Donald Trump is (according to Donald Trump) the master of the deal. Yet, as the world waits to see if Trump can strike a deal at the US-North Korea summit next week (12 June), another important nuclear deal is on the verge of collapse. In May 2018, the US decided to withdraw from the Iran deal, which Trump famously called “the single worst deal I’ve ever seen drawn by anybody”.

Europe has been scrambling to save the deal but, despite political assurances, European companies have reportedly been withdrawing from the country. Should more be done to reassure companies that have invested in Iran, or to counteract US sanctions? Or should Europe give up the Iran nuclear deal as dead?

The Iran deal will be one of the many security issues discussed on Debating Security Plus (DS+). In June, our sister think-tank, Friends of Europe, is gearing up to run a global online brainstorm designed to find solutions to today’s security challenges. From 19 June, 09:00 CEST to 20 June 20:00 CEST, the international security community will debate challenges and policy solutions. The discussions will be moderated by leading international think-tanks and organisations that will steer discussions towards concrete recommendations.

You can register to join the debate here.

Curious to know more about the Iran nuclear deal? We’ve put together some facts and figures in the infographic below (click for a bigger version).

So, should Europe try to save the Iran nuclear deal? To get an answer, we spoke to Michael Oren, a member of Israel’s Knesset, deputy minister, and former ambassador to the United States. Did he think Europe should try to save the Iran deal?

It should not. Europe should change the Iran deal entirely and substitute it with a new deal that: prohibits Iran from enriching uranium, under any circumstances, as long as the current regime remains in power; that prohibits Iran from developing inter-continental ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear warheads; that prohibits Iran from supporting terror worldwide and trying to conquer the Middle East. Europe should support a deal that addresses comprehensively the multifaceted Iranian threat.

We also spoke to Dr. Mitchell Belfer, President of the Euro-Gulf Information Centre (EGIC) in Italy, to hear his thoughts. Did he think the deal with Iran was worth saving?

Actually, the short answer is: no. I don’t think that Europe should be trying to save the Iran deal, at least not in its present form. The deal does not go as far as it should have in terms of extending the breakout period for Iran [ed: the time required to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one nuclear weapon].

I think it’s also very problematic in terms of the transatlantic relationship that they’ve taken such a different approach than the United States. That’s not to say that the US is infallible when it makes policies, especially under the Donald Trump administration, but there should have been a stronger effort amongst European decision-makers to reach an accord with the US before going into a deeper relationship with Iran at the expense of their relationship with the Trump administration. Also, perhaps I could remind people that the Trump administration, for better or worse, represents the United States, and it’s the US that we’re looking to ensure our relationship with, not necessarily any particular government.

We also put the same question to Ali Vaez, Iran Project Director for the International Crisis Group. Should Europe try to rescue the Iran nuclear deal?

Absolutely. Europe should do so not because it has economic interests in Iran, which are quite negligible, but because it is in its own security interest. Without the nuclear deal, Iran will either obtain a nuclear bomb or will be bombed. Both of these outcomes will adversely affect Europe, who will feel the impact through more refugee flows and radicalisation.

This was exactly the fear articulated by one of our readers, Cristina, who is deeply worried about the possibility of military intervention in Iran along the same lines as Afghanistan, Libya, or Iraq. If we scrap the diplomatic approach, doesn’t it mean war is more likely?

How would Michael Oren respond?

I think, unlike perhaps Afghanistan, Iran is a movie that’s coming to your neighbourhood. Iran, again, is the world’s largest state sponsor of terror and its operations are global. Iran succeeded in militarising Syria, it succeeds if it completes its encirclement of the Middle East, it will weaken Europe’s allies in the Middle East, and Israel and Europe’s allies in the Middle East are what’s guarding Europe’s eastern flank. If we’re not here, Europe would be in very severe danger indeed. There is no going home here and Europe has – I would say – a paramount interest in stopping the Iranian threat on multiple fronts

What would Mitchell Belfer from the Euro-Gulf Information Centre say to Cristina?

[The Iranian deal] sought to empower civil society through sanctions relief in return for the dismantling of the nuclear programme. What’s ended up happening, however, is that the Iranian state has managed to take the money that was supposed to empower civil society and has simply spent it on foreign interventionism. If you look on paper, the level of Iran’s involvement in conflicts like Syria and Yemen has increased tremendously since the revolutionary guard has had so much more money, because ultimately they control the economy of Iran.

So, Cristina, I think it’s a very important point you raise. We do need to look at a negotiated settlement for this issue, but it has to include things other than just the dismantling of the nuclear programme. It has to be a more comprehensive arrangement in which the revolutionary guard doesn’t then take money and increase its involvement in conventional wars… Because, ultimately, we don’t want contagion in the region. We want to stop the wars in Syria, calm down the situation in Yemen, not to mention the brewing conflicts involving Iran in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia. So, what we’ll need to do, as an international community, is to not only stop Iran from building weapons of mass destruction, but also to tie sanctions relief and forgiveness to an accord that Iran will not be irresponsible in its engagement with other actors, like the Houthi militias, or the newfound militias that are popping up in the Arab Gulf region.

Finally, what would Ali Vaez from the International Crisis Group say to the same comment?

If we have learned one lesson from Iraq and Afghanistan, it is that wars in that region often produce bigger monsters than the ones they aimed at neutralising. The objective of the nuclear deal with Iran was to address one area of disagreement between Iran and the West diplomatically, which could open the door for further diplomacy. If the deal collapses, we would be left with no option other than confrontation.

Should Europe try to save the Iran nuclear deal? Is the deal the best way to prevent a war in the region? Or has it perversely destabilised the region by empowering Iran financially? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below and we’ll take them to policymakers and experts for their reactions!

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – Kamyar Adl; PORTRAITS CREDITS: Oren (CC) Anne Mandlebaum, Vaez (CC) International Crisis Group

123 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think?

  1. Ivan

    Iran broke the agreement before the ink was dry on the paper. There is only one thing Tehran understands and that’s the threat of force..

    But Brussels thinks it will make them look important on the world stage to they will try and save it.

  2. Desto

    That deal, I don’t ever trust Iran, a state that sponsors foreign radica

    • Giancarlo

      The terrorist state is Israel..

    • Desto

      But it never occurred to me any time Israel has ever started any form of violence, instead, they do all they can to protect and defend themselves. Violence do not resolve issues, it only aggregates issues the more causing more losses and instabilities to both Israelis and the Palestinians.

    • Grant

      What about Saudi Arabia, they also sponsor mass terrorism and we do business with them

  3. randomguy2018

    Europe its time to grow up.
    You arent USA or Israel. Get your own policy. Iran is not a threat.
    They have no nukes, they cant hurt Europe. Its only a tiny nation which ignores all international laws that seems worried about Iran.

    Outside the Angloworld no one supports Israel.
    Thats because Anglo elites love Middle East. They have always been in love with oil from Arabs or Israel for imperialism/having a foothold in the area. You also have their weird restortationist “Christian” idea.

    “The term “restorationism” can also include the belief that the Jewish people must be restored to the promised land in fulfillment of biblical prophecy before the Second Coming of Christ.[15]:3 Christian restorationism is generally used to describe the 19th century movement based on this belief, though the term Christian Zionism is more commonly used to describe later forms.”

    (The vast majority of Christianity rejects this idea, lets not forget that Israel needs to be stopped so Iran and other regional powers need to provide a counterbalance in the region).

  4. Stav

    I don’t understand why Iran needs nuclear power when it has so much oil? Probably for nuclear weapons.

    • Josh

      Yes but of course they agreed to give up much of their capacity for nuclear power; that was what the deal is.

  5. Eric

    Did you hear what the dems wantinto any Trump-NK deal? How about demanding that from Iran too. Hell they’re even worse lying bastards!

  6. Josh

    Yes, absolutely. We have no evidence that they broke the deal, only America’s hearsay. And why would you trust a man like Trump with a foreign secretary like John Bolton?

    If we revert to sanctions, we push all of the middle east closer to war and endanger hundreds of millions of lives. It’s our duty to keep the deal alive as human beings.

  7. Hans

    They hoped the deal would stop Iran’s behaviour about their hate for Americans and Israelites.
    Instead they surrounding Israel with their hate and poisoned religion.
    So yes , Europe can’t support that either.
    Get out , there will be a war.

  8. Jan

    Odd question. Iran abides by the agreement. You have anright to question outside influence in a region but then the scope of your attention nshould be far broader.

    Beyond the question, we as Europeans should and hopefully shall, fight…yes fight outside influence from externals and stick with our values, morals and above all, our agreements. We have to be viewed as the sane ones.

  9. Aguysomewhere

    Islamic countries that make religion the state policy and that as a result practice discrimination must never ever be allowed to get nuclear weapons. You can put Saudi Arabia on that list, sadly Pakistan already has the nukes but they should have been sanctioned to get them to give up their nukes.

    Iran has had 10 years to learn how US soldiers fight in Iraq and to learn from this. It will be a massive war. Ofcourse the USA and it’s allies will prevail but there will be a cost in blood.

    • catherine benning

      Should Europe try to save the Iran nuclear deal?


      If your direction on thismatter must be followed, then, any state of any religion must follow that same rule. Israel is Zionist and a Jewish State. Pakistan is similar to Iran and Moslem. The UK is a Christian State. France is a Christian State. Russia is Russian Orthodox, which is a form of Christianity. And so on they go.

      I am not following your gist. Equality is supposed to be the rule. No?

      Surely, those with their finger on the nuclear button should be certified as sane ‘before’ they can be seen as acceptable in that position. Which today, would leave numerous world leaders lacking in suitable character for this very dangerous position.

      I know it makes me very uncomfortable having to rely on any of them.

  10. Venko

    Why You not ask Prime Minister to UK, what she will do, when UK go out from EU after Brexit, and when EU not save that Iran nuclear deal ? UK companies invest a lot of money already – “no deal” means that UK companies losse, a lot of money. UK want Brexit, so they want to be alone. If EU leave UK alone in that deal or after that for UK situation can be very bad – You can ask financial minister to UK ;) What I do, is to do not support Iran nuclear deal, and to help to UK to refund how much money is possible from that deal. In that way EU can support UK, because UK is a part from EU family and EU can forgive to UK for Brexit. UK is not alone! EU have responsibility to keep peace and human life in Iran don’t have matter deal ! People are important !

    • Tarquin Farquhar

      The EU is not part of the EU family – the EU is a prison superstate, run by corrupt technocrats.
      The UK will suffer in the short run financially but in the long run and indeed post-Brexit from the off, the UK will be free as the EU stumbles from crisis to corruption, to illiberality, strife and stagnation.

  11. jthk

    The US is far away from Europe, Iran nuclear deal is made for European security not to sustain US hegemony. For the peace and security of Europe, Iran nuclear deal has to save and secure. If Europe is afraid of sanction from the US, Europe can threaten to abandon the use of US dollar in Europe and Iran trade. Europe has to stand firm and strengthen solidarity. This is the only way to resist a superpower leading by a crazy, irrational, ignorant and opportunist and gambler president.

  12. jthk

    The Iran Nuclear Deal is a collective effort of the international society. When the superpower leading by an irrational and irresponsible man who has been continuously denying all previous effort of the whole world, Europe has to use collective effort to tame him.

  13. M.par

    Europe must choose between a secure economy or one’s economic security.
    Maintaining a nuclear deal will endanger the European economy in its dealings with America, and the destruction of the agreement will have an impact on European economic security.
    Europe knows well that the Strait of Hormuz is unlikely to be able to exchange 70 percent of the world’s energy, and this would be a huge risk to Europe’s withdrawal from the agreement.

  14. Joseph

    Rather than what? Invading a peaceful country and killing millions as Trump wants to do? Yes, we should try to keep the peace- and temper the dominance of the extremist Saudi Arabia.

  15. Ivan

    What deal ? Iran broke the terms of it before the ink was dry. It was never anything more than an Obama vanity project & Brussels is delusional enough to think they can replace the disgraced US president as a middle east peace maker. But at least the Iranians elected their chief lawmaker whereas nobody elected yours so at least Iran is slightly more democratic than the EU.

  16. Muriel Helbig

    This deal is not only about military or econonic interests. It is also about trust and the way countries and their leaders interact. We will always have international relationships, and need to rely on contracts made and words given. The deal must be saved. Otherwise, any future deal with any country, Iran or other, will be so much more difficult.

  17. jthk

    A very simple logic, Trump has been talking about US first, if Trump wants to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal, which means definitely American interests, not that of European. Iran nuclear deal offers Europe better security. Even though it is not perfect, it is just the beginning. Everything can improve. If we don’t start, good things would never come.

  18. jthk

    As Angela Merkel said Europe has to take care of itself now, when the US is leading by an insane merchant.

  19. jthk

    When China can emerge as the world’s second largest economy in shortly three decades, it is strange why EU is still shifting from economic take-off and insecurity threat. Europe is the source of modern civilization, source of science and technology, source of knowledge. Both Europe and China were badly torn after World War II. China was only at its starting point of building a modern state, which Europe has long been consolidated. What can I think of is that China can implement all policies uniquely on their own national interest, while Europe cannot be independent from US influence disregarding the formation of the EU. Now EU is breaking up. It is partly the consequence of the Arab Spring staged by Obama and its subsequent refugee influx, the 2008 Financial Crisis broke out from the Wall Street, which has dragged Europe into the financial crisis. Dating back to the beginning of the century, European countries had joined the US on the invasion of Iraq against protects of the international society. Being an ally of Bush’s war on terror, the US has free itself from terrorist attacks but Europe is suffering from consistent attacks…If Europe wants to stand up again stronger, a stronger union that can pursue European interest independently is essentially required.

  20. Bódis

    Iran should not have nukes. If Iran cannot be trusted, then no nuclear power at all.

    The basic question is: can the present and future leaders of Iran be trusted?

    • Myra

      No nukes for all countries. You may have notes that it is the USA and their allies who are waging wars for goodness sakes. Not rocket science.

    • Bódis

      Your reading comprehension sux.

    • Dee

      I beg to differ,a nuclear equipped Iran would keep both Israel and the US in their boxes,there would a lot less of their meddling in the middle east

    • Bódis

      You seem to be the kind of person whose solution for too much gun-violence would be more guns, so everyone can defend themselves.
      Oops.. have a look how well that’s worked out in the land of guns.

    • Dee

      Bódis so its ok for israel and the US to have them? what’s the alternative? Iran knows damn well they are next for “regime” change and judging by what has gone on in Syria I wouldn’t blame them for working towards being nuclear armed

    • Bódis

      Realistically, it’s not going to be possible to take away nukes from those who already have them. However, the fewer the better, I think.
      Iran should spend its money on boosting businesses and the economy, not a nuclear program. They would benefit much more.

    • Dee

      Bódis bit hard to do when the US is applying sanctions and even sanctions on countries that do business with Iran.If they were nuclear armed it would guarantee there would be none of the good old fashioned US regime change,remember its not the first time they’ve done it to Iran. In an ideal world no country would be nuclear armed,sadly that’s a long way away,if ever.

    • Bódis

      There are countries that ignore the sanctions and they could rely on internal consumption, too. The population is 80 million. >> All the more reasons to focus on economic growth, I think.

      The US foreign policy is driven by the economic interests of the oligarchs that support its government. Some oligarch-interest groups compete with each other. (Imagine how the various maffias can divide up a city among themselves. These oligarch-interest groups do something similar on a global scale.)
      Less belligerence would cut back on the pressure and economic growth would make foreign investors interested, so they would soon start to lobby for the end of the sanctions.

    • Frank

      Iran was sticking scrupulously to the stipulations of the deal according to everyone involved. So far, so good, until Trump came along.
      Remember what Colin Powell said about the deal? “Yes, Iran still has a pathway to nuclear weapons. But before this they were on a 6-lane highway.”
      I guess they’re about to hit the freeway again after this.
      You may ask why would Trump lash out against Iran which is off the path to nuclear weapons and smooching up to Kim Jong-un who is sticking to his. I can think of only two reasons:
      – Obama made the Iran deal happen and everything Obama did must be undone according to Trump
      – cutting off oil from Iran will cause the price of oul to rise and that will be good for Trump’s friends.
      Any others that people can think of?

    • Bódis

      It’s because of the above mentioned interest groups. Trump is supported by a different one than Obama was. The interest group that supports Trump puts a higher priority on Israel’s safety. The interest group behind Obama was probably more interested in Iran’s gas fields.

      Since I stopped thinking about US foreign policy as “national policy” and instead consider the interests of competing interest groups, it has started to make much more sense.

    • Ivan

      Save what ? the Iranians broke the deal before the ink was dry on the paper. Obama made the world a far more dangerous place when he paid them billions of dollars and got nothing for it.

    • Michael

      Ivan What part of the deal did they break ‘before the ink was dry’?

    • Ivan


      It was not a treaty to stop them getting nukes, it was only gentleman’s agreement to increase the time frame for Iran to produce nuclear weapons from 3 months to 12 months by restricting their uranium enrichment production but in May of this year Iran threatens to restart its nuclear programme ‘within five days’.

      1. This would be impossible if they had followed the agreement they signed.

      2. The agreement did not prohibit Iran from testing their missile delivery system which they now have, couple this with their five day threat & they could have a fully functional nuke ready to hit Madrid with a week.

      Now you tell me how they did not break the agreement ?

    • Michael

      Ivan Iran would never nuke Madrid, too many Real Madrid fans. 😁

      Regarding point 1, that’s fair, but the US has also broken the agreement so it’s a bit moot.

      Regarding point two, why didn’t they specifically request this condition while negotiations were ongoing rather than incessantly baying ‘bad deal bad deal’?

      To sign an agreement only to tear it up as soon as the administration changes because it’s politically expedient is incredibly morally hazardous and fickle. It screams legal insecurity and makes it much less likely that anyone will sign such agreements with the US in the future.

    • Ivan

      Michael There was one & only reason for Obama to make the agreement with the mad Mullahs of Iran, to make Obama look good & to hell with everyone else.

    • Michael

      Ivan Burrows That does not address the issues I raised.

  21. Péter

    Yes, definitely. It is the only way to prevent Iran acquiring nukes

    • Ivan

      The agreement does not stop them acquiring nukes, it was only designed to delay them for 12 months.

    • Péter

      Ivan Burrows you are stupid as always. Go back to finish your good morning shot and get legless by midday

    • John

      Ivan, pray tell, where did you get the gem of information from?

    • Péter

      John not from Orange Buffooon

    • Lynne

      Ivan, ignore them.. it’s like talking to dumb and dumber.

    • Ivan

      Péter I got it from the ‘agreement’, where else would you get it from ?

  22. Codrin

    No ! A new deal is needed, but only after the dictatorial islamic regime is history !

    • Michael

      I’m sorry but this is too ambiguous for me to understand. Do you mean Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Pakistan which already has nuclear missiles, NATO member Turkey…?

    • Codrin

      Michael i mean the crazy regime in Teheran !

    • Ivan

      Michael Do you consider Saudi Arabia, Qatar & Pakistan to be liberal minded people who believe in freedom ?

    • Ray

      I believe the US and the UK should stop interfering in Iran’s affairs. Since that country’s legit elected government was replaced with the Shah, it has lost its way and that’s why there’s a dictatorship today. Its all the US/UK’s fault.

    • Michael

      No. Do you?

  23. jthk

    When it is overwhelmingly a common logic and consensus that having a deal is always better than no deal. Why argue still “deal” or “no deal” on Iran Nuclear issue if EU does not want to fight a war with Iran? Let Trump fights his own war. If Trump is afraid of fighting a war in Korean Peninsula, he would not want to fight a war with Iran. It is just more irrational than Trump if EU leaders agree to fight a war with Iran.

  24. Ivan

    Appeasement never works but that won’t stop EU fanatics bowing to the Iranians.

  25. Fabio

    Deal with iran is valid and there nothing to be saved, only Donnie and Bibi are against the deal

  26. Zap

    I never understood Trumps idea. Wont this accelerate nuclear development? And iv never.understood why western govs give arms to SA which i like less than Iran

  27. Max

    Yes. Its in europe’s interest to demonstrate that it’s a trustworthy & reliable negotiation partner. Also, it’s in europe’s interest to keep a neutral position in the emerging shia-sunni rivalry to play one side against the other. Regardless of the sides that the world’s other major powers take.

    • Lynne

      How is Iran trustworthy when they have leaders who openly say that they will take over and enforce their ideology in the UK, EU, America and in fact wherever they have been given refuge.

    • Max

      Sorry, this question makes no sense. It’s not that Iran is trustworthy. It’s that EUROPE needs to be trustworthy. We need to demonstrate to other potential negotiators that we don’t back out of a deal just because one of the other parties decided to for their own political or geostrategic reasons. If Europe isn’t seen as being trustworthy at the negotiating table, it hurts nobody else except europe.

      Also, geostrategically speaking, trustworthiness in negotiation is about how faithfully parties stick to deals. Not about how wacky their internal politics look like. Israel negotiates with countries that have openly anti-israel political factions all the time. same goes for USA and Russia. They negotiate with parties who openly have hostile factions on a routine basis. So did machiavelli during his time for that matter.

    • Antonio

      Yes I think we shouldn’t follow US and Israel decision because it’s clear that there is a conflict of interest about Iranian situation.

    • Frank

      Max, you’re right, but in the meantime Iran has set a number of conditions that Europe must satisfy for them to continue with the agreement. There is no way that Europe can satisfy those conditions, so from our point of view the agreement has now been or is about to be abandoned by both the US and Iran (in that order and that is relevant). We can’t keep the deal alive when those two, particularly Iran, are walking away from it.

    • Max

      That is a good point. If Iran is suddenly laying down conditions for us that do not suit our national interest (as it were), then we should just dare them to walk out.

      That would leave europe as the party who was willing to take the whole thing seriously. Which does a lot for europe’s credibility, IMO

  28. Hugo

    No. If USA and Israel got nukes to steal robber and destroy other countries Iran as wright to have weapons to defend itself

  29. Antonio

    The important thing is to not follow the US and act in our interest

  30. Ada

    Is that even a question? That’s not the real issue here.

  31. Alexandru

    Failing to do so would only give Iran a new incentive to develop nuclear weapons. Aside from that, Trump’s foreign policy is already uniting Iranian society behind its theocratic regime, in detriment to those moderates elements in government and Iranian politics.

    I’d also argue that Europe has more positive, not only negative interests to maintain that deal. Iran could provide an alternative source of energy and from all states in the Middle East, Iran is the only one that actually appears to have a certain degree of stability and which could help maintain order in a region that has constantly threatened European security with terrorism and illegal migration.

    • Ivan

      You think crazy nut jobs need a reason ? World religious domination is their goal and if that means destroying it then so be it.

    • Alexandru

      You are taking a preconceived idea and presenting it as a state of fact. If that would be true, then you may right, but no person who has actually studied Iranian society, history, culture or politic would agree with your hypothesis. It’s the same as for terrorism. In order to understand something complex without actually making a serious research you are merely simplifying things.

      Actually, what you say about Iran is what Iranians tend to say about the Western World in general and America in particular.

  32. Paul

    Yes. Why not? After all, it’s not Europeans trying to screw the world up…just world class gammon bastards.

  33. Ágnes

    It cannot be considered a deal at all! Too one sided! Obummer has practically committed one of the worst war criminal act in history with it, bringing suddenly much closer a nuclear WW3.

  34. Hans

    I’m not sure , in the Netherlands we send away someone from the ambassadors of Iran that was linked with a planned terror attack in Brussels two weeks ago.
    If Iran only can be hostile then NO.

  35. Ron

    Europe had better save herself and her genuine members…..!

  36. Riccardo

    No!! Why one of the greatest petrol producers needs nuclear for energy? They are developing weapons …

    • Mario

      Simply logical but greedy europeans want to ass lick so as to gain economically from export. Iran treats women as sub-humans and as a theocratic country it cannot get any worse!

    • Riccardo

      Thanks Mario, I know what Iran theocracy is …

  37. Mario

    European liberals are either naive, stupid, or having sold their soul or all three if they trust Iran to abide peacefully by the nuclear deal and not underhandly prepare for a nuclear aresenal.

    • Michael

      Iran is not trustworthy and will break the agreement… so let us break the agreement and blame it on them. I’m afraid I don’t see the sense of this argument.

    • Josh

      We have no evidence for Iran breaking the deal except lunatic ravings like this one.

  38. Michael

    Saving the deal will only accelerate the demise of Europe as we know it.

  39. Joe

    Definitely NO. Europe should not deal with an evil regime…especially a nuclear deal!!

  40. Sandra

    What has changed. Can the state that nuked the Bikini Islands as testing grounds exposing the Islanders to lethal radiation and destroying their land and seas be trusted to influence any decision in Europe. Iranian oil is all that their interested in, the sanctions and weather modifications are crippling Iran and they will look for any excuse to take it over

  41. Josh

    Yes. We should do everything possible.

    Besides I’m done with following America around for every dumb decision. Europe can broker peace with or without Republican warmongers.

    • Seán

      You say that as if Dmocrats are any better??? And I don’t mean a decent person like Bernie Sanders…I mean people like Obama and Israel’s most loyal American puppet Hillary Clinton who murdered people in the 10s of 1000s. The U.S. and the power of AIPAC over both parties is the problem, naive to thing either one better than the other, at home yes, not on global stage #BDS

    • Josh

      Yeah – at least neither of them intentionally sabotaged a trade deal at the behest of John Bolton to try and intentionally wage a war in Iran.

      But regardless, that still leaves Europe role as clear. Keep the sanctions off and keep peace possible.

required Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.