anti_dan
43m ago
They were willing to PRETEND to give up their nuclear program to do so. The JCPOA was entered into by Iran in 2015. In 2016 they still had a large supply of Uranian enriched to higher than civilian percentages, still had several military grade centrifuges, etc. Many parties (aka all the ones that weren't invested in the JCPOA) stated Iran was already violating its requirements under JCPOA.
anti_dan
8hr ago
They have been in the state of sanctions and still proceeded with the program.
anti_dan
10hr ago
But in terms of blocking Iran from getting a nuke, it would have indeed been very effective. That was the whole point.
How? None of the parties were willing to do enforcement. All it did, realistically, was enrich Iran and make gas cheaper in Europe.
If Iran went on to use all that money to enrich Uranium...what? Sternly worded letter from Paris London and Berlin?
anti_dan
10hr ago
The military also uses power and bridges. And they even eat food. There is basically no such thing as a non military target.
anti_dan
12hr ago
Those (aside from #2 in a serious country) are valid concerns. But my real question is basically "how can you expect to win a war if you are unwilling to actually damage the opponent?"
anti_dan
13hr ago
If that's the specific concern, they would be encouraging all US action up to nukes and submitting their own conventional forces in support of US efforts. This would prevent Iran nuclear efforts and show solidarity against the tactic of state sanctioned piracy.
Instead they are complaining about the wrong party and, let's look at Ukraine, an anemic response there is what has happened.
anti_dan
23hr ago
My concern, as it has always been during this war, is why would there be hesitancy to do "Power and Bridge Day"?
If I was in the cabinet, I would have probably (I dont have their info) opposed launching the war. That is because, I'd have known that "Power and Bridge Day" would not only come, it would be necessary, early, and ongoing. Modern economies are all civilian/military mixes. You can't just target military and win. America has known this since at least Vietnam. Israel just had this happen in Gaza. If you aren't willing to destroy infrastructure, you aren't ready for war (and this is a minimum).
"Quantity has a quality of its own" is probably apocryphal, but it is true with bombing and artillery. To win you gotta just get rid of people in your way via death and maiming. You can't win a war being careful unless the opponent is a joke. This is even more true when the enemy is doing tactics like Iran is where they use your own success against you and domestic opponents are actually the threat. Proper warring is always going to turn the enemy territory into killing fields until the tactic of crying about civilian suffering is banished.
anti_dan
23hr ago
If its so clear Iran wants nukes (I agree). Why do none of the countries who, allegedly are parties to nonproliferation agreements, except the US do jack shit about it?
anti_dan
23hr ago
To believe in US defeat you have to believe the US is so squeamish that we'll beg Iran to re-open the SOH and in exchange offer to let them build nuclear weapons with impunity.
Lets say the US does this. Shouldn't all these other countries, such as the ones who co-signed the JCPOA, and are allegedly highly invested in nonproliferation, act on their own to prevent it? Like say Trump did the thing Europe is basically calling for him to do: Call off the war and resign, and in his speech he says something like, "I'm old, this war was too hard for me, I was soundly beaten by Iran because they are too crafty for me. I'm joining Sleepy Joe in the retirement community." If he did that, and Europe just let Iran had the bomb, that would completely and totally solidify the case that Trumpy people have been making against them for the last decade.
There is no US defeat without complete European complete embarrassment, OR mass European blood in pursuit of a military objective for the first time since 1945.
anti_dan
23hr ago
I mean, the negotiation positions were far too far apart for this to work.
From America's POV, we have been kicking Iran's ass left and right to the point that any reasonable regime would have already Fed Ex'd us their uranium.
From Iran's POV they have discovered this awesome new trick, which is just basically the modern equivalent of unrestricted submarine warfare, and think this is a trump card they can used forever to get cash, get nukes, etc.
I have to think, that despite European public declarations that they are basically blaming the US for Iran's actions, behind the scenes they acknowledge that Iran cannot be rewarded for what they have done. There are simply far too many analogous situations in the world. Just in the Strait of Hormuz Oman or the UAE could demand the same. For the Suez/Straight of Gibraltar you have the whole Mediterranean, Ethiopia, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Yemen, Eritrea, Djibouti, Sudan. This tactic is basically untenable, and really if France or UK or Germany had any stones, they'd be encouraging us to nuke Tehran as a response.
Or maybe I am wrong and Europe is truly too poor and too weak to do anything about this or anything else. They have given up on the idea of nonproliferation entirely and expect nukes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc and dont care to raise a finger.
anti_dan
4d ago
Another document illustrating Europe and the "international community's" inability to deal with Iran in any serious matter.
I suppose you might think JCPOA was failed by Trump and not flawed from the beginning, I vociferously disagree and think it was a failure the day it was entered into and would have done nothing to prevent Iranian arming of terrorists or progress to the bomb. I think the European response to Iranian piracy on the high seas proves me wholly correct in my assumptions as to why they entered into the deal, it was not to restrain Iran, but to profit with Iran and to restrain the US. This makes further sense because, restraining America is and was a goal of the American Democrats, and particularly the Obama administration. And even further because the Obama admin severely disliked Israel and wanted them to have less power in the region.
Is there a JCPOA-like agreement that actually could be taken seriously? Yes. Its not one the Ayatollah would ever have accepted, because steps 1-5 would be France an the UK doing the following: 1) Seizing all their Uranium; 2) Seizing all their Uranium manufacturing equipment; 3) Seizing all their ICBMs and Drones etc; 4) Setting up DMZs on Iran's borders with Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, & Armenia; and 5) Engage in a joint taskforce in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria eradicating Hamas and Hezbollah.
Then step 6 would be doing all the things the JCPOA actually did, like lifting sanctions, imposing an inspection regime, giving back seized assets could happen after something like 5 years of compliance. Etc.
But the lifting of sanctions and empowering Iran financially was the true purpose of JCPOA, and we know that because it was the first thing that actually happened, AND we further know this because France and England and Germany are not currently bombing Iran for engaging in piracy against their vessels and vessels destined for their ports.
anti_dan
4d ago
They were apparently completely ineffective, again bolstering all critics of the deal
anti_dan
4d ago
Yes I agree that ultimately nothing short of continued and ongoing bombing would have prevented or could prevent Iran from getting nukes. My point is JCPOA makes that much harder as Iran would have been much richer letting it have more and better military equipment and more money to invest in the nuclear program.
anti_dan
4d ago
Then why didn't France, the UK, etc enforce those snapback provisions at any point?
anti_dan
4d ago
The whole point of the JCPOA was to lift sanctions on Iran so it could be a rival to Israel and Europeans could buy more oil from them. The nuclear program restrictions were a thin veneer erected on top of that framework with no enforcement options (nor did any party have any interest in enforcement as we have seen subsequently).
anti_dan
4d ago
Are you forgetting the re-imposed economic sanctions and multiple operations to destroy or sabotage the nuclear program? There have been multiple killings of scientists and generals over the years. They were obviously close to breakout at the end of the Biden admin with his relaxing of sanctions. If that had been 9 years instead of 4 of pumping money into Iran, they'd obviously have had them during Biden Admin.
anti_dan
5d ago
Not only that, but there was no appetite from any of the counterparties to implement enforcement mechanisms if we suspected they had a secret nuclear base. Just look at how Framce, Germany, UK, China, etc responded to Iran engaging in piracy against their vessels in response to the bombing campaign: They cried and blamed the US and did nothing. If Iran kicked out inspectors they would have done the same thing. So the JCPOA was, practically, just lifting sanctions for fake promises.
anti_dan
5d ago
The JCPOA put Iran in this same position, just with more money and less bombed out bases. Likely if it was in effect the last 10 years there'd already have been a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.
anti_dan
5d ago
Real fights end more quickly, are more random, and often weapons of some sort are involved. This equalizes and randomizes, but the trends are the same.
Real fights reward explosive action more than combat sports, often the winning move is first to get the other person's head to hit something hard.
When I was beating bigger guys in wrestling, it was quick takedowns (which translate to real fights) and stamina (which doesn't as much).
anti_dan
5d ago
This is simply slander against the U-14/16 team they played. Those boys won. They would have won unless the refs cheated in favor of the females. The gap between Chealsea youth and the professional team is orders of magnitude less than between Chelsea men and the US female world cup team.
anti_dan
5d ago
Bench press is a training exercise, not a useful combat skill. It is not a bad training exercise, but it is a middling one. Most weight lifts are. Combat itself is where male advantage is at its height. If there was a woman 5% taller, 5% heavier, 5% better than me on bench and squat, I'd estimate she is probably a professional athlete, and secondly, has almost no chance against me in a wrestling or judo match. Boxing maybe higher if she is a boxer, because striking is not my best attribute.
And I am not near my peak skill wise. Things are just how they are.
They've seemingly always wanted them for the purpose of deploying them against the US and Israel. Yes also so they can do their terrorism in the Middle East without fearing reprisals.
I think this is the European approach because they have no other approach. If Iran makes moves towards nuclearization they just shrug and say, "aww shucks." If Iran engages in piracy against their vessels they just shrug and say, "aww shucks."
Yeah, it was a bad war. Not for these reasons. For the reason that Trump should have no Europe wouldn't like it, and most of America wouldn't like it because war is expensive. AND most importantly because everyone should have known what was actually necessary to win the war, which was actions that America has not taken since 1945 and is unlikely to take until it is in an actual existential war.
Yeah, the Trump chaos plan doesnt work against people who would strap a bomb to themselves if they thought it would kill 5 Americans.
Because Europe accepts piracy of its own vessels because they are mad at Trump.
Imagine if Israel did this to the Suez Canal everytime Hamas or Hezbollah attacked them. You wouldn't be making this same stupid argument.
Its true they can't do what we cant, but its plausible (unlikely because they are comically useless as a general rule) they could do what we are UNWILLING to do, which is land ground forces and seize all access to the straight. They could deploy escort ships to the straight. They would, of course, do those things if Morocco was mining the Straight of Gilbralter over a border dispute with Algeria and shooting at French, British, and German vessels and demanding $100 billion annually in tolls for using said waterway.
More options
Context Copy link