You did not get up early enough in the morning to discuss this in detail.
This mornings news.
IEA sees significant 2027 oil surplus after Hormuz recovery
IEA sees prices dropping in 2027.
Less money is still more than no money. Sanction waivers put money in their pocket immediately.
PS, it’s still 2026, and prices will take a bit to come down.
2 Likes
Are you advocating being worse to Iran?
Weren’t those waivers in place prior? Iran was trading oil prior.
You keep talking about nuclear weapons as if we were in charge of whether another nation has them or not. Bill Clinton “allowed” Pakistan to have nuclear weapons? How was that his decision? The U.S. doesn’t “allow” other countries to get nukes or not - they don’t need to come to us for permission or authorization.
As was clearly and obviously demonstrated in Iran, we do not have the power to stop another nation from having a nuclear program unless we are willing to invade that country with ground troops and forcibly impose a new government on them. As was repeatedly pointed out to you, we weren’t going to go into Iran with ground troops. And Pakistan? Pakistan is literally one of the largest countries in the world, with 260 million people. We’re not invading Pakistan to stop them from getting a nuke.
I think you might want to reassess your view of the scope and limits of U.S. power. It’s not our choice, and not our call, whether a nation decides to pursue a nuclear weapon. These are not things we “allow” to happen.
12 Likes
I’m advocating for diplomacy. When it comes to nuclear proliferation, diplomacy was working until JTT came along. Now his war of choice has made diplomacy more difficult, with the US having to give up more concessions than ever, just to get Iran back to the negotiating table.
Most Americans want a diplomatic solution, not militaristic intervention. There’s nothing contradictory in wanting diplomacy and acknowledging how the US has shot itself in the foot.
4 Likes
You are being ridiculous.
How is that ridiculous? There’s no formal mechanism for the U.S. to be in charge of whether other countries get nuclear weapons. If they don’t voluntarily refrain from getting them (as with the NPT), then we can’t stop other nations from having a nuclear program, enrich uranium, and even develop and test a bomb. We can make it painful for them to do it by doing things like imposing sanctions or what not - but the record in Iran and North Korea makes it clear that such sanctions can’t prevent them from doing it if they choose to go ahead. We don’t get to “allow” or “disallow” them from doing it.
6 Likes
There has never been a formal mechanism for a single war on the planet. But alas we are human beings. Now we have the nuclear threat and you think we need to stand aside? You think our being wiped out if 30 more nations have nuclear weapons is not our business or worth stopping?
Ridiculous.
Step into a nuclear reactor, but I am not following you in. I want the US military stopping any hope of an idiot for nuclear war.
What does that have to do with anything? We don’t have the ability to stop other nations from getting nuclear weapons. We’re not in charge of the world, and we don’t get to decide such things. It’s like me criticizing you for “allowing” Donald Trump to get elected or for “allowing” Argentina to win last night’s world cup game.
Just declaring that something is unacceptable doesn’t change that dynamic. Pakistan is five times the size of Iraq. The U.S. can’t stop a country of that size from getting a nuke if they want one. You may “want” the world to be different than that - but regardless of what you want, regardless of whether you think it is “worth stopping,” we don’t have the ability to stop them.
6 Likes
We do it seems in Iran.
No, we don’t. We can’t stop them from getting a nuke, and we haven’t. We can try to give them all sorts of benefits to try to induce them to choose not to get a nuke.
Iran’s always said they’re not going to get a nuke. They’ve always been willing to promise they won’t get a nuke. They’ve always been willing to sign a document saying they won’t get a nuke. They were willing in late February to sign a deal saying they won’t get a nuke. We went to war because the Administration said that a promise not to get a nuke isn’t good enough, and we need to force them to not be able to have a nuke. But that has failed, and we’re back to trying to get them to again say that they won’t have a nuke (which they have always said and have never stopped saying).
10 Likes
It seems we have. The dust is clearing.
808080
We have not. Iran has no less capacity to develop a nuclear weapon than it had on February 26th.
7 Likes
You’re wrong. Both sides want a deal. Let’s review the timeline of events. Iran previously agreed to a deal, in which they agreed to give up all of their highly enriched uranium and all 24/7 monitoring of their nuclear faculties in exchange for lifting the sanctions. So we know with certainty they are willing to verifiably give up their nuclear program in exchange for some concessions.
The US has to cut a deal because the war is spiking inflation and hurting our economy. But now Iran’s position is much stronger than it was before the war.
This isn’t hindsight. We had several threads in the early weeks of the war explaining why the US was guaranteed to lose. The only question is how much the US would have to give up. Quite a bit as a turns out.
7 Likes
That simply is wrong, not true. We bombed their facilities.
We do not need a deal now. The regime won’t risk getting blown to pieces again.
You guys do not see it. A deal with the US is like a treaty in the West with the Indians. Worthless nonsense regardless. Treaties, negotiations, deals, etc…just pave over things for a while. Years, months, weeks, a while.
The moment it looked like Trump was giving away something, he reneged…literally this morning. We can go to war again. His saying that.
We want the strait open as cheaply as possible. We want Israel driving out Iranian backed forces. We want to give the regime nothing. That’s the goal.
Iran needs to think of it as an offer it can’t refuse. Why because recently we blew up a few of their water facilities. Without water the country will be in big trouble. Take the offer you owe the world an open strait or fight without water to drink.
We bombed their facilities last year. They had not been rebuilt. Iran had made no effort at all to rebuild them. All of their equipment and enriched uranium was buried and remained buried. The reason that we determined that Iran’s nuclear threat remained was that they still had the ability and (presumably) the intention to restart those programs in the future. Nothing has changed since before this specific direct conflict started in late February. Their facilities are no more or less bombed than they were before, and Iran has no less ability and (presumably) intention to restart those programs in the future.
6 Likes
We bombed other facilities this year. Yawn, so what? You are chasing your tail. I am bowing out.
You’re welcome to bow out, but I think it would really help your understanding of what’s actually going on here if you didn’t. After all, you’ve completely missed the point here. I was pointing out that we didn’t do anything to materially degrade their nuclear program. The fact that we bombed “other facilities” this year doesn’t change that, because those weren’t their enrichment facilities. They were ordinary conventional military targets, not nuclear targets. They didn’t rebuild the nuclear targets after last year’s bombing.
My original statement is true. Iran does not have any less nuclear capabilities today than they did on February 26th. Good luck with your bowing out of discussions about Iran! Somehow, I suspect you’ll return them within a day or two…
5 Likes
I am trying to tell you. You have no point. It is posterboard s off of the news media.
This is not how any of it works, signed or not signed. We do not care.