Trumps Triumph over Peacepipes

SO HE’S FINALLY done it. Having spent the past three years denouncing the Iran nuclear deal as “horrible,” “disastrous,” and “insane,” Donald Trump arrived in the Diplomatic Room of the White House on Tuesday afternoon to formally announce that “the United States will withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal” and would “begin reinstituting U.S. nuclear sanctions on the Iranian regime.”

“This will make America much safer,” the president declaimed, jabbing his fingers at the assembled reporters.

[...]

So let’s be clear: On the one side, we have a dizzying array of serving and retired generals and spy chiefs from both the United States and Israel, none of whom are friends or fans of Iran, yet all of whom agree that the Islamic Republic is complying with the stringent terms of the JCPOA, and that the United States should stay in the deal because it bolsters U.S., regional, and global security.

And on the other side? A former property developer and reality TV star; a chicken hawk who wants to bomb everyone; a 32-year-old Gulf prince who can’t win a war against rebels from the poorest Arab country; and an allegedly corrupt politician who has been claiming Iran is “three to five years” away from a nuclear weapons capability since … 1992.

This isn’t about security or protecting American — or Israeli — cities from Iranian missiles. Trump & Co. aren’t trying to avoid war with Iran. They want war with Iran

Trump Violates the Iran Nuclear Deal — Ignoring U.S. and Israeli Generals Who Support It

Spot on, innit? There's some excellent legwork in the snipped part as well, go for it?

Conspiracy, opinions, mud and cusses... please!?

Anyone having a hunch, that a rising oil price (via more Empire of Chaos actionism in the Mid East) would be great to have with all this fracking in an economy hooked on quantitative easing and MICes?
A clear win-win situation for MAGAstan right there, right?

Have at it, my dear dealbreakers and broken dealers alike!
And who signs the petition for more Korean food in the Oval Office?

"Ignoring US and Israeli generals who support it"

Which generals , where ?
Bolton ? When was Bolton in the military ? Oh , meaning National Guard

joining a Guard or Reserve unit became a way to avoid service in the Vietnam War.[39]

John R Bolton

Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joseph Dunford, who says, “Iran is adhering to its JCPOA obligations” and a U.S. decision to quit the deal “would have an impact on others’ willingness to sign agreements

Trump Violates the Iran Nuclear Deal — Ignoring U.S. and Israeli Generals Who Support It
Who are the others that it would have an impact on as far as willingness to sign agreements ? Can anyone say only Iran ?

Trump Violates the Iran Nuclear Deal — Ignoring U.S. and Israeli Generals Who Support It

What did Trump and the US violate ? The deal and removal of sanctions were voluntary . It did ignore UN recommendations to take them away , though. So , did Obama violate UN recommendations ? The reason he did everything under the cover of darkness ? Covertly ?
The US giveth , and the US taketh away at need . Obama needed Iranian Mullah backing and Trump does not.

originally posted by: Gothmog
"Ignoring US and Israeli generals who support it"

Which generals , where ?
Bolton ? When was Bolton in the military ? Oh , meaning National Guard

joining a Guard or Reserve unit became a way to avoid service in the Vietnam War.[39]

John R Bolton

Made my day that Trump triggered the triggerables and gave the middle finger to the global elite! What makes it more delicious is seeing those who support Antifa being upset!

Why he brought Bolton on I will never know. I hope Bolton gets the boot soon!

a reply to: Gothmog

Yeah, no. Well. I wont hit you with the quote that answers your questions when it's in the snipped part of that article. You're being a very lazy Goth of a Mog today.

Bolton... he's posting in this thread already, that much seems to be clear.

What did Trump and the US violate ? The deal and removal of sanctions were voluntary .

Read that again. Very. Slowly.
Voluntarily, of course.

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Gothmog
"Ignoring US and Israeli generals who support it"

Which generals , where ?
Bolton ? When was Bolton in the military ? Oh , meaning National Guard

joining a Guard or Reserve unit became a way to avoid service in the Vietnam War.[39]

John R Bolton

Made my day that Trump triggered the triggerables and gave the middle finger to the global elite! What makes it more delicious is seeing those who support Antifa being upset!

Why he brought Bolton on I will never know. I hope Bolton gets the boot soon!

I think you just answered your own question on why Trump brought Bolton on
Seems like that is the rule of thumb. Put folks in the spotlight and they basically terminate themselves from their own jobs. And sometimes in doing so , incriminate themselves. Saves Trump time and two words "you're fired"

Does this mean the US doesnt have to pay the Iranian Mullahs appeasement money covertly and in the middle of the night ?
I am all in for that...
Where Iran can no longer have the funding to continue pursuit of nuclear ambitions

a reply to: Gothmog

That was the way of Mujahedin support. You're conflating cloak and dagger tactics with diplomacy there.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: seeker1963

originally posted by: Gothmog
"Ignoring US and Israeli generals who support it"

Which generals , where ?
Bolton ? When was Bolton in the military ? Oh , meaning National Guard

joining a Guard or Reserve unit became a way to avoid service in the Vietnam War.[39]

John R Bolton

Made my day that Trump triggered the triggerables and gave the middle finger to the global elite! What makes it more delicious is seeing those who support Antifa being upset!

Why he brought Bolton on I will never know. I hope Bolton gets the boot soon!

I think you just answered your own question on why Trump brought Bolton on
Seems like that is the rule of thumb. Put folks in the spotlight and they basically terminate themselves from their own jobs. And sometimes in doing so , incriminate themselves. Saves Trump time and two words "you're fired"

I hope you are right on that! I watch FOX just due to seeing where the MIC is going and to not have to deal with the SJW nonsense, and Bolton and even Sessions *while we are talking about infiltrators* always came across to me MIC puppets!

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
a reply to: Gothmog

That was the way of Mujahedin support. You're conflating cloak and dagger tactics with diplomacy there.

Conflating ?
Diplomacy usually happens within business hours and openly for the world to see
Cloak and dagger in the middle of the night and covertly
Now , consider yourself a bit more informed.
Perhaps it is not me conflating, but you being confused...
Performing my due diligence to ATS
Denying ignorance

originally posted by: PublicOpinion

Conspiracy, opinions, mud and cusses... please!?

I think the Iran Nuclear Deal was a big step on the road to war, not peace. It was a tool which could be later used to accuse Iran of violating and therefore justifying military action.

What was the excuse we used to invade Iraq? We claimed they had weapons of mass destruction which they agreed not to have. Why is Israel not punished for having weapons of mass destruction? Because they have made no agreements not to have those weapons.

The US needs an excuse to invade countries, some justification to sell to the American people and the rest of the world. Things like, "They attacked us or someone else ..." or "It's a brutal regime killing their own people ..." or "They were about to attack ..." The accusation doesn't have to be true, as long as the military acts before the claims can be fully investigated. Once the deed is done, no one is punished for the lie.

Unfortunately, Iran doesn't fall into any of the usual justifications. However, if they agree not to produce nuclear weapons, we can always accuse them of violating that agreement, whether it's true or not. Then the military blitzes them before anyone can investigate the accusation.

If Iran has no agreement to begin with, it does no good to accuse them of having nuclear weapons. In that regard, they are as safe as Israel. As safe from the US, that is.

--------

For those in the NSA reading this, I have a suggestion. Looks like you're going to have to go with the false flag approach on this one. Explode a nuclear warhead in the Saudi desert. Claim it was launched from Iran towards Israel but the guidance system malfunctioned. Then commence the invasion of Iran. Of course, you'll have to clear this with the Saudis first. You'll need cash and women (and probably some young men). You'll also need some Iraqi radar data to show the missile's trajectory. That should be enough to get you started. And if you use this plan, I expect to be compensated. You have my bank account numbers. It would also be nice if you could convince that waitress at the pool hall to go to dinner with me.

I don't personally think oil is tied to disaster any longer; hear me out. Oil historically would rise as fast as any disaster, or war struck; like clock work. It was great for those who owned oil wells. I do believe it was a tool intentionally used for making money.

The reason it always worked, was the way in which we got our news, as as well as frequency of said news; we used to just receive news via a newspaper, or television; meaning most times once per day. Yet, now we have the availability of 24 hour live reporting via social media via the internet.

Oil is definitely no longer tied in the since it was traditionally all the way through I'd say 2008. Used to be, 'news flash disaster, go fill up at X amount over regular cost'; now, it's 'news flash disaster and thousands of more reporting, and oil stays the same price for several days now'. True.

I don't think the Middle East is over oil; at least anymore. I also, do have oil wells, so it'd be in my benefit to 'hope' oil is still tied to disaster like it once was.

a reply to: BigNutz

For arguments sake, let's assume you have a few valid points there. Your post still doesn't reflect the state of Military Industrial Complexes in the US (or the West for that matter), nor the rising potential for more chaos in the Mid East.

You hopefully invested in arms stock as well?

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Wow! Star for you, that was impressive in a very deluded way.

I think the Iran Nuclear Deal was a big step on the road to war, not peace. It was a tool which could be later used to accuse Iran of violating and therefore justifying military action.

War is peace, thus deals for peace must be nothing but a smokescreen for war? Yeah, nope. You know what? I think all that Newspeak finally got through to your head, we find ourselves drifting in different universes at this point. How did that happen btw?

If Iran has no agreement to begin with, it does no good to accuse them of having nuclear weapons. In that regard, they are as safe as Israel. As safe from the US, that is.

That's rather funny, The Mullahs Lobby in the US must be equally strong then?



People tend to forget stuff rather fast nowadays, don't they?

a reply to: Gothmog

Conflating ?

Yes. Conflating!

Care to expand on how and why the lift on former sanctions, that other part of the deal, happened during nighttime only?

Performing my due diligence to ATS Denying ignorance

ConflateMog,

do the dew diligence then?

do the dew diligence

a reply to: PublicOpinion

Well, you did invite conspiracy theories.

Israel wants this Iran deal. The MIC wants the deal, and the US MSM wants the deal. Are we to believe that they all want a deal that will result in Iran not being attacked? You don't see Israel making deals to allow weapons inspectors into their military bases or research facilities.

a reply to: VictorVonDoom

Saul Goodman! And I'm glad you brought it up for me to have at it.

Israel wants this Iran deal. The MIC wants the deal

Nope. Net-an-Yahoo isn't on par with his staff, nor is Don T. That's the central piece of this piece btw. Maybe we should define Mil-Ind-Complexes first?

Are we to believe that they all want a deal that will result in Iran not being attacked?

No. But they agree that's a good deal with a partner that was willing to comply. And yes, it's not very likely that an attack could've been justified when the contracts are actually being honored.
Which is why this dealbreaker could be seen as nothing but a shortcut to war. Amirite?

Iran was already threatening to back out, so trump just decided it for them sooner, i think this is more about trump declaring "i won't be manipulated nor will i play your games like the past foolish presidents".

we've been made a fool of way too often diplomatically for the past 24 years before trump, living in a false peace brought about through arrogance, greed and cowardice.

originally posted by: namehere
Iran was already threatening to back out, so trump just decided it for them sooner, i think this is more about trump declaring "i won't be manipulated nor will i play your games like the past foolish presidents".

we've been made a fool of way too often diplomatically for the past 24 years before trump, living in a false peace brought about through arrogance, greed and cowardice.

Arrogance and greed, for sure. As other things probably... but cowardice in which way. Not having taken war to Iran and NK 10 or 20 years ago ?

Trump's most foolish decision yet. The U.S. is about to violate a nuclear deal that has worked.