I thought it was by the layers upon layers of interconnected unregulated derivatives valued at a few orders of magnitude above the underlying subprime mortgages given to anyone with a pulse.
> it was by the layers upon layers of interconnected unregulated derivatives valued at a few orders of magnitude above the underlying subprime mortgages given to anyone with a pulse
It was interconnected derivatives and structured products linked to banks that caused a liquidity crisis in the former to cause a crisis of confidence in the latter.
Meanwhile: "In the letter, Morgan Stanley said the fund wasn’t designed to offer full liquidity because of the nature of its investments, and that credit fundamentals across the underlying portfolio have been broadly stable. The bank's shares fell 2% in premarket trading Thursday" [1].
> liquidity crisis in the former to cause a crisis of confidence in the latter
Wait what? Your thesis is the GFC was caused by a liquidity crunch/bank run? Isn't that... not true?
Isn't the proximal to distal chain of events government encouraged subprime loans -> inaacurately valued MBS -> exponential, unregulated derivative instruments -> leveraged contagion. What does market confidence have to do with any of that?
> your thesis is the GFC was caused by a liquidity crunch/bank run? Isn't that... not true?
It's absolutely proximally true and it's not just my thesis. From Wikipedia: "The first phase of the crisis was the subprime mortgage crisis, which began in early 2007, as mortgage-backed securities (MBS) tied to U.S. real estate, and a vast web of derivatives linked to those MBS, collapsed in value. A liquidity crisis spread to global institutions by mid-2007 and climaxed with the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, which triggered a stock market crash and bank runs in several countries" [1].
The subprime crisis shouldn't have been bigger than the S&L crisis [2]. What turned it into a financial crisis was the credit crunch that followed. That crunch was caused by folks running on banks that had sponsored these products.
On "inaccurately valued MBS," note that the paper marked AAA mostly paid out like a AAA security. It would be like if you were perfectly good for your word and I lent you money, but then I wanted to sell on that debt to a third party who didn't trust you at a 50% discount. What does "properly valued" mean in that context? It's ambiguous in a dangerous way. (In this analogy, you wind up paying back the debt at face value. But years later, albeit on schedule.)
it did. GFC was a financial recession no doubt, but oil prices was one of the final things that tipped everything over. Oil prices climbed high, slowed economic activity a bit, and the whole financial that teetering just collapsed.
I did make a snarky derivatives comment elsewhere in the thread, but I do see you're not wrong about oil prices peaking at $138 in June 2008 (Lehman collapsed in September 2008): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DCOILBRENTEU
> But I do not see them as the international turbo villains they've been painted as.
Iran founded Hizbalah in Lebanon. You can read what Hizb had done to Lebanon on the internet. Iran exported its ideology all over the Middle East right now: Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. It is a mistake to thing about Islamic Revolution as something not interested in spreading itself.
> Iran has always lacked an ability to project power at a distance.
Sure. Now they maybe able to reach Greece. Give them five years and they will develop missiles that can reach France, or even UK. I am sure europeans would love the idea of fanatical regime having arms that can reach them, especially, if we consider that EU today does not have very robust air defense. Even Israel that planned for this war for a while has rockets that penetrate their defenses.
I would prefer the politicians not to take those gambles.
Great logic. China and America might find themselves at war in the coming years. Should we just get it over with and attack them now? Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door. Maybe in five years the regime would have collapsed during a succession or economic crisis. Perhaps this perhaps that.
Initiating a war is a gamble in of itself. Now Americans all over the world are potentially at increased risk from lone wolves. A failed Iranian state might be the site of horrible atrocities to come.
For a post that seems to contemplate the future you seem to exhibit a strange lack of reflection.
What a powerful response to an outright attack on their country. This is the capability we are supposed to start a war over?
Sorry it does not follow that politicians in Greece and beyond in Europe were gambling with their citizens lives by entertaining the possibility Iran might launch a drone to crash unceremoniously off-target in Cyprus if their regime was attacked. I don't think anyone in Cyprus cares, actually the only thing this really seems to have kicked off in Cyprus is a protest movement against the American military presence there.
I would think people killed by the machinery of needless wars would appreciate the same fate not falling on others.
You omitted that part out of your quote to do what, imply I don't care about dead drone victims? Because I believe we shouldn't launch wars needlessly?
What point are you trying to make? Should we bomb Toyota dealerships because of all the automobile fatalities? If you disagree should I imply you don't care about dead car crash victims?
China has both the nukes and ballistic missiles. Obviously, the calculus for the war with China completely different: you create a situation where China prefers not to attack Taiwan.
> Maybe in five years the regime would have collapsed during a succession crisis. Perhaps this perhaps that.
Maybe, but the war in Iran is not about Iran itself, at least from the US standpoint. It's about cutting China off from cheap oil that they buy from Iran with a huge discount. For Trump, to get a win is enough to get a new supreme leader who is more aligned with the west, like in Venezuela.
> A failed Iranian state might be the site of horrible atrocities to come.
Why would it fail? Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all. If you analyze Iraq, Syria, and Libya pre-war and Iran pre-war you would see that none of the conditions that lead these countries to become failed states exist in Iran. IF you are interested, I can elaborate.
> For a post that seems to contemplate the future you seem to exhibit a strange lack of reflection.
> China has both the nukes and ballistic missiles. Obviously, the calculus for the war with China completely different: you create a situation where China prefers not to attack Taiwan.
The same can be said of Iran re creating off-ramps from conflict or bad outcomes. That's what the "nuclear deal" was meant to be about. The one the current President tore up because his predecessor was responsible for it.
> Maybe, but the war in Iran is not about Iran itself, at least from the US standpoint. It's about cutting China off from cheap oil that they buy from Iran with a huge discount. For Trump, to get a win is enough to get a new supreme leader who is more aligned with the west, like in Venezuela.
Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job.
> Why would it fail? Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all. If you analyze Iraq, Syria, and Libya pre-war and Iran pre-war you would see that none of the conditions that lead these countries to become failed states exist in Iran. IF you are interested, I can elaborate.
This is simply incorrect on so many levels I don't know where to start. But since you invited elaboration, please by all means.
> The same can be said of Iran re creating off-ramps from conflict or bad outcomes. That's what the "nuclear deal" was meant to be about.
It was a bad deal that structurally did not prevent IR from building a bomb. This deal did not allow for "Anytime,Anywhere" inspections, had a sunset clause, and simply put provided financial relief to IR for the next 20 years or so. You can read the conditions yourself, and you will arrive to the same conclusion.
> Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job.
No, it is not. Politics are not about putting all the cards on the table, especially geopolitics.
We may not like it, but it is the way it is.
> This is simply incorrect on so many levels
Like what?
> But since you invited elaboration, please by all means.
Sure, first of all, Iranians see themselves as one nation despite their ethnic differences. Even in areas with separatist ideas, like the Iranian Kurdistan or Baluchistan, separatists are an absolute minority. Unlike Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Libya do not see themselves as one nation. These countries had minorities ruling over majorities under the idea of pan-arabism, which is not a nation-centric movement at all. Obviously, when the regimes fell you have a situation where majority is pissed at minorities for years of oppression, and neither the minorities not the majorities do not see themselves as one nation. Add to this external funding, and you get prolonged civil war.
In Libya you have Qatar vs. UAE.
In Syria -- Turkey vs. Iran
In Iraq -- you have Iran vs. US (that backed transitional government).
Iran is nothing like that. Iranians see themselves as one nation for the most part. You can see it via the Women Life Freedom movement, which is supported by most of Iranians and is centered about women rights. Nothing like that can ever exist in Syria, Iraq, or Libya due to insane cultural difference between these countries and Iran.
> It was a bad deal that structurally did not prevent IR from building a bomb. This deal did not allow for "Anytime,Anywhere" inspections, had a sunset clause, and simply put provided financial relief to IR for the next 20 years or so. You can read the conditions yourself, and you will arrive to the same conclusion.
These are well-known talking points. Yes in a deal the other side gets something. That's what a deal is. Sorry it wasn't a totally awesome deal like Trump would have totally signed that got us everything we wanted. You have a choice start a war or make a deal. That's basic geopolitics. Instead you seem to want to invent a third option out of thin air - come up with the perfect deal. I don't arrive at the same conclusion because it's ridiculous. I have no reason to believe the administration that negotiated that deal was blatantly incompetent or let Iran off the hook. If they could have gotten a better deal and still avoided war I think they would have. What plausible explanation is there to the contrary? Instead, we have a successor who was also unable to negotiate a better deal, and now war. I'm not sure what point you are making. The idea that the Iranians were really any closer to getting a nuclear bomb is a lie. There is no evidence. Iran has been a weak pariah state that can barely keep its top officials alive. This has been the status quo for decades. The same president who negotiated that deal also unleashed Stuxnet. We already bombed more sites last year. Their leaders and scientists have had constant assassinations over the years. Why do you believe that they were any closer to a bomb a month ago than they were when that deal was signed? And what is your evidence?
> No, it is not. Politics are not about putting all the cards on the table, especially geopolitics.
So the President is lying about the motivations for war? So despite what pours out of his mouth you simply pick the most plausible (or easily defensible) explanation and then say "this is what the war is about"? Why would it be putting his cards on the table? You think it escapes anyone in China that it imports Iranian oil and this creates a problem for them? Or do you mean politics is about lying to your own electorate? I noticed you originally led with the same fear-mongering lie about the reach of Iranian missile capabilities. But now you've retreated to we are doing it to stop oil from getting to China. Maybe you, like the President, know the American people don't want to see their own troops and citizens killed to stop the flow of oil to China? Maybe they can also see that when oil stops flowing to China, gas prices also increase at home? We are spending billions of dollars and lost American lives to increase gas prices at home but hey also in China? Is that your claim?
> Sure, first of all, Iranians see themselves as one nation despite their ethnic differences.
You can just stop there. This is a lie. It's like the "we will be greeted as liberators" claim in Iraq. I can tell from reading the rest of this that you know very little about this region. I don't mean to insult you it's just such a disingenuous claim and makes this back and forth barely even worth it. You are conflating so many things - pan-arabism with majority/minority conflict or even the notion of having a nation. That's wrong. You think Egyptians don't see themselves as Egyptians because some of them believed in pan-arabism? Wrong. You know there are Shia Arabs, right? Do you think all Shia are Persian?
You also walked back from your original claim again.
You said:
> Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all.
Emphasis on *nothing in common at all*
I mean, really? Let's just rattle off a few that anyone with basic information literacy over the last few years would be able to come up with:
1. Countries that were under the grip of an authoritarian leader. Little to no evidence of recent civic institutions or culture of responsible governance.
2. Leaders who are not only authoritarian but flagrantly violent. In the absence of responsible governance, they resort to extreme violence to maintain power, creating cycles of pent up resentment, retribution and fear on both sides. The resentment of the powerless is obvious, however the fear of the powerful is equally as destabilizing.
3. Sizable minorities who even if aligned against the common dictator, will inevitably disagree with each other on the direction of the state. Once their common enemy is removed (to say nothing of a sizable loyalist faction) and given the lack of existing civic structures with broad buy-in, they often resort to violence. Persians only make up about 60% of Iran. Shia Muslims made up about the same percent in Iraq. I mean truly I have no idea what you are talking about. "They see themselves as one nation" based on what? Literally there have been multiple reports that the CIA is arming a separatist movement as we speak as their "boots on the ground" in Iran. You also ignored so many other cleavages - such as level of religious conservatism, class, geography. You think every person Shia or Persian is the same? Do you think when protestors in Iran were gunned down it was only because they weren't the same religion as the people shooting them? Or the same ethnicity? Do you not realize that the very notion of an identity, religion or ethnicity is itself often a point of contention?
4. In a region with a lot of other unstable states where domestic conflict can quickly spill over and spread across borders. Gee that should be obvious. And how about that in basically the same region as those other examples. Great track record of intervention here. But not this one. Trust me. Even though I'm also lying to you about oil being the cause of the war? Because god forbid I put my "cards on the table" aka a fact anyone with an internet connection can look up?
Why don't you actually answer some of the questions that led me to this long digression with you instead of continuing this constant walk back?
You could answer this:
> Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door.
Or I guess wait that's not important anymore because it's not really about that... it's about stopping oil from going to China.
So more importantly then, this:
> Initiating a war is a gamble in of itself. Now Americans all over the world are potentially at increased risk from lone wolves.
Perhaps the answer to this last question is you are so self-satisfied of the future and of your knowledge of Iran that you don't think it's a gamble? Maybe the price of dead Americans is worth it to stop oil flow to China? Where this started was this self-satisfied extrapolation from Greece, to Europe, to presumably the shores of America? How dare politicians risk lives by allowing this trend to develop, that you somehow saw as inevitable through your powers of clairvoyance. That was your position, right? Somehow we got from that to your supposed knowledge of oil flow grand strategy and Iranian nationalism. So I'm asking, what makes you so confident that this war is worth it? You see no risk? You have no doubts? Could you at least acknowledge the act of war is itself a gamble?
I'd appreciate an answer on that since this back and forth has gone on for a while and I've tried to respond to all the points you have brought up. Thanks
What is your evidence that given all we know about Iran, and the fact that they have 60%-enriched uranium, they are not building a bomb? Why do they need 60%-enriched uranium?
> Is that your claim?
No. My claim is that from a geopolitical point of view containment of China is the goal, and the war in Iran is just one step. Politics never about telling the truth -- it's about achieving goals.
You may not like the reality of it, but it is what it is.
> You know there are Shia Arabs, right? Do you think all Shia are Persian?
What does it have to do with anything? Can you form a coherent argument?
> I mean, really? Let's just rattle off a few that anyone with basic information literacy over the last few years would be able to come up with: <...>
> Little to no evidence of recent civic institutions or culture of responsible governance.
Iran has no civic institutions and no culture of responsible governance?
> Sizable minorities who even if aligned against the common dictator, will inevitably disagree with each other on the direction of the state.
The sectarian dynamics in Iraq, Syria and Lybia do not exist in Iran.
Yeah, "reports" about CIA are real. Sure.
> Great track record of intervention here.
There is no intervention though.
> Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door.
Have you seen the map? Open it, and then see where Cyprus is located.
Barely hit next door. Yeah.
> you don't think it's a gamble?
Of course it is. Like any other decision. You make the calculus and decide if the reward is worth the risk.
I am not sure any answer of mine you will find satisfiable. In your view, only 100% result justifies the risk. The reality is that you will never have 100% guarantee. For you inaction regardless of the consequences is the answer, for me it's better to act with uncertainty.
Finally, you assume (without evidence) that Iranian Regime is a rational actor. Once you change this assumption, the calculus will change.
I never said a 100% guarantee. You may put words in the president's mouth if you wish, please don't put words in mine.
You aren't answering my questions at all. You are evading them. The argument is clear. This war is not worth the potential cost. Iran was not closer to getting a weapon. Americans are at more risk today than they were yesterday.
Your walk back has now reached its peak.
> There is no intervention though
I mean what to even say to this?
The rest of it is more or less the same. But I want to highlight how you ended, as really that takes the cake. It's a talking point that comes up a lot so I want to call it out.
"The Iranian Regime is not a rational actor". I saw that coming from a mile away. Thanks for finally putting your cards on the table. So now you can inflate the boogeyman to be as big as you wish. Iran isn't rational, they crazy. Time to bomb!
This the refuge of unserious people. It was a rational actor, as terrible a regime as it is/was. The evidence of that is clear. They were a regime/nation-state that negotiated, declared war, sold oil, prioritized their own existence and acted to preserve their own power. Why aren't they rational? Because the Supreme leader wears a fundamentalist outfit? Because his religious fundamentalism comes from a religion that isn't yours? Because they make threats (which they for the most part never carry out)? You know that many times in the past they warn their neighbors (including Israel) of their so-called reprisal attacks ahead of time so they don't cause a booboo miscalculation and accidentally get annihilated? Like how they are getting annihilated now? If they are so irrational why didn't they send off all these weapons at any time before this? Why did they wait to get attacked? How does Israel penetrate so deeply into their command structure if its such an irrational regime? You would think any attempt at infiltration would be confused by the totally crazy irrational society they have. I mean what a nutcase regime. Jeez what a crazy irrational country attacking the countries that attacked them and bombed out their entire leadership or tacitly supported it.
Totally nuts man.
Disappointing. This just means you don't want to have a serious argument. What is clear is the projection, and that there is nothing more to be gained from this exchange. I have tried to argue in good faith this whole time. Have a good day.
This sounds like a straw man. What reason does Iran have to attack Europe? They don't engage in "mowing the lawn" like some other entity in the region.
This is not a pointless war. You may not like Trump or Bibi, but geopolitics-wise this war make perfect sense on many levels.
First, it limits China's ability to hoard cheep oil as Iran has to sell its oil with a discount due to being sanctioned. China hoards oil as it plans to attack Taiwan and it understands that there will be sanctions on oil trade. So, to minimize the shock on its economy China hoards oil. [1]
Second, Iran is the reason why Gulf states are surrounded by instability: Houthis, armed and funded by IR, in Yemen make Saudis and UAE uneasy. Iraqi militias funded and armed by IR as well sabotage internal politics of Iraq the same way Hizballah destabilizes Lebanon. No one in the Gulf (except Qatar maybe, up until recently) wanted strong IR. These countries and their peace is essential for US and the world economy.
Third, if IR gets nukes, most of the Gulf nations would want nukes too. They already see themselves surrounded by IR-funded militias. We do not need more nukes, we need less nukes in the world. And I have no idea how people simply ignore the fact that IR already has 400+kg of 60%-encriched uranium. Why if not for bombs?
So yeah, geopolitics-wise this war makes perfect sense. Islamic Republic is major destabilizing factor in the region, and this war attempts to resolve it.
Why the current admin cannot articulate it clearly, idk.
I call it pointless because I and many other Americans have been told these things before.
We are always in a constant "Red Queen's Race" with other nations as a means of establishing dominance.
We subsidize allies like Israel with billions of dollars that have never been allocated by our congress, and which only serve to subsidize the healthcare of Israeli citizens while we continue to have nothing of the sorts.
"Bro, just trust me Iran is SO CLOSE!" for the past 40 years is not convincing us that this war has any benefit to us.
Americans are already on the hook for trillions of dollars in debt we cannot pay as a country, and now we want to continue exploding the deficit to the tune of $1 Billion per day.
Its existential threat after existential threat with no consideration to the actual troubles americans are facing in the here and now. Its just endless wars with no end in sight. Outside of manufacturing consent on behalf of Israel, posts such as yours seem highly dedicated to trying to convince nobody aside from the wealthy few Americans with international holdings.
> I call it pointless because I and many other Americans have been told these things before. We are always in a constant "Red Queen's Race" with other nations as a means of establishing dominance.
Well, if it's not the US, then someone else will. So, it can be US then.
> We subsidize allies like Israel with billions of dollars that have never been allocated by our congress, and which only serve to subsidize the healthcare of Israeli citizens while we continue to have nothing of the sorts.
Aid to Israel is basically giving them weapons for free, i.e., paying US-based companies. I have no idea how did you jump from weapons to subsidizing Israel's healthcare.
> "Bro, just trust me Iran is SO CLOSE!" for the past 40 years is not convincing us that this war has any benefit to us.
What is the purpose of having 60%-enriched uranium if not for bombs? If Iran has 60%-enriched uranium today, it means that they did start to work on it 10s of years ago. So, these people who said it were right.
I am not sure why you advocate for the spread of nuclear weapons, especially with regimes that are known to spread instability in the region.
> Americans are already on the hook for trillions of dollars in debt we cannot pay as a country, and now we want to continue exploding the deficit to the tune of $1 Billion per day.
This is a valid issue, and it has to be resolved. However, it has nothing to do with the war. With this war, or without, the debt is a structural problem of US politics. So far, for the past 20 years, everyone just kicks the can down the road.
> Outside of manufacturing consent on behalf of Israel, posts such as yours seem highly dedicated to trying to convince us that this isnt a pointless war from the American perspective.
It is absolutely not a pointless war. If this war is won, it secures long-term peace in the region, which will absolutely benefit the US. I have no idea why you think that having a regime that funds most of the terror groups in the regions, and spreads instability is good for the US.
PS And I am not even talking about how this would enable the US to focus on defending Taiwan from China.
>Aid to Israel is basically giving them weapons for free, i.e., paying US-based companies. I have no idea how did you jump from weapons to subsidizing Israel's healthcare.
Sick and tired of this old argument: Its still adding to the debt, so its socialism to increase military contractor stock prices.
Not really, this increases the profits of American oil and gas exports, USA is one of the countries that benefits from higher prices.
You could argue that just benefits petrol companies, but overall USA doesn't really lose on this its mostly the rest of the world that pays for it, and it might redistribute a bit inside USA.
> Houthis, armed and funded by IR, in Yemen make Saudis and UAE uneasy
I mean, I also would be uneasy if the 3-year old I tried to kill multiple times and failed were suddenly given a firearm, but maybe next time we try to prevent Saudis from killing their neighbours first, to avoid creating yet another resistance group that use terrorism and asymmetrical warfare?
> but maybe next time we try to prevent Saudis from killing their neighbours first, to avoid creating yet another resistance group that use terrorism and asymmetrical warfare?
It was not us that said to Iran to fund Houthis. Some things are due to choices that are made by others, and not the US. I do not get this whole idea of denying agency.
I'm not saying that, I'm just saying that if Saudis don't want to feel uneasy, they shouldn't meddle and bomb their neighbours.
Also they shouldn't execute a hundred unarmed Africans after bringing them to work on neom (I wonder if they were surprised to be shot at, did they run? Did the police execute the one who survived the first hits?), and let their vanity project kill more than 53k 'workers' (slaves?) in 15 years, but I mean, most of them are African or Indian, so who cares?
Don't get me wrong, Iran is an abhorrent country, who jail and execute people to make examples. Saudi Arabia is just way, way worse. And at least average Iranians seems empathetic and ok human beings. Average Saudis aren't.
> This is an interesting issue: what constitutes a valid military target?
Any form of supply chain was considered a valid military target, e.g., refineries, factories, assembly lines, etc. If an army relies on tech from, say a cloud provider via gov cloud, then it can be argued that disrupting cloud operations and thus hindering army's coordination, information collection, etc., is a valid target.
But it was closed after a civil war within Gaza where Hamas took over circa 2007, not in response to a war with "other" countries. The blockade has been in places for nearly 20 years.
I think if Israel believes that weapons can be smuggled via sea, which is reasonable given the smuggling via Sinai and Rafah crossing, then they took the rational step of mitigation this risk.
Gazans could smuggle in arms, ergo refugees can't escape out into international waters towards whoever might receive them?
That doesn't make sense, it seems as if they're held hostage by Israel forced to stay in the very land where their own terrorist government might impress them into servitude towards use against Israel.
The moment IR gets nukes, Saudis and all the other countries around them will get nukes as well.
I don’t understand why everyone is so hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. We have enough of this crap already, and the last thing we need is more nukes.
I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever.
If Iran was on the path to developing nukes, the correct path here was to:
1. Show the evidence to congress, and declare war legally based on the facts.
2. Get international buy-in, and work with our allies (all of whom would very much like to prevent Iran from procuring a nuclear weapon).
This was a hastily started war with flimsy goals and seemingly no real urgency. And one of the first things we did as part of our attack was to bomb an elementary school, killing hundreds of children.
Critics of this war aren't "hell bent on not preventing the spread of nuclear weapons". We're mostly looking at the situation, and thinking "this is not great".
> I think you're missing the crux of the point: why is anything the Trump administration says taken at face value? They have no commitment to the truth, whatsoever.
No, I am not. It has nothing to do with Trump his abilities to speak only truth or always lie.
Obama’s deal specifically excluded surprise inspections (often referred to as "Anywhere, Anytime"). So, if you are trying to hide something, and you know that the inspection is coming, you will succeed.
You're right, but neglect to mention that infrastructure necessary to enrich uranium is not something so easily squirrled away and hidden while also dealing with radioactive isotopes.
It was a treaty, many concessions existed to ensure both parties were comfortable with the arrangement. But that does not at all suggest that the agreement didnt account for foul play on either side.
It was an incredibly solid diplomatic option employed for several years, during which the perpetual "months away from nuclear weapons" rhetoric never proved well-founded.
Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives.
> You're right, but neglect to mention that infrastructure necessary to enrich uranium is not something so easily squirrled away and hidden while also dealing with radioactive isotopes.
But Iran did violate the agreement. The agreement was not just between the US and Iran, it had other parties as well. Yet, when US withdrew, Iran immediately violated it. Why? If they had no goal to pursue military-grade enrichment, why violate the agreement?
Biden's admin did not resume the agreement as well due to those violations by Iran.
I see this agreement as failure for the reason that it did not prevent in a structural way Iran from acquiring enriched material, with or without violations.
> Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives.
I do not believe that Iran is interested in diplomacy at all. They were never interested in diplomacy. Why did they fund all these groups around the Middle East if IR is so peaceful?
No, Iran kept following the accord during almost a year. I think they broke it after a french company got sanctioned in the US (or menaced with sanctions) for dealing with Iran, and french government, as usual, did nothing. Basically acknowledging US laws power over Europe.
The NYT also reported the 30k protestors killed number, when the HR watchdog report 7k confirmed, 11k to be confirmed, so at most 18k, which align quite nicely with the numbers OSINT groups found.
I'd rather have a paper from non- partisan source.
Not by the subprime mortgages given to anyone with a pulse?