If no one blinks, those companies will be doing business with Iran and noy the US. We don’t buy a lot of Peugeot cars or Total oil so, I guess they did the math.
1 Like
What EU expansionism? Are you talking about WWII?
Russia is hostile to the United States and is openly working to undermine our government and other institutions.
Complete nonsense. This is about keeping Iran free of nukes, not an economic decision based on car sales.
They say their is a sucker born every moment in our country.
Welcome.
No one in their right mind believes “the deal” did anything except kick the can down the road on Iranuan nukes. Heck it doesn’t even prevent Iran from developing ICBMs.
No I’m not. We should have done more to provoke freedom and civil liberties in Russia…but instead we drove them into Putin hands. He use EU expansionism to prey on Russian fears to gain power.
Do you disagree with this?
lol
yeah Every one outside the US was until we taught thembotherwise.
I wonder how many Boeing workers there are that voted for Trump. Sort of reminds me of the Trump supporters at the Carrier plant he visited. They loved the guy until the layoffs started. Now they want him gone. The “greatest jobs creator that God ever invented” is a joke.
Damn typos.
I meant “Everone outside the US was nice until we taught them otherwise.”
Europe is walking away from the world’s biggest economy in favor of Iran for economic reasons? That truly makes no sense.
It’s about nuclear weapons, not car sales.
We’ll see what happens. I’ll be willing to give Trump credit if this ends peacefully with a better deal that covers more of Iran’s bad behavior. But right now, from my perspective, a less-than-perfect deal is better than no deal or war.
Sanctions work company by company.
Under sanctions
if Peugot sells cars to Iran, it can’t sell them to the US, but every other French provider of every other French good or service from wine to dating services is unaffected.
1 Like
Basically Trump may be right to want to sanction Iran for proxy wars ballistic missiles etc., buy our allance with Europe is no longer so tight that we can count on them.
Nowadays America has to build a consensus first, before, we could count on them to ‘be on our side.’
Yes, I know, and that’s irrelevant to what I posted.
There is a big difference between “on our side” and “do what we want”.
Alliances aren’t built on loyalty, they are built on common action for common goals. When one sides of an alliance takes action that doesn’t include the goals of the other alliance members, they shouldn’t be surprised when the other members don’t follow.
The EU thought that the Iran deal was good for their best interests, so they agreed. The US then unilaterally ended the deal. The EU continues to pursue their best interests.
What is so surprising about the alliance not following the rouge member that unilaterally stops following agreements that the other alliance members agreed to and followed?
Best interests, as in selling out? As in their corporations get to do business with the mullahs and no sanctions from the US.
What exactly does a regime, such as Iran have to do before Europe should stop selling out for the almighty Euro?
what interests me is that Europe (much closer to Iran, more skin in the game) is in favor of the current agreement. wouldn’t you think that the roles would be reversed??
I think the proximity dictates how much money Europe can gain from turning a bllind eye to the very real threat in their backyard.
Europe has a long history of turning a blind eye if they can make a buck.
1 Like
