From my (rather uninformed) reading, it seems that the US does have the ability to impose fairly effective unilateral sanctions that would be very costly for any multinational concern to defy.
If someone knows more... I am very interested.
I can't see the US taking military action against Iran. There is no scenario where the US gets what it wants in Iran by dropping bombs and the response by our allies would be terrible.
I realize that you have a very simplistic one-sided view of American foreign policy...
but can you really not see the downside to this?
The US isn't all-powerful, we need our allies. When the US pisses off the rest of the world (except Israel) Russia and China step in as alternatives.
The reason I say that your view of foreign policy is one-sided is obvious. I have never seen you take a position that wasn't obvious.
"Facts and Reality" are delusions of a person who never questions anything. If you don't have critical thinking skills, everything you believe becomes a "fact".
Real adult foreign policy involves weighing risks, and understanding that every action you take has consequences. Grownups have realized the often there isn't a simple solution to many of these problems.
I am not asking for a view of foreign policy that uses thinking skills fully understood by middle school kids on a playground. I am challenging you to think a little more deeply.
If you want to argue that Trump's policies offer the best chance of success in spite of the risks, then I would consider that an intelligent contribution provided you are able to discuss the risks (and there are risks).
This overconfident, boisterous, childish sloganeering; bomb Iran, to hell with Europe, America **** yeah! doesn't get us anywhere.
Edit: My son is likely going to be directly involved in mopping up whatever mess Trump makes in the world. I am very aware of the costs.
I'm pretty sure environmentalists would be quite upset if the US decides to throw bombs on places where nuclear material is handled... Not to mention humanitarians, if people are exposed to radiation damage.
But, who am I kidding? Your rhetoric makes it pretty obvious you would probably be cackling with glee if the Iranians were to die to due to radiation exposure caused by U.S. bombings. After all, they're 'just muslims', right?
Le Maire said: â€śAt the end of May I will meet with the British and German finance ministers and the three of us will look at what we can do.â€ť
He disclosed that he had called the US treasury secretary, Steve Mnuchin, on Wednesday, urging him to allow exemptions for French companies or a delay in implementing the sanctions, while admitting he had â€śfew illusionsâ€ť about the likely response.
Le Maire pointed to the possibility of reinstating EU â€śblocking regulationsâ€ť, dating back to 1996, which were used to counter US sanctions that targeted third countries doing business with Libya.
The statute permitted European companies to ignore the US sanctions and said that any decisions by foreign courts based on the sanctions would not be upheld in Europe. The US backed down before any sanctions were implemented.
â€śWe want to reinforce this regulation and incorporate the recent decisions taken by the United States,â€ť Le Maire said.
â€śThe second avenue is looking at Europeâ€™s financial independence â€“ what can we do to give Europe more financial tools allowing it to be independent from the United States?â€ť One proposal is to set up a purely European finance house to oversee euro-denominated transactions with Iran.
Oralloy saying "Horray for war"