International sanctions ended on Iran

[Oberon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35335078

No doubt many here will see this as a bad move, however we may feel the benefit at the petrol pump as even more oil is unloaded onto an already fairly saturated market, pushing prices lower.

[Stealhead]

I wonder what effect it will have on the typical Iranian?

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I wonder what effect it will have on the typical Iranian?

Right now, none I'd wager, except perhaps it might be easier to obtain some stuff abroad, and in the long term I doubt it will have that much effect either because the first thing that Iran is going to be doing with their new money is upgrading and overhauling their military so they are better able to fight Saudi Arabia, as well as funnelling money to anti-Sunni terror networks.
After that, their economy might start to pick up, perhaps when the oil prices finally spike back up like people expect that they will eventually, that's if the sanctions aren't reapplied by someone before then.

[Stealhead]

Yeah those ****e(aka Shia) milita in Iraq will probably get more aid and in Yemen. Which means that ISIS will get more money from its supporters and the proxy war will rage on.

[Betonov]

Our morons and fat cats sent a trade delegation to Iran a month prior.
Let's see if anything comes out of it.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Oberon

After that, their economy might start to pick up, perhaps when the oil prices finally spike back up like people expect that they will eventually, that's if the sanctions aren't reapplied by someone before then.

Primary reason to very low oil prices is that Saudi Arabia is dumping it into market in volumes and at low prices. At my understanding there is two reasons for this: a) to keep Iranian oil revenues low and b) to inhibit develompent of U.S. oil industry. Saudis ofcourse suffer themselves too and as result of lower oil revenue their budget deficit is huge. However they have opted to solve issue by cutting spending rather than curbing oil production so I wouldn't expect any oil price spikes in many years.

[Platapus]

That's the nice thing about sanctions. They can always be brought back if necessary.

Let's give Iran a chance and see.

[STEED]

Only time will tell if this is a good move or a bad move.

[Oberon]

"It's on!"
"It's off!"
"It's on!"
"It's off!"
"It's on!"
"It's off!"
"That's called blinking, boys..."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35338901

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Platapus

That's the nice thing about sanctions. They can always be brought back if necessary.

Let's give Iran a chance and see.

I agree....and that is a lot more tolerant than what is currently coming out of Israel.

[Aktungbby]

Not an entirely clean bill of health here

Iran agreed to restrictions on its nuclear program and intensive inspections in an agreement signed with world powers in July 2015. Under the deal, many of the most punishing sanctions are poised to be lifted when the IAEA verifies that Iran has taken steps such as reducing its stockpiles of fissile materials and centrifuges. Still, some sanctions are unrelated to nuclear proliferation and will remain in place. U.S. sanctions on Iran, however, long predate these nuclear nonproliferation concerns. The United States first levied economic and political sanctions against Iran during the 1979–81 hostage crisis, shortly after Iran's Islamic Revolution. On November 14, 1979, President Jimmy Carter froze all Iranian assets "which are or become subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." The United States imposed additional sanctions when, in January 1984, the Lebanon-based militant group Hezbollah, an Iranian client, was implicated in the bombing of the U.S. Marine base in Beirut. That year, the United States designated Iran a state sponsor of terrorism. The designation, which remains in place, triggers a host of sanctions, including restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance, a ban on arms transfers, and export controls for dual-use items. Sanctions related to sponsorship of terrorism and human rights abuses were not affected by the nuclear deal.

http://www.cfr.org/iran/international-sanctions-iran/p20258

[Oberon]

The question is, are they sponsoring the good terrorists or the bad terrorists?

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Originally Posted by Oberon

The question is, are they sponsoring the good terrorists or the bad terrorists?

Good question. I would say "good terrorists" but that conclusion is archived by comparing Hezbollah and Daesh...

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Oberon

The question is, are they sponsoring the good terrorists or the bad terrorists?

Today we are friends with Iran. therefor must those terrorist group, Iran support be good. Tomorrow when we are not so good friend with Iran, those terror group are then bad.

Markus

[Catfish]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Today we are friends with Iran. therefor must those terrorist group, Iran support be good. Tomorrow when we are not so good friend with Iran, those terror group are then bad.Markus

Exactly.


President Reagan and his good friends, the Mujahaedin.
As long as they were (ab)used to fight against Russia, in Afghanistan:




President Bush and his good friend, Saddam Hussein.
Thanking him for his engagement, against Iran:




Whoever you side with, be very careful when it comes to the US