What's new

The end of the deal, hopes, delusions and treasons

After S-300 fiasco with Russia and and JCPOA with the west Iran will be foolish to negotiate any major deal with the them (china is yet to be tested!)..Destiny of a nation should no longer be tied to the worthless signatures on the paper.

So what is the solution...Iranian population is large enough and Iranian land vast and abundant in natural resources that she does not depend on outside trade to prosper...yes outside trade is desirable but not necessary for a country such as Iran ...

What is needed.... proper management of the resources by competent people..morons such as Rohanni and his team should give way to people who can do the job and that my friends is beyond my pay grade...why Iran does not have guys like Moghadam and/or Hajizadeh in the economic decision making is not known to me!!..

Where have you been last 32 years or 10 years or 15 years? Rouhani is incompetent that much is true, but hardly the cause of Iran’s problems. Hajizadeh can’t even teach his forces the difference between a cruise missile and a passenger jet flying from an international airport. Pull past reports and see how many times in last 15 years Iranian air defense systems have fired on airliners and fighter jets by accident....it will surprise you.

Iran’s currency has gone from 700 (1980’s) to 25,000. Is that All Rouhani’s Fault?

No, the issue is much deeper. it’s the fault of Rafsanjani clan, Larjani Clan, Qalibaf clan, and many more including IRGC alumni who use their connections to their past military service to enrich themselves see Qalibaf as a prime example!

This utopia you @Shawnee have is not rooted in reality. Iran can not reduce corruption by any meaningful amount when too many Major power brokers are corrupt! Unless it is willing to bring down these power brokers. It’s a risk, but sometimes you must sacrifice a limb in order to save the body.

So again neither of you guys have a viable plan to turn around this economy! It’s just the same slogan. You just sit and continue to spout “no negotiations” and then say “Iran can depend on itself”.

Yeah if that didn’t happen in the last 40 years what makes you think it will happen in next 10?

I hope it all works out. But for all of Iran’s resilience, for all its ingenuity, for all its prowess expanding its influence across the middle east and military defense industry, it has absolutely caused a massive self inflicted wound with its economic policy and mismanagement of the economy!

Now is not the time to fall asleep! If Iran doesn’t what to negotiate for next 100 years that is fine, but present a viable economic plan to prosper for that next 100 years. Instead people like Zarif sit and complain as if the world owes them anything!

Meanwhile power brokers enrich themselves under sanctions busting schemes while some average Iranians have not been able to afford MEAT on their tables in months!
 
Last edited:
.
Ok let’s say you are correct that no negotiations happen for next decade. What is your plan to save the Iranian economy?

Soviet Union had an empire and it’s influence was all across the world. Yet it collapsed suddenly under its financial mismanagement, overspending, and corruption.

Iran may or may not experience such a fate. The very least from further currency devaluation, inflation, and sluggish GDP will be further hardship on people, more unemployment, more drug addiction, etc.

So I am not against no negotiations as long as the person has a plan to improve the lives of Iranians. The North Korea model of subjugating the population to extreme poverty and hardship will not work in Iranian society.

Back under Bush administration, the thought of oil sanctions was considered draconian and a redline. Yet Obama (a Democrat) crossed that line and opened up Pandora’s box.

Iran should be given all the credit in the world that it survived sanctions that no other nation could survive for last 30-40 years. However, if Iran was subject to these sanctions it currently is subject to from the start way back in 1980, then the Iran of today would look very very different.

Iran caught a break that the West did no deploy oil related sanctions until Obama administration. Iran also caught a break that it wasn’t cut off from banking system till Obama admisntration.

Right now, Iran has yet to present a solution for the two problems I just mentioned. If a solution is not found the Republic pillars will start cracking under severe financial hardship.

It may or may not break, no one can tell. But the status quo is not the right route and if Iran plans on not negotiating with the West then it should begin massive reforms Of its economy and corruption crackdown.


What happened to your argument of Democrats not making any deals?

What is the value of selling oil while you have to import bubblegum in exchange and part of your money stays with the customer. I would rather sell refined materials.

Actually, you have no plan other than disarming yourself and accepting the risk of getting punched in the face and hoping for the best.

I showed you examples of people who believed in themselves and worked hard and won. They produced. They suffered but worked harder.

No body can save you with a deal or without a deal other than your hard work.
...
 
.
Now heres one that I`d never thought that I`d ever read.
What makes it so utterly shocking is that its basically commonsense...or at least as close as a neo-fascist POS like this can possibly get to it.
Bolton,a man whos rabid pro zionist and extreme right wing war mongering sentiments are publicly on display for all to see,and proudly so.A man whos utter contempt for the un was so blatantly and completely obvious during his tenure there,is now arguing that any attempt by the chump regime to try to invoke "snapback" on the iran sanctions is actually a bad idea,if only because of the risk to americas security council veto.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-snapback-isnt-worth-the-risk-11597595060

Iran ‘Snapback’ Isn’t Worth the Risk
It would weaken the Security Council veto, which serves U.S. interests at the U.N.
By John Bolton
Aug. 16, 2020 12:24 pm ET

For the U.S., there is one point of high principle worth dying in a ditch for at the United Nations: Never impair the Security Council veto. That’s what President Trump is preparing to do, exacerbating President Obama’s mistakes in negotiating the 2015 Iran nuclear deal.
Mr. Trump rightly withdrew from that agreement in May 2018. The attendant renewal of U.S. sanctions, although imperfectly implemented, brought crushing economic pressure against Tehran. Even so, despite Iran’s continuing violations of the agreement and its widespread belligerent and terrorist-supporting activities, this diplomatic zombie still lurks in the minds of its progenitors, threatening a return next year. Iran Deal 2.0 could come in a Biden administration or even in a second Trump term. The president confidently predicted he could negotiate one in four weeks.
Among the 2015 agreement’s many grievous mistakes was setting a 2020 expiration date on a broad Security Council arms embargo against Iran that specifically enumerates several categories of sophisticated and heavy weapons systems, especially ballistic missiles and their components. There was no reason for Mr. Obama to make this concession except his zeal to make a deal. On Friday the Trump administration tried to extend the council’s embargo, but failed devastatingly; the vote was 2-2 with 11 abstentions; both Russia and China voted no. Approval required nine votes and no vetoes.
The administration had threatened, if the extension failed, to invoke the deal’s “snapback” mechanism and renew all suspended sanctions. Paragraph 11 of Security Council Resolution 2231 provides that a “participant state” in the nuclear deal, asserting “significant non-performance of commitments” thereunder, can force a Security Council vote on snapback within 30 days. That entails a new resolution authorizing the continued suspension of the sanctions, which the U.S. would veto, ensuring that they come back into effect.
The agreement’s backers argue that Washington, having withdrawn from the deal, has no standing to invoke its provisions. They’re right. It’s too cute by half to say we’re in the nuclear deal for purposes we want but not for those we don’t. That alone is sufficient reason not to trigger the snapback process. Why afford any American legitimacy to this misbegotten creature? Further, the U.N. Charter allows no vetoes to decide “procedural” questions, and that is how between nine and 13 members may categorize, and thereby stymie, Mr. Trump’s ploy.
But the real injury is done when a second U.S. administration in five years even attempts, successfully or not, to take actions that undercut America’s veto. The damage here is potentially permanent.
The veto wasn’t widely popular in 1945 when the U.N. Charter was adopted. The idea of eliminating or curtailing it never died. Eleanor Roosevelt and others repeatedly urged against exercising the veto, saying such forbearance demonstrated “moral superiority.” So powerful was this mindset that not until 1970 did Washington first use the power. Thereafter, America has wielded the veto forcefully, largely to protect Israel and other allies.
The U.S. has risked endangering the veto before, notably by introducing the 1950 Uniting for Peace resolution in the General Assembly. Because Moscow had boycotted the Security Council after North Korea invaded the South, Washington was able to obtain the council’s authorization to repel the attack. When the Soviets ended the boycott and threatened vetoes of further Korea measures, America proposed vesting the General Assembly, which had a large pro-U.S. majority, with greater responsibility for international peace and security.
Britain saw the trap immediately. As Dean Acheson wrote, London “wisely forecast the dangers of the idea in the future if the then-majority in the United Nations should give way to one holding contrary views.” He confessed, however, that “present difficulties outweighed possible future ones, and we pressed on.” Sidestepping Russia’s veto seemed attractive, but Uniting for Peace was a potential disaster—averted only because the General Assembly’s own increasing impotence and irrelevance saved the Security Council from political collapse, the fate that befell the assembly.
The snapback concept could be substantially more threatening, enervating the council under the ironic guise of making it more effective. The next time it proves useful to some or all of the permanent members to propose a snap back or similar device to avoid the veto, pressure to acquiesce so as to avoid unnecessary disputes at the U.N. will mushroom. The process may be gradual, but it is nonetheless threatening, either under U.S. administrations that look for temporary deals rather than long-term strategy or ones that overvalue multilateral approbation and tranquility at the U.N. We should skip this experiment.

Mr. Bolton is author of “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir.” He served as the president’s national security adviser, 2018-19 and ambassador to the U.N., 2005-06.
 
. . .
So like predicted, the American attempt to snap back sanctions failed as the other members simply did not recognise the American as able to do so given they're not longer an active participant of the deal.
 
.
So like predicted, the American attempt to snap back sanctions failed as the other members simply did not recognise the American as able to do so given they're not longer an active participant of the deal.

Hasn’t failed. You should learn how deal was written.

US has begun SnapBack procedure. Security Council has 30 days to weigh the request and then it goes into effect. If Russia and China try to pass a resolution nullifying US request then US will veto that resolution and SnapBack will go into effect.

The SnapBack was designed to override vetoes. Rouhani and Co were played. They never thought US could find a loophole and leave the deal and still initiate SnapBack.
 
.
Hasn’t failed. You should learn how deal was written.

US has begun SnapBack procedure. Security Council has 30 days to weigh the request and then it goes into effect. If Russia and China try to pass a resolution nullifying US request then US will veto that resolution and SnapBack will go into effect.

The SnapBack was designed to override vetoes. Rouhani and Co were played. They never thought US could find a loophole and leave the deal and still initiate SnapBack.

The point is the current participants do not recognise US as being part of the deal hence it cannot start any such snapback procedure. What's likely to happen is US will simply act as if the sanctions are snapped back and try to sanction any nation dealing with Iran militarily.

 
.
Hasn’t failed. You should learn how deal was written.

US has begun SnapBack procedure. Security Council has 30 days to weigh the request and then it goes into effect. If Russia and China try to pass a resolution nullifying US request then US will veto that resolution and SnapBack will go into effect.

The SnapBack was designed to override vetoes. Rouhani and Co were played. They never thought US could find a loophole and leave the deal and still initiate SnapBack.
Whats the point russia and china wont agree and there is nothing usa can do.
The arm embargo is meaningless. Its upto russia and china to see what they want to do
 
.
Whats the point russia and china wont agree and there is nothing usa can do.
The arm embargo is meaningless. Its upto russia and china to see what they want to do

The point is the current participants do not recognise US as being part of the deal hence it cannot start any such snapback procedure. What's likely to happen is US will simply act as if the sanctions are snapped back and try to sanction any nation dealing with Iran militarily.


Do you guys really think that China, Russia, and the EU are going to ignore a Security Council resolution? For a country like Iran?

When US requests SnapBack then the UN Security Council has to restore sanctions. If a veto carrying power (Russia and China) tries to inject a procedural motion to declare US request not valid. US will veto.

The whole point of SnapBack Clause was that US would always be able to snap back sanctions and Russia/China couldn’t stop it.

Not that any country is willing to risk doing business with Iran at the moment.
 
.
Do you guys really think that China, Russia, and the EU are going to ignore a Security Council resolution? For a country like Iran?

When US requests SnapBack then the UN Security Council has to restore sanctions. If a veto carrying power (Russia and China) tries to inject a procedural motion to declare US request not valid. US will veto.

The whole point of SnapBack Clause was that US would always be able to snap back sanctions and Russia/China couldn’t stop it.

Not that any country is willing to risk doing business with Iran at the moment.

There's a legal precedent going back to the 1970s that a state cannot claim to benefit from a deal if they don't abide by it

The US has already made a mockery of the UNSC and will completely delegitimise it by pushing for a snapback

Russia, China and others will seek to preserve it as it would open a Pandora's box they want to keep closed
 
.
There's a legal precedent going back to the 1970s that a state cannot claim to benefit from a deal if they don't abide by it

The US has already made a mockery of the UNSC and will completely delegitimise it by pushing for a snapback

Russia, China and others will seek to preserve it as it would open a Pandora's box they want to keep closed

Bro they don’t even sell medical supplies to Iran. Every major bank in the world is afraid to even touch Iran.

Now with US Treasury announcing open season on anyone doing business with Iran, even if Russia and China put a symbolic defense, They won’t be able to FORCE companies to do business with Iran. Even without UN sanctions no one is buying Iranian oil (at least overtly)

But this victory you guys are clapping for is a hollow one. Same people who were clapping about the European sanctions busting banking channel. We saw what a joke that was. The dollar rules the world. The only leverage Iran had on the world back in the day was worlds desperate need for oil. Now a days there is so much of that flowing that Iranian oil is not needed.

I assume current Iran strategy is to wait it out and hope Biden gets elected and US returns to full compliance.
 
.
Do you guys really think that China, Russia, and the EU are going to ignore a Security Council resolution? For a country like Iran?

When US requests SnapBack then the UN Security Council has to restore sanctions. If a veto carrying power (Russia and China) tries to inject a procedural motion to declare US request not valid. US will veto.

The whole point of SnapBack Clause was that US would always be able to snap back sanctions and Russia/China couldn’t stop it.

Not that any country is willing to risk doing business with Iran at the moment.
YES DID YOU GET THE MEMEO?
They already submitted a reply that USA move is invalid
Russia already under sanctions it will simply do its business while china is under pressure and it will want to annoy USA
europe wont do anything but french will sell anything for money
 
.
China and Russia need Iran strong enough to annoy and weaken US. That is their strategic policy.
...
 
.
YES DID YOU GET THE MEMEO?
They already submitted a reply that USA move is invalid
Russia already under sanctions it will simply do its business while china is under pressure and it will want to annoy USA
europe wont do anything but french will sell anything for money

Russia is a country not a company.

You can’t force a company to do business with a country. So if European, Russian, Chinese companies weren’t doing business before they aren’t magically going to do business now. The reason is they fear US sanctions and being locked out of US markets.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom