These are well-known talking points. Yes in a deal the other side gets something. That's what a deal is. Sorry it wasn't a totally awesome deal like Trump would have totally signed that got us everything we wanted. You have a choice start a war or make a deal. That's basic geopolitics. Instead you seem to want to invent a third option out of thin air - come up with the perfect deal. I don't arrive at the same conclusion because it's ridiculous. I have no reason to believe the administration that negotiated that deal was blatantly incompetent or let Iran off the hook. If they could have gotten a better deal and still avoided war I think they would have. What plausible explanation is there to the contrary? Instead, we have a successor who was also unable to negotiate a better deal, and now war. I'm not sure what point you are making. The idea that the Iranians were really any closer to getting a nuclear bomb is a lie. There is no evidence. Iran has been a weak pariah state that can barely keep its top officials alive. This has been the status quo for decades. The same president who negotiated that deal also unleashed Stuxnet. We already bombed more sites last year. Their leaders and scientists have had constant assassinations over the years. Why do you believe that they were any closer to a bomb a month ago than they were when that deal was signed? And what is your evidence?
> No, it is not. Politics are not about putting all the cards on the table, especially geopolitics.
So the President is lying about the motivations for war? So despite what pours out of his mouth you simply pick the most plausible (or easily defensible) explanation and then say "this is what the war is about"? Why would it be putting his cards on the table? You think it escapes anyone in China that it imports Iranian oil and this creates a problem for them? Or do you mean politics is about lying to your own electorate? I noticed you originally led with the same fear-mongering lie about the reach of Iranian missile capabilities. But now you've retreated to we are doing it to stop oil from getting to China. Maybe you, like the President, know the American people don't want to see their own troops and citizens killed to stop the flow of oil to China? Maybe they can also see that when oil stops flowing to China, gas prices also increase at home? We are spending billions of dollars and lost American lives to increase gas prices at home but hey also in China? Is that your claim?
> Sure, first of all, Iranians see themselves as one nation despite their ethnic differences.
You can just stop there. This is a lie. It's like the "we will be greeted as liberators" claim in Iraq. I can tell from reading the rest of this that you know very little about this region. I don't mean to insult you it's just such a disingenuous claim and makes this back and forth barely even worth it. You are conflating so many things - pan-arabism with majority/minority conflict or even the notion of having a nation. That's wrong. You think Egyptians don't see themselves as Egyptians because some of them believed in pan-arabism? Wrong. You know there are Shia Arabs, right? Do you think all Shia are Persian?
You also walked back from your original claim again.
You said:
> Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all.
Emphasis on *nothing in common at all*
I mean, really? Let's just rattle off a few that anyone with basic information literacy over the last few years would be able to come up with:
1. Countries that were under the grip of an authoritarian leader. Little to no evidence of recent civic institutions or culture of responsible governance.
2. Leaders who are not only authoritarian but flagrantly violent. In the absence of responsible governance, they resort to extreme violence to maintain power, creating cycles of pent up resentment, retribution and fear on both sides. The resentment of the powerless is obvious, however the fear of the powerful is equally as destabilizing.
3. Sizable minorities who even if aligned against the common dictator, will inevitably disagree with each other on the direction of the state. Once their common enemy is removed (to say nothing of a sizable loyalist faction) and given the lack of existing civic structures with broad buy-in, they often resort to violence. Persians only make up about 60% of Iran. Shia Muslims made up about the same percent in Iraq. I mean truly I have no idea what you are talking about. "They see themselves as one nation" based on what? Literally there have been multiple reports that the CIA is arming a separatist movement as we speak as their "boots on the ground" in Iran. You also ignored so many other cleavages - such as level of religious conservatism, class, geography. You think every person Shia or Persian is the same? Do you think when protestors in Iran were gunned down it was only because they weren't the same religion as the people shooting them? Or the same ethnicity? Do you not realize that the very notion of an identity, religion or ethnicity is itself often a point of contention?
4. In a region with a lot of other unstable states where domestic conflict can quickly spill over and spread across borders. Gee that should be obvious. And how about that in basically the same region as those other examples. Great track record of intervention here. But not this one. Trust me. Even though I'm also lying to you about oil being the cause of the war? Because god forbid I put my "cards on the table" aka a fact anyone with an internet connection can look up?
Why don't you actually answer some of the questions that led me to this long digression with you instead of continuing this constant walk back?
You could answer this:
> Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door.
Or I guess wait that's not important anymore because it's not really about that... it's about stopping oil from going to China.
So more importantly then, this:
> Initiating a war is a gamble in of itself. Now Americans all over the world are potentially at increased risk from lone wolves.
Perhaps the answer to this last question is you are so self-satisfied of the future and of your knowledge of Iran that you don't think it's a gamble? Maybe the price of dead Americans is worth it to stop oil flow to China? Where this started was this self-satisfied extrapolation from Greece, to Europe, to presumably the shores of America? How dare politicians risk lives by allowing this trend to develop, that you somehow saw as inevitable through your powers of clairvoyance. That was your position, right? Somehow we got from that to your supposed knowledge of oil flow grand strategy and Iranian nationalism. So I'm asking, what makes you so confident that this war is worth it? You see no risk? You have no doubts? Could you at least acknowledge the act of war is itself a gamble?
I'd appreciate an answer on that since this back and forth has gone on for a while and I've tried to respond to all the points you have brought up. Thanks
