Is it the US or Trump? That is the unresolved question. Would they want to return to our pre-Trump status quo, or would they not trust America anymore,
No one is likely to help America. It is now a pariah nation
- Thread starter Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
- Start date
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
Ichabod Stain
Was it me?
mark Carney eats balls.
tigerred59
Verified User
I said shortly after Trump was elected, that the lies this man tells, even someday should he ever ventures into truth telling, it will never register or be taken seriously. Same with his shitting all over our allies. Now we're a nation isolated from the rest of the world, laughed upon and ignored. When the value of our currency starts to become a hindrance on the open market, we're really done. So far, kissing Trump's ring is all about the bengies, once Powel is gone, its gonna be a spiraling free fall of US currency's strong hold around the world. AND I AM NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER WRONG, EVER!!!
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
UAE urges closure of US bases in the region
A prominent UAE international affairs analyst described the presence of US bases in the Persian Gulf countries as an “added burden” and called for their closure.
Abdulkhaleq Abdulla emphasized that the United Arab Emirates is capable of defending its own territory and no longer requires a US military presence on its soil.
“What the UAE needs today is just to purchase the best and most advanced weaponry. The time has come to consider closing US military bases in the region, as they are no longer a strategic asset,” the analyst added.
Following recent military developments and attacks in the Persian Gulf region, significant changes have occurred in the security and political dynamics of the region. The current approach of the regional states focuses on reducing reliance on powers from outside the region and strengthening regional diplomacy and relations with neighbors.
Furthermore, the people of these countries, having hosted foreign military presences for many years, are increasingly looking toward domestic capabilities and regional cooperation to establish long-term security.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
Peru’s president postpones F-16 fighter jet deal
The fighter jets have long been a source of controversy in Peru, where critics have questioned whether the purchase is a sign of deference to US President Donald Trump.
Last week, the left-wing President Jose Maria Balcazar — Peru’s ninth president in a decade — announced he would leave the decision about whether to invest $3.5bn in the purchase to the country’s next elected leader.
Balcazar himself had only been in office since February, selected by Congress to replace the latest in a string of impeached presidents.
The instability in Peru’s presidency comes at a time when the Trump administration is seeking greater influence over Latin America, as part of what the US president has called his “Donroe Doctrine”.
Last week, he abruptly cancelled a signing ceremony for the F-16 deal.
Peru has received more competitive offers from French and Swedish aircraft makers like Dassault Aviation and Saab AB, respectively.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
Trump Is Facing an Increasingly Defiant World
Donald Trump has bullied other countries on everything from trade to how they govern themselves.
In just the last few days, however, a handful of global players have defied him, showing the limits of his influence.
Iran’s leaders abandoned peace talks with the U.S., choosing to keep waging war instead.
Hungary’s voters tossed out one of Trump’s only European allies, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.
Then there’s Pope Leo, who presumably answers to a higher power, saying he has “no fear” of Trump after the president taunted him.
Trump and his aides often appear to operate as if most other people on the planet are “non-player characters” in a video game. They believe, with few exceptions, that America can use threats, economic muscle and military action to bend other capitals to its will.
But foreign policy has some basic laws.
One of them, similar to physics, is that every action has a reaction. I
It may not be equal or opposite, but it also may not be what the Trump team wants.
So far, the Trump administration does not appear to be adjusting well to the reality that more international players are willing to buck the American superpower.
“If there were an appreciation that bullying was no longer a likely to succeed tactic you’d see a move away from it,” but there’s no real sign that Trump is doing so, said Richard Haass, a former president of the Council on Foreign Relations.
More than ever, I’m hearing concerns from foreign officials that critical information about geopolitical dynamics is simply not reaching the president because his aides won’t tell him hard truths. A New York Times rundown of his decision to go to war with Iran has fueled this worry.
“He is surrounded by ‘yes’ people,” one senior European diplomat fumed.
The Trump administration’s brash style came across in Vice President JD Vance’s comments after he bungled 21 hours' worth of peace talks with Iranian officials.
Iran, Vance said, had “chosen not to accept our terms.”
Such a statement, which Vance gave some version of twice, implied that the U.S. was dictating, not negotiating, despite Vance adding that the U.S. was “quite accommodating.”
It did not go over well with supporters of Iran, while many in other countries saw the whole drama as a missed opportunity to deescalate tensions.
“If you want something from somebody you have to give them something, unless like in World War II they’ve truly surrendered,” said John Bolton. “It can’t just be ‘we’re going to beat you.’”
The Trump administration, naturally, rejected my suggestion that its hardline approach is counterproductive.
To date, there’s little evidence that Trump or his deputies understand the chain reactions they set off when issuing diktats or that they have learned lessons from past instances of blowback.
Or maybe they don’t care.
Sure, Trump may retreat here and there on an issue (the so-called TACO phenomenon), but that is often followed by him later making another push on the same issue.
Take Trump’s insistence that Denmark hand over Greenland.
That was a red line for much of Europe, whose leaders had largely cozied up to Trump during his first year back in office.
In January, as Trump ratcheted up his demands for Greenland, European leaders made clear to Trump that he couldn’t have it.
Trump backed down, but the damage was done.
His Greenland gambit and his constant threats to pull out of NATO have added urgency to European efforts to reduce reliance on the U.S. security apparatus.
As these countries grow less dependent on the U.S., they’re more willing to defy Trump.
Rather than responding to that risk, Trump recently signaled he’s not done with Greenland.
On April 8, fuming over Europeans’ unwillingness to team up with the U.S. against Iran, Trump vented on social media: “REMEMBER GREENLAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!”
Sometimes, it’s anyone’s guess what Trump knows about the second- or third-order effects of his menacing moves.
Trump’s tariffs, for instance, are leading other countries to find new trading partners beyond the U.S., reducing their economic reliance on America.
Similar to countries reducing their military dependence, nations with less economic dependence on America are less likely to listen to the U.S. in the future.
Many in the foreign affairs establishment have long fretted that Trump and his team approach the world as if it’s all about making real estate deals the way the president once did in New York.
But treating Russia’s war in Ukraine or the Palestinians’ claims on Gaza as being about property misses how the desire to simply survive as a people is what fuels many conflicts.
Trump and his team often fail to realize that people tend to fight for what gives their life meaning beyond the purely rational or material cost-benefit analysis.
There are times when Trump is responsive to the negative impact of his strong-arming.
When China stood up to him on trade — imposing massive retaliatory tariffs and restricting rare earth mineral exports — he essentially called a truce.
Still, Trump has always paid closer attention to heavyweight global players such as Beijing or Moscow than he has to ones he dismisses as weaker entities.
Besides, it’s hard not to notice blowback from China when it affects stock markets.
Trump could be helping lead the U.S. into a “post-American world” where it is no longer the center of gravity.
That is certainly what Beijing wants.
It could be a world in which the U.S. must regularly plead for help instead of knowing it can count on friends who instinctively trust and support it.
“Look, the U.S. is powerful and we have a lot of influence, but we don’t have infinite influence,” said Dan Shapiro, who dealt with the Middle East as a Biden administration official. “Even the best need allies, friends, partners.”
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
America has earned record levels of distrust, hate, and defiance
America's reputation has significantly declined internationally, with a recent poll showing that the proportion of people believing the US will have a positive influence on world affairs has fallen in 26 out of 29 countries.
This decline is particularly notable in Canada, where support has dropped from 52% to just 19% in six months.
America's reputation has significantly declined internationally, with a recent poll showing that the proportion of people believing the US will have a positive influence on world affairs has fallen in 26 out of 29 countries.
This decline is particularly notable in Canada, where support has dropped from 52% to just 19% in six months.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
25 Reasons Why Americans Are Increasingly Disliked Worldwide
Americans have gained a reputation worldwide that isn’t exactly positive, and the reasons behind this growing dislike are becoming clearer each year.
Many people across different countries share similar complaints about American behavior, attitudes, and influence on global culture.
The relationship between Americans and the rest of the world has changed a lot in recent decades.
While American movies, music, and products remain popular globally, there’s a rising tide of criticism about American attitudes and actions.
This criticism comes from both wealthy and developing nations, suggesting a pattern that goes beyond simple cultural differences.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I guess you missed this one...
Europe-led coalition prepares mission to reopen Strait of Hormuz
A group of more than 40 countries is meeting in Paris to finalise early plans to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. The France and UK-led coalition insists the operation will only kick in when the war is over. Countries say they are ready to send warships, personnel and demining support. #EuropeNews
www.euronews.com
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
The Long Decline of Support for U.S. Aggression
Operation Epic Fury was immediately unpopular among American voters, with a -13.3 net approval rating for the military action now, after starting at -5.1 in the RCP Average.
The action is not uniquely unpopular, however; the latest RealClear Opinion Research poll finds that U.S. wars and interventions in the 20th century are all viewed unfavorably, reflecting general opposition to foreign intervention.
The poll, conducted among 1,000 U.S. voters March 25-26 with a margin of error of +/- 3 percentage points, found that voters were split down the middle on the kidnapping of then-Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. 43% supported and 43% opposed.
That is where support for foreign intervention ends.
Just 42% said it was right for the U.S. to use military force in Venezuela, and 41% said the same for Iran, compared with 47% and 50%, respectively, who opposed each action.
Other uses of the U.S. military in recent history, such as Libya in 2011 (24% right, 43% wrong), Iraq in 2003 (28% right, 60% wrong), and even the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 (40% right, 46% wrong), all had more respondents opposed than supportive.
Since the end of World War II, 48% say the United States has gone too far in concerning itself with problems in other parts of the world, while only 33% say it has not.
In a 1950 poll from the National Opinion Research Center asking the same question, 39% said the country had gone too far, while 48% said it had not. Americans were somewhat skeptical of U.S. intervention at the time and have become more so over time.
The Vietnam War marked another significant turning point in American views on foreign policy.
When the United States began sending combat troops to Vietnam in 1965, only 24% said it was a mistake, while 61% said it was not, according to Gallup polling at the time.
By the end of 1967, equal numbers said it was and was not a mistake.
By 1973, 60% said it was a mistake, while only 29% said it was not.
On issues more directly related to U.S. security, such as if an ally is attacked or to prevent a nuclear weapon from falling into the hands of terrorists, even fewer respondents said the United States should not intervene, at 8% and 10%, respectively.
However, when asked directly whether it would be acceptable for the United States to get involved in changing another country from a dictatorship to a democracy, only 24% supported doing so, while 56% said the United States should stay out of other countries’ affairs.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
سپاه پاسداران انقلاب اسلامی
To Compete with China, the US Needs Friends
America faces a strategic dilemma.
Attempting to outbuild China alone will take a decade or more during a decisive period.
The combined industrial capacity of the United States, South Korea, Japan, Australia, and other capable partners could have matched Chinese output while creating a more distributed and resilient military force.
But Donald Trump has alienated even America's closet friends.
Now America stands alone, except for Israel. How much help will Israel be?