Iran, nukes and terrorism

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • There is your problem! You make unrealistic demands and then act all aggressive when your demands are not met, but yet you would criticise the USA if they took the same approach. It's called double standards and means you won't get an amicable agreement.

    I have great sympathy for anyone trying to negotiate with someone that holds your attitude. You are losing support, because of your attitude.

    So its an unrealistic demand to be treated fair and equal.

    Fact stands, we dont negotiate under pressure. USA can come back into old agreement and then we talk or not at all.

  • So its an unrealistic demand to be treated fair and equal.

    Fact stands, we dont negotiate under pressure. USA can come back into old agreement and then we talk or not at all.

    You twist every word. Nobody ... and I mean NOBODY, has said that Iran should not be treated fairly, and the same goes for the USA, the UK, and every other country in the world. Why should Iran be allowed to dictate to other countries, which is what you appear to want. You want it all your own way, and that is what will escalate tensions.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • You twist every word. Nobody ... and I mean NOBODY, has said that Iran should not be treated fairly, and the same goes for the USA, the UK, and every other country in the world. Why should Iran be allowed to dictate to other countries, which is what you appear to want. You want it all your own way, and that is what will escalate tensions.

    Don't you think Darioush has been a useful education for us? He is I'm sure entirely representative of the Iranian psyche. There is no arguing or debating with him. He's like a sex-changed or body-snatched Theresa May, although more articulate. It's not that either side is in the right or blame-free. It's that the door and the mind is closed on the Iranian side. There are other countries like that around the world but I'm certain they do not include Britain or America

    It has been useful for us in the West to understanding why it's almost completely futile to try and reason with such a country that contains people of that mentality.

    About 30-40 years ago I saw a paperback in Heathrow with the title: "Understanding the West's problems in the Middle East in 50 pages". I found the title very tempting and almost bought it. At the last minute I stopped because I already realised I had the answer: "they're mad buggers". Nothing has changed my mind. All the sophisticated analysis of Middle East political structures and history and tribalism and religious enmities has not altered, except that after 9-11 and all that has followed, I must add to my 3-word prognosis: ".... and they want to kill us"

  • Don't you think Darioush has been a useful education for us? He is I'm sure entirely representative of the Iranian psyche. There is no arguing or debating with him. He's like a sex-changed or body-snatched Theresa May, although more articulate. It's not that either side is in the right or blame-free. It's that the door and the mind is closed on the Iranian side. There are other countries like that around the world but I'm certain they do not include Britain or America

    It has been useful for us in the West to understanding why it's almost completely futile to try and reason with such a country that contains people of that mentality.

    About 30-40 years ago I saw a paperback in Heathrow with the title: "Understanding the West's problems in the Middle East in 50 pages". I found the title very tempting and almost bought it. At the last minute I stopped because I already realised I had the answer: "they're mad buggers". Nothing has changed my mind. All the sophisticated analysis of Middle East political structures and history and tribalism and religious enmities has not altered, except that after 9-11 and all that has followed, I must add to my 3-word prognosis: ".... and they want to kill us"

    I dont want kill anyone.

    There are basic principles. We want respect. Iran already accepted harsher controls over our nuclear program than any other nation in the world. Far above what the IAEO suggests. IT was not easy to do so, but we accepted it and hoped for better relations.

    The hardliners here said teh west is not trustworthy...and then we saw they were right.

    Trump broke a deal we made. He broke it and demands that we accept even harsher conditions. No nation with self respect can let this happen.

    He broke the deal and put pressure on us. If we accept this, the whole world will laugh about Iran. We will be slaughtered like a lamb.

    1. We dont negotiate under pressure. You either negotiate in a respectful manner with us or no negotiations at all.

    2. What you do to us, we do to you. The UK can learn this right now. they took our ship, we took theirs. They get their ship back, when we get ours back.

    You say the door and mind is closed on our side. What do you want from us? That we kneel? Is that the open mindness you expect from us?

    The UK send an envoy to Iran they said. Our president said we can make a swap. Our ship for theirs. I hope the UK is open minded and follows the proposal.

    On a sidenote, i want to know one thing. If we do back off and start a new negotiation with trump, where will be the limit to humilate us?

    What is positive about this, is how we showed how things are.

    The USA is afraid to go to war with us. The UK is too weak to protect its own assets and stands on worldstage humilated.

    And our ultimatum is running as well. The west has 60 days to fullfill its comittments from our deal or we go back into high enriching uranium

  • Same old, same old. Twist everything people say! You carry on parroting yourself, as you aren't interested in any other persons views.

    I am not knocking Iran. It's you and your attitude that I reject. I hope your government are not like you.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • Same old, same old. Twist everything people say! You carry on parroting yourself, as you aren't interested in any other persons views.

    I am not knocking Iran. It's you and your attitude that I reject. I hope your government are not like you.

    Im a liberal young man. We have people in our government you cant imagine. If you have a problem with a young iranian who travels alot loves all countries ad talks with others, i wonder what you think about some of our leaders who are absolute hardcore.

    I´m interested in your views. What should Iran do?

    Tell me please.

  • Grow up and act like an adult would be a good start, instead of the 'I want, I want', and 'aren't I wonderful' rhetoric.You don't talk 'to' others at all. You talk 'at' them. We Brits are quite modest but you just tell everyone how wonderful you and your country are and every other country is subjected to insults by you. You obviously haven't read the good book of 'how to win friends and influence people'.

    You act as if you are a victim but you behave like a bigger thug than those you criticise. If you want respect, then try giving some, instead of hurling insults at all and sundry and retaliating in an aggressive manner, just like your government.

    Now bog off! I have lost patience with you. Your attitude drives people away and this is the result.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • Grow up and act like an adult would be a good start, instead of the 'I want, I want', and 'aren't I wonderful' rhetoric.You don't talk 'to' others at all. You talk 'at' them. We Brits are quite modest but you just tell everyone how wonderful you and your country are and every other country is subjected to insults by you. You obviously haven't read the good book of 'how to win friends and influence people'.

    You act as if you are a victim but you behave like a bigger thug than those you criticise. If you want respect, then try giving some, instead of hurling insults at all and sundry and retaliating in an aggressive manner, just like your government.

    Now bog off! I have lost patience with you. Your attitude drives people away and this is the result.

    The UK and USA made a coup in Iran, toppled our PM and installed the Shah. A tyrant who murdered tenthousands, tortured and was corrupted to the core. As he ruled, BP got billions of $ from Iran.

    After the Shah was kicked out Iran, the UK and USA supported Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He attacked Iran. It was a 8 year war. The UK sold Iraq weapons, even poison gas. 800.000 Iranians died in that war.

    How modest was it from your Maghret Thatcher to sell Sarin to Saddam Hussein?

    We could do no crime big enough to match what UK and USA did.

    We are no victims. Victims are weak. We accept what happened and make sure this will never happen again.

    You take our tanker? We take yours. You use violence against us? We will do same to you.

    The behavior you see, is the result of historic events.

    We dont want win the UK as friends. We expect the UK to act rational or pay the price

  • 1 For the issues which are at stake (peace and trade) there is pressure on both sides. Without pressure there would be little or no need to negotiate. That is why to say “we don’t negotiate under pressure” is idiotic. Pressure is a raison d'etre for negotiation

    2. You kill negotiation by saying “what you do to us, we do to you”. It’s obvious that point can be easily resolved so why start an argument prior to negotiation? One has to wonder why Iran has not responded to the US invitation to negotiate and see where it leads. The answer has to be that Iran just wants to argue and fight and kill. It is addicted to having enemies. Britain is pompous, pedantic, stubborn and argumentative among themselves, with delusions of grandeur lost over a century ago which they may or may not reclaim. Your country on the other is oppressive, bestial and psychotic. I don’t see much prospect of achieving middle ground. I would recommend you negotiate with America, not us (see 3 below).

    3 You ask “what do you want from us? Trump already told you. It was to trade. You ask if the US wants you to “kneel”. You are talking like a child. The invitation was to negotiate. Look it up in the dictionary. It doesn’t say anything about kneeling.

    4 I share your hope that the UK is “open minded” and agrees on “our ship for theirs”. Up until now the UK has been handicapped by its Prime Minister who has turned out to be mentally backwards and a waste of time and opportunity. Our new Prime Minister will most probably be better (he can hardly be worse!) but initially he will be handicapped by a Parliamentary Assembly who are a bunch of squabbling eunuchs. I suggest Iran negotiate with Trump in the US and if successful he will tell Britain to swap tankers.

    5 You ask, “if negotiating with Trump where will be the limit to humiliate us?” The answer to that is simple. It’s where and how you decide to humiliate yourself. No one can do that for you.

    6 You say “ “What is positive about this, is how we showed how things are”. I say “erh?”

    7 Your pathetic dick-comparing point is already answered. Grow up and get real.

    8 In a funny tragic kind of way your uranium ultimatum is tremendously helpful, both to the West generally and Israel in particular – and it doesn’t make much difference whether you are a shill, stooge or just a typical citizen of Iran – either way you and your country’s outlook represent a global menace and amply justifies why Trump cancelled the nuclear deal.


  • But we do negotiate. We tried to negotiate two weeks with UK. Only when they extended to hold our tanker for 30 more days it was time to act.

    And as you see, now new dynamics are created. The UK send an envoy to Iran and we will most likely simply swap our ships.

    Why was this not possible before we took the british ship? I find this unfortunate.

    As for USA, we do negotiate. We even open up informal channels. But several points are not negotiable.

    1. We will never give up our rocket program. Nothing will change that.

    2. We will never give up nuclear program. Like all nations, Iran has a right for nuclear power.

    You say we are opressive, bestial and psychotic. Iran did never do crimes like the USA or UK did.

    Ever heared Fanny Corchrane Smith singing?

    External Content www.youtube.com
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    She was the last tasmanian. This recording the lst and only recording of the tasmanian language.

    The british killed evry single tasmanian, erased a culture from this planet that lasted over 60.000 years.

    Its just one of your peoples many crimes. The british starved millions of indians to death.

    In our 2500 years as a nation, we never did a genocide.

    The UK did countless genocides.

    The USA did extreme crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and other nations.

    The USA are still a great power. The UK though is a midget and we just show that in the persian gulf.

    We are equal humans and we believe we must show the british very well, that we wont play games.

    Call it robust diplomacy.

    I wonder what Trump will offer us. Because we will not offer anything substantial above wat we have already offered

  • Begin what?

    The short answer to your question: begin stopping Iran

    The longer answer is this:

    It's time the West put destroyers in the water to facilitate shipping going through the strait of Hormuz and opened fire on any Iran vessel which after fair due warning fails to keep its proper distance and is therefore displaying hostile intention.

    America should not have to do this alone. NATO exercises show that European naval strength is impressive. There is little or no extra cost in allocating some of naval NATO exercises to the strait of Hormuz, which could continue indefinitely.

    American and Israel rapid airstrike capability would also be in a state of preparedness

    At the same time, sanctions against Iran should continue and, if there is any scope left, should be made more severe. The West is not looking for capitulation, it is looking for negotiation for peaceful co-existence. If Iran doesn't share that desire then it is not going to end well and so be it.

    Finally, in the tradition of offering carrot as well as stick, Iran will be told that the remedy is quite simple: respond to the West's invitation to negotiate a state of peace rather than economic and military hostilities. This should include the discontinuation of holding Western citizens as hostage using bogus trials to fabricate a criminal act against Iran (often espionage whicch is usefully vague and un-provable).

    In any such negotiations the first step should be for the West, as a gesture of goodwill, to offer the return the Iranian tanker they confiscated near Gibraltar and for Iran to return the two Western ships they grabbed on the Strait of Hormuz (their first grab being without cause or provocation, their second in retaliation for the West's confiscation of their tanker in Gibraltar waters on the grounds of being in legal breach of EU's sanction rules).

    Three caveats:

    1) The return of Iran's tanker might stick in the West's craw but I think the West escalated what was an ill-considered childish hostile belligerent act by Iran, by legally confiscating their tanker near Gibraltar and then blathering on about justifying such an act on the grounds of EU sanctions and insisting the two acts were unconnected. I'm sure the West 's action is legally justified and I'm sure Iran's two grabs can be considered acts of piracy (the first childish and ill-considered, the second retaliatory). But that kind of self-righteous pedantry from the West (Britain in particular) is no way to begin negotiation with a country that one is trying to nudge by negotiation towards a 21st century live-and-let-live civility between the West and Islam. It would be a wise, magnanimous and goodwill gesture for the West to propose right at the outset of negotiations that each side agrees unconditionally to return one another's property.

    2) Even though Iran is a member of the UN, the above approach to negotiation should be instigated unilaterally and without the usual dead hand of UN involvement or approval.

    3) Sadly, I expect points 1 and 2 above will prove irrelevant because the West, particularly the EU and even more particularly the UK, will never get their act together to agree on anything, least of all committing lofty words into action, I also expect Iran knows that they have more resolve than Europe and they also know that America expects Europe to act like an ally, not a bunch of cowardly cheese- or sauerkraut-eating surrender monkeys and, finally, that Europe will blink first rather than step up to the plate. This is part of the Iran vision, which they call The Islam Awakening. If my pessimism is correct, we should all swot up on Sharia Law!

  • :( Have to agree and well said. Skirting round WWIII is not a smart plan. Avoiding it is. Being indecisive also convinces increasingly embattled Putin that he can enter the fray on the side of Iran. That is more dangerous than scrapping over tankers and if China supports Russia on this we shall all be thrust into a repugnant possibly global conflict again.

    It is imperative that people stop weeping over politically correct issues and think about what might happen to them should any of this come to pass.

  • It's time the West put destroyers in the water to facilitate shipping going through the strait of Hormuz and opened fire on any Iran vessel which after fair due warning fails to keep its proper distance and is therefore displaying hostile intention.

    We've now got one of the new Type 45 destroyers escorting our tankers now along with the Type 23 frigate. Hope that's enough, because that's pretty much the entirely of ships available!

    America should not have to do this alone. NATO exercises show that European naval strength is impressive. There is little or no extra cost in allocating some of naval NATO exercises to the strait of Hormuz, which could continue indefinitely.

    The Germans have explicitly ruled out their involvement in any such "exercise" as they fear it's a precursor to an attack on Iran and coming after the Iraq War mess, they have due cause to be suspicious of the Americans.

    The French and Italians are willing and as you say other NATO countries like the Dutch, Spanish and Danes have naval capabilities to assist. Trump does have a point that is shouldn't always be the Americans who do the "work", but it was Trump that instigated this current situation.

    At the same time, sanctions against Iran should continue and, if there is any scope left, should be made more severe. The West is not looking for capitulation, it is looking for negotiation for peaceful co-existence. If Iran doesn't share that desire then it is not going to end well and so be it

    I would still concentrate on getting the nuclear deal back on track first, then worry about Iran's wider actions in the region, but this would be siding up with the Europeans against Trump, though. Otherwise, I agree.

    Finally, in the tradition of offering carrot as well as stick, Iran will be told that the remedy is quite simple: respond to the West's invitation to negotiate a state of peace rather than economic and military hostilities. This should include the discontinuation of holding Western citizens as hostage using bogus trials to fabricate a criminal act against Iran (often espionage whicch is usefully vague and un-provable).

    I agree, but all of that should come later, there are more immediate things to do with and Boris should stay well away from this...

  • In any such negotiations the first step should be for the West, as a gesture of goodwill, to offer the return the Iranian tanker they confiscated near Gibraltar and for Iran to return the two Western ships they grabbed on the Strait of Hormuz (their first grab being without cause or provocation, their second in retaliation for the West's confiscation of their tanker in Gibraltar waters on the grounds of being in legal breach of EU's sanction rules).


    Three caveats:

    1) The return of Iran's tanker might stick in the West's craw but I think the West escalated what was an ill-considered childish hostile belligerent act by Iran, by legally confiscating their tanker near Gibraltar and then blathering on about justifying such an act on the grounds of EU sanctions and insisting the two acts were unconnected. I'm sure the West 's action is legally justified and I'm sure Iran's two grabs can be considered acts of piracy (the first childish and ill-considered, the second retaliatory). But that kind of self-righteous pedantry from the West (Britain in particular) is no way to begin negotiation with a country that one is trying to nudge by negotiation towards a 21st century live-and-let-live civility between the West and Islam. It would be a wise, magnanimous and goodwill gesture for the West to propose right at the outset of negotiations that each side agrees unconditionally to return one another's property.

    Hmm... Have you forgotten the tankers, including a Japanese one, that "mysteriously" started to explode and then the Iranian revolutionary guard caught red handed removing a mine from one of the tankers? I call that more than a childish act.

    I think the kind of action you suggest now, might empower the hardliners too much. I think Iran needs to be "brought" to the negotiating table first, then consider being magnanimous afterwards.

    2) Even though Iran is a member of the UN, the above approach to negotiation should be instigated unilaterally and without the usual dead hand of UN involvement or approval.

    Agree.

    3) Sadly, I expect points 1 and 2 above will prove irrelevant because the West, particularly the EU and even more particularly the UK, will never get their act together to agree on anything, least of all committing lofty words into action, I also expect Iran knows that they have more resolve than Europe and they also know that America expects Europe to act like an ally, not a bunch of cowardly cheese- or sauerkraut-eating surrender monkeys and, finally, that Europe will blink first rather than step up to the plate. This is part of the Iran vision, which they call The Islam Awakening. If my pessimism is correct, we should all swot up on Sharia Law!

    The EU collectively will do nothing, but individual European nations along with America, will.

  • American and Israel rapid airstrike capability would also be in a state of preparedness

    I have no doubt it is, so are Iran's missiles which can reach all American bases in the region and our base on Cyprus too.


    :( Have to agree and well said. Skirting round WWIII is not a smart plan. Avoiding it is. Being indecisive also convinces increasingly embattled Putin that he can enter the fray on the side of Iran. That is more dangerous than scrapping over tankers and if China supports Russia on this we shall all be thrust into a repugnant possibly global conflict again.

    Fully agree LW and Putin has indicated he's interested and with the permanent Russian base in Syria, he could do a lot of "fraying" on the sidelines here.

    If Putin were to give the Iranians one of his missile defence systems in conjunction with Iran's own missile attack capabilities, that could help to neutairse any American and/or Israeli attack on Iran.

  • Horizon: we're pretty much in accord and, since I value your take on such matters, I find that gratifying. The main point on which I have sometimes parted company with you, which I admit is open to conjecture, is your comment that "it was Trump that instigated this current situation". The way I see it, Trump cancelled an agreement which, to all intents and purposes, went as follows: Iran to Obama: "if you give us a shitload of money we won't build a nuclear arsenal of bombs and missiles". Obama to Iran: okay.

    For America it wasn't a clever deal because it still allowed Iran to build ballistic missiles and wage a proxy war in and ultimately beyond the Middle East, supporting various military militias, not least Hezbollah, not to mention holding under suspicion almost any visitor to Iran on bogus charges (usually to do with espionage, which is mostly an imagined rather than proven accusation. Then again, A Deal's A Deal and should not be open to review just because of a change of CEO - and that surely applies as much to countries as it does to businesses.

    Worse than that, I have yet to learn of an argument of any adequate substance from Trump and his minions as to why he cancelled a deal which all the evidence showed Iran was complying with. The only explanation circulating - and it is as good as any, sadly quite credible - is that Trump during his campaign sought to denigrate Obama by promising to cancel Obama's Iran deal. I think on this issue alone Trump is in danger of painting himself into a corner where, if the West's present conflict with Iran flares up into a war or conflagration which could easily extend beyond the Middle East - especially if Russia (or China?!) sees an opportunity to gain further influence in that region - Trump's chance of a second term is greatly diminished. It's one thing to fire up the blind nationalism of his red-necked tattooed key support group, who Hilary justifiably but so unwisely described as the "The Deplorables", but quite another challenge for Trump to hold on to the remainder of his 51% franchise if the economic landscape and the joys of capitalism start to look precarious. I know Trump is arrogant and crass, and probably has a K.I.S.S plaque on his desk but, if in spite of so many ambivalent followers' wishful thinking, he persists in being so stupidly insensitive and un-strategic when the stakes are this high, we are all in trouble.

    It is against that background that I also tend to disagree with your reply to my original point 1, where you reject my recommendation that the US breaks the ice with a magnanimous gesture rather than a hard line approach. I don't think your straitlaced uncompromising, British rules & regulations will get us anywhere with Iran whereas my approach plays a win-win trump card which is that, worse case scenario, the whole world will come closer to recognising that Iran is beyond reasoning with and that America generally - Trump specifically - made a gesture of reconciliation which was scathingly and mindlessly rejected. At which point it becomes acceptable that America should get tougher. Whereas if the gesture is accepted by Iran and talks commence, then Trump will confirm to all those doubters that he is capable of re-visiting a policy rather than insisting it is a tablet of stone. Politicians who can't change their mind are a danger to the world.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!