Trump links Iran negotiations to expansion of Abraham Accords
Posted by BabylonianWeeb@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 44 comments
Posted by BabylonianWeeb@reddit | anime_titties | View on Reddit | 44 comments
imunfair@reddit
Trump is just looking for anything he can present to Israel as a win, but at the end of the day all Israel cares about is Iran's uranium - if anyone else in the region has nukes that completely neuters their last resort "I Win" card to get them out of any deep shit they cause. They'd have to act a lot less aggressively toward their neighbors and that's unthinkable, so they need Iran's potential nuclear weapons off the table for good.
Graphene-OS@reddit
It’s not the uranium that Israel cares about, it’s Iran’s willingness and ability to impose a cost on Israeli expansion and challenge Israel’s political hegemony. Nobody of import actually believes there is even a minuscule chance of Iran nuking Israel; it wouldn’t just be mutually assured destruction, it would result in every Arab country being nuked as well.
For Israel, Iran having a nuclear weapon and being diplomatically and economically isolated like North Korea would be preferable to Iran not having a nuclear weapon but having diplomatic/economic leverage proportional to its size. Israel’s goal is the permanent destruction of Iran as a functioning state.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
correct. israel's goal is Balkanization of Iran
dans_cafe@reddit
100% untrue and belies a complete misunderstanding of the region.
Dragoncat_3_4@reddit
You're right, the Balkans are too stable for their liking. Syrian-ization then?
dans_cafe@reddit
why would they want it to be fractured? Having a central authority with a monopoly on force benefits them far more - it makes it far easier to know with whom to speak, it doesn't require handling factions. Lebanon is quite fractured and that's clearly not benefiting them.
Dragoncat_3_4@reddit
Why did they murder so many Iranian officals that they practically made their military split like hydra heads then? There were reports that US couldn't find anyone to have "peace" talks with, as most people of importance were killed.
Having one puppet leader controling the whole of Iran would've been ideal sure, but that plan already failed as the Iranian protests were quashed. This is plan B.
Waay harder to rival Israel if Iran collapses into a bunch of disjointed states.
Isn't it? They have a casus belli to invade (and settle) Southern Lebanon, therefore displacing about 1 million people and killing a few thousand paramedics if there's anti-Israeli paramilitary faction acting in the region.
dans_cafe@reddit
Weren't they focusing on the IRGC? There are also reports that Trump is within hours of peace talks but then they resume sorties. So, which is it?
Maybe? But the IRGC is still quite well armed so they're just in charge. Fracturing works if there are multiple weaker groups. But there is such a disparity between the IRGC and everyone else that it won't quite happen.
I don't think they want to be in Lebanon. I think they'd rather the Lebanese government do it for them. UNIFIL was supposed to for 20 years but it didn't really accomplish anything. Hezbollah launches rockets at northern israel - name me any country that would tolerate that.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
israel has been funding, arming and training multiple known seperatist groups and known terrorist organizations to attack Iranians.. israel tried to take down the authoratarian islamic regime by trigerring the seperatist movements hoping they could create breakaway nations
dans_cafe@reddit
once again, inaccurate - they were very happy to have one Iranian country when the Shah was in place. Balkanizing it doesn't help them. None of what you said jibes with current events.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
they were also very happy to sell the ayotollahs weapons through the 80's to fight against Iraq whonas being armed by america and europe
dans_cafe@reddit
MEK is far more of a cult than anything - it's also secular. The PJAK will be happy with autonomy in a kurdish region or actual meaningful representation, as per their own words.
The US funded both sides in the Iran/Iraq War whether through direct funding or Iran/Contra.
It's like you don't even read.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
you just wrote back what i wrote after a quick google search right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Iran_during_the_Iran-Iraq_War
dans_cafe@reddit
Your statement was inaccurate. Someone here has to call you on your nonsense.
the US sold weaponry to both Iran and Iraq throughout the 1980s. Israeli sales to Iran helped Persian Jews leave. Israel saw Iraq as a far greater threat than Iran in the 1980s.
the MEK is considered a terrorist threat only by Iran.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
😆 no
much like Hamas then
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/israel-and-proxy-terrorism/252971/
funny that MEK was removed from americas terrorist list AFTER they blew up a bunch of Iranian nuclear scientists huh? totally normal shit
dans_cafe@reddit
Actually yes - https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-806039
This is decidedly untrue- the shah was a very close ally.
42 countries consider them a terrorist organization.
Horse trading is a standard part of international politics this is elementary.
WestcoastAlex@reddit
until he found Mossad was using Savak to infiltrate and influence Iranian politics and turned on them in the early 70's
immaterial
western powers calling militias and resistance groups they dont agree with 'terrorists' is not news. western powers removing terrorist designation when the terrorist is working for them is not news either
dans_cafe@reddit
this never happened. But like, keep on making things up or whatever.
Iran considers the MEK a terrorist group. 42 countries consider Hamas one. Not the same by any means.
Yes, so why bring it up? It sounds like you're struggling. I can use smaller worse if you'd like.
imunfair@reddit
It's more of a game theory thing than a question of actual nukes dropping. If you have a nuke and no one else does then you can attack them with impunity with the understanding that the most they can do is push you back to your own borders - there's no risk of losing your own territory because you consider that an "existential" risk and will drop a nuke on their head if they threaten you that way, and there's nothing they can do about it.
When both parties have a nuke you have to be more careful because now the existential risk is mutual. They don't want to trigger your nukes, but if they do trigger your launch then you're toast too so you're more willing to tolerate their aggression.
Basically it changes how aggressive Israel can be, and how much pain they have to tolerate when they're on the back foot, not endlessly striking back and trying to have the last word in every conflict.
exegenes1s@reddit
Israel doesn't give a damn about Iran's uranium. They care about the missiles as that actually imposes limitations.
Strawbuddy@reddit
He's trying to hustle them so he can get a Nobel prize . It's his usual all or nothing approach
combrade@reddit
So recognize Israel. Increase your chances of being Anwar Sadated ??
In exchange, you'll get empty promises of defense?? Having a U.S. base doesn't help you at all in this current conflict. Saudi Arabia doesn't have a base, and they're the ones that've been targeted the least. Even when it comes to interceptors and anti-drone defense, the US can’t offer anymore than it already has .They could just literally speak to Ukraine, who have much more experience and the technology needed to combat drones.
If the U.S. can't even open the Strait of Hormuz for their own interests , why should any country care about promises from the U.S.?
Hesitation-Marx@reddit
Twenty twenty twenty four hours to go
I wanna be Sadated
This entire fucking decade is just a tragedy followed by a farce. I can’t imagine being a professional foreign relations specialist right now; the lot of them must have perpetual bruises on their foreheads.
Sarcasmed@reddit
Didn't Egypt and Jordan already recognise Israel decades ago? Turkey was one of the first to recognise Israel even before that. What's the difference here? I guess it would be under Trump's "big beautiful" accords.
HockeyHocki@reddit
Egypt and Jordan did, and still do. Turkey is kind of on again off again. Like you say he just Trump just wants to put his stamp on something
dulbirakan@reddit
Turkey recognizes Israel, they just don't have the best relationship at the moment.
Firecracker048@reddit
Yeah Egypt and Jordan have already normalized relations.
This is just trump being trump
HockeyHocki@reddit
hail mary attempt to fish for anything he can call a win. Mad he would call out Pakistan (zero chance) and not Syria which is at least conceivable. At least he didn't ask Lebanon lol
Sodi920@reddit
Pakistan is actually not imposible, and ironically, the Trump admin has the best chance of making that happen. Relations between the U.S. (specifically Trump) and Pakistan have been on a massive upswing following the conflict with India last year. The Pakistanis even nominated him for the Nobel lol. I’m confident Israel will normalize relations with Pakistan before Syria given the whole Golan Heights annexation and military occupation of Syrian territory after Al-Assad fell.
HockeyHocki@reddit
I mean the same upswing could be said of US relations with Syria. Unlike Syria though, Pakistan have consistently said they will never normalise while Palestinians remain stateless, and that certainly won't get resolved before an agreement could be reached vis-a-vis Golan heights
Agitated-Quit-6148@reddit
Egypt, Jordan, UAE also used to say that. Pakistan hasn't real done anything for the Palestinians aside from some mean tweets.
HockeyHocki@reddit
I added an edit above didn't see ur comment, Pakistan normalising would decimate their relations with Iran, would have far more serious ramifications for them than most middle east countries
Agitated-Quit-6148@reddit
Not really. Their relationship with is is more important than their relationship with Iran. China, Russia, turkey all have relations with Israel and despite strongly worded letters, they relationships are fine.
historicusXIII@reddit
Pakistan would have to deal with an Islamist uprising if they open diplomatic ties with Israel.
HockeyHocki@reddit
Those countries all recognised Israel long before the Iranian regime popped up. Expecting a country to break ties way bigger ask than not to make them
Agitated-Quit-6148@reddit
You think Pakistan cares more about....Iran....than relationships with us? Really?
Lower_Cockroach2432@reddit
That seems to make the strong assumption that their relationship with the US is under threat if they don't sign onto the accords.
That seems extremely unlikely. The US administration is both ineffectual and amnesiac. There's a high likelihood they'll chicken out of any such retaliation or entirely forget about it. And an even higher chance they'll U-turn on it in a month if it even happens. And that's assuming retaliation was even on the cards.
Agitated-Quit-6148@reddit
I literally says the could. Not that they will.
HockeyHocki@reddit
No? they are not mutually exclusive. Pakistan are not putting their relationship with the US in jepardy by not recognising Israel, or have you heard otherwise?
Agitated-Quit-6148@reddit
I simply said they could do it . Recognize it. It's not beyond the realm of possibility
nikmah@reddit
No it's highly unlikely that Pakistan will normalize anything with Israel and I suppose Pakistan would have to recognize Israel as a state first....
Sarcasmed@reddit
It's incredibly unlikely mainly because the pakistani population would overwhelmingly be against it, it could cause some level of civil unrest. It also has absolutely no benefit to Pakistan other than some additional kudos with a Trump admin which is already almost 50% through its run. Geographically they are far removed from Israel, never been attacked directly by Israel - so normalisation as a form of peace isn't much of an incentive here (as it would be with Lebanon, Syria).
Syria is the most likely, but it probably won't happen until Netanyahu leaves office.
Agitated-Quit-6148@reddit
Pakistan absolutely could because they don't really care about anything going on between Israel and the Palestinians. Pakistan cares about India.
Syria can't because al joulani would end up like sadatt. He cut a deal with Israel and turkey when he overthrew Assad. Obviously. If Israel cut a deal for some returning ...even a symbolic size....of the Golan he would. I'm part Syrian lots of family over there. Rebuilding Syria is more important than anything else.
Lebanon would but for hezbollah. Lol
AutoModerator@reddit
The link you have provided contains keywords for topics associated with an active conflict, and has automatically been flaired accordingly. If the flair was not updated, the link submitter MUST do so. Due to submissions regarding active conflicts generating more contrasting discussion, comments will only be available to users who have set a subreddit user flair, and must strictly comply with subreddit rules. Posters who change the assigned post flair without permission will be temporarily banned. Commenters who violate Reddiquette and civility rules will be summarily banned.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.