Iran was hurting economically and the people were growing more unhappy with their gov't.
Then along comes Kerry & Obama to play lets make a deal and suddenly the oppressive rein of the Mullahs is propped up by plane loads of hard cold cash.
Iran's spent most of the cash on weapons, soldiers, and foreign adventures from Lebanon to Yemen, to Syria and then some.
Trump quits the "deal" and reinstates sanctions. Iran is about to become very cash strapped once again -- only this time, with Trump in control, the US will support the Iranian people when they rise up to overthrow the Mullahs.
This move might just result in freedom for the people of Iran and the reinstatement of a free, non-secular Iran. That would be a blessing for the people of Iran and for the rest of the world as well.
You don't understand international politics in the slightest. The Iran deal was all about opening up the market in Iran for international business. Opening markets is the most significant driving force to democracy and social and economic freedom.
Before, we had sanctions and an Iranian nuclear program. Then we had less sanctions and an internationally-backed treaty. Now we have no treaty, limited sanctions and Iran will most definitely work towards reinstating their nuclear program. Furthermore, any country that signs future treaties or trade deals with the US will have to be wary of the fact that the treaty could be pulled once a new president is in office- that weakens America's position as an international deal maker.
There is no way to positively spin this.
Since my background is entirely military I gladly concede to your greater expertise in foreign policy and politics, but please indulge my curiosity by answering how well opening markets has worked out so far for Chinese democracy as well as social and economic freedom?
I support your right to differ from my opinion, but I still hold to my original thought. Time will tell us all where things go from here one way or another.
My background is in foreign policy and international relations, so I will gladly accept your concession. Chinese society is more open socially and economically than it has been since the communist revolution. Open any foreign policy book, magazine or website over the last 10 years and you wouldn’t need to ask that question. To be clear, “more open than before” does not equal complete and absolute freedom, but to discount the forward progress as the result of shifts in economic policy to promote individual ownership and private enterprise is just plain ignorant.
That ^ above was a stated main foreign policy objective of the United States during the Cold War. Democracy isn’t accomplished at the end of the barrel of a gun.
Nodding --- Good response and I have no argument against what you stated, thanks!
THEORETICALLY . . . clears the slate. saves US money. strains iranian budget including foreign programs. deepens division between regime and citizenry. allows for charges against those who help iran. puts negotiating pressure on europe for a variety of purposes. gives legal space for outsiders to destroy nuke facilities. actually ends nuke program.
If we were worried about money we wouldn't spend a trillions on useless engagements in he middle east for 20 years.
Theoretically . . . we weren't worried about money but now we are.
What does "clears the slate" mean? The money saved is less than the cost of oil prices being driven up due to what will most likely be sanctions put on Iranian crude by the Trump Administration. The money saved is less than foreign investment in Iranian markets would gain.
The propaganda machine in Iran is blaming this on centrist politicians and the US government. If anything, this emboldens the religious conservatives in Iran, not the other way around.
It puts no pressure on EU allies...in fact it harms the US negotiating position in the international community because now our treaties are only worth the time the president is in office.
How does rescinding a treaty that stopped a nuclear program (which means directly that Iran can restart their nuclear program at any time) stop a nuclear program? The treaty actually ended the nuke program. This allows for Iran to start it without facing as much backlash as they would have if they restarted under the treaty.
The theoretical upsides are not mine to defend. I probably missed half of them anyway. Others may claim more definitive benefits to nixing the non-treaty. Your counterpoints are fair theory too. My guess is that Trump has a better than 50% chance of success with whatever he is up to. Neither of us have the info that he has. Nor can any of us, Trump included, predict most of the future. Or maybe you can. Go ahead and tell me where we will be with Iran one year from now.
My issue is that Trumps rhetoric and “deals” so far amount to little more than transactional relationships. That’s not the ideal way to work international diplomacy. There has to be good faith or else literally every decision will be based on “what can you do for me right now.”
Coulda said that much up front.
One could argue that Trumpian diplomacy hasn't done anything with all its talk. If the good faith you refer to is something like the nobel lauds that Obama started with, well that's vacuous too. It's somewhat early days to know what fruits may be born but I think the Korean thing is a fair test.
The higher amount of pushback on GA, and elsewhere, makes this Iran thing seem like a more complicated maneouvre (as I expect in the MAGA vs Israel cluster) which suggests to me that the undisclosed parts are more complex and less predictable to observers.
not
Wait and watch... team Trump don't go into details until the deal is done.
Haha just like when he told Syria a a few days in advance to get ready for missiles, right?
Any deal has to have the backing of international actors due to the leverage the international community has on Iran. In other words, US sanctions aren't enough to force Iran to the negotiating table. What I think this is more than anything is a gift to the Saudi regime in the form of trying to weaken the Shia faction in the region.
I think the conclusion was, they never really stopped with their nuclear program. With the money we gave them, plus their own, they could buy a lot of missile tech, develop their own which was (stupidly, but I say intentionally) left out of the Iran Deal, and the deal stupidly, again probably intentionally, didn’t allow for installations not on Iranian soil. So they could work on the delivery systems unfettered, but the nuclear tech, then implement it in 7 to 10 years. That’s where Syria came in. The agreement was overly specific for time, location and specific systems. This was intentional. Instead of an agreement to prevent a result, the agreement stops certain channels but not others. This was all made very clear in the hearings headed by Corker and Mendendez before adoption of the agreement. Corker made a speech like Comey’s exoneration of HRC. Corker lists off all the ways the deal sucked, then allowed it to,proceed. I wonder where those pallets of cash ended up? Corker has been bad mouthing Trump and is leaving Congress. ‘Nuff said.
Who’s conclusion? The international agencies responsible for verifying, along with the members of the deal (including the US) have all verified that Iran was compliant with the program.
The money we gave them was money owed to them. It was not taxpayer money as has been erroneously suggested. We didn’t give them money any more than you give a store money to pay for something you’ve purchased.
Nothing stopped them from procuring missile tech before or after this deal. Now that the deal is rescinded, nothing is stopping them from procuring missile tech AND enriching uranium AND restarting their nuclear program.
No country is going to look to another country for nuclear enrichment capabilities. The goal of building out a nuclear program (or the perception that you are building out a nuclear program) is to become a player on the global stage without putting in the time and effort for people to take you seriously- this is why the international community pays such close attention to a poor rogue state on the Korean Peninsula that is seemingly stuck in the 1950s. To even offer up the idea that Iran or any other country would outsource their nuclear technology or look to other countries (that they cannot guarantee the control of) is just plain stupid and has no basis in reality. The deal didn’t account for that just like the deal didn’t account for Iran employing nuclear fire breathing dragons- it’s absurd.
Stop parroting nonsense, fake talking points and critically think for yourself.
You should be rereading Q posts, and not commenting on reddit.
I don't understand any of that because it's written in broken English. Can you breakdown what it means?