I wonder if that had any relation to Iran being more aggressive today? A lot of "agreements" are simply posturing but I think this key decision may come back to haunt us.

U.S. relationship with Iran will be significantly closer than with Saudi Arabia within a decade.

— ian bremmer (@ianbremmer) January 2, 2016

It is viewed as in our best interest to have Middle East countries fighting each other, just a general view. It helps immensely to have Israel as an ally, as it provides a constant source of tension, and a foothold in the region.

To answer the question, no, I think Iran would not want to stay neutral in the current conflict, and Israel simply did attack terrorists on Iranian soil. They were somewhat justified to respond. Israel knew they would respond. These warmongers are many moves ahead of anyone posting on sicem365.

There is no bartering with Iran. We could keep giving them billions, but there is no sign it would make us or anyone in the world safer.

I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?

Aliceinbubbleland said:

---

I wonder if that had any relation to Iran being more aggressive today? A lot of "agreements" are simply posturing but I think this key decision may come back to haunt us.

---

After seeing what we did last night, I'm not too worried about Iran. Their slow speed attack in the white Bronco while the world watched was pretty pitiful. It was reported that half of their weaponry didn't even make it close to Israel. The Mullahs had better pray to Allah that Israel doesn't blow them back to the stone age. Israel could if they wanted to.

Putin's military is tired and Russia's weaponry is depleted. They are no longer in a good position to kick anybody's ass.

The sleeping giant is still China. The big question is, how aggressive will Xi Jinping be before our election? His time is running out.

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan:

"The Middle East is quieter today than it has been in two decades."

This was on September 29th, 2023. pic.twitter.com/7v9ejJane3

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 14, 2024

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?

---

A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.

---

If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?

---

A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.

---

If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?

---

Not with the current idiot that's in the White House

Doc Holliday said:

---

The mentality of playing nice with the number one state sponsor of terrorism so they might not act out is weak AF.

---

I think the Iranians have figured that out at this point. You can't blame them for trying, though.

Objectively, what is the difference between how the Iranian government treats its citizens and how the Saudi government treats its citizens? Which of the two nations is the #1 funder of Wahabbism? How many Iranians were involved in the 9-11 attacks? How many Saudis? What was the US involvement in the 1953 coup that overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh and why did we get involved?

I know a lot of us remember the Iranian hostage crisis when the Shah was overthrown by Kohmeni and dislike Iran for that (myself included). We should not be paying off the Iranian government...but we should not forget that there is a bigger picture here.

Redbrickbear said:

---

National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan:

"The Middle East is quieter today than it has been in two decades."

This was on September 29th, 2023. pic.twitter.com/7v9ejJane3

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) April 14, 2024

---

Nothing should be more alarming to an intelligence professional than dead silence.

Realitybites said:

---

Objectively, what is the difference between how the Iranian government treats its citizens and how the Saudi government treats its citizens? Which of the two nations is the #1 funder of Wahabbism? How many Iranians were involved in the 9-11 attacks? How many Saudis? What was the US involvement in the 1953 coup that overthrew Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh and why did we get involved?

I know a lot of us remember the Iranian hostage crisis when the Shah was overthrown by Kohmeni and dislike Iran for that (myself included). We should not be paying off the Iranian government...but we should not forget that there is a bigger picture here.

---

The bigger picture here is that it was not until the day of 9/11 before Sunni extremist groups (funded on their own) had killed more Americans than Shiite extremist groups (funded by Iran). Even then, AQ only barely jumped into the lead Until 9/11, the Sunnis were the "good ones" and the Shiites were the "bad ones."

So the true mosaic going on is that Iran has been at war with the West since 1980, within its capabilities of doing so. It gained de facto control over Syria. (the Alawites are nominally part of the Shia tradition......) After then Christian-majority Lebanon was destabilized by Palestinian militants (leading to civil war), Iran supported Hizballah to effectively dominate Lebanon. That process has continued to the point that, today, Houthis in Yemen are firing rockets at international shipping (even Western naval craft) in the Red Sea. The intensity has ebbed and flowed, with Iran willing to bide its time with internal improvements while events elsewhere created sufficient pressure on the US (much of the WOT).

US support for the Shad did not cause all of that.
Iranian Shiite radicalism caused all of that.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The mentality of playing nice with the number one state sponsor of terrorism so they might not act out is weak AF.

---

I think the Iranians have figured that out at this point. You can't blame them for trying, though.

---

Yeah I mean its an easy cash grab for them. Obama really set the precedent of paying them billions to back off.

Anytime they need cash they can just act up.

---

Oh, you're saying Iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism...gotcha.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?

---

A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.

---

If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?

---

Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.
Hypothetical State (HS) is presented with an opportunity to enter a deal with the US. HS should consider the following before entering into the deal:

1. Is this a deal with a temporary leader or will the deal be ratified by the US government?
2. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and US?
3. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and the US' allies?
4. Has HS ever held US citizens hostage?
5. Does the US believe HS is a state sponsor of terrorism?
6. Does HS regularly chant death to US or believe that the US is the Great Satan?

After evaluating these questions, HS should be able to decide if the US will completely honor the deal.

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?

---

A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.

---

If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?

---

Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.
Hypothetical State (HS) is presented with an opportunity to enter a deal with the US. HS should consider the following before entering into the deal:

1. Is this a deal with a temporary leader or will the deal be ratified by the US government?
2. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and US?
3. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and the US' allies?
4. Has HS ever held US citizens hostage?
5. Does the US believe HS is a state sponsor of terrorism?
6. Does HS regularly chant death to US or believe that the US is the Great Satan?

After evaluating these questions, HS should be able to decide if the US will completely honor the deal.

---

That's not qualifications to enter into an agreement. We have always entered into deals with States we fundamentally disagree with.

Our number one Trading Partner is China. We trade with Saudi. The requirement is that we all honor the agreement. Not that we bro hug. If we aren't honorable why should HS be?

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?

---

A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.

---

If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?

---

Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.
Hypothetical State (HS) is presented with an opportunity to enter a deal with the US. HS should consider the following before entering into the deal:

1. Is this a deal with a temporary leader or will the deal be ratified by the US government?
2. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and US?
3. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and the US' allies?
4. Has HS ever held US citizens hostage?
5. Does the US believe HS is a state sponsor of terrorism?
6. Does HS regularly chant death to US or believe that the US is the Great Satan?

After evaluating these questions, HS should be able to decide if the US will completely honor the deal.

---

That's not qualifications to enter into an agreement. We have always entered into deals with States we fundamentally disagree with.

Our number one Trading Partner is China. We trade with Saudi. The requirement is that we all honor the agreement. Not that we bro hug. If we aren't honorable why should HS be?

---

Changing your question again? This how you role? Take the loss and move on.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?

---

A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.

---

If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?

---

Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.
Hypothetical State (HS) is presented with an opportunity to enter a deal with the US. HS should consider the following before entering into the deal:

1. Is this a deal with a temporary leader or will the deal be ratified by the US government?
2. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and US?
3. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and the US' allies?
4. Has HS ever held US citizens hostage?
5. Does the US believe HS is a state sponsor of terrorism?
6. Does HS regularly chant death to US or believe that the US is the Great Satan?

After evaluating these questions, HS should be able to decide if the US will completely honor the deal.

---

That's not qualifications to enter into an agreement. We have always entered into deals with States we fundamentally disagree with.

Our number one Trading Partner is China. We trade with Saudi. The requirement is that we all honor the agreement. Not that we bro hug. If we aren't honorable why should HS be?

---

You can't compare a rational actor with an irrational actor. China is self-serving and wants to dominate the world, sure, but they can be reasoned with because they also want economic prosperity.

Iran only wants to destroy the United States and Israel. The only thing they understand is the stick.

BearN said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?

---

A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.

---

If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?

---

Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.
Hypothetical State (HS) is presented with an opportunity to enter a deal with the US. HS should consider the following before entering into the deal:

1. Is this a deal with a temporary leader or will the deal be ratified by the US government?
2. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and US?
3. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and the US' allies?
4. Has HS ever held US citizens hostage?
5. Does the US believe HS is a state sponsor of terrorism?
6. Does HS regularly chant death to US or believe that the US is the Great Satan?

After evaluating these questions, HS should be able to decide if the US will completely honor the deal.

---

That's not qualifications to enter into an agreement. We have always entered into deals with States we fundamentally disagree with.

Our number one Trading Partner is China. We trade with Saudi. The requirement is that we all honor the agreement. Not that we bro hug. If we aren't honorable why should HS be?

---

You can't compare a rational actor with an irrational actor. China is self-serving and wants to dominate the world, sure, but they can be reasoned with because they also want economic prosperity.

Iran only wants to destroy the United States and Israel. The only thing they understand is the stick.

---

Iran is, in their own context, quite rational. They want the entire world to be an islamic state. In addition, as Shias, they are not just are a minority in the islamic world, but also still technically at war with the larger islamic world.

When Trump axed the 2015 deal China and Russia worked with us to coral Iran's attention to enriching uranium. Now all three work against us. I'm not convinced that withdrawal solely allowed Iran to further develop uranium as who knows if they abided by treaty. But it certainly didn't help except to align Axis parties.

Will Israel see the Iranian attack as an opportunity to take out enrichment facilities in Iran?

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?

---

A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.

---

If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?

---

It may come as a shock, but we live up to the vast majority of the ones we have in place.

whiterock said:

---

BearN said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

I don't know. All I can say is why would anyone seek a treaty with the US?

---

A treaty? We are discussing a deal with a terrorist state, not a treaty.

---

If you were another nation, you trust the US to live up to whatever deal you cut with us?

---

Now that you have substituted a different inquiry, let us pick apart your substantially less ridiculous question.
Hypothetical State (HS) is presented with an opportunity to enter a deal with the US. HS should consider the following before entering into the deal:

1. Is this a deal with a temporary leader or will the deal be ratified by the US government?
2. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and US?
3. What is the current diplomatic and economic relationship between HS and the US' allies?
4. Has HS ever held US citizens hostage?
5. Does the US believe HS is a state sponsor of terrorism?
6. Does HS regularly chant death to US or believe that the US is the Great Satan?

After evaluating these questions, HS should be able to decide if the US will completely honor the deal.

---

That's not qualifications to enter into an agreement. We have always entered into deals with States we fundamentally disagree with.

Our number one Trading Partner is China. We trade with Saudi. The requirement is that we all honor the agreement. Not that we bro hug. If we aren't honorable why should HS be?

---

You can't compare a rational actor with an irrational actor. China is self-serving and wants to dominate the world, sure, but they can be reasoned with because they also want economic prosperity.

Iran only wants to destroy the United States and Israel. The only thing they understand is the stick.

---

Iran is, in their own context, quite rational. They want the entire world to be an islamic state. In addition, as Shias, they are not just are a minority in the islamic world, but also still technically at war with the larger islamic world.

---

I agree 100%. This is the script most Western leaders are unable to flip. They think everyone is motivated by capitalist interests and win-win scenarios. And that may be true for some of the smooth billionaire oil sheiks. But the true-believer "Islamist" leaders have a completely different goal. This would be irrational to capitalists, but for them, is the only rationale. Submission to Allah.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

The mentality of playing nice with the number one state sponsor of terrorism so they might not act out is weak AF.

---

I think the Iranians have figured that out at this point. You can't blame them for trying, though.

---

Sam gonna Sam,..

There is also this aspect of why Iran is not a good faith partner: Muslims are given permission to lie by their god.

They are given permission and even encouraged to lie and deceive. I'm not talking about the ordinary neighbor or co-worker. There are plenty of good, moral Muslims you would want as neighbors. But .the hard core true believers are not to be trusted.


Their tactics for lying and deceit have at least 4 different words.

Taqiyya, Tawriya - Deception, lying, deceiving people till gain enough strength, power.
Kitman - Say only part of the truth, which very often results in a complete distortion of the actuality.
Muruna: "making use of flexibility", to mingle with the enemy and those around him. It is the supreme weapon for infiltration.

Of course, not all Muslims believe this. I've had several friends and coworkers who were Muslim that are very fine, wonderful people. But the ones that put in their charter, "Death to America, Death to Israel" - that's a pretty good sign these are the true believers - and their word means nothing.

a couple of discussion threads, the first two that popped up on google, just for starters

https://www.quora.com/Are-Muslims-permitted-to-lie-to-infidels

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/2jpyc1/islam_allows_and_sometimes_requires_deceiving/