3 ms·

Really? Trump has always been much weaker in diplomacy with nations that are historically antagonistic to the US. He'll have a meeting with their leader, let th

by lukev 2y ago

Really? Trump has always been much weaker in diplomacy with nations that are historically antagonistic to the US. He'll have a meeting with their leader, let them flatter him, and come away convinced that they're "very nice" and make a lot of concessions. He's basically an admirer of Putin at this point.

chrisco255 2y ago
The Abraham accords were and are a good development he implemented. The Obama administration in 2015 attempted to bribe Iran into not enriching uranium by effectively paying them $100 billion.
- blackguardx 2y ago
  Can you cite a source on that? That doesn’t match my understanding of the events.
- cjbgkagh 2y ago
  The Abraham accords seemed to be rather forced upon the Arab nations through Israel's influence on the US. To me it not only appeared to lack durability but the coercion involved may be rather counter productive long term - i.e. I thought it was a rather bad idea. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” - Dale Carnegie
- jameshart 2y ago
  Calling the JCPOA a $100 billion bribe seems unnecessarily reductive. The crux or the deal was a lifting of sanctions on Iran in exchange for an enforced freeze on nuclear programs. The general philosophy was that a non-Nuclear Iran engaged in the international economy was more likely to drive towards normal and peaceful relations than an isolated nuclear power. According to IAEA accounts the nuclear program freezes were effective. As part of the lifting of sanctions, Iran did get access to frozen Iranian overseas assets on the order of $100 billion, sure. But characterizing a diplomatic agreement to lift sanctions in exchange for cooperation on nuclear proliferation as a 'bribe' seems unnecessarily pejorative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...

by lukev 2y ago

chrisco255 2y ago

The Abraham accords were and are a good development he implemented. The Obama administration in 2015 attempted to bribe Iran into not enriching uranium by effectively paying them $100 billion.

blackguardx 2y ago
Can you cite a source on that? That doesn’t match my understanding of the events.
cjbgkagh 2y ago
The Abraham accords seemed to be rather forced upon the Arab nations through Israel's influence on the US. To me it not only appeared to lack durability but the coercion involved may be rather counter productive long term - i.e. I thought it was a rather bad idea. “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still” - Dale Carnegie
jameshart 2y ago
Calling the JCPOA a $100 billion bribe seems unnecessarily reductive. The crux or the deal was a lifting of sanctions on Iran in exchange for an enforced freeze on nuclear programs. The general philosophy was that a non-Nuclear Iran engaged in the international economy was more likely to drive towards normal and peaceful relations than an isolated nuclear power. According to IAEA accounts the nuclear program freezes were effective. As part of the lifting of sanctions, Iran did get access to frozen Iranian overseas assets on the order of $100 billion, sure. But characterizing a diplomatic agreement to lift sanctions in exchange for cooperation on nuclear proliferation as a 'bribe' seems unnecessarily pejorative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Ac...