LIVENews & PoliticsEarly — be one of the first· 4d agocloses in 7d
Was the U.S. right to hold direct talks with Iran aimed at ending their war?
President Trump said the United States and Iran held a rare three-hour meeting in New York, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly, to discuss ending the war between the two countries.
Legitimizing them? We may not like them but they are the government of Iran. It was that leadership that spoke at the UN yesterday. It remains to be seen what if anything comes of the meeting. Trump has a long history of saying Iran is "begging" for a deal. So I don't believe anything Trump says in this regard until there is corroboration from another party with direct knowledge of the negotiations.
If Trump went into that meeting with his usual belligerence you can be sure nothing will come of it. But Trump is in a very bad spot so regardless of his bluster to the media it is likely that he was calm and prudent. There will not be a deal to Trump's liking, especially before the election. What Trump and his Trunkies (a portmanteau of Trump and flunkies) ignore is the long history of malevolent American meddling in Iranian affairs. The CIA engineered the toppling of democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, the ascension of the Shah, the CIA training of SAVAK.
The site doesn't allow long comments :-|
In recent history we have attacked Iran twice while actively negotiating with them and in the last one assassinated their entire top leadership. Would you be interested in giving such people a deal?
And Trump now finds himself in the runnup to elections with an unpopular war and diminished defensive weapons stores. Another major attack on Iran will inevitably lead to another barrage of drones and missiles that we don't have the depth to interdict. Do you imagine that the Iranians don't know this?
Trump (and his Trunkies) underestimated Iran's resilience, not to mention their ability to disrupt shipping, mobilize proxies, and undermine Trump's support here. His approach to business doesn't translate well to geopolitics. Not sure it worked all that well in business either.
Groundbeat deskOfficialSep 23, 11:12 AM
If you're voting yes: does direct talk with Tehran count as legitimizing them, or just doing what it takes to stop the shooting? Curious where that line sits for you.
Grab this poll for your site
Votes cast anywhere this poll is embedded count toward the same live total.
Help us build this. We're building the Groundbeat community one person at a time, and we need your help — if you know someone who belongs here, please send them groundbeat.com.
Legitimizing them? We may not like them but they are the government of Iran. It was that leadership that spoke at the UN yesterday. It remains to be seen what if anything comes of the meeting. Trump has a long history of saying Iran is "begging" for a deal. So I don't believe anything Trump says in this regard until there is corroboration from another party with direct knowledge of the negotiations. If Trump went into that meeting with his usual belligerence you can be sure nothing will come of it. But Trump is in a very bad spot so regardless of his bluster to the media it is likely that he was calm and prudent. There will not be a deal to Trump's liking, especially before the election. What Trump and his Trunkies (a portmanteau of Trump and flunkies) ignore is the long history of malevolent American meddling in Iranian affairs. The CIA engineered the toppling of democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, the ascension of the Shah, the CIA training of SAVAK.
The site doesn't allow long comments :-| In recent history we have attacked Iran twice while actively negotiating with them and in the last one assassinated their entire top leadership. Would you be interested in giving such people a deal? And Trump now finds himself in the runnup to elections with an unpopular war and diminished defensive weapons stores. Another major attack on Iran will inevitably lead to another barrage of drones and missiles that we don't have the depth to interdict. Do you imagine that the Iranians don't know this?
Trump (and his Trunkies) underestimated Iran's resilience, not to mention their ability to disrupt shipping, mobilize proxies, and undermine Trump's support here. His approach to business doesn't translate well to geopolitics. Not sure it worked all that well in business either.
If you're voting yes: does direct talk with Tehran count as legitimizing them, or just doing what it takes to stop the shooting? Curious where that line sits for you.