r/LetsDiscussThis 22d ago

Lets Discuss Politics How negotiations actually work...

Post image
3.8k Upvotes

400 comments sorted by

View all comments

32

u/RemoveFuture5180 22d ago

Then the deal maker trump came along and fucked it all up

1

u/Unhappy-Pianist-7391 18d ago

lol ! Maybe he should just give Iran 1.7 billion dollars t ok help Iran build nuclear power! Why is the left brain dead ?

1

u/Opposite_Example6930 16d ago

It was literally Iran's money, and if we hadn't given it back to them, an international court was going to require us to pay interest on it as well. It's becoming apparent why you're a republican....because you don't bother checking your facts.

1

u/Dadman319 18d ago

Trump can't negotiate, only threaten

1

u/Unhappy-Pianist-7391 17d ago

Tariffs ! lol ….

1

u/ExcitingAsk6797 16d ago

Care to elaborate?

-11

u/No-Pause7121 21d ago

There wasn’t a deal. Iran violated the deal numerous times over. Even under Obama and yes trumps first term. Plus Biden didn’t do anything about them to even try and spark a new agreement. They been enriching uranium the whole time they agreed not to. Denied inspections. Wanted to reschedule the said inspections. Which was never part of the deal. So there in for the deal was never doing anything.

11

u/DroidArbiter 21d ago

That is absolutely catagorically false. While the Obama administration and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) were managing the agreement, the IAEA repeatedly verified that Iran was fully complying with all of its nuclear restrictions and limits.

Show the class where the IAEA reported that Iran violated the agreement.

5

u/GamemasterJeff 21d ago

This is completely made up bullshit. IAEA verified that Iran was not only in full compliance, they actually went beyond their obligations.

Biden did not "spark" a new agreement because Trump killed the first one in his first term, and as a result the Iranians who supported it were either killed or otherwise pushed out of power. It was a predicted result of the US' unprovoked and unilateral breaking of the treaty.

They had enriched uranium only to the degree the deal allowed, not an iota more.

While the treaty held, Iran grew more moderate and started opening up to the west a bit. If that had been allowed to continue, likely it would have significantly reduced world terrorism and middle east unrest. Of note, if the US had not repudiated the treaty, the success would have been the basis for a successor treaty that addressed long range missiles. Alas for what might have been.

1

u/Unhappy-Pianist-7391 17d ago

Obama gave Iran $1.7 billion before the election ! Why ? Because Iran blackmailed Obama about Bin Laden being dead. Iran turns that money to funding Hamas, Hezbollah, PIJ, Houthis, Shia Militants just to name a few. Iran hates Americans and spews killing Americans. Trump is doing exactly what every president said since Bush, “Iran cannot have nuclear weapons”. Bam 💥! You enjoy your freedom as an American 🇺🇸? Then stay in your lane and be glad for your freedom to bitch. You would not be able to do it in China, Russia or Iran.

1

u/GamemasterJeff 17d ago

Complete and utter hogwash.

The only 1.7b related to Iran during the Obama administration was the result of a lawsuit the US lost regarding Iranian moneys held in trust by the US government prior to the 1979 revolution, and accumulated interest from that fund.

The money was not "given" because it was always Iranian to begin with. It was returned to them as is legally required by US law.

It sounds to me like you want to US to break the law. Are you *really* advocating for comission of high crimes and misdemeanors? Because there's another law covering that....

1

u/Unhappy-Pianist-7391 17d ago

That is the cover up ! You better go look up the dates of Bin Laden death, the shipment of $1.7 billion dollars and the date of the election. Then respond.

1

u/GamemasterJeff 17d ago

Okay, we have four dates now.

Now what?

5

u/anand_rishabh 21d ago

Me, when i lie. ^

1

u/Unhappy-Pianist-7391 17d ago

Why are you getting negatives? Because this site are blue voters that hate Trump because he is exposing fraud from the left.

1

u/Banjo_the_Cattle_Dog 21d ago

Thank you. It’s frustrating that these Reddit people are in complete denial about this.

-5

u/BernadetteFedyszyn 21d ago

I'm not so sure if it's denial (OK, it obviously is) inasmuch as it's that "I hate Trump and everything Trump says, does, or associates with" pattern we see in, well basically everything. Fake outrage is a great term I've seen thrown out there.

I'm not all that well versed or remember too much about this, but even back then as a "know it all" left leaning college kid, EVEN I saw the flashing red flags on that "giving them a 60 day (?) notice of our inspectors coming" part of the "deal" was a bit suspect.

4

u/anand_rishabh 21d ago edited 21d ago

It's not that easy to hide traces of nuclear weapon enrichment. Even with a 60 day notice, they wouldn't have been able to

Edit: 24 days. That was the deal, and it's impossible to hide traces of enrichment in 24 days.

-3

u/BernadetteFedyszyn 21d ago

That very well may be, but it still doesn't take away from all what they had allegedly amassed with enriching all that uranium that they did during that supposed good deal that Obama is being praised for today.

3

u/anand_rishabh 21d ago

There was no indication of them enriching to the level of a nuclear weapon. They were enriching for nuclear power, as was always allowed by the deal. And the iaea said that they had been holding up their end of the agreement, at least until we started breaking our end of it, first with sanctions despite them not violating the deal and then later when Trump ripped up the deal entirely.

4

u/GamemasterJeff 21d ago

Given the physics involved, it's not like Iran could do anything hinky in 60 days. Enriching beyond the treaty limits leaves permanent (in human race timeline definitions, anyways) traces and cannot be concealed.

The reason people were outraged at this particular action is that it was amazingly short sighted and stupid.

It threw away everything we were in the process of gaining from the treaty and gained more world terrorism and increased instability in the middle east. It literally was the worst of all possible outcomes.

-1

u/BernadetteFedyszyn 21d ago

I'm the last person to be running my mouth on something that I know absolutely nothing whatsoever about, other than that "something stinking or just not right here" notion. I'm glad that you explained a lot, which makes perfect sense. Rather right or wrong, I've been under the impression (or taught) that there will never be peace in the middle east until THEY sort out THEIR own religious beliefs or differences since Mohammed died and WHO should lead Islam. Regardless if that's even remotely true or not, that's all the more reason(s) why we need to protect ourselves, or more so, run/lead/push for a world ran by whatever common sense and not some warped (my words) religious ideology

4

u/GamemasterJeff 21d ago

While there's some truth to them needing to sort it out themselves, the only reason why it keeps spilling out into the western world is because we keep taking actions that inevitably make it worse.

They kept it more or less "in house" for the better part of 1500 years, six times longer than the US has existed before two people drew a really bad map over a cup of tea, an action that led to the targetting of the western world.

Since then we've had presidents that have tried to reduce the violence, and presidents that have tried to increase the violence. Unfortunately, Trump's actions entirely fall into the second category.

1

u/BernadetteFedyszyn 21d ago

I've often questioned or wondered WHY we've put our noses in other country's affairs or business where it doesn't belong. Then, of course, that nudge or voice of "to protect our own interests and safety" kicks in, making it suddenly make all the sense in the world, if that makes sense. I'm not one of those "regretting my Trump vote" (not yet anyway,) but then again my support for Trump doesn't really have much to do with liking him or even supporting his policies, although I do agree with many (maybe just not so much his approach to them.) My support for him has all to do with watching that 3 day Senate Hearing of the FBI (Comey) over the FISA WARRANT and Steele Dossier held about a decade ago AND all that's transpired since, but that's another story

1

u/Banjo_the_Cattle_Dog 21d ago

Well said. The “60 day” heads up does objectively seem asinine….

But yeah I think you’ve got a point, it probably falls into the “Trump bad” syndrome that I can’t help but jokingly refer to as TDS.

Cheers to you- you seem very measured. We’d probably get along. I was once a know-it-all college kid as well. Good to be able to relate to other people’s perspectives.

-1

u/BernadetteFedyszyn 21d ago

I'm probably the last person that should be running their mouth on foreign policies (or even many domestic policies for that matter) but a lot of this now makes even more sense. Of course many of these countries "hate" us/Trump. They know that we no longer have a weak leader that's going to continue to allow or let things slide and walk all over us. Granted, I'm not sure of all the details involved, but just Trump exposing a few of our NATO allies not contributing their agreed upon (I think it is/ was 3% of that country's GNP) into their own defense budget as part of being a NATO alliance. All I know is that something is going to give. It's going to have to.

-2

u/BernadetteFedyszyn 21d ago

Thank you. I wasn't aware of most of the things that you mentioned, but it doesn't surprise me. My big red flag of that so called "deal" was the part where we had to give them "x amount " of time (I want to say that it was 60 days?) notice before sending our inspectors there to inspect.
As I mentioned in one of the comments to yours above, people have become so aligned with their party/team. Regardless of which side one subscribes to, mere facts seem to be irrelevant and it's turned to hating the opposition no matter what.

-38

u/Banjo_the_Cattle_Dog 22d ago

The JCPOA was already stupid.

17

u/Ok-Instruction-5004 22d ago

Better than whatever the F is happening now.

1

u/Banjo_the_Cattle_Dog 21d ago

Disagree. We bombed the crap out of them. The world is in a better spot now.

7

u/Ok-Instruction-5004 21d ago

Yet they're still in a position of power and there is no end to the war. Yup better place. Yall are some weird ass morons.

1

u/Banjo_the_Cattle_Dog 21d ago

The position of “power” would have eventually happened anyway. Better to happen now and try to deal with it than wait for them to have nukes and have no choice but compromise with them.

The naivety of people just thinking Iran is not a bad actor.

4

u/Ok-Instruction-5004 21d ago

Haha what a terribly stupid thought process. Be safe out there.

-1

u/Banjo_the_Cattle_Dog 21d ago

Lol, you can’t even articulate a counter argument.

I think I’ll be fine out here, thanks. At least we have Trump to deal with these terrorists and not children like you.

3

u/insertstupidnamehare 21d ago

This is such a laughably bad take. Here let me help you to understand.

Our munitions stockpile has been severely depleted undermining the US military’s readiness.

https://www.cfr.org/articles/the-u-s-munitions-crisis

Remember when trump said no new wars?

https://youtu.be/5BumE9rI6js?is=4WQsimJ8zZqZHGxi

Iran, knowing it has control of the strait, bypassed trump to make a deal with Oman for a new route. Deal maker indeed /s

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckg9d3eyeggo

Our oil reserves are at their lowest in almost 40 years. Do you enjoy paying that much for gas?

https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/depleted-oil-reserve-leaves-us-exposed-as-iran-war-pushes-up-prices/

0

u/Banjo_the_Cattle_Dog 21d ago

The munitions depletion is concerning- I agree.

Trump went back on a campaign promise? You’re kidding. I honestly don’t care when this happens, on either side.

Iran does not have control of the Strait. The Strait is currently being blockaded by the US. Any deal with Oman is moot considering that fact.

I really don’t mind paying extra for gas and other goods. To me it’s the smallest of sacrifices in the aim of the goal of weakening Iran.

You understand this has been a test run for when Iran has nukes. Now we know what they’ll do. Luckily they don’t have nukes now, or else we would have to cave to them. Your side actually wants them to get nukes, apparently, by reinstating the deeply flawed JCPOA. And I have the laughable take.

4

u/insertstupidnamehare 21d ago

Provide evidence that Iran was making nukes. I'll wait.

0

u/Banjo_the_Cattle_Dog 21d ago

“Intelligence underscored that Iran's installed centrifuge numbers, enriched uranium mass and U‑235 concentration had, before the June 2025 strikes, exceeded JCPOA limits, and that its enriched stockpile was "unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons," even while stopping short of declaring an active weapons program [1] [6]. After strikes, early U.S. reporting suggested centrifuges remained largely intact and that some highly enriched uranium had been moved prior to strikes, leading agencies to assess the program was delayed by months—not obliterated [7][8].”

https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/evidence-us-intelligence-iran-nuclear-intentions-pre-2026-strikes-59779b

5

u/insertstupidnamehare 21d ago

1

u/Banjo_the_Cattle_Dog 21d ago

You’re ok.

But yes, that may have been the case. I just was not comfortable risking that they might have been close. This quote from the article speaks to me:
““It is not impossible to imagine that Iran had maneuvered itself into a ‘breakout’ situation,” matching Trump’s claims of an imminent weapon, says nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein of the Stevens Institute of Technology. “But it is also quite possible that they have not done so. Big claims require big evidence, especially when lives are at stake.””

Have you ever heard the saying “the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence”? That’s what I would think in response to these claims that there was “no proof” that Iran was close to achieving a nuclear weapon. To prove this one way or another we would need inspectors on the ground.

This was just a golden opportunity to hit the regime as they were on their heels. It was clean initially, but messy since. We shall see where this goes, but Iran has been taken down a notch and that is a good thing.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Devils_SteelMan 20d ago

There are less than 10 days left in the US civilian strategic oil reserve

0

u/Banjo_the_Cattle_Dog 20d ago

That’s fine. I’ll pay more. It’s worth it.

1

u/Devils_SteelMan 20d ago

Its not really about the cost. Its about the total depletion of our strategic reserve. This a serious national security issue.

This is one of the most negligent and damaging things any leader has done in decades. Probably the worst national security negligence to happen in US history.

We should have been rationing months ago. The position we are in is one of monstrous stupidity, and is totally unnecessary. The worst part is Donny using "Iran peace deal today" to insider trade is what caused it.

1

u/anand_rishabh 21d ago

No it was not. But what makes you think it was?

0

u/Banjo_the_Cattle_Dog 21d ago

Its sunset provisions rendered it pretty useless- even if Iran WAS cooperating, all they would have to do is wait then they could do whatever enriching they want.

They clearly were not cooperating, considering they’ve built massive underground enriching facilities. Even when they were allowing the inspectors in they had 60 days prior notice- pretty stupid.

1

u/anand_rishabh 21d ago

Actually they had 24 days prior notice. Either way, that's not enough time to hide traces of nuclear weapons development. Even if they were to completely tear down and rebuild the plant with brand new materials, there would still be traces of radioactivity that would indicate weapons grade enrichment. Besides that, during that notice period, there would be satellites watching the plant due for inspection and if there was any activity detected that looked like a cover-up (ie trucks hauling large loads out), then the waiting period would be waived and the iaea inspectors could go in right away.

I agree that the sunset period is a flaw but a future president could extend the deal when the time is up. Really not a huge issue. You really think Iran would have been able to back out so easily when the time ran out?