I think it is fantasy to think we can ever get back to a point where we're seen as a credible negotiating partner, after the events of the past decade.

▲

ReptileMan 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

i don't know. I am fairly sure that - you have 60 days to make a deal or we will bomb the shit out of you. And then on the 62nd day bombing the shit from their crown jewels makes the US pretty credible negotiator.

▲

sanderjd 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

"You're going to bomb the shit out of us anyway, what's the point?"

They were already having this negotiation, and we started bombing them in the middle of it.

And they already negotiated an agreement a decade ago, and we ripped it up.

It's fine if you think we should have ripped up the JCPOA, or if you think it was good that we joined Israel in this war in the middle of the new negotiation.

But it's simply deluded to think we are a credible negotiating counterparty after this fact pattern.

▲

ReptileMan 5 hours ago | parent [-]

>"You're going to bomb the shit out of us anyway, what's the point?"

So you are saying that if Iran has said one week ago - we will blow up all of the nuclear faculties on Sunday we will give you all of our enriched uranium on Monday, Trump would have still bombed them this Saturday?

	▲	sanderjd 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I'm saying that there is zero reason for them to believe that entering into a negotiation with us would keep us from attacking them, because they have done that (twice) and we attacked them in the middle of that negotiation. Don't get me wrong, I think there could be a face-saving announcement at some point, that we've come to some agreement. But it will have no credibility (on either side).
	▲	const_cast 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Would Trump, a known liar and antognizer, lied and antagonized a foreign nation? Yeah, probably.

▲

insane_dreamer 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That doesn’t sound like a credible negotiating partner.

▲

make3 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

maybe in 11 to 15 years after eventual respective Democratic and a non-Trump Republican governments

▲

yibg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And then the next trump comes in and reneges on all the agreements. Would take a few decades of stability as has been carefully constructed by the US since world war 2.

▲

sanderjd 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The problem with this is that there is now absolutely no reason for anyone to think that any treaty or other agreement made with any US administration (of either party) will remain in force after the next administration takes power.

Rebuilding any credibility internationally will require concerted effort by the legislative and judicial branches (and maybe states ratifying amendments) to rein in the currently out of control power of the executive.

▲

andrewflnr 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is still very optimistic. The only reason this would work is that America's negotiating partners want to believe the change is real. The American people will remain roughly the same electorate that elected Trump (for a second term, after he incited an insurrection), so the danger will remain.

▲

make3 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The hope would be that Trump would be seen as a one-in-a-kind terrible mix of both hyper-charismatic and negative, like Adolf Hitler

	▲	sanderjd 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Very unlikely. He won twice and fully owns one of our two parties. Any hope for "he was an aberration" died last November.