So it’s kinda like taking away your child game console and putting it on a shelf they can’t reach. Except Trump already took the console away and is now putting it on a higher shelf and Iran could give less of a shit cause they weren’t gonna get it back anyhow?
Like that, but with less infantilizing of Iran?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
So it’s kinda like taking away your child game console and putting it on a shelf they can’t reach. Except Trump already took the console away and is now putting it on a higher shelf and Iran could give less of a shit cause they weren’t gonna get it back anyhow?
Like that, but with less infantilizing of Iran?
It's more that we have proved ourselves to be untrustworthy partners in international relations, so nobody has reason to trust us anymore.
Is there anything we can do with sanctions we're not already doing?
I mean, if Trump feels like he's got to do something, and this accomplishes that so we don't go in guns blazing, that seems best case scenario.
I don't think so. Sanctions are only useful if they're in response to specific behavior and you remove them once the situation is corrected.
Since Iran was complying with the antiproliferation deal and Trump put the sanctions back in place anyway, it gives them zero reason to even try to comply in the future. He effectively removed sanctions from our toolbox for trying to change Iran's behavior.
This was the guy he sent to Sweden to "observe" A$AP Rocky's trial. In case they needed to negotiate the Swedish legal system taking him hostage or something.
So it’s kinda like taking away your child game console and putting it on a shelf they can’t reach. Except Trump already took the console away and is now putting it on a higher shelf and Iran could give less of a shit cause they weren’t gonna get it back anyhow?
Like that, but with less infantilizing of Iran?
It's more that we have proved ourselves to be untrustworthy partners in international relations, so nobody has reason to trust us anymore.
Hasn't Europe generally been increasingly not caring about our tariffs? Like normally companies would obey them because they might be tangentially exposed to the US banking system sort of thing.
Trump on Iran:
"How about we play nice again? I'll give you tons of money if you give me a win. (I need a win so bad.) ... no? OKAY FINE! DOUBLE SANCTIONS ON YOU!!"
So it’s kinda like taking away your child game console and putting it on a shelf they can’t reach. Except Trump already took the console away and is now putting it on a higher shelf and Iran could give less of a shit cause they weren’t gonna get it back anyhow?
Like that, but with less infantilizing of Iran?
The major (and I think most legitimate) criticism of the JCPOA was that it failed to address Iran's regionally destabilizing activities and missile development. I remember it being argued by the establishment types that it was both the best deal we could actually get Iran to agree to in such a (relatively) short time frame but that there would be potential in the future to revisit the issue with Iran with another deal (many of the limitations agreed to in the deal are time limited IIRC) in the future (with the implication that those criticisms of the JCPOA could be addressed then).
The "new" deal would be one which addresses these issues, or at least that was the intent behind opposition to the JCPOA. I do not expect our European allies to really care about the other issues the JCPOA did not address because their foreign policy adventures in the region are (in the last few decades) much more limited than ours and their concern is going to be what gives their governments legitimacy (economic prosperity). So I imagine the outcome will be European allies pushing for a reinstatement of the JCPOA as is to have access to legitimate Iranian trade and the Iranian market.
So from the US perspective it is more that one parent (Obama admin) said you could have your console (frozen assets, access to global market) back and then the other parent (Trump admin) took it away again because you were still doing something (regionally destabilizing activities) the parent doesn't like.
But the JCPOA and any dealing with Iran isn't separate from domestic Iranian politics. Iran (and the entities who engage in said regional activity, namely the IRGC Qods) is likely aware of why the JCPOA was scrapped because they are capable of reading all of the op-eds and "think pieces" which criticized the JCPOA and they were likely aware of a future administration potentially wanting to address those criticisms. And even though the JCPOA was a huge win for the Moderate Islamists (and there is a potential new dynamic of both sides wanting to work with the West but sabotaging each other rather than an anti-Americanism contest) they still have to balance a desire to return the deal with the appearance of being walked all over to get it. So I don't see the Moderate Islamists willing to agree to a deal they don't have to either (and then that is assuming the Moderate Islamists could influence the foreign policy desires and regional activities of the Conservative Islamist deep state and the IRGC which may be a big assumption).
Trump took it away because Obama signed the deal. Let's not pretend otherwise. There's nothing rational in that foreign policy decision.
The whole "it didn't go far enough" complaints was a bunch of bullshit because there's nothing you could do that would actually appease them. Because the opposition to the deal was based in US domestic political calculus. Namely, oppose Obama on everything.
Trump took it away because Obama signed the deal. Let's not pretend otherwise. There's nothing rational in that foreign policy decision.
The whole "it didn't go far enough" complaints was a bunch of bullshit because there's nothing you could do that would actually appease them. Because the opposition to the deal was based in US domestic political calculus. Namely, oppose Obama on everything.
also the chickenhawks in the back who've been chanting "bomb Iran" to the tune of a Beach Boys song for a generation or two.
A big part of it was demonstrating to Iran that we were willing to negotiate with them in good faith, so that hopefully moderates within Iran would be emboldened and Iran would be willing to compromise more in future negotiations. Even if that failed, we'd be establishing ourselves as a reasonable authority and building back some of the soft power that we've lost with other countries.
Instead, we clearly demonstrated that we are in fact incapable of acting in good faith, at least whenever a Republican is in charge.
So it’s kinda like taking away your child game console and putting it on a shelf they can’t reach. Except Trump already took the console away and is now putting it on a higher shelf and Iran could give less of a shit cause they weren’t gonna get it back anyhow?
Like that, but with less infantilizing of Iran?
The "new" deal would be one which addresses these issues, or at least that was the intent behind opposition to the JCPOA.
Were that actually the case, there would have been a new deal on the table when the old deal was revoked.
Instead, there is no deal and Iran escalates belligerent activity.
So it’s kinda like taking away your child game console and putting it on a shelf they can’t reach. Except Trump already took the console away and is now putting it on a higher shelf and Iran could give less of a shit cause they weren’t gonna get it back anyhow?
Like that, but with less infantilizing of Iran?
The "new" deal would be one which addresses these issues, or at least that was the intent behind opposition to the JCPOA.
Were that actually the case, there would have been a new deal on the table when the old deal was revoked.
Instead, there is no deal and Iran escalates belligerent activity.
I disagree. The "imperial Presidency" has grown, especially on foreign policy, but the POTUS is not a dictator and the state isn't made up of synchronized automatons who will do the bidding of the POTUS. Opposition to the JCPOA, for any reason, is not the establishment position and (just like every other policy proposal Trump made which was not an establishment policy position) anything that the administration couldn't do solely within the oval office which wasn't maintaining the JCPOA as-is is going to meet an extreme level of institutional resistance. And that is ignoring that the JCPOA came about after years of work and a "JCPOA+" is likely to require the same amount of time. But in this case from practitioners who are squarely in the establishment framework who don't see the point of a "JCPOA+" and a bureaucracy which can drag its feet for entire administrations. Even if I don't buy "draining the swamp", we shouldn't pretend that there isn't a "swamp" for someone to point to and yell "drain it!"
In this case I think Trump as an individual is a much less important variable than his status as outside of the DC establishment and establishment institutions. If we were to pluck Trump out and plug, for example, Sanders into his place from 2016 to now Sanders would meet exactly the same resistance, especially on foreign policy.
So it’s kinda like taking away your child game console and putting it on a shelf they can’t reach. Except Trump already took the console away and is now putting it on a higher shelf and Iran could give less of a shit cause they weren’t gonna get it back anyhow?
Like that, but with less infantilizing of Iran?
The "new" deal would be one which addresses these issues, or at least that was the intent behind opposition to the JCPOA.
Were that actually the case, there would have been a new deal on the table when the old deal was revoked.
Instead, there is no deal and Iran escalates belligerent activity.
I disagree. The "imperial Presidency" has grown, especially on foreign policy, but the POTUS is not a dictator and the state isn't made up of synchronized automatons who will do the bidding of the POTUS. Opposition to the JCPOA, for any reason, is not the establishment position and (just like every other policy proposal Trump made which was not an establishment policy position) anything that the administration couldn't do solely within the oval office which wasn't maintaining the JCPOA as-is is going to meet an extreme level of institutional resistance. And that is ignoring that the JCPOA came about after years of work and a "JCPOA+" is likely to require the same amount of time. But in this case from practitioners who are squarely in the establishment framework who don't see the point of a "JCPOA+" and a bureaucracy which can drag its feet for entire administrations. Even if I don't buy "draining the swamp", we shouldn't pretend that there isn't a "swamp" for someone to point to and yell "drain it!"
In this case I think Trump as an individual is a much less important variable than his status as outside of the DC establishment and establishment institutions. If we were to pluck Trump out and plug, for example, Sanders into his place from 2016 to now Sanders would meet exactly the same resistance, especially on foreign policy.
If opposition to the JCPOA was legitimately anything but reflexive, there would have been some plan in place for how to achieve something better. We have none, and are suffering the consequences.
This is precisely conservative policy on the ACA, as well. They constantly claim that they want to "repeal and replace," but it's clearly not in good faith, as they have zero intention or ideas of how to implement the second half.
Some of you may have seen news about an intelligence community whistleblower, who had a complaint about a senior official at the White House and whose complaint was being withheld from Congress. Natasha Bertrand, the security correspondent at Politico, has been covering the story for the past few days.
Earlier today I posted in the Congressional investigations thread that the Intelligence Community Inspector General is testifying to the House Intelligence Committee about the matter in a closed hearing tomorrow, and the current acting National Security Advisor will be testifying at an open hearing on September 26th.
So you’re probably wondering why I’m mentioning it again in this thread.
It’s because The Washington Post are reporting that the whistleblower’s complaint is about Trump’s communications with a foreign leader.
Some of you may have seen news about an intelligence community whistleblower, who had a complaint about a senior official at the White House and whose complaint was being withheld from Congress. Natasha Bertrand, the security correspondent at Politico, has been covering the story for the past few days.
Earlier today I posted in the Congressional investigations thread that the Intelligence Community Inspector General is testifying to the House Intelligence Committee about the matter in a closed hearing tomorrow, and the current acting National Security Advisor will be testifying at an open hearing on September 26th.
So you’re probably wondering why I’m mentioning it again in this thread.
It’s because The Washington Post are reporting that the whistleblower’s complaint is about Trump’s communications with a foreign leader.
... it was Putin, wasn't it, you god damned, two-bit hacks.
Speculation on the content of the complaint aside, who are the "two former US officials familiar with the matter" and why would they be familiar with the matter? That seems like pretty high-level scuttlebutt. Dan Coats?
Coats resigned July 28th, left Aug 15, complaint was filed on Aug 12th; he might have been privvy.
Some of you may have seen news about an intelligence community whistleblower, who had a complaint about a senior official at the White House and whose complaint was being withheld from Congress. Natasha Bertrand, the security correspondent at Politico, has been covering the story for the past few days.
Earlier today I posted in the Congressional investigations thread that the Intelligence Community Inspector General is testifying to the House Intelligence Committee about the matter in a closed hearing tomorrow, and the current acting National Security Advisor will be testifying at an open hearing on September 26th.
So you’re probably wondering why I’m mentioning it again in this thread.
It’s because The Washington Post are reporting that the whistleblower’s complaint is about Trump’s communications with a foreign leader.
... it was Putin, wasn't it, you god damned, two-bit hacks.
Speculation on the content of the complaint aside, who are the "two former US officials familiar with the matter" and why would they be familiar with the matter? That seems like pretty high-level scuttlebutt. Dan Coats?
Coats resigned July 28th, left Aug 15, complaint was filed on Aug 12th; he might have been privvy.
Jesus I forgot about Kim. In the congressional investigations thread I put the main suspects as Putin, MBS and Netanyahu.
I haven’t a clue who the two former US officials are, but NBC have confirmed the story, also citing a former US intelligence official. The main thing is that it’s the Intelligence Community Inspector General who has been doing the big push on this, and refusing to allow it to be covered up. Apparently they found the whistleblower’s report both “urgent and credible.”
If the ICGC meant the fucking president when he brushed off the complaint as relating to "someone outside the intelligence community" then he is cordially invited to eat every last inch of my ass.
And I was just on vacation, so there's a bit more of it than there used to be.
Jul 31: Trump has shady undisclosed call with Putin about "forest fires." (It was about "normalizing" relations.)
Aug 7: Huntsman resigns as Ambassador to Russia
Aug 8: Coats and Gordon out at DNI
Aug 12: Maguire in at DNI
Also Aug 12: Whistleblower complains to ICIG
Sept 9: CNN breaks first story about exfiltrated Russian spy in U.S.
Also Sept 9: IC IG transmits the fact of the complaint to Schiff
Sept 10: Bolton resigns
Sept 13: Schiff goes public
Oh, I forgot about Gordon. Coats and Gordon certainly add up to two former US Intelligence officials who could be familiar with a matter that happened very recently.
Locking in my bet!
Edit:. FWIW, that timeline is incorrect.
Coats gave his notice on July 28.
Gordon gave her notice on Aug 8, allegedly after Coats burst into a meeting she was holding and asked her to resign with him.
Is it bad that there are so many terrible scenarios as to what the complaint is about that I keep getting the urge to open a betting pool on who the leader was, what the promise was and who the sources are?
I haven’t a clue who the two former US officials are, but NBC have confirmed the story, also citing a former US intelligence official. The main thing is that it’s the Intelligence Community Inspector General who has been doing the big push on this, and refusing to allow it to be covered up. Apparently they found the whistleblower’s report both “urgent and credible.”
I read speculation last night, that they used two former officials as go between to leak the stuff, after the DOJ refused to do anything about it (or rather violated the law in not passing this on to Congress).
Posts
Like that, but with less infantilizing of Iran?
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
It's more that we have proved ourselves to be untrustworthy partners in international relations, so nobody has reason to trust us anymore.
Oh, I know, maybe we could try tariffs!
John Bolton is out as National Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien is in. This is good news for those of us who like peace, right?
Donald J. Trump is President of the United States of America
Hasn't Europe generally been increasingly not caring about our tariffs? Like normally companies would obey them because they might be tangentially exposed to the US banking system sort of thing.
"How about we play nice again? I'll give you tons of money if you give me a win. (I need a win so bad.) ... no? OKAY FINE! DOUBLE SANCTIONS ON YOU!!"
The best deals.
Honestly I'm still having trouble thinking of worse possibilities than Bolton...
Cheney and Rumsfeld are both still undead right?
The major (and I think most legitimate) criticism of the JCPOA was that it failed to address Iran's regionally destabilizing activities and missile development. I remember it being argued by the establishment types that it was both the best deal we could actually get Iran to agree to in such a (relatively) short time frame but that there would be potential in the future to revisit the issue with Iran with another deal (many of the limitations agreed to in the deal are time limited IIRC) in the future (with the implication that those criticisms of the JCPOA could be addressed then).
The "new" deal would be one which addresses these issues, or at least that was the intent behind opposition to the JCPOA. I do not expect our European allies to really care about the other issues the JCPOA did not address because their foreign policy adventures in the region are (in the last few decades) much more limited than ours and their concern is going to be what gives their governments legitimacy (economic prosperity). So I imagine the outcome will be European allies pushing for a reinstatement of the JCPOA as is to have access to legitimate Iranian trade and the Iranian market.
So from the US perspective it is more that one parent (Obama admin) said you could have your console (frozen assets, access to global market) back and then the other parent (Trump admin) took it away again because you were still doing something (regionally destabilizing activities) the parent doesn't like.
But the JCPOA and any dealing with Iran isn't separate from domestic Iranian politics. Iran (and the entities who engage in said regional activity, namely the IRGC Qods) is likely aware of why the JCPOA was scrapped because they are capable of reading all of the op-eds and "think pieces" which criticized the JCPOA and they were likely aware of a future administration potentially wanting to address those criticisms. And even though the JCPOA was a huge win for the Moderate Islamists (and there is a potential new dynamic of both sides wanting to work with the West but sabotaging each other rather than an anti-Americanism contest) they still have to balance a desire to return the deal with the appearance of being walked all over to get it. So I don't see the Moderate Islamists willing to agree to a deal they don't have to either (and then that is assuming the Moderate Islamists could influence the foreign policy desires and regional activities of the Conservative Islamist deep state and the IRGC which may be a big assumption).
I don’t think I’m ready for zombie Cheney yet.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
The whole "it didn't go far enough" complaints was a bunch of bullshit because there's nothing you could do that would actually appease them. Because the opposition to the deal was based in US domestic political calculus. Namely, oppose Obama on everything.
also the chickenhawks in the back who've been chanting "bomb Iran" to the tune of a Beach Boys song for a generation or two.
Instead, we clearly demonstrated that we are in fact incapable of acting in good faith, at least whenever a Republican is in charge.
Were that actually the case, there would have been a new deal on the table when the old deal was revoked.
Instead, there is no deal and Iran escalates belligerent activity.
I disagree. The "imperial Presidency" has grown, especially on foreign policy, but the POTUS is not a dictator and the state isn't made up of synchronized automatons who will do the bidding of the POTUS. Opposition to the JCPOA, for any reason, is not the establishment position and (just like every other policy proposal Trump made which was not an establishment policy position) anything that the administration couldn't do solely within the oval office which wasn't maintaining the JCPOA as-is is going to meet an extreme level of institutional resistance. And that is ignoring that the JCPOA came about after years of work and a "JCPOA+" is likely to require the same amount of time. But in this case from practitioners who are squarely in the establishment framework who don't see the point of a "JCPOA+" and a bureaucracy which can drag its feet for entire administrations. Even if I don't buy "draining the swamp", we shouldn't pretend that there isn't a "swamp" for someone to point to and yell "drain it!"
In this case I think Trump as an individual is a much less important variable than his status as outside of the DC establishment and establishment institutions. If we were to pluck Trump out and plug, for example, Sanders into his place from 2016 to now Sanders would meet exactly the same resistance, especially on foreign policy.
If opposition to the JCPOA was legitimately anything but reflexive, there would have been some plan in place for how to achieve something better. We have none, and are suffering the consequences.
This is precisely conservative policy on the ACA, as well. They constantly claim that they want to "repeal and replace," but it's clearly not in good faith, as they have zero intention or ideas of how to implement the second half.
Earlier today I posted in the Congressional investigations thread that the Intelligence Community Inspector General is testifying to the House Intelligence Committee about the matter in a closed hearing tomorrow, and the current acting National Security Advisor will be testifying at an open hearing on September 26th.
So you’re probably wondering why I’m mentioning it again in this thread.
It’s because The Washington Post are reporting that the whistleblower’s complaint is about Trump’s communications with a foreign leader.
Putin seems way too on the nose. Kim? MBS?
*Remembers who has been writing reality lately*
... it was Putin, wasn't it, you god damned, two-bit hacks.
Speculation on the content of the complaint aside, who are the "two former US officials familiar with the matter" and why would they be familiar with the matter? That seems like pretty high-level scuttlebutt. Dan Coats?
Coats resigned July 28th, left Aug 15, complaint was filed on Aug 12th; he might have been privvy.
Jesus I forgot about Kim. In the congressional investigations thread I put the main suspects as Putin, MBS and Netanyahu.
I haven’t a clue who the two former US officials are, but NBC have confirmed the story, also citing a former US intelligence official. The main thing is that it’s the Intelligence Community Inspector General who has been doing the big push on this, and refusing to allow it to be covered up. Apparently they found the whistleblower’s report both “urgent and credible.”
I’m sure we’ll all be very shocked when it comes out in someone’s memoirs in 2037.
Jul 31: Trump has shady undisclosed call with Putin about "forest fires." (It was about "normalizing" relations.)
Aug 7: Huntsman resigns as Ambassador to Russia
Aug 8: Coats and Gordon out at DNI
Aug 12: Maguire in at DNI
Also Aug 12: Whistleblower complains to ICIG
Sept 9: CNN breaks first story about exfiltrated Russian spy in U.S.
Also Sept 9: IC IG transmits the fact of the complaint to Schiff
Sept 10: Bolton resigns
Sept 13: Schiff goes public
If the ICGC meant the fucking president when he brushed off the complaint as relating to "someone outside the intelligence community" then he is cordially invited to eat every last inch of my ass.
And I was just on vacation, so there's a bit more of it than there used to be.
Oh, I forgot about Gordon. Coats and Gordon certainly add up to two former US Intelligence officials who could be familiar with a matter that happened very recently.
Locking in my bet!
Edit:. FWIW, that timeline is incorrect.
Coats gave his notice on July 28.
Gordon gave her notice on Aug 8, allegedly after Coats burst into a meeting she was holding and asked her to resign with him.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/09/politics/sue-gordon-resignation-coats-interrupts-meeting/index.html
(Potentially this was because Trump was passing her over for the acting DNI spot)
Both left on Aug 15th.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I hate that this is a possibility.
MBS: Promise to bury whatever Khashoggi evidence the IC is sitting on.
Tinfoil-Powerball: Contrive a casus belli for Iran and we'll take it.
I read speculation last night, that they used two former officials as go between to leak the stuff, after the DOJ refused to do anything about it (or rather violated the law in not passing this on to Congress).
We're basically playing Dictator Roulette with this one. All the possibilities are super fun and exciting.
Ya know, as a way to have a bit of fun with our crumbling intelligence services and national security.
If you’re falling to your doom with a bomb, might as well ride it down.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
"All of the Above" should be an option.
Law and Order ≠ Justice
ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
"All of the above" should be all the options.
I nominate the gif of Gary Oldman yelling “everyone!”