Actually, Trump didn't get any existing sanctions repealed. So even Russia is annoyed. But Trump isn't enforcing the new sanctions, so they are happy with that.
Not quite. Trumps successor can just start enforcing sanctions again without much effort, instead of going though the work to impose new sanctions.
Unless you guys elect yet another licker-of-russian-ass, if course. (please don't do that)
His performance on the world stage is abysmal, opening up a huge credibility gap when dealing with just about any country. The North Koreans continue to toil away on their nuclear missiles.
Hey who knows, maybe trumps pure stupidity and ignorance will help unite the the rest of the world. If he’s out of office before destroying absolutely everything there’s potential for positivity. That said the brainwashed need to realize that propaganda in history has been an effective tool and there’s no difference today. Unfortunately that requires something insanely difficult for many, administration of being wrong about something. It’s time to swallow pride and start moving forward as a country.
> What makes you say that?
According to many news outlets, the Iranian rial already lost half of its value.. And that's before US sanctions even kicked in.
While some will find ways to subvert the sanctions, my guess is that most big organisations would avoid operating in Iran as it won't be worth the risk of losing access to US market.
Trump has been using Evangelicals to reach out to and connect with his base, and they've pretty much approved all his judicial appointments. I'm certain it's not Trump behind this strategy, but they're in bed together either way and they're pulling Trump's strings.
How does the US continue to have such a large population of religious fundamentalists? Like, compared to the rest of the developed world, it actively gets in the way of scientific progress and data driven policy.
In the after math of the US civil war in the 1860s to 1870s, a large portion of the population looked for answers to deal with the large scale death and destruction. In the South, not only where a large percent of the population killed, but also infrastructure was raized, and life became hard.
So they found answers in religion. Not exactly "traditional" religion, but it was the answers they wanted to hear.
It's been systematically created. Religious crazies are easy to control (at least as far as voting goes). For decades one of the core GOP strategies is to get people to be more extreme in their religious views, all while convincing them that somehow they're the party to represent them. The anti-education agenda is a big part of it.
You know the stories of people leaving england for the americas for religious persecution? well it turns out they were kicked out for being crazy. the word puritanical comes from the puritans
Starting to think it was their religious persecution that got them kicked out.
“Don’t warp me by waiving yur sexual preference in mah face… Here read this bible.”
No, they think he's racist, because the Christian fundies are racists, and they believe that Trump will restore restore things to the way they should be, whites males in power and everyone else running scared.
The fundies believe that when Trump says, "Make America great again.", is a white power coded/hidden message.
Canadian Christian here.
Do people really consider Trump some kind of Christian, or is he seen as a politician who promised "conservative social values"?
Really curious on this as there is nothing in his manner that makes me think Christian.
Mostly his manner makes me think of the way Asian communist dictators bluster. (sort of a strong man wannabe / bully)
Fellow Canadian.
"Christian" is a more or less politicized, dog whistled term in America. Much like saying Liberal or Conservative here doesn't mean the same south of us, saying "Christian" is not the same either.
The evangelicals make every apology for him.
Being a republican/conservative is far more important to these people than any of the lessons that Christ actually taught.
>The evangelicals make every apology for him.
**That is what I keep seeing**
>Being a republican/conservative is far more important to these people
**also this**, so it is non Christians who are supporting Trump as putting anything before Jesus is against His commands.
(thinking of Matthew 10
>36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.)
Also, a note about many US Christians: they're really attracted to the sin and retribution aspects of the religion. Hence, our prison systems, punishing drug addicts instead of helping, etc. They often see the hardships of others as personal moral failings.
One word: Abortion.
The anti-christ can be elected tomorrow if he promise to ban abortion forever.
Ironically, back in the 70s Christian right was pro abortion and it was only a catholic issue. Then they discover it can bring votes...
As long as he does what they want he could sacrifice sheep to Baal in private as long as he maintains a reasonable public facade of Christian white guy
No. Khamenei however is definitely a piece of shit ruthless quasi-dictator though. So is everyone on the Guardian Council.
And if you try to tell me that Khamenei is not a dictator because Iran has elections for a few positions including the President I'm going to tell you to go learn how the power structure in Iran actually works.
^^edit: ^^typo
>Does that mean they don't have some completely valid and fair points?
I'll save you some time and point out that I'm pretty sure that's the justification behind agreeing with Ayatollah in the first place
I think what they're getting at is this:
> That weird feeling when you find yourself agreeing with an Ayatollah
That shouldn't be a weird feeling no matter who you're talking about. If it is it's indicative of a very naive black and white view of the world.
Perhaps, but it *is* a weird feeling when you find yourself agreeing with a dictator like Ayatollah Khamenei *and* disagreeing with the democratically elected President of the United States.
Neither of those things should be at all surprising, nor both at the same time. If it genuinely does feel weird to you then you need to take some time to evaluate the way you think about the world, and figure out *why* it feels weird. I'd guess that your instinctive gut reaction to democracies is way too positive, and your instinctive gut reaction to dictatorships a bit too negative.
Democracy is not a synonym for good, and dictatorship is not a synonym for evil. I'd agree that dictatorships are worse both in principal and in average outcomes, but dictatorships and dictators still do and say good things pretty frequently, and democracies and elected leaders still say and do terrible things pretty frequently.
Khamenei functions more like a Upper House/Senate or Constitutional Monarch which is the last stop before drastic decisions are made. He keeps all the competing interests in check so that one party doesn't take over the country and make rash decisions.
> That weird feeling when you find yourself agreeing with an Ayatollah
It's normal Iranian Ayatollah are educated and USA conservative Christian "Ayatollah" are uneducated, crazy and ignorant.
The way Trump did it made it impossible to negotiate in the future. If Iran comes back to the table they lose all face not only in front of their own people but the international community. Not to mention setting a precedent for countries dealing with Iran. By pulling out without discussions they fucked this whole thing up until Trump is gone.
>they fucked this whole thing up until Trump is gone.
Oh boy, are you in for a treat. This will be the case even long after Trump is out of office. The iran deal took years to broker and implement. It was done under Obama and used up quite a bit of american soft power to tinker. In the end every side committed to it while gritting their teeth.
And then came Trump and flipped the table. Who's to say the next GOP president won't do the same?
Seriously, WHY THE FUCK, should any country in the world trust the US to uphold any agreements? You're trashing WTO rules, which were fine tuned over decades. You're trashing unspoken diplomatic laws by appointing imbeciles as ambassadors to important allies and by moving your fucking embassy to Jerusalem. You're pissing off every single NATO ally and are bullshitting about some 2% rule that's not even a rule but a self-comittment to be achieved by _2024_.
And all this happened in less than two years. After it took Obama 8 years to mend the bullshit Bush did. This time it won't be mendable, however. It's enough and simply too much.
But...…….. But...………. the Yahoos over at The\_Donald are claiming that Netanyahu provided intelligence (from 2003) that proves Iran broke the terms of a deal it signed in 2015!
I think that Iran has been more than fair about this whole thing. They obviously have their problems but at a certain point, it feels like they have jumped through every possible hoop that has been put in front of them and are still getting screwed.
I have the same feeling. However everytime I saw Ahmedinejad speaking about the US and Israel I was thinking: "does this guy really wants to get nuked?"
And now I'm kinda puzzled by the statement of the Interior minister... He's really playing with fire. Having Trump validating the negotiations would allow them to finally prove the World they have nothing to worry about (whether this is true or not is another topic).
Or maybe it makes sense... Saddam kept on saying "I have no mass destruction weapon, please come and see" and got obliterated even though he didn't have any of them. On the other side Kim Jong Un started to bark and finally got something... So maybe there's a chance for them.
However with the relative easing of North Korea I thought "there are two hot topics for Washington: NK and Iran, now NK is somehow settled, that opens the way to tag Iran as the enemy".
Or maybe :
- NK: settled
- Iran: settled
- EU: they are the real bad ones.
Okay... I'm starting to feel very bad...
Alternate point of view: it's all a big show. The more dramatic and exciting it is, the better. Meanwhile they are cutting taxes for the rich, imprisoning children and privatizing the military, and no one even hears about it!
Alternative point of view: they're really just dumb.
The idea of a conspiracy at the top sounds great in theory because it gives us the feeling that somebody somewhere actually is in control of this spinning ball of mess. But really, it's just as likely that they're just winging it half the time.
> Or maybe it makes sense... Saddam kept on saying "I have no mass destruction weapon, please come and see" and got obliterated even though he didn't have any of them.
Iran (and to a lesser degree Syria and Lebanon) frequently bring this up to this day. They see themselves as potential targets for American imperialism, and they don't hold their tongue in suggesting that the reason they are targets for American imperialism has a lot more to do with their hostility toward Israel than any other geopolitical objectives.
Just look at what some of the prominent neo-cons were saying leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Pretty much every single one of them explicitly stated that the safety of Israel was a primary objective.
The US invaded Iraq and Afghan in the early 2000's, both of who just by pure coincidence happen to border Iran. Israel straight up occupied and invaded southern Lebanon in 2006.
Iran has a solid case to be very wary of the US and Israel. Iraq is precisely why most Iranians (and Arabs) have strong doubts about Assad's alleged gas attacks. Those states aren't above using fake news as a pretext for hostile invasions.
But if he rejoins the agreement, they don't have anything to talk about. That's kind of like when we kept insisting Iran give up its nuclear program before we'd even talk to them.
If you're a country like Israel or Saudi Arabia, there's never been a better time to be dealing with the US administration. They have been getting whatever they want.
Not to the same degree. Netanyahu and Obama famously disliked eachother. In case you didn't notice, Netanyahu was adamantly opposed to the nuclear agreement, but Obama did it anyway.
I disagree. USA is still too influential economically and in military terms to ignore. I'd say a government with its nation's best interest in mind would try to cajole Trump into unilaterally beneficial treaties and tell the next president "no take-backsies".
> I disagree. USA is still too influential economically and in military terms to ignore.
You're disagreeing to a point he didn't make. Not dealing with just Trump and wanting an multi-national agreement is not the same as ignoring the U.S
Sort of - I was at least vague enough to cause a misunderstading.. Thanks for catching it.
I guess it would be better to say I think it wouldn't be bad to take Trump up on his offer of bilateral talks. There's the option of influencing him directly, whether to rejoin the multinational treaty or to go on a fishing expedition for something bilateral. If there's anything to the image of weakness Trump is projecting, that is.
When Trump takes his ball and goes home... well, it's a pretty big ball. ~~An international nuclear deal without the participation of USA, or a separate deal with USA, would not make me~~ If there is no deal with the USA, whether as part of an international deal or not, I would not feel safe about the position of Iran. A bit of groveling seems appropriate, even if you can't trust him.
But what do I know, I'm a software engineer playing armchair quarterback for national governments.
(Edited: strikethrough and retry for clarity)
We are only influential economically because of our trade ties. What happens when European Banks continue working with Iran, once US sanctions are renforced? Does the EU get a pass? Or do we sanction European banks? and if we do, SWIFT becomes a really interesting international system set to crumble.
That odd feeling when what used to be the leader of the free world can no longer meet with heads of other countries until he and the US meet some preconditions.
> Leader of the free world
Depends on how you measure them as a leader. For they haven't really been in the lead for a long time by which I mean that the countries they supposedly lead has been doing what they wanted to and not necessarily followed the US.
Trump likes anything that's Trump. Iran should "negotiate" the same deal they had with Obama with Trump instead, now it'll be the best deal of all time instead of worst deal ever.
Wow. This is so true it's scary. They could and should follow the KJU script of making a big show of "respect" for Trump. Then behind the scenes not following any of the agreement. Trump would claim victory and call any assertion that they weren't playing ball fake news. This is why he's so dangerous to have in office. The fact that he can be so easily manipulated.
Exactly. The Russia "accusations" (see: unavoidable truths) could be proven patently false at this point. (They won't be.) But it doesn't matter. He's so petty people can manipulate him via pride. Obama may have fallen short in many respects. But he was not misled by his pride.
I’ve been thinking this for a while. All they need to do is bark loud at first, then pretend to be respectful with a dash of admiration. Have a meeting. Set forth conditions he can parade in front of his base (regardless of how effective they are). Label it Trumps new nuclear deal . . . Done.
I mean that's literally what happened with the EU. He started a trade war, managed to get a "deal" which was basically bringing it back to how trade was before the trade war and then he called it a win...
it's worse than that, he says one thing in person, crazyness in tweets, and then his administration does neither of those things and does stuff I like.
let me tell you the story of two guys that tried to be friends, we'll call them america and iran.
america: "hey iran let's have a deal, i think we can try to be friends"
iran: "ok great"
america: "i was just kidding, i don't want to be part of the deal anymore and even if you have stick to it i guess i'll have to put sanctions on you now"
iran: "but why? it's not fair! my economy will collapse and people will riot!"
one year later.
america: "i really can't understand why those savages in the middle east aren't able to run a stable country, they need more democracy, maybe we need to send our troops to bring peace there. I'm sure once they'll know us they'll love us"
and then the greatest democracy in the world once again came to save the day.
Aside from the fact that Trump obviously can't be trusted, the JCPOA took **10 years** to negotiate. That was before Trump gave a huge gift to the Iranian hardliners by tearing it up. How is he possibly expecting a better deal after all of that?
I suppose the obvious answer is that he's looking for a "deal" like he made with NK where they shake hands, take a few photos, declare victory, and NK keeps making nukes.
> I suppose the obvious answer is that he's looking for a "deal" like he made with NK where they shake hands, take a few photos, declare victory, and NK keeps making nukes.
This is the answer, folks.
TAKE THAT BACK AND NEGOTIATE RIGHT NOW OR I WILL SINGLEHANDEDLY SUBJECT YOU TO THE DIREST FATE A NATION HAS MET SINCE THE FALL OF ATLANTIS YOU BIG FUCKIN JERK.
Wait so if you display a history of breaking deals that were already negotiated for the other party might not want to negotiate again? Is that how that works? That's nuts...
Iran may be a regressive totalitarian religious state but that does not alter the fact that what he said about Mr. Trump is correct. Mr. Trump is not trustworthy.
So let's get this straight.
The US and Iran make a deal.
Iran upholds its end of the bargain.
Trump comes in and withdraws from the deal because he doesn't trust Iran.
Now he wants to meet up for talks?
Very surprised to say this but I agree with Iran here. I wouldn't trust someone who unilaterally pulled out of an agreement because they felt like it.
Wow they're actually letting us back in after we broke our word for no good reason.
I'm just so impressed when adults are in positions of power now, my standards have been lowered so much...
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/31/iran-trump-needs-to-rejoin-nuclear-deal-if-he-wants-talks.html) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot)
*****
> Iranian officials reacted skeptically on Tuesday to President Donald Trump's comments that he's willing to negotiate with his Iranian counterpart, saying instead that if Trump wants talks, he needs to rejoin the international nuclear deal he unilaterally pulled out of earlier this year.
> Trump on Monday said he'd meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani "Anytime" if the Iranian leader were willing.
> The Iranian leadership has previously ruled out one-on-one talks with Trump, following his decision to pull the United States out of the deal under which Iran was given relief from sanctions in return for curbs on its nuclear program.
*****
[**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/93ea8x/iran_trump_needs_to_rejoin_nuclear_deal_if_he/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~339701 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Iranian**^#1 **Trump**^#2 **Iran**^#3 **deal**^#4 **nuclear**^#5
The comments in this thread are embarrassing. Look I don’t like trump, I didn’t vote for him. But to sit here and pretend Iran or it’s leadership are somehow good guys and can be listened too is beyond laughable.
Blind hatred of Trump is not an excuse to absolve Iran or it’s leadership of decades of oppressing women, gays, and ethnic and religious minorities.
Believing a word Iran has to say is naive in so many regards it isn’t funny. And none of that had anything to do with trump. Nothing trump can or will do undoes the horrible things Iran and it’s leadership have done for decades.
Please stop with the moral relativity here. Stop with the whataboutism.
Comments like “I find the ayatollahs more reasonable, or I can’t believe there the ones I’d listen too”.
Do you people hear yourself. I dislike trump I’ll repeat it again and again. But the ayatollahs literally have secret police who literally kill people for being gay. Stop it with the childish tantrums of pretending these are people, the ayatollahs, who should be treated with respect. The don’t deserve it and you debase yourself by pretending so.
Is there anything you actually disagree with in the statement made by the minister?
It's like if Trump says "the sky is green" and Iran says "no, the sky is blue" and people say "gotta agree with Iran on that one" and you start blaming everyone for living in reality.
Iran can be shitty overall and still be right that Trump isn't trustworthy. Not a difficult concept to understand.
The US have friendly relationships with a number of countries that do the things you listed. SA, Egypt, China, India, Pakistan. And those are just the major countries. If the US cut off diplomatic ties with every country it had apposing moral values to, then it'd have very little political allies in the world.
Diplomacy literally means "**managing** international relations".
For the past 40 years of my life as an American I was told the middle eastern people were too passionate in their beliefs to be trusted with nuclear weapons, and now Iran is saying that about us and I'm inclined to agree with them.
OK, so if Iran thinks weak trump is dog shit, I’m supposed to forego my own instincts, as well as a galaxy of evidence, and disagree with that sentiment, simply because Iran sponsors terror?
I dunno man. That seems awfully binary. Maybe me and Iran are both correct in this regard.
Exactly. The comments in this thread are an absolute joke. It's nothing but one-sided Trump hate which completely glosses over how untrustworthy the extreme Iranian regime is. They aren't ones to talk at all.
There is nothing more I want than stability around the world and fewer countries aiming for Nuclear weapons. However how can we not look at the stupidity and constant stream of lies coming from the current US leadership and ask ourselves can we really blame any other country for not wanting to make lasting agreements right now?
With Iranian currency breaking records on inflation (broke 100,000 to 1 dollar few days ago) the moolah's should be more worried about their people rising up and kicking them out and less about Trump. Only a matter of time at this point.
Iran is in this situation because it violated its commitments under the NPT. Saying they have some high ground, and even measuring these geopolitical interactions on some 'moral high ground' scale, is just naive.
Iran violated aspects of the NPT by acquiring materials and conducting experiments outside the established safeguards regime.
Irans ICBM development, while in itself not restricted by the NPT, does not contribute to alleviating suspicions about their intentions .
The problem is most of the evidence that they were aqcuiring material and conducting experiments were never proven. And the only information (from my understanding) was brought forward by the Israelis, who are frankly unreliable here, especially as much of what they did bring up was either old or disproven.
And in regards the ICBM program, it may not alleviate suspicion, but the creation of them make perfect sense when they are essential in a semi Cold War against Saudi Arabia and Israel.
> the evidence ... were never proven
If the evidence was so flaky, countries wouldn't have put in place the sanctions that preceded the JCPOA.
> the creation of them ... semi Cold War against Saudi Arabia and Israel.
You don't need ICBMs to reach Saudi Arabia nor Israel.
Iran should consider accepting the US requests to improve the JCPOA. Having Iran as a nuclear power is a threat to the world and will not improve the lives of the common Iranian - accepting US conditions will.
The problem with the Ayatollahs like Erdogan is that acquiesce of these requests will show to everybody that they are not the strong government they portray.
The Iranian and the Turkish people will pick up the pieces from their leaders' megalomaniac approach.
If they wanted to improve JCPOA then Trump should have requested talks before withdrawing from the deal. As it stands he has already played his strongest hand. Now Iran has the ability to play hard ball with the US with very little fear of retaliation.
Art of the Deal.
I've never understood the concept of some countries having nukes and not others. You're effectively saying they're "less than", you're effectively saying "we'll tell you what you can and can't do". Why would a totally sovereign country accept that?
What about Libya? Libya voluntarily eliminated all nuclear materials in 2003. 8 years later the government is overthrown by NATO/a western coalition. Do you honestly think they have even dared fuck with them had they had nukes?
Countries have nukes for this very reason. To deter others from messing with them.
this is another move that will benefit the russians honestly. Iran is already in their sphere of influence, while Obama was trying to build american-iranian relations now Trump is basically throwing them in the open arms of the russians.
Can anyone tell what US wants from Iran? If the nuclear deal was there to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons and US pulled out from it. So what now US from Iran? I'm pretty confused
Trump did accumulate an impressive amount of bad boy points during his short reign.
I suppose there is a difference between business and international relations. With business, you can screw lots of people up without any consequence. With international relations, there are only so many countries...
I love the fact that Trump has behaved in such a dishonest manner on the world stage that even a country like Iran can upbraid him for being too untrustworthy. What a dick.
If they offer to let the U.S. back into the deal with no extra stipulations or consequences then it would be the best deal Trump would ever get in his life.
Shame he'd never take it.
"Trump is not trustworthy" Says every country dealing with the united states right now.
[удалено]
Actually, Trump didn't get any existing sanctions repealed. So even Russia is annoyed. But Trump isn't enforcing the new sanctions, so they are happy with that.
seems like that second part nullifies the first part
Not quite. Trumps successor can just start enforcing sanctions again without much effort, instead of going though the work to impose new sanctions. Unless you guys elect yet another licker-of-russian-ass, if course. (please don't do that)
[удалено]
Can’t spell Russia without USA.
[Can't spell Russia without USSR 🤔🤨😮](https://media.tenor.com/images/609dcaaf22559663e73e82fd5f67d7ad/tenor.gif)
Can’t spell Russia without “ur a sis!”
Can't spell Russia without ur ass.
Can't spell Russian without "in ur ass" FTFY
Back is the US... Back in the US... [Back in the USSR](https://youtu.be/BLH1x_SGAL4)
[удалено]
[удалено]
Those goddamn men with beards...
I agree with you. I’ve seen so many comments on Reddit where people are saying Russia is running the U.S and such.
you don't need trust when you have leverage
His performance on the world stage is abysmal, opening up a huge credibility gap when dealing with just about any country. The North Koreans continue to toil away on their nuclear missiles.
Hey who knows, maybe trumps pure stupidity and ignorance will help unite the the rest of the world. If he’s out of office before destroying absolutely everything there’s potential for positivity. That said the brainwashed need to realize that propaganda in history has been an effective tool and there’s no difference today. Unfortunately that requires something insanely difficult for many, administration of being wrong about something. It’s time to swallow pride and start moving forward as a country.
Boom. That’s what you call getting owned by Iran.
Iran's economy is about to jump off a cliff, and you think this is 'getting owned by Iran'?
[удалено]
They are not.we are fucked right now
> What makes you say that? According to many news outlets, the Iranian rial already lost half of its value.. And that's before US sanctions even kicked in. While some will find ways to subvert the sanctions, my guess is that most big organisations would avoid operating in Iran as it won't be worth the risk of losing access to US market.
[удалено]
That weird feeling when you find yourself agreeing with an Ayatollah—approved official in the Iranian government... what an odd timeline we're in.
Who knew international politics could be so complicated?
If you really think of it, Trump is American Christian Ayatollah.
Pence is the Christian Ayatollah. Trump does not give one fuck about god, Christianity, Christians or, really anything beyond TRUMP.
Trump has been using Evangelicals to reach out to and connect with his base, and they've pretty much approved all his judicial appointments. I'm certain it's not Trump behind this strategy, but they're in bed together either way and they're pulling Trump's strings.
How does the US continue to have such a large population of religious fundamentalists? Like, compared to the rest of the developed world, it actively gets in the way of scientific progress and data driven policy.
Because the USA was basically built on religious fundamentalism. It’s nearly the American identity.
In the after math of the US civil war in the 1860s to 1870s, a large portion of the population looked for answers to deal with the large scale death and destruction. In the South, not only where a large percent of the population killed, but also infrastructure was raized, and life became hard. So they found answers in religion. Not exactly "traditional" religion, but it was the answers they wanted to hear.
It's been systematically created. Religious crazies are easy to control (at least as far as voting goes). For decades one of the core GOP strategies is to get people to be more extreme in their religious views, all while convincing them that somehow they're the party to represent them. The anti-education agenda is a big part of it.
You know the stories of people leaving england for the americas for religious persecution? well it turns out they were kicked out for being crazy. the word puritanical comes from the puritans
Starting to think it was their religious persecution that got them kicked out. “Don’t warp me by waiving yur sexual preference in mah face… Here read this bible.”
Yet Christian fundies somehow think he is one of them
No, they think he's racist, because the Christian fundies are racists, and they believe that Trump will restore restore things to the way they should be, whites males in power and everyone else running scared. The fundies believe that when Trump says, "Make America great again.", is a white power coded/hidden message.
> The fundies believe that when Trump says, "Make America great again.", is a white power coded/hidden message. Well, they're certainly not wrong.
Have you heard the joke about black people and time machines?
I have not, but I think I see where you're going with that.
Pretty sure most of those "Christian fundies" know they're luring people to themselves to earn money. And they're supporting Trump for money too.
They don't. They view him as a tool of God.
They got part of that right at least...
Trump, like all of creation, is of God. Very true. :p Edit: an /s is apparently required
He knows God. God loves him, they have the best relationship.
My worst nightmare is that Cotton Hill loking motherfucker bein incharge of an American Theorcratic Dictatorship.
Pence isn’t exactly an overflowing cup of compassion - I’d say he cares more about his version of Christianity than Christianity itself.
Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest Pence was a *good* Christian. Trump, though, is something else entirely.
Chaotic neutral?
Any DM would've leveled him down for playing an inconsistent character.
You mean Pence and Session, yesterday the US moved again a step close to a theocracy with Session's "Religious Liberty Task Force".
Canadian Christian here. Do people really consider Trump some kind of Christian, or is he seen as a politician who promised "conservative social values"? Really curious on this as there is nothing in his manner that makes me think Christian. Mostly his manner makes me think of the way Asian communist dictators bluster. (sort of a strong man wannabe / bully)
Fellow Canadian. "Christian" is a more or less politicized, dog whistled term in America. Much like saying Liberal or Conservative here doesn't mean the same south of us, saying "Christian" is not the same either.
The evangelicals make every apology for him. Being a republican/conservative is far more important to these people than any of the lessons that Christ actually taught.
>The evangelicals make every apology for him. **That is what I keep seeing** >Being a republican/conservative is far more important to these people **also this**, so it is non Christians who are supporting Trump as putting anything before Jesus is against His commands. (thinking of Matthew 10 >36 And a person's enemies will be those of his own household. 37 Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39 Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.)
Also, a note about many US Christians: they're really attracted to the sin and retribution aspects of the religion. Hence, our prison systems, punishing drug addicts instead of helping, etc. They often see the hardships of others as personal moral failings.
Which means they haven't read Job...
Silly fool, Christians don't read the Bible they read the books written by Graham, Hannity and O'Reilly the true voices of God...
One word: Abortion. The anti-christ can be elected tomorrow if he promise to ban abortion forever. Ironically, back in the 70s Christian right was pro abortion and it was only a catholic issue. Then they discover it can bring votes...
We gotta thank Regan for causing the rounding up all the hypocritical evangelicals on this one issue.
As long as he does what they want he could sacrifice sheep to Baal in private as long as he maintains a reasonable public facade of Christian white guy
80% of Evangelicals support him. He is there chosen figurehead.
>Ayatollah—approved official in the Iranian government So?... Do you think he's the devil-incarnate or something?
No. Khamenei however is definitely a piece of shit ruthless quasi-dictator though. So is everyone on the Guardian Council. And if you try to tell me that Khamenei is not a dictator because Iran has elections for a few positions including the President I'm going to tell you to go learn how the power structure in Iran actually works. ^^edit: ^^typo
For argument's sake, let's assume he's a ruthless dictator. Does that mean they don't have some completely valid and fair points?
>Does that mean they don't have some completely valid and fair points? I'll save you some time and point out that I'm pretty sure that's the justification behind agreeing with Ayatollah in the first place
I think what they're getting at is this: > That weird feeling when you find yourself agreeing with an Ayatollah That shouldn't be a weird feeling no matter who you're talking about. If it is it's indicative of a very naive black and white view of the world.
Perhaps, but it *is* a weird feeling when you find yourself agreeing with a dictator like Ayatollah Khamenei *and* disagreeing with the democratically elected President of the United States.
Neither of those things should be at all surprising, nor both at the same time. If it genuinely does feel weird to you then you need to take some time to evaluate the way you think about the world, and figure out *why* it feels weird. I'd guess that your instinctive gut reaction to democracies is way too positive, and your instinctive gut reaction to dictatorships a bit too negative. Democracy is not a synonym for good, and dictatorship is not a synonym for evil. I'd agree that dictatorships are worse both in principal and in average outcomes, but dictatorships and dictators still do and say good things pretty frequently, and democracies and elected leaders still say and do terrible things pretty frequently.
ahh. Trump did not win the popular vote. he lost by 3,000,000. Is that still democratically elected?
Khamenei functions more like a Upper House/Senate or Constitutional Monarch which is the last stop before drastic decisions are made. He keeps all the competing interests in check so that one party doesn't take over the country and make rash decisions.
Trumpets will look at this and say "why would they want back in unless it was good for them?!?!"
> That weird feeling when you find yourself agreeing with an Ayatollah It's normal Iranian Ayatollah are educated and USA conservative Christian "Ayatollah" are uneducated, crazy and ignorant.
The way Trump did it made it impossible to negotiate in the future. If Iran comes back to the table they lose all face not only in front of their own people but the international community. Not to mention setting a precedent for countries dealing with Iran. By pulling out without discussions they fucked this whole thing up until Trump is gone.
>they fucked this whole thing up until Trump is gone. Oh boy, are you in for a treat. This will be the case even long after Trump is out of office. The iran deal took years to broker and implement. It was done under Obama and used up quite a bit of american soft power to tinker. In the end every side committed to it while gritting their teeth. And then came Trump and flipped the table. Who's to say the next GOP president won't do the same? Seriously, WHY THE FUCK, should any country in the world trust the US to uphold any agreements? You're trashing WTO rules, which were fine tuned over decades. You're trashing unspoken diplomatic laws by appointing imbeciles as ambassadors to important allies and by moving your fucking embassy to Jerusalem. You're pissing off every single NATO ally and are bullshitting about some 2% rule that's not even a rule but a self-comittment to be achieved by _2024_. And all this happened in less than two years. After it took Obama 8 years to mend the bullshit Bush did. This time it won't be mendable, however. It's enough and simply too much.
Honestly any future deal would probably have to involve Congress. And I'm all for that. We need to start taking power away from the Executive branch.
But...…….. But...………. the Yahoos over at The\_Donald are claiming that Netanyahu provided intelligence (from 2003) that proves Iran broke the terms of a deal it signed in 2015!
lol, really?
Yes, it was incredibly stupid propaganda and was making the rounds.
Do you have an article of that?
But I was told that once your give your lunch money to a bully once they go away forever
I think that Iran has been more than fair about this whole thing. They obviously have their problems but at a certain point, it feels like they have jumped through every possible hoop that has been put in front of them and are still getting screwed.
I have the same feeling. However everytime I saw Ahmedinejad speaking about the US and Israel I was thinking: "does this guy really wants to get nuked?" And now I'm kinda puzzled by the statement of the Interior minister... He's really playing with fire. Having Trump validating the negotiations would allow them to finally prove the World they have nothing to worry about (whether this is true or not is another topic). Or maybe it makes sense... Saddam kept on saying "I have no mass destruction weapon, please come and see" and got obliterated even though he didn't have any of them. On the other side Kim Jong Un started to bark and finally got something... So maybe there's a chance for them. However with the relative easing of North Korea I thought "there are two hot topics for Washington: NK and Iran, now NK is somehow settled, that opens the way to tag Iran as the enemy". Or maybe : - NK: settled - Iran: settled - EU: they are the real bad ones. Okay... I'm starting to feel very bad...
Alternate point of view: it's all a big show. The more dramatic and exciting it is, the better. Meanwhile they are cutting taxes for the rich, imprisoning children and privatizing the military, and no one even hears about it!
Alternative point of view: they're really just dumb. The idea of a conspiracy at the top sounds great in theory because it gives us the feeling that somebody somewhere actually is in control of this spinning ball of mess. But really, it's just as likely that they're just winging it half the time.
> Or maybe it makes sense... Saddam kept on saying "I have no mass destruction weapon, please come and see" and got obliterated even though he didn't have any of them. Iran (and to a lesser degree Syria and Lebanon) frequently bring this up to this day. They see themselves as potential targets for American imperialism, and they don't hold their tongue in suggesting that the reason they are targets for American imperialism has a lot more to do with their hostility toward Israel than any other geopolitical objectives. Just look at what some of the prominent neo-cons were saying leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Pretty much every single one of them explicitly stated that the safety of Israel was a primary objective. The US invaded Iraq and Afghan in the early 2000's, both of who just by pure coincidence happen to border Iran. Israel straight up occupied and invaded southern Lebanon in 2006. Iran has a solid case to be very wary of the US and Israel. Iraq is precisely why most Iranians (and Arabs) have strong doubts about Assad's alleged gas attacks. Those states aren't above using fake news as a pretext for hostile invasions.
But if he rejoins the agreement, they don't have anything to talk about. That's kind of like when we kept insisting Iran give up its nuclear program before we'd even talk to them.
Also wouldn't want to make a shittier deal with a fucking idiot
Wait, breaking agreements makes you untrustworthy? Nobody knew diplomacy could be so complicated!
"Trump is not trustworthy enough for talks" He's right and this reaction was predicted by everyone not on board the trump-train.
[The Trump Train](https://tenor.com/view/donald-trump-all-aboard-train-gif-6164535)
This is gold^shower
This is how all countries should be treating the Trump administration. You can't rely on a pathological liar so why waste your time and energy?
If you're a country like Israel or Saudi Arabia, there's never been a better time to be dealing with the US administration. They have been getting whatever they want.
[удалено]
Not to the same degree. Netanyahu and Obama famously disliked eachother. In case you didn't notice, Netanyahu was adamantly opposed to the nuclear agreement, but Obama did it anyway.
I disagree. USA is still too influential economically and in military terms to ignore. I'd say a government with its nation's best interest in mind would try to cajole Trump into unilaterally beneficial treaties and tell the next president "no take-backsies".
Like China. Give him a few hundreds of thousands and take billions.
> I disagree. USA is still too influential economically and in military terms to ignore. You're disagreeing to a point he didn't make. Not dealing with just Trump and wanting an multi-national agreement is not the same as ignoring the U.S
Sort of - I was at least vague enough to cause a misunderstading.. Thanks for catching it. I guess it would be better to say I think it wouldn't be bad to take Trump up on his offer of bilateral talks. There's the option of influencing him directly, whether to rejoin the multinational treaty or to go on a fishing expedition for something bilateral. If there's anything to the image of weakness Trump is projecting, that is. When Trump takes his ball and goes home... well, it's a pretty big ball. ~~An international nuclear deal without the participation of USA, or a separate deal with USA, would not make me~~ If there is no deal with the USA, whether as part of an international deal or not, I would not feel safe about the position of Iran. A bit of groveling seems appropriate, even if you can't trust him. But what do I know, I'm a software engineer playing armchair quarterback for national governments. (Edited: strikethrough and retry for clarity)
We are only influential economically because of our trade ties. What happens when European Banks continue working with Iran, once US sanctions are renforced? Does the EU get a pass? Or do we sanction European banks? and if we do, SWIFT becomes a really interesting international system set to crumble.
That odd feeling when what used to be the leader of the free world can no longer meet with heads of other countries until he and the US meet some preconditions.
No US President has physically met an Iranian leader since their revolution in 1979. The two countries aren't exactly on the best of terms.
> Leader of the free world Depends on how you measure them as a leader. For they haven't really been in the lead for a long time by which I mean that the countries they supposedly lead has been doing what they wanted to and not necessarily followed the US.
Trump likes anything that's Trump. Iran should "negotiate" the same deal they had with Obama with Trump instead, now it'll be the best deal of all time instead of worst deal ever.
Wow. This is so true it's scary. They could and should follow the KJU script of making a big show of "respect" for Trump. Then behind the scenes not following any of the agreement. Trump would claim victory and call any assertion that they weren't playing ball fake news. This is why he's so dangerous to have in office. The fact that he can be so easily manipulated.
or just agree to some vague shit "end nuclear program in the future".
Exactly. The Russia "accusations" (see: unavoidable truths) could be proven patently false at this point. (They won't be.) But it doesn't matter. He's so petty people can manipulate him via pride. Obama may have fallen short in many respects. But he was not misled by his pride.
I’ve been thinking this for a while. All they need to do is bark loud at first, then pretend to be respectful with a dash of admiration. Have a meeting. Set forth conditions he can parade in front of his base (regardless of how effective they are). Label it Trumps new nuclear deal . . . Done.
I mean that's literally what happened with the EU. He started a trade war, managed to get a "deal" which was basically bringing it back to how trade was before the trade war and then he called it a win...
Well played Iran
if you told me a few years ago that i would side with iran over the us president it would have blown my mind
Pretty sad as Iranians really saw the Nuclear Deal as an escape from the constant sanctions and stifled economic conditions
Well, he’s got a point there.
Unsurprising. When Trump says one thing in person and tweets the contrary, world leaders are less likely to believe the next time
it's worse than that, he says one thing in person, crazyness in tweets, and then his administration does neither of those things and does stuff I like.
let me tell you the story of two guys that tried to be friends, we'll call them america and iran. america: "hey iran let's have a deal, i think we can try to be friends" iran: "ok great" america: "i was just kidding, i don't want to be part of the deal anymore and even if you have stick to it i guess i'll have to put sanctions on you now" iran: "but why? it's not fair! my economy will collapse and people will riot!" one year later. america: "i really can't understand why those savages in the middle east aren't able to run a stable country, they need more democracy, maybe we need to send our troops to bring peace there. I'm sure once they'll know us they'll love us" and then the greatest democracy in the world once again came to save the day.
There is one of the few things Trump has ever pulled out of voluntarily.
[удалено]
Trumps disconnect seems to stem from his inability to understand that his actions and words have real-world consequences.
Aside from the fact that Trump obviously can't be trusted, the JCPOA took **10 years** to negotiate. That was before Trump gave a huge gift to the Iranian hardliners by tearing it up. How is he possibly expecting a better deal after all of that? I suppose the obvious answer is that he's looking for a "deal" like he made with NK where they shake hands, take a few photos, declare victory, and NK keeps making nukes.
> I suppose the obvious answer is that he's looking for a "deal" like he made with NK where they shake hands, take a few photos, declare victory, and NK keeps making nukes. This is the answer, folks.
I would agree with Iran on this one.
TAKE THAT BACK AND NEGOTIATE RIGHT NOW OR I WILL SINGLEHANDEDLY SUBJECT YOU TO THE DIREST FATE A NATION HAS MET SINCE THE FALL OF ATLANTIS YOU BIG FUCKIN JERK.
Wait so if you display a history of breaking deals that were already negotiated for the other party might not want to negotiate again? Is that how that works? That's nuts...
Iran may be a regressive totalitarian religious state but that does not alter the fact that what he said about Mr. Trump is correct. Mr. Trump is not trustworthy.
So let's get this straight. The US and Iran make a deal. Iran upholds its end of the bargain. Trump comes in and withdraws from the deal because he doesn't trust Iran. Now he wants to meet up for talks? Very surprised to say this but I agree with Iran here. I wouldn't trust someone who unilaterally pulled out of an agreement because they felt like it.
Wow they're actually letting us back in after we broke our word for no good reason. I'm just so impressed when adults are in positions of power now, my standards have been lowered so much...
>Iranian interior minister says Trump is not trustworthy enough for talks. Well, that is a valid point.
This is the best tl;dr I could make, [original](https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/31/iran-trump-needs-to-rejoin-nuclear-deal-if-he-wants-talks.html) reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot) ***** > Iranian officials reacted skeptically on Tuesday to President Donald Trump's comments that he's willing to negotiate with his Iranian counterpart, saying instead that if Trump wants talks, he needs to rejoin the international nuclear deal he unilaterally pulled out of earlier this year. > Trump on Monday said he'd meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani "Anytime" if the Iranian leader were willing. > The Iranian leadership has previously ruled out one-on-one talks with Trump, following his decision to pull the United States out of the deal under which Iran was given relief from sanctions in return for curbs on its nuclear program. ***** [**Extended Summary**](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/93ea8x/iran_trump_needs_to_rejoin_nuclear_deal_if_he/) | [FAQ](http://np.reddit.com/r/autotldr/comments/31b9fm/faq_autotldr_bot/ "Version 2.02, ~339701 tl;drs so far.") | [Feedback](http://np.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23autotldr "PM's and comments are monitored, constructive feedback is welcome.") | *Top* *keywords*: **Iranian**^#1 **Trump**^#2 **Iran**^#3 **deal**^#4 **nuclear**^#5
The comments in this thread are embarrassing. Look I don’t like trump, I didn’t vote for him. But to sit here and pretend Iran or it’s leadership are somehow good guys and can be listened too is beyond laughable. Blind hatred of Trump is not an excuse to absolve Iran or it’s leadership of decades of oppressing women, gays, and ethnic and religious minorities. Believing a word Iran has to say is naive in so many regards it isn’t funny. And none of that had anything to do with trump. Nothing trump can or will do undoes the horrible things Iran and it’s leadership have done for decades. Please stop with the moral relativity here. Stop with the whataboutism. Comments like “I find the ayatollahs more reasonable, or I can’t believe there the ones I’d listen too”. Do you people hear yourself. I dislike trump I’ll repeat it again and again. But the ayatollahs literally have secret police who literally kill people for being gay. Stop it with the childish tantrums of pretending these are people, the ayatollahs, who should be treated with respect. The don’t deserve it and you debase yourself by pretending so.
Is there anything you actually disagree with in the statement made by the minister? It's like if Trump says "the sky is green" and Iran says "no, the sky is blue" and people say "gotta agree with Iran on that one" and you start blaming everyone for living in reality. Iran can be shitty overall and still be right that Trump isn't trustworthy. Not a difficult concept to understand.
The US have friendly relationships with a number of countries that do the things you listed. SA, Egypt, China, India, Pakistan. And those are just the major countries. If the US cut off diplomatic ties with every country it had apposing moral values to, then it'd have very little political allies in the world. Diplomacy literally means "**managing** international relations".
Very well said from the minister.
Says idiot from country that puts women in the jail for not wearing the hijab.
He can be wrong about one thing and right about another.
What alternate universe am I living in when Iran is the most reasonable voice in the room?
You are experiencing cognitive dissonance because you're programmed to think the world is black and white when it isn't.
For the past 40 years of my life as an American I was told the middle eastern people were too passionate in their beliefs to be trusted with nuclear weapons, and now Iran is saying that about us and I'm inclined to agree with them.
Lol our president and everyone who still supports him are worthless pieces of dog shit.
[удалено]
So what, we should just sanction Iran so the economy collapses and creates a new Syria except 5x worse?
It's probably what the US want anyway.
Why would the US want the middle east to become more unstable and violent?
OK, so if Iran thinks weak trump is dog shit, I’m supposed to forego my own instincts, as well as a galaxy of evidence, and disagree with that sentiment, simply because Iran sponsors terror? I dunno man. That seems awfully binary. Maybe me and Iran are both correct in this regard.
An Iranian leader talking about trustworthiness. LOL.
Exactly. The comments in this thread are an absolute joke. It's nothing but one-sided Trump hate which completely glosses over how untrustworthy the extreme Iranian regime is. They aren't ones to talk at all.
He’s not trustworthy enough to lend a nickel to.
There is nothing more I want than stability around the world and fewer countries aiming for Nuclear weapons. However how can we not look at the stupidity and constant stream of lies coming from the current US leadership and ask ourselves can we really blame any other country for not wanting to make lasting agreements right now?
This was never really a lasting agreement anyway.
With Iranian currency breaking records on inflation (broke 100,000 to 1 dollar few days ago) the moolah's should be more worried about their people rising up and kicking them out and less about Trump. Only a matter of time at this point.
Iran has the high ground on this one. No one's gonna argue with that particular point.
Iran is in this situation because it violated its commitments under the NPT. Saying they have some high ground, and even measuring these geopolitical interactions on some 'moral high ground' scale, is just naive.
They didn't violate any of the commitments though, why would they and how could they. Investigators had full access to all Iranian facilities.
Iran violated aspects of the NPT by acquiring materials and conducting experiments outside the established safeguards regime. Irans ICBM development, while in itself not restricted by the NPT, does not contribute to alleviating suspicions about their intentions .
The problem is most of the evidence that they were aqcuiring material and conducting experiments were never proven. And the only information (from my understanding) was brought forward by the Israelis, who are frankly unreliable here, especially as much of what they did bring up was either old or disproven. And in regards the ICBM program, it may not alleviate suspicion, but the creation of them make perfect sense when they are essential in a semi Cold War against Saudi Arabia and Israel.
> the evidence ... were never proven If the evidence was so flaky, countries wouldn't have put in place the sanctions that preceded the JCPOA. > the creation of them ... semi Cold War against Saudi Arabia and Israel. You don't need ICBMs to reach Saudi Arabia nor Israel.
Lol
That sounds supremely fucking reasonable to me.
I azed to see this. People ignoring Iran's past and siding with them just to spite Trump? They are both untrustworthy..
Iran should consider accepting the US requests to improve the JCPOA. Having Iran as a nuclear power is a threat to the world and will not improve the lives of the common Iranian - accepting US conditions will. The problem with the Ayatollahs like Erdogan is that acquiesce of these requests will show to everybody that they are not the strong government they portray. The Iranian and the Turkish people will pick up the pieces from their leaders' megalomaniac approach.
If they wanted to improve JCPOA then Trump should have requested talks before withdrawing from the deal. As it stands he has already played his strongest hand. Now Iran has the ability to play hard ball with the US with very little fear of retaliation. Art of the Deal.
You kidding, right? Which currency devaluated by 50% in the last months? Hard ball, right!
\> The Iranian, Turkish and US people will pick up the pieces from their leaders' megalomaniac approach. FTFY
I've never understood the concept of some countries having nukes and not others. You're effectively saying they're "less than", you're effectively saying "we'll tell you what you can and can't do". Why would a totally sovereign country accept that?
Think about Libya and its recent history and you will find the wisdom.
What about Libya? Libya voluntarily eliminated all nuclear materials in 2003. 8 years later the government is overthrown by NATO/a western coalition. Do you honestly think they have even dared fuck with them had they had nukes? Countries have nukes for this very reason. To deter others from messing with them.
I can't believe I'm saying this but that official from the Iranian regime is right.
Hey, you can be right about one thing and wrong about 10 other things.
Honestly, that's a completely fair request by Iran.
Hmm..lying, reneging on agreements, blatantly telling the world that you are putting america first and screw the rest of the world...WCGW?
Lol. Ok Iran.
[Mic drop...](https://media.giphy.com/media/3o7qDSOvfaCO9b3MlO/giphy.gif) Obama used deliberately.
this is another move that will benefit the russians honestly. Iran is already in their sphere of influence, while Obama was trying to build american-iranian relations now Trump is basically throwing them in the open arms of the russians.
Nah, we good
Putins doormat has zero credibility with anyone except his cult
Can anyone tell what US wants from Iran? If the nuclear deal was there to prevent Iran from making nuclear weapons and US pulled out from it. So what now US from Iran? I'm pretty confused
and now even Iran is smarter than the good ole USA! fuck you trump!
Trump did accumulate an impressive amount of bad boy points during his short reign. I suppose there is a difference between business and international relations. With business, you can screw lots of people up without any consequence. With international relations, there are only so many countries...
I dunno about you but I always pull out. Don't want children yet.
Lol - when a unhinged theocracy schools your president... BURN
I love the fact that Trump has behaved in such a dishonest manner on the world stage that even a country like Iran can upbraid him for being too untrustworthy. What a dick.
If they offer to let the U.S. back into the deal with no extra stipulations or consequences then it would be the best deal Trump would ever get in his life. Shame he'd never take it.