US - Iran Peace agreement Part 3

[TopPocketFind]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/conflict-in-the-middle-east/5535141-us-iran-peace-agreement-part-2https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/conflict-in-the-middle-east/5535141-us-iran-peace-agreement-part-2

Are you suggesting that the fact that you feel that the IRGC are untrustworthy, despite the fact that they had not developed a nuclear weapon and were complying with international inspections, unlike Israel, is a justification for the US and Israeli starting a major war? A war which was going to result in devastating consequences not just for the region but also for the world economy due to the closure of vital shipping lanes. Do you think that sounds like a 'sensible' decision by all these 'sensible' countries?

Oh God forbid anyone suggest that a bunch of terrorists are untrustworthy 😂

Yes I am saying the IRGC is untrustworthy. So are all the countries that have proscribed them as a terrorist organisation or said they must never been allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

Again - which countries do trust the IRGC?

As for the "justification for war" part of your question - no I never said that.

Does it matter which countries trust the IRGC?

The JCPOA was set up for that purpose and Iran adhered to it.

The IRGC are not terrorists
You live in the U.K. so if you’re going to go by what other countries think you’ll have to accept Israel have committed a genocide
But you won’t do that
Can’t have it both ways, there needs to be a level of consistency of thought

There seems to be a lot of people misunderstanding the basics

Including the GCC and EU
I do wonder if the GCC and EU are gaslighting though or just really do think we are all stupid

Excellent point

I wonder if Trump is influenced at all by the Daily Mail and GB news rhetoric of Muslim = terrorist ? Well of course he is. He did do the Muslim ban thing in his first term.

And from what I recall from likes of Breitbart, they certainly subscribed to that message. So I reckon it's safe to say Trump is influenced by that.

He does like the guy in Syria though. And he is ex ISIS.

Support for the IRGC is about to be banned in the UK as you know.

The British government is introducing new powers allowing it to criminalise state proxies in order to designate the IRGC as a threat to national security.

That's good enough for me and others in the UK and elsewhere to call them terrorists, both for what they do in the UK via their proxies and for that they do to their own people who show any dissent from their authoritarian views.

Also Dr Prune you were fierce on another thread about people telling you what to do so may like to rethink your wording in telling me what I can and can't do.

And as you know Twigs because
it’s not like we haven’t discussed this before 😁

They haven't proscribed them as terrorists
There’s a significant difference

Starmer announced his government would designate the branch of the Iranian military under a new National Security Act, enabling law enforcement to take action against anyone deemed to be providing it with support

They have banned support
Job done

It is relevant when people are questioning whether they are untrustworthy because "they had not developed a nuclear weapon and were complying with international inspections". And implying it's a "me" thing when in fact barely any countries in the world trust the regime in Iran to develop the capacity for nuclear weapons.

Noted that no one is choosing to answer which countries trust the IRGC.

It has been discussed before and the IRGC haven't been proscribed as terrorists purely for legal reasons, not because the government don't consider them a terrorist threat.

Support for IRGC outlawed in crackdown on foreign state proxies

Britain will be better protected from foreign state-backed activity in a new crackdown on Iranian and Russian groups who seek to direct violence and intimidation on our streets.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right (IMCR) and Russia’s GRU Volunteer Corps will become the first bodies designated under landmark new state threats powers.

If approved by Parliament later this week, those conducting acts of sabotage including arson on behalf of these groups could face life imprisonment.
The move will step up the government’s ability to counter state threats linked to foreign powers including espionage, foreign interference in our democracy, sabotage and physical attacks.

It comes after the IMCR have publicly claimed 7 attacks at UK locations linked to Jewish and Israeli communities, and Persian-language media, including the antisemitic arson attack on 4 Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green on 23 March. Sitting behind IMCR were members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Qods Force, who almost certainly directed IMCR attacks across Europe.

Police and intelligence agencies will now have stronger powers to counter state threats activity carried out by these designated groups.

New offences for supporting and assisting these groups could result in a 14-year prison sentence.

It will now be easier to bring anyone caught working with them to justice and put them behind bars for longer. Prosecutors will no longer need to establish a foreign power connection in every case, making it easier and more straightforward to build cases against thugs for hire and ensure they face the full force of our national security laws, with sentences of up to life imprisonment.

www.gov.uk/government/news/support-for-irgc-outlawed-in-crackdown-on-foreign-state-proxies

At the end of the day Dr Prune I will continue to refer to the IRGC as terrorists as that's what they are in my opinion, and it's too much of a mouthful to keep repeating that they are designated as a threat to national security.

And you will keep referring to the Gaza war as a genocide even though the wording for that should really be "alleged genocide pending the ruling of the international court" - but that's a bit of a mouthful too.

.

The Iranian government trusts the IRGC. It is a branch of their military after all.

As to what countries trust the IRGC, No Idea. It's a bit like asking what countries trust the UK Para regiment. It's just not the sort of question that is asked. In fact, I don't think I have ever heard a government asked if it trusts another Government.

And how can a terrorist group be used to terrorize it's own population in an authoritarian state. Because terrorism is about using fear etc to change government. If that group is part of Government, would that not make them enforcers ?

Inside Iran, it will be Balochistani and Kurdush separatists who are classed as terrorists. by the Iranian government. To others they will be called freedom fighters.

.UN nuclear watchdog investigates reported attack on Iran’s Darkhovin site
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) says it is looking into reports of an overnight attack on the construction site of a planned nuclear power plant in Darkhovin, in Iran’s southwestern Khuzestan province.
“The facility is in the very early stages of construction and contained no nuclear material when last visited by the IAEA,” the UN agency said in a statement.
The reported attack is not believed to pose any radiological risk, the IAEA said, but Director General Rafael Grossi reiterated a call for “military restraint in the vicinity of all nuclear-related sites”.
AlJazeera updates

Iran has confirmed the site was attacked by the US

An interesting change in tactics from the US on now avoiding civilian infrastructure and why

Iran’s civilian infrastructure not targeted in latest US attacks

By Patty Culhane
Reporting from Washington DC

We have seen conflicting messages on the war from President Trump. He has made it clear he wants the war to be over, yet he relaunched attacks.

I think the most telling thing is what the US military says it attacked in the latest round of strikes overnight.

In a post on social media, the Central Command said it hit coastal surveillance and air defence facilities, maritime capabilities and missile and drone storage sites.

This is telling because the president previously said he was going to go after Iranian infrastructure and power plants. After he did that, we saw Iran retaliate in the Gulf at similar facilities.

None of those were on the target list this time around, according to the Central Command. Obviously, the president is under increasing pressure from his allies in the Gulf.

This is because if the US attacks those critical facilities in Iran, Tehran will retaliate in the same manner in the Gulf.

Is that seriously the best you can do - the Iranian government trusts their own armed forces. Poor effort.

And how can you seriously ask how a terrorist group be used to terrorize it's own population in an authoritarian state ... Were you sleeping in January of this year when thousands of Iranians were murdered by the IRGC?

Yup. Proscribing a government can be pretty awkward. Becuase then the proscriber breaks it's own laws if it does any deals with them.

As Trump found out with VZ.Because when he captured Maduro and claimed VZ oil for himself, he found out he could not do as he planned because of US sanctions against VZ. And for some odd reason, instead of changing US law to relax the sanctions, he just decided to do illegal stuff anyway, and set up an account in Qatar to handle the oil money. In his name.

Proscription does tend to be very specific. Say for example a UK ships captain needs to pay a pilots fee for the SoH. Perfecly OK from UNCLOS, but not ok if the person collecting the Pilots fee is proscribed. That would mean the captain is fucked if he pays.

But we know this sort of stuff Dr P.

Pressure still to maintain the terms of the MOU

Leaders of Qatar and Iraq stress importance of dialogue to ensure Hormuz navigation freedom
Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani has met Iraqi Prime Minister Ali al-Zaidi in Doha.

The two leaders during the meeting discussed bilateral relations as well as regional developments, including the latest escalation between the US and Iran, according to an official statement.

Sheikh Tamim and al-Zaidi stressed the importance of all parties involved in the war in adhering to “dialogue and diplomacy, and implementing what has been agreed upon within the framework of the memorandum of understanding … including ensuring freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz and promoting regional stability”.

As the US have never adhered to it
Iran has Announced the Suspension of the MoU

Kazem Gharibabadi said Tehran has suspended commitments to the Memorandum of Understanding.

"The US has violated and suspended all its commitments within the framework of the Islamabad MOU. We have also suspended our commitments; we are not implementing them, and we are busy defending the country," he said in a statement carried by the Fars news agency.

Interesting use of the word
suspended
They haven’t ripped it up then

So it seems the MoU was more a way to discuss an end to the war than a means to stop the fighting
Now that means has been suspended what now for a ceasefire or a way to work towards one

Trump has got to be looked at through the lens of the post Monroe Doctrine American exceptionalism of the kind that W. Bush loved “spreading Democracy” and Trump sees as authorising him to unilaterally attack sovereign nations. If a nation dares not to bend over, then they are sanctioned or bombed more into capitulation.

It’s actual supremacism and pure privilege, that positions the American/Western way of life as superior and the rest of the World as inferior. Therefore, you do not have to understand your opponent as you believe that they are beneath you. Trump’s limited intellect means that he does not understand that if you bomb someone, they will bomb you back.

Joe Kent whom judging through his resignation letter seemed pretended to understand this until last night when he tweeted the below:

“Tonight we will have to hit Iran hard in response to our troops being killed in Jordan. After that, we need to end this before it escalates further.
Strike & simultaneously pull our forces out—remove Iran’s leverage and move on to economic negotiations.
Restore order.”
https://x.com/joekent16jan19/status/2078566473673400334?s=20

The supremacism is full display, implying that America has the right to “restore order” in a country 10’000 kms away, it doesn’t. Ignoring that America (and Israel) unilaterally started this war during negotiations.

I’m enjoying watching Kent get his ass handed to him in his replies, especially from the America First crowd, who are telling him exactly who is responsible for those deaths: Trump and Netanyahu. If the PTB thought that they could use Joe Kent as a pied piper to lure disenchanted America First voters back it died last night.

Another positive thing is that due to Trump's naked barbarism, there are conversations now being had in the Global South/Majority about the myth of the post-World War 2 Order. It was a European country that imposed 2 World Wars on the globe. The United Nations and International Law were meant to based on the rule of law with all people treated equally, however these have now been torn up and only apply to certain people as we were reminded when the late U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham bluntly told ICC Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan that the court was "built for Africa and for thugs like Putin, and not for the West and its allies".

It's a time of chaos, but ultimately Good will win.

Maybe that is because it is a question that nobody can really asnwer?

I don't know which countries trust them, do you?

We could ask AI but I don't think it matters.

Thanks for that
I don’t do X so interesting to hear the chatter

No problem it's good that Joe Kent is getting pushback from "his side", it pushes the Overton window on what is acceptable and let's him know that morality, honour and ethics are part of ordinary American's makeup, they don't want to be associated with barbarity.

Especially as for a lot of poor American's (especially Black and Hispanic) the military is the only way for them to escape poverty and get their education paid for.

As you are not on X here are 2 replies from 2 ex US military members:

"Joe, you’re great, but how can even reasonable people like you say, “Sure, we launched a surprise attack in the middle of negotiations on behalf of a foreign power and have been bombing civilian infrastructure for months, but that doesn’t mean Iran gets to shoot back.” We attacked them, the President repeatedly has threatened to end Iranians’ historical existence as a people, and they have every right to use the means at their disposal to defend themselves. I’m a veteran, I don’t like saying this, but it’s the truth. I mourn the US servicemembers, but Iran didn’t kill them - Trump and Netanyahu did."

"This war we launched has been unjustifiable from the start. We knew Iran would respond. Now Joe is playing into exactly what they want ‘we have to hit them now for vengeance’ . That is why we leave troops scattered around and vulnerable, tripwires for whatever war the MIC wants. Don’t fall for the trap!!!"

I think we have established no one knows which countries trust them, if any.

So I'm failing to understand why @rainingsnoring is defending the IRGC's trustworthiness on account of "the fact that they had not developed a nuclear weapon and were complying with international inspections".

Isn't that purely in relation to this thread?

That they didn't develop nuclear weapons once Trump tore up the agreement is a fact.

Has this changed now, I don't know. They did state they had no intention of building nuclear weapons before the escalation.

Do I trust them, no
Do I trust Trump, no

The issue is about their trustworthiness and no, the IRGC can't be trusted not to develop nuclear weapons just because they have not done so yet.

You "don't know" if this has changed now? Yet on the other hand you admit you don't trust them (or Trump). Not many people do. This being the case, it's irrelevant what they say about having no intention of building nuclear weapons.

It might have been more believable had they not enriched uranium to 60% which is far beyond the level needed for civilian use.