Iran Attempts to Stop British Commercial Ship

[Rockie1234]

Yet again, Iran is going down a path of no return as they attempted to stop a British commercial vessel today which was in the Strait of Hormuz. They had only turned stopped and turned around when they were approached by a British Royal Navy Frigate.

The leaders in Iran are obviously attempting to show that they will stop at nothing in order to get a deal out of the Trump administration and the EU, though it seems like they may fail to retain their leadership on the country if they continue to anger more and more world powers.

I'll be attempting to post updates as they come (https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-iranian-vessels-tried-to-block-u-k-ship-from-passing-through-strait-of-hormuz-11562822874?mod=hp_lead_pos1)

As others have said, this does not accurately portray the whole situation. The USA started by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. I suppose whether this deal was good or not can be argued, but it was already in place and agreed to. In fact, the European powers were pretty satisfied with it and saw it as a major diplomatic step forward. What Trump did, revoking this deal, is completely unacceptable in diplomatic practice.The only reason it was probably done is to appease allies like the Saudis.

To drive the point home, let's take a hypothetical situation. America has an important strategic deal with another country, which is suddenly revoked for no good reason, and with heavy sanctions imposed on America, causing the dollar to sink down into the ground, and with even more Americans being afflicted with poverty. Will America just passively comply? Of course not.

And you are telling me that Iran should just bow down to blatant aggression? America is doing everything it can to provoke Iran, of course Iran can't just submit to so much humiliation. And any future trust for salvaging any other deals with iran is destroyed.

[1714674423]

1714674423

[1714674423]

1714674423

[1714674423]

1714674423

[1714674423]

1714674423

[Spendulus]

Yet again, Iran is going down a path of no return as they attempted to stop a British commercial vessel today which was in the Strait of Hormuz. They had only turned stopped and turned around when they were approached by a British Royal Navy Frigate.

The leaders in Iran are obviously attempting to show that they will stop at nothing in order to get a deal out of the Trump administration and the EU, though it seems like they may fail to retain their leadership on the country if they continue to anger more and more world powers.

I'll be attempting to post updates as they come (https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-iranian-vessels-tried-to-block-u-k-ship-from-passing-through-strait-of-hormuz-11562822874?mod=hp_lead_pos1)

As others have said, this does not accurately portray the whole situation. The USA started by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. I suppose whether this deal was good or not can be argued, but it was already in place and agreed to. In fact, the European powers were pretty satisfied with it and saw it as a major diplomatic step forward. What Trump did, revoking this deal, is completely unacceptable in diplomatic practice.The only reason....

.... was because a majority of voting Americans put in in the White House to do things just like this.

The people first, the power brokers last.

[Rockie1234]

Yet again, Iran is going down a path of no return as they attempted to stop a British commercial vessel today which was in the Strait of Hormuz. They had only turned stopped and turned around when they were approached by a British Royal Navy Frigate.

The leaders in Iran are obviously attempting to show that they will stop at nothing in order to get a deal out of the Trump administration and the EU, though it seems like they may fail to retain their leadership on the country if they continue to anger more and more world powers.

I'll be attempting to post updates as they come (https://www.wsj.com/articles/three-iranian-vessels-tried-to-block-u-k-ship-from-passing-through-strait-of-hormuz-11562822874?mod=hp_lead_pos1)

As others have said, this does not accurately portray the whole situation. The USA started by withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal. I suppose whether this deal was good or not can be argued, but it was already in place and agreed to. In fact, the European powers were pretty satisfied with it and saw it as a major diplomatic step forward. What Trump did, revoking this deal, is completely unacceptable in diplomatic practice.The only reason....

.... was because a majority of voting Americans put in in the White House to do things just like this.

The people first, the power brokers last.

Yes but Trump was the driving force behind it. Right now the Republicans will do whatever they need to do to stay in power, if that means supporting Trump they will gladly follow him without question. Don't forget his campaign promise on Iran. And "the people" does not mean less than 40% of the population.

[Spendulus]

....
And you are telling me that Iran should just bow down to blatant aggression? America is doing everything it can to provoke Iran, of course Iran can't just submit to so much humiliation. And any future trust for salvaging any other deals with iran is destroyed.

Trust? Nonsense.

The American people didn't make that deal with Iran, and the American Congress or Senate didn't make that deal.

It's fine to revoke it, those facts notwithstanding, because it was a terribly bad deal.

Now tell me how much a promise from those Iranian mullahs is worth, the ones that believe in Takiyya.

[TheCoinGrabber]

Trying to leverage their geographic position and retaliate for having their own tanker seized I guess. Can only cross fingers this don't erupt into a major war.

IMO Iran is desperately trying to provoke an armed response from the USA. I would wager the Chinese have pledged to back them up militarily if it were to happen, and if it did Russia would likely step in too. China can't take the USA alone, but with Russia and Iranian fronts also active they have a very good chance. This is 100% strategic rope a dope type tactics. Thankfully Trump has resisted this response so far. China is suffering economically and they are desperate to find ways to change the status quo, and a very irate Iran is a convenient proxy to do so for them.

China need to distract the public from their slowing growth rates. The people only care about their own comfort and their fine with their gov't as long as their needs are met so if the economy goes down, the gov't would find itself surrounded by an angry mob. That's also one reason they're whipping up nationalist sentiment over the South China Sea, portraying it as a conflict against the US.

[Rockie1234]

....
And you are telling me that Iran should just bow down to blatant aggression? America is doing everything it can to provoke Iran, of course Iran can't just submit to so much humiliation. And any future trust for salvaging any other deals with iran is destroyed.

Trust? Nonsense.

The American people didn't make that deal with Iran, and the American Congress or Senate didn't make that deal.

It's fine to revoke it, those facts notwithstanding, because it was a terribly bad deal.

Now tell me how much a promise from those Iranian mullahs is worth, the ones that believe in Takiyya.

Yes but it shows that American governments are fickle with their policy; that they will renege whenever it suits them, you know something is wrong when basically all other Western powers are for this deal. The idea that you should just destroy a deal, however bad or good, just because of a change in government is ridiculous, and shows a certain arrogance. Not to mention the Darroch leak which suggested most of the Trump adminsistration had made very little plans regarding policy on Iran.

Of course, Iran is by no means innocent either, but sanctions are punishing ordinary civilians and not those in charge. Of course their ideology is backward, but this doesn't give America the right to do whatever it likes for its own narrow interests. Look at what Saudi Arabia, a supposed US ally has done in recent years (murdered a journalist maybe?). And don't be short-sighted enough to forget that the US worsened Islamic fundamentalism in Iran via its repeated backing of the unpopular Shah.

[Spendulus]

....
And you are telling me that Iran should just bow down to blatant aggression? America is doing everything it can to provoke Iran, of course Iran can't just submit to so much humiliation. And any future trust for salvaging any other deals with iran is destroyed.

Trust? Nonsense.

The American people didn't make that deal with Iran, and the American Congress or Senate didn't make that deal.

It's fine to revoke it, those facts notwithstanding, because it was a terribly bad deal.

Now tell me how much a promise from those Iranian mullahs is worth, the ones that believe in Takiyya.

Yes but it shows that American governments are fickle with their policy; that they will renege whenever it suits them, you know something is wrong when basically all other Western powers are for this deal. The idea that you should just destroy a deal, however bad or good, just because of a change in government is ridiculous, and shows a certain arrogance. Not to mention the Darroch leak which suggested most of the Trump adminsistration had made very little plans regarding policy on Iran.

Of course, Iran is by no means innocent either, but sanctions are punishing ordinary civilians and not those in charge. Of course their ideology is backward, but this doesn't give America the right to do whatever it likes for its own narrow interests. Look at what Saudi Arabia, a supposed US ally has done in recent years (murdered a journalist maybe?). And don't be short-sighted enough to forget that the US worsened Islamic fundamentalism in Iran via its repeated backing of the unpopular Shah.

No, let's ignore your goal - shifting and stick to the basics.

Did Obama follow the basic requirements for an international treaty under US law with his deal with the Iranian dictators?

Yes or no please.

[Rockie1234]

....
And you are telling me that Iran should just bow down to blatant aggression? America is doing everything it can to provoke Iran, of course Iran can't just submit to so much humiliation. And any future trust for salvaging any other deals with iran is destroyed.

Trust? Nonsense.

The American people didn't make that deal with Iran, and the American Congress or Senate didn't make that deal.

It's fine to revoke it, those facts notwithstanding, because it was a terribly bad deal.

Now tell me how much a promise from those Iranian mullahs is worth, the ones that believe in Takiyya.

Yes but it shows that American governments are fickle with their policy; that they will renege whenever it suits them, you know something is wrong when basically all other Western powers are for this deal. The idea that you should just destroy a deal, however bad or good, just because of a change in government is ridiculous, and shows a certain arrogance. Not to mention the Darroch leak which suggested most of the Trump adminsistration had made very little plans regarding policy on Iran.

Of course, Iran is by no means innocent either, but sanctions are punishing ordinary civilians and not those in charge. Of course their ideology is backward, but this doesn't give America the right to do whatever it likes for its own narrow interests. Look at what Saudi Arabia, a supposed US ally has done in recent years (murdered a journalist maybe?). And don't be short-sighted enough to forget that the US worsened Islamic fundamentalism in Iran via its repeated backing of the unpopular Shah.

No, let's ignore your goal - shifting and stick to the basics.

Did Obama follow the basic requirements for an international treaty under US law with his deal with the Iranian dictators?

Yes or no please.

I don't know the exact details as to how Obama helped in the creation of the treaty, and I wouldn't mind you explaining it to me so I can research it further, this is a very interesting topic. But please don't suggest I'm trying to argue in bad faith. First you said because it was a bad deal, now you are talking about Obama. If there are any interesting details from your perspective, I would be happy to hear them. What basic requirements are you referring to?

[Spendulus]

....
Did Obama follow the basic requirements for an international treaty under US law with his deal with the Iranian dictators?

Yes or no please.

I don't know the exact details as to how Obama helped in the creation of the treaty, and I wouldn't mind you explaining it to me so I can research it further, this is a very interesting topic. But please don't suggest I'm trying to argue in bad faith. First you said because it was a bad deal, now you are talking about Obama. If there are any interesting details from your perspective, I would be happy to hear them. What basic requirements are you referring to?

But you understand this is a case of a US president making a treaty without the consent or even involving the Senate. That deal was really, truly "never a deal." And there is the place where there was a problem. If Trump had wanted to fix it and continue it, he would have ... I guess ... sent it for discussion and ratification in the Senate. But that wasn't what he wanted to do.

I'm not even seeing where this is wrong or unfair or un businesslike...


Reference

The Treaty Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which, upon receiving the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority vote of the United States Senate, become binding with the force of federal law.

[Flying Hellfish]

Real diplomatic, referring to the US president (the leader of the free world) as  a 'stupid cunt of a President'

I don't need to be diplomatic I'm not negotiating with your stupid cunt of a president.  Grow a set, Trump calls everyone and their brother names yet I am supposed to be diplomatic, ya typical right winger wants it both fucking ways...

-- Even disregarding that for a second, the Iran deal was shit (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal-flawed/559595/) and it was a way for Obama to say he had won an American deal on foreign policy.

Right wing talking point drivel...

It was the best fucking deal on the table, you do know Iran had enough enriched Uranium to make approx 8-10 NUCLEAR BOMBS and gave it all up when the deal was signed right?  That means we GOT NUKES out of the hands of what you refer to as a terrorist regime for at least 10+ years.  Now that the pussy grabber has pulled out of the deal the "terrorist regime" is back on the track to getting their NUKES.

What happens if some radicals get a hold of an Iranian NUKE...  Do you think they use it or threaten to use it on the "Zionist State" of Israel, or shove it up SA's asshole

it was a way for Obama to say he had won an American deal on foreign policy.

Ironically some people think that keeping the "terrorist regime" from acquiring NUKES is an actual win on foreign policy.  

You do know that it was the US that gave Iran its first Nuclear technology the first time it pulled a regime change in Iran right?

[Spendulus]

....
Right wing talking point drivel...

It was the best fucking deal on the table....

We've got a new table now, so we can get a new fucking deal.

Or no deal.

[Rockie1234]

....
Did Obama follow the basic requirements for an international treaty under US law with his deal with the Iranian dictators?

Yes or no please.

I don't know the exact details as to how Obama helped in the creation of the treaty, and I wouldn't mind you explaining it to me so I can research it further, this is a very interesting topic. But please don't suggest I'm trying to argue in bad faith. First you said because it was a bad deal, now you are talking about Obama. If there are any interesting details from your perspective, I would be happy to hear them. What basic requirements are you referring to?

But you understand this is a case of a US president making a treaty without the consent or even involving the Senate. That deal was really, truly "never a deal." And there is the place where there was a problem. If Trump had wanted to fix it and continue it, he would have ... I guess ... sent it for discussion and ratification in the Senate. But that wasn't what he wanted to do.

I'm not even seeing where this is wrong or unfair or un businesslike...


Reference

The Treaty Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which, upon receiving the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority vote of the United States Senate, become binding with the force of federal law.

You have a point, in that Obama did not and thank you for bringing this to my attention. But to say it was never a deal is misleading, it was agreed between the P5+1 countries and Iran, not just America, and all these countries were optimistic about the deal. In fact, literally the only country unhappy with it was Israel. Negotiated deals shouldn't be broken on a whim. On top of that, even more sanctions were put on iran for little legitimate reason, sanctions which have hurt ordinary civilians.

[squatz1]

Real diplomatic, referring to the US president (the leader of the free world) as  a 'stupid cunt of a President'

I don't need to be diplomatic I'm not negotiating with your stupid cunt of a president.  Grow a set, Trump calls everyone and their brother names yet I am supposed to be diplomatic, ya typical right winger wants it both fucking ways...

-- Even disregarding that for a second, the Iran deal was shit (https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal-flawed/559595/) and it was a way for Obama to say he had won an American deal on foreign policy.

Right wing talking point drivel...

It was the best fucking deal on the table, you do know Iran had enough enriched Uranium to make approx 8-10 NUCLEAR BOMBS and gave it all up when the deal was signed right?  That means we GOT NUKES out of the hands of what you refer to as a terrorist regime for at least 10+ years.  Now that the pussy grabber has pulled out of the deal the "terrorist regime" is back on the track to getting their NUKES.

What happens if some radicals get a hold of an Iranian NUKE...  Do you think they use it or threaten to use it on the "Zionist State" of Israel, or shove it up SA's asshole

it was a way for Obama to say he had won an American deal on foreign policy.

Ironically some people think that keeping the "terrorist regime" from acquiring NUKES is an actual win on foreign policy.  

You do know that it was the US that gave Iran its first Nuclear technology the first time it pulled a regime change in Iran right?

You would still expect that there is a way to debate the policy of a President instead of calling him this name and that name. Disregarding what he does and says there is still a way to talk about him in a fair way. I don't see the reason that a sitting admin / moderator of this forum has to drop names whenever you're arguing. For fucks sake act like an adult.

That was the not the best deal on the table in the least, as Iran was still able to enrich uranium (just under a set number), and pratically everything under this agreement was going to sunset in 10 years anyway.

This plan was shit, and it was just kicking the can 10 years down the line when Iran was going to be able to do this all over again.

We fix the problem now, and we don't have this issue anymore.

[PrimeNumber7]

Iran may have the ability to cause some issues with global trade, but the North Koreans have the ability to literally destroy a certain city in the world just by sending off their nuclear bomb.

The only reaction of North Korea bombing Seoul with a Nuke is war, and China would be unlikely to support NK if they did this. The same is true if chemical weapons were used. Once a North Korean bomb hits South Korea, there is no possibility of deescalating the situation.

With the Iran situation, War with Iran is one option, however this is not the only option as countries can decide to remove sanctions against Iran to get Iran to stop disrupting trade. Iran is engaging in behavior that can provoke war, but the reaction to which does not have to be war.

Your stupid cunt of a president pulled out of the agreement that was keeping Iran from getting Nukes...

The 'Iran Agreement' did nothing to stop Iran from getting Nukes as the agreement had no real "teeth" nor did it allow for inspectors to independently confirm compliance. It also gave the Iran government a lot of money to continue both financing terrorism and their Nuclear weapons program.

 

[squatz1]

Iran may have the ability to cause some issues with global trade, but the North Koreans have the ability to literally destroy a certain city in the world just by sending off their nuclear bomb.

The only reaction of North Korea bombing Seoul with a Nuke is war, and China would be unlikely to support NK if they did this. The same is true if chemical weapons were used. Once a North Korean bomb hits South Korea, there is no possibility of deescalating the situation.

With the Iran situation, War with Iran is one option, however this is not the only option as countries can decide to remove sanctions against Iran to get Iran to stop disrupting trade. Iran is engaging in behavior that can provoke war, but the reaction to which does not have to be war.

Your stupid cunt of a president pulled out of the agreement that was keeping Iran from getting Nukes...

The 'Iran Agreement' did nothing to stop Iran from getting Nukes as the agreement had no real "teeth" nor did it allow for inspectors to independently confirm compliance. It also gave the Iran government a lot of money to continue both financing terrorism and their Nuclear weapons program.

 

Yes, and the North Korean government knows this is the case. If they are to use a nuke on anyone in the world -- they're going to be decimated beyond belief. We're not just going to sit around and let them nuke the world just to 'keep the peace' at that point -- as they've now opened pandoras box.

The current North Korean government is the best thing that they currently have other their without causing a humanitarian crisis of people fleeing everywhere. If the US knew there was a 'better' government to ensure this wasn't the case Kim Jong Un wouldn't be in power right now.

Agree with everything you've said about the Iran agreement.

[Spendulus]

....
Did Obama follow the basic requirements for an international treaty under US law with his deal with the Iranian dictators?

Yes or no please.

I don't know the exact details as to how Obama helped in the creation of the treaty, and I wouldn't mind you explaining it to me so I can research it further, this is a very interesting topic. But please don't suggest I'm trying to argue in bad faith. First you said because it was a bad deal, now you are talking about Obama. If there are any interesting details from your perspective, I would be happy to hear them. What basic requirements are you referring to?

But you understand this is a case of a US president making a treaty without the consent or even involving the Senate. That deal was really, truly "never a deal." And there is the place where there was a problem. If Trump had wanted to fix it and continue it, he would have ... I guess ... sent it for discussion and ratification in the Senate. But that wasn't what he wanted to do.

I'm not even seeing where this is wrong or unfair or un businesslike...


Reference

The Treaty Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which, upon receiving the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority vote of the United States Senate, become binding with the force of federal law.

You have a point, in that Obama did not and thank you for bringing this to my attention. But to say it was never a deal is misleading, it was agreed between the P5+1 countries and Iran, not just America, and all these countries were optimistic about the deal. In fact, literally the only country unhappy with it was Israel. Negotiated deals shouldn't be broken on a whim. On top of that, even more sanctions were put on iran for little legitimate reason, sanctions which have hurt ordinary civilians.

But those of us in the US who were not happy with the deal, made, yes; but made against our law, constitution and tradition, did not number just a few. So perhaps your statement could be changed as to the "countries unhappy with it" to include the USA.

As for our actions "hurting the ordinary citizens of Iran" I guess the mullahs over there need to break out that 150B cash their friend Obama gave them, and hand it out.

[Rockie1234]

....
Did Obama follow the basic requirements for an international treaty under US law with his deal with the Iranian dictators?

Yes or no please.

I don't know the exact details as to how Obama helped in the creation of the treaty, and I wouldn't mind you explaining it to me so I can research it further, this is a very interesting topic. But please don't suggest I'm trying to argue in bad faith. First you said because it was a bad deal, now you are talking about Obama. If there are any interesting details from your perspective, I would be happy to hear them. What basic requirements are you referring to?

But you understand this is a case of a US president making a treaty without the consent or even involving the Senate. That deal was really, truly "never a deal." And there is the place where there was a problem. If Trump had wanted to fix it and continue it, he would have ... I guess ... sent it for discussion and ratification in the Senate. But that wasn't what he wanted to do.

I'm not even seeing where this is wrong or unfair or un businesslike...


Reference

The Treaty Clause is part of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution that empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which, upon receiving the advice and consent of a two-thirds supermajority vote of the United States Senate, become binding with the force of federal law.

You have a point, in that Obama did not and thank you for bringing this to my attention. But to say it was never a deal is misleading, it was agreed between the P5+1 countries and Iran, not just America, and all these countries were optimistic about the deal. In fact, literally the only country unhappy with it was Israel. Negotiated deals shouldn't be broken on a whim. On top of that, even more sanctions were put on iran for little legitimate reason, sanctions which have hurt ordinary civilians.

But those of us in the US who were not happy with the deal, made, yes; but made against our law, constitution and tradition, did not number just a few. So perhaps your statement could be changed as to the "countries unhappy with it" to include the USA.

As for our actions "hurting the ordinary citizens of Iran" I guess the mullahs over there need to break out that 150B cash their friend Obama gave them, and hand it out.

I agree the mullahs bare some responsibility, but it's misleading to say Obama gave them this cash, they were Iranian assets which were frozen. You have brought to conversation an interesting pont about the passing of the deal in Iran. But since all other countries involved in the deal are still committed to it, what can be done. Would you accept European countries maintaining the Iran Deal and ignoring any sanctions put in place by the USA on Iran? They have no reason not to stick with it, since they are perfectly satisfied with it and should not have to bow down to America every time a political decision is made, even if they are close allies (in my opinion of course).

[ticket]

The plan for greater israel continues.

[Spendulus]

....

As for our actions "hurting the ordinary citizens of Iran" I guess the mullahs over there need to break out that 150B cash their friend Obama gave them, and hand it out.

I agree the mullahs bare some responsibility, but it's misleading to say Obama gave them this cash, they were Iranian assets which were frozen. You have brought to conversation an interesting pont about the passing of the deal in Iran. But since all other countries involved in the deal are still committed to it, what can be done. Would you accept European countries maintaining the Iran Deal and ignoring any sanctions put in place by the USA on Iran? They have no reason not to stick with it, since they are perfectly satisfied with it and should not have to bow down to America every time a political decision is made, even if they are close allies (in my opinion of course).

The nature of human behavior both by intent and the pursuit of advantage is to create "damned if you do damned if you don't" situations.

It's not misleading to say Obama gave them that cash, that's exactly what he did. I would have given it to the American men and women they held hostage.

I'm not concerned with what other countries do or don't do on this issue, as the entire matter revolved around illegal making of a treaty by Obama. FYI, it may not have been illegal to give them the frozen assets back. Offhand I would guess a US President could do that without consulting the other branches.

However, look at where we are now.
(A) they got their damn money back
(B) they are funding hundreds of cases of international terrorism each year
(C) they are not following the rules of the agreement with the other nations
(D) The US has pulled out of a bad deal but with a statement that we're open to a better deal.
(E) Iran is acting like an angry idiot child.

I don't have any problem with the US handling of this situation. I can see how internationally we might be criticized for it, but trust me on this; the international community does not want US Potus to be able to do whatever he wants. They might want Obama's actions on this issue, but they know they won't want to deal with any random US Potus having such an ability.

One dimension of this problem is that the international community fully expected Hillary to win, and she would have followed this and other illegal actions of Obama faithfully as well as many other batshit crazy things.

[aiguy]

its like hate speech, every country has the right to live. and there is no permit to enter anyone in any of country