Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major
Economic Impacts of Iran War >

Economic Impacts of Iran War


Notices
Major Legacy, National, and LCC

Economic Impacts of Iran War

Old 04-10-2026 | 11:19 AM
  #771  
Excargodog's Avatar
Perennial Reserve
 
Joined: Jan 2018
Posts: 14,236
Likes: 254
Default

Originally Posted by AntiCompanyMan
How about Korea? How about Vietnam? How about Afghanistan? How about Iraq? Got any examples from the last 80 years? Or are you just adding nothing to the discussion with irrelevant examples that have little bearing on the present situation?
The lesson appears clear. In order to WIN Wars you do need a full fledged effort without quislings backstabbing you.
Reply
Old 04-10-2026 | 11:27 AM
  #772  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 12,520
Likes: 1,104
Default

Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
That’s why I said it’s a dichotomy. You either obliterate any semblance of the current rule or you let them have nukes. Personally, I think the nukes part is worse. But that’s just like my opinion.
That's not a dichotomy. It's a false dichotomy
Reply
Old 04-10-2026 | 11:30 AM
  #773  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,401
Likes: 473
Default

Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
That’s why I said it’s a dichotomy. You either obliterate any semblance of the current rule or you let them have nukes. Personally, I think the nukes part is worse. But that’s just like my opinion.
True. Their one plan was for the Iranian people to rise up after the bombs started dropping. They had no plan B. It’s abundantly clear they have no idea how to extricate ourselves from this mess.
Reply
Old 04-10-2026 | 11:37 AM
  #774  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 245
Default

Originally Posted by CBreezy
That's not a dichotomy. It's a false dichotomy
It is if you believe a country run by terrorists would legitimately give up their desire to have them, yes.
Reply
Old 04-10-2026 | 11:59 AM
  #775  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 3,473
Likes: 288
From: 737 FO
Default

Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
That’s why I said it’s a dichotomy. You either obliterate any semblance of the current rule or you let them have nukes. Personally, I think the nukes part is worse. But that’s just like my opinion.
Well when you start obliterating countries run by bad actors because they could potentially be developing nukes you kind of show the world the importance of having nukes to keep from being obliterated. Every one of these strikes breeds new terrorists everyday. There is more than one dichotomy at play here, especially when you consider we are the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons against another country.
Reply
Old 04-10-2026 | 12:18 PM
  #776  
Line Holder
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,154
Likes: 192
Default

Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
Yeah, unfortunately there is actually no way to do that in a manner which they would comply. That’s why JCPOA was a pipe dream. Unless there was a way to remove every ounce of nuclear material and forever prevent it from entering the country covertly, both of which would never happen, they would always seek one. It’s just the nature of terrorists. Negotiating with them is a fool’s errand.
I recently read a piece in Foreign Affairs about what a peace agreement with Iran would look like.
It naturally had some comments on the 2015 JCPOA.

The author essentially stated that for some factions of American political actors, and the administration that came to power in 2017, there wasn't (and isn't) much that Iran can do.
Giving up 98% of their enriched uranium.Destroying most of their centrifuges. Complying with inspections. Etc.
Wasn't enough.
Negotiating with people whom will not take "yes" for an answer is an impossibility.

in short, complying with the agreement which achieved the goals that were stated in last years 12 day war and have belatedly surfaced in the current war was and is not enough for some in both America and Israel.

JCPOA wasn't a pipe dream. It likely achieved as good an outcome as reasonable people could expect. No nuclear weapons or enrichment for 10 years. A chance for Iran to rejoin the international community, which would be the basis of any lasting peace.
(as a side note, the failure of Russia to integrate into the world order is a major reason why Russia is at war in Ukraine. The achievement of China being integrated into the world's rules based order is a major reason why China ISN'T at war with us or its neighbors)

Your post essentially states that Iran can never be allowed to say "yes".
Old 04-10-2026 | 12:33 PM
  #777  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Apr 2023
Posts: 126
Likes: 105
Default

Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
a country run by terrorists
Sounds like you're talking about Israel, since they have been the primary destabilizing agent in the Middle East for the last 20 years
Reply
Old 04-10-2026 | 12:36 PM
  #778  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 3,680
Likes: 245
Default

Originally Posted by MaxQ
I recently read a piece in Foreign Affairs about what a peace agreement with Iran would look like.
It naturally had some comments on the 2015 JCPOA.

The author essentially stated that for some factions of American political actors, and the administration that came to power in 2017, there wasn't (and isn't) much that Iran can do.
Giving up 98% of their enriched uranium.Destroying most of their centrifuges. Complying with inspections. Etc.
Wasn't enough.
Negotiating with people whom will not take "yes" for an answer is an impossibility.

in short, complying with the agreement which achieved the goals that were stated in last years 12 day war and have belatedly surfaced in the current war was and is not enough for some in both America and Israel.

JCPOA wasn't a pipe dream. It likely achieved as good an outcome as reasonable people could expect. No nuclear weapons or enrichment for 10 years. A chance for Iran to rejoin the international community, which would be the basis of any lasting peace.
(as a side note, the failure of Russia to integrate into the world order is a major reason why Russia is at war in Ukraine. The achievement of China being integrated into the world's rules based order is a major reason why China ISN'T at war with us or its neighbors)

Your post essentially states that Iran can never be allowed to say "yes".
No, my post says that Iranian regime will never give up its nuclear ambitions. The only thing that negotiating with them does is allow them more time to do the inevitable.

They have no desire to join a world that they largely detest.
Reply
Old 04-10-2026 | 12:57 PM
  #779  
On Reserve
 
Joined: Apr 2023
Posts: 126
Likes: 105
Default

Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
Yeah, unfortunately there is actually no way to do that in a manner which they would comply. That’s why JCPOA was a pipe dream. Unless there was a way to remove every ounce of nuclear material and forever prevent it from entering the country covertly, both of which would never happen, they would always seek one. It’s just the nature of terrorists. Negotiating with them is a fool’s errand.
Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
That’s why I said it’s a dichotomy. You either obliterate any semblance of the current rule or you let them have nukes. Personally, I think the nukes part is worse. But that’s just like my opinion.
Hmm I wonder how Iran gained its nuclear expertise to begin with:

"Iran's nuclear ambitions began under the rule of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, with support from the United States and Western Europe. In 1957, Iran and the US signed a civil nuclear cooperation agreement as part of President Dwight Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program. This led to the construction of Iran's first nuclear research facility at Tehran. In November 1967, the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) went critical – a 5 megawatt (thermal) light-water reactor, which initially ran on highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel at 93% U-235, provided by the US."

Why is the current regime so hostile to America? Oh right, because America enabled political terrorism by the Shah's secret police:

"According to a declassified CIA memo citing a classified U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, the CIA played a significant role in establishing SAVAK, providing both funding and training.[7] The organization became notorious for its extensive surveillance, repression, and torture of political dissidents. The Shah used SAVAK to arrest, imprison, exile, and torture his opponents, leading to widespread public resentment."

And how do we fix the past mistakes of American intervention?

More intervention of course! More regime change! It will definitely work this time. We need to go to war in the middle east because of the threat of WMDs. It'll go great
Reply
Old 04-10-2026 | 01:07 PM
  #780  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,488
Likes: 137
Default

Originally Posted by ThumbsUp
No, my post says that Iranian regime will never give up its nuclear ambitions. The only thing that negotiating with them does is allow them more time to do the inevitable.

They have no desire to join a world that they largely detest.
If so, success in that regard will definitely assure their goal. Because whatever world they may exist in, won’t be this one.
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
jungle
Money Talk
3
01-12-2009 07:31 AM
ryan1234
Money Talk
0
12-05-2008 08:27 PM
jungle
Money Talk
1
11-25-2008 03:28 PM
vagabond
Money Talk
0
10-26-2008 08:48 PM
robthree
Regional
13
09-01-2007 03:23 PM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices