@snarlcakes guess Iran will get to play in the World Cup
Just when you think Trump couldn't be a bigger d#%k he forces a country to play soccer. FAFO.
“As the nuclear threat slowly declines and the knee-jerk criticism of Trump’s strategy is seen for what it is, biased political commentary, the pedantic analysis from the elites will wither away. The neo-cons will be upset as well; a world that no longer needs their dreams of democracy at gunpoint, but does need hard borders, secure energy, and unapologetic American leverage, leaves them without a crusade. The Neo Cons will keep arguing about atmospherics and adjectives, but the system will already have moved on to more basic questions: which geography is safe, which supply is reliable, which political order keeps the lights on. On that map, Iran is not a pivot and Brussels is not a conscience. The United States is once again recognized, not as global schoolmaster, but as the indispensable guarantor. Just as the same class confidently dismissed Trump’s first run for president the day he came down the escalator, they will be wrong again about how Operation Epic Fury has changed the world, for the good”
Nailed it
@snarlcakes thanks for posting AI created gibberish. Everyone is now dumber for reading it.
“As the nuclear threat slowly declines and the knee-jerk criticism of Trump’s strategy is seen for what it is, biased political commentary, the pedantic analysis from the elites will wither away. The neo-cons will be upset as well; a world that no longer needs their dreams of democracy at gunpoint, but does need hard borders, secure energy, and unapologetic American leverage, leaves them without a crusade. The Neo Cons will keep arguing about atmospherics and adjectives, but the system will already have moved on to more basic questions: which geography is safe, which supply is reliable, which political order keeps the lights on. On that map, Iran is not a pivot and Brussels is not a conscience. The United States is once again recognized, not as global schoolmaster, but as the indispensable guarantor. Just as the same class confidently dismissed Trump’s first run for president the day he came down the escalator, they will be wrong again about how Operation Epic Fury has changed the world, for the good”
Nailed it
https://twitter.com/WendellPierce/status/2058793822956491067
I am going to need someone to explain to me how we are in a better spot now than we were with the JCPOA (which I think was rightly criticized). Everything quoted there is just air. How are we safer? How do we look stronger? How did we remove the nuclear threat? Based off what I have seen/read, none of that is the case. And unlike the article which is vague and general with banalities, I will be more direct.
With respect to nuclear proliferation:
1. Initial deal leaks indicate Iran is still going to be able to enrich uranium to the same levels the JCPOA allowed.
2. Iran, even if it sells some of its 60% enriched uranium, is reportedly going to be able to keep enough to produce 2 nuclear weapons.
3. Iran has not indicated they will give up their nuclear program.
So at best you have done nothing but delay the mass production of nuclear arms. However, after watching all of their old heads get taken out, what is the #1 lesson you think all of these hardline guys that are left have learned? I think one of them is to get nukes ASAP.
With respect to power projection:
1. We are delivering billions of dollars of "pallets filled with cash" to extricate us from a fight that left Iran basically exactly where they were under the JCPOA. We showed we could blow stuff up but we got nowhere near accomplishing any goals from it.
2. We took on billions of dollars in damages and losses from this fight and when we got punched back, Trump folded like a cheap suit. He took a swing and then spent the rest of the time talking big and doing nothing.
3. He is handing one of the largest energy chokepoints for the world over to Iran who is signaling they are going to charge an extortion fee in the form of an "environmental tax" to ships transiting the Strait. All they have to do is convince Oman to get in on the grift. So not only is Trump handing Iran cash, he is apparently creating a new revenue stream for them. Great "hard border" being set up there.
4. We burned a bunch of munitions that will take years to replace and, per up above, we showed an extreme lack of commitment. I argue that Iran wrecked our image with some drones. We were ill prepared to defend against them and enough missiles to overload those defenses and we quit. That sends a bad message to friends and foes alike.
5. We caused economic hardship for and insulted most of our allies and we did it all to arrive back at a worse version of the JCPOA that they had all originally signed on to. From where they sit, America looks belligerently incompetent. That doesn't signal power to me.
I just need someone to pick apart those points. I will throw out the one caveat to avoid this being the answer to everything, we don't know the final deal but it is pretty likely that any deal is going to have some of the points listed in the X posting I linked.
I just need someone to pick apart those points. I will throw out the one caveat to avoid this being the answer to everything, we don't know the final deal but it is pretty likely that any deal is going to have some of the points listed in the X posting I linked.
Your points are all shortsighted and based upon a world as it was yesterday. The phony regional stability that was the centerpiece of US policy for decades is over.
Iran’s days as a regional provocateur of terror are finished.
The strait of Hormuz will be irrelevant in < 5 years. Pipelines, The Caribbean and Gulf ov America will replace it.
Nukes are still an issue.
“As the nuclear threat slowly declines and the knee-jerk criticism of Trump’s strategy is seen for what it is, biased political commentary, the pedantic analysis from the elites will wither away. The neo-cons will be upset as well; a world that no longer needs their dreams of democracy at gunpoint, but does need hard borders, secure energy, and unapologetic American leverage, leaves them without a crusade. The Neo Cons will keep arguing about atmospherics and adjectives, but the system will already have moved on to more basic questions: which geography is safe, which supply is reliable, which political order keeps the lights on. On that map, Iran is not a pivot and Brussels is not a conscience. The United States is once again recognized, not as global schoolmaster, but as the indispensable guarantor. Just as the same class confidently dismissed Trump’s first run for president the day he came down the escalator, they will be wrong again about how Operation Epic Fury has changed the world, for the good”
Nailed it
https://twitter.com/WendellPierce/status/2058793822956491067
I am going to need someone to explain to me how we are in a better spot now than we were with the JCPOA (which I think was rightly criticized). Everything quoted there is just air. How are we safer? How do we look stronger? How did we remove the nuclear threat? Based off what I have seen/read, none of that is the case. And unlike the article which is vague and general with banalities, I will be more direct.
With respect to nuclear proliferation:
1. Initial deal leaks indicate Iran is still going to be able to enrich uranium to the same levels the JCPOA allowed.
2. Iran, even if it sells some of its 60% enriched uranium, is reportedly going to be able to keep enough to produce 2 nuclear weapons.
3. Iran has not indicated they will give up their nuclear program.
So at best you have done nothing but delay the mass production of nuclear arms. However, after watching all of their old heads get taken out, what is the #1 lesson you think all of these hardline guys that are left have learned? I think one of them is to get nukes ASAP.
With respect to power projection:
1. We are delivering billions of dollars of "pallets filled with cash" to extricate us from a fight that left Iran basically exactly where they were under the JCPOA. We showed we could blow stuff up but we got nowhere near accomplishing any goals from it.
2. We took on billions of dollars in damages and losses from this fight and when we got punched back, Trump folded like a cheap suit. He took a swing and then spent the rest of the time talking big and doing nothing.
3. He is handing one of the largest energy chokepoints for the world over to Iran who is signaling they are going to charge an extortion fee in the form of an "environmental tax" to ships transiting the Strait. All they have to do is convince Oman to get in on the grift. So not only is Trump handing Iran cash, he is apparently creating a new revenue stream for them. Great "hard border" being set up there.
4. We burned a bunch of munitions that will take years to replace and, per up above, we showed an extreme lack of commitment. I argue that Iran wrecked our image with some drones. We were ill prepared to defend against them and enough missiles to overload those defenses and we quit. That sends a bad message to friends and foes alike.
5. We caused economic hardship for and insulted most of our allies and we did it all to arrive back at a worse version of the JCPOA that they had all originally signed on to. From where they sit, America looks belligerently incompetent. That doesn't signal power to me.
I just need someone to pick apart those points. I will throw out the one caveat to avoid this being the answer to everything, we don't know the final deal but it is pretty likely that any deal is going to have some of the points listed in the X posting I linked.
How is Iran today more likely to get a nuclear weapon than they were in early February?
Is it more likely or less likely 20% of the global oil supply travels through the straight of Hormuz moving forward?
Re nuclear proliferation, your "at best the delay" of mass production of nuclear arms is the point of the "mow the grass/lawn" strategy that people have been discussing for months.
“As the nuclear threat slowly declines and the knee-jerk criticism of Trump’s strategy is seen for what it is, biased political commentary, the pedantic analysis from the elites will wither away. The neo-cons will be upset as well; a world that no longer needs their dreams of democracy at gunpoint, but does need hard borders, secure energy, and unapologetic American leverage, leaves them without a crusade. The Neo Cons will keep arguing about atmospherics and adjectives, but the system will already have moved on to more basic questions: which geography is safe, which supply is reliable, which political order keeps the lights on. On that map, Iran is not a pivot and Brussels is not a conscience. The United States is once again recognized, not as global schoolmaster, but as the indispensable guarantor. Just as the same class confidently dismissed Trump’s first run for president the day he came down the escalator, they will be wrong again about how Operation Epic Fury has changed the world, for the good”
Nailed it
https://twitter.com/WendellPierce/status/2058793822956491067
I am going to need someone to explain to me how we are in a better spot now than we were with the JCPOA (which I think was rightly criticized). Everything quoted there is just air. How are we safer? How do we look stronger? How did we remove the nuclear threat? Based off what I have seen/read, none of that is the case. And unlike the article which is vague and general with banalities, I will be more direct.
With respect to nuclear proliferation:
1. Initial deal leaks indicate Iran is still going to be able to enrich uranium to the same levels the JCPOA allowed.
2. Iran, even if it sells some of its 60% enriched uranium, is reportedly going to be able to keep enough to produce 2 nuclear weapons.
3. Iran has not indicated they will give up their nuclear program.
So at best you have done nothing but delay the mass production of nuclear arms. However, after watching all of their old heads get taken out, what is the #1 lesson you think all of these hardline guys that are left have learned? I think one of them is to get nukes ASAP.
With respect to power projection:
1. We are delivering billions of dollars of "pallets filled with cash" to extricate us from a fight that left Iran basically exactly where they were under the JCPOA. We showed we could blow stuff up but we got nowhere near accomplishing any goals from it.
2. We took on billions of dollars in damages and losses from this fight and when we got punched back, Trump folded like a cheap suit. He took a swing and then spent the rest of the time talking big and doing nothing.
3. He is handing one of the largest energy chokepoints for the world over to Iran who is signaling they are going to charge an extortion fee in the form of an "environmental tax" to ships transiting the Strait. All they have to do is convince Oman to get in on the grift. So not only is Trump handing Iran cash, he is apparently creating a new revenue stream for them. Great "hard border" being set up there.
4. We burned a bunch of munitions that will take years to replace and, per up above, we showed an extreme lack of commitment. I argue that Iran wrecked our image with some drones. We were ill prepared to defend against them and enough missiles to overload those defenses and we quit. That sends a bad message to friends and foes alike.
5. We caused economic hardship for and insulted most of our allies and we did it all to arrive back at a worse version of the JCPOA that they had all originally signed on to. From where they sit, America looks belligerently incompetent. That doesn't signal power to me.
I just need someone to pick apart those points. I will throw out the one caveat to avoid this being the answer to everything, we don't know the final deal but it is pretty likely that any deal is going to have some of the points listed in the X posting I linked.
It rests on an assumption that (1) we cannot even stop this regime from stopping nuclear weapon development , (2) that Iran cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, but (3) that it is better to periodically bomb them, destroy their infrastructure, cause chaos, etc. to delay them (ad infinitum?), than to invade them with boots on the ground and conquer them or remake their government--i.e. engage in nation building. It's the same strategy Israel has been using in Gaza.
I'm not a fan, but again, maybe it is the best that can be hoped for.
For those who critique this strategy, what do you suggest as the other options? We're already in the war, so suggesting we shouldn't have started it doesn't really help now. We have to do something moving forward. So what is it? Boots on the ground invasion to control the Strait, capture enriched uranium, or topple the government? More bombing? Change premises and agree to allow Iran to get a nuke?
Assuming about $150 of my taxpayer dollars have been spent on the Iran War, I personally feel like I’ve gotten my money’s worth and that we can call it quits now.
It rests on an assumption that (1) we cannot even stop this regime from stopping nuclear weapon development
That assumption is derived from Trump's tearing up of the JCPOA.
It rests on an assumption that (1) we cannot even stop this regime from stopping nuclear weapon development
That assumption is derived from Trump's tearing up of the JCPOA.
Yes, he likes to tear things up (particularly things that bear Obama's name) without a viable alternative ready to go. He tried to tear up the ACA, too, but McCain got in the way.
Trump was no doubt emboldened by the success and ease of the military operation against Maduro. While the Venezuela and Iran situations weren't/aren't remotely similar, I'm sure he was convinced that a few weeks of bombing the hell out of Iran would result in complete capitulation. Now he's learned the hard way that the fanatical Iranian leadership has strong resolve and that the desired objectives can't be achieved without ground troops. There is, though, bipartisan resistance to this and the casualties that would accompany a ground invasion.
A prolonged land war would contradict the "America First" agenda and carry steep economic, strategic and political risk. Seems like Trump doesn't know what to do now other than continue with the public bravado and bluffs, and spin any deal as the greatest in the history of deal-making.
I just need someone to pick apart those points.
i don't think you really do. it returns to where we were. sometimes that's the best you get and buy more time and kick the can for a while. is what it is. you're basically dealing with aliens. people who don't think like we do. so you do this or nuke em? wipe em off the planet right? so we chose the former again. it's like a solid mediation: everyone walks away unhappy
I don't think it is.It rests on an assumption that (1) we cannot even stop this regime from stopping nuclear weapon development
That assumption is derived from Trump's tearing up of the JCPOA.
Per Claude:
Claude responded: No — and this distinction was central to the debate over the deal.
No — and this distinction was central to the debate over the deal. Proponents of the JCPOA (2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) were generally candid that the agreement was not designed to permanently foreclose Iran's nuclear capability. Their case rested on several more limited claims:
What supporters actually argued:
- Time and verification, not permanent prohibition. The core argument was that the deal would extend Iran's "breakout time" — the period needed to produce enough fissile material for one weapon — from roughly 2–3 months to approximately one year. That window, supporters argued, was sufficient for detection and response.
- A 15-year horizon, not a permanent ban. Key restrictions (on enrichment levels, centrifuge numbers, and stockpile limits) were explicitly time-limited. Defenders acknowledged this openly but argued that 15 years of verified compliance was worth securing, with the expectation that geopolitical conditions might shift favorably in the interim.
- Inspections as the durable element. IAEA access provisions — including the Additional Protocol — were among the more lasting commitments. Supporters emphasized that intrusive verification would continue beyond the sunset of specific enrichment limits.
- The alternative was worse. The most common realist argument wasn't that the deal solved the problem permanently, but that the realistic alternatives (military strike, sanctions alone, or a faster Iranian breakout) were all worse on the merits.
What critics said in response:
Critics — including some who weren't categorically opposed to a deal — argued that the sunset clauses essentially legitimized an Iranian nuclear threshold state after the restrictions expired, that the inspection regime had meaningful gaps (particularly around military sites), and that the $100+ billion in sanctions relief strengthened Iran's regional posture and its eventual nuclear leverage.
The honest summary: The Obama administration's own officials — including Secretary Kerry and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes — acknowledged in public statements that the deal did not permanently block Iran's path to a weapon, and that the question of what happened after the sunset clauses was genuinely open. The argument was always that managed, verified delay was better than the available alternatives[BS's emphasis here]— not that the problem was solved.
@iucrazy2 i don't really wade into these global affairs waters much because i like to talk about things i know. hot chicks, soccer, good drinks, etc. but i will step out over my skis a bit because i am MAGA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! MAGA was predicated on america first and all that attends. rip up the ground fck electric scatter the grizzlies and drill baby drill. we're not going to be reliant upon the middle east or anyone else for energy. and we recognize that our ubiquitous presence tends to aggravate people. fine. we're pulling out. we're going to rely on our own oil. we're bringing manufacturing home. and we're going back to the moat philospholy. leave us alone we leave you alone. and we're tired of you woke nato nerds. fight your own fights. we're worrying about ourselves. we are not policing the world.
now i'm not going to opine as to the rationality of such an approach, i'm only sharing what was espoused directly and tacitly. above all else reconciling the foregoing with israel seems like something that's going to always be a wrench in this approach. again i'm not saying whether we should or shouldn't abandon them BUT if this is the desired approach of MAGA and jd or rubio carry the baton at some point israel is going to have to be addressed. this iran war is not MAGA
I just need someone to pick apart those points.
i don't think you really do. it returns to where we were. sometimes that's the best you get and buy more time and kick the can for a while. is what it is. you're basically dealing with aliens. people who don't think like we do. so you do this or nuke em? wipe em off the planet right? so we chose the former again. it's like a solid mediation: everyone walks away unhappy
If the leak IUCrazy linked above is accurate, we are the only side walking away unhappy.