Oh we're aware. We're all increasingly aware that diplomacy with the US just means paying lip service to whoever is currently holding the wheel while conducting more serious long term planning with others. Russia to a large extent kept up deals made by the Soviet Union, a different state, but the US can't keep things straight more than a couple of years when it comes to international diplomacy.
Diplomacy: The art of saying "nice doggie"...until you can find a rock. Fortunately, the U.S. owns a quarry.
I wouldn't worry about Iran's high inflation rate pushing them into anything rash. Zimbabwe has 100,000 percent inflation and they aren't going ballistic on anyone!
Who COULD Zimbadwe "go ballistic" on? Don't they still have that 90 year old Socialist bungler whose whole claim to legitimacy as a leader is "Hey, the mean old white British ruled before me".
Again, goalposts shifting. Foreign leaders who upset the US have dramatically shortened lifespans, you know this to be true. It doesn't matter who pulls the trigger or pushes the trapdoor, they die.
Or maybe he actually had more insight into the administration than you do? Seems to be a recurring theme amongst insiders to refer to the current White House as a shambles, he's not exactly hanging out alone. He gave an honest report as to a foreign governments' disposition, that was his job. That said report was leaked and Trump took offence to being on the receiving end of what he normally gives out is not a negative reflection on his performance.
US intelligence thinks they don't. Link - this CIA assessment, drawing on a NIE one is a few years old but nothing appears to have changed. In fact, I can hardly find any evidence of anyone credible who thinks they do. All there are are suspicions, which are then distorted by politicians and media to serve their own ends. I'll happily accept any evidence that you have to the contrary.
It's a bit of a no-brainer that the only "reasonable standard" to measure that commitment against is a policy whereby there would eventually be no nuclear weapons. Neither the US or Russia have such a policy. "Elimination of nuclear weapons" does not mean "gradual reduction of nuclear weapons with an intention to retain them indefinitely".
Actually I do not know that to be true. And it matters a great deal who pulls the trigger or pushes the trapdoor. The same reason it matters if the government legally executes someone or that person is lynched by a mob.
Not for our purposes no, we aren't talking about legality. We're talking about the motivations of someone who knew exactly what the situation was and how things would play out if he made the wrong move. The Shah knew very well the situation, whatever the means employed, whether direct or indirect, crossing his benefactors in the White House would shorten his life expectancy. See Saddam. Even if they aren't killed, their regime becomes much shorter lived, see Pinochet (someone who is often conveniently forgotten in discussions of CW dictatorships and human rights abuses) That's the thing about being a dictator backed by a superpower, you're only as good as their good graces.
