If we are the world hegemon, and Israel is a weaponized vassal, than that's precisely what you would do with it. Same way North Korea is used by China.
I would advocate for the whole region being left alone, but that's not US policy
A Palestinian state is relatively unimportant to the US interests compared to a maximally favorable trade agreement with a neighbouring developed country that is orders of magnitude larger and more powerful than Palestine.
Compromising our neighborly trade negations to obtain concessions on Palestine is not in the best interests of US, but it is for the country that does actually neighbor Palestine
My issue with that is that nothing about our negotiations is going to genuinely endanger trade with Canada. However, if Canada insists on supporting terrorism in the ME, then it becomes our problem.
As cucked as the Canucks are, that they would just reverse their stance on Palestine for nothing in return seems the more extraordinary claim than they would try to extract at least some form of concession for their compliance. Given this is happening as part of the trade deal talks, trade terms seem a likely first target.
We tore it up, because we didn't want it. Also, Israel didn't want it.
Iran is our enemy specifically because they have been conducting irregular warfare against the US since the shaw fell and they have shown literally no signs of stopping, ever. We made up with the Taliban faster than we made up with the Ayatollah. Iran really was the largest terror threat until Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and with those out of the way, Iran comes back to the top. Piracy, assassinations, insurgencies, civilian terror attacks, bombing military targets, you name it, the Iranians have done it, continue to do it, and are not interested in stopping.
We tore it up, because we didn't want it. Also, Israel didn't want it.
Who is 'we'? You may not wanted it, because it stopped proliferation. But for people who think that fewer countries should have nukes, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is good. Netanyahu and Israel were continuously pressuring Trump to cancel the deal, and it didn't help that Trump went "OBAMA'S NAME IS ON IT, WORST EVER".
Iran really was the largest terror threat until Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and with those out of the way
[Syria has entered the conversation.]
Piracy,
Like?
assassinations, insurgencies, civilian terror attacks, bombing military targets, you name it, the Iranians have done it
Jeez, bombing military targets? Did they bomb Fort Bragg? Where were those military targets? Perhaps in a place where you had no business being to begin with?
Where were those insurgencies? In neighboring countries that you had invaded? Yeah, those bastards, putting their country right in the middle of countries you wanted to invade. (In fact, there is very little evidence for this, and this was just the Bush administration deflecting from its disastrous policy in Iraq.)
Oh, and if you want to argue that 'supporting insurgencies' is a bad thing, guess who comes out as a really bad guy?
the Iranians have done it, continue to do it, and are not interested in stopping.
Given the fact that the US coup'ed Iran's government in 1953, supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in the 1980s (then supplied him with chemical weapons to use against the Iranians, and provided him with diplomatic cover), and has had sanctions to try to wreck as much havoc as possible in Iran...
Who is the greater offender and who the greater victim?
Just because "you had no business being there" is your argument against US military intervention, it doesn't mean that if those forces are somewhere, that Iran has the right to hunt them down and kill them, then take over the country for themselves. In the Marine Barracks Bombing, US troops were invited there as a peacekeeping force to prevent Lebanon from descending to a Civil War. They were even placed under the command of non-US troops. They were killed, needlessly, because the Iranians were invading Lebanon with proxy forces, and intended to take over the country. The Americans pulled out any
Iran has basically been in a Cold War with the US since the Ayatollah came to power. Yes, Iran is absolutely the worse offender because the Ayatollah is an occupying government over the Persians, and then decided to wage a multinational war for regional dominance.
The "Iran Nuclear Deal" by Obama gave Iran atomic weapons as an end goal. It facilitated their drive to make them, it is perhaps the worst "deal" Obama made, and that's really saying something!
It "placed restrictions" which were immediately violated. It placed trade barriers as punishments for violations but Obama let everything slide & left big fat loopholes too.
It said that after X years (10, iirc) they "deal" would be "re-negotiated" to for sure make Iran not have nuclear weapons... except by then they'd be well on the road with no turning back and NO incentive to "deal" with anyone.
The "Iran Nuclear Deal" by Obama gave Iran atomic weapons as an end goal. It facilitated their drive to make them, it is perhaps the worst "deal" Obama made, and that's really saying something!
I'm completely unsurprised that you believe that, given the fact that you supported war with Iran and that you even, in 2025, supported the Iraq War and even claim there were WMD there. You do seem to have a little penchant for supporting wars based on lies about weapons of mass destruction.
It "placed restrictions" which were immediately violated. It placed trade barriers as punishments for violations but Obama let everything slide & left big fat loopholes too.
Piffle. It was the USG and Europe that violated the deal, not Iran. Iran even continued to uphold it for years after Trump pulled out. Iran war supporters kept posting graphs of Iranian enrichment which showed very low levels on enrichment during the deal years. Anyone can easily discover this. Who do you think you're fooling?
It said that after X years (10, iirc) they "deal" would be "re-negotiated" to for sure make Iran not have nuclear weapons... except by then they'd be well on the road with no turning back and NO incentive to "deal" with anyone.
After 10 years, they'd be three weeks from a nuclear weapon like they have been for the past 30 years?
supported the Iraq War and even claim there were WMD there
Because there were. When Bush said it, Saddam hadn't sent them to Syria yet. The UN said there were even after the war was over.
550 tons of yellowcake wasn't found in a bakery, ok? It is the starting block for nuclear weapons. That's a part of a WMD PROGRAM which was banned by the treaty.
You also are mistaking "the sizzle" for the "steak" ok? You believe the selling points are important, they are not, they're just there to dazzle your eyes. The fact is: Saddam violated the Cease Fire treaty & thus it was legally "war on!" for everyone involved. That takes too much thinking though, so a buzzphrase was made. Do not mistake the map (sizzle, slogan) for the terrain (steak, reality), ok?
PFFT! How can other nations "violate the treat" but Iran didn't? Mental gymnastics! You should go to the Progressive Olympics! 😸
No, after 10 years (or whatever the number was, the X means unknown, like in maths, duh!) they would be free to say "No thanks!" and openly pursue nuclear weapons with NO restrictions. Like Pakistan and India did.
The only nations suicidal enough to take in Palestinian refugees are white western nations, so anyone who cares about the survival of white western nations should support the creation of a Palestinian state in order to keep Palestinians in Palestine.
Since when have either Islamists or Communists ever done either? Segregating them out won't stop them from attacking. You'd need someone else to own the place, either Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan.
Palestinians are a Leftist Socialist movement. They are fighting to kill every jew because each jew is the bourgeoise. They will then kill every Arab and Muslim that gets in their way.
How would a Palestinian state be in the interest of the US? Seems like at this point the best case scenario is that it grants Iran a proxy.
That's a fair point, but how is an Israeli state in the interest of the US?
It isn't, besides being a useful weapon to keep the ME unstable and forcing people to negotiate with us in order to keep them in check...
IF WE WOULD ONLY DO THAT
You're seriously advocating for Israel on the basis of their continued impediment to peace?
If we are the world hegemon, and Israel is a weaponized vassal, than that's precisely what you would do with it. Same way North Korea is used by China.
I would advocate for the whole region being left alone, but that's not US policy
A Palestinian state is relatively unimportant to the US interests compared to a maximally favorable trade agreement with a neighbouring developed country that is orders of magnitude larger and more powerful than Palestine.
Compromising our neighborly trade negations to obtain concessions on Palestine is not in the best interests of US, but it is for the country that does actually neighbor Palestine
My issue with that is that nothing about our negotiations is going to genuinely endanger trade with Canada. However, if Canada insists on supporting terrorism in the ME, then it becomes our problem.
As cucked as the Canucks are, that they would just reverse their stance on Palestine for nothing in return seems the more extraordinary claim than they would try to extract at least some form of concession for their compliance. Given this is happening as part of the trade deal talks, trade terms seem a likely first target.
And why is Iran your enemy again? Trump tore up the Iran nuclear agreement because Israel wanted that.
We tore it up, because we didn't want it. Also, Israel didn't want it.
Iran is our enemy specifically because they have been conducting irregular warfare against the US since the shaw fell and they have shown literally no signs of stopping, ever. We made up with the Taliban faster than we made up with the Ayatollah. Iran really was the largest terror threat until Al-Qaeda and ISIS, and with those out of the way, Iran comes back to the top. Piracy, assassinations, insurgencies, civilian terror attacks, bombing military targets, you name it, the Iranians have done it, continue to do it, and are not interested in stopping.
Who is 'we'? You may not wanted it, because it stopped proliferation. But for people who think that fewer countries should have nukes, stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is good. Netanyahu and Israel were continuously pressuring Trump to cancel the deal, and it didn't help that Trump went "OBAMA'S NAME IS ON IT, WORST EVER".
[Syria has entered the conversation.]
Like?
Jeez, bombing military targets? Did they bomb Fort Bragg? Where were those military targets? Perhaps in a place where you had no business being to begin with?
Where were those insurgencies? In neighboring countries that you had invaded? Yeah, those bastards, putting their country right in the middle of countries you wanted to invade. (In fact, there is very little evidence for this, and this was just the Bush administration deflecting from its disastrous policy in Iraq.)
Oh, and if you want to argue that 'supporting insurgencies' is a bad thing, guess who comes out as a really bad guy?
Given the fact that the US coup'ed Iran's government in 1953, supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in the 1980s (then supplied him with chemical weapons to use against the Iranians, and provided him with diplomatic cover), and has had sanctions to try to wreck as much havoc as possible in Iran...
Who is the greater offender and who the greater victim?
We, is "the Americans", for simplicity sake.
Syria is operating at our behest.
Piracy like around the Horn of Africa and the Red Sea.
Insurgencies & military targets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_state-sponsored_terrorism
Just because "you had no business being there" is your argument against US military intervention, it doesn't mean that if those forces are somewhere, that Iran has the right to hunt them down and kill them, then take over the country for themselves. In the Marine Barracks Bombing, US troops were invited there as a peacekeeping force to prevent Lebanon from descending to a Civil War. They were even placed under the command of non-US troops. They were killed, needlessly, because the Iranians were invading Lebanon with proxy forces, and intended to take over the country. The Americans pulled out any
Iran has basically been in a Cold War with the US since the Ayatollah came to power. Yes, Iran is absolutely the worse offender because the Ayatollah is an occupying government over the Persians, and then decided to wage a multinational war for regional dominance.
The "Iran Nuclear Deal" by Obama gave Iran atomic weapons as an end goal. It facilitated their drive to make them, it is perhaps the worst "deal" Obama made, and that's really saying something!
It "placed restrictions" which were immediately violated. It placed trade barriers as punishments for violations but Obama let everything slide & left big fat loopholes too.
It said that after X years (10, iirc) they "deal" would be "re-negotiated" to for sure make Iran not have nuclear weapons... except by then they'd be well on the road with no turning back and NO incentive to "deal" with anyone.
So Trump tore it up? TWICE? GOOD!
I'm completely unsurprised that you believe that, given the fact that you supported war with Iran and that you even, in 2025, supported the Iraq War and even claim there were WMD there. You do seem to have a little penchant for supporting wars based on lies about weapons of mass destruction.
Piffle. It was the USG and Europe that violated the deal, not Iran. Iran even continued to uphold it for years after Trump pulled out. Iran war supporters kept posting graphs of Iranian enrichment which showed very low levels on enrichment during the deal years. Anyone can easily discover this. Who do you think you're fooling?
After 10 years, they'd be three weeks from a nuclear weapon like they have been for the past 30 years?
Because there were. When Bush said it, Saddam hadn't sent them to Syria yet. The UN said there were even after the war was over.
550 tons of yellowcake wasn't found in a bakery, ok? It is the starting block for nuclear weapons. That's a part of a WMD PROGRAM which was banned by the treaty.
You also are mistaking "the sizzle" for the "steak" ok? You believe the selling points are important, they are not, they're just there to dazzle your eyes. The fact is: Saddam violated the Cease Fire treaty & thus it was legally "war on!" for everyone involved. That takes too much thinking though, so a buzzphrase was made. Do not mistake the map (sizzle, slogan) for the terrain (steak, reality), ok?
PFFT! How can other nations "violate the treat" but Iran didn't? Mental gymnastics! You should go to the Progressive Olympics! 😸
No, after 10 years (or whatever the number was, the X means unknown, like in maths, duh!) they would be free to say "No thanks!" and openly pursue nuclear weapons with NO restrictions. Like Pakistan and India did.
But thanks for trying!
It would keep the Palestinians over there.
The only nations suicidal enough to take in Palestinian refugees are white western nations, so anyone who cares about the survival of white western nations should support the creation of a Palestinian state in order to keep Palestinians in Palestine.
Having Jewish border czars force rapfugees into our communities is not suicide. We are being killed.
Since when have either Islamists or Communists ever done either? Segregating them out won't stop them from attacking. You'd need someone else to own the place, either Israel, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, or Jordan.
The Palestinians are trying to stay where they are. That's literally what they are fighting for.
ETA: Trump removed HTS as a designated terrorist organization. Terrorism is fine as long as you support Israel, it seems.
Palestinians are a Leftist Socialist movement. They are fighting to kill every jew because each jew is the bourgeoise. They will then kill every Arab and Muslim that gets in their way.