More examples of what a horrible and dangerous and deadly person Trump is. He and his sycophants have NO business anywhere near the government of America. This is NOT the person who should be leading our country or acting in the world. He must be removed before he does anymore damage........and so far every day there is more damage....... "Everything Trump Touches Dies"
Re 8. Iran has never produced a nuclear weapon and was not close to it by all reliable intelligence reports before Trump attacked, and according to the UK adviser and others who were there at the prewar negotiations, had agreed to have AEC inspectors as existed under the agreement which Obama spearheaded and in which they reduced the enrichment of their nuclear stockpile. Of course, Trump killed that deal and attacked because he thought Iran would easily fold, and the whole course of action has gotten us where we are.
Brian, I agree with your words, but Iran has been doing what it can to be able to produce nuclear weapons with you and me and our kids as its targets. If it were led by rational or even quasi rational people, it would be one thing. But this regime comprises fanatics. Maybe those with whom Trump is dealing are reasonable people, but they may last 10 seconds, whereas our surrender and its leeway for Trump and his successors to turn coat will be in black and white.
"Iran has been doing what it can to be able to produce nuclear weapons with you and me and our kids as its targets. If it were led by rational or even quasi rational people, it would be one thing. But this regime comprises fanatics."
I still have to see any evidence for your claim in the first sentence, Larry. As to fanatics, I really am more concerned about what Trump has done (and surely will do) to the USA than what the ayatollahs could do to it.
Andreas, I think Trump is mentally ill. So, I believe, do most medical experts. If the Iranians were just chanting Death to America for 47 years, it would be one thing. But they have been actively pursing a nuclear weapon and arming Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis -- all at great risk to the Iranian leaders who have been leading the chants. I think that says it all. I think we need to take them at their deep, which is horrific and dangerous to our country. They are much more dangerous thanks to this treasonous MOU. best, Larry
do not support the idea that they have been actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. In fact, the intelligence community says they are not and that their policy is not to pursue a nuclear weapon (but possibly considering having the ability to do so in some indeterminate future)—it’s a very different analysis than what you keep repeating as if it is true that they’ve been actively doing so for years and therefore are a nuclear threat to us. They haven’t and aren’t.
Lord knows, this deal looks really bad. And impeachment for starting any war that isn’t defensive based on an “imminent” threat makes sense to me. But I have never believed a word out of the Iranian government about their alleged nuclear (non) ambitions. Why enrich uranium beyond what’s needed for civilian power plants? Why resist allowing another country to enrich Iran’s uranium to commercial levels? Why bury lots of expensive centrifuges under mountains?
Actually, under the JCPOA agreement that Trump tore up because Bibi and some hawks here didn’t think went far enough there were verifiable commitments not to pursue the levels of enrichment needed for weapons with Atomic Energy Commission technical folks on the ground to ensure compliance. Basically, you’re expressing an emotionally grounded fear, not a factually based analysis and you are at least copping to it.
This is Pakistan’s gift to the Muslim world. It has never recognized Israel, was a major benefactor to the Taliban and Bin Ladin, and always played the US in the Afghanistan conflict. How the naive US negotiators agreed to let Pakistan be a mediator is beyond comprehension. Ukraine was previously thrown under the bus, like Israel, and then too there were secret talks between the US deal makers and Russian operatives about massive amounts of money to be made. The $300 billion plus here will have fingerprints all over it of the Gulf states, and by implication, Trump, Witkoff, and Kushner.
The memorandum is bad news but what would be better? There are options: invasion, invasion plus nation building, bombing, wait them out and let the world economy deal with the consequences. Each has costs. Each has some chance of success. Bombing hasn’t proven to work yet but maybe you want to try again. What do you propose?
There seem to be lots of options, from arming the Kurds to boots on the ground to just maintaining the blockade and using our military to open the Strait to bombing based on an increasing price list.
Besides the comment from H Hume, you are also ignoring the tremendous cost of this war to the rest of the world. Sharp spikes in fertilizer prices will likely yield a heavy price in malnutrition and starvation among the world's poorest people. Much higher energy costs will also exact a toll, and already have in many locations. I do recall your earlier point that this disastrous and illegal war may have one positive outcome -- further impetus for the world to move to renewable energy resources to avoid dependence on the Arabian Gulf choke points, or nearby producers subject to Iranian, Houthi, and/or other attacks.
But there's only one option that will work - in opening Hormuz - with high odds: boots on ground. The others are higher risk gambles. You're counting on breaking Iran's endurance before our political will breaks - or before our stockpiles plummet to dangerous levels. Maybe it works - but it feels reckless. Imagine at the end of 6 weeks, being mostly successful at opening Hormuz militarily (not a given) but Iran doesn't relent - the missile and drone campaign continues and shipping still disrupted. Meanwhile, our own weapons stocks getting lower. Then what? Are all these options really independent options or are they really being implicitly backstopped by the final option (boots on ground) that makes these half measure gambles even thinkable?
Boots on the ground is our threat point. Their's is blocking the Straight. My sense is our military can eliminate their threat point. I think they would fold if we had an SOB, not an actor, in charge.
I generally agree, though must note one highly debatable point. You write:
"8. Iran will never produce nuclear weapons.
Iran has said this for almost a half century as it proceeded year after year to produce nuclear weapons. Their word is even worse than Trump’s."
In fact, the JCPOA agreement, which was formally signed and approved through the UN, and was supported by the world's most powerful countries (notably including our currently-scorned European allies) included strict conditions on Iran’s production of enriched uranium. The accounts I’ve read state that Iran complied with that agreement, including by exporting the vast majority of their enriched uranium to Russia. It was only after the Dear Leader reneged on the agreement, without showing evidence of any credible Iranian non-compliance, that Iran restarted their program.
A common criticism is that the JCPOA had a sunset clause. That did NOT mean Iran would automatically be cut loose -- as the date arrived, the US and our allies could have negotiated new conditions based on the future-reality. By reneging on the agreement, Trump simply turned Iran loose immediately and they responded by refining massive quantities of uranium, some to weapons grade. Given the illegal and just plain stupid war Trump and Netanyahu initiated, Iran’s hardliners must feel fully justified in their actions to build up bomb-ready material.
And, given that the Mad King has already violated the first paragraph of the agreement he was trumpeting in the past few days (before, inevitably, backtracking today) by threatening to attack Iran anew, one can almost feel sympathy for Iran’s loathsome leadership. If we Americans can’t trust a single thing our President says, why on earth would an enemy regime?
And, though the evidence clearly shows Iran's intent to at least be ready to produce nuclear weapons, I also disagree with the assertion that Iran had any direct intent to use a nuclear weapon against the US in any sort of first-strike scenario. The situation is similar to that of North Korea -- America worked for decades to prevent that equally-loathsome regime from "getting the bomb," but once they did, they did NOT use it. Deterrence is a game many can play, and regimes seek to survive -- faced with an overwhelming military imbalance, they will generally seek to level the playing field, as North Korea, sadly, did. One might place Pakistan in the same category vis a vis India, and their "success" contributed mightily to the North Korean and Iranian efforts.
As I wrote in response to your earlier praise of our demented President's decision to initiate this war, "hopes aren't plans." And now we have this unmitigated disaster.
Hi Jay, I think arming the three H's and building thousands of missiles says it all. Their objective was not defense, it was what they chanted, "Death to Israel" and "Death of America." The issue is not just Iran's getting a nuke. It's getting unlimited power over the Middle East, eliminating Israel, and kicking the US back home. best, Larry
OK, but you are addressing a point I did not make. There is no question in my mind that Iran was attempting to destroy Israel. But -- I was addressing YOUR point, which goes well beyond "saying it all" -- there is no evidence to suggest Iran intended to build a nuclear weapon for a first strike. They know very well that Israel is well equipped to retaliate -- this is Mutually Assured Destruction 101.
And now, in agreement with your points -- thanks to this debacle, Iran's hard liners remain firmly in control, with a large stockpile of enriched uranium (though the bomb-grade uranium may be buried), and the certainty that they can launch highly damaging attacks against the Arab Gulf countries, and disrupt global energy supplies. There is nothing in the MOU that stops Iran's support for the three H's, while it does imply forcing Israel to stand down. Israel's huge strategic mistakes are a matter for urgent discussion, and I hope that discussion within Israel leads to a much wiser future government, shorn of the corruption and radicalism now driving Israel's policy.
I went to the NYT as soon as I saw your "just released" headline. There is nothing about the release. Do you have access to information that the NYT doesn't have?
More examples of what a horrible and dangerous and deadly person Trump is. He and his sycophants have NO business anywhere near the government of America. This is NOT the person who should be leading our country or acting in the world. He must be removed before he does anymore damage........and so far every day there is more damage....... "Everything Trump Touches Dies"
Re 8. Iran has never produced a nuclear weapon and was not close to it by all reliable intelligence reports before Trump attacked, and according to the UK adviser and others who were there at the prewar negotiations, had agreed to have AEC inspectors as existed under the agreement which Obama spearheaded and in which they reduced the enrichment of their nuclear stockpile. Of course, Trump killed that deal and attacked because he thought Iran would easily fold, and the whole course of action has gotten us where we are.
Brian, I agree with your words, but Iran has been doing what it can to be able to produce nuclear weapons with you and me and our kids as its targets. If it were led by rational or even quasi rational people, it would be one thing. But this regime comprises fanatics. Maybe those with whom Trump is dealing are reasonable people, but they may last 10 seconds, whereas our surrender and its leeway for Trump and his successors to turn coat will be in black and white.
"Iran has been doing what it can to be able to produce nuclear weapons with you and me and our kids as its targets. If it were led by rational or even quasi rational people, it would be one thing. But this regime comprises fanatics."
I still have to see any evidence for your claim in the first sentence, Larry. As to fanatics, I really am more concerned about what Trump has done (and surely will do) to the USA than what the ayatollahs could do to it.
Andreas, I think Trump is mentally ill. So, I believe, do most medical experts. If the Iranians were just chanting Death to America for 47 years, it would be one thing. But they have been actively pursing a nuclear weapon and arming Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis -- all at great risk to the Iranian leaders who have been leading the chants. I think that says it all. I think we need to take them at their deep, which is horrific and dangerous to our country. They are much more dangerous thanks to this treasonous MOU. best, Larry
Larry,
Our own intelligence and Israel’s
do not support the idea that they have been actively pursuing a nuclear weapon. In fact, the intelligence community says they are not and that their policy is not to pursue a nuclear weapon (but possibly considering having the ability to do so in some indeterminate future)—it’s a very different analysis than what you keep repeating as if it is true that they’ve been actively doing so for years and therefore are a nuclear threat to us. They haven’t and aren’t.
Lord knows, this deal looks really bad. And impeachment for starting any war that isn’t defensive based on an “imminent” threat makes sense to me. But I have never believed a word out of the Iranian government about their alleged nuclear (non) ambitions. Why enrich uranium beyond what’s needed for civilian power plants? Why resist allowing another country to enrich Iran’s uranium to commercial levels? Why bury lots of expensive centrifuges under mountains?
Actually, under the JCPOA agreement that Trump tore up because Bibi and some hawks here didn’t think went far enough there were verifiable commitments not to pursue the levels of enrichment needed for weapons with Atomic Energy Commission technical folks on the ground to ensure compliance. Basically, you’re expressing an emotionally grounded fear, not a factually based analysis and you are at least copping to it.
Quite a change from your March 1 column.
This is Pakistan’s gift to the Muslim world. It has never recognized Israel, was a major benefactor to the Taliban and Bin Ladin, and always played the US in the Afghanistan conflict. How the naive US negotiators agreed to let Pakistan be a mediator is beyond comprehension. Ukraine was previously thrown under the bus, like Israel, and then too there were secret talks between the US deal makers and Russian operatives about massive amounts of money to be made. The $300 billion plus here will have fingerprints all over it of the Gulf states, and by implication, Trump, Witkoff, and Kushner.
This is worse than Neville Chamberlain if your post is accurate.
It is accurate and it is worse.
The memorandum is bad news but what would be better? There are options: invasion, invasion plus nation building, bombing, wait them out and let the world economy deal with the consequences. Each has costs. Each has some chance of success. Bombing hasn’t proven to work yet but maybe you want to try again. What do you propose?
There seem to be lots of options, from arming the Kurds to boots on the ground to just maintaining the blockade and using our military to open the Strait to bombing based on an increasing price list.
Besides the comment from H Hume, you are also ignoring the tremendous cost of this war to the rest of the world. Sharp spikes in fertilizer prices will likely yield a heavy price in malnutrition and starvation among the world's poorest people. Much higher energy costs will also exact a toll, and already have in many locations. I do recall your earlier point that this disastrous and illegal war may have one positive outcome -- further impetus for the world to move to renewable energy resources to avoid dependence on the Arabian Gulf choke points, or nearby producers subject to Iranian, Houthi, and/or other attacks.
But there's only one option that will work - in opening Hormuz - with high odds: boots on ground. The others are higher risk gambles. You're counting on breaking Iran's endurance before our political will breaks - or before our stockpiles plummet to dangerous levels. Maybe it works - but it feels reckless. Imagine at the end of 6 weeks, being mostly successful at opening Hormuz militarily (not a given) but Iran doesn't relent - the missile and drone campaign continues and shipping still disrupted. Meanwhile, our own weapons stocks getting lower. Then what? Are all these options really independent options or are they really being implicitly backstopped by the final option (boots on ground) that makes these half measure gambles even thinkable?
Boots on the ground is our threat point. Their's is blocking the Straight. My sense is our military can eliminate their threat point. I think they would fold if we had an SOB, not an actor, in charge.
The biggest problem with the MOU was the order to start the war. Everything followed from that.
Just when you think matters cannot get worse...
I generally agree, though must note one highly debatable point. You write:
"8. Iran will never produce nuclear weapons.
Iran has said this for almost a half century as it proceeded year after year to produce nuclear weapons. Their word is even worse than Trump’s."
In fact, the JCPOA agreement, which was formally signed and approved through the UN, and was supported by the world's most powerful countries (notably including our currently-scorned European allies) included strict conditions on Iran’s production of enriched uranium. The accounts I’ve read state that Iran complied with that agreement, including by exporting the vast majority of their enriched uranium to Russia. It was only after the Dear Leader reneged on the agreement, without showing evidence of any credible Iranian non-compliance, that Iran restarted their program.
A common criticism is that the JCPOA had a sunset clause. That did NOT mean Iran would automatically be cut loose -- as the date arrived, the US and our allies could have negotiated new conditions based on the future-reality. By reneging on the agreement, Trump simply turned Iran loose immediately and they responded by refining massive quantities of uranium, some to weapons grade. Given the illegal and just plain stupid war Trump and Netanyahu initiated, Iran’s hardliners must feel fully justified in their actions to build up bomb-ready material.
And, given that the Mad King has already violated the first paragraph of the agreement he was trumpeting in the past few days (before, inevitably, backtracking today) by threatening to attack Iran anew, one can almost feel sympathy for Iran’s loathsome leadership. If we Americans can’t trust a single thing our President says, why on earth would an enemy regime?
And, though the evidence clearly shows Iran's intent to at least be ready to produce nuclear weapons, I also disagree with the assertion that Iran had any direct intent to use a nuclear weapon against the US in any sort of first-strike scenario. The situation is similar to that of North Korea -- America worked for decades to prevent that equally-loathsome regime from "getting the bomb," but once they did, they did NOT use it. Deterrence is a game many can play, and regimes seek to survive -- faced with an overwhelming military imbalance, they will generally seek to level the playing field, as North Korea, sadly, did. One might place Pakistan in the same category vis a vis India, and their "success" contributed mightily to the North Korean and Iranian efforts.
As I wrote in response to your earlier praise of our demented President's decision to initiate this war, "hopes aren't plans." And now we have this unmitigated disaster.
Jay
Hi Jay, I think arming the three H's and building thousands of missiles says it all. Their objective was not defense, it was what they chanted, "Death to Israel" and "Death of America." The issue is not just Iran's getting a nuke. It's getting unlimited power over the Middle East, eliminating Israel, and kicking the US back home. best, Larry
OK, but you are addressing a point I did not make. There is no question in my mind that Iran was attempting to destroy Israel. But -- I was addressing YOUR point, which goes well beyond "saying it all" -- there is no evidence to suggest Iran intended to build a nuclear weapon for a first strike. They know very well that Israel is well equipped to retaliate -- this is Mutually Assured Destruction 101.
And now, in agreement with your points -- thanks to this debacle, Iran's hard liners remain firmly in control, with a large stockpile of enriched uranium (though the bomb-grade uranium may be buried), and the certainty that they can launch highly damaging attacks against the Arab Gulf countries, and disrupt global energy supplies. There is nothing in the MOU that stops Iran's support for the three H's, while it does imply forcing Israel to stand down. Israel's huge strategic mistakes are a matter for urgent discussion, and I hope that discussion within Israel leads to a much wiser future government, shorn of the corruption and radicalism now driving Israel's policy.
Hi Jania, We're on the same page. best, Larry
As far as I can tell, none of that $300 billion comes from the USA…
The main reason to impeach Trump is not that he's surrendering, or the inept decision-making or lack of strategy in starting an unwinnable war.
The reason to impeach is because Trump started his war without permission from Congress as required by the US Constitution.
I went to the NYT as soon as I saw your "just released" headline. There is nothing about the release. Do you have access to information that the NYT doesn't have?
David, My source for the 14 points was CNN. best, Larry
And neither the WSJ, WP, Google News, Jerusalem Post.
Hahaha, the NY Slimes. All the lies that's fit to print.