We’re informed that a peace deal with Iran is coming any day now. Some of the terms seem worse than what Carthage had to give when they surrendered to Rome. For example, “Trump’s $300 billion problem on the Iran agreement”:
In an interview with CBS News Monday morning, Vice President JD Vance seemed to tacitly confirm the premise that Iran could be given “access” to a reconstruction fund worth as much as $300 billion.
Ever since that interview, the administration has strained to clarify things. It has emphasized that this money wouldn’t come from US taxpayers. Instead, it would be money from other Gulf countries that would only be available if Iran complies with a peace deal.
Vance said late Monday on Fox News that “we would invite other countries — not us, but other countries — to invest in” Iran. He echoed that Tuesday, telling Megyn Kelly that the US wouldn’t let the United Arab Emirates, for example, “invest in Iran, unless the Iranians change their behavior.”
When the Obama administration and other countries cut a nuclear deal with Iran in 2015, it included giving Iran access to billions of dollars. In that case, it wasn’t money from other countries, but instead Iran’s own assets that had been frozen in foreign banks under sanctions. Estimates generally placed the dollar figure around $50 billion.
The Islamic Republic of Iran still officially hates the U.S., right? They’ve been chanting “Death to America” for 47 years. To the extent that they have money and sovereignty, therefore, won’t they use that money to build weapons factories? To the extent that they have electric power, won’t they use that power to run the factories 24/7?
One purported benefit is oil can flow through the Strait of Hormuz without interference from the Iranian Navy that, we’re informed, no longer exists. But if the U.S. is an oil exporter, how do we benefit from the ability of competitors in the Persian Gulf to export through the Strait?
Maybe Donald Trump is doing this for immediate political gain? The price of gasoline will go down a little and, therefore, Democrats who were previously climate alarmists and wanted higher gasoline prices to discourage consumption will stop their recent complaints about the higher gasoline prices that they previously advocated? This explanation seems implausible because surrendering to an enemy, even if you call it “winning”, doesn’t usually make a politician more popular. Wouldn’t Trump enjoy more popular support, at least among Republicans, with round-the-clock bombing of Iran’s oil industry (thus denying the ayatollahs the money they need to build weapons factories) and electricity plants (thus denying the regime the grid-scale electric power that it needs to run its weapons factories)?
Separately, if the goal is to keep the non-existent Iranian Navy out of the Strait, couldn’t we use robot submersibles to make the waters unfriendly to those whom we don’t like? Here’s an example from Anduril that can endure for 10 days:
This war really shook me.
All my progressive friends, passionate about women’s rights and equity fighting vigorously against the patriarchy. When I congratulated them on the start of a war that back then appeared well on its way to overthrowing a despotic regime jailing women for not wearing hijabs imposed by crazy religious fundamentalists they curtly told me they “did not want to discuss politics”. Eighty million people controlled for half a century by crazy religious fundamentalists. Longest internet blackout in world history. Every single Iranian ask-me-anything on Reddit done under pain of severe penalty through illegal VPN cursing the revolutionary guard and the life that they live. For the start of this war it was nothing but “the world is so confusing these days” or “I don’t want to discuss politics”.
A defense of the same regime that through Hezbollah has been targeting innocent civilans, the same for whom a passionate defense had to be made and Israel vigorously denounced of course.
The same people who passionately fight against climate change as the greatest threat to humanity also decry the attempts of the Commander in Chief to increase gas prices. Which might finally shrink the enormous SUVs that people come to work in, fitting exactly one person into them.
The greatest loss is that we came so close to overthrowing this regime and came away with nothing
Anon, I have been immersed in the peace-loving religion of Islam for my entire life. As I said earlier, I am not a worldly person (and neither are my four wives–ages 8, 9, and two at 11–all of whom I purchased in Kabul last year). That said, knowing what we know, we would like to assure you that jailing women for lack of hijabs is in their best interests. We even notice that Greta is now wearing a mini hijab around her neck as a sign of support and love for our cherished tradition of child rape. Please, rest easily knowing that all is good, and of course trust in Allah!
Another delightful post that makes my heart go pitter-patter, along with those of my four wives (ages 8, 9, and two at 11), all of whom I purchased in Kabul last year. We are not as worldly as you, but we do wonder one thing: could the agreement enhance the ability of those here in the U.S. to purchase additional child wives for the purposes of our cherished tradition of child rape (given that there will likely be direct flights now that there has been regime change Iran and the current gay ayatollah is a friend of the U.S.)?