Trump Thread

[Montmorency]

As with almost everything else he does, it could well be to be part of his bullying style to "negotiating" - first off he threatens to destroy everything and destabilise the world. Wait for people to be scared about what a mess the world would be. Then starts to row back towards a compromise which will be said to be better (whatever it is). He's a bully and identifies as a "strong man" so this is unsurprising. Perhaps it is a typical approach but generally we the populace are unaware since this goes on behind closed doors.

This appears to be the take on NAFTA / trade sanctions and now the Iran deal.

The problem is, our leverage is likely much less than it was a few years ago, especially since all the other parties are satisfied with the status quo.

What it has to be then, is part of an attempt to hurt Iran with anything at hand, even if that empowers Russia and destabilizes the region further. The far-right doesn't care about an abstract nuclear breakout window, it wants a full invasion of Iran.

From what I understand, he only threatened to pull out of those, while this is official decision.

A big difference is that big businesses profit from those trade deals, so he just needs to use fiery rhetoric to please his "base". Iran deal offers little benefit to big business while his supporters have been brainwashed to hate it.

Additionaly, I believe that a huge part of Republican party wants to keep Iran weak and unstable as possible, if and when the need (or opportunity) for full blown military invasion occurs.

As with a lot of these decisions so far, there is a convenient (or inconvenient, depending on perspective) window of several months before the functional elements of the decision (i.e. sanctions) go into implementation...

[HopAlongBunny]

The "loss of leverage" is something Ronan Farrow addresses in his book War on Peace. https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Dip.../dp/0393652106

The concentration of military to military relations at the expense of diplomatic relations removes any nuance.
Not surprisingly, the loss of expertise and relationships outside that narrow range (this is harmful to USAID spending) makes America's relations in the Middle East resemble it's relations with Latin American countries. Any strongman is a good one if he/she is on our payroll; progress to democracy (or freedom or human rights or whatever) are meaningless. Egypt is a decent example of what counts.

Farrow does not say, but I will, this shift to security above all makes the mass migration from the Middle East a rational choice.
Remove the patina of progress and flight is really the only choice for anyone looking to better their lot.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

From what I understand, he only threatened to pull out of those, while this is official decision.

A big difference is that big businesses profit from those trade deals, so he just needs to use fiery rhetoric to please his "base". Iran deal offers little benefit to big business while his supporters have been brainwashed to hate it.

Additionaly, I believe that a huge part of Republican party wants to keep Iran weak and unstable as possible, if and when the need (or opportunity) for full blown military invasion occurs.

Actually, most of the GOP would like to see the theocracy tossed out and a trading culture closer to SA, Kuwait, or Morocco move to the fore. Not gonna happen though.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The "loss of leverage" is something Ronan Farrow addresses in his book War on Peace. https://www.amazon.com/War-Peace-Dip.../dp/0393652106

The concentration of military to military relations at the expense of diplomatic relations removes any nuance.
Not surprisingly, the loss of expertise and relationships outside that narrow range (this is harmful to USAID spending) makes America's relations in the Middle East resemble it's relations with Latin American countries. Any strongman is a good one if he/she is on our payroll; progress to democracy (or freedom or human rights or whatever) are meaningless. Egypt is a decent example of what counts.

Farrow does not say, but I will, this shift to security above all makes the mass migration from the Middle East a rational choice.
Remove the patina of progress and flight is really the only choice for anyone looking to better their lot.

We've had that problem for more than a century, as did most of the Euro states that held overseas terrain and spheres of influence. Stability so you can forget their local issues is too attractive, and most decision making too short term in orientation to take the more difficult path.

And as to poor, weak, and unstable....we tend to like stable but militarily weak as they make better trading partners and non-threats (course weak and stable don't cohere well so...). We also don't require them to be poor, we're in it for what we can get out of it. Doesn't necessarily have to be at their expense, though that has often been the case.

[AE Bravo]

Unlike the US, Iran doesn't see this as a withdrawal. It's a violation, so they have all the political ammo they need to pursue the bomb in secret like they have in the past.

[Fragony]

Unlike the US, Iran doesn't see this as a withdrawal. It's a violation, so they have all the political ammo they need to pursue the bomb in secret like they have in the past.

Not so secret they basicly admitted it after the withdrawel of US-support

[AE Bravo]

They're still going back and forth about it. As someone mentioned earlier there's still a window of several months.

[rory_20_uk]

IF China (et al) either decide to ignore the USA or the USA decides not to punish them, increasingly Iran could get everything it wants from China alone - all contracts switch from Dollars, purchase Chinese arms / goods and now all the IT equipment they could possibly need. Also a willing market for almost all of Iranian exports.

Given that the USA froze Iranian wealth for 40 years, trusting the Chinese to not be as bad might be viewed as a reasonable gamble.

I doubt the USA would attack given most disagree (apart from Saudi Arabia and Israel of course). Israel would probably attack as they have done in the past and probably with the USA's tactit approval. Whether China / Russia would give some modern and very nasty AA weaponry as a quick, cheap way of playing proxy power politics only time will tell.

[Beskar]

IF China (et al) either decide to ignore the USA or the USA decides not to punish them, increasingly Iran could get everything it wants from China alone - all contracts switch from Dollars, purchase Chinese arms / goods and now all the IT equipment they could possibly need. Also a willing market for almost all of Iranian exports.

Given that the USA froze Iranian wealth for 40 years, trusting the Chinese to not be as bad might be viewed as a reasonable gamble.

I doubt the USA would attack given most disagree (apart from Saudi Arabia and Israel of course). Israel would probably attack as they have done in the past and probably with the USA's tactit approval. Whether China / Russia would give some modern and very nasty AA weaponry as a quick, cheap way of playing proxy power politics only time will tell.

This is what I was thinking. Iran to maintain the deal but with the other countries still playing their part. Sure, less USA involvement, but things swap to the EU, Russia, China, etc instead. America loses even more international prestige and standing till it starts being another Bully Power instead of World Police. The end of the American Hegemony will be a massive set-back for years to come and it is a shame the populace don't even understand its impact.

[Sarmatian]

Problem is that US may (try) to levy fines from companies in those countries if they continue business as usual with Iran. For instance, parts of Airbus airplanes are made in USA, thus they can not be sold to Iran if US pulls out.

Very complicated. The risk of losing access to US market is much more significant than access to Iran's market. They could make a principled stand, all together, which would certainly lead to USA backing down at least from fines, even if they remain committed to reintroducing sanctions, but the odds of EU, China and Russia forming a united front for this purpose are not that great.

Well, at least American newscasters may again look like they're receiving a blowjob while showing us video clips of missiles being fired.

[rory_20_uk]

For sure... But when the "other" is the rest of the world then perhaps the USA might loose out... and it doesn't help that the USA already appears to want a trade war with most of their allies, China, Russia and of course the other NAFTA members. Not acceding to the USA's wishes is no longer destabilising the situation since that is already underway.

[Husar]

Problem is that US may (try) to levy fines from companies in those countries if they continue business as usual with Iran. For instance, parts of Airbus airplanes are made in USA, thus they can not be sold to Iran if US pulls out.

Shouldn't be a problem, they sell the planes to a European country or some tax haven (shell corporation) that then sells them on to Iran.

And it would be fair, too, because Heckler and Koch sold weapons to the US Army who then delivered them to Colombia right away to circumvent the German ban on weapon sales to Colombia...
If the US do it, it's obviously the right thing to do, so we should join right in that sort of trade!
Or as Trump would say it, it's just clever!

[Fragony]

It isn'just shwll much bigger companies like Uniliever have a firm grassp, politicians are basicly lobbyists for dale

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Well, at least American newscasters may again look like they're receiving a blowjob while showing us video clips of missiles being fired.

Sadly, I have observed/thought the same thing. Especially ironic as the bulk of them are left-wing politically on a personal level and largely pacifistic 'give peace a chance' types.

[Montmorency]

Sadly, I have observed/thought the same thing. Especially ironic as the bulk of them are left-wing politically on a personal level and largely pacifistic 'give peace a chance' types.

Is any of that really accurate though?

Very few people overall are pacifists, and "left-wing" meaning left of the average Republican Congressperson has limited descriptive capacity as to political beliefs.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Is any of that really accurate though?

Very few people overall are pacifists, and "left-wing" meaning left of the average Republican Congressperson has limited descriptive capacity as to political beliefs.

Nope. Everything I wrote was arrant nonsense. My specialty.

[Husar]

The truth is that capitalism makes them do anything their boss wants for the money and their boss wants them to do whatever he thinks makes him/his boss the most money.
If death is a sensation then capitalism will use it relentlessly regardless of minor concerns such as morality or political beliefs. The greed that promises to fill the hole in everyone's soul will take over. Self-reflection is something people do when they need to promote themselves to make more money...

[Husar]

Shouldn't be a problem, they sell the planes to a European country or some tax haven (shell corporation) that then sells them on to Iran.

And it would be fair, too, because Heckler and Koch sold weapons to the US Army who then delivered them to Colombia right away to circumvent the German ban on weapon sales to Colombia...
If the US do it, it's obviously the right thing to do, so we should join right in that sort of trade!
Or as Trump would say it, it's just clever!

I could swear they raided H&K's offices over that, but according to this article SigSauer participated in that scheme, or maybe they both did?

http://international.sueddeutsche.de...of-german-arms

Either way, the US like to help our corporations circumvent our export bans:

For the past 50 years the Colombian government, guerrillas and paramilitaries have been fighting each other with seemingly no end in sight. For that very reason German companies such as Sig Sauer aren’t allowed to deliver arms there. And violations come with hard punishment: export bans, fines and prison sentences of up to five years.
[...]
But, let’s start from the beginning. In 2009 Sig Sauer’s sister company Sig Sauer Inc. in Exeter, New Hampshire won a bid from the U.S. Army worth some $300 million. Included in that contract were some 98,000 SP 2022 pistols worth around $70 million. Those weapons were ordered by the Colombian federal police. And the U.S. Sig Sauer colleagues knew it. They are, after all, the ones who shipped the guns directly to Bogotá.
[...]
In January, the German police seized several documents from a Sig Sauer building which reveal the sale of some 70 guns to Kazakhstan—another country in crisis. These were apparently also made available through a U.S. detour.

So when I read stuff like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.7a6813e8974d

German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately.

I can only say: [insert various expletives] and cry me a river you [insert more expletives]!

[HopAlongBunny]

One article that gives a good snapshot of Trump and what it means to work for the Orange Wonder:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/rudy-g...-soon?ref=home

Can't decide if the play about this slice of American history will be a comedy or a horror story

[rory_20_uk]

'Twas ever thus. Post WW2 far more effort was expended on Operation Paperclip than was spent trying people for war crimes (only the losers since the Allies were spotless as angels...).

If required I am sure that arms caches can be hijacked in transit, army surplus misplaced or lost. Criminal enterprises seems to have more efficient logistical chains than most legit businesses - even with the police on their tail.

[Montmorency]

I could swear they raided H&K's offices over that, but according to this article SigSauer participated in that scheme, or maybe they both did?

http://international.sueddeutsche.de...of-german-arms

Either way, the US like to help our corporations circumvent our export bans:



So when I read stuff like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.7a6813e8974d



I can only say: [insert various expletives] and cry me a river you [insert more expletives]!

You know, corporations have been using loopholes like this to get around industrial and export limitations since at least the Versailles Treaty, right?

But Germans know just as well, the alternative to control is...

[Husar]

You know, corporations have been using loopholes like this to get around industrial and export limitations since at least the Versailles Treaty, right?

But Germans know just as well, the alternative to control is...

I know that corporations use every loophole they can find, I was talking about the US asking/commanding us to go along with their export bans while their government helps circumvent ours. Why should we give a **** about US rules if they don't care about ours? Why even say that?

I expect corporations to try and get around rules, the more upsetting part is that a government agency of an "ally" actively helps them and then demands that we enforce their bans. It's just laughable. We should just funnel US tech into Iran instead and increase our trade surplus even further.

[Kralizec]

I don't believe Trump being a "strongman" is outside the conventions of American foreign policy. Lets not pretend this is something that's not typical of an American president whether its overt or not. Chalking this up to some sort of strongman syndrome that comes with the territory is a dismissal of government. He is George Bush minus the nuance.

This push comes from both his war cabinet (John Bolton et al) and his pro-Israel billionaire campaign supporters. These are just two points in all the striking parallels you would find between this issue and the invasion of Iraq.

I can't agree with this. I'd say that George Bush junior tried, in good faith, to be a good stateman. He lacked the skills, gathered the wrong people and failed badly.

Unlike the US, Iran doesn't see this as a withdrawal. It's a violation, so they have all the political ammo they need to pursue the bomb in secret like they have in the past.

Iran is right on this one. The EU's chief diplomat said that the deal was one of facts, not one of trust. Somehow, the US has managed to violate the latter part.

As far as we know, there's extremely little evidence that Iran violated the deal as it was agreed. Republican hawks might have wanted a better deal at the time. I don't think it's likely they would have gotten one in the period between 2008 and 2016. But then again, real life executive decisions weren't their problem then.

But they're acting like it isn't their problem now. You might dislike the deal that Obama made with Iran. But Obama represented an institution at the time. The United States of America. Trump is representing it right now, yet he is unaware that he's representing anything but himself.

Most people don't think about what such a loss of credibility really means. If there's ever going to be a new trade deal with China, Europe or India, do you think the counterpary is going to settle for all parties are to apply the agreement in good faith? The USA after Trump might just find out how Iran feels about the current nuclear agreemt.

Ironically, I think that the current approach might actually work for North Korea. Kim-Jong Un can woo him, knowing that the only thing that matters is his personal relationship to this guy. He just needs to be "very honorable" in the words of the current POTUS, knowing that any successor is unlikely to walk back on promises made by his office.

[Fragony]

Trump is a bit of a one-men orchestra, but could just be doing the right thing. Who knows what good can come from a nearly strangled Iran, at least nothing bad

[HopAlongBunny]

I could swear they raided H&K's offices over that, but according to this article SigSauer participated in that scheme, or maybe they both did?

http://international.sueddeutsche.de...of-german-arms

Either way, the US like to help our corporations circumvent our export bans:
So when I read stuff like this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.7a6813e8974d
I can only say: [insert various expletives] and cry me a river you [insert more expletives]!

Even more mind bending is that US assistance in allowing a channel for arms to Columbia was part of policy.
Keeping the military stable while civilian works went ahead (neutralizing FARC) was part and parcel of the long-term strategy...developed by diplomats.
That FARC eventually (mostly) laid down their arms and joined the political process, helps show how a nuanced approach can change the situation.

[Husar]

Even more mind bending is that US assistance in allowing a channel for arms to Columbia was part of policy.
Keeping the military stable while civilian works went ahead (neutralizing FARC) was part and parcel of the long-term strategy...developed by diplomats.
That FARC eventually (mostly) laid down their arms and joined the political process, helps show how a nuanced approach can change the situation.

*Colombia, Columbia is a town in Ohio or so. (no offense intended)

Anyway, I'm not sure whether I like the US aid in South America because it usually supports libertarian policies that benefit US corporations and turn the population into wage slaves. The FARC were a violent bunch, but so were/are plenty of the allies of the USA/Colombian government such as the AUC and sometimes the army as well: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.af567ee34492
There are still murders of union representatives and so on: https://www.ituc-csi.org/colombia-tr...nists-murdered

The people generally perceive the government and police as corrupt and voter turnout is quite low. There is close to no social safety net and so on. It's not a terrible country in every aspect, but to some degree it seems like just another market for US big business with a relatively large wealth gap.

[Montmorency]

On the US Violation of the Iran Deal as an Insult to Europe

The Iran decision has resonated among European leaders as none of Trump’s previous follies has. First, Europeans regard the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, as the pact is called, as the foremost proof of their capacity to act coherently and effectively. The Iran diplomacy came hard on the heels of the debacle over the Iraq War, when a divided Europe watched a U.S. president stumble into disaster. “Iran was the opposite of that,” says Mark Leonard, the director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “Instead of standing blinded in the headlights of American policy, Europe figured out what its own interests were.” European diplomats negotiated with the Iranians when the Bush administration refused to do so, designing a package of sanctions and incentives ultimately adopted and pushed through the U.N. Security Council by Obama.

Europe hoped to reduce tensions in the Middle East by drawing Iran out of its revolutionary shell. And it succeeded. The deal, Leonard says, was a “massive source of pride.”

Hours after Trump’s announcement, Macron, Merkel, and British Prime Minister Theresa May issued a joint statement reminding the world that the deal had been “unanimously endorsed by the U.N. Security Council” and thus remained “the binding international legal framework” on Iran’s nuclear program. European Council President Donald Tusk announced that Trump’s Iran and trade policies “will meet a united European approach.”

The fur will fly if the United States goes ahead with secondary sanctions targeting European companies that continue to do business with Iran. Given the current bellicose mood in Washington, there is good reason to think that it will do so. Hours after assuming his post as U.S. ambassador in Berlin, Richard Grenell tweeted, “German companies doing business in Iran should wind down operations immediately.” That would be Europe’s put-up-or-shut-up moment. “We’re going to have to treat the U.S. as a hostile power,” Leonard says. “We might have to introduce countermeasures against U.S. companies.” The mind reels. No, the heart breaks.

EDIT: And a mordbidy-funny closing to another Foreign Policy article on the US withdrawal:

In short, Trump’s latest blunder shows that he’s not giving the American people the more restrained foreign policy he promised back in 2016, or correcting the various mistakes made by his predecessors (of which there were many). Instead, Trump is taking us back to the naive, unsophisticated, unilateralist, and overly militarized foreign policy of George W. Bush’s first term. The appointment of Bolton at the National Security Council, Pompeo at State, and the nomination of former torture supervisor Gina Haspel to run the CIA — it is a return not to realism but to Cheneyism. Remember how well that worked?

Otto von Bismarck once quipped that it was good to learn from one’s mistakes but better to learn from someone else’s. This latest episode shows that the United States is not really capable of learning from either. And it suggests that Winston Churchill’s apocryphal comment about the United States always doing the right thing should now be revised. Under Trump, it appears, the United States will always do the wrong thing but only after first considering — and rejecting — all the obviously superior alternatives.

[HopAlongBunny]

*Colombia, Columbia is a town in Ohio or so. (no offense intended)

The people generally perceive the government and police as corrupt and voter turnout is quite low. There is close to no social safety net and so on. It's not a terrible country in every aspect, but to some degree it seems like just another market for US big business with a relatively large wealth gap.

All true; certainly not perfect; perhaps not even good
What is also true (in this case) is that FARC was undercut by (at least) some civilian development alongside military assistance.
The US never has, perhaps never will allow any development which undercuts America's (country and corporations) ability to do as it pleases and take what it wants.

[AE Bravo]

I can't agree with this. I'd say that George Bush junior tried, in good faith, to be a good stateman. He lacked the skills, gathered the wrong people and failed badly.

Having some time to reflect I was actually wrong. George Bush is much worse when it comes to the substantial evidence available to us. How do we get the measure of a good 'statesman?' By personality and what our perception of their motives are or the results of their decisions? I am not of the opinion that he tried in good faith at anything pertaining to civil liberties, international norms, workplace safety regulations, police, climate change, education, frakking, drone strikes, etc. you name it. What are you basing this on?

Iran is right on this one. The EU's chief diplomat said that the deal was one of facts, not one of trust. Somehow, the US has managed to violate the latter part.

That is a really solid way to put it. He couldn't be more right.

[Montmorency]

I agree with Showtime here in that there has been no worse American foreign policy than under Bush-43. They knew what they were doing.