What's new

IMF: Iran economy stabilizing, to soar if deal reached

I know but you need to include every aspect in an scenario of war, we won't enter war in which we won't gain a thing.

Btw, which candidates do you think could have any leverage in the 2016 presidential race? I honestly can't think of any that stand out.

Chris Christy & FTW :super:

I won't vote for Hillary in any given day :coffee:
 
.
I really see no difference between democrats and republicans when it comes to dealing with Iran.
AIPAC has wielded its enormous influence in both parties.

They have wielded influence but there's a major difference between those two parties. The republicans are way more hawkish and won't hesitate to use military force while the democratic agenda is based off less war and more economic development. Obama just plays them, after he got his second term he doesn't care what they think, he wants to open a new chapter between the US and Iran. What's stopping all this potential progress however is the congress which decides what we implement, so that's the problem and that's where AIPAC does most of its work. If Obama had congressional support a deal would have been reached by the end of his term. He can't get that because of republican opposition which seeks to demonize him in every way.

Chris Christy & FTW :super:

I won't vote for Hillary in any given day :coffee:

I don't see him getting the position, he doesn't have the prowess of a powerful president in him. :lol:

I say Howard Dean would be my choice and I wonder what he can bring to the table.
 
. .
I think, that final deal will never reach, Americans have brought every non-nuclear matter as a condition for the final deal (even our military capabilities, or supporting Hizbollah, Hams,...), so unlike Americans want to change their words (which I doubt), the final deal is absolutely unreachable. after several months still we don't have access to the installments, the same thing for the spare parts for airplanes, insurance companies still refuse to accept Iranian ships,...
so I really hop they don't even extend this 6 months deal.

Have they really brought such conditions on the two allies?
 
.
They have wielded influence but there's a major difference between those two parties. The republicans are way more hawkish and won't hesitate to use military force while the democratic agenda is based off less war and more economic development. Obama just plays them, after he got his second term he doesn't care what they think, he wants to open a new chapter between the US and Iran. What's stopping all this potential progress however is the congress which decides what we implement, so that's the problem and that's where AIPAC does most of its work. If Obama had congressional support a deal would have been reached by the end of his term. He can't get that because of republican opposition which seeks to demonize him in every way.



I don't see him getting the position, he doesn't have the prowess of a powerful president in him. :lol:

I say Howard Dean would be my choice and I wonder what he can bring to the table.

Howard Dean didn't open a new bid to run for president. I can see Hillary running, but I want the GOP to " bring stronger America " as Romney used to call it :lol:
 
.
Howard Dean didn't open a new bid to run for president. I can see Hillary running, but I want the GOP to " bring stronger America " as Romney used to call it :lol:

He's not a potential candidate? :(
 
. .
No, and will never be at this point, at least for now.

Okay, then Rand Paul is my choice. People don't want him only because of his policy regarding Israel, he doesn't believe we should go to war on their behalf and this is why many donors and mainstream media stand against him.
 
.
Personally, I admire Rand Paul. If he runs for president, I will vote for him.

He's a true hardliner, America-loving patriot, and true American conservative.

If he decided to run for president, he will receive TONS of donations.
Okay, then Rand Paul is my choice. People don't want him only because of his policy regarding Israel, he doesn't believe we should go to war on their behalf and this is why many donors and mainstream media stand against him.
 
.
They have wielded influence but there's a major difference between those two parties. The republicans are way more hawkish and won't hesitate to use military force while the democratic agenda is based off less war and more economic development. Obama just plays them, after he got his second term he doesn't care what they think, he wants to open a new chapter between the US and Iran. What's stopping all this potential progress however is the congress which decides what we implement, so that's the problem and that's where AIPAC does most of its work. If Obama had congressional support a deal would have been reached by the end of his term. He can't get that because of republican opposition which seeks to demonize him in every way.



I don't see him getting the position, he doesn't have the prowess of a powerful president in him. :lol:

I say Howard Dean would be my choice and I wonder what he can bring to the table.

Obama has not been significantly less "militaristic" than say George Bush.
Obama increased level of drone use in places like Pakistan and Yemen. He got into w Libya war.
He was about to enter a war against Syria, but retreated last second as the British pulled out and the American people were overwhelmingly against (didnt seem to have the support of congress either)
Removal of chemical weapons out of Syria was the face saving thing.

Besides. The most harmful sanctions against Iran has come under democrats. George Bush did not put such severe sanctions that slashed Irans oil exports to half, nor did he impose sanctions on Irans central bank and other smaller banks.
One of the main architecht of all the sanctions against Iran has been Senator Menendez who is a democrat.

If anything, the democrats has been worse, at least for Iran. lol
So again, I dont differentiate much between democrats and republicans when it comes to foreign policy on Iran.
 
. .
Personally, I admire Rand Paul. If he runs for president, I will vote for him.

He's a true hardliner, America-loving patriot, and true American conservative.

If he decided to run for president, he will receive TONS of donations.

If he becomes our next President and ends foreign aid to Israel I'll become a patriotic, bacon loving American overnight. :lol:
 
.
Is that realistic to happen?

Lets hope so. We will never know for sure, unless Irans relations with the world, particularly the West, changes.
I dont like the regime at all, but the more Iran is brought back to the global economy and international order, it is possible that Iran will change its face and become more pragmatic.

Afterall, look how China changed. Mao was a mass murderer of 60 million people, if not more, but today China is a completely different country. Even it is still the "People's Republic"

I dont think its all black and white.
 
. .
Obama has not been significantly less "militaristic" than say George Bush.
Obama increased level of drone use in places like Pakistan and Yemen. He got into w Libya war.
He was about to enter a war against Syria, but retreated last second as the British pulled out and the American people were overwhelmingly against (didnt seem to have the support of congress either)
Removal of chemical weapons out of Syria was the face saving thing.

Besides. The most harmful sanctions against Iran has come under democrats. George Bush did not put such severe sanctions that slashed Irans oil exports to half, nor did he impose sanctions on Irans central bank and other smaller banks.
One of the main architecht of all the sanctions against Iran has been Senator Menendez who is a democrat.

If anything, the democrats has been worse, at least for Iran. lol
So again, I dont differentiate much between democrats and republicans when it comes to foreign policy on Iran.

Obama can't influence CIA/Pentagon policy which comes down to American interests. Like I told you, we have some militant Christians in our congress who get plenty of Jewish funding and will support an interventionist policy in the Muslim world. The day such a policy in the Middle East comes to and that would be a nightmare for Israel. And I agree, democrats as whole even stand against Obama on many issues. The members of the Senate also get AIPAC cash to stand against him on 67 borders and Iran.

Maybe by closer relationship and commercial ties with western countries they will get easier. Who knows. We'll see.

So you want Iran to break the 'axis of resistance' and become a secular nation?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom