You may be correct. However, if the methodology of IQ scoring didn’t change, the change in score itself is worth of investigation.

Sounds unlikely.

Unless RAM use would impact financial metrics, it would be hard to justify the work on memory footprint if customer doesn’t complain a lot.

So, he was right?

Not by the subprime mortgages given to anyone with a pulse?

Here: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/15/us/politics/iran-israel-m...

What is your evidence that given all we know about Iran, and the fact that they have 60%-enriched uranium, they are not building a bomb? Why do they need 60%-enriched uranium?

> Is that your claim?

No. My claim is that from a geopolitical point of view containment of China is the goal, and the war in Iran is just one step. Politics never about telling the truth -- it's about achieving goals.

You may not like the reality of it, but it is what it is.

> You know there are Shia Arabs, right? Do you think all Shia are Persian?

What does it have to do with anything? Can you form a coherent argument?

> I mean, really? Let's just rattle off a few that anyone with basic information literacy over the last few years would be able to come up with: <...>

> Little to no evidence of recent civic institutions or culture of responsible governance.

Iran has no civic institutions and no culture of responsible governance?

> Sizable minorities who even if aligned against the common dictator, will inevitably disagree with each other on the direction of the state.

The sectarian dynamics in Iraq, Syria and Lybia do not exist in Iran.

Yeah, "reports" about CIA are real. Sure.

> Great track record of intervention here.

There is no intervention though.

> Where did you pull Greece from? The Iranians can barely hit anything next door.

Have you seen the map? Open it, and then see where Cyprus is located.

Barely hit next door. Yeah.

> you don't think it's a gamble?

Of course it is. Like any other decision. You make the calculus and decide if the reward is worth the risk.

I am not sure any answer of mine you will find satisfiable. In your view, only 100% result justifies the risk. The reality is that you will never have 100% guarantee. For you inaction regardless of the consequences is the answer, for me it's better to act with uncertainty.

Finally, you assume (without evidence) that Iranian Regime is a rational actor. Once you change this assumption, the calculus will change.

Iran founded Hizbalah in Lebanon. You can read what Hizb had done to Lebanon on the internet. Iran exported its ideology all over the Middle East right now: Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, etc. It is a mistake to thing about Islamic Revolution as something not interested in spreading itself.

That being said sanctions did made Iran poor. So, it is not clear from the point of view of a regular Iranian if it was worth it.

It has plenty of commentary on the subject of how Iran moved its program into the shadows, how Iran concealed equipment, etc.

The sad part is that Egypt has an obligation under international law to allow refugees into its territory. But Egypt refused.

It was not us that said to Iran to fund Houthis. Some things are due to choices that are made by others, and not the US. I do not get this whole idea of denying agency.

It was a bad deal that structurally did not prevent IR from building a bomb. This deal did not allow for "Anytime,Anywhere" inspections, had a sunset clause, and simply put provided financial relief to IR for the next 20 years or so. You can read the conditions yourself, and you will arrive to the same conclusion.

> Afaik the administration has not articulated that view. It's not appropriate to take a scenario that might be plausible and put it into the President's mouth. You don't get to say what the war is about "from the US standpoint". That's the President's job.

No, it is not. Politics are not about putting all the cards on the table, especially geopolitics.

We may not like it, but it is the way it is.

> This is simply incorrect on so many levels

Like what?

> But since you invited elaboration, please by all means.

Sure, first of all, Iranians see themselves as one nation despite their ethnic differences. Even in areas with separatist ideas, like the Iranian Kurdistan or Baluchistan, separatists are an absolute minority. Unlike Iran, Syria, Iraq, and Libya do not see themselves as one nation. These countries had minorities ruling over majorities under the idea of pan-arabism, which is not a nation-centric movement at all. Obviously, when the regimes fell you have a situation where majority is pissed at minorities for years of oppression, and neither the minorities not the majorities do not see themselves as one nation. Add to this external funding, and you get prolonged civil war.

In Libya you have Qatar vs. UAE.

In Syria -- Turkey vs. Iran

In Iraq -- you have Iran vs. US (that backed transitional government).

Iran is nothing like that. Iranians see themselves as one nation for the most part. You can see it via the Women Life Freedom movement, which is supported by most of Iranians and is centered about women rights. Nothing like that can ever exist in Syria, Iraq, or Libya due to insane cultural difference between these countries and Iran.

> Maybe in five years the regime would have collapsed during a succession crisis. Perhaps this perhaps that.

Maybe, but the war in Iran is not about Iran itself, at least from the US standpoint. It's about cutting China off from cheap oil that they buy from Iran with a huge discount. For Trump, to get a win is enough to get a new supreme leader who is more aligned with the west, like in Venezuela.

> A failed Iranian state might be the site of horrible atrocities to come.

Why would it fail? Iran is not Iraq or Syria or Libya. Like, nothing in common at all. If you analyze Iraq, Syria, and Libya pre-war and Iran pre-war you would see that none of the conditions that lead these countries to become failed states exist in Iran. IF you are interested, I can elaborate.

> For a post that seems to contemplate the future you seem to exhibit a strange lack of reflection.

I am not.

But Iran did violate the agreement. The agreement was not just between the US and Iran, it had other parties as well. Yet, when US withdrew, Iran immediately violated it. Why? If they had no goal to pursue military-grade enrichment, why violate the agreement?

Biden's admin did not resume the agreement as well due to those violations by Iran.

I see this agreement as failure for the reason that it did not prevent in a structural way Iran from acquiring enriched material, with or without violations.

> Iran's existance is perpetually an existential threat when the only alternative to diplomacy is its total destruction at the expense of American and Iranian lives.

I do not believe that Iran is interested in diplomacy at all. They were never interested in diplomacy. Why did they fund all these groups around the Middle East if IR is so peaceful?