Give Iran its due credit. It is following through on the promises about its nuclear facilities.

[LuisDantas]

Iran, as is widely known, has received a lot of criticism and mistrust over its nuclear research.

Back in 2015 IIRC a deal was struck to improve the situation. The deal itself received a lot of criticism, mainly by USA Republicans / Conservatives / people who made a point of criticizing anything involving Barack Obama.

It turns out that the deal has been working out, but that won't stop Donald Trump from making a fool of himself once more.


Trump’s Efforts to Undermine the Iran Nuclear Deal Will Only Help Iran

US sanctions 18 Iranian entities day after certifying nuclear deal compliance

 

[Brickjectivity]

Maybe. Here is a somewhat more USA view written back near the end of May (less than two months ago) this year: The Nuclear Deal Fallout: The Global Threat of Iran

The writer suggests a general Middle East strategy that includes this: "hold Iran accountable for its dismal human rights record as well as its nuclear infractions and support for terrorism."

I think it does say something important, because Iran in the past has hemmed and hawed on deals and has changed faces and words. They have reneged on deals with us before. They don't seem to put much stock into diplomacy with us, possibly because of past experiences with us. Maybe a strong hand is not such a bad idea? I think at the moment its unclear (to me) whether the current actions of the US administration are aimed at undermining the deal or shoring it up. In the Guardian article the Iranian foreign minister complains about getting mixed signals, but they always seem to complain no matter what previous administrations here do. I think in general they just wish we'd disappear, so of course they aren't going to complement our administration.

 

[LuisDantas]

Maybe. Here is a somewhat more USA view written back near the end of May (less than two months ago) this year: The Nuclear Deal Fallout: The Global Threat of Iran

The writer suggests a general Middle East strategy that includes this: "hold Iran accountable for its dismal human rights record as well as its nuclear infractions and support for terrorism."

Why, that is always a good idea. But also, it seems to me, besides the point.

I think it does say something important, because Iran in the past has hemmed and hawed on deals and has changed faces and words. They have reneged on deals with us before.

I guess that gave you proper know-how to deal with Trump, then.

They don't seem to put much stock into diplomacy with us, possibly because of past experiences with us.

One would almost hope so, given the facts.

Maybe a strong hand is not such a bad idea?

Every time I hear that I cringe. "Strong hand", whenever it has a clear meaning, is not a laudable one.

I think at the moment its unclear (to me) whether the current actions of the US administration are aimed at undermining the deal or shoring it up. In the Guardian article the Iranian foreign minister complains about getting mixed signals, but they always seem to complain no matter what previous administrations here do. I think in general they just wish we'd disappear, so of course they aren't going to complement our administration.

If I understand what you mean, the feeling sure sounds mutual.

 

[Magus]

Iran is the second largest supplier of crude oil , if Iran builds a Nuclear Power Plant to power the country rather then relaying on it's own crude oil, they will have more Oil to sell and at cheaper prices, thus a threat to the Petro Dollar.

Why won't they ever hold Saudi Arabia for it's human right, the worst in the world, Women can drive in Iran, they can't in Saudi Arabia.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Why won't they ever hold Saudi Arabia for it's human right, the worst in the world, Women can drive in Iran, they can't in Saudi Arabia.

Because some in the Saudi regime are agents of Satan.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why won't they ever hold Saudi Arabia for it's human right, the worst in the world, Women can drive in Iran, they can't in Saudi Arabia.

These kinds of observations are worse than useless.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It turns out that the deal has been working out, ...

Agreed.

... but that won't stop Donald Trump from making a fool of himself once more.

No, it will not.

 

[columbus]

Iran, as is widely known, has received a lot of criticism and mistrust over its nuclear research.

What is less widely known, in this country, is that Iran has been under assault by the USA for decades. That's why they want nukes. To protect themselves from us.
Sabre rattling might play well to the low information voters that US politicians depend on to get elected. But there are very good reasons for Iran to want to protect itself from our military. Threatening them and punishing them for responding appropriately to the threat is not a way forward.
Tom

 

[David1967]

Iran is the second largest supplier of crude oil , if Iran builds a Nuclear Power Plant to power the country rather then relaying on it's own crude oil, they will have more Oil to sell and at cheaper prices, thus a threat to the Petro Dollar.

Why won't they ever hold Saudi Arabia for it's human right, the worst in the world, Women can drive in Iran, they can't in Saudi Arabia.

That one word you said, "oil".

 

[Brickjectivity]

What is less widely known, in this country, is that Iran has been under assault by the USA for decades. That's why they want nukes. To protect themselves from us.

I hate to think of the implications of that. Jimmy Carter was our president when the Shah was run out of Iran in 1979. I don't actually know much about why we favored the Shah and in what way we were involved over recent decades. Here's a BBC report on it: US-Iran relations: A brief guide - BBC News Currently our administration has picked sides and is siding with the Saudis against the Iranians in some sort of cold war that they are having.

Sabre rattling might play well to the low information voters that US politicians depend on to get elected. But there are very good reasons for Iran to want to protect itself from our military. Threatening them and punishing them for responding appropriately to the threat is not a way forward.
Tom

I hate saber rattling.

 

[Revoltingest]

What is less widely known, in this country, is that Iran has been under assault by the USA for decades. That's why they want nukes. To protect themselves from us.
Sabre rattling might play well to the low information voters that US politicians depend on to get elected. But there are very good reasons for Iran to want to protect itself from our military. Threatening them and punishing them for responding appropriately to the threat is not a way forward.
Tom

A major reason that I thought Bernie would be a better prez than Donald or Hillary
is that those 2 were likely to make Iran even more skittish with their threats,
especially the latter. The best approach to having a nuke free Iran is for us to stop
being the kind of threat which inspires owning nuclear weapons. Bad conduct
creates bad aji.

 

[columbus]

I hate to think of the implications of that. Jimmy Carter was our president when the Shah was run out of Iran in 1979. I don't actually know much about why we favored the Shah and in what way we were involved over recent decades.

It goes back farther than that. While the BBC timeline you linked to is accurate, it is very incomplete.

To begin with, the Shah was hated by lots of Iranians for multiple reasons. We deposed the elected leader and replaced him with a king because he was very Western oriented. Mossadeq was inclined to align with the Soviet Union and nationalize the oil fields. He would also have preserved traditional iranian culture and mores. The Shah was giving away iranian wealth to Western interests and forcibly secularizing Iran. So he was hated by everyone from conservative Muslims to the modern intelligentsia. His grip on the Peacock Throne was tenuous to say the least. He absolutely needed support from us, which means he's a western puppet to proud Iranians. And the way we kept him in power was brutal. His secret police force, SAVVAK, was nearly a division of the CIA. The torture and disappearing of dissidents, spying and such was fearsome.

Then along came the OPEC thing in 1973. That majorly roiled all the waters in the oil producing and consuming world. Caught between those two poles, the Shah was in a world of hurt. SAVVAK was in high "crush all dissent" gear and really ugly. Then Jimmy "The Christian" Carter got elected president. He was way too ethical to allow our government to be responsible for the kind of horrors we were committing in Iran. This was while future president GHW Bush was high muckety muck at the CIA, and keeping control of the Iranian oil fields was a top priority. But without the president's support he failed, the Shah was overthrown, and Khomenei took power.
That's why the USA embassy in Teheran was such a big deal to the Revolutionary Guard. It really was CIA headquarters in Iran, source of all evil in Iran. A nest of enemy spies and agents and people guilty of all sorts of crimes against the people and government of Iran.
Eventually, Bush used Saddam Hussein to launch a horrible invasion of Iran. But that's a whole 'nother episode to the story.

Lots of people either don't know all this, or even deny it happened. But that doesn't matter to the Iranians who do. And they are the ones we're dealing with.
Tom

 

[Valjean]

I think Iran is a paper tiger co-opted by American hawks for political purposes. I'm skeptical of the claim that they're a threat, or that they have nuclear ambitions beyond power generation.

 

[columbus]

I think Iran is a paper tiger co-opted by American hawks for political purposes. I'm skeptical of the claim that they're a threat, or that they have nuclear ambitions beyond power generation.

The dismissiveness of this attitude towards Iran is very short sighted.
They're proud and ambitious, with a history of regional dominance going back thousands of years.
The main reason that they are not one now is that the USA has been assaulting them for decades, ever since they took their country back (in 1979). We've used weapons from Saddam Hussein to economic sanctions.
What they clearly need to protect themselves from the existential threat posed by the USA is a nuclear deterrent. I am quite convinced that they want one and will get one eventually.
Unless their alliances with Russia and Putin and China and such make nukes unnecessary.
Tom

 

[Britedream]

Iran is the second largest supplier of crude oil , if Iran builds a Nuclear Power Plant to power the country rather then relaying on it's own crude oil, they will have more Oil to sell and at cheaper prices, thus a threat to the Petro Dollar.

Why won't they ever hold Saudi Arabia for it's human right, the worst in the world, Women can drive in Iran, they can't in Saudi Arabia.

I don't believe you are being objective. Iran is a member of OPEC, so saying that it will sell cheaper oil is unreasonable view. For Saudi human right, I believe there is no nation on the face of the earth that doesn't have some sort of violation of this right, I believe all Secret agencies do violations of some sort. So singling out one country for human rights as if there is no one else, has no touch with reality.