My statements re Bolton were not contradictory, but re-stated to qualify context and meaning to the previous poster who didnt seem to understand it. Again, Boltons dismissal - in and of itself - was not the point, but rather that it signaled Trumps leaning to discussions with the Iranians and whatever he thought he could achieve from that. Kupperman would have been aware of that before accepting the job. The U.S. 'hard-line' towards Iran remains, just with the added flexibility of discussions when or if the need arose (which Bolton seemed to oppose).You have a very weird way of arguing. You act like he was completely wrong then basically agree with him. No idea where you're getting that wasn't exactly what he was talking about. I mean, holy shit, duh, that is the sanction program so obviously its about Iran wanting to get the sanctions to stop. That was his point though. They have no interest in negotiating/talking unless the US actually shows they'll adhere to reducing sanctions as otherwise there's no point to anything as Iran will just get stuck with sanctions no matter what agreements they have or what they do...
Now, if discussions were ever to be on the table, that would have been an opportune time for the Iranians to do something drastic to gain leverage. The Iranians have now dramatically demonstrated that they cannot be ignored while sanctions remain in place. Bear in mind that as of May this year, the sanctions tightened to include an embargo on Irans oil sales. Iran itself has said they will not sit idly by while this goes on. After May, oil tankers and other assets have been attacked, either by Iranian proxies or directly by Iran. The Saudi attack is the big one.
Last edited:
