Iran Talks Could There Be Peace?

[Lostpuppy]

Oil pricing and comodities are often guided by war.

A goid artivle still relevent fot Thurdaay this week, Geneva Iran US talks

Food for thought

Have Markets Mispriced the Danger of an Iran Escalation? | OilPrice.com

Global complacency toward a renewed Iran-Israel conflict may be dangerously misplaced, particularly given the risk of escalation and disruption to the Strait of Hormuz.

oilprice.com

 

[NuclearID]

Anything can happen. However looks unlikely. Both sides have setup hard red lines & both have cornered themselves into a spot where they cannot back out now. So just a matter of time IMHO.

What do I want (no one asked)? Yes, to the destruction of the death cult know as the Iranian Regime. All of it.

 

[Lostpuppy]

Anything can happen. However looks unlikely. Both sides have setup hard red lines both have cornered themselves into a spot where they cannot back out now. So just a matter of time IMHO.

What do I want (no one asked)? Yes, to the destruction of the death cult know as the Iranian Regime. All of it.

I am hoping my Texas oil stocks go up! but they have dropped .25 a share!

 

[Deleted account]

What do I want (no one asked)? Yes, to the destruction of the death cult know as the Iranian Regime. All of it.

That's unachievable. Sure; you may kill the current kingpins, but that doesn't mean the next lot will be any better. Except for the latest massacre - which is admittedly an outlier - Iran has been a fairly standard run-of-the-mill dictatorship throughout the recent decades, and its internal politics were far too complex for it to be summarily labeled as a "death cult".

The liberal outlook on global politics - popular in the 90s and up until the early 2010s - asserts that dictatorships consist of fundamentally good nations preyed upon by evil and corrupt autocrats. Topple the regime - the thinking goes - and a prosperous and just system will emerge.

This is fundamentally untrue, and since the current US administration is about as far from "liberal" as has ever been the case in US history, I propose that all they want out of this is to ensure Iran doesn't develop nukes. They would happily strike a deal with Khamenei if only it included that single provision.

I'm not weighing in on whether this is the right or the wrong thing to do - I'm just claiming that's what US foreign policy vis a vis Iran is all about.

 

[Irag8er]

I propose that all they want out of this is to ensure Iran doesn't develop nukes. They would happily strike a deal with Khamenei if only it included that single provision.

This seems to be the path that Pres. Trump is chugging down.
But I do believe the US would begrudgingly end Iran's nuke program either way.

 

[teekay99]

This seems to be the path that Pres. Trump is chugging down.
But I do believe the US would begrudgingly end Iran's nuke program either way.

I think President Trump's statement from the SOTU address provides clarity on his position:

But one thing is certain, I will never allow the world's number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far to have a nuclear weapon, can't let that happen.

Seems like this means there will either be strikes on Iran or a deal with the regime that swears off nuclear weapons development. But it's clear that regime change is not the priority.

 

[Irag8er]

I think President Trump's statement from the SOTU address provides clarity on his position:


Seems like this means there will either be strikes on Iran or a deal with the regime that swears off nuclear weapons development. But it's clear that regime change is not the priority.

Yes, it seems as though that rhetoric changed.
No longer even using the death of protesters as a pretext.
That being said if and when an attack does take place the US may expect that t will be such that will lead to regime change.
And the "this attack was also in response to the massacres" will be agiven.

 

[NuclearID]

That's unachievable. Sure; you may kill the current kingpins, but that doesn't mean the next lot will be any better. Except for the latest massacre - which is admittedly an outlier - Iran has been a fairly standard run-of-the-mill dictatorship throughout the recent decades, and its internal politics were far too complex for it to be summarily labeled as a "death cult".

The liberal outlook on global politics - popular in the 90s and up until the early 2010s - asserts that dictatorships consist of fundamentally good nations preyed upon by evil and corrupt autocrats. Topple the regime - the thinking goes - and a prosperous and just system will emerge.

This is fundamentally untrue, and since the current US administration is about as far from "liberal" as has ever been the case in US history, I propose that all they want out of this is to ensure Iran doesn't develop nukes. They would happily strike a deal with Khamenei if only it included that single provision.

I'm not weighing in on whether this is the right or the wrong thing to do - I'm just claiming that's what US foreign policy vis a vis Iran is all about.

I did say "what I want" personally. Not what is strategically or logistically possible. Well. Wouldn't call it impossible, but the feat is quite up there. However I'd definitely like to see Trump & Bibi try.

 

[NuclearID]

I did say "what I want" personally. Not what is strategically or logistically possible. Well. Wouldn't call it impossible, but the feat is quite up there. However I'd definitely like to see Trump & Bibi try.

Also protests are starting again in Iran. So. That does add somethings into the equation IMHO.

 

[Deleted account]

Yes, it seems as though that rhetoric changed.
No longer even using the death of protesters as a pretext.
That being said if and when an attack does take place the US may expect that t will be such that will lead to regime change.
And the "this attack was also in response to the massacres" will be agiven.

If the US ends up bombing Iran, you can be very sure it won't be because of the massacres - although you can be equally sure that the massacres will be cited as the official pretext.

I sense it is being felt in the WH that Iran is not Venezuela, and that this op runs a high risk of going pear-shaped - leaving the US with few viable options. I also suspect Trump would prefer to avoid an open-ended war with Iran ahead of the midterms. Problem is, Tehran knows all that as well - and they're likely banking on being able to outlast whatever interest America may have in securing the regime's downfall.

And who's to say they're wrong? After all, this is exactly where the lack of strategic focus (long devoured by hyperpartisanship) comes to bite the US in the proverbial ass.

 

[Lostpuppy]

I guess peace wasnt the choice for a few days