Iran

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

 

[hpslugga 4096]

15 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

As if holding embassy employees hostage is a bigger violation of "international norms" than the use of chemical weapons.  As far as violations of "international norms" go in the modern era, the Iran hostage crisis is way down the list.  Russia's use of a nerve agent to target people on UK soil only happened a few weeks ago.

Well I was just referring to Iran in general. We orchestrated a coup d’etat that overthrew a legitimately, democratically elected government, replaced it with an autocracy, and that coup alone claimed about 300 lives. That’s a crime that’s supposed to be punishable by death if convicted at The Hague...but that’s ok because they took 52 hostages!!!

Edited May 9, 2018 by hpslugga

[Caracara 41]

2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

How is Trump violating the US side of the deal going to bring them under compliance?

He's not violating the deal. He's pulling out of it because he can.  Now "compliance" to a poorly constructed deal (for the USA)) doesn't matter.  Iran now has to stop fucking w nukes altogether, or else "it will go very badly for them."

[hpslugga 4096]

17 minutes ago, Caracara said:

If the deal was terrible and allowed the nuke program to go forward right up to the last step, then full compliance isn't worth much.

What evidence do you have that the deal was terrible?

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

6 minutes ago, Caracara said:

He's not violating the deal. He's pulling out of it because he can.  Now "compliance" to a poorly constructed deal (for the USA)) doesn't matter.  Iran now has to stop fucking w nukes altogether, or else "it will go very badly for them."

Trump is clearly violating the deal to the point that the Iranians would be hard pressed to ever deal with him or us again.  

[Caracara 41]

Just now, hpslugga said:

What evidence do you have that the deal was terrible?

None of us have evidence either way.  But I'd cite the players involved, the murkiness.  Israel's presentation.  And billions of cash of our tax money unaccounted for.

[wildcat09 29557]

7 minutes ago, Caracara said:

He's not violating the deal. He's pulling out of it because he can.  Now "compliance" to a poorly constructed deal (for the USA)) doesn't matter.  Iran now has to stop fucking w nukes altogether, or else "it will go very badly for them."

The deal does not allow for us to "pull out" of it for no reason. He's violating it. 

[relapse98 634]

 

14 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

Quote

Who the fuck is advocating for a US invasion of Iran? Not Trump, not me that’s for sure.

Fake News!

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

3 minutes ago, Caracara said:

None of us have evidence either way.  But I'd cite the players involved, the murkiness.  Israel's presentation.  And billions of cash of our tax money unaccounted for.

Israel and Saudi Arabia couldn't possibly have another agenda, could they?

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

15 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

 

What's he going to do about it at this point?  He's lost all of his leverage.

[relapse98 634]

3 minutes ago, Caracara said:

Israel's presentation.

Wow. Much credibility. Fuck israel. Let them stand on their own two feet.

[Caracara 41]

1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Israel and Saudi Arabia couldn't possibly have another agenda, could they?

Of course they do.  So does the EU, russia and everybody.  Iran is going to have to figure things out while they're dealing with internal strife/riots.  Tough times for the death to america crowd.

[Tuco 5093]

19 minutes ago, Caracara said:

None of us have evidence either way.  But I'd cite the players involved, the murkiness.  Israel's presentation.  And billions of cash of our tax money unaccounted for.

No.  The money which was released was not US taxpayer dollars.  It was money that was either frozen during the sanctions or money that was owed from a cancelled fighter jet order in the 1970s.  It was Iranian money.  You argue about whether it was wise to return it, but it's bullshit to claim it was US taxpayer money. 

[EastTexan 666]

14 hours ago, MaybeACoordinator said:

Policy: "a course or principle of action adopted or proposed by a government, party, business, or individual." There has never been, and can never be, a single one size fits all policy to apply to everything that is foreign.

No shit Sherlock.

[Anastasis 23699]

Just now, Tuco said:

No.  The money which was released was not US taxpayer dollars.  It was money that was either frozen during the sanctions or money that was owed from a cancelled fighter jet order in the 1970s.  It was Iranian money.  You argue about whether it was wise to return it, but it's bullshit to claim it was US taxpayer money. 

Serious question, who paid the compounded interest?

[Caracara 41]

4 minutes ago, Tuco said:

No.  The money which was released was not US taxpayer dollars.  It was money that was either frozen during the sanctions or money that was owed from a cancelled fighter jet order in the 1970s.  It was Iranian money.  You argue about whether it was wise to return it, but it's bullshit to claim it was US taxpayer money. 

I'll accept that.  It's traceability is still a problem in my view. 

...and what anastasis said

Edited May 9, 2018 by Caracara

[Tuco 5093]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Serious question, who paid the compounded interest?

I have no idea if it was put into a fund which accrued interest or if it was somehow absorbed into our treasury, and we paid the interest like we would on any bonds that we issue.  What a waste if it wasn't accruing interest somehow.

[Bat Guano 363]

46 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

Beating the drum. Straight out of the Iraq playbook. Will the media and loyal opposition go along with it? Or will they accuse him of wagging the dog? Will congress insist on a formal declaration of war before hostilities commence?

Answer key:

Spoiler

 

Yes, of course.

Some will, and will be painted as lacking patriotism.

Hahaha. Don't be silly.

 

 

Edited May 9, 2018 by Bat Guano

[Lagunamadre 1975]

9 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Serious question, who paid the compounded interest?

We paid about 1/10th of the interest that we could have. We saved billions by not letting people in the Hague tell us the interest was actually $10B. Which every reasonable spectator pegged the interest at. 

[Anastasis 23699]

Here you go.  It was actually taxpayer money.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran-payment-cash-20160907-snap-story.html 

The $1.7 billion was the settlement of a decades-old arbitration claim between the U.S. and Iran. An initial $400 million of euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currency was delivered on pallets Jan. 17, the same day Tehran agreed to release four American prisoners.

The Obama administration had claimed the events were separate, but recently acknowledged the cash was used as leverage until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran. The remaining $1.3 billion represented estimated interest on the Iranian cash the U.S. had held since the 1970s. The administration had previously declined to say if the interest was delivered to Iran in physical cash, as with the principal, or via a more regular banking mechanism.

 

 

Earlier Tuesday, officials from the State, Justice and Treasury departments held a closed-door briefing for congressional staff on the payments, according to a Capitol Hill aide familiar with the session. The officials said the $1.3 billion was paid in cash on Jan. 22 and Feb. 5. The aide was not authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity.

The money came from a little-known fund administered by the Treasury Department for settling litigation claims. The so-called Judgment Fund is taxpayer money Congress has permanently approved in the event it's needed, allowing the president to bypass direct congressional approval to make a settlement. The U.S. previously paid out $278 million in Iran-related claims by using the fund in 1991.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Anastasis

[elnimo 55]

22 hours ago, Jhawk said:

I agree with all of the above on the whole, but if Trump gets elected again it won't because he is at war.  One of the biggest campaign issues was the misuse of war.  Trump isn't going to get into war just to have that as a headline.  As a trump supporter he will lose my support by working up a war and I am not the only one that feels this way.  I think going to war in Iran is at best a net zero for him in election polls (and is likely detrimental).  As polarizing a figure as he is people aren't going to use "well we need consistent leadership in wartime" as the last hurdle to jump when pulling the lever for him.  You either are voting for him or you aren't and it has almost nothing to do with Iran unless war with Iran is a deal breaker for you like it would be for me.

Get ready to be disappointed.  His echo chamber is full of war hawks.  Bolton's Iraq playbook is being followed to the T.  We will be in a war shortly.  Israel will start it and we will be forced to finish it. 

[Caracara 41]

2 minutes ago, elnimo said:

Get ready to be disappointed.  His echo chamber is full of war hawks.  Bolton's Iraq playbook is being followed to the T.  We will be in a war shortly.  Israel will start it and we will be forced to finish it. 

I think Bolton was brought in for his rep, to play bad-cop, talk tough and paint doomsday scenarios.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Here you go.  It was actually taxpayer money.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran-payment-cash-20160907-snap-story.html 

The $1.7 billion was the settlement of a decades-old arbitration claim between the U.S. and Iran. An initial $400 million of euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currency was delivered on pallets Jan. 17, the same day Tehran agreed to release four American prisoners.

The Obama administration had claimed the events were separate, but recently acknowledged the cash was used as leverage until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran. The remaining $1.3 billion represented estimated interest on the Iranian cash the U.S. had held since the 1970s. The administration had previously declined to say if the interest was delivered to Iran in physical cash, as with the principal, or via a more regular banking mechanism.

 

 

Earlier Tuesday, officials from the State, Justice and Treasury departments held a closed-door briefing for congressional staff on the payments, according to a Capitol Hill aide familiar with the session. The officials said the $1.3 billion was paid in cash on Jan. 22 and Feb. 5. The aide was not authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity.

The money came from a little-known fund administered by the Treasury Department for settling litigation claims. The so-called Judgment Fund is taxpayer money Congress has permanently approved in the event it's needed, allowing the president to bypass direct congressional approval to make a settlement. The U.S. previously paid out $278 million in Iran-related claims by using the fund in 1991.

The interest was tax payer dollars, but a small fraction of what we likely owed had it been dictated by arbitration. 

[Jhawk 1075]

4 minutes ago, elnimo said:

Get ready to be disappointed.  His echo chamber is full of war hawks.  Bolton's Iraq playbook is being followed to the T.  We will be in a war shortly.  Israel will start it and we will be forced to finish it. 

I don't doubt this for a second.  That strategy is exactly what keeps the cash flowing between elites, government departments, and the government vendors.  It is exactly what the ruling class establishment wants.  I'm guessing that there is a 90% chance I am disappointed and about a 10% chance that Trump pulls some magic bullshit out of his hat and something changes.  We need to just stay the fuck away from that entire region of the globe.  They have very little that we need at the moment (obviously the oil game is a long game)... We should let their hostilities toward each other play out.  Fuck... even if the bad guys over there kill all of the good guys they still won't amount to 1/100th of our military might.  Plus they wouldn't have innocent targets to use as shields later in the game.

[Mojo Hand 4580]

15 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Here you go.  It was actually taxpayer money.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-iran-payment-cash-20160907-snap-story.html 

The $1.7 billion was the settlement of a decades-old arbitration claim between the U.S. and Iran. An initial $400 million of euros, Swiss francs and other foreign currency was delivered on pallets Jan. 17, the same day Tehran agreed to release four American prisoners.

The Obama administration had claimed the events were separate, but recently acknowledged the cash was used as leverage until the Americans were allowed to leave Iran. The remaining $1.3 billion represented estimated interest on the Iranian cash the U.S. had held since the 1970s. The administration had previously declined to say if the interest was delivered to Iran in physical cash, as with the principal, or via a more regular banking mechanism.

 

 

Earlier Tuesday, officials from the State, Justice and Treasury departments held a closed-door briefing for congressional staff on the payments, according to a Capitol Hill aide familiar with the session. The officials said the $1.3 billion was paid in cash on Jan. 22 and Feb. 5. The aide was not authorized to speak publicly and requested anonymity.

The money came from a little-known fund administered by the Treasury Department for settling litigation claims. The so-called Judgment Fund is taxpayer money Congress has permanently approved in the event it's needed, allowing the president to bypass direct congressional approval to make a settlement. The U.S. previously paid out $278 million in Iran-related claims by using the fund in 1991.

The taxpayers were put on the hook by whoever in the Carter and Reagan administrations forgot to move the money into an interest-bearing account.  It should have covered itself:

 

The 1979 MoU stipulated that the unexpended funds would be placed in an interest-bearing account. As it turns out, these funds were not based in such an account—no U.S. administration implemented that requirement. The reasons for this are not clear. Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Eric Edelman, who testified on this issue before the Senate, noted that the United States “does not let [FMS accounts] accrue interest.”

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/10/03/the-united-states-iran-and-1-7-billion-sorting-out-the-details/

[Falling Down 25]

58 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Trump is clearly violating the deal to the point that the Iranians would be hard pressed to ever deal with him or us again.  

So an agreement signed by a man with a pen and his phone can be undone in the next election?  Who would have thunk it?

[staboner 5067]

20 minutes ago, elnimo said:

Get ready to be disappointed.  His echo chamber is full of war hawks.  Bolton's Iraq playbook is being followed to the T.  We will be in a war shortly.  Israel will start it and we will be forced to finish it. 

thats my fear

16 minutes ago, Caracara said:

I think Bolton was brought in for his rep, to play bad-cop, talk tough and paint doomsday scenarios.

problem is we have elected officials and people who put them there wanting doomsday

the lack of radiation on my skin today is zesty my friends. very zesty. but man i am not liking this shit at all today with iran

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Another ME war is not going to go over well with the voters.  

[Anastasis 23699]

7 minutes ago, Mojo Hand said:

The taxpayers were put on the hook by whoever in the Carter and Reagan administrations forgot to move the money into an interest-bearing account.  It should have covered itself:

 

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/markaz/2016/10/03/the-united-states-iran-and-1-7-billion-sorting-out-the-details/

Good breakdown.  Another interesting section.

 

WAS THE RELEASE OF AMERICANS UNJUSTLY IMPRISONED IN IRAN MADE CONDITIONAL ON THE SETTLEMENT OR ITS PAYMENT IN CASH?

One of the released prisoners, a Christian pastor named Saeed Abedini, has stated that Iranian police told him that he would not be released until another plane landed.

U.S. officials have stated that Abedini’s account is incorrect, insisting that the release of the prisoners was conditioned only on a reciprocal arrangement in which seven Iranians held in the United States on sanctions-related charges were also released, and Washington agreed to drop Interpol arrest warrants for 14 other Iranian fugitives. State Department officials testified that the payment was briefly halted over concerns about the whereabouts of relatives of one of the released prisoners. The administration maintains that the pause was not linked to the cash transaction but was the “prudent” thing to do.

[elnimo 55]

2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

My dad is Iranian, so I'm not gonna let Iconoclast be the sole Iran authority on this thread. 

To say the US-Iran relationship is complex is an understatement.  You could make a very strong argument that the United States is the main reason why the country is so fucked up.  How should Iranians feel about the US when their Democratic PM was overthrown in a coup led by the CIA in 1953? You know who helped them create their nuclear program? WE DID. Do you know who gave them weapons grade uranium? WE DID.  I'm sure the majority of y'all know that, but FYI for others that don't. 

Obama's Iran deal was not perfect by any stretch at all, and the Iranians in charge are still fucking over their citizens.  But he treated Iran like and adult and showed them some fucking respect, and in turn, Iran had basically returned the favor. This is how the whole thing is basically playing out:

US: You're not complying with this deal. 

Iran: Dude, we are complying. 

US: We don't believe you. Plus Obama gave you a bunch of money.

Iran: Prove we did something wrong.  Oh, and that was OUR money.

US:  Fuck that. Deal's off. Sanctions are back on, motherfuckers. Oh, and we'll add a few more. 

Iran: This is fucking bullshit. I guess we'll have to look into starting up our program again to protect ourselves. 

US: OH, YEAH? I FUCKING DARE YOU. SEE WHAT FUCKING HAPPENS. REGIME CHANGE, MOTHERFUCKERS!!!

 

Look, Iran is a fucking mess. They need a revolution. Let the Iranian people do it themselves. US interference CAUSED the goddamn Islamic radicals to come in power, but now US interference is going to make things better? When are we going to fucking learn?

And BTW, my dad probably agrees with most of what Iconoclast is saying.  I think emotion is getting in the way, but's pretty understandable.  Under Khomeini's rule, his father lost his job, had his home taken away, was sent to prison, and was literally executed by firing squad for simply not converting to Islam.  My family has been enormously affected by radical Islam.

My dad loves the United States. He came here 45 years ago and has never returned to his homeland. He wants change, and doesn't really care how it's done.I obviously think it's a bit more complicated in order to truly improve the country.

My parents are refugees of the revolution too.  I agree with everything you said. 

The islamists hijacked the revolution.  The risk is that the MEK or some other fringe group who is worse than the islamists hijacks the next one.  A policy of regime change only works if you have someone internally who can lead an opposition.  Otherwise, you are swapping one a-hole for another.  All those people are dead or in jail in Iran.  The failson of the shah is not going to survive long enough to consolidate power.  The MEK is universally hated in Iran.  The best thing the US could have done to effect regime change was to continue the deal.  The people realized the islamist regime stole all of the money the US released.  Before yesterday, the people blamed the regime for the problems, which helped to bolster the reformists who want the corruption out of the government.  Slow secularization and democratization would result in a lasting friendly government.  Overthrowing one bad regime to install another one won't. The hardliners are celebrating the end of the deal because it shows that they were right. 

On withdrawing from the deal:  This isn't some grand plan to get a better nuke deal in place.  These are the first steps in setting up a pretext for the war that the neocons have been salivating over for decades.  Right now, the EU is the only thing standing between this situation blowing up (forgive the pun) into a full scale shooting war.  If the EU is forced to back out because of secondary sanctions, then Iran will start up its program again.  Then Israel will conduct airstrikes in Iran with its new overfly rights granted by the Saudis (who might join in the fun) because Iran can't have a nuke (I actually agree with that position).  The Iranians will strike back, and the US will be forced to act.  I'm sure Bolton's power point presentation is a bit more detailed.

Any escalation in conflict, and especially the involvement in the US, will disenfranchise the entire population.  The hardliners in government will solidify their position.  The only way the US will get rid of them at that point is a full on ground invasion.  Iran has mandatory conscription.  So everyone in the country has some military training.  This will be bloodier that Iraq.  

 

 

[David Dennison 19441]

12 minutes ago, Falling Down said:

So an agreement signed by a man with a pen and his phone can be undone in the next election?  Who would have thunk it?

Which is why us Democrats are going to be really happy when we can undo all of Donald's fuck ups.

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

6 minutes ago, elnimo said:

My parents are refugees of the revolution too.  I agree with everything you said. 

The islamists hijacked the revolution.  The risk is that the MEK or some other fringe group who is worse than the islamists hijacks the next one.  A policy of regime change only works if you have someone internally who can lead an opposition.  Otherwise, you are swapping one a-hole for another.  All those people are dead or in jail in Iran.  The failson of the shah is not going to survive long enough to consolidate power.  The MEK is universally hated in Iran.  The best thing the US could have done to effect regime change was to continue the deal.  The people realized the islamist regime stole all of the money the US released.  Before yesterday, the people blamed the regime for the problems, which helped to bolster the reformists who want the corruption out of the government.  Slow secularization and democratization would result in a lasting friendly government.  Overthrowing one bad regime to install another one won't. The hardliners are celebrating the end of the deal because it shows that they were right. 

On withdrawing from the deal:  This isn't some grand plan to get a better nuke deal in place.  These are the first steps in setting up a pretext for the war that the neocons have been salivating over for decades.  Right now, the EU is the only thing standing between this situation blowing up (forgive the pun) into a full scale shooting war.  If the EU is forced to back out because of secondary sanctions, then Iran will start up its program again.  Then Israel will conduct airstrikes in Iran with its new overfly rights granted by the Saudis (who might join in the fun) because Iran can't have a nuke (I actually agree with that position).  The Iranians will strike back, and the US will be forced to act.  I'm sure Bolton's power point presentation is a bit more detailed.

Any escalation in conflict, and especially the involvement in the US, will disenfranchise the entire population.  The hardliners in government will solidify their position.  The only way the US will get rid of them at that point is a full on ground invasion.  Iran has mandatory conscription.  So everyone in the country has some military training.  This will be bloodier that Iraq.  

 

 

Great post, and the bolded text is particularly on point. 

 

[DixonHur 11941]

Why the fuck is it at the US's sole discretion who get's to have nukes?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Why the fuck is it at the US's sole discretion who get's to have nukes?

Because fuck you that’s why! 

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, DixonHur said:

Why the fuck is it at the US's sole discretion who get's to have nukes?

If it's up to us, we're doing a piss poor job of keeping countries from getting them.

[Hank Kingsley 21598]

"The body of this man Trump will turn to dust and his corpse will be fed on by snakes and insects, while the Islamic Republic continues to stand," Khamenei said in remarks delivered to schoolteachers and carried by state Iranian media outlets.

 

 

 

[relapse98 634]

4 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

 

Amazing. We went from just Israel having nukes over there to Iran and possibly Saudi. This guy really is the reverse midas. Everything he touches turns to shit.

[Lagunamadre 1975]

33 minutes ago, elnimo said:

My parents are refugees of the revolution too.  I agree with everything you said. 

The islamists hijacked the revolution.  The risk is that the MEK or some other fringe group who is worse than the islamists hijacks the next one.  A policy of regime change only works if you have someone internally who can lead an opposition.  Otherwise, you are swapping one a-hole for another.  All those people are dead or in jail in Iran.  The failson of the shah is not going to survive long enough to consolidate power.  The MEK is universally hated in Iran.  The best thing the US could have done to effect regime change was to continue the deal.  The people realized the islamist regime stole all of the money the US released.  Before yesterday, the people blamed the regime for the problems, which helped to bolster the reformists who want the corruption out of the government.  Slow secularization and democratization would result in a lasting friendly government.  Overthrowing one bad regime to install another one won't. The hardliners are celebrating the end of the deal because it shows that they were right. 

On withdrawing from the deal:  This isn't some grand plan to get a better nuke deal in place.  These are the first steps in setting up a pretext for the war that the neocons have been salivating over for decades.  Right now, the EU is the only thing standing between this situation blowing up (forgive the pun) into a full scale shooting war.  If the EU is forced to back out because of secondary sanctions, then Iran will start up its program again.  Then Israel will conduct airstrikes in Iran with its new overfly rights granted by the Saudis (who might join in the fun) because Iran can't have a nuke (I actually agree with that position).  The Iranians will strike back, and the US will be forced to act.  I'm sure Bolton's power point presentation is a bit more detailed.

Any escalation in conflict, and especially the involvement in the US, will disenfranchise the entire population.  The hardliners in government will solidify their position.  The only way the US will get rid of them at that point is a full on ground invasion.  Iran has mandatory conscription.  So everyone in the country has some military training.  This will be bloodier that Iraq.  

 

 

Great post. Merci! 

[Anastasis 23699]

1 minute ago, relapse98 said:

Amazing. We went from just Israel having nukes over there to Iran and possibly Saudi. This guy really is the reverse midas. Everything he touches turns to shit.

I would wager that neither Iran nor Saudi will have nukes within the next 5 years. 

[David Dennison 19441]

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

I would wager that neither Iran nor Saudi will have nukes within the next 5 years. 

Never would have been better.

[InkaUtexas 26800]

9 minutes ago, relapse98 said:

Amazing. We went from just Israel having nukes over there to Iran and possibly Saudi. This guy really is the reverse midas. Everything he touches turns to shit.

Saudi already has nukes. They are in Pakistan. 

[Caracara 41]

The saudis have us. they don't need nukes or want the headache.  It's just rhetoric and more perceived pressure on iran,

[Anastasis 23699]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Never would have been better.

Confucius say, never make wager without defined endpoint. 

[Lagunamadre 1975]

Just now, Caracara said:

The saudis have us. they don't need nukes or want the headache.  It's just rhetoric and more perceived pressure on iran,

Glad the Wahabis have our full support and glad they return that favor with their allegiance to American interests. 

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, Lagunamadre said:

Glad the Wahabis have our full support and glad they return that favor with their allegiance to American interests. 

They're really sorry about those twin towers.

[bad_teammate 13479]

2 hours ago, Hank Kingsley said:

 

do it, fat bitch

[GHOSTUSER 361]

Sohrab Ahmari is a former WSJ columnist who writes for Commentary magazine. He is also a fellow Iranian-American who is a must read, especially involving Iran. I leave you with this excellent piece that he has written.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/obama-killed-his-own-iran-deal/

[Caracara 41]

7 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

They're really sorry about those twin towers.

Now out come the tinfoil hats. Obama and Colbert never verified their involvement.   There's been a bit of a coup in SA in the last year. Look into it.

De Facto theocracies and cult countries don't get nukes. That's a sound policy.

[David Dennison 19441]

4 minutes ago, Iconoclast Texan said:

Sohrab Ahmari is a former WSJ columnist who writes for Commentary magazine. He is also a fellow Iranian-American who is a must read, especially involving Iran. I leave you with this excellent piece that he has written.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/iran/obama-killed-his-own-iran-deal/

That's some good but Obama right there.

And garbage politics.

[David Dennison 19441]

Just now, Caracara said:

Now out come the tinfoil hats. Obama and Colbert never verified their involvement.   There's been a bit of a coup in SA in the last year. Look into it.

De Facto theocracies and cult countries don't get nukes. That's a sound policy.

It was a joke.

But nearly all of the perps were Saudis.