Iraq to ask exemptions on Iran sanctions

[Cokiga Damke + 53]

An Iraqi delegation will travel to Washington to ask the Trump administration to allow it to ignore some sanctions against Iran, its neighbor and close trading partner. In addition to being a strategic U.S. ally, Iraq imports about $12 billion in oil and $6 billion in goods from Iran, including food and agricultural products

[Sefko Trafikant + 35]

well, some countries cant afford not to deal with Iran

[Stephen + 67]

How pathetic. Why would anyone ask us for permission 

[李伟王芳 + 77]

I'm not sure why Iran's exports should be effected. Just because the US pulls out of the deal doesn't mean Europe will. Why should they? Whatever fantasies Netanyahu comes up with based on 2013 data, Iran kept its side of the bargain.

[JohnAtronis + 78]

3 minutes ago, 李伟王芳 said:

I'm not sure why Iran's exports should be effected. Just because the US pulls out of the deal doesn't mean Europe will. Why should they? Whatever fantasies Netanyahu comes up with based on 2013 data, Iran kept its side of the bargain.

How do you know for certain they are keeping their side of the bargain. Taking their word for it? They self inspect so don't you think they are saying this for a reason?

[Meanwhile + 49]

7 minutes ago, JohnAtronis said:

How do you know for certain they are keeping their side of the bargain. Taking their word for it? They self inspect so don't you think they are saying this for a reason?

No, the International Atomic Energy Agency monitors the nuclear sites. They have cameras on them 24/7.

[李伟王芳 + 77]

Many here think Iran is the great enemy. I just don't know why

[Epic + 390]

8 minutes ago, JohnAtronis said:

11 minutes ago, 李伟王芳 said:

I'm not sure why Iran's exports should be effected. Just because the US pulls out of the deal doesn't mean Europe will. Why should they? Whatever fantasies Netanyahu comes up with based on 2013 data, Iran kept its side of the bargain.

How do you know for certain they are keeping their side of the bargain. Taking their word for it? They self inspect so don't you think they are saying this for a reason?

Iran probably was keeping their side of the bargain, but I don't think these sanctions have ever been about the nukes, just like the sanctions on Turkey have nothing to do with that pastor and those on Russia have nothing to do with the poisoned spies.  Those are the misdirections (read: "The Prince" by Machiavelli <=== one of Thomas Jefferson's favorite books).  The real reason for the sanctions have to do with control.  Iran wants to control the middle east, and with their oil, they have the power to not only do that, but also to send Israel into a second holocaust.  Although Europe didn't do so well at preventing the first one, I happen to know one country across the pond that will never allow a second one to happen.  If the people of Iran ever hope to have a future, they need to convince their leaders to follow Saudi Arabia and make oil, not war.  Otherwise, the people of Iran can expect to watch the new American film, "Boots on the Ground", coming soon to a theater near them.  When the POTUS was talking about "pressing buttons" against North Korea, I knew things would probably work out.  But notice that no one is talking about invading Iran or pushing any kind of buttons against them, and that is probably because the war plans are likely being drawn up right now.  The real reason sanctions have been applied to Russia, Turkey and Iran is to prevent that war.  Remember, these three nations worked together last time to bypass the previous sanctions.  The US is working very hard to make sure they can't do it again in hope that the sanctions will actually work this time around so that the invasion will not be needed.  The sanctions are a warning, and now it is up to Iran to make things right.  We should know which way Iran chooses by mid 2019.  

[John Foote + 1,135]

1 hour ago, Epic said:

they need to convince their leaders to follow Saudi Arabia and make oil, not war.  

You clearly don’t follow what Saudis do to try and influence. They are loathed by their neighbors. Their leadership, like Iran’s, has the “God’s Chosen People” disease. And they are prosecuting a war in Yeman right now, and very poorly I might add, and inadvertently rebuilding Al Qaida. The Qatar fiasco is Saudi too. The 4th largest military spend, and they can’t beat a few ragtag Houthies (look to the 19th century for the real issue with Houthies, who with another tribe threw the House of Saud out of what is now Saudi Arabia). Synagogues and Churches are banned in Saudi, but they exist in Iran. It was Bush43 adventurism, egged on by Bolton and the like, that created the current instability. Bolton is perhaps the only one on the planet that still thinks Iraq invasion #2 was a good choice. A stable Iraq kept Iran in place, but we shredded that. 

It was Saudi that weaponized oil over US support of Israel. You have drank their Koolaide. They lobby friendly, while Iran calls the US the devil, but the interests of both countries are self-serving to those in power, to the detriment of their people and the west.

the Iranian military couldn’t fight it’s way out of a wet paper bag. Israel has no credible military enemy, and would glass parking lot (nuke) anyone even vaguely capable of threatening them. The Israel challenge is the natives/locals and I for the life of me can’t imagine peace in Israel/Palestine among the folks who live there. And yet they all got along for hundreds of years.

yes, Iran can take on some ISIL troops, but Iran cannot project force in any conventional way. It’s mostly using surrogates.The USA object failures in Iraq and Afghanistan would look like raging successes compared to Bush43 invading Iran. 

Have you noticed the US military can beat anyone in battle, usually easily, yet we lose the war? Going back quite a few decades. You can’t beat people into peace and being allies. Winning battles is easy. 

Using the US military to discourage wars is a good thing. Seeking out fights thinking it will advance our interests is a bad thing. Even if the morality of war doesn’t bother you, the US prosecution of war is almost always counter productive. 

[Epic + 390]

5 hours ago, John Foote said:

You clearly don’t follow what Saudis do to try and influence. They are loathed by their neighbors.

The Saudis, like all people, make mistakes.  But the reasons everyone "loathes" the Saudis is because the Saudis show restraint, patience and kindness.  If the Saudis were truly "loathsome," then they wouldn't be loathed by their neighbors because their neighbors would all be dead, and the Saudis would have a larger kingdom.  If the Saudis wished, they could enter Yemen and slay every living soul in that country, man, woman, and child, and then seize the land for themselves.  But instead, they show restraint by fighting their enemy on their enemies' terms, at great expense to themselves and their people, and as result, end up "loathed" in the process.  They are harmed both economically while also allowing their reputation to suffer, purely for the hope that they might one day turn their enemies into allies.  Though a conqueror has a right to the spoils of war and an enlarged kingdom, the Saudis do not seek to conquer, nor do they seek a larger kingdom.  But a larger kingdom is what Saddam wanted, and it is what the rulers of Iran also seek.  

6 hours ago, John Foote said:

the Iranian military couldn’t fight it’s way out of a wet paper bag.  Israel has no credible military enemy, and would glass parking lot (nuke) anyone even vaguely capable of threatening them.

In 1973, Israel also assumed that Egypt couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag, either.  It should also be noted that Israel would never nuke an enemy.  Even when they were facing utter annihilation during the Yom Kipper War, Israel did not resort to nukes.  They were willing to allow their people and their children to be massacred in the streets by their enemies (who started that war) rather than use their nukes in defense.  And that massacre almost happened, too, had it not been for the actions of some incredibly heroic IDF paratroopers who got behind the Egyptian's lines and destroyed their SAMs, allowing Israel to regain air superiority.  When the IDF had Egypt's 3rd army surrounded, and when they had Cario in in their sights, both times they showed restraint and compassion toward their enemies, enemies who sought to wipe them from the face of the planet.  As a more recent example, take Gaza.  The Gazans protest daily at the border, threaten to cross it in hopes of tearing out the hearts of Israeli children, and meanwhile during the protests, the Gazans launch drones and burning kites in an attempt to murder the Israeli farmers just on the other side of the border fence.  In response, the IDF shoot for the knee.  The knee!  How do you think Pol Pot would have responded to the actions of the Gazans?  Shots to the knee?  No, the people of Israel have historically shown and continue to show immense restraint, but there is one thing they have absolutely no restraint for: the nuke.  Big bombs makes big messes of little countries, and Israel does not have a lot of land area.

7 hours ago, John Foote said:

The Qatar fiasco is Saudi too.

Of course it is.  But what you probably didn't notice is that Qatar's closest allies are Iran and Turkey.  Coincidence?  The Qatar fiasco was probably arranged, and the Saudi's performed their part well.  Qatar's fault was thinking they could play both sides.

 

6 hours ago, John Foote said:

Have you noticed the US military can beat anyone in battle, usually easily, yet we lose the war?

Friend, you are mistaking US restraint for weakness, and US generosity for failure.  At great expense, in both $$$ and American lives, the US continually tries to turn enemies into allies.  At much less expense, the US could have easily turned those same enemies into tombstones...  

 

[Dan Warnick + 6,100]

9 hours ago, John Foote said:

You clearly don’t follow what Saudis do to try and influence.

 

1 hour ago, Epic said:

The Saudis, like all people, make mistakes.

Perspective and experience!  Makes for great discussions.  I'd like to upvote one or both of you, but all I can really say is that you both brought interesting perspective to the debate.  Cheers!

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

On 8/23/2018 at 1:04 AM, Epic said:

Iran probably was keeping their side of the bargain, but I don't think these sanctions have ever been about the nukes, just like the sanctions on Turkey have nothing to do with that pastor and those on Russia have nothing to do with the poisoned spies.  Those are the misdirections (read: "The Prince" by Machiavelli <=== one of Thomas Jefferson's favorite books).  The real reason for the sanctions have to do with control.  Iran wants to control the middle east, and with their oil, they have the power to not only do that, but also to send Israel into a second holocaust.  Although Europe didn't do so well at preventing the first one, I happen to know one country across the pond that will never allow a second one to happen.  If the people of Iran ever hope to have a future, they need to convince their leaders to follow Saudi Arabia and make oil, not war.  Otherwise, the people of Iran can expect to watch the new American film, "Boots on the Ground", coming soon to a theater near them.  When the POTUS was talking about "pressing buttons" against North Korea, I knew things would probably work out.  But notice that no one is talking about invading Iran or pushing any kind of buttons against them, and that is probably because the war plans are likely being drawn up right now.  The real reason sanctions have been applied to Russia, Turkey and Iran is to prevent that war.  Remember, these three nations worked together last time to bypass the previous sanctions.  The US is working very hard to make sure they can't do it again in hope that the sanctions will actually work this time around so that the invasion will not be needed.  The sanctions are a warning, and now it is up to Iran to make things right.  We should know which way Iran chooses by mid 2019.  

USA will face serious backlash if it steps on Iran as lot of muslims across the world support Iran more than Saudi Arabia. Iran has built an image of being strong and unyielding which makes them look better. The sanctions on Iran has nothing to do with Israel but with Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia wants Iran down as Iran's influence in the region is far more than Saudis due to civilisational values of Iran vs tribal nature of Arabs. Despite having more oil, Saudi has less cultural influence. So, this is being compensated by sanctions

[TXPower + 643]

It’s about balance of power more than anything.  Saudi and Iran both have faults just as America does but allowing one to become too powerful is ill advised.  The mullahs keep themselves on the radar with their talk of wiping Israel from the map and death to America.  Israel is the only true democracy in the region, we are friends with them.  Israel doesnt need our help dealing with Iran but we will and the mullahs should remember that.  I would like to see the non-radical of Iran come to power, then real change would occur and we wouldn’t be sanctioning them.

[Epic + 390]

8 hours ago, Bhimsen Pachawry said:

Iran has built an image of being strong and unyielding which makes them look better. The sanctions on Iran has nothing to do with Israel but with Saudi Arabia

^This is some really good insight, I believe.  I had assumed that Iran and the Saudi's were on friendly(ish) terms due to their co-involvement in OPEC, but I now see that I have missed the boat completely on that one.  I had assumed their disagreements were limited on how best to split oil profits, but now I realize that their disagreements are much larger and focus more on gaining total domination over the region.  So it makes sense that the Saudi's sided with the US to gain an upper-hand against their enemy, Iran, whereas Iran sided with Russia in their attempt to gain an upper-hand against the Saudis.  Still, I would not disregard Israel's part in this so quickly.  Why else would Netanyahu campaign so aggressively against Iran if Israel did not at least feel threatened by Iranian encroachment?  

[Bhimsen Pachawry + 72]

1 hour ago, Epic said:

^This is some really good insight, I believe.  I had assumed that Iran and the Saudi's were on friendly(ish) terms due to their co-involvement in OPEC, but I now see that I have missed the boat completely on that one.  I had assumed their disagreements were limited on how best to split oil profits, but now I realize that their disagreements are much larger and focus more on gaining total domination over the region.  So it makes sense that the Saudi's sided with the US to gain an upper-hand against their enemy, Iran, whereas Iran sided with Russia in their attempt to gain an upper-hand against the Saudis.  Still, I would not disregard Israel's part in this so quickly.  Why else would Netanyahu campaign so aggressively against Iran if Israel did not at least feel threatened by Iranian encroachment?  

Iran did not side with Russia. USSR tried to court Iran after 1979 revolution but Khomeini spurned it. Iran still does not consider Russia as an ally. Iran and Russia just have some mutual interest against petrodollars. Iran's main intention is to be leader of Islam whereas Saudis claim that position by virtue of having largest amount of oil and having access to the holy sites.

Netanyahu feels threatened by iran as well as Saudi Arabia. Since Saudi trades in dollars and there is nothing Israel can do about Saudi Arabia, Israel is pushing against Iran.