been announced yet? I'm not sure how anyone could intelligently post about this until they are. After that, I suspect it requires a doctorate in international relations to come close to understanding it. On face value, anything that stabilizes that tinderbox of a region is good, but I wonder what Kerry (and the U.S.) might have given up to get to that point. The devil will be in those details. Much more to follow.
was at a demonstration where American and Israeli flags were being burned with shouts of "Death to America", I would tend to lean on this being bad.......
The inspectors can "ask" to look at military bases. Â
My two cents is that the sanctions were put in place to get Iran to come to the table. And its nice to see that the strategy worked (as opposed to Russia, where it's not). Since they got a deal, it really can't be all bad, even if falls apart. You can't expect too much when you are dealing with enemies. Likelihood of success or failure will almost certainly be determined by unforeseen events. Isreal is the wildest of wildcards.
they have to put in a request and Iran has 14 days to prepare.
Great deal.
And no, the alternative is not war. It's keeping the sanctions on. Lifiting them just gives Iran more money to fund its terrorism. I can't see how anyone who supports Israel would be for this deal.
On the bright side, oil prices are dropping. Nice trade off.
is how this will feed into current surveillance. All of those programs will continue, and this could facilitate more internal operations and boots-on-the-ground verification.
That will never be public infomation and its value will never be explicit.
A comment I just saw from a scholar on my fb feed. "A changing world will come to acquiesce with Iran as a nuclear power. Maybe not today, or next year, but it is inevitable. The USA is prudent to be in conversation with its perceived adversary. Perhaps there are lessons to be learned by the Zionists.
To your journey!"
it's not about a kumbaya moment between the U.S. and Iran. Iran will still sponsor terrorism I think, they won't change who they are. Having access to what they are doing with the incentive of economic relief is a trade off I'm willing to make. Verification not trust, cheat and we go back to sanctions
Is there anything at all the US government can do to stop Iran from getting nukes and whatever other weapons they want? I don't think I've seen any practical suggestions. Don't forget Putin has already dropped any pretense of an arms embargo and will sell - or probably even give - the Iranians whatever they want.
Sanctions may have brought Iran to the table but maintaining them effectively is more difficult every year. If we can get even some concessions it may be the best we can do.
I look at it like previous armament-related deals (SALT/START/NPT) and difficult legislation (Affordable Care Act, etc.): If you insist on perfection, you will get nothing. So the question becomes whether the deal you can get is better than nothing, and whether it might eventually open a path to something good. On balance, I think this deal is better than nothing.
Supposedly, if Iran cheats, diplomats built in a mechanism to "snapback" financial sanctions. I would like to know more about this "snapback" machanism. I hope it involves magic. Because I don't think diplomacy and finance will be of any help.
they have to put in a request and Iran has 14 days to prepare.
Great deal.
And no, the alternative is not war. It's keeping the sanctions on. Lifiting them just gives Iran more money to fund its terrorism. I can't see how anyone who supports Israel would be for this deal.
On the bright side, oil prices are dropping. Nice trade off.
Frankly, sanctions or Iran caving isn't the choice at all. You need international consensus to keep a proper sanctions regime in place, that consensus was fast fraying if not disappearing completely. Unilateral sanctions are useless. You either cut a deal like this or you've cosigned yourself to an active, terribly costly (politically and diplomatically), almost certainly unilateral intervention two or so years from now.
Is there anything at all the US government can do to stop Iran from getting nukes and whatever other weapons they want? I don't think I've seen any practical suggestions. Don't forget Putin has already dropped any pretense of an arms embargo and will sell - or probably even give - the Iranians whatever they want.
Sanctions may have brought Iran to the table but maintaining them effectively is more difficult every year. If we can get even some concessions it may be the best we can do.
The question at the end will be are the Iranians closer to a weapon with the deal or with continued sanctions? I don't think that is an answerable question. I do think, however, that we bargained eliminating sanctions not because they were ineffective but that we felt sorry for the people being hurt by them. Not that this is an ignoble pov but IMO it should not be the driver of a policy with this type of potential outcome.
I do think it is a near certainty that if Iran does get a weapon, they will use it (if only as a blackmail devise but I would not bet that they wouldn't go further than that). So we have to make plans for that with or without the deal. I do say that even if war is the best way to prevent it, then overall that is a positive thing.
Until then, I will wait and listen to people, pro and con, debate the merits and flaws before Congress. I think that being able to have Congress hold the deal up to scrutiny and public debate is the best thing about this process. How anyone could feel that circumventing Congress, as originally planned, is a good thing.
So that's my feelings...neither accept nor reject without more information. Originally I just planned to post "Well, Chris Mathews or Barack Obama likes it, so it's bad", but I thought it to be too childish a response, so I put more effort into it.
You need international consensus to keep a proper sanctions regime in place, that consensus was fast fraying if not disappearing completely.
I disagree completely. Sanctions are working great, not because of political consensus, but because as the market stands, private investors are terrified of doing business in Iran for fear of Treasury reprisals.
On the other hand, once you lift the sanctions, you usually can't just "snap them back" as before, since the expectation regime has an incubation period of months or years in order to influence international investors.
Is there anything at all the US government can do to stop Iran from getting nukes and whatever other weapons they want? I don't think I've seen any practical suggestions. Don't forget Putin has already dropped any pretense of an arms embargo and will sell - or probably even give - the Iranians whatever they want.
Sanctions may have brought Iran to the table but maintaining them effectively is more difficult every year. If we can get even some concessions it may be the best we can do.
I agree. It's not like the world is just the US and Iran. Russia and China will do what they want, so no deal could just mean an unrestrained Iran getting whatever it needs from Russia. I dont know whether this is an effective treaty, but those criticizing it should be preparred to explain in detail how they would prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Everyone saying "oh, sanctions!" should remember that before this treaty process the hawks were all saying that Iran was on the cusp of having the bomb despite sanction.
I think that being able to have Congress hold the deal up to scrutiny and public debate is the best thing about this process.
If Congress were acting in our best interest, I would agree with this. But the elections are coming, so many will grandstand to the far left and far right. And many will automatically oppose it because that is how they deal with the current administration.
Sadly, I seriously doubt Congress can agree as to what month this is.
I think that being able to have Congress hold the deal up to scrutiny and public debate is the best thing about this process.
If Congress were acting in our best interest, I would agree with this. But the elections are coming, so many will grandstand to the far left and far right. And many will automatically oppose it because that is how they deal with the current administration.
Sadly, I seriously doubt Congress can agree as to what month this is.
But at least the public gets to see the details and because of witnesses brought before panels, probably get get reasonably informed perspective from both sides. That has value, IMO. And I wouldn't write off the Congress itself. There was a significant amount of caution expressed by Democrats to make you think that everyone is taking this seriously. Additionally, individual Congressmen are pulled by different groups (Israel and Jewish lobbies, people, businesses, countries with ties to Saudi Arabia, Egypt,etc) that are the most at risk here and that could impact their perspectives and break up party unity in different ways.
I disagree with the narrative that sanctions brought Iran to the table Â
Their sufficiently successful pursuit of nuclear technology despite sanctions brought us to the table. They're the ones negotiating from a position of strength, not us.
The upside of this deal for us, IMO, is that we'll be able to infiltrate Iran deeper than we are able to currently and it will give us some level of oversight over their whole program.
I can't see many more advantages for us because, again, Iran has been in the driver's seat all along.
is the key. Iran can't be trusted, but they can be verified. They cheat, back come the sanctions
1. One of the keys is the specifics of the verification process. That's why it's difficult to accurately assess the deal until the details come out.
2. The potential "snap back" of sanctions is a joke. Russia and China will never follow through, and the EU governments will be under a lot of pressure to continue trade.
3. The whole thing appears to be drafted, based on the summary, so that it is not a treaty that has to be ratified by Congress. This means that this deal will happen, as there is no way that Obama will not get 34 Dem Senators
to foil a potential override of his veto of Congressional
disapproval. What I currently can't determine is what powers that gives the next President with respect to the deal, which can be complicated by whatever goes through the UN.
4. The summary I saw didn't lay out the timetable for when Iran gets the $150 billion of escrowed funds, just that it wouldn't all be paid to Iran immediately. That's important.
Bottom line for me is that Iran is getting the bomb deal or no deal.
And now they have cash for Hezbollah, Hamas and Bashar Assad, too.
As opposed to before. Oh, wait.
As opposed to before where they didn't have that cash windfall to fund Hamas, etc. That IS a significant change. As I said earlier, I'm interested in when those funds are released.
is the key. Iran can't be trusted, but they can be verified. They cheat, back come the sanctions
1. One of the keys is the specifics of the verification process. That's why it's difficult to accurately assess the deal until the details come out.
2. The potential "snap back" of sanctions is a joke. Russia and China will never follow through, and the EU governments will be under a lot of pressure to continue trade.
3. The whole thing appears to be drafted, based on the summary, so that it is not a treaty that has to be ratified by Congress. This means that this deal will happen, as there is no way that Obama will not get 34 Dem Senators
to foil a potential override of his veto of Congressional
disapproval. What I currently can't determine is what powers that gives the next President with respect to the deal, which can be complicated by whatever goes through the UN.
4. The summary I saw didn't lay out the timetable for when Iran gets the $150 billion of escrowed funds, just that it wouldn't all be paid to Iran immediately. That's important.
If I was Congress and thought that the deal was bad, then I would definitely sue if I cold. How can it not be a treaty? I think that needs to be decided upon,almost regardless of the topic in question. There are too many end-arounds the Constitution nowadays, it seems, and I think in general we need better clarification.
to this deal? If there was no deal, couldn't Iran just build a nuclear weapon since they already are subject to sanctions and have no incentive to hold back?
that Rouhani might consider a deal (approval by Congress) as a springboard to some level of cooperation with US vs. Sunni ISIL, which is tearing Iran's client state to ribbons. If so this might be a carrot on Capitol Hill.
As to rebel's point above, I tend to agree. This administration does not know how to use its power or negotiate from strength.
Their sufficiently successful pursuit of nuclear technology despite sanctions brought us to the table. They're the ones negotiating from a position of strength, not us.
The upside of this deal for us, IMO, is that we'll be able to infiltrate Iran deeper than we are able to currently and it will give us some level of oversight over their whole program.
I can't see many more advantages for us because, again, Iran has been in the driver's seat all along.
Thats a pretty one-sided view. And if thats the case, why would they ever consider making a deal with their enemy?...
RE: RE: I disagree with the narrative that sanctions brought Iran to the table Â
Their sufficiently successful pursuit of nuclear technology despite sanctions brought us to the table. They're the ones negotiating from a position of strength, not us.
The upside of this deal for us, IMO, is that we'll be able to infiltrate Iran deeper than we are able to currently and it will give us some level of oversight over their whole program.
I can't see many more advantages for us because, again, Iran has been in the driver's seat all along.
Thats a pretty one-sided view. And if thats the case, why would they ever consider making a deal with their enemy?...
I'm a bit surprised there is so much support for it.
It feels rushed (i.e., legacy item).
Iran's leaders have repeatedly and publicly said "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".
Iran is already using military force to undermine regional security and expand their influence.
Constitutionally, how is this not a "Treaty"?
This doesnt feel rushed to me. The Death to America and Death to Israel stuff really gets you? Reagan called Russia the Evil Empire while also negotiating with Gorbachev. I have no idea what you're getting at with your 3rd point, and your 4th point is just irrelevant legalese (in terms of good deal/bad deal).
Do you have any substantive criticisms of the terms of the deal, and in particular an equal critique of the alternatives? Because all I hear about from the peanut gallery is no deal and more sanctions -- without any suggestion that this would work.
Since when is the Constitution irrelevant legalize????? Holy fucking shit.
Iran is not a friend. It's an enemy who is fighting proxy wars against us now. I don't support making our enemies stronger. Can they circumvent boycotts? Sure. But don't tell me that the #1 economy in the world (and Europe) not trading with them isn't hurting.
They are not going to abide by any deal. They will break it. Your attitude seems to be, "they are going to build nuclear weapons any way, so why bother?" I can't fathom that line of thinking.
When you former Obama Administration officials tell you this is not a good deal, then that should tell you something...right?
Their sufficiently successful pursuit of nuclear technology despite sanctions brought us to the table. They're the ones negotiating from a position of strength, not us.
The upside of this deal for us, IMO, is that we'll be able to infiltrate Iran deeper than we are able to currently and it will give us some level of oversight over their whole program.
I can't see many more advantages for us because, again, Iran has been in the driver's seat all along.
Thats a pretty one-sided view. And if thats the case, why would they ever consider making a deal with their enemy?...
By lifting sanctions on Iran, particularly on oil exports, they now have an incentive to entirely cease any exploration of nuclear armory capability. Previously, asking Iran to behave was like asking someone serving life in prison to behave. There was no incentive. Their country just opened itself up to one of, if not the very best opportunity for wealth they have... oil exports.
A nation recovering from poverty is a nation with less animosity.
Meanwhile, from the United States perspective, their nuclear production is going to drop by about 75% I believe? I could be wrong, but it's in that neighborhood, I think? How is that not a good thing? Additionally, we're going to have a much clearer view into their operations as a whole.
Bottom line, it's a deal between two countries that have barely spoken for 60 years. The key question is whether or not both sides are serious about this being the beginning of a less hostile relationship. Given the incentives that exist for Iran to comply, I believe the answer to that question is yes.
is a lot of us thought this was a futile exercise anyway, one with a lot of harm in trying. And nothing in the agreement suggests to us that this is a deal that was worth those negative consequences. It seems like a deal for the purpose of making a deal.
The sanctions regime is faltering, to be sure. Maybe next time people say "the sanctions were working 13 years ago" they should remember the difficulty in enforcing sanctions when the international community is less than supportive. But some sanctions, poorly implemented, strike me as a better alternative than a shitty deal that glosses over some awful behavior from Iran over the last ten years.
They were going to dispute any deal, no matter how beneficial to the west, with Iran. The majority of European nations back the deal and think it's a good thing. If Israel is ever going to get the peace their people deserve, they're going to need to embrace the concept of their foes having a productive presence in the international community.
By lifting sanctions on Iran, particularly on oil exports, they now have an incentive to entirely cease any exploration of nuclear armory capability. Previously, asking Iran to behave was like asking someone serving life in prison to behave. There was no incentive. Their country just opened itself up to one of, if not the very best opportunity for wealth they have... oil exports.
A nation recovering from poverty is a nation with less animosity.
Meanwhile, from the United States perspective, their nuclear production is going to drop by about 75% I believe? I could be wrong, but it's in that neighborhood, I think? How is that not a good thing? Additionally, we're going to have a much clearer view into their operations as a whole.
Bottom line, it's a deal between two countries that have barely spoken for 60 years. The key question is whether or not both sides are serious about this being the beginning of a less hostile relationship. Given the incentives that exist for Iran to comply, I believe the answer to that question is yes.
No offense but I think this is dangerously naïve. They're trading a temporary (and difficult to verify) lull in their pursuit of nukes for the resumption of oil sales and the lifting of other sanctions. After a sufficient passage of time they have every incentive to use their additional financial resources to pursue those nukes, knowing full well that sanctions will take time to implement, if they're implemented at all.
By lifting sanctions on Iran, particularly on oil exports, they now have an incentive to entirely cease any exploration of nuclear armory capability. Previously, asking Iran to behave was like asking someone serving life in prison to behave. There was no incentive. Their country just opened itself up to one of, if not the very best opportunity for wealth they have... oil exports.
A nation recovering from poverty is a nation with less animosity.
Meanwhile, from the United States perspective, their nuclear production is going to drop by about 75% I believe? I could be wrong, but it's in that neighborhood, I think? How is that not a good thing? Additionally, we're going to have a much clearer view into their operations as a whole.
Bottom line, it's a deal between two countries that have barely spoken for 60 years. The key question is whether or not both sides are serious about this being the beginning of a less hostile relationship. Given the incentives that exist for Iran to comply, I believe the answer to that question is yes.
Mike, you assume that Iran is a rational actor. A skeptic doesn't have to go far to assume otherwise... that is to say that they are directed by a religiously inspired supreme leader motivated a regional/global takeover of Shiism.
It is not immediately clear to laypeople that the ayatollah and the Iranian administration react to economic incentives the same way as other states.
Just shocked that so many people want to enrich a country that is aggressively expanding it's influence through force throughout the region. Doesn't make sense to me.
The argument seems to be, "if we welcome Iran back into the international community, they will stop it and be nice."
I can't imagine anyone who really cares about Israel would be so callous about this. One bomb and Israel is gone.
Eric: Your response to me is unfair and ridiculous. I said the constitutional point was irrelevant "in terms of good deal/bad deal" which is what the thread asks.
Tell me how sanctions are preventing a nuclear Iran? I get how they hurt Iran economically, but specifically tell me how they prevent a nuclear bomb in Iran. They dont. So your alternative continues to be the do nothing about it approach in my book.
And as for Israel, I dont know when the gentiles started giving a fuck about my people's homeland, but I assure you my attitude is not callous. I actually dont know if this is a good deal or a bad deal. Im just not coming in with the preconceived hawk/right wing notion that any deal is bad because the Iranians are bad guys. The Sauids are bad guys too, and they fund terrorists. So what do you want to do about that? Sanctions?
This isnt 1981. There isnt some bombing run we can do to knock out Iran's nuclear program.
Also, keep in mind that Israel came close to launching air attacks against Iran a number of years ago because of this.
Because the deal will make it much harder for them to build a bomb in the short-medium term, while also decreasing their isolation from the international community. Both are good things IMO.
By lifting sanctions on Iran, particularly on oil exports, they now have an incentive to entirely cease any exploration of nuclear armory capability. Previously, asking Iran to behave was like asking someone serving life in prison to behave. There was no incentive. Their country just opened itself up to one of, if not the very best opportunity for wealth they have... oil exports.
A nation recovering from poverty is a nation with less animosity.
Meanwhile, from the United States perspective, their nuclear production is going to drop by about 75% I believe? I could be wrong, but it's in that neighborhood, I think? How is that not a good thing? Additionally, we're going to have a much clearer view into their operations as a whole.
Bottom line, it's a deal between two countries that have barely spoken for 60 years. The key question is whether or not both sides are serious about this being the beginning of a less hostile relationship. Given the incentives that exist for Iran to comply, I believe the answer to that question is yes.
No offense but I think this is dangerously naïve. They're trading a temporary (and difficult to verify) lull in their pursuit of nukes for the resumption of oil sales and the lifting of other sanctions. After a sufficient passage of time they have every incentive to use their additional financial resources to pursue those nukes, knowing full well that sanctions will take time to implement, if they're implemented at all.
Dunedin: After a sufficient passage of time they have every incentive to use their additional financial resources to pursue those nukes,
This to me implies that you believe their country isn't entitled to prosper under fair and safe circumstances. Ultimately, if we are ever going to find peace with Iran, we are going to have to give them the opportunity to prosper the same way we do.
It's an element of trust we (unfortunately) do have to extend if there's even the slightest bit of hope for a long period of peace. Maybe it is naive, but I don't think so. I think both nations have created a big opportunity here. It will take Iran 4x longer to make a nuclear bomb now than before, so the additional financing would not be permitted for these practices anyway.
I'm sorry, but this idea that Iran is going to sneak in and use all money from oil sales to build a bomb and nuke Israel is the naive perspective to me.
They were going to dispute any deal, no matter how beneficial to the west, with Iran. The majority of European nations back the deal and think it's a good thing. If Israel is ever going to get the peace their people deserve, they're going to need to embrace the concept of their foes having a productive presence in the international community.
What do Iranian threats have to do with the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict/ peace-process? IMO, the Iranian-Israeli conflict should be considered independent of what is going on in that process.
In fact, the United States negotiating with Iran over the last two years has done more for Middle East peace than 60 years of direct mediation. So much so that a Saudi prince is publicly planning a trip to Jerusalem.
They were going to dispute any deal, no matter how beneficial to the west, with Iran. The majority of European nations back the deal and think it's a good thing. If Israel is ever going to get the peace their people deserve, they're going to need to embrace the concept of their foes having a productive presence in the international community.
What do Iranian threats have to do with the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict/ peace-process? IMO, the Iranian-Israeli conflict should be considered independent of what is going on in that process.
In fact, the United States negotiating with Iran over the last two years has done more for Middle East peace than 60 years of direct mediation. So much so that a Saudi prince is publicly planning a trip to Jerusalem.
Should be? Absolutely. But that's not the reality, otherwise Netanyahu wouldn't be vehemently condemning the deal the way he is.
They were going to dispute any deal, no matter how beneficial to the west, with Iran. The majority of European nations back the deal and think it's a good thing. If Israel is ever going to get the peace their people deserve, they're going to need to embrace the concept of their foes having a productive presence in the international community.
I think a lot of European nations also wouldn't really mind seeing Israel disappear altogether. The Euros are cowardly, appeasing little bitches. Sure, they'll act tough against Greece and Portugal but put them in a room with Russia or Iran and it's "thank you sir, may I have another".
they have to put in a request and Iran has 14 days to prepare.
Great deal.
And no, the alternative is not war. It's keeping the sanctions on. Lifiting them just gives Iran more money to fund its terrorism. I can't see how anyone who supports Israel would be for this deal.
On the bright side, oil prices are dropping. Nice trade off.
Centrifuges are pretty hard to dismantle and hide in 14 days. This deal isn't perfect, few are, but it cuts Iran's uranium enrichment program by nearly 70%. And if Iran tries to stall, the US and its allies only need 5 of 8 votes to reinstate sanctions. I don't know how anyone could expect to get Iran to agree to better terms for the US, but I suspect that many have no interest in a deal with Iran of any kind.
As for Israel's security, the longer it takes Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, the safer Israel is. And let's be real, Iran understand that of they tried anything with Israel, they'd be a parking lot in 30 minutes.
I can't imagine anyone who really cares about Israel would be so callous about this. One bomb and Israel is gone.
Eric: Your response to me is unfair and ridiculous. I said the constitutional point was irrelevant "in terms of good deal/bad deal" which is what the thread asks.
Tell me how sanctions are preventing a nuclear Iran? I get how they hurt Iran economically, but specifically tell me how they prevent a nuclear bomb in Iran. They dont. So your alternative continues to be the do nothing about it approach in my book.
And as for Israel, I dont know when the gentiles started giving a fuck about my people's homeland, but I assure you my attitude is not callous. I actually dont know if this is a good deal or a bad deal. Im just not coming in with the preconceived hawk/right wing notion that any deal is bad because the Iranians are bad guys. The Sauids are bad guys too, and they fund terrorists. So what do you want to do about that? Sanctions?
This isnt 1981. There isnt some bombing run we can do to knock out Iran's nuclear program.
Well there probably is a bombing run (or bombing runs), it would just be problematic for umpteen reasons. The Saudis are bad actors, to be sure, but they're at least tactful about their bad behavior. The Iranians do it and brag about it, they organize protests at which folks chant death to the US and Israel, and frankly the Iranian government has the blood of several hundred US servicemembers on its hands over the last ten years.
'enrich a country that is aggressively expanding it's influence' Â
I'm a bit surprised there is so much support for it.
It feels rushed (i.e., legacy item).
Iran's leaders have repeatedly and publicly said "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".
Iran is already using military force to undermine regional security and expand their influence.
Constitutionally, how is this not a "Treaty"?
It's not a treaty because it's not legally binding. It's considered politically binding. Which is why the republican congress guys who undercut the deal by saying that it will only last until the next republican president are now in the position of saying it's not strict enough.
At this point what does Israel do they say they will go alone if they have too. when do they strike? I would imagine it would have to be soon before Iran has even more time to improve its defenses and or move it nuclear sites.
At this point what does Israel do they say they will go alone if they have too. when do they strike? I would imagine it would have to be soon before Iran has even more time to improve its defenses and or move it nuclear sites.
Probably too late already.
RE: 'enrich a country that is aggressively expanding it's influence' Â
I agree. I've never heard a rational explanation for why we destroyed and then gave them Iraq. Their sphere of influence is huge now.
We toppled a sitting government without a reasonable contingency plan for how we were going to put it back together. How it got to that point is beyond anything that can be addressed here, beyond anything I could intelligently address without a buttload of research, but yes, the end result of a situation that could have been exceedingly destabilizing for Tehran was something else entirely.
RE: RE: RE: Not sure that any of this really matters. Â
By lifting sanctions on Iran, particularly on oil exports, they now have an incentive to entirely cease any exploration of nuclear armory capability. Previously, asking Iran to behave was like asking someone serving life in prison to behave. There was no incentive. Their country just opened itself up to one of, if not the very best opportunity for wealth they have... oil exports.
A nation recovering from poverty is a nation with less animosity.
Meanwhile, from the United States perspective, their nuclear production is going to drop by about 75% I believe? I could be wrong, but it's in that neighborhood, I think? How is that not a good thing? Additionally, we're going to have a much clearer view into their operations as a whole.
Bottom line, it's a deal between two countries that have barely spoken for 60 years. The key question is whether or not both sides are serious about this being the beginning of a less hostile relationship. Given the incentives that exist for Iran to comply, I believe the answer to that question is yes.
You are thinking that Iran is rational. They are not. The only reason they want oil money is to fund terrorism and keep their regime in power. The people in charge are rich already. And they are religious nuts. The same people who criticize any American politician that has religious beliefs are ok with these fundamentalist nutters having unlimited funds and nukes. Amazing.
I can't imagine anyone who really cares about Israel would be so callous about this. One bomb and Israel is gone.
Eric: Your response to me is unfair and ridiculous. I said the constitutional point was irrelevant "in terms of good deal/bad deal" which is what the thread asks.
Tell me how sanctions are preventing a nuclear Iran? I get how they hurt Iran economically, but specifically tell me how they prevent a nuclear bomb in Iran. They dont. So your alternative continues to be the do nothing about it approach in my book.
And as for Israel, I dont know when the gentiles started giving a fuck about my people's homeland, but I assure you my attitude is not callous. I actually dont know if this is a good deal or a bad deal. Im just not coming in with the preconceived hawk/right wing notion that any deal is bad because the Iranians are bad guys. The Sauids are bad guys too, and they fund terrorists. So what do you want to do about that? Sanctions?
This isnt 1981. There isnt some bombing run we can do to knock out Iran's nuclear program.
I've always been an Israel supporter. Do you think just because someone is not Jewish they can't support Israel? First and foremost, they are the only Democratic state in the ME and have been a staunch ally of the US. There is a symbiotic relationship between Israel and the US. I am old enough to remember the 67 and Yom Kippur wars when Israel alone stood against the Arab countries. It was akin to our Revolution against the British. And then there is the Holocaust aspect. Israel is a haven for those who have been subject to genocide on a large scale. How can you not be for them having a homeland where they will be safe. And I repeat, I don't see how anyone who supports Israel can support this deal.
I think that it is ridiculous and unrealistic...... Â
to expect that sanctions would or could force Iran to reverse its position on Israel and what we regard as Tehran's sponsorship of international terrorism.
The nuclear issue and these others should not be linked.
Any change in Iranian attitudes towards Israel is not going to occur under external pressure. At best it is going an evolutionary process if it happens at all driven by the Iranians themselves.
Second, what we deem as Iranian support for terrorism (Hezbollah, Shiite militias in Iraq etc)is Tehran defending what it perceives as vital security interests. You were not going alter that behavior through sanctions. Ok there is the argument that Iran will now have more money to spend on financing more meddling. However, the Iranian leadership also has pressing domestic needs they know they have to fund to ensure their own hold on power. In short the Iranians themselves face difficult guns or butter issues.
Lastly, in the end the agreement is about getting greater transparency over the Iranian nuclear program, which it does. Whether it is sufficient is open for debate.
At the end of the day, both the US and Iran need a fresh start in how we deal with each other. The world is becoming an increasingly more complicated and dangerous place and in some cases we have shared interests. Yes we need to be watchful and prudent in dealing with the Iranians but we also need to find a way to work with them as well. Perhaps this agreement will serve as a foundation.
They were going to dispute any deal, no matter how beneficial to the west, with Iran. The majority of European nations back the deal and think it's a good thing. If Israel is ever going to get the peace their people deserve, they're going to need to embrace the concept of their foes having a productive presence in the international community.
What do Iranian threats have to do with the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict/ peace-process? IMO, the Iranian-Israeli conflict should be considered independent of what is going on in that process.
In fact, the United States negotiating with Iran over the last two years has done more for Middle East peace than 60 years of direct mediation. So much so that a Saudi prince is publicly planning a trip to Jerusalem.
ME peace? Are you insane? It's great that the Saudi's are warming up to Israel, but when you understand the reasons behind it, it's not exactly peaceful. And Iran has a heck of a lot to do with the I/P conflict. #1 they support Hamas financially and with arms and supplies. That should have been taken into consideration.
Whe SA and Jordan and UAE get nukes and they align with Israel, do you still think things will be peaceful? And I didn't even get into Syria.
Bottom line for me is that Iran is getting the bomb deal or no deal.
Adding to and clarifying my original comment, the does not matter only refers to whether they get nuclear weapons because they will either way. A deal or not does matter in other aspects. I am not sure that I see any advantage to a deal for us. I have no faith that the inspections will provide any real assurance or that Iran has any intention to honor the deal . Need to see the details and hear them discussed by experts. Being a skeptic and pessimist, my first instinct is to say the talking points for the deal are bs. However willing to listen and wait and see.
Should be? Absolutely. But that's not the reality, otherwise Netanyahu wouldn't be vehemently condemning the deal the way he is.
Although the New York Times would like to pretend otherwise, it's not just Netanyahu. You can't find a single Israeli political party that endorses this deal. And that's because the Iranian administration, every day, calls for the destruction of Israel, not the PLO. Tehran funds Hezbollah in the North and they fund Hamas in the South and the Sinai.
That said, I would have difficulty negotiating with a nation that was responsible for planting IEDs in Iraq, a tactic that was unnecessary to exert their influence.
Sounds good, but U.S. troops are going to end up back in Iraq. (they are there now, but I'm talking in greater numbers).
When our troops come into contact with Shia-backed and led Iranian militia?
And again, why financially support someone who is backing regional terrorist groups?
I hope I'm dead wrong about all of this, but it seems like we're enabling greater regional conflict here unless Iran's leaders miraculously change their ways.
Whoever is behind the Obama foreign policy is very smart.
In the last year, we've made 'peace' with the Talaban,
Cuba and now Iran.
Cuba was an outpost that was dangerous to our security,
if Russia or China placed troops or weapons.
Coming to accomadation with the Talaban allows us to control
Afganistan which is on the 'Silk Road' that China wants to
reinvent to free them of the danger of the US Navy & the US
Submarine force. Iran is also part of the Silk Road and both
Iran and Afganistan present a danger to Russia's southern
borders and prevents their incursion into the Middle East.
The new Silk Road will allow easy access into European markets for the Chinese. If EU plays their cards wrong,
Greece will play a role in the Chinese expansion
Iran gives us more oil to be dumped on world markets, suppressing the price of oil and weakening Russia.
Iran in the past has been an enemy of the US $dollar along
with Russia, China, Venezuela, Libya and Syria. Libya
has paid the price for resisting the US dollar hegemony
and now so is Syria. Venezuela won't last much longer,
they are on a downward slope which will end with a new
government, more friendly to the $. That leaves China &
Russia who are both accumulating gold which they may use
to back a new world currency.
This new accomadation with Iran is a 'game changer'
The war between US & NATO vs Russia & China is currently
being won by US & NATO. Only danger might be if it degenerates into a shooting war and God forbid, nuclear
war which is unlikely, as long as everyone is in their
right mind. More likely their will be proxy wars like
what's going on in the Ukraine.
Does anyone truly believe that Iran doesn't or couldn't
accquire nuclear weapons. Supposedly, even Saudia Arabia
'owns' nuclears that are currently 'hidden' in Pakistan,
paid the money and got the Bomb.
That said, I would have difficulty negotiating with a nation that was responsible for planting IEDs in Iraq, a tactic that was unnecessary to exert their influence.
It was very necessary to exert their interests. Had the Sunnis been the only ones fighting, ultimately defeated by America et al with some help from a mostly Shia Iraqi military. Iran needed the militias, it needed the sectarian conflict, and it desperately needed instability among Iraqi Shia to prevent Najaf and Karbala from becoming serious rivals to Qom for the spiritual leadership of the region's (and the world's) Shia.
Its this or bombing them and I think we know what a shit storm that might bring. Its certainly not good news for Israel. While I care what happens to Israel I care more about our interests.
We may have issues with their values but they are an incredibly rational actor. Irrational actors typically aren't able to advance their interests the way the Iranians have in the last decade and last few days.
Accepting that argument, we are still engaged in negotiations with a nation that was responsible for killing American service men with IEDs. The only reason it has diminished is that the US has such a tiny footprint.
We may have issues with their values but they are an incredibly rational actor. Irrational actors typically aren't able to advance their interests the way the Iranians have in the last decade and last few days.
Exactly my point. This is a country that has interests they need to protect. This deal helps protect this interests and drastically decreases their nuclear capabilities.
Iran has 78 million people. At one point or another, we are going to need to reach peace with this country. They aren't going anywhere.
Just shocked that so many people want to enrich a country that is aggressively expanding it's influence through force throughout the region. Doesn't make sense to me.
The argument seems to be, "if we welcome Iran back into the international community, they will stop it and be nice."
Yeah right.
That's the vibe I'm getting to.. in theory, that would be great! The reality is, they are who they've been for decades.. and they are NOT changing. All this does is give them more power and money to move forward with their agenda.
Has Ayatolla Khamenei publicly commented on the deal? Â
What do Iranian threats have to do with the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict/ peace-process? IMO, the Iranian-Israeli conflict should be considered independent of what is going on in that process.
Then:
Quote:
And that's because the Iranian administration, every day, calls for the destruction of Israel, not the PLO. Tehran funds Hezbollah in the North and they fund Hamas in the South and the Sinai.
You interjected the word Palestinian into your first post, but I had never mentioned them specifically at any point. In fact, I wasn't even alluding to them at all. I was discussing Israel's opportunity for peace, in general.
And again, why financially support someone who is backing regional terrorist groups?
You mean like Saudi Arabia? They are at least as bad an actor as Iran is, but the US historically turns a blind eye to their activities.
There are no perfect solutions. Iran is acting against our interests in Iraq and Syria, but in concert with them in places like Yemen (where the Saudis are not). This agreement at the very least delays Iran's development of a nuclear weapon. If talks failed, and sanctions were kept in place, what is to stop Iran from going full speed ahead to develop nuclear capability? The reality is that nuclear capability increases one's bargaining position. Just look at Pakistan and N Korea.
We may have issues with their values but they are an incredibly rational actor. Irrational actors typically aren't able to advance their interests the way the Iranians have in the last decade and last few days.
I think you give them too much credit. There are intelligent, rational people who have a leadership role in what happens in Iran. There are also millenarians and loons. In Putin, in Tehran, we have a tendency to assume that outcomes that are positive for them are the result of design. My sense on Ahmadinejad was that they were initially terrified that his rhetoric was going to help bring about a war. When it brought about higher oil prices instead they let him run with it. Sometimes these miscalculations end positively, but if they don't you could see war or even a nuclear exchange. Throw in a Saudi bomb, which everyone understands to be the eventual outcome of a Shia bomb, and the possibility of miscalculation, or that one of the aforementioned millenarians or loons gets his hands on the button, becomes much greater.
Let's keep the sanctions in place until they change their ways Â
Just shocked that so many people want to enrich a country that is aggressively expanding it's influence through force throughout the region. Doesn't make sense to me.
But these criticisms don't address the main purpose of the agreement, constraining and getting greater transparency over the Iranian nuclear program. Does the agreement achieve that? You were never going to be able to use sanctions to leverage a change in Iranian behavior across the board.
The argument seems to be, "if we welcome Iran back into the international community, they will stop it and be nice."
Yeah right.
That's the vibe I'm getting to.. in theory, that would be great! The reality is, they are who they've been for decades.. and they are NOT changing. All this does is give them more power and money to move forward with their agenda.
Just shocked that so many people want to enrich a country that is aggressively expanding it's influence through force throughout the region. Doesn't make sense to me.
The argument seems to be, "if we welcome Iran back into the international community, they will stop it and be nice."
Yeah right.
That's the vibe I'm getting to.. in theory, that would be great! The reality is, they are who they've been for decades.. and they are NOT changing. All this does is give them more power and money to move forward with their agenda.
But these criticisms don't address the main purpose of the agreement, constraining and getting greater transparency over the Iranian nuclear program. Does the agreement achieve that? You were never going to be able to use sanctions to leverage a change in Iranian behavior across the board.
I'm not opposed to a deal in principal, but what exactly is it that we supposedly got out of this? Inspections will be merely "requests". There doesn't appear to be any teeth to this at all.
Accepting that argument, we are still engaged in negotiations with a nation that was responsible for killing American service men with IEDs. The only reason it has diminished is that the US has such a tiny footprint.
And they're in negotiation with countries which overthrew their last democratically elected leader and who then publicly armed their invader during a war which they didn't start. It's international politics, every bodies shit stinks. The Western powers don't exactly have clean hands, few countries do.
RE: Let's keep the sanctions in place until they change their ways Â
I'm not opposed to a deal in principal, but what exactly is it that we supposedly got out of this? Inspections will be merely "requests". There doesn't appear to be any teeth to this at all.
The teeth are that the sanctions "snap back". The concessions are removal of like 2/3 of the centrifuges, reducing the stockpile of uranium (by 98%) and shipping out spent fuel and other stuff. I don't know if it's "enough" but they are making concessions.
Sanctions were not getting the Iranians to do what we want; stop making material for nukes.
At least now there is a pretense of a halt to manufacturing enriched uranium. This 14 days waiting period for Iran to allow an inspection is unacceptable to me.
14 days is there for what? It doesn't take 14 days to get visas ready for the inspectors. Paperwork can be streamlined. The only reason to have a 14 day waiting period is to allow Iran to alter what is going on at that designated site.
Crazy.
RE: RE: Did Iran make any concessions at all here? Â
I'm not opposed to a deal in principal, but what exactly is it that we supposedly got out of this? Inspections will be merely "requests". There doesn't appear to be any teeth to this at all.
The teeth are that the sanctions "snap back". The concessions are removal of like 2/3 of the centrifuges, reducing the stockpile of uranium (by 98%) and shipping out spent fuel and other stuff. I don't know if it's "enough" but they are making concessions.
But they don't snap back, they have to be reimposed. Which will take time and a consensus that may not exist if and when a violation occurs.
yes, those are the concessions they supposedly made Â
But there's no credible way to ensure any of this happens. Iran can refuse any inspections, which then go into an arbitration panel of which Iran is one of the members. It can be dragged out for a long, long time.
we aren't really tied to a vote are we? Can't we just reimpose sanctions independently when we think they violated the agreement, which they assuredly will?
I see the usual suspects-Tom Cotton wouldn't be pleased if this deal didn't have Iran being wiped off the map-but for those reasonable individuals, what's the other options?
I see the usual suspects-Tom Cotton wouldn't be pleased if this deal didn't have Iran being wiped off the map-but for those reasonable individuals, what's the other options?
One alternative would be a deal in which the sanctions automatically snapped back into place without going through a "review process" if Iran was found to violate the terms of the deal.
Or being granted unrestricted access to all sites.
Or not allowing them to continue their research into advanced centrifuges (which would reduce their time to bomb).
I see the usual suspects-Tom Cotton wouldn't be pleased if this deal didn't have Iran being wiped off the map-but for those reasonable individuals, what's the other options?
Sometimes a shit deal is actually worse than no deal at all. Tom Cotton's position, which is simply that Iran is not a trustworthy or even a worthy negotiating partner, is certainly coherent, even if you disagree.
what Israel's objections to this treaty are. I'd like to know what they would change in this deal. Anything that Israel may add to a treaty like this could and most likely would cause the treaty to be rejected by the Iranians.
Which of 2 possibilities would Israel prefer? a) hold out indefinitely for a much better treaty while Iran continues its program? b) accept the concessions now and try to get the Iranians to live up to their part of the treaty.
All it takes is 1 nuke lobbed on Israel to start WWIII.
we aren't really tied to a vote are we? Can't we just reimpose sanctions independently when we think they violated the agreement, which they assuredly will?
Yeah, it's the carrot. The sanctions "stick" is always there.
And, if Iran didn't like them, tell them to go pound sand. This deal barely crimps their progress towards a nuclear weapon, yet they will reap enormous benefits from it. Iran is the clear winner here.
I see the usual suspects-Tom Cotton wouldn't be pleased if this deal didn't have Iran being wiped off the map-but for those reasonable individuals, what's the other options?
Sometimes a shit deal is actually worse than no deal at all. Tom Cotton's position, which is simply that Iran is not a trustworthy or even a worthy negotiating partner, is certainly coherent, even if you disagree.
Assuming that's true, how are sanctions with no attempts at oversight better?
I see the usual suspects-Tom Cotton wouldn't be pleased if this deal didn't have Iran being wiped off the map-but for those reasonable individuals, what's the other options?
Sometimes a shit deal is actually worse than no deal at all. Tom Cotton's position, which is simply that Iran is not a trustworthy or even a worthy negotiating partner, is certainly coherent, even if you disagree.
Assuming that's true, how are sanctions with no attempts at oversight better?
They have limited oversight. They lack access but not intelligence. It's not an ideal situation, but do you want to reward bad behavior from a state with its meathooks in most of the instability in the region? Is that going to make them less adventurous, or more (especially when the financial benefits of sanctions relief manifest themselves)?
it would be better because Iran wouldn't be enriching itself in the Â
And, if Iran didn't like them, tell them to go pound sand. This deal barely crimps their progress towards a nuclear weapon, yet they will reap enormous benefits from it. Iran is the clear winner here.
dismantling the more modern centrifuges/reducing stockpile by 98% and exporting spent fuel barely crimps? What are your terms?
It's highly likely that none of those supposed concessions you cite actually happen. This deal rests almost entirely on taking Iran at its word, which is either really cynical or really naive, or perhaps both.
There are always going to be factions that hate diplomacy Â
because war and oil and tension and fear can be monetized. There will always be those who feel the best solution to a problem is to wipe it off the map and show them that America is the biggest and the baddest and the best. Those are the people that feel Obama is a fag for talking to these people instead of somehow laying down the law. This is the real world. This isn't a giant game of Risk. If there is ever going to be peace it is going to come from people looking each other in the eye and coming to an agreeable understanding. That takes time and the right people sitting at the table. I don't know that this treaty is perfect, but it's a treaty. It's a step in the right direction and maybe it leads to more talk and more cooperation and maybe an even better treaty. People talking is always better than people dying.
I see the usual suspects-Tom Cotton wouldn't be pleased if this deal didn't have Iran being wiped off the map-but for those reasonable individuals, what's the other options?
Sometimes a shit deal is actually worse than no deal at all. Tom Cotton's position, which is simply that Iran is not a trustworthy or even a worthy negotiating partner, is certainly coherent, even if you disagree.
Assuming that's true, how are sanctions with no attempts at oversight better?
They have limited oversight. They lack access but not intelligence. It's not an ideal situation, but do you want to reward bad behavior from a state with its meathooks in most of the instability in the region? Is that going to make them less adventurous, or more (especially when the financial benefits of sanctions relief manifest themselves)?
Hmmm.. We have our meathooks in most of the instability too. :)
Again, I don't know enough about the deal to say whether it's a good one. But, it sure doesn't seem to me that the sanctions have done much to stop them from developing nukes.
RE: Again - without a credible inspection program Â
It's highly likely that none of those supposed concessions you cite actually happen. This deal rests almost entirely on taking Iran at its word, which is either really cynical or really naive, or perhaps both.
The deal includes inspections, which is not the same as taking Iran at it's word at all. I'd say you've stretched "almost entirely" beyond its definition.
RE: I think that it is ridiculous and unrealistic...... Â
to expect that sanctions would or could force Iran to reverse its position on Israel and what we regard as Tehran's sponsorship of international terrorism.
The nuclear issue and these others should not be linked.
Any change in Iranian attitudes towards Israel is not going to occur under external pressure. At best it is going an evolutionary process if it happens at all driven by the Iranians themselves.
Second, what we deem as Iranian support for terrorism (Hezbollah, Shiite militias in Iraq etc)is Tehran defending what it perceives as vital security interests. You were not going alter that behavior through sanctions. Ok there is the argument that Iran will now have more money to spend on financing more meddling. However, the Iranian leadership also has pressing domestic needs they know they have to fund to ensure their own hold on power. In short the Iranians themselves face difficult guns or butter issues.
Lastly, in the end the agreement is about getting greater transparency over the Iranian nuclear program, which it does. Whether it is sufficient is open for debate.
At the end of the day, both the US and Iran need a fresh start in how we deal with each other. The world is becoming an increasingly more complicated and dangerous place and in some cases we have shared interests. Yes we need to be watchful and prudent in dealing with the Iranians but we also need to find a way to work with them as well. Perhaps this agreement will serve as a foundation.
the more I think this was a good deal. Though Im still unqualified to assess it.
Look, you can say that no deal is better than a bad deal. But under no deal Iran gets the bomb. That's a terrible outcome. Maybe under this deal they dont get the bomb. Or some say just negotiate a better deal, as if nobody thought of that. Especially unhelpful are the scenarios that effectively ignore the will of Russia and Europe, as if we had any ability to just dictate to the rest of these countries what they would have done.
It just seems to me that the critics are essentially Waldorf and Statler up in the gallery with nothing to add. Do nothing was not a long term solution.
RE: There are always going to be factions that hate diplomacy Â
because war and oil and tension and fear can be monetized. There will always be those who feel the best solution to a problem is to wipe it off the map and show them that America is the biggest and the baddest and the best. Those are the people that feel Obama is a fag for talking to these people instead of somehow laying down the law. This is the real world. This isn't a giant game of Risk. If there is ever going to be peace it is going to come from people looking each other in the eye and coming to an agreeable understanding. That takes time and the right people sitting at the table. I don't know that this treaty is perfect, but it's a treaty. It's a step in the right direction and maybe it leads to more talk and more cooperation and maybe an even better treaty. People talking is always better than people dying.
That's just fucking stupid. Sometimes when you talk too much you ensure that more people die later, and sometimes you're trading someone else's safety for your own. No, not every diplomatic foray is 1938 and not every opponent is Adolf Hitler, but diplomacy is ineffectual without the credible threat of coercion, up to and including military force.
RE: There are always going to be factions that hate diplomacy Â
because war and oil and tension and fear can be monetized. There will always be those who feel the best solution to a problem is to wipe it off the map and show them that America is the biggest and the baddest and the best. Those are the people that feel Obama is a fag for talking to these people instead of somehow laying down the law. This is the real world. This isn't a giant game of Risk. If there is ever going to be peace it is going to come from people looking each other in the eye and coming to an agreeable understanding. That takes time and the right people sitting at the table. I don't know that this treaty is perfect, but it's a treaty. It's a step in the right direction and maybe it leads to more talk and more cooperation and maybe an even better treaty. People talking is always better than people dying.
Sounds like a quote from Neville Chamberlain. Spelling of name?
The deal includes inspections which are subject to Iran's approval Â
I have another sister in law who's Israeli and has a ton of family there. I am a huge supporter of Israel and have put my money where my mouth is through purchasing a ton of Israeli Bonds. I support negotiating a deal here. One thing I've learned over the past 14 years since 9/11 is that an increasing amount of people in this country, including many of our representatives in congress think they know the Middle East when in fact they have no clue what they are talking about. Iran is a very complicated country. It has a history of a westernized culture in education and medicine at times. Yes especially over the past 35 years the religious zealots have gained far too much influence and power. However there are secular actors as well and that is who this deal was struck with. I haven't seen every aspect of the deal so I can't say with any certainty how good the deal is. From some of the details out there it sounds promising, while others I'd hoped we could have gone further. However it was a negotiation and you are not always going to get everything you want.
For those against negotiating at all I'm curious as to just how you think that's a better alternative in making sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. Sanctions have run their course. Russia/China and the EU aren't going to honor them any more in the current climate so how are they going to be the least bit effective? You may not be satisfied as to all of the details of inspections, but how is that preferable to not being let in at all? Eric you say you fear this was rushed for a legacy. Seriously? we first reached out to Iran in 2006 during the Bush administration and were re-buffed. Once the sanctions to more out of them they agreed to come to the table during the current administration. This is a deal that is basically 5-6 years in the making. How can you say that's rushed? As for Israeli politics Netanyahu has been ridiculous here. Obama gets blame here too for the breakdown of that relationship. They both have acted like children at times. Netanyahu's pandering to the religious right in his country has been pathetic. Yes even much of his political opposition there is against negotiating and the deal. You know what though they are realists. They knew it was going to happen and rather than getting an Israeli voice at the table, Netanyahu's behavior got them bupkus. as a result he is getting a ton of criticism for that.
RE: RE: The more I see the purported alternatives Â
The ultimate power in Iran since 1979 has rested in the hands of the Supreme Leader, Khamenei and Khomeini before him. The president, vice presidents, etc. have absolutely no power over him.
Declining a "request" likely has implications and ramifications on the deal. Iran decling a request is probably no different than refusing an IAEA inspection, which inspectors have become very accustomed to
lends a lot of credibility in the nuclear arena. They will lay out all the layers that Iran would have to cheat through to get to a bomb. They could get through one hole of the Swiss Cheese but they can't get through them all. They will lay out point by point all the technicalities to Congress and at the end of the day they better have a good reason reason other than Iran bad and they can't be trusted. Verification not Trust
RE: The deal includes inspections which are subject to Iran's approval Â
We can request an inspection. If you find that compelling, then there's not much else to say.
Sanctions aren't even being lifted until they meet certain standards. Inspections of nuke facilities - those are not requested. Requesting inspections of some military facilities. Again, I'm not sure if the deal is a good one or not. But you're not characterizing it accurately.
We've already talked about them. It provides weeks of negotiations - do you really think the Iranians will be incapable of using those weeks to shuffle materiel around from one site to another to stay ahead of the inspections? Are you really that willfully naive?
RE: RE: There are always going to be factions that hate diplomacy Â
because war and oil and tension and fear can be monetized. There will always be those who feel the best solution to a problem is to wipe it off the map and show them that America is the biggest and the baddest and the best. Those are the people that feel Obama is a fag for talking to these people instead of somehow laying down the law. This is the real world. This isn't a giant game of Risk. If there is ever going to be peace it is going to come from people looking each other in the eye and coming to an agreeable understanding. That takes time and the right people sitting at the table. I don't know that this treaty is perfect, but it's a treaty. It's a step in the right direction and maybe it leads to more talk and more cooperation and maybe an even better treaty. People talking is always better than people dying.
Sounds like a quote from Neville Chamberlain. Spelling of name?
It was only time that we hit our first Chamberlain reference. You win!
75. In furtherance of implementation of the JCPOA, if the IAEA has concerns regarding undeclared nuclear materials or activities, or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA, at locations that have not been declared under the comprehensive safeguards agreement or Additional Protocol, the IAEA will provide Iran the basis for such concerns and request clarification.
76. If Iran’s explanations do not resolve the IAEA’s concerns, the Agency may [b]request[b] access to such locations for the sole reason to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at such locations. The IAEA will provide Iran the reasons for access in writing and will make available relevant
information.
77. Iran may propose to the IAEA alternative means of resolving the IAEA’s concerns that enable the IAEA to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the location in question, which should be given due and prompt consideration.
78. If the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA cannot be verified after the implementation of the alternative arrangements agreed by Iran and the IAEA, or if the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory arrangements to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the specified locations within 14 days of the IAEA’s original request for access, Iran, in consultation with the members of the Joint Commission, would resolve the IAEA’s concerns through necessary means
agreed between Iran and the IAEA. In the absence of an agreement, the members of the Joint Commission, by consensus or by a vote of 5 or more of its 8 members, would advise on the necessary means to resolve the IAEA’s concerns. The process of consultation with, and any action by, the members of the Joint Commission would not exceed 7 days, and Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.
75. In furtherance of implementation of the JCPOA, if the IAEA has concerns regarding undeclared nuclear materials or activities, or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA, at locations that have not been declared under the comprehensive safeguards agreement or Additional Protocol, the IAEA will provide Iran the basis for such concerns and request clarification.
76. If Iran’s explanations do not resolve the IAEA’s concerns, the Agency may request access to such locations for the sole reason to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at such locations. The IAEA will provide Iran the reasons for access in writing and will make available relevant
information.
77. Iran may propose to the IAEA alternative means of resolving the IAEA’s concerns that enable the IAEA to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the location in question, which should be given due and prompt consideration.
78. If the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA cannot be verified after the implementation of the alternative arrangements agreed by Iran and the IAEA, or if the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory arrangements to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the specified locations within 14 days of the IAEA’s original request for access, Iran, in consultation with the members of the Joint Commission, would resolve the IAEA’s concerns through necessary means
agreed between Iran and the IAEA. In the absence of an agreement, the members of the Joint Commission, by consensus or by a vote of 5 or more of its 8 members, would advise on the necessary means to resolve the IAEA’s concerns. The process of consultation with, and any action by, the members of the Joint Commission would not exceed 7 days, and Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.
deal or the only alternative is war. Iran is going to get the bomb, with or without this deal. The question is how soon. But this deal gives them $150 billion and credibility. It also gives them access to more markets to make more money to fund their terrorism.
Iran doesn't care if they have to wait 15 years to wipe Israel off the map. They will still want to do it 15 years from now and likely will try. Sanctions would have slowed them down more than this deal.
upon technicalities that if violated can trigger the sanctions be reimposed by the P5 + 1.
I still think the notion of snap-back is oversold. It's not automatic, even if everyone was in agreement on the fact of a violation it would still take time to reimplement.
RE: RE: RE: There are always going to be factions that hate diplomacy Â
because war and oil and tension and fear can be monetized. There will always be those who feel the best solution to a problem is to wipe it off the map and show them that America is the biggest and the baddest and the best. Those are the people that feel Obama is a fag for talking to these people instead of somehow laying down the law. This is the real world. This isn't a giant game of Risk. If there is ever going to be peace it is going to come from people looking each other in the eye and coming to an agreeable understanding. That takes time and the right people sitting at the table. I don't know that this treaty is perfect, but it's a treaty. It's a step in the right direction and maybe it leads to more talk and more cooperation and maybe an even better treaty. People talking is always better than people dying.
Sounds like a quote from Neville Chamberlain. Spelling of name?
It was only time that we hit our first Chamberlain reference. You win!
They knew it was going to happen and rather than getting an Israeli voice at the table, Netanyahu's behavior got them bupkus. as a result he is getting a ton of criticism for that.
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
Because Iran would continue to work on the bomb and would eventually develop it. So it's not like but-for this deal, there was going to be an non-nuclear Iran.
I have no idea if this was a good deal or not. A bad deal is not as good as continuing to work towards a good deal (or the conditions precedent to such a deal, e.g. making things tougher on Iran). I get all that. Frankly, I dont think a single person on this board is qualified to assess the deal. Hell, I think most of Congress is unqualified to assess the deal.
I also dont get the motive for the administration to agree to an obviously bad deal. I dont see what is in it for them (a bad deal is worse for legacy than no deal). And a lot of the criticism is coming from camps that think Obama is the worstest president who evah lived, and who have no idea what it is like to actually negotiate an international security accord and/or deal first hand with Russia, Iran, and Europe. Oh no, the Republicans in Congress and Bibi dont like something Obama did? They must be right!
and raking in money, they will be very reluctant to snap back any sanctions. This deal is about doing financial business with Iran, not about stopping them from doing anything.
RE: RE: I have a brother who lives in Israel with his family Â
They knew it was going to happen and rather than getting an Israeli voice at the table, Netanyahu's behavior got them bupkus. as a result he is getting a ton of criticism for that.
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
When Israel signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and comes clean about its nuclear weapons program, then maybe it will get a seat at the table.
Actually another doltish comment from you. Please read the context of the reference yo Chamberlain. It had nothing to do with this deal. It was a response to naive general comment which
said it is always wise to negotiate.
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
Absolutely that is a possibility. By "seat at the table" I also mean some sort of input into the process. I'm sure Netanyahu in all of his hubris probably would say he didn't want any. well that's his own folly because the deal was happening with or without him.
Here is an interesting take on the agreement..... Â
One of the bottom lines that is clear is that despite some of the views expressed here, the US and its partners were not necessarily negotiating from a position of strength. deal - ( New Window )
One of the bottom lines that is clear is that despite some of the views expressed here, the US and its partners were not necessarily negotiating from a position of strength. deal - ( New Window )
Thanks Reb. I dont care for Feldman on a personal level (he's a prick -- I know him from my law school and synagogue). But he was also the guy that the last administration sent to Iraq to write their constitution. So he's not just some ivory tower academic who doesnt have a real sense of the forces at play in western Asia.
RE: Anyone invoking the name of Neville Chamberlain Â
israel has a considerable nuclear arsenal
they are one of the few countries in the world with second strike capacity
they have 5 or 6 subs equipped with nuclear missiles
so if Iraq were to lobbed a nuclear bomb at israel , Iran would be wiped off the face of the earth.
So far Mutual Assured Destruction has kept unstable countries like North Korea and Pakistan from launching nukes , Iran may want regional power and prestige from a nuclear arsenal but in the end they would not be dumb enough to actually use the weapons.
that is the Realpolitik.
Iran was going to pursue nuclear weapons regardless of Saddam Â
I agree that there really is no way short of military force to prevent them from developing a nuke, but why let them enrich and re-arm themselves in the interim?
to this deal? If there was no deal, couldn't Iran just build a nuclear weapon since they already are subject to sanctions and have no incentive to hold back?
One alternative is to continue the policy that forced Iran to the table in the first place- sanctions and Israeli saber rattling.
But no surprise. This was pre-ordained when Kerry, a JFK wannabe and one of the architects of the "Castro really wanted to play for the Yankees and Ho Chi Minh wanted to run the Parker House but we forced them to become revolutionaries" school of international relations, became Secretary of State.
So, here's the question now. Which of the states from the other religious branch of Islam will get the bomb to counter the Iranians?
to this deal? If there was no deal, couldn't Iran just build a nuclear weapon since they already are subject to sanctions and have no incentive to hold back?
One alternative is to continue the policy that forced Iran to the table in the first place- sanctions and Israeli saber rattling.
But no surprise. This was pre-ordained when Kerry, a JFK wannabe and one of the architects of the "Castro really wanted to play for the Yankees and Ho Chi Minh wanted to run the Parker House but we forced them to become revolutionaries" school of international relations, became Secretary of State.
So, here's the question now. Which of the states from the other religious branch of Islam will get the bomb to counter the Iranians?
The Pakistanis an they already have it.
RE: RE: Anyone invoking the name of Neville Chamberlain Â
I agree that there really is no way short of military force to prevent them from developing a nuke, but why let them enrich and re-arm themselves in the interim?
Let them? They were already doing it? I dont understand this criticism.
They knew it was going to happen and rather than getting an Israeli voice at the table, Netanyahu's behavior got them bupkus. as a result he is getting a ton of criticism for that.
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
When Israel signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and comes clean about its nuclear weapons program, then maybe it will get a seat at the table.
Absolutely irrelevant to whether they would have had a seat in these negotiations, but enjoy your fixation.
Already making a lot of money on the international market and buying arms from Russia and China? Is that what you're telling me?
enriching uranium and buying arms. They were already doing both things, fairly successfully.
Yes, they were enriching uranium. I meant enrich in the sense of generating wealth, which they currently cannot do. And I'd dispute that they are fairly successful at re-arming - that's the reason they wanted a deal in the first place.
RE: RE: RE: I have a brother who lives in Israel with his family Â
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
Absolutely that is a possibility. By "seat at the table" I also mean some sort of input into the process. I'm sure Netanyahu in all of his hubris probably would say he didn't want any. well that's his own folly because the deal was happening with or without him.
Stu - It takes two to tango. Bibi certainly has hubris, but this administration treated him poorly from Day 1. IMHO they would have snubbed him, but probably have done it with less enthusiasm which is caused by recent events.
but Bibi had no business addressing Congress and embarrassing the President. He could have handled it differently, now he has pissed off Obama and the deal will go through. I think he hurt Israel
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
Bibi's speech to Congress might've been the tipping point, but his relationship with this admin had gone south well before then.
but Bibi had no business addressing Congress and embarrassing the President. He could have handled it differently, now he has pissed off Obama and the deal will go through. I think he hurt Israel
The idea that he would allow an ally's arch-rival to go nuclear (or at least have a clear path to do so) out of spite is almost too fanciful to entertain outside of talk radio. I don't like his foreign policy and I think he could stand to treat our allies better than he occasionally does our enemies, but I don't buy that.
I'm pretty sure they share intelligence regarding Iran. I also think behind the scenes there was Israeli input that was considered. I also think more could
have been gotten with cooperation rather than grandstanding. Just my opinion
RE: RE: I'm as a huge supporter of Israel as a Jew Â
The idea that he would allow an ally's arch-rival to go nuclear (or at least have a clear path to do so) out of spite is almost too fanciful to entertain outside of talk radio. I don't like his foreign policy and I think he could stand to treat our allies better than he occasionally does our enemies, but I don't buy that.
Are you still talking about Israel or did we switch to Saudi Arabia? :=)
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
For better or worse, his speech also brought a much bigger spotlight to the negotiations and potentially got the Obama admin to hold firmer on some points.
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
Bibi's speech to Congress might've been the tipping point, but his relationship with this admin had gone south well before then.
Sort of dovetailing our previous discussion on the rise of antisemitism in Europe and US academia.
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
For better or worse, his speech also brought a much bigger spotlight to the negotiations and potentially got the Obama admin to hold firmer on some points.
I'd say that was more Menendez and Schumer. It got Menendez indicted with evidence DOJ had had for 3-4 years.
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
Hilarious. Same crap the conservatives have said about every single thing they don't like. This weird fantasy world where Obama is a hardliner on one hand and soft as jelly on another.
Parliamentary system. 75+% of voters cast their ballots for a party that WASNT Bibi's. And he had a very, very hard time forming a coalition government with just a 1 vote margin (meaning any one of the 5 coalition parties and 61 coalition members of Knesset can topple the Israeli government).
But in any event, I think the loser comment was about this Iran deal. I have really mixed feelings on Bibi. If I was in Israel I might vote for him. But his power play against a sitting American president is baffling. And was very, very poorly executed. He has really forgotten that he needs Obama a lot more than Obama needs him. And by public challenge and policies that -- right or dumb -- are making Israel look bad internationally, he's not doing a whole lot to curry the favor of the American president. Now he may not care, but if he was better at his job he would have had private influence on this Iran deal, rather than a ticket to the peanut gallery.
and he took the election and took a victory for himself. Now what? He has been marginalized and how is helping Israel today? It was good for him to what end other than keeping his job you would have to explain to me when you stop shaking your head
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
Hilarious. Same crap the conservatives have said about every single thing they don't like. This weird fantasy world where Obama is a hardliner on one hand and soft as jelly on another.
Fantasy? He's hard on domestic enemies and people he thinks he can push around (Israel) and he's soft on Russia, China and Iran. It's blatantly obvious.
American conservatives defend Bibi more than their own Â
be blamed for the deterioration of this relationship. I am a big Obama supporter but at times he's acted childish here. Netanyahu addressing Congress was an asinine stunt and a blatant spitting in the face of an ally that you simply don't do on their soil. Buford I don't bother addressing most of your talking points, however on Bibi being "not shy about sticking up for Israel" give it a rest. Bibi is about sticking up for Bibi and doing whatever it takes and pandering to whomever necessary in his country to stay in power. His brother is a true hero, and I respected much of what he has done in his politial career in Israel and his service and dedication to that country. However these past 8-10 years he's become a disgusting pandering sell-out to the far right especially on the settlements and now this. What has it landed the Israelis today vis a vi Iran? nothing. bupkus.
Some of yall ever get tired of having the same ultra-partisan Â
I'm all for good debate and disagreement but damn this shit is like WWI with both sides hunkered down in the trenches trying to avoid the other's artillery over and over and over no matter the topic..
But I put that more on John Boehner and the crazies who run Congress.
You mean of course, Wasserman, Wax, and Pelosi. I agree with
you, they are crazies.
Well, Pelosi opposed it. Waxman is retired. And Debbie was so so on it. I don't get your post, but knowing you, I shouldn't be surprised.
It was a tremendous slap in the face of the administration. You don't invite a foreign leader to come to your country and speak before Congress and piss all over the current president.
In US foreign policy is the Munich syndrome and the Vietnam syndrome. We like these vehicles because they simplify things down to a digestible sound bite but they usually over simplify complex problems.
Despite right wing fantasies to the contrary, there is no practical way for the US to stop Iran from exercising a powerful influence in an area of the world where they've exercised a powerful influence over for 2000+ years. It's also obvious we have no ability to keep Iran from getting a bomb eventually if they really want one. They are not Iraq or Afghanistan and we fucked up even trying to control those two. And who on here would not try hard for a bomb if they were running Iraq? Everybody knows what happens to Muslim countries who argue with the US in that part of the world and don't have one.
Not a big Obama fan and I've been underwhelmed with his foreign policy in general but this deal is the result of reason and realism.
but what should Neville Chamberlain have done? I'm not a pre-WWII expert (but I'm about to be forever tarred as a Chamberlain apologist). But this Slate article says that historians have forgiven him because he basically had no option. NC was advised that Britain was powerless to fight a German invasion of Czechoslovakia is Sept. 1938. The Axis already supported eachother whereas the Brits had potentially a dangerous Soviet Union, a shaky France, and no USA (legally neutral). Wouldnt necessarily have the support of the Canadians and Aussies. And a population that was weary as hell from WWI. Plus the knew Hitler was bad, but I dont think anyone in Sept. 1938 anticipated that he would be modern history's greatest monster. Or so the article outlines.
So I ask the question -- what was the alternative for Chamberlain? Go to war in 1938? Link - ( New Window )
I have read several summaries (the one below is from The Guardian). Among my concerns:
Quote:
Iran will reduce its enrichment capacity by two-thirds. It will stop using its underground facility at Fordow for enriching uranium.
I thought the goal was elimination.
Quote:
Iran’s stockpile of low enriched uranium will be reduced to 300kg, a 96% reduction. It will achieve this reduction either by diluting it or shipping it out of the country.
The core of the heavy water reactor in Arak will be removed, and it will be redesigned in such a way that it will not produce significant amounts of plutonium.
I have serious doubts Iran will let this happen. If they do, they probably have another facility that is unknown to the West.
Quote:
Iran will allow UN inspectors to enter sites, including military sites, when the inspectors have grounds to believe undeclared nuclear activity is being carried out there. It can object but a multinational commission can override any objections by majority vote. After that Iran will have three days to comply. Inspectors will only come from countries with diplomatic relations with Iran, so no Americans.
Once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified that Iran has taken steps to shrink its programme, UN, US and EU sanctions will be lifted.
Again, sounds good "on paper"; the devil is in the details.
Quote:
If there are allegations that Iran has not met its obligations, a joint commission will seek to resolve the dispute for 30 days. If that effort fails it would be referred to the UN security council, which would have to vote to continue sanctions relief. A veto by a permanent member would mean that sanctions are reimposed. The whole process would take 65 days.
Good luck ever getting the sanctions reimposed.
lots of people with crystal balls and magical future predicting powers Â
but you came to the conclusion good luck enforcing it? So I take it that you don't have a clue regarding the layers of prevention that are written that Iran would have to cheat on to get to point where the deal is meaningless. You think that Iran will just do what it wants and there are no consequences.
RE: RE: RE: He shouldn't have addressed Congress. Â
I don't dislike 'progressive', you are closed minded
and your 'ego' will never allow you to see the obvious.
Sorry, I replied to you, exchanges with the closed minded
can only get worse, especially when you are an egotistic.
Sorry man, my bad......a 'mind' is a terrible thing not
to have :)
Quote:
In comment 12371136 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
But I put that more on John Boehner and the crazies who run Congress.
You mean of course, Wasserman, Wax, and Pelosi. I agree with
you, they are crazies.
Well, Pelosi opposed it. Waxman is retired. And Debbie was so so on it. I don't get your post, but knowing you, I shouldn't be surprised.
It was a tremendous slap in the face of the administration. You don't invite a foreign leader to come to your country and speak before Congress and piss all over the current president.
signed this shitty deal, rather than getting Iran to agree to much better terms. Which I just assume Iran would have agreed to because ... underpants.
Or that he didnt just say no deal and continue the sanctions ... which even Britain said we going to be less severe going forward.
Or that he doesnt just invade Iran. A country 5x the size of Iraq with 2x the population
And btw, if Iran is really run by the religious zealots hell bent on war/nukes, why would anyone believe that economic pressure via sanctions would bring Iran to its knees, especially after they didnt work for years (and leaving aside how much Europe and Russia didnt want them)?
I have read several summaries (the one below is from The Guardian). Among my concerns:
Quote:
Iran will reduce its enrichment capacity by two-thirds. It will stop using its underground facility at Fordow for enriching uranium.
I thought the goal was elimination.
Quote:
Iran’s stockpile of low enriched uranium will be reduced to 300kg, a 96% reduction. It will achieve this reduction either by diluting it or shipping it out of the country.
The core of the heavy water reactor in Arak will be removed, and it will be redesigned in such a way that it will not produce significant amounts of plutonium.
I have serious doubts Iran will let this happen. If they do, they probably have another facility that is unknown to the West.
Quote:
Iran will allow UN inspectors to enter sites, including military sites, when the inspectors have grounds to believe undeclared nuclear activity is being carried out there. It can object but a multinational commission can override any objections by majority vote. After that Iran will have three days to comply. Inspectors will only come from countries with diplomatic relations with Iran, so no Americans.
Once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified that Iran has taken steps to shrink its programme, UN, US and EU sanctions will be lifted.
Again, sounds good "on paper"; the devil is in the details.
Quote:
If there are allegations that Iran has not met its obligations, a joint commission will seek to resolve the dispute for 30 days. If that effort fails it would be referred to the UN security council, which would have to vote to continue sanctions relief. A veto by a permanent member would mean that sanctions are reimposed. The whole process would take 65 days.
Good luck ever getting the sanctions reimposed.
As a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Iran was always permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful non-military purposes. The proble has always been their Highly Enriched Uranium efforts.
Sustaining the sanctions regime if the U.S. Walked away from the table because there was growing momentum and desire on the part of the Europeans for some kind of a deal. Plus if you walked away from a deal you were never going to get the Russians or the Chinese back on board who would probably accuse the United States of using sanctions to enact regime change in Iran.
You Guys Can Put Your Blind Faith In A Piece Of Paper Â
We'll see as the details are evaluated by independent experts whether there are true safeguards in this deal or not.
Hopefully there will be extensive hearings and investigations by the Congress. The Administration seemed to be in a "a deal at almost any cost" mode during the negotiations, which worries me greatly.
Frankly, I don't trust that the Administration negotiated with the long term best interests of country in mind and were much more concerned with the short term optics of "getting a deal done". I'm surprised we haven't heard, "We have to sign this treaty to find out what's in it."
It certainly doesn't appear that the Administration were tough negotiators and I'm very concerned about hidden concessions.
The Iranian regime and their people (the "Death To America" crowd) shouldn't be trusted on anything that relies on "good faith", "better cooperation" or "turning them from enemies to friends".
My guess is that the Ayatollahs are celebrating and having a good laugh this evening.
Sustaining the sanctions regime if the U.S. Walked away from the table because there was growing momentum and desire on the part of the Europeans for some kind of a deal. Plus if you walked away from a deal you were never going to get the Russians or the Chinese back on board who would probably accuse the United States of using sanctions to enact regime change in Iran.
The US & Iran, are going to be allies. The fundementalism
of Iran is going, probably over the next 10 yrs.
In the end, we will give them nukes.
Persia, aka Iran, is an old culture and has been a world
power. We both have something to gain from each other,
things that are now, won't be tomorrow.
Remember the fall of Viet Nam, 1975, who would have thought
that today, we are strategic partners.
The 'propaganda' that is swallowed by the 'public' is not
the truth.
Today the 'Nuclear Club' consists of US, Russia, China,
India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, France, and probably
2 or 3 countries.
Countries who can join the club easily are Germany, Japan,
Iran,Eygpt, South Africa, Canada, Brazil, Australia,
Mexico, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Ukraine, Poland,
etc....Iran got our attention, and once we back down from
the stance we have had since the Shah's fall, we can be
friends. If you are under the impression, that Iran is the
only country using terrorism, look a little closer to
home. The nuclear issue was never what it was about,
it was about the dollar and oil. Those details can be
worked out.
Does anyone remember the Gulf of Tompkin, the 'Domino
Theory', let's wise up, an enemy needs to be 'demonized'
until we become 'friends'. In my lifetime, China has been
the enemy twice and our friend twice.
Stop reading the Times, they are a mouthpiece.
As Bismarck told the young Wilmelm II, we have no friends,
we have no enemies, we are here to preserve our state.
It's like a 'three card monte game', it's so obvious and
yet, it has been played since the beginning of time
because people prefer, the lie!
Roman aphorism: 'People want to be deceived, so deceive
them'. Some lose their lives to keep the game going,
which is very sad.
translations that insure that the Iranians could not say that language of any word(s) are able to be interpered by them to mean anything other that what clearly intended. There are technicalities that address every point in the document that were hammered out to insure that cheating was easily detected. This will be and should be scrutinized line by line and at the end of the day it will be known to everyone what the deal really is or really isnt
According to a recent poll published in the Iranian press, 90 percent of Iranians do not trust the US government in negotiations with their country, though they still support the idea of negotiations in general.
RE: RE: You were also going to have a though time Â
Sustaining the sanctions regime if the U.S. Walked away from the table because there was growing momentum and desire on the part of the Europeans for some kind of a deal. Plus if you walked away from a deal you were never going to get the Russians or the Chinese back on board who would probably accuse the United States of using sanctions to enact regime change in Iran.
The US & Iran, are going to be allies. The fundementalism
of Iran is going, probably over the next 10 yrs.
In the end, we will give them nukes.
Persia, aka Iran, is an old culture and has been a world
power. We both have something to gain from each other,
things that are now, won't be tomorrow.
Remember the fall of Viet Nam, 1975, who would have thought
that today, we are strategic partners.
The 'propaganda' that is swallowed by the 'public' is not
the truth.
Today the 'Nuclear Club' consists of US, Russia, China,
India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, France, and probably
2 or 3 countries.
Countries who can join the club easily are Germany, Japan,
Iran,Eygpt, South Africa, Canada, Brazil, Australia,
Mexico, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Ukraine, Poland,
etc....Iran got our attention, and once we back down from
the stance we have had since the Shah's fall, we can be
friends. If you are under the impression, that Iran is the
only country using terrorism, look a little closer to
home. The nuclear issue was never what it was about,
it was about the dollar and oil. Those details can be
worked out.
Does anyone remember the Gulf of Tompkin, the 'Domino
Theory', let's wise up, an enemy needs to be 'demonized'
until we become 'friends'. In my lifetime, China has been
the enemy twice and our friend twice.
Stop reading the Times, they are a mouthpiece.
As Bismarck told the young Wilmelm II, we have no friends,
we have no enemies, we are here to preserve our state.
It's like a 'three card monte game', it's so obvious and
yet, it has been played since the beginning of time
because people prefer, the lie!
Roman aphorism: 'People want to be deceived, so deceive
them'. Some lose their lives to keep the game going,
which is very sad.
Usa, Israel, Germany, France, South Africa, khan/Pakistan.
One take way is that they have been on the trail for 60 years. Another is that they are resourceful. Another is that 60 years is not a well funded priority. Another is that their proximity to Russia left them off our list of unable to visibly help for quite some time after Cuba Missile crisis resolution....and then again once we could not be two faced openly helping while working to deals with the Soviets. So we did it through proxies.
Remember Russia is very sensitive to Iran in that the largest Communist Party in the world by a wide margin used to be Iran and four of its regions were the only ones in history that voluntarily asked to join the Soviet Union. Like it or not the mullahs kicked major Soviet ass from 1920 to now.
I love the quote of Orwell:
'Some ideas are so wrong, they can only be accepted
by an intelligent mind'.
This is a very interesting series if you like it,
hit the person who posted it. There are about 9 episodes
and I don't think you'll look at history the same again. 1984 War Is Peace and It's Purpose - ( New Window )
As I understand it, the sanctions on some items vital to oil and gas production transport and refining have been very very effective.
Irans oil industry needs $300B a year of foreign investment to get to average technology for the fields. Recent years have attracted about $11b per year.
Letting them come on stream right now just hurts Russian mob cash flow and smacks Iran badly as China demand implodes with their slow motion wreck.
I would give dollars to donuts that there is a sidebar agreement that has them committed to trading in dollars as the reserve currency and not supporting the losing last hopes of China and Russia to change that.
Imho we are in www3 with China and Russia via monetary policy and cyberspying
RE: Boy am I inviting a shit storm with this question... Â
but what should Neville Chamberlain have done? I'm not a pre-WWII expert (but I'm about to be forever tarred as a Chamberlain apologist). But this Slate article says that historians have forgiven him because he basically had no option. NC was advised that Britain was powerless to fight a German invasion of Czechoslovakia is Sept. 1938. The Axis already supported eachother whereas the Brits had potentially a dangerous Soviet Union, a shaky France, and no USA (legally neutral). Wouldnt necessarily have the support of the Canadians and Aussies. And a population that was weary as hell from WWI. Plus the knew Hitler was bad, but I dont think anyone in Sept. 1938 anticipated that he would be modern history's greatest monster. Or so the article outlines.
So I ask the question -- what was the alternative for Chamberlain? Go to war in 1938? Link - ( New Window )
Deej, I think Chamberlain was reasonable and expected the
same of the Germans. Relying on others reasonability can
be fatal.
He recognized that the Germans had European demands that
were not unreasonable. His error was that Germany would
be placated when their legitimate claims were met and
the injustices of the Versailles Treaty were corrected.
Sometimes, we see circumstance and delude ourself.
The Nazi's were gangsters. They were never going to
be satisfied. Chamberlain realized that by the beginning
of 1939.
I think he has gotten a bad rap. His appearance may have
done him in. He looked like 'thinker' and difinitely
not a 'tough' guy. The intertwining of the German & English
upper classes was a something that the history books
conveniently forgot. Why did Rudolph Hess, parachute into
England. Why was he kept a prisioner until he died, never
telling the complience of the English upper class with
the Nazi. Look up Prescott Bush and John Foster Douglas
Americans who dealt with the Nazi's before WW2, kept the
lines of communications open during the war and assisted
many Nazi's to escape trial after WW2.
Also Check out Prince Bernhardt of Belgium, a prime Bilderburger who was also during the war a member of
the Waffen SS.
As I understand it, the sanctions on some items vital to oil and gas production transport and refining have been very very effective.
Irans oil industry needs $300B a year of foreign investment to get to average technology for the fields. Recent years have attracted about $11b per year.
Letting them come on stream right now just hurts Russian mob cash flow and smacks Iran badly as China demand implodes with their slow motion wreck.
I would give dollars to donuts that there is a sidebar agreement that has them committed to trading in dollars as the reserve currency and not supporting the losing last hopes of China and Russia to change that.
Imho we are in www3 with China and Russia via monetary policy and cyberspying
Bingo, they will trade in dollars.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, those countries who
try to destroy the dollar or create an alternative
are our 'enemies'. China & Russia are the 'last of the
Mohegans'. The problem, we have to be careful not to
back them against the wall. If they unite, which would
definitely be an alliance of convenience as they are not
natural allies....there may be problems. Before 'fighting'
I see a 'Gold War'. If gold increases, it weakens the dollar
and shows it vulnerability.
The strong dollar 'broke' Russia in '89-90, and it looks
like it is going to break Russia again.
China is 'structurally' unsound. The chickens are coming
home to the roost.
Actually, I don't know if Chamberlain was Prime Minister or not Â
but the best chance the British and the French had to take out Hitler was in the Rhineland in 1936. Hard to tell if it was self serving when told later on after the war but the German General Staff said they would have taken Hitler out had the French and British opposed the Rhineland re-occupation. The German army wasn't strong enough at that point, allegedly. After that, Hitler felt invincible and the war was on.
the section of the treaty, oh excuse me, agreement, that I read gives the Iranians plenty of time and room to screw around with the schedule of any inspectors that may want to visit. As for the Iranians in general, anybody who thinks they will honor this in any fashion is a fool. Not necessarily a Chamberlain but a fool anyway. They will just go on supplying their surrogates and being a pain in the ass to everyone on a larger scale with American and Western European funding.
and he took the election and took a victory for himself. Now what? He has been marginalized and how is helping Israel today? It was good for him to what end other than keeping his job you would have to explain to me when you stop shaking your head
I love how, you, the OP, starts the thread as if it were a question when you clearly only wanted to antagonize those that disagree. But carry on.
According to your logic, it must have helped Israel a ton. Because Obama got his plan through. Based on your thought process this plan is better than anything bibi wanted so I guess he did them good. No?
In the past 20 years : Iran goes from 16 experiments centrifuges to over 19,000 without an agreement. It stockpiles enough LEU to produce a bomb in as little as 2 months. No inspections of military facilities. We did have an arms embargo, but Russia and China did not.
Under new agreement: Reduces Iran's stockpile of LEU by 98%. Reduces number of centrifuges to 5,060. Inspections of military facilities. International Arms embargo--NOW including Russia and China-- to remain in effect for at least 2 years even if IAEA determines Iran never tried to build a bomb.
Funny how the hawks always hang Munich around of the necks Â
of anyone who believes in diplomacy, yet they totally ignore the hawkish mistakes of Versailles after WWI which helped hatch a climate ripe for someone like Hitler to hatch in the first place.
who are England, France, China ,Russia & the Eurozone?
Well, if you buy the analogy (which I don't) then France would be Premier Daladier. Pre-war France and it's situation is a subject in and of itself. China was already about 20% occupied by Japan while in the middle of a civil war. Stalin was busy purging his generals. I assume you already know who England and the Eurozone (Germany) are.
Hyperbolic but makes the very obvious point that if you evaluate this by the less than exacting standard of what the Administration itself said it would not do it looks like a shitty deal. Link - ( New Window )
I hear one POV and I'm for it, I hear the opposite POV then I'm against it. Bottom line it's going to take weeks if not months before i make up my mind
RE: Boy am I inviting a shit storm with this question... Â
but what should Neville Chamberlain have done? I'm not a pre-WWII expert (but I'm about to be forever tarred as a Chamberlain apologist). But this Slate article says that historians have forgiven him because he basically had no option. NC was advised that Britain was powerless to fight a German invasion of Czechoslovakia is Sept. 1938. The Axis already supported eachother whereas the Brits had potentially a dangerous Soviet Union, a shaky France, and no USA (legally neutral). Wouldnt necessarily have the support of the Canadians and Aussies. And a population that was weary as hell from WWI. Plus the knew Hitler was bad, but I dont think anyone in Sept. 1938 anticipated that he would be modern history's greatest monster. Or so the article outlines.
So I ask the question -- what was the alternative for Chamberlain? Go to war in 1938? Link - ( New Window )
Here are the problems I see. First, it's quite true that the UK was not prepared for war. But what the article fails acknowledge is that 1938 Germany, while more prepared than the UK, was not the Germany of September 1939. The panzers were not the panzers of May 1940, and the Czechs had some relatively formidable fixed defenses. There was no guarantee that they would have swept through in a 2 week campaign.
Consider this as well. Hitler had made all his land grabs through bluff and bluster. When his troops crossed over the bridges into the Rhineland in 1936, their commanders had been told that if they saw resistance from the French who were marginally occupying the territory (IIRC no forces there but the right send troops in) they were to turn around and return to the east side of the Rhine. We will never know what calling his bluff in 1938 would have created. One thing I will posit is that if Hitler had invaded he would have been in no position to blitz the rest of Western Europe within a year and the French/British et. al. would have rearmed much quicker.
Finally, by proclaiming "peace in our time" Chamberlain oversold, badly oversold the agreement.
I hear one POV and I'm for it, I hear the opposite POV then I'm against it. Bottom line it's going to take weeks if not months before i make up my mind
I did not go into it with an open mind. There are things about it I like. But I can't get around the fact that I didn't think it was a good idea in the first place and that despite the entreaties of people here whom I like and respect to separate Iran's nuclear ambitions from its bad behavior in the region I don't think that they should, or can, be separated.
I hear one POV and I'm for it, I hear the opposite POV then I'm against it. Bottom line it's going to take weeks if not months before i make up my mind
It's not even months. In 15 years Iran will have the ability to produce enriched uranium and then there is no stopping them. And they don't mind waiting 15 years. Israel is completely boxed in now. If they want to do something, they have to do it now.
Kerry was asked why the release of the three Americans being held in Iran wasn't part of this deal. He said this was just about nukes. But the final deal lifts the weapons embargo for conventional weapons. You can't trust anything Kerry says.
I hear one POV and I'm for it, I hear the opposite POV then I'm against it. Bottom line it's going to take weeks if not months before i make up my mind
I did not go into it with an open mind. There are things about it I like. But I can't get around the fact that I didn't think it was a good idea in the first place and that despite the entreaties of people here whom I like and respect to separate Iran's nuclear ambitions from its bad behavior in the region I don't think that they should, or can, be separated.
The fact that the deal lifts sanctions against Qasem Soleimani, who was responsible for the death of so many US troops in Iraq but is not involved in their nuclear program means they can't be separated. Sanctions are also lifted against other Quds Force and Revolutionary Guard commanders. People say that we may be looking at a new ruling class in 10-15 years, but these people (as opposed to the septuagenarian and older ayatolas and clerics) are in their 50's and younger, some in their 30s. They're not going anywhere in the next 10-15 years.
again I may be hopelessly biased on the subject, but I don't see the wisdom, the necessity or the justice in going from EFP Alley and several hundred dead American servicemembers to lifting sanctions in 7 or 8 years with no intervening improvement in Iranian behavior.
The type that I save for offline viewing so I can digest it all on the subway while I commute. Of course you can sometimes see the left vs right snowballs and people's biases, but still, by and large, it's fascinating to read everyone's insight into this deal.
Reb8VA, your previous post was a really awesome take on this treaty and the situation with Iran. Thanks for posting it.
While reading, a couple questions/thoughts crossed my mind:
1) This might seem naive, but why isn't mutually assured destruction still a viable deterrent for the use of nuclear weapons on an "informal" level. Obviously we cannot hedge our bets to mutually assured destruction on a geopolitical level, but there seems to be a fear of Iran having a nuclear weapon from many people on this board. We have second strike capability, as does Israel - is there a reason that people feel mutually assured destruction doesn't offer some layer of protection against a nuclear Iran?
2) There's been a multitude of articles that I've read and a ton of anecdotal evidence (much of it coming from people I know on a personal level) that there is a deceptively large, growing, liberalized segment of Iran. A strata of their population that aren't just dogmatic religious fanatics, don't hate western culture (even embracing it to an extent), and believing in secular governance. I've also heard a lot of this stems from their youth.
Obviously any country has divisions, but the contention that Iran is just completely filled with religious crazies top to bottom is something I haven't read/heard. Now the amount of power that these subsections of Iranian society hold is something that I have no idea about, and I know Greg from LI alluded that they don't really have much influence. I know a lot of Iranian-Americans, and while I'm sure their view might be skewed somewhat by being American, they have placed emphasis on the fact that a large portion of the country, particularly the youth, are not really religious zealots.
3) Which brings me to my next question... it's clear the sanctions have impacted Iran enough to bring them to the negotiating table. However, would it be safe to assume that the impetus for their willingness to negotiate, or maybe more appropriately the source of their economic pain imposed by the sanctions is more about economic issues for their populace as opposed to an inability to fund other terrorist groups? And if this is the case, would opening up trade and allowing funds to flow into Iran benefit the aforementioned [comparatively] liberalized groups in Iran in a way that could benefit us by liberalizing their internal politics a bit? Or would it swing in the other direction - effectively strengthening the hard line stances of the theocracy in power by making the population of Iran more content?
(Is Iran even really a true theocracy?)
4) I think many people ignore the fact that this distrust is mutual. While we may not have much of a reason to trust the Iranians, they have absolutely zero reason to trust the US. We overthrew their democratically elected leader. If that happened here 35 years ago, there wouldn't be many people who would be willing to negotiate with the country that organized the coup. Yes, they have made "Death to America" statements - but we have called this country an axis of evil as well.
that we can just get Iran to do whatever we want it to if we just act tough enough.
I have news for people - Iran is a country of close to 80 million people and those people (the Persians) have been a major factor in the region for over 2000 years and will continue to be indefinitely. We have to be able to talk to them.
disputes that there are non-crazy elements in Iran, we simply dispute that they have a meaningful role in government.
And mutually assured destruction does and doesn't apply here. It would likely have the impact of preventing a willful state action to nuke Israel. It would not, however, have a significant deterrent effect regarding any other serious geopolitical dispute Iran might have, such as ongoing feuds with the Sunni states of the region. Natural restraint might, but not the certainty that the United States or Pakistan would retaliate for a warhead launched at a non-nuclear state. But the bigger issue is that Iran has proven bellicose even without a nuclear deterrent, there is no reason to suggest that they would be less so with them, when the fear of any sort of regime change or other existential threat to Tehran is essentially off the table.
mention of the government/military officials in Iran who are going to be removed from the non-proliferation sanctions list, including Soleimani. I don't generally believe that it's a good idea to negotiate with an adversary that has advocated destroying Israel and believes that the U.S. is the devil and deserves death. I also don't believe that the U.S. was negotiating from a position of strength, which runs contrary to principles of war and diplomacy.
and they revolted in 2009. But Obama did nothing to help them. The time to encourage that movement was then, not now.
There are those who believe that Iran (at least some of the mullahs) don't care about mutually assured destruction. They have no problem with suicide bombing, this would be that on a much larger scale.
RE: Funny how the hawks always hang Munich around of the necks Â
of anyone who believes in diplomacy, yet they totally ignore the hawkish mistakes of Versailles after WWI which helped hatch a climate ripe for someone like Hitler to hatch in the first place.
At best it delayed a nuclear Iran down the road a bit.
At worse it made the region less stable and will cause the Saudis etal to follow suit.
I don't think it was an "historic" agreement. Sanctions were were being eased by others. It's an arms agreement. Those of us a little long in the tooth were use having them occur on a regular basis.
What technology and spare parts Iran can obtain will be telling. Something Bill2 could opine on.
RE: RE: Funny how the hawks always hang Munich around of the necks Â
of anyone who believes in diplomacy, yet they totally ignore the hawkish mistakes of Versailles after WWI which helped hatch a climate ripe for someone like Hitler to hatch in the first place.
That is a brilliant observation.
Brilliant? One was a peace treaty imposed on a defeated adversary and is still pitifully misunderstood and referenced at least as often as Munich. The other was an act of appeasement in advance of a likely war. The relationship between the two is tenuous at best.
that we can just get Iran to do whatever we want it to if we just act tough enough.
That's the rub of it to me. There are a lot of people who are comparing this ACTUAL deal to some fantasy world where we can dictate terms to Iran, or where the sanctions regime was not teetering as it is. So you get a lot of people saying "no deal is better than a bad deal" as if that is a truism. In part:
Quote:
When critics focus incessantly on the gap between the present deal and a perfect one, what they’re really doing is blaming Obama for the fact that the United States is not omnipotent. This isn’t surprising given that American omnipotence is the guiding assumption behind contemporary Republican foreign policy. Ask any GOP presidential candidate except Rand Paul what they propose doing about any global hotspot and their answer is the same: be tougher. America must take a harder line against Iran’s nuclear program, against ISIS, against Bashar al-Assad, against Russian intervention in Ukraine and against Chinese ambitions in the South China Sea.
If you believe American power is limited, this agenda is absurd. America needs Russian and Chinese support for an Iranian nuclear deal. U.S. officials can’t simultaneously put maximum pressure on both Assad and ISIS, the two main rivals for power in Syria today. They must decide who is the lesser evil. Accepting that American power is limited means prioritizing. It means making concessions to regimes and organizations you don’t like in order to put more pressure on the ones you fear most. That’s what Franklin Roosevelt did when allying with Stalin against Hitler. It’s what Richard Nixon did when he reached out to communist China in order to increase America’s leverage over the U.S.S.R.
And it’s what George W. Bush refused to do after 9/11, when he defined the “war on terror” not merely as a conflict against al-Qaeda but as a license to wage war, or cold war, against every anti-American regime supposedly pursuing weapons of mass destruction. This massive overestimation of American power underlay the war in Iraq...
Along these lines, and interesting (if a bit too political) take from Beinart at the Atlantic. Link - ( New Window )
is not absurd. Saying you need to send in the tanks everywhere is absurd. Weakness is self-perpetuating, as is strength. If every expansionist or terrorist (or separatist) power went on the march at once, even a strong hegemon would not be able to hit them all. But if each in its rational calculation believes there is a probability of active opposition and serious consequences, it is more likely that each would decline to do act. If, however, a hegemon (regional or global) is perceived to be weak, the leaders of expansionist powers or terrorist or separatist movements may rationally decide that the hegemon is unlikely to act against them, certainly not if more than one such event is already in progress. This is why revolutions tend to happen in waves (1848, the 1860's, etc etc).
By putting Germany in a financially broken state of abject misery, the victorious allies of WW I essentially guaranteed the rise of vicious nationalists in Germany, and an eventual re-match. One could easily say that we have been doing much the same to Iran, making a permanent enemy of a country that is, in many ways, a potential natural ally.
So, yes, I think this is a rather apt comparison. Certainly much more apt than comparing Obama and Kerry's role in a 6-way negotiation to Chamberlain's summit with Hitler in Munich.
Deej is spot on again. If we were any "tougher" we risked losing the rest of the P5+1. Russia is not our friend. Neither is China. And really, in some ways, neither is the Eurozone (Germany).
If we adopted a more difficult stance, we would have been left standing alone. The sanctions would have likely come down from the rest of the major powers, and our leverage would have evaporated.
This is what you and others are complaining about, and this is why you are wrong. We are not omnipotnent, and this wasn't a bi-polar negotiation. It was multipolar, and if Iran had succeeded in isolating us in these negotiations, the result would have been much, much worse for us and for Israel than the result that was obtained.
Now, you'll go and rationalize something to say in response, because you don't like Obama and always find something to kvetch about, but you really can't rebut this point, because it is reality.
and they revolted in 2009. But Obama did nothing to help them. The time to encourage that movement was then, not now.
There are those who believe that Iran (at least some of the mullahs) don't care about mutually assured destruction. They have no problem with suicide bombing, this would be that on a much larger scale.
out of curiosity, what course of action would have liked Obama to encourage?
By putting Germany in a financially broken state of abject misery, the victorious allies of WW I essentially guaranteed the rise of vicious nationalists in Germany, and an eventual re-match. One could easily say that we have been doing much the same to Iran, making a permanent enemy of a country that is, in many ways, a potential natural ally.
So, yes, I think this is a rather apt comparison. Certainly much more apt than comparing Obama and Kerry's role in a 6-way negotiation to Chamberlain's summit with Hitler in Munich.
It didn't guarantee shit, that's a myth that started with dovish French and especially British commentators in the 1920's. Munich is a shitty analogy, Versailles a much shittier one. We are not treating a vanquished enemy, we are treating an enemy that surveys a regional scene it has done much to leave in disarray and sees itself in a position of geopolitical strength.
Deej is spot on again. If we were any "tougher" we risked losing the rest of the P5+1. Russia is not our friend. Neither is China. And really, in some ways, neither is the Eurozone (Germany).
If we adopted a more difficult stance, we would have been left standing alone. The sanctions would have likely come down from the rest of the major powers, and our leverage would have evaporated.
This is what you and others are complaining about, and this is why you are wrong. We are not omnipotnent, and this wasn't a bi-polar negotiation. It was multipolar, and if Iran had succeeded in isolating us in these negotiations, the result would have been much, much worse for us and for Israel than the result that was obtained.
Now, you'll go and rationalize something to say in response, because you don't like Obama and always find something to kvetch about, but you really can't rebut this point, because it is reality.
You are predictable in the ends to which you will go to support anything the Administration does. This might be the right move, it might not, but trying to pretend that this was the only move we could have made is a stretch. It is at least debatable whether rewarding bad behavior is a smarter move in the medium and long term than leaving the sanctions regime in place knowing that our partners were going to erode theirs. There are second and third order effects from this decision (known unknowns) that we will be dealing with for the next decade plus, regardless of whether or not Iran succeeds in going nuclear. For instance, what are Saudi and Turkey going to do about ISIS now?
It's more than blaming Obama for the fact that the US is not omnipotent. And it's more than saying because the deal isn't perfect it should be rejected.
First, I think Dune's 10:43 is an excellent partial response.
Second, beyond the details of the nuclear aspects which are continuing to be rolled out, there are the non-nuclear aspects which have me questioning the deal. Why was it necessary to take Qasem Soleimari off the sanctions list when he was in no way connected to Iran's nuclear program? And if this was an insistence by the Iranian's why didn't the 4 US, for lack of a better phrase, "political prisoners" currently being held in Iran (including the CNN reporter) become a quid pro quo? It almost seems like they had a laundry list of unrelated (to the nuclear program) demands they got through and we got nothing
What I still haven't seen is an exact timetable for the release of the $150 billion in frozen Iranian funds, so
I will have to wait to comment on that.
And as far as Beinart and Congress goes, please. Anyone who thinks that there won't be 34 Senators to prevent an override of Obama's veto is delusional. This agreement will go into effect.
disputes that there are non-crazy elements in Iran, we simply dispute that they have a meaningful role in government.
And mutually assured destruction does and doesn't apply here. It would likely have the impact of preventing a willful state action to nuke Israel. It would not, however, have a significant deterrent effect regarding any other serious geopolitical dispute Iran might have, such as ongoing feuds with the Sunni states of the region. Natural restraint might, but not the certainty that the United States or Pakistan would retaliate for a warhead launched at a non-nuclear state. But the bigger issue is that Iran has proven bellicose even without a nuclear deterrent, there is no reason to suggest that they would be less so with them, when the fear of any sort of regime change or other existential threat to Tehran is essentially off the table.
This makes sense. Sounds like the bomb itself gives massive leverage that we don't want Iran to have.
I'm trying to separate the actual physical risks and concerns with the geopolitical risks and concerns (as they relate to Americans).
disputes that there are non-crazy elements in Iran, we simply dispute that they have a meaningful role in government.
And mutually assured destruction does and doesn't apply here. It would likely have the impact of preventing a willful state action to nuke Israel. It would not, however, have a significant deterrent effect regarding any other serious geopolitical dispute Iran might have, such as ongoing feuds with the Sunni states of the region. Natural restraint might, but not the certainty that the United States or Pakistan would retaliate for a warhead launched at a non-nuclear state. But the bigger issue is that Iran has proven bellicose even without a nuclear deterrent, there is no reason to suggest that they would be less so with them, when the fear of any sort of regime change or other existential threat to Tehran is essentially off the table.
This makes sense. Sounds like the bomb itself gives massive leverage that we don't want Iran to have.
I'm trying to separate the actual physical risks and concerns with the geopolitical risks and concerns (as they relate to Americans).
Certainly. And some of this is hyperbole, some of this is overblown, but some of these are issues that any reasonable analysis, whether it starts from a critical posture or a supportive one, has to contend with. First, what impact will this have on Iran's non-nuclear foreign policy? Second, what impact will this have on the Sunni states in the region and both their foreign policy and their nuclear ambitions?
1) While it is fashionable to focus on the rhetoric of a nation...that often reflects two things...what quotes you emphasize and the target of almost all comments emanating from a nation....the audience inside the nation.
If you were Mexico and focused solely on what you described as a leading Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump, you could scare yourself into a froth about America.
2) ME nations do not have safety valves for nuts nor medicine nor remotely the coherence to internally enforce what they agree to.
3) It is very common for the USA to focus on the potential "threats" posed by an enemy. But we ignore the daily focus on problems of the majority of the state leaders and managers. We emphasize someone elses right bicep but ignore core sinew and real ability to project power. Iran does not have enough trucks to invade anyone. Or fuel distribution. or steady electrical production. Iran exports less non oil products in a year than Finland exports lace. We emphasize the bomb and ignore the inability to target or maintain or fire it on time. SO for example, at the height of the Cold War our own estimates of the Soviet rocketry indicated that they could launch all their missiles and only 20% would land here and within an average of +/- 100 miles. Meanwhile we could land 97% within one quarter mile of the target. In 1979. But they at the time had more tanks. But they had 1/10 the spare parts ( tanks run through spare parts at a very high rate) and had only 20% of the tanks with experienced trained tank crews and had about 60% of their army classified with drug or alcohol abuses and an daily absentism and dissertion rate in excess of 25% ( ours was less than 1%). We focused on their bombs. They focused on getting the army fed.
So it is also useful to not fear the mighty Iran. They are not a monolith or a well functioning nation.
You do know that:
They have to export their oil to other nations to refine and then buy it back?
You do know their oil production technology requires $300B in foreign capital investment per year and they average $6B to 11B per year?
You do know that they have one of the worst internal tax collection rates on the planet? Their smuggling and black market and lack of computers and lack of tax collectors and lack of honesty all adds up to over 25% of their GDP is lost to tax evasion?
You do know they have major smuggling crime syndicates importing the poppy and distributing to Europe and Russia? in fact they are the number one trafficker in opium. You know that is true despite the fact that they are also the number one nation in annual tons seized? And the number one nation in state seized and then lost from "storage"?
And a huge amount of their oil is smuggled outwards right from the fields eluding their Oil Ministry and revenues to the nation?
You know they are one of the worlds major traffickers of women and female children?
You know they are neck and neck with Russia for the worlds largest nations with the most corrupt local police, governance and justice?
You know that alcohol is banned in Iran? Did you know it smuggles $2.5M worth of alcohol per day into the nation and millions more is internally brewed?
Did you know its aquifers are draining 1.5 Feet per year for the last 15 years? That a huge percent of its land is actually sinking? That the water level has gone down 50 feet in the last 50 years?
Did you know that as a result only 12% of the land farmed in 1971 is farmed now? They import their food!!
Just how powerful are you over the long haul if you have to import your food?
Did you know that projected access to food per each person is an index called the "food security index". Did you now Irans is 12%. ( we have 100% and the highest rating by the way).
Did you know that the USA has 810 vehicles per 1000 people? Did you know that Iran has 200 per 1000 people?
I dunno....mullahs and Guards got problems.
Maybe they export their nuts like lots of countries who don't use Valium instead?
So...yeah...we need to pay attention to them and they are a nuisance and could cause temporary but not nation threatening problems.
But can we calibrate some folks sense that they are a bigger threat to us than 1941 Japan and Germany on steroids rolled into one?
Irans electrical power production and grid are in such bad shape that most years they ration electrical power to each city for certain number of hours per day?
They import electricity at times.
They have frequent brownouts even in Tehran.
They are not in shape to invade Kansas anytime soon
RE: But saying you need to take a hard line everywhere... Â
is not absurd. Saying you need to send in the tanks everywhere is absurd. Weakness is self-perpetuating, as is strength.
That's a fair point, but neither strength nor weakness exists in a vacuum. Overplaying a strong hand is a form of weakness, one that led to the madness in Iraq, IMO. The fact of the matter is, like it or not, Iran is our ally in Iraq and Syria. While we each have different motivations, we both want the destruction of ISIS.
That is why I have a hard time with objections to this deal. No player in the ME is a perfect player, far from it. Our allies in one area are our adversaries in another. I hate to keep bringing Saudi Arabia into the conversation, but they are the largest state sponsors to ISIS, al qaeda, and the Taliban - the 3 groups we've most recently been at war with.
Iran, too, has played a enormous part in the instability in the region, in particular with Israel's sworn enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah, but I agree with Reb that they are not as irrational as some players in the ME that we play footsy with (namely Pakistan).
Irans electrical power production and grid are in such bad shape that most years they ration electrical power to each city for certain number of hours per day?
They import electricity at times.
They have frequent brownouts even in Tehran.
They are not in shape to invade Kansas anytime soon
This and your previous post are excellent, pertinent points, but do you believe that the mullahs will put the bulk of this beneficence to use revamping the power grid or are they more likely to put it to use making good their financing pledges to Hezbollah and Hamas and fighting a proxy war in Yemen?
RE: RE: But saying you need to take a hard line everywhere... Â
is not absurd. Saying you need to send in the tanks everywhere is absurd. Weakness is self-perpetuating, as is strength.
That's a fair point, but neither strength nor weakness exists in a vacuum. Overplaying a strong hand is a form of weakness, one that led to the madness in Iraq, IMO. The fact of the matter is, like it or not, Iran is our ally in Iraq and Syria. While we each have different motivations, we both want the destruction of ISIS.
That is why I have a hard time with objections to this deal. No player in the ME is a perfect player, far from it. Our allies in one area are our adversaries in another. I hate to keep bringing Saudi Arabia into the conversation, but they are the largest state sponsors to ISIS, al qaeda, and the Taliban - the 3 groups we've most recently been at war with.
Iran, too, has played a enormous part in the instability in the region, in particular with Israel's sworn enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah, but I agree with Reb that they are not as irrational as some players in the ME that we play footsy with (namely Pakistan).
But while we do want their help against ISIS, the mere fact that they are helping us against ISIS makes it more likely that Turkey and Saudi will support (not directly of course) ISIS and comparable entities against an Iranian-led opposition?
RE: RE: Boy am I inviting a shit storm with this question... Â
but what should Neville Chamberlain have done? I'm not a pre-WWII expert (but I'm about to be forever tarred as a Chamberlain apologist). But this Slate article says that historians have forgiven him because he basically had no option. NC was advised that Britain was powerless to fight a German invasion of Czechoslovakia is Sept. 1938. The Axis already supported eachother whereas the Brits had potentially a dangerous Soviet Union, a shaky France, and no USA (legally neutral). Wouldnt necessarily have the support of the Canadians and Aussies. And a population that was weary as hell from WWI. Plus the knew Hitler was bad, but I dont think anyone in Sept. 1938 anticipated that he would be modern history's greatest monster. Or so the article outlines.
So I ask the question -- what was the alternative for Chamberlain? Go to war in 1938? Link - ( New Window )
Here are the problems I see. First, it's quite true that the UK was not prepared for war. But what the article fails acknowledge is that 1938 Germany, while more prepared than the UK, was not the Germany of September 1939. The panzers were not the panzers of May 1940, and the Czechs had some relatively formidable fixed defenses. There was no guarantee that they would have swept through in a 2 week campaign.
Consider this as well. Hitler had made all his land grabs through bluff and bluster. When his troops crossed over the bridges into the Rhineland in 1936, their commanders had been told that if they saw resistance from the French who were marginally occupying the territory (IIRC no forces there but the right send troops in) they were to turn around and return to the east side of the Rhine. We will never know what calling his bluff in 1938 would have created. One thing I will posit is that if Hitler had invaded he would have been in no position to blitz the rest of Western Europe within a year and the French/British et. al. would have rearmed much quicker.
Finally, by proclaiming "peace in our time" Chamberlain oversold, badly oversold the agreement.
Good point, Chamberlain, 'oversold' the agreement.
WW1 destroyed the 'flower of European youth', it was a
slaughterhouse. Chamberlain's attempt to avoid that
was the attempt of a 'human being' to try to avoid the
unthinkable.
Hitler and the Nazi's were 'True Believers'.
Chamberlain made the mistake of presuming they were humans
rather than a 'death cult' who would never live in peace
and there was no placating them.
I think of I Claudius when Caligula advises Tiberius
about the danger of Sejanus, 'If you want to get rid of
a dog, let another take care of it'.
'Sometimes, you need very bad people to get rid of
bad people'. Chamberlain was a reasonable rational human
who didn't assess the Nazi's correctly. Churchill did!
The British were carried into WW1 with little prime
motives. They shouldn't have been there. But, they feared
the Germans controlling Europe. Their response was geopolitical.
As far as what should have been done pre-WW2, hindsight
is 20/20. Like US has been fearful of a nuclear war and
rightful so, England like most her allies couldn't or
wouldn't believe that any country would be so barbaric
to return to the 'meatgrinder' of WW1.
Problem with history is 'zeitguest' there is a 'feeling'
that doesn't transcend generations. As they say, 'you
had to be there'. :)
There is only one problem with Iran and that's Moslem
fundementalism which I think may have hit it's high water
mark. Continuing in a 'state of war' only feeds into their
paranoia and makes US the demon who must be resisted.
The Shah left a bad taste in many of the Iranians and
the fact that we supported him, brought us in conflict
with Iran.
If stop fighting them, I think the craziness of the
fundementalist will recede without effort on our part.
They offer the Iranians very little. They make life in
Iran terrible.
RE: RE: Boy am I inviting a shit storm with this question... Â
Here are the problems I see. First, it's quite true that the UK was not prepared for war. But what the article fails acknowledge is that 1938 Germany, while more prepared than the UK, was not the Germany of September 1939. The panzers were not the panzers of May 1940, and the Czechs had some relatively formidable fixed defenses. There was no guarantee that they would have swept through in a 2 week campaign.
Consider this as well. Hitler had made all his land grabs through bluff and bluster. When his troops crossed over the bridges into the Rhineland in 1936, their commanders had been told that if they saw resistance from the French who were marginally occupying the territory (IIRC no forces there but the right send troops in) they were to turn around and return to the east side of the Rhine. We will never know what calling his bluff in 1938 would have created. One thing I will posit is that if Hitler had invaded he would have been in no position to blitz the rest of Western Europe within a year and the French/British et. al. would have rearmed much quicker.
Finally, by proclaiming "peace in our time" Chamberlain oversold, badly oversold the agreement.
No doubt that Chamberlain oversold the treaty, but the rest of your statement has the benefit of hindsight, a benefit Chamberlain did not have. He very likely did not know that the Panzers were not quite ready for prime time, and he almost certainly didn't know that Nazi command had been instructed to retreat at the first sign of resistance.
I look at how war weary this country was after Vietnam, even decades later, and yet people question the moves of nations most impacted by the devastating losses of WWI less than 20 years later.
RE: But saying you need to take a hard line everywhere... Â
is not absurd. Saying you need to send in the tanks everywhere is absurd. Weakness is self-perpetuating, as is strength. If every expansionist or terrorist (or separatist) power went on the march at once, even a strong hegemon would not be able to hit them all. But if each in its rational calculation believes there is a probability of active opposition and serious consequences, it is more likely that each would decline to do act. If, however, a hegemon (regional or global) is perceived to be weak, the leaders of expansionist powers or terrorist or separatist movements may rationally decide that the hegemon is unlikely to act against them, certainly not if more than one such event is already in progress. This is why revolutions tend to happen in waves (1848, the 1860's, etc etc).
From what I can tell, everyone in their mother knew we had a shitty hand and that hand would only get worse in the future. Russia hates us. China isnt particularly inclined to let us dictate any order in the world. Europe didnt even like these sanctions and was publicly telling everyone that the sanctions would be eased even without a deal. Notwithstanding sanctions, people believed that the Iranians were making progress towards the bomb (indeed, the opponents of the deal were the most convinced of great progress). And Iran saw that the US didnt have such an easy time in Iraq and Afghanistan, are is still committed to some degree in those countries, and there's not good solution in Syria.
So what precisely was the USA supposed to do to convince a rationally acting Iran that we were in a position of power? What's the better play the Kerry and Obama missed, as you can see it? If it was "do nothing" then at least fairly acknowledge the problems with that strategy. I think Beinart's omnipotence thesis has a lot of validity.
it was German territory. Munich allowed for the dismemberment of a sovereign country, an ally, and of course paved the way for their ultimate absorption.
1) While it is fashionable to focus on the rhetoric of a nation...that often reflects two things...what quotes you emphasize and the target of almost all comments emanating from a nation....the audience inside the nation.
If you were Mexico and focused solely on what you described as a leading Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump, you could scare yourself into a froth about America.
2) ME nations do not have safety valves for nuts nor medicine nor remotely the coherence to internally enforce what they agree to.
3) It is very common for the USA to focus on the potential "threats" posed by an enemy. But we ignore the daily focus on problems of the majority of the state leaders and managers. We emphasize someone elses right bicep but ignore core sinew and real ability to project power. Iran does not have enough trucks to invade anyone. Or fuel distribution. or steady electrical production. Iran exports less non oil products in a year than Finland exports lace. We emphasize the bomb and ignore the inability to target or maintain or fire it on time. SO for example, at the height of the Cold War our own estimates of the Soviet rocketry indicated that they could launch all their missiles and only 20% would land here and within an average of +/- 100 miles. Meanwhile we could land 97% within one quarter mile of the target. In 1979. But they at the time had more tanks. But they had 1/10 the spare parts ( tanks run through spare parts at a very high rate) and had only 20% of the tanks with experienced trained tank crews and had about 60% of their army classified with drug or alcohol abuses and an daily absentism and dissertion rate in excess of 25% ( ours was less than 1%). We focused on their bombs. They focused on getting the army fed.
So it is also useful to not fear the mighty Iran. They are not a monolith or a well functioning nation.
You do know that:
They have to export their oil to other nations to refine and then buy it back?
You do know their oil production technology requires $300B in foreign capital investment per year and they average $6B to 11B per year?
You do know that they have one of the worst internal tax collection rates on the planet? Their smuggling and black market and lack of computers and lack of tax collectors and lack of honesty all adds up to over 25% of their GDP is lost to tax evasion?
You do know they have major smuggling crime syndicates importing the poppy and distributing to Europe and Russia? in fact they are the number one trafficker in opium. You know that is true despite the fact that they are also the number one nation in annual tons seized? And the number one nation in state seized and then lost from "storage"?
And a huge amount of their oil is smuggled outwards right from the fields eluding their Oil Ministry and revenues to the nation?
You know they are one of the worlds major traffickers of women and female children?
You know they are neck and neck with Russia for the worlds largest nations with the most corrupt local police, governance and justice?
You know that alcohol is banned in Iran? Did you know it smuggles $2.5M worth of alcohol per day into the nation and millions more is internally brewed?
Did you know its aquifers are draining 1.5 Feet per year for the last 15 years? That a huge percent of its land is actually sinking? That the water level has gone down 50 feet in the last 50 years?
Did you know that as a result only 12% of the land farmed in 1971 is farmed now? They import their food!!
Just how powerful are you over the long haul if you have to import your food?
Did you know that projected access to food per each person is an index called the "food security index". Did you now Irans is 12%. ( we have 100% and the highest rating by the way).
Did you know that the USA has 810 vehicles per 1000 people? Did you know that Iran has 200 per 1000 people?
I dunno....mullahs and Guards got problems.
Maybe they export their nuts like lots of countries who don't use Valium instead?
So...yeah...we need to pay attention to them and they are a nuisance and could cause temporary but not nation threatening problems.
But can we calibrate some folks sense that they are a bigger threat to us than 1941 Japan and Germany on steroids rolled into one?
They got 25 years of cards way worse then ours
Bill2, this is a very sound post.
Good work, man~:)
The nation lacks the coherence or a process to make and keep rational choices or allocations. It is a collection of factions in an unwritten dance. to keep all ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag each faction gets a turn at a little of what they want. To me the mullahs keep a high percent but not all of the population under control for the fascism of the Guards to proceed. The overly righteous are allowed to play outside as long as not too hard or too much.
The pious give to the thousands of local mullahs...so they get rent.
the Guards get rent
the guards and the mullahs split the oil rent
the communists, trade unionists, royalists and nationalists were fought off and eliminated by the mullahs for they tried to get rent from the same neighborhoods.
In 1920 they were all locked in a steel cage match. The mullahs changed sides and fought in different ways but never lost focus on what this generation of Ayatollahs lost their fathers over. Their rent versus the state.
And I don't buy off for one minute that we overthrew any democratic leader. the mullahs did and they did so ruthlessly and they insisted on the post overthrow propaganda. They they wiped out Tudeh by feeding them to Savak. Then they got Pahlevi.
Reading the history of the mullahs 1890 to 1920 changes a lot of perspective on the mullahs. they are not priests. expect in Qum. They are Guards of their day...control of the local neighborhood economy was the family business. The Black Hand went to church as well. Donated heavily. Black Hands are a natural selection in nations beyond national mechanisms for control
I agree that Chamberlain gets a lot of blame because he said there would be "peace in our time". But it's kind of absurd to have expected him to say the opposite: "Well we're on an island and have a good navy but no ability to stop Germany from taking part of it's land locked neighbor so we didnt do shit about it, and cant do shit if they roll into the next country". Better to be thought the fool than admit your impotence.
He might have had better options before Munich, but it seems to me that maybe there wasnt anything else that could have been accomplished there.
China does not hate us. Their elite are trying to keep domestic control anyway they can. If they think they could do that without being externally aggressive they would.
both impulses may be more alive then we wish to acknowledge right here right now.
RE: RE: But saying you need to take a hard line everywhere... Â
is not absurd. Saying you need to send in the tanks everywhere is absurd. Weakness is self-perpetuating, as is strength. If every expansionist or terrorist (or separatist) power went on the march at once, even a strong hegemon would not be able to hit them all. But if each in its rational calculation believes there is a probability of active opposition and serious consequences, it is more likely that each would decline to do act. If, however, a hegemon (regional or global) is perceived to be weak, the leaders of expansionist powers or terrorist or separatist movements may rationally decide that the hegemon is unlikely to act against them, certainly not if more than one such event is already in progress. This is why revolutions tend to happen in waves (1848, the 1860's, etc etc).
From what I can tell, everyone in their mother knew we had a shitty hand and that hand would only get worse in the future. Russia hates us. China isnt particularly inclined to let us dictate any order in the world. Europe didnt even like these sanctions and was publicly telling everyone that the sanctions would be eased even without a deal. Notwithstanding sanctions, people believed that the Iranians were making progress towards the bomb (indeed, the opponents of the deal were the most convinced of great progress). And Iran saw that the US didnt have such an easy time in Iraq and Afghanistan, are is still committed to some degree in those countries, and there's not good solution in Syria.
So what precisely was the USA supposed to do to convince a rationally acting Iran that we were in a position of power? What's the better play the Kerry and Obama missed, as you can see it? If it was "do nothing" then at least fairly acknowledge the problems with that strategy. I think Beinart's omnipotence thesis has a lot of validity.
If I had all the answers I would be doing something else professionally, and probably for more money. But what you say ignores the role that the Administration's decisions (and those of our allies, to be sure) have played in bringing this situation to bear. By "pivoting" out of the Middle East (and out of Iraq) we have made our hand, vis a vis Iran, considerably weaker. By drawing down our military considerably even as these crises have popped up we have made our hand weaker and made us look unwilling and unable to undertake significant new military commitments. Not that we should actually undertake them, rather the plausible prospect of our doing so should be there. And while we weren't going to go to war over any one act that Russia has done (and shouldn't have), our dithering and half-hearted response to the dismemberment of the Ukraine has certainly not given our Allies any renewed confidence in our willingness to stand up for them. Rotating a few National Guard brigades through Eastern Europe and the Baltic is a nice gesture but it's a little late in the game.
1) While it is fashionable to focus on the rhetoric of a nation...that often reflects two things...what quotes you emphasize and the target of almost all comments emanating from a nation....the audience inside the nation.
If you were Mexico and focused solely on what you described as a leading Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump, you could scare yourself into a froth about America.
2) ME nations do not have safety valves for nuts nor medicine nor remotely the coherence to internally enforce what they agree to.
3) It is very common for the USA to focus on the potential "threats" posed by an enemy. But we ignore the daily focus on problems of the majority of the state leaders and managers. We emphasize someone elses right bicep but ignore core sinew and real ability to project power. Iran does not have enough trucks to invade anyone. Or fuel distribution. or steady electrical production. Iran exports less non oil products in a year than Finland exports lace. We emphasize the bomb and ignore the inability to target or maintain or fire it on time. SO for example, at the height of the Cold War our own estimates of the Soviet rocketry indicated that they could launch all their missiles and only 20% would land here and within an average of +/- 100 miles. Meanwhile we could land 97% within one quarter mile of the target. In 1979. But they at the time had more tanks. But they had 1/10 the spare parts ( tanks run through spare parts at a very high rate) and had only 20% of the tanks with experienced trained tank crews and had about 60% of their army classified with drug or alcohol abuses and an daily absentism and dissertion rate in excess of 25% ( ours was less than 1%). We focused on their bombs. They focused on getting the army fed.
So it is also useful to not fear the mighty Iran. They are not a monolith or a well functioning nation.
You do know that:
They have to export their oil to other nations to refine and then buy it back?
You do know their oil production technology requires $300B in foreign capital investment per year and they average $6B to 11B per year?
You do know that they have one of the worst internal tax collection rates on the planet? Their smuggling and black market and lack of computers and lack of tax collectors and lack of honesty all adds up to over 25% of their GDP is lost to tax evasion?
You do know they have major smuggling crime syndicates importing the poppy and distributing to Europe and Russia? in fact they are the number one trafficker in opium. You know that is true despite the fact that they are also the number one nation in annual tons seized? And the number one nation in state seized and then lost from "storage"?
And a huge amount of their oil is smuggled outwards right from the fields eluding their Oil Ministry and revenues to the nation?
You know they are one of the worlds major traffickers of women and female children?
You know they are neck and neck with Russia for the worlds largest nations with the most corrupt local police, governance and justice?
You know that alcohol is banned in Iran? Did you know it smuggles $2.5M worth of alcohol per day into the nation and millions more is internally brewed?
Did you know its aquifers are draining 1.5 Feet per year for the last 15 years? That a huge percent of its land is actually sinking? That the water level has gone down 50 feet in the last 50 years?
Did you know that as a result only 12% of the land farmed in 1971 is farmed now? They import their food!!
Just how powerful are you over the long haul if you have to import your food?
Did you know that projected access to food per each person is an index called the "food security index". Did you now Irans is 12%. ( we have 100% and the highest rating by the way).
Did you know that the USA has 810 vehicles per 1000 people? Did you know that Iran has 200 per 1000 people?
I dunno....mullahs and Guards got problems.
Maybe they export their nuts like lots of countries who don't use Valium instead?
So...yeah...we need to pay attention to them and they are a nuisance and could cause temporary but not nation threatening problems.
But can we calibrate some folks sense that they are a bigger threat to us than 1941 Japan and Germany on steroids rolled into one?
They got 25 years of cards way worse then ours
bill2, I was actually going to post something related to your first point, and it's awesome to hear you think the same thing out loud... I wonder how much "death to america" rhetoric is related to internal Iranian politics and posturing to the population of Iran to project the appearance of strength. Is it merely propoganda? The truth probably lies in the middle. But I find it hard to believe that the Iranian negotiators actually are fully indoctrinated under that rhetoeic, and that we'd even take a seat at the table if they were.
Thanks for educating me man. Much appreciated and I look forward to your posts.
Good posts. You provided depth to a point I briefly made earlier. Even if Iran gets out from under sanctions any and all new wealth will not be funneled automatically into funding destabilizing activities. The Mullahs have their own problems to fix.
Deej is spot on again. If we were any "tougher" we risked losing the rest of the P5+1. Russia is not our friend. Neither is China. And really, in some ways, neither is the Eurozone (Germany).
If we adopted a more difficult stance, we would have been left standing alone. The sanctions would have likely come down from the rest of the major powers, and our leverage would have evaporated.
This is what you and others are complaining about, and this is why you are wrong. We are not omnipotnent, and this wasn't a bi-polar negotiation. It was multipolar, and if Iran had succeeded in isolating us in these negotiations, the result would have been much, much worse for us and for Israel than the result that was obtained.
Now, you'll go and rationalize something to say in response, because you don't like Obama and always find something to kvetch about, but you really can't rebut this point, because it is reality.
You are predictable in the ends to which you will go to support anything the Administration does. This might be the right move, it might not, but trying to pretend that this was the only move we could have made is a stretch. It is at least debatable whether rewarding bad behavior is a smarter move in the medium and long term than leaving the sanctions regime in place knowing that our partners were going to erode theirs. There are second and third order effects from this decision (known unknowns) that we will be dealing with for the next decade plus, regardless of whether or not Iran succeeds in going nuclear. For instance, what are Saudi and Turkey going to do about ISIS now?
Its good to remember that huge huge swaths of the world only see or hear what they say coming back to them. Iran does not have many people in leadership who are exposed as we are to what they look like from another perspective. Most of them have no idea their words are seen by the outside world much less analyzed.
We forget that outside of North America and Europe, 80% of the people over 45 were raised in villages of 200 people or less. Like the childs game Battleship where you cant see where the other guy is planted and have to slowly guess....many many people assume that if it was not seen...it was not heard.
RE: RE: RE: Boy am I inviting a shit storm with this question... Â
Here are the problems I see. First, it's quite true that the UK was not prepared for war. But what the article fails acknowledge is that 1938 Germany, while more prepared than the UK, was not the Germany of September 1939. The panzers were not the panzers of May 1940, and the Czechs had some relatively formidable fixed defenses. There was no guarantee that they would have swept through in a 2 week campaign.
Consider this as well. Hitler had made all his land grabs through bluff and bluster. When his troops crossed over the bridges into the Rhineland in 1936, their commanders had been told that if they saw resistance from the French who were marginally occupying the territory (IIRC no forces there but the right send troops in) they were to turn around and return to the east side of the Rhine. We will never know what calling his bluff in 1938 would have created. One thing I will posit is that if Hitler had invaded he would have been in no position to blitz the rest of Western Europe within a year and the French/British et. al. would have rearmed much quicker.
Finally, by proclaiming "peace in our time" Chamberlain oversold, badly oversold the agreement.
No doubt that Chamberlain oversold the treaty, but the rest of your statement has the benefit of hindsight, a benefit Chamberlain did not have. He very likely did not know that the Panzers were not quite ready for prime time, and he almost certainly didn't know that Nazi command had been instructed to retreat at the first sign of resistance.
I look at how war weary this country was after Vietnam, even decades later, and yet people question the moves of nations most impacted by the devastating losses of WWI less than 20 years later.
But there's another bit of hindsight that he didn't have that works the opposite way. The Czechs had some significant fixed defenses in place in the Sudetenland. Not the Maginot Line, but not a joke either. And the conventional wisdom from WWI ran that these fixed defenses would inflict significant casualties on an invading army. The invasions of Poland and France through the Ardennes hadn't happened yet. So the superiority of armor over fixed defenses hadn't been established and support for the Czech's retention of the Sudetenland might have given Hitler pause.
Even if Iran gets out from under sanctions any and all new wealth will not be funneled automatically into funding destabilizing activities. The Mullahs have their own problems to fix.
I hope you are not saying that none of it will be. The question in my mind is how much, and I think it will be significant.
RE: RE: But saying you need to take a hard line everywhere... Â
is not absurd. Saying you need to send in the tanks everywhere is absurd. Weakness is self-perpetuating, as is strength. If every expansionist or terrorist (or separatist) power went on the march at once, even a strong hegemon would not be able to hit them all. But if each in its rational calculation believes there is a probability of active opposition and serious consequences, it is more likely that each would decline to do act. If, however, a hegemon (regional or global) is perceived to be weak, the leaders of expansionist powers or terrorist or separatist movements may rationally decide that the hegemon is unlikely to act against them, certainly not if more than one such event is already in progress. This is why revolutions tend to happen in waves (1848, the 1860's, etc etc).
From what I can tell, everyone in their mother knew we had a shitty hand and that hand would only get worse in the future. Russia hates us. China isnt particularly inclined to let us dictate any order in the world. Europe didnt even like these sanctions and was publicly telling everyone that the sanctions would be eased even without a deal. Notwithstanding sanctions, people believed that the Iranians were making progress towards the bomb (indeed, the opponents of the deal were the most convinced of great progress). And Iran saw that the US didnt have such an easy time in Iraq and Afghanistan, are is still committed to some degree in those countries, and there's not good solution in Syria.
So what precisely was the USA supposed to do to convince a rationally acting Iran that we were in a position of power? What's the better play the Kerry and Obama missed, as you can see it? If it was "do nothing" then at least fairly acknowledge the problems with that strategy. I think Beinart's omnipotence thesis has a lot of validity.
This. And Dune's response -- nonsense about how we pivoted away from the Middle East and let this happen -- ignores the limitations of our budgets, the limited threat posed by Iran relative to the cost of keeping our foot on its neck, and the other global priorities we have to address.
Moreover, Dune's response is a clear deflection and fails to address the reality that this deal is the best option under the current circumstances, regardless of who you want to blame for those circumstances.
Deej is spot on again. If we were any "tougher" we risked losing the rest of the P5+1. Russia is not our friend. Neither is China. And really, in some ways, neither is the Eurozone (Germany).
If we adopted a more difficult stance, we would have been left standing alone. The sanctions would have likely come down from the rest of the major powers, and our leverage would have evaporated.
This is what you and others are complaining about, and this is why you are wrong. We are not omnipotnent, and this wasn't a bi-polar negotiation. It was multipolar, and if Iran had succeeded in isolating us in these negotiations, the result would have been much, much worse for us and for Israel than the result that was obtained.
Now, you'll go and rationalize something to say in response, because you don't like Obama and always find something to kvetch about, but you really can't rebut this point, because it is reality.
You are predictable in the ends to which you will go to support anything the Administration does. This might be the right move, it might not, but trying to pretend that this was the only move we could have made is a stretch. It is at least debatable whether rewarding bad behavior is a smarter move in the medium and long term than leaving the sanctions regime in place knowing that our partners were going to erode theirs. There are second and third order effects from this decision (known unknowns) that we will be dealing with for the next decade plus, regardless of whether or not Iran succeeds in going nuclear. For instance, what are Saudi and Turkey going to do about ISIS now?
Just as I predicted.
I made a substantive point and posed a question, you responded with nothing. You have little to contribute to a foreign policy discussion other than fellating the current occupant of the Oval Office. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to answer that question.
RE: RE: RE: But saying you need to take a hard line everywhere... Â
If I had all the answers I would be doing something else professionally, and probably for more money. But what you say ignores the role that the Administration's decisions (and those of our allies, to be sure) have played in bringing this situation to bear. By "pivoting" out of the Middle East (and out of Iraq) we have made our hand, vis a vis Iran, considerably weaker. By drawing down our military considerably even as these crises have popped up we have made our hand weaker and made us look unwilling and unable to undertake significant new military commitments. Not that we should actually undertake them, rather the plausible prospect of our doing so should be there. And while we weren't going to go to war over any one act that Russia has done (and shouldn't have), our dithering and half-hearted response to the dismemberment of the Ukraine has certainly not given our Allies any renewed confidence in our willingness to stand up for them. Rotating a few National Guard brigades through Eastern Europe and the Baltic is a nice gesture but it's a little late in the game.
We can argue about why we have a weak hand in Iran. I can say we look weak because the adventurism of the last administration showed the real limits of American power. I can say GWB used up a lot of America's good will. Your argument is like if a GM said to a coach, "it's week 6 -- how do we fix the running game" and the coach responds "you should have drafted more OLs". It's all relevant to how we got here, but we're here. But sitting here in July 2015 the situation is what it is, and I havent even heard an defense of a viable alternative to making this deal.
It attribute Russia mostly to the same explanation. We shot out wad in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russians saw what we had, saw that we were exhausted, war weary, and broke, and took their chance while oil prices were high. The Bush administration showed the world that ability to assert our will post Soviets/Gulf War wasnt all it was cracked up to be. What would Saint Ronald Reagan have done in response to the Ukraine invasion? Acted tough?
"I headed to the bank the other day to pay the phone bill. No sooner did I go inside when the electricity went out. The tellers politely asked the customers to go to other banks.
But the problem was that the whole neighborhood was suffering from a power outage.
This is now happening frequently and is regarded as outrageous by the people across the country, especially in Tehran, the capital.
Fars News Agency, a semi-official news website, has devoted an entire section to power outages in different parts of the country, including Bandar Abbas, a port city in the south, Sistan-Baluchestan, a province in the east, Esfahan and Shiraz in central Iran and Mazandaran province in the north.
The outage is so painful that, according to the Persian-language section of Fars News, "several lawmakers have warned the government and the energy minister on the frequent blackouts and power outages in the capital and many other cities and called for urgent action."
The energy ministry has announced that as of June 21,the media will publicize blackout timetables so that people can adjust their daily routines.
There are signs the ministry is in trouble. The newspaper Kargozaran quoted Mohammad Parsa, the head of the construction contractors' syndicate, as saying that the "the debt of the power ministry to the contractors is increasing and the contractors are on the verge of bankruptcy "
Experts say that poor maintenance of the electricity grid is also a factor in the frequent outages.
Ok...what happens to your life without electricity on a steady basis?
Getting things done becomes havoc
Food ...already in shortage...spoils at a rapid rate
Medicine and health care become difficult
Water and water treatment systems and plants become inadequate so the water supply and basic potable water is in further difficulty.
Manufacturing many many things becomes very difficult.
Among the sanctioned items...refrigeration and electrical generation and decision control systems for running water systems and electrical power plants. ( these items come from japan, Germany and the US...Russia...China...not so much).
As I said...outside of oil...this nation exports less than Finland exports lace. Somehow I don't see them rising above annoyance if we keep the Straights of Hormuz clear and they trade in dollars. I suspect those are covered in side bar agreements. And since Buffet is GE...their might be a delegation from GE Power Systems already in Tehran.
Actually, lots of WW II history accounts reflect that, early in his land grabs in Austria and Czechoslovakia, Hitler was waiting for someone to step up and stop him, and no one did, much to his surprise. So I think you';re right that if France and Britain had stepped to the defense of Czechoslovakia, it would have given Hitler pause.
At least for a while. Ultimately, the fact that he started the war when he did probably saved the world. If he had waited 5 more years before fully challenging France, Britain and Russia, during which time the German army would have become full mechanized, Russia would have probably fallen before their strategic depth and foreign aid would have allowed them to catch their breath and dig in effectively.
If I had all the answers I would be doing something else professionally, and probably for more money. But what you say ignores the role that the Administration's decisions (and those of our allies, to be sure) have played in bringing this situation to bear. By "pivoting" out of the Middle East (and out of Iraq) we have made our hand, vis a vis Iran, considerably weaker. By drawing down our military considerably even as these crises have popped up we have made our hand weaker and made us look unwilling and unable to undertake significant new military commitments. Not that we should actually undertake them, rather the plausible prospect of our doing so should be there. And while we weren't going to go to war over any one act that Russia has done (and shouldn't have), our dithering and half-hearted response to the dismemberment of the Ukraine has certainly not given our Allies any renewed confidence in our willingness to stand up for them. Rotating a few National Guard brigades through Eastern Europe and the Baltic is a nice gesture but it's a little late in the game.
We can argue about why we have a weak hand in Iran. I can say we look weak because the adventurism of the last administration showed the real limits of American power. I can say GWB used up a lot of America's good will. Your argument is like if a GM said to a coach, "it's week 6 -- how do we fix the running game" and the coach responds "you should have drafted more OLs". It's all relevant to how we got here, but we're here. But sitting here in July 2015 the situation is what it is, and I havent even heard an defense of a viable alternative to making this deal.
It attribute Russia mostly to the same explanation. We shot out wad in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russians saw what we had, saw that we were exhausted, war weary, and broke, and took their chance while oil prices were high. The Bush administration showed the world that ability to assert our will post Soviets/Gulf War wasnt all it was cracked up to be. What would Saint Ronald Reagan have done in response to the Ukraine invasion? Acted tough?
I'm not sure that's what it demonstrated. Poor judgment, perhaps, but it didn't demonstrate our inability to project power quickly and in devastating fashion. Both conflicts did that reasonably well. They demonstrated our inability to create government and civil society de novo, they demonstrated the limits of our patience as an electorate, etc etc. And certainly they took advantage of the fact that we were otherwise occupied.
What would Saint Reagan have done? Who knows? Set up a few MIRVs west of Kiev? Maybe nothing. The Soviet tanks didn't roll on his watch though, which doesn't exactly make your point either.
Your one point is pretty much spot on, arguing over exactly how we got here is not terribly relevant except as a caution for future action. But if we want to pose a credible security deterrent, announcing a goal of 450,000 end-strength for the Army the same week as we announce that deal doesn't really do much to help things. I understand the budgetary constraints, but you can't help appreciating the timidity of our allies when it seems like the only spending program we want to cut is the DOD.
Deej is spot on again. If we were any "tougher" we risked losing the rest of the P5+1. Russia is not our friend. Neither is China. And really, in some ways, neither is the Eurozone (Germany).
If we adopted a more difficult stance, we would have been left standing alone. The sanctions would have likely come down from the rest of the major powers, and our leverage would have evaporated.
This is what you and others are complaining about, and this is why you are wrong. We are not omnipotnent, and this wasn't a bi-polar negotiation. It was multipolar, and if Iran had succeeded in isolating us in these negotiations, the result would have been much, much worse for us and for Israel than the result that was obtained.
Now, you'll go and rationalize something to say in response, because you don't like Obama and always find something to kvetch about, but you really can't rebut this point, because it is reality.
You are predictable in the ends to which you will go to support anything the Administration does. This might be the right move, it might not, but trying to pretend that this was the only move we could have made is a stretch. It is at least debatable whether rewarding bad behavior is a smarter move in the medium and long term than leaving the sanctions regime in place knowing that our partners were going to erode theirs. There are second and third order effects from this decision (known unknowns) that we will be dealing with for the next decade plus, regardless of whether or not Iran succeeds in going nuclear. For instance, what are Saudi and Turkey going to do about ISIS now?
Just as I predicted.
I made a substantive point and posed a question, you responded with nothing. You have little to contribute to a foreign policy discussion other than fellating the current occupant of the Oval Office. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to answer that question.
What question? You mean what are the Turks and Saudis going to do about ISIS now? I assumed that was rhetorical, because the answers are obvious.
They will do the same things they would have done anyway, because they will continue to pursue their national interest.
The Turks will continue to be preoccupied with protecting their flank from Kurdish separatism and a potential insurgency emanating from a nascent Kurdistan that could emerge from the vacuum left by a contracting ISIS. They will leave ISIS alone and will take what opportunities they can to undermine and hurt the Kurds whenever they can without antagonizing the U.S. -- their nominal NATO ally -- too directly.
The Saudis will continue to do what they do. They will sell a fuckton of oil. They will cater to and placate Wahhabi zealots, and allow them to funnel money to Sunni militants (including ISIS and Al Qaeda) while pretending to be our ally in the Gulf. They will continue to buy a shitload of weapon systems from us, and they will work with the other Sunni states to crush the Shiite militants in Yemen.
China does not hate us. Their elite are trying to keep domestic control anyway they can. If they think they could do that without being externally aggressive they would.
both impulses may be more alive then we wish to acknowledge right here right now.
Bill2, you hit the reply before me. Russia doesn't hate us.
They are not crazy about a lot of our culture, but the love
the 'consumer' culture. They also like our creativity
and the openess of our society.
China, the same. The ruling 'clique' is forcing on China
an idealogy they don't want. I'm a fan of Chinese, they
take care of their 'shit' and don't intefere with others.
Having been stifled by 'tradition' they when they have it
love the 'freedom' of America. We all do, except US academia
who think they know better than the rest of us.
The Chinese 'establishment' fears anarchy and chaos.
They have taken advantage of by Western Nations throughout
the 19th Century. And they don't trust our motives.
I'm a big believer of trade, 2 people negotiating,
a 'win win situations'.
Chinese and Americans are wonderful combination.
But, they are a long time culture that doesn't want to
be 'lectured' by US. If we can, allow them to take care
of their own problems, I have the 'feeling' that the
Chinese 'Communist' will evolve into something grand.
But, there are elements within both governments, that are
trying to take 'advantage'. They must be removed, by
the voters, they are adding nothing but trouble.
We got to stop 'lecturing' and they have to stop being
'heavy handed'.
We hung around in Iraq for nearly a decade, and in Afghanistan for well over a decade. Just how long do we have to occupy these dustbins of civilizational history to be deemed patient?
We hung around in Iraq for nearly a decade, and in Afghanistan for well over a decade. Just how long do we have to occupy these dustbins of civilizational history to be deemed patient?
Strangers, can't 'suppress' foreign people. They can
annhilate them, but the longer they stay, the more they
are hated.
The best strategy is to get 'others' to fight our wars,
surrogates.
Bush and his minions, a group of technocrats who were the
same people who ran the Viet Nam war, was a disaster.
But you have to ask, what was his goal. He put America
on a 'lockdown', every individual liberty was lost to
Homeland Security. We're being conned. Bush, Trump, Hillary
are disgusting alternatives, but I bet we give them 'money'
and 'power'. If we have a problem with moslem fundementalist
why are they allowed in the country.
Actually, lots of WW II history accounts reflect that, early in his land grabs in Austria and Czechoslovakia, Hitler was waiting for someone to step up and stop him, and no one did, much to his surprise. So I think you';re right that if France and Britain had stepped to the defense of Czechoslovakia, it would have given Hitler pause.
At least for a while. Ultimately, the fact that he started the war when he did probably saved the world. If he had waited 5 more years before fully challenging France, Britain and Russia, during which time the German army would have become full mechanized, Russia would have probably fallen before their strategic depth and foreign aid would have allowed them to catch their breath and dig in effectively.
Your scenario is one of a myriad of possibilities. What if Hitler hadn't waited a full 5 years? England was rearming, though at a tepid pace. But delay the Battle of Britain a year and the mainstay in the RAF would have been the Spitfire as opposed to the Hurricane, and it wouldn't have been such a close call. The Russian officer corps would have had additional time to reconstitute itself after Stalin's purges. And the predominant tank the Germans would have faced in a delayed Barbarossa would have been the T-34 as opposed to the vastly inferior machines the Red Army actually used. The Sturmovik and it's tank busting capabilities would have had a much larger presence on the battle field. And a key question in the proposition would have been the status of the US. Had Pearl Harbor happened on schedule, you would have had the juggernaut of US industrial production in place much earlier in the conflict.
But what if the Nazis had fielded thousands of Tiger tanks, and plenty of spare parts, instead of the far smaller numbers they actually did? What if they had given their troops proper winter gear and supplies? And if the US had not been supplying the Soviets (who, in that case, wouldn't have fielded nearly as many T-34s)?
What if the Nazis got the ME 262 into mass production before the war started? Or turned those heavy water operations in Norway into an actual successful atomic bomb project?
Boggles the mind. Too many variables. Fun to ponder though.
Just shocked that so many people want to enrich a country that is aggressively expanding it's influence through force throughout the region. Doesn't make sense to me.
The argument seems to be, "if we welcome Iran back into the international community, they will stop it and be nice."
Yeah right.
Eric I don't think anyone in the Obama admin believes that "if we welcome Iran back into the international community, they will stop it and be nice."
The fact is Iran has been a regional power (and many times the regional power) for over 2000 years. They intend to continue in that role and others in the region will continue to look to them to continue that role. Since nobody can come up with a rational plan for changing that fact by using conventional or economic war, dialogue and compromise seems the only alternative.
Getting nuke concessions that include a decent verification regime might at least keep that weapon at a safe remove. Instead of the threat of using nukes they will be reduced to a threat to violate the agreement and develop a nuke.
This agreement makes it at least possible that Iran may some day find it advantageous to use our less hostile relationship to play the russians (whom they also have reason to dislike and distrust) and the chinese. A more self sufficient Iran might be easier to deal with than one which is constrained by reliance on those two.
Of course Iran will continue to be a bad actor. But remember "bad actor" is a relative term in that part of the world and some of our "friends" there do not have clean hands. For that matter neither do we. And when the inevitable fall of the Saudis comes we will need at least some lines of communications to the other major power in that region.
“This explains why it took so long,” Daryl G. Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, a private group in Washington, said of the negotiation. “I rate this as one of the most complex agreements — if not the most complex — ever to deal with nuclear issues. It’s much stronger that we expected.”
there are some fair arguments to be made against the deal from reasonable people. I have a hard time debating the merits of the deal with people that were posting "its a bad deal" 6 months before there was a deal. Listening myself to Obama's press briefing today I felt he made some good points, and some weak ones I wasn't satisfied with such as when he glossed over the assets being un-frozen "not being a game changer" in terms of fueling Iran's less than honorable intentions at times. At then end of the day for me it comes down to this- this deal is better than the alternative which is the EU pulling out of the sanctions un-freezing 60-70% of the assets any way and making our sanctions essentially toothless with no access at all to their program. The concept being floated around here that we request access and they have 3 weeks to decide is a gross mis-characterization of this agreement. We have 24/7 access to all current facilities. If we suspect a new one then we can request access. Yes they can move things around before we get there but in this day of advanced satellite imagery we have ways to smoke that out. The effectiveness of this deal will not be judged today, tomorrow or 60 days from now when it is inevitably voted down in the Senate. It will be 10-15 years down the road.
Already formed pretty strong opinions about the deal before even seeing the details.
They will need two-thirds of the House to overcome Obama's veto of their dissaproval. That will require that they win some Dem's votes. If all they do is make nasty sound bites for the evening news, then I doubt they are sincere about stopping it. After all, they have conservative allies in Europe (Cameron, Merkel) who are in favor of it. The GOP could lose alot of foreign money in their PACs (thanks Citizens United!) if it fails. Ironic.
I think it will come down closer than people think Â
in getting 66 votes in the senate to overide if they don't get them all together. There are a number of Dem senators including both New York ones especially Schumer who could very well vote against it. I think one thing that may mitigate that a bit is Hillary coming out in support of it. Otherwise the Dem senators could treat Obama like a short timer and not fear rebuking him. However they me a bit more careful in bucking Hillary as a potential POTUS.
A Boehner-Schumer alliance would be an incredible sight Â
they want to sell it to their hard-liners, and they may still have to sell it to Khamenei.
Still not sure what Congress is going to do with this. There's a chance the Senate will torpedo it, and I think some of the peripheral stuff could be the red meat that dooms it. The notion that the guy widely considered the architect of the EFP program is granted a measure of absolution by this, even though he has no obvious impact on the nuclear program and the Administration insists this is just about nukes, is going to be a very tough pill for people to swallow.
But what if the Nazis had fielded thousands of Tiger tanks, and plenty of spare parts, instead of the far smaller numbers they actually did? What if they had given their troops proper winter gear and supplies? And if the US had not been supplying the Soviets (who, in that case, wouldn't have fielded nearly as many T-34s)?
What if the Nazis got the ME 262 into mass production before the war started? Or turned those heavy water operations in Norway into an actual successful atomic bomb project?
Boggles the mind. Too many variables. Fun to ponder though.
Don, what if Germany had sent 250,000 troops into Africa
right after Dunkirk. They sent that many to hold off the
Brits and US from 42-43.
They could have seized Suez Canal and captured the oil
fields of Arabia at the same time flanking Russia's southern
border. They would have all the oil they needed, made the
Mediterraen a Axis 'lake' and threatened India.
OR if they had the 300 subs that Doenitz wanted.
And what if they had not declared war on the US. If
they were honoring their treaty with Japan, they should
have insisted Japan attack Siberia which would have left
Moscow undefended in December 41, when the fresh Siberian
divisions came to defend and attack the Germans at the
gates of Moscow.
I'm trying to reconcile. If we doubled down on the sanctions with the cooperation of the P5 and completely destroyed the Iranian economy and forced the collapse of the mullahs, what or who would replace them? I think that MIGHT open the door to ISIS in Iran or a weakened Iran in disarray unable to fight them in Iraq or Syria. Am I looking at this the wrong way?
I'm trying to reconcile. If we doubled down on the sanctions with the cooperation of the P5 and completely destroyed the Iranian economy and forced the collapse of the mullahs, what or who would replace them? I think that MIGHT open the door to ISIS in Iran or a weakened Iran in disarray unable to fight them in Iraq or Syria. Am I looking at this the wrong way?
Sunni ISIS essentially consider the Shia to be infidels. ISIS in Iran as an invading force with no local support? Surely you jest.
what is in place if we doubled down and destroyed the Iranian economy? I have no idea what would emerge, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be Jeffersonian Democracy, I think a Saddam or Qadfi type dictator. I'm just guessing I don't know if this is a case of the devil we know opposed to the devil we don't know
What could replace a toppled mullah regime is anyone's best guess but it likely won't be a sunni dominated group. It would also depend on how the guard reacts to such an event.
I'd sure love to see the mullahs go down, and would gladly welcome the uncertainty, despite the risks that could come with it.
I think this deal is good in the sense that should the senate approve it, the ball is then in Iran's court for the race to be a douche and we get to sit back and let them either abide or fuck themselves in the international limelight.
Where I really dislike it has little to do with the deal itself at all. I just want the mullahs/guard gone to see what the people would be capable of putting together. The Persians are a very bright people and if there were no such autocratic rulers, I could easily envision them adapting to western governments and lifestyles, negating their support for Hamas and other terror activities.
Doubt the mullahs ever are not a part of the equation. But the Quards might finally see that it's just business. There is a price to pay in this world if you wish to play outside the core monetary, trade and stability "covenants". Who tried to live outside the "system" of controls puts and calls?
Saddam, Iran, Castro, Nk, Russia. China is different imho. They are twisting on the vine collateral damage to their and our elites wanting to play nice in the world but unable to stop wanting power now. So the next guys and generation pays for paying it forward. Meanwhile elements in both nations blame the other for the party ending.
Within that bunch all are kleptocrat except Iran whose view of the world is colored by the idea that they are persecuted for their beliefs minorities surrounded by Sunni and infidels
RE: He and Don just told you pretty clearly an ISIS infiltration Â
I think this deal is good in the sense that should the senate approve it, the ball is then in Iran's court for the race to be a douche and we get to sit back and let them either abide or fuck themselves in the international limelight.
I think Iran has proven many, many times that it does not worry too much about its international reputation.
1. I don't think you could ever get the whole P5 to double down. In the current negotiations Russia and China were on the Iranian side of negotiations as much as they were the P5+1. The most you could expect from them would be a continuation of the current level of sanctions.
2. You've ignored their national identity as Persians. Iran is not a 20th century creation of European diplomats. From the Quds force and the Revolutionary Guards to the nascent youthful democracy groups there would be unity against an invasion by outsiders. This is not the Iraqi Army that flees and leaves their equipment to ISIS. In the 1980's this was a country that sent teenagers armed with pitchforks up against Saddam's tanks and poison gas. And they went forward!!! Also, this time they would be supported Russian arms.
3. I say 2 possibilities. First would be a tacit agreement between the youth and Quds/Revolutionary Guard allowing more freedom for the former and retention of the economic benefits the latter enjoys in return for both groups fighting the outsiders. Second would be the defeat of a common enemy followed by an internal civil war.
Is that for a complex nation they don't have a rational way to allocate resources or take on long term goals. They live short term and have a weird long informal consensus decision process....further weakened by a tradition of local technocrat/mullah adjustment to national policy. The net effect is a large nation whose core problems and industries require central investment control and execution. And a legal system that prevents investment for future laws are subject to change of mullah interpretation.
The net result is a nation ruled by feelings.
RE: RE: He and Don just told you pretty clearly an ISIS infiltration Â
I think this deal is good in the sense that should the senate approve it, the ball is then in Iran's court for the race to be a douche and we get to sit back and let them either abide or fuck themselves in the international limelight.
I think Iran has proven many, many times that it does not worry too much about its international reputation.
Maybe rephrased better, it puts us/israel in a much better light when we undoubtedly take the necessary actions if they don't abide
And all attempts at central control vs local mullah Â
Fail. In the last 125 minutes royalty followed by nationalist technocrats, communists and royalty again all get violently thrown aside by mullahs.
Incidently...don't have time here but the idea that we overthrew the democratic elected Mossedegh is 180 degrees from what happened. One of the self flagellation myths many operate under.
I know you've gone in depth about what really happened with Mossadegh before, but it's been a long time. I hope that, when you have the time in the future, you'll share the history with us again.
gives his thoughts. I would like to know what would happened if we were able to double down and completely destroy Iran economically
You can't destroy them completely.
Humans are alomost always resourceful enough to keep economies going on some level. Particularly one as large as Iran with a wealth of natural resources. The goal of sanctions was always to bring them to the table. Expecting more is not realistic.
There are useful insights gained by thinking of Iran under the local mullahs/guards as similar in local and national affairs as the Black Hand with theology and fear as means of social control.
What happens to a national road that passes the town of Corleone? Or anywhere else? The answer is that cost and crews and concrete all somehow wind up in local vig and corruption. And some roads don't get finished for the money runs out.
It's hard to get anything done.
read the indicators above of resistance to central anything interfering with local "anything goes entrepreneurial endeavors"
Then realize that 85% of all non oil corporations belong to the 2000 Guards.
I know you've gone in depth about what really happened with Mossadegh before, but it's been a long time. I hope that, when you have the time in the future, you'll share the history with us again.
Sign me up for this. I apparently missed the first iteration
some very refreshingly accurate depictions of Iran Â
from Bill and NJM. I wish you guys could talk to much of Congress. If they opened up their minds for a second they might learn something before they open up their mouths. I think one thing to keep in mind about gaining secondary goals from this negotiation such as prisoner releases and punishing the architects of the EFP program is that was not a unilateral negotiation. This involved the P5+1 and we couldn't just ram our goals in there. I know some may see that as a lame excuse, and that the US should lead, but thats the reality. This deal should not be side tracked by these other goals that are being harped on by those that were not in favor of negotiation from the beginning.
That takes awhile to write a post that is convincing enough to bury the canard. Requires going back to the 19th century and then coming forward. I will try tonight. I usually label opinion as opinion, but this one I am certain you will agree is likely far different in reality and many swallow propaganda as history...and while neither belongs in the certainty category the "mossadegh" over throw renders us all stupid and blind to reality in that nation.
Anyway, separate subject for now:
One thing we do not take into account when looking at events from 2000 to 2015 is from a backwards look a century from now.
This century will be about water, food, resources and the reserve currency. And timing. Timing, as the other speculation on the thread about WW2 demonstrates, is often the difference in Empires and their longevity.
In 2000 oil prices and supply and gas prices and supply required an all hands on deck production effort from all existing reasonable extraction cost reserves.
Saddam just cut via constant sabatougue the Trans Arabian 48 inch pipes from Saudi to Europe that ran 6 miles the other side of his legal borders. And then with Chavez challenged the dollar as the means of exchange ( limiting our ability to punish rogues and float through banking crisis of our own making).
China and India and Pakistan were ready outlets for Iranian and Iraqi oil and gas. To the detriment of Europe and the US who needed oil from the Gulf. At the time. Russia was building strength as its oil was selling at a high price. Europe began to panic as Gulf oil was now precious and more expensive and Russian gas and oil was an alternative if it could come through the Caucasus ( Uggh...Azerbijan and Georgia) and the Ukraine ( remember those countries for any particular "reason"?) cheaply without those nations charging a tax that extracted rent from the take the Russians could otherwise have. If it got too expensive...bad for Russia and good for the Gulf.
Since the back up for the dollar was the shipping lanes from the Gulf....and every 5%+ increase in price of oil since 1967 sent our economy in a tailspin 18 months later....the world was precarious in 2000 way before 9/11.
Fast forward. Like the baptism scene in Godfather all the enemies of the family got in the eyeball in the last 15 years. Iranian gas and oil industry is in ruins. Iraq in ruins. Pakistan and India and China no longer the demand they once were. Russia is extracting as fast as it can while prices conspire against its need for cash...and its drain on reserves leaves it within 15 years of all done at any reasonable price point without western willingness to invest.
Meanwhile, reserves equal to Saudi and the worlds second lowest cost to extract and gas equal to nowhere else and liquid condensate ( key building block for vital chemicals) came on stream....in North America due to a new extraction technology still improving at rapid rates that only NA knows how to operate effectively.
Saudi was kept safe, shipping lanes kept open, India and Pakistan delayed. China bled. Russia double bled. Reserve currency intact and now beating the Russians and Chinese with a stick. Europe not down the drain. Yet.
Result? Across the century to come...so far ...we kept the water, the food, the energy, the currency.
Poorer? yes. relative to all the others in the war outside raging in slow motion? Much better cards than anyone else.
Accident of timing? on purpose? luck the residue of design ? or the old adage...95% of life is showing up and good things follow
from Bill and NJM. I wish you guys could talk to much of Congress. If they opened up their minds for a second they might learn something before they open up their mouths. I think one thing to keep in mind about gaining secondary goals from this negotiation such as prisoner releases and punishing the architects of the EFP program is that was not a unilateral negotiation. This involved the P5+1 and we couldn't just ram our goals in there. I know some may see that as a lame excuse, and that the US should lead, but thats the reality. This deal should not be side tracked by these other goals that are being harped on by those that were not in favor of negotiation from the beginning.
Kind words Stu. But beware of falling into the trap of limiting the alternatives to either this deal or war. Obviously none of us were in the room during negotiations, but it certainly seems like Iran wasn't shy about throwing ancillary issues into the negotiations. And it seems like they got a lot of what they were looking for. So the unanswered question in my mind is why the US/P5+1 came away with so little on the ancillary side of things. Perhaps the deal doesn't fly at all if the sanctions are not lifted off of Soleimani. But where is the quid pro quo?
As I've said earlier, there's no way 34 Democratic Senators won't be cobbled together to prevent an override on an Obama veto. But to think we could/should have done better is not to advocate air strikes in Iran's nuclear facilities.
like you I wasn't in there. Who knows how this went down? Was the US strongly at the lead? or were the P5+1 having more say than we think. I agree it probably would have been more beneficial to selling it if they got these things put in. I fear though in many cases members of Congress who would never have supported this any way are going to use them as a crutch. You are right though the administration probably should have worked harder to get some thrown in there.
Maybe Israel and Saudi Arabia are working against US
interests.
I think Saudi's have been in the past a good friend of
US. Particulary during the 'banking crisis' of 1969.
The system could have collapsed and the Saudi's helped
through their deposits to help US banking system.
Israel seems like the only 'civilized' people in the Middle
East. They have shown the region what intelligent people
can do without dependence on oil.
But, today maybe our interest and their's have divurged.
are much more motivated by the Saudi-Iranian tug of war for control of the region, promotion of Sunni vs Shiite Islam etc. than they are about the nuclear issue the US is worried about.
The Israelis are worried about their security. Nukes aside, anything the empowers Iran (including lifting sanctions) is bad for Israel. It just is (though one might believe that sanctions weakening with no deal would be even worse).
I dont think either of them are honest brokers when it comes to whether this deal is good for for the United States. They're looking out for themselves, as you'd expect any rational actor to do.
are much more motivated by the Saudi-Iranian tug of war for control of the region, promotion of Sunni vs Shiite Islam etc. than they are about the nuclear issue the US is worried about.
The Israelis are worried about their security. Nukes aside, anything the empowers Iran (including lifting sanctions) is bad for Israel. It just is (though one might believe that sanctions weakening with no deal would be even worse).
I dont think either of them are honest brokers when it comes to whether this deal is good for for the United States. They're looking out for themselves, as you'd expect any rational actor to do.
are much more motivated by the Saudi-Iranian tug of war for control of the region, promotion of Sunni vs Shiite Islam etc. than they are about the nuclear issue the US is worried about.
The Israelis are worried about their security. Nukes aside, anything the empowers Iran (including lifting sanctions) is bad for Israel. It just is (though one might believe that sanctions weakening with no deal would be even worse).
I dont think either of them are honest brokers when it comes to whether this deal is good for for the United States. They're looking out for themselves, as you'd expect any rational actor to do.
I think the Iran nuke issue is a part of the Saudi-Iranian tug of war.
And yes, both the Saudi's and Israeli's are looking out for themselves. But I don't think that their self interested point of view automatically means it's a good deal for the US. It could be good, it could be bad, it could be the US could have done better. Their viewpoint is not dispositive with respect to the US in either way(s).
I agree. Obviously the Saudis dont want Iran to get the bomb. But they also dont want the Saudis having client states in Syria and Yemen etc. Their interest is broader.
As I've said throughout this post, I have no idea if the deal is a good one or bad one. I just viscerally reject the notion that all would be better if we were just tougher, or that the status quo was even a viable option. I do think that a lot of the knee-jerk criticism would have come regardless of what the deal was. There are some people who just think that this president is inept and everything he does is inept or worse.
on the treaty monitoring aspects of the agreement. acton - ( New Window )
My initial reaction is that the JCPOA is a little more comprehensive than expected. What I find troubling are the following:
* The assumption of the author that if Iran went "loud and proud" it would simply be solved by US air strikes. First, would the US do it? Second, now that the arms sanctions have been lifted and $150 billion in funds have been unfrozen, COULD the US do it if Iran has hardened the sites on the sly before any nuclear materials are introduced and they've installed the latest in Russian anti-aircraft defenses that the Russians have already offered to sell them?
* Assumption the arbitration process will work through the time period. The members of the Joint Commission right now will almost be certain to vote 5-3, which is necessary to compel inspections. What happens in a few years after what will probably be significant Western European investment in Iran. Will the EU representative or Germany turn it into a 4-4 vote that will preclude inspection of the site in question?
I cannot weave all the parts of this into a coherent and detailed explanation in a step by step basis.
I can provide ways or allegories that while imprecise have visceral impact that shed insights.
and I can give a glimpse into a more layered complex view of Iran so we may understand who is driving and who did what and how much influence we had ( imho very very little) and to quote a famous Aretha song we may better understand just exactly "Who's Zooming Who?"
To start lets first cover the sources of what we know about the "plot to overthrow" the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and how that one sin resulted in the horrible hatred the Iranians have for us and is an object lesson in why we should not interfere.
There are five sources:
1) The long history of Iran since the late 19th Century provides context
2) What the Iranian newspapers said at the time of the coup
3) What the CIA said before
4) What Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA said afterwards
5) What the Brits and US agencies said about it all in 1979 to try to get our people back.
Now one of the things that always amazes me is how vociferously the very same people who insist that the CIA is a bunch of double dealing never honest bureaucratic ass covering liars....insist that the CIAs version of what happened is the version that happened. Which is it? They lie all the time and cant be trusted? or they told the truth about their role in Iran in 1953?
The CIA defends its budget. And its jobs. And the right to more of the same in the future. or to CYA. That's why it says things. Its a bureaucracy. Period. Full Stop. It says things because it lives in the grey zone and is a spy agency. Period. Full stop. it does not record and write history. it does not have any rhyme or reason to be honest. its job is to distort outside the walls and sometimes to clarify within the walls.
If its 1950s and you are amongst the government agencies whose budget and personnel are under review for harboring communists and giving Russia the Bomb...you kind of look for ways to toot your own horn and claim all credit that is not nailed down as the opposite truth.
And if you are the son of Teddy Roosevelt you toot your own horn for you were born to it, learned under a master and need it as well for you will never be the old man.
The most important CIA analysis or report is from 1952 in a report to Eisenhower before the coup and that is where we will start to put it all together once we cover the nature of Iran in 1880 and the context needed to understand how it operates
In the West, since Greece, the religion, the state, the dispense of justice, economic activity and wealth/privledge handed down family lines are all separated with each primarily responsible of aspects of momentum and control/stability of the society. Even with that head start, the West took milleniums and tons of violence to evolve into separating and guarding the religion, the state and the individual rights of the society. We agree on this?
We also agree that in the West, we not longer think of clergy as participants in the wealth generation elites or in the justice system or involved in tax disputes or passionate about the attempts of the state to redistribute wealth or allocate resources to long term objective or infrastructure. Certainly not after the 95 theses were nailed to the door in Wittenberg.
We do need to realize that nothing is monolithic and the nature of Shia world is a very loose but roughly similar experiences of Islam and the world.
We do need to realize that our degree of internal coherence and controls are not anywhere close to life as late as 1965 in most of the world. What most nations experience for all born before 1965 is a nation with a capital. Controlled by the leader. After the radio station, the newspaper, the army is all in control...the rest outside the capital is kind of a no mans land. villages and even cities are kind of controlled. judge, jury, charity, and schools and prime economic engines by warlords. or the law, or the Black Hand. or the mullah.
most nations 80% of the nation is on farms or in small villages. and they do not ever travel more than 25 miles away in their lifetimes.
Iran in 1800 to 1960 was feudal. Elite families had sons in the government, the military, owning businesses in the town,
I don't exist to give laze dumb useless fucks like you a handbook for living in the world.
And proof of that is that in years of posting no one went and found contrary information. I don't make up things you useless piece of shit. I don't give a flying fuck if you stay stupid and pointless. If I do the work and you want to go further its all out there. fucking cunt for brains
for you because unlike you I don't look up and copy other peoples work. its what I learned from many places. or heard.
look you are a below average shit. stay that way. but don't pretend you do anything but troll
if you want to learn... or debate on equal footing....go do the fucking work asswipe. or stay stupid which is you for years now
Bravo, sir, bravo.
Radar's act is one of consistent embarrassment on BBI for years. His unwavering need to play the contrarian on almost every issue to his constant need for links and references wholly supports your description above. The next time he makes a salient point on any topic being discussed will be his first.
undocumented accounts of history hook, line and sinker.
Do you ever wonder why the vast majority of people on BBI think of you as a joke? Or are you so lacking in self awareness that you actually think people don't laugh at your posts but instead take them seriously? Seriously...someone should slap the shit out of you for your tired act.
It's hard as hell to annoy Bill to the point of him being anything but a gentleman. He is and has always been one of the most patient and cordial gentleman on BBI.
That should tell you, Radar, how tiresome your act has become. Go away, asshole.
Ill give you 2 hours to put forth your referenced or not alternative contrarian ( which is what I was doing) pov on Iranian history and the Mosedegh "coup"
go nuts. let see what you got shithead
Make it good. you have an objection then obviously you can do better.
Not all of us are as lazy spoon fed and stupid as you are.
Come on...expecting really good work now...no looking it up...just what you think from all you have learned.
and to top it off attacks the integrity of someone who never attacked one of the easiest targets on the board day in day out.
rooting for you to show us you got game Chrissy.
54 minutes now...I know you can discuss this in detail from many aspects off the top of your head....you know...so we get curious and do more our own homework
I don't expect anyone to take anything that is said without checking....checking is how you learn. I know the shit asswipe. I don't reference it to know it, And I dont post about what I don't know.
substance. the thread is about Iran. Not about your trolling shithead routine.
post several posts of substance like many others on the thread.
or shut up.
By the way such things like the list of five sources of core information ought to give you a clue.
the 95 thesis on the door at Wittenberg is sourced from the 95 thesis on the door at Wittenberg
Mosadegh you look up yourself. Kermit Washington is the son of TR you can find in 2875 books and 3481 articles and 495 pictures. you do that by typing in Kermit Washington. the source of Kermit Washington is Kermit Washington. The reference is the same as the source dummkopf.
dummkopf is a German word. German is sourced by typing it.
Iran is a feudal society in the 19th century is found in 7,800 books.
the CIA report before the coup is found by looking up CIA reports on Iran before the coup.
Doing your own homework is so so hard
It aint in the sources its in how you understand and make insightful connections between the material.
oh wait a minute...you cant do that. You think copying is thinking. Now I get it.
Full on shit for brains.
still waiting for several substantive contributions to the thread topic
long day dealing with tons of stupid and then this guy.
I dunno....do most people on BBI source what they know if they know it?
to me hiding behind what other people say is a chickenshit out. If you had to just check it to post on it then you don't yet know what you are talking about. ( dates and numbers and spellings to me is another story...that's just being decently accurate enough to not confuse the reader) You either label as your opinion of point of view or as a possibility or insight or way of thinking...or you present it with adequate homework knowing if their is another set of facts someone on BBI will know them
For example, Iran was a "feudal" society or the Wests separation of religion and state and individual started with the Greeks. Is there an opposite possible conclusion that needs to be sourced? Are we going to find a source that says " The leaders of Greece were one and the same as their teenaged virgins at Delphi...especially those Spartan leaders" or "Iran in the 19th century was a diverse moderate democratic society composed of a very large middle class and their top 1% rotated voluntarily to the bottom after a year at the top"
im sorry...I have no idea how many things I have read about Greece nor its legal code nor its early elite democracies nor its tribal leader oligarchy forms of city state governance. I can either post or not. imho if you want books on Greece...that's what Amazon is for.
I dunno...does anyone know how many times and ways they know that religion and state and individual rights are more separated in the West than in Islam? I have no clue anymore how many different ways and sources and places and precise differences I could point out. Should I stop posting?
And its history...its not science where sources might be actually required and customary.
I dunno. I thought we just posted and then discussed it and moved on. Since 2006 no one told me I needed footnotes to post?
If I am annoying tell me. to be honest, I either dont know sources because I read it 57 different ways from Sunday ages ago or I assume if I am wrong I will learn and say thanks.
Greg this is your fault. I actually just wanted to honor your request as favors go back and forth in karma over the years and we are both fans of the same kinds of topics. I think I have your email but if not if Ronnie or Dune can forward me your email I will reply ...but no footnotes or sources Greg. You check and learn more when and if you wish.
Near as I know Lincoln freed the slaves ages ago so we can all learn or consider things at the depth we wish to.
No more chris. Stay away and I will do the same. I do not recall ever challenging your integrity. Much less doing so and having no basis or substance to challenge....just dumpster diving fly over and shit like a pigeon on a thread you have made no contributions or have no horse in the discussion. Life is too short to spend time dealing with free range clowns.
I deliberately wrote that to understand this subject we are going to look in turn in the posts to come at the five possible core sources of facts or context ( does everyone on BBI lay out their case as clearly)....and some cluck escapes and writes that he objects to the lack of sources and references.
then faced with the challenge to be rigorous and substantive ( kind of what he was objecting to ...he flys away.
I know that in econ or finance threads or political ones I don't cite very often...because I heard it from a directly involved person or saw it myself or think it because that's what I think. I didnt look it up. why would I? But I don't make anyone think what I do. Or even care if they do. I don't like to leave wrong stuff on important issues unchallenged but the vast vast majority of all we ever know is uncertain and subject to interpretation.
Especially history. its the history of HUMAN events. Of course its subjective. its about humans.
I dunno. if you are willing to say thanks if you are wrong and debate opinion with respect...this is a discussion board. when did it turn into a conference where we were all giving our academic papers?
I must have missed the memo that chris received.
RE: its unclear to me why BBI swollows Bill2's unreferenced and Â
undocumented accounts of history hook, line and sinker.
I'm not going to intervene on Bill2's behalf and defend his integrity; even though he's my friend, he can do that on his own.
Instead I want to say something as an audience member. You've just insulted us and in doing so made a seriously stupid assumption. Do you think when Bill2 says (perhaps obliquely), for instance, that we might have had good reasons for invading Iraq in 2003, that I, or anyone else for that matter, automatically buys what he says? That just because Bill2 has said something, I'm convinced he's right?
That's absurd. My line of work (as an academic) involves constant skepticism about people's arguments (this isn't to say academics have a monopoly on skepticism). The reason I listen to Bill2 (without necessarily *always* agreeing with him) is fourfold: a) his facts are always sound; b) he connects his arguments with his facts in persuasive, if not always clinching ways; c) he argues in good faith; d) he puts forward his own opinions, which are always different from what I'll find in the academic and media mainstream (either in conclusions or level of analysis).
We see all three things in bits and pieces on this board. d) is common enough; everybody and their mother on this board is a goddamn sociologist of Islam and everyone and their mother has opinions on the failures of race politics, the Palestinian people, or the poor more generally. I left this board for close many months precisely because I was tired of encountering d) without seeing a), b), and c) come along with it.
That you implicitly charge Bill with not meeting a) or c) is doubly insulting. I'm not going to dwell on c). You have to really just be hardheaded about being a contrarian to seriously charge that. I feel sorry for you. That sort of sensibility must be draining and in such a useless way too.
a) is what particularly annoys me. Do you think that if Bill posted things that were patently false, he wouldn't be called out on them? That there aren't enough curious, literate, and critical adults on this board that a claim such as "Mossadegh sold five Titians and his first born son to the Caliph Abu Bakr" couldn't be challenged? Do you really think you're that much smarter than us? I mean that you're assured of your own intelligence has been blatantly obvious for years. But to assume that we're all Bill2 groupies without the ability to think and factcheck on our own? Go fuck yourself, radar.
I've spent many years in school and I've come to the conclusion that academics are good at some things and horrible at others. I do think academics do exceptionally well at making organized arguments and specific arguments. I think they benefit from rigorous cross checking and generate a lot of data that the rest of us all benefit from. What we don't do well, and this is part of the reason I still stick around and read Bill2's posts, Phil's and a few others, and try to talk to friends who work in business and other "real world' sectors is see how theory fails and how people act and behave on a day to day basis. The great benefits I derive from Bill2's posts (and this is aside from the personal advice he gave me years ago and I still keep today and the model of behavior he's set which I constantly fail to live up to, but hope that perhaps in a decade or so I'll approximate) are i) the expansion of my knowledge base and ii) having another outlook from which to understand the world.
Whenever Bill posts a fact that I do NOT know I go and look it up. It's easy; the internet's right there and I also have institutional access to other reference materials. I don't check each and every claim but that's also because I trust the man. The many facts I have checked have led me to expand my reading and simply learn more. I don't need to take Bill's facts and necessarily end up with his conclusions, even if the man is terrible persuasive.
As for ii), the vast majority of news analysis we read is short-term. It focuses on the micro dynamics of small events over time horizons of a few years, perhaps a decade at most. Bill's time horizons are typically "imperial", to use a distinctly unlovely phrase. That is, he forces me to think about the material foundations of whatever geopolitical system is in place and the continuities and discontinuities of that system. Do you know who else thought on this level? Marx. So does Perry Anderson, Charles Tilly, Michael Mann, Jared Diamond, etc. Some of us do our own reading chris and we listen to Bill for very good reasons.
You've insulted a friend, but that's fine; he can fight his own battles and do so ably. But you've also insulted me as a listener and that's something I can and should respond to.
It's a shame that after a month of fasting on a day of celebration this is how I should start it, but I think it's necessary. I want Bill2 around because selfishly I've become a better thinker (and person) because of him. And I'm not going to let you jeopardize that. I'm jealous of my knowledge.
You're also a Bulls fan who I assume doesn't live in Chicago which makes you the scum of the earth.
he doesn't need defending. The contrarian act works if you come back and respond to the response of your criticism. You don't do that, you run away and hide. You have 0 credibility here because you like to stir it up, but when responded to, you disappear. You think we as a whole don't know that? The sad think is you are going to keep doing it because you lack the self awareness to know that everyone here knows it's a tired shtick. Criticize till the cows come home but be a man about and respond when your challenge is met
Radar may keep doing it, but now that he has, as Ash noted, started a Category 5 shitstorm, and insulted so many of the people on this board with IQ's 30-50 points higher than his, he is much, much less likely to get away free of charge. I personally am perfectly willing to remind him every so often as to how useless he is to this site, and I am sure I am not alone. It will be a tag team with 50-100 teammates, at the least.
I used to wonder why some of the oldest old timers here went out of their way to demean Radar. The answer has become obvious: he not only deserves it, but he craves it.
A somewhat complex, but not all that impressive, amalgam of passive aggressiveness and masochism. It would be sad if he wasn't such a royal, top-of-the-line pain in the ass.
it's become a thing on the internet. If there isn't a link to it, then it didn't happen. It is a lazy and stupid excuse. Sure, if you want to claim something and you want to 'prove' your point, you put up a link for reference. But Bill2 was specifically asked to give his input. He didn't just present it and then demand that we accept it without question.
I think Bill2 knows a lot of shit. If you doubt what he says, you can do your own research. You may learn something. And while you are doing your research look up the word credibility.
Radar throws rocks. That's all he's capable of doing. Whether that's a willful choice on his part or simply a result of his natural intellectual shortcomings, I don't know.
After all we cant claim the guy is irrelevant and th4en make him relevant.
Id only ask him to post his counter comments ( rooted in layers of knowledge) when I am done my response to Greg sometime this weekend.
On this subject, my way of looking at it is my way of looking at it. If I learn new things I will change my way of looking at it. My goal is to get better by stumblingly articulating my way through why things happen. Check what you want to check or don't or whatever. If you check you got better. I am pretty skeptical and don't accept what I hear. and all of this is incomplete and just an aspect of what happened. I am less interested in what happened and more interested in why it happened because all complex events reveal patterns and those patterns do not go away and they often repeat themselves with different dates and names. Since the struggles of Islam and the Gulf will be with us for years....backwards will have threads and strands we will see in the future
I think this subject is really useful for understanding aspects of what we observe and will keep observing.
I am going to add two earlier in time sources of context for Mossedegh and Islam and Iran so we might reflect more widely.
1) Some of the nature of Islam
2) Some of why and how a particular strain of "Iranian" behavior we see happened....and how it may play out.
Lets start by looking at the teachings of the J writer, Jesus/Paul, Mohammed, Buddha and any of the revolutionary visions for how to live better. All answered needs in their societies for answers to troubling questions and a way to think and a way to teach. All planted and thrived in and maybe because the societies they arose from were in crisis. absent rooting in their setting no relevance and no audience would connect.
The J writer took root in a troubled oppressed wandering tribe asking for ways they were different and trying to hold on to that difference as a special identity. Same need for unique Identity led to how and why the Iroquois designed their tortures the way they did. (soften that up and you get fraternity hazing...go check on how that connection hangs together chris). His setting
Jesus found the rules of the Judiasm elites ( Sadduces) of the era and the rules of Rome incomplete answers for why and how to live and endure suffering. He tried to answer the question....how do I be a better individual? ( In that sense Buddha did as well). How setting was the people he knew amongst a tribe under rule and nowhere near the destiny they imagined for themselves. but his world was citified and had a "church" ( Pharisees and Sadduces) and a "state" (Rome) in conflict with the average individual desires and aims in a complex post tribe society. he came along as the tribe was wrestling with social strata, taxation and complexities.
Paul took that and turned it into how to pass the core lessons along to beyond the tribe, how to connect it to the culture and mythology of the Western tradition as known at the time and how to teach and how to take the message down through the ages. In many ways he was a greater genius than Christ. he answered the question...how to change the world faster than one at a time. A question neither Christ nor Buddha was interested in answering as near as we can tell. His setting was the Greco Roman life of the mind.
Christ and Paul separated the moral life from the roles of the state. And their teachers or priests were wholly dedicated to the cause and service of their community ( in theory and design)
Mohammed had a different challenge. How to live better is the question. His tribal small village...water hole world is the setting. his tribal situation was much different than Israels. In that world the alpha leader of the local wolf heap had to be warrior, judge, best trader of goods with the outside world, teacher and pious example and the local groups scholar. For the strong and the less strong. He wrote for small groups operating in scarcity and a dog eat dog world. prior to mohammed the alpha was just the might makes right guy for the other semi mighty. the rest fend for themselves. what ever he did...Mohammed did move his society from might makes right to a structure of covenants the strong and the weak could live within.
So context One....alpha equals local holy man teacher with some warrior and some might makes right coursing through his blood. in a small village operating in scarcity this model answers a lot of questions. Hence ...Mullahs. Ambitious leaders of the community who have at least some learning of Islam via at least memorization of the Koran. And are free to be judge, educator, trader, banker, warrior
Is it the only adaptation a small tribe/small village takes to endure and produce a line of leaders? No. American Indians have shaman chiefs and councils. And small towns the world over have war lords and strong men. But the Black Hand is an example of a tradition of alpha leadership for the locals for matters of economics and justice beyond the eyes of the rulers and the church.
As Islam evolved with a belief system that matched their local reality...they had to add more "scholars" to interpret and add more coherence to wider organizations of people...hence ...a level above local village mullah....Ayatollahs.
in the next post lets discuss a tiny but important aspect of the Iranian experience with Mullah dom. and later we will take these two pillar traditions and show how they played out at the time of Mosadegh and to this day...and therefor in the future.
1) Mohammed did a great service to his times and lands by moving the local alphas from capricious to ruled by covenant ( the Koran)
2) that unleashed a lot of social energy for the lands of scarcity for many centuries
3) the local alpha is often the mullah
4) Mullahs are involved in resource allocation decisions from strong to weak and to expand the pie at the water hole they lead.
5) In a complex society resource allocation decisions are hard and rewards delayed and not local. All the issues Iran faces ( water, food, electrical, oil, gas) require allocation effectiveness.
6) I believe this weakness in Irans core is one reason they overthrew Mosedegh and constantly revolt and it will hold their entry into the modern world back for a long time
gotta go now
The only critique I'd add here is that expecting a response in the Â
in the users section if you want to see if he's been here.
That works if he is signed in. Lurking while not signed in does not show up. However as Greg noted it did lead this vtime to b the Taylor Swift thread.
many have noted that Iran has many people not in tune with the clerics and the clerics seem to span a wide range from fundamentalist and fierce to moderate and more inclined to let the state be the state and they tend to the faith of the believers.
There is a reason for that and it is both interesting and important:
Irans conversion to Islam was for many centuries one of the most lukewarm for most of Iran self identified as Persian and unlike the desert people of Arabia...they had a great culture. As a result for example, Islam was not the national religion until the 16th century
What happened in the 16th Century
The Safavids.
The Safavid dynasty was not Iranian, they were from Lebanon. The Safavids were radical Shia, and upon their occupation they imported a group of Shia clerics, olima, from Lebanon -- hence the connection of Iranian Shia establishment with the Hizb’allah -- including the author of the rule of Jurisprudents, meaning the god-given rule of clerics, that Khomeini adopted 300 years later and implemented in Iran again in 1979.
The imported Shiite establishment overrode the Iranian culture and civilization of human rights, equal rights of women, freedom of worship and respect for all, dismissing it as pagan and enforcing a new culture of Islamic Sharia laws written by Madjlesi.
Half of the Shia Clerical establishment never considered themselves Iranian, as they are rooted in Lebanon and have kept the ties by intermarriage. In 1979, when asked Ayatollah Khomeini about his feelings going back to Iran after all these years, Khomeini responded that Iran is not important, it is only a source and a base to establish his Islamic foundation to spread in the region.
What did the mullahs of this branch of Islam from Lebanon believe in?
Broadening their focus to economic life. Tightly focusing on the complete education and health and charity of the poorest people and insuring their complete loyalty, forming guards, gangs or militia and aggression.
Hezbollah is a direct follower of these tenents. as Is half of the clerical population of Iran. Lebanon influenced Iranian fundamentalism not the other way around. Hezbollah is not new. It is 500 years old.
and the use of inner city poor fused into weapons when economic freedom and a voice over resources of the mullahs is threatened by the state is a tenant of this Lebanese branch of Islams development.
The next contextual subjects we need to visit to understand is Iran as a colony. And how the radical branch of mullahs handled disputes over economics and disputes with the state...far far before Mosedegh or 1979. Or the years since
RE: its unclear to me why BBI swollows Bill2's unreferenced and Â
But in winning this round, he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's a cowardly troll. People like radar besmirch the character of their betters because they possess none themselves.
Also when I am done there are pieces to footnote as they are singular sources ( meaning if you don't know where to look it's not like you will find it confirmed multiple places. This to me is always the weakest part of controversial recent history. Spin has been around since the dawn of humankind but it's an art form recently. I raced though the safavids for iran's many beliefs are also sourced in the challenges of being a colony and the challenge of modernity
your last point is worthy - chris is not worthy of a response on any level -- better to ignore him and thereby treat him as totally irrelevant -- because that is what he is
never-the-less -- I thoroughly enjoyed reading your eviseration of him -- it was AweSomE!!!!!
Also when I am done there are pieces to footnote as they are singular sources ( meaning if you don't know where to look it's not like you will find it confirmed multiple places. This to me is always the weakest part of controversial recent history. Spin has been around since the dawn of humankind but it's an art form recently. I raced though the safavids for iran's many beliefs are also sourced in the challenges of being a colony and the challenge of modernity
Many of us remember 1979. All of us remember the rhetoric. nothing the military industrial complex likes or the Israeli lobby or the Sunni lobby or the oil lobby likes more than scowling dark faces of the hyper fierce Iranian leaders.
Actually their track record is worse than France. Since the 12th century:
Genghis Khan went all out Genghis on Iran....sending night terrors down through the ages. Iran was the nation that was available when he got really irritable. iran tried to sue for peace but the Khan killed every diplomat on every mission and sent the heads back. He no longer gave cities a choice of living if they surrendered on day one.
then the Ottomans kicked butt despite sending a much smaller Army
then the Russians shrunk Iranian lands four times in four wars. each time Iran paid more to placate them. The last two they paid Russias cost to whip them
in between an Afghan warlord marched west and took over for a few years.
then Russia came from the north and the Brits came from the south and established two slave colonies.
Saddam with 25% of the population fought them to a standstill.
We dropped in to the left and the right for a few years. while owning their shipping channel. Meanwhile Russia took some of their Caspian sea fields and the way to ship the oil north.
Remember 300 Greeks stopped these guys. Alexander whipped them in battle after battle when he was 30% of their size.
They don't remember winning. So part of their fierce paranoia and attachment to defending themselves via a bomb is from national shame.
And of all the nations with colonies...the Brits usually leave the most administrative systems and practices and an education system and generally were the most enlightened of the colonial powers. With one exception....Iran.
Now lets turn to a post about how the mullahs handled the growing challenge of modernity in the 19th and 20th Century...
The Shah the Brits held in place in the 1880-1995 period was forced to almost literally auction off the nation to Brit businessmen in embarrassing licenses, allowances, permissions and out right sales. The Brits bought roads, telegraph lines, food concessions and on and on.
The Iranian were helpless to stop the public humiliation of foreigners buying up place after place...until the Shah at the time sold the tobacco concession...throwing 200,000 workers into turmoil. ( and many mullahs who had "investments" in the tobacco farms, transport, production and selling).
to cut to the chase, the local mullahs, working poor and merchants slowly escalated the street protests and expanded the protestors to include students. eventually the Grand Ayatollah issued a fatwa against smoking. Which the nation heeded. The Brits and Shah were forced to backtrack.
It was the first victory against any outsiders and the Shah in centuries.
And the lessons it taught the people is that only the mullahs stood up. And the mullahs learned that street protests by ruffians and students and the younger mullahs worked. And they learned that they alone amongst the previously wealthy could use religion and the inner city poor they tended to win concessions and gain economic power.
Hmm...1891....a pattern emerges?
The next crisis was far larger...the Constitutional Crisis of 1907
the Mullahs, the bazarr workers and some young radicals wanted a constitution to have a say in the wholesale looting of the British companies in general but especially in Oil.
I will let anyone who wishes to read this part of Iranian history on their own.
Note two things....the street gangs, the mullahs, the students, the fatwas.
and note the names of the Ayatollahs and more prominent mullahs. those name you will hear again as the sons fought Mosadegh and the grandsons the 1979 Revolution.
If you read the lives of some of the prominent Mullahs you will read many had parents or grandparents killed or publically executed by the powers than be and you will see plenty of children and grandchildren who are now in charge of significant money making opportunities and also in the loose collection called a "government"
Kashani, Behbanni, Khomeni. All lost fathers to the shah of that time. Some lost children once they were grown emerging mullahs.
Blood feuds and honor, screams about the Vig. Sound familiar?
Next we will finally fast forward to Mosadegh.
Btw, mullahs are fierce, willfull, passionate and many are mad bad and dangerous to know.
Btw, many Persian women are fierce, willful, passionate and many are mad bad and dangerous to know.
But I won't cite how I would know that...
Bill, your thoughts are reasonable and informative Â
There was a range of mullah reactions to the Constitution and post Constitutional revolution. The idea of curbing the feudal system, the foreign looting of the country and the Shah of the Qafar dynasty was a desired goal. But the inheritors of the Safvids school of fundamentalism were starting to promote the idea that the real solution was return to sharia law and rule by the mullahs.
A steady diet of taxes and protests and fights between the police of the feudals and Shah and the mullahs and their followers continued. Into the fray came the trade unionists and then in the 1920’s the communists.
By the 1950’s many mullahs have grandfathers and fathers who were murdered or executed. As you will see, the major players in 1953 and 1979 were children when their fathers were killed for pursuing what the mullahs thought was Allahs work.
In 1921, a mullah was dragged out of his house and killed in front of his son by the officials of the Shah. Don Cicci got the father. He got Paulo. He got the wife. He missed 9 year old Vito Andolini. The Shahs troops left the sobbing family…and the 9 year old named Ruhollah.
As in Ruhollah Khomeini.
Tick tock. Tick tock. Game on.
In 1922, a scion of a feudal family, General Reza Khan Pahlevi, made a deal with the Russian Cossacks and armed with that division of Cossacks, staged a coup and had himself named Prime Minister.
At last the old Shah of the Qafars was gone and the new Shah seemed interested in some form of constitutional process. He made five big mistakes:
1) He built a major railroad and turned over construction to the Russians and the Brits with incredible sweetheart deals.
2) He financed it by taxes on sugar, tobacco and alcohol. You know…the industries that fed the mullahs and their followers.
3) He thought the mullahs with their old beliefs and anti modern backwardness and money from grubby low profit businesses and no army were impotent.
That’s a mistake that the Russians, feudals, monarchists, constitutional moderates, Communists, Russians and Brits all made as well.
4)He became close to the Germans. Theoretically not the Russians or the Brits. Technologically advanced. Eager to “help” He decided to stay neutral when the war started.
5)WWII started and the Russians simply walked over their border and the Brits landed by sea.
In 1941 he was forced to turn over the throne to his son and go into exile.
The war ends. Oil becomes even more important. The Brits withdraw their troops as do the Russians but the Brit oil interests and the new Shah start all over as the feudal players had since 1880.
By now the communists are the worlds largest communist Party…the Tudeh.
But the mullahs did not weaken or fade away. They now started to play tougher.
The two main Ayatollahs were Ayatollah Behabanni and Ayatollah Kashani.
In the next tier down were two younger mullahs. Rulhollah Khomeini and Navab Safavi.
Safavi clearly was the leader of the fundamentalist activist arm of the movement ( the Fadayan) but he and Khomeini were side by side and the degree of Khomeini’s active involvement in the actual assassinations to follow is unclear. What is clear is that he issued the fatwas and edicts that sanctioned the assassinations squads that furthered the mullahs causes over the next ten years…including the ones key to the destruction of Mossadeghs attempts to rule as a constitutional elected nationalist
its out of the timeline but hard to cover interwoven into the story...yet it is important:
There were many assassinations of lower level representatives, journalists on the wrong side, Tudah officials and foreigners. The overall effect was great fear amongst the feudal families and those who tried to be constitutionalists. Meanwhile some Ayatollahs played footsie with the Shah and some with the constitutionalists. It was hard to know where the mullahs really stood. They switched side at the slightest mistake to their interests and they bore grudges. For a long time.
But the first major disruptive assassination was of a nationalist, anti-clerical author named Ahmad Kasravi, who was shot and killed in 1946. Kasravi was definitely a target of Khomeini. He left letters and the fatwa he issued around and the Shahs people brought him in for questioning.
Hussein Emami, the assassin and a founding member of the Fadayan, was promptly arrested and sentenced to death for the crime. Kashani and Khomeini and many of the Shia clergy pressured the Shah to give Emami a pardon, taking advantage of the Shah's political difficulties — such as the occupation of Azerbaijan province by Soviet troops — at that time.
In 1949, the group killed court minister (and former prime minister) Abdolhossein Hazhir.
On 7 March 1951, the Prime Minister Haj-Ali Razmara was assassinated, in retaliation for his advice against nationalizing the oil industry.
Three weeks later the Education and Culture Minister Ahmad Zangeneh was assassinated by the group.
Later in 1951, the Fadayan made an attempt on the life of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Although the Fadayan strongly supported the nationalization of Iran's foreign-owned oil industry, they turned against the leader of the nationalization movement, Mohammad Mossadeq, when he became prime minister, because of his refusal to implement the sharia law and appoint strict Islamists to high positions.
Another assassination attempt on 15 February 1952 badly wounded Hossein Fatemi, Mosaddeq's foreign minister.
In 1955, Navab Safavi was finally executed. The group continued on.
Next they assassinated Prime Minister Hassan Ali Mansour in 1965.
Mansour is reported to have been "tried" by a secret Islamic court made up of Khomeini followers Morteza Motahhari and Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti and sentenced to death "on a charge of `warring on Allah”.
Remember those names….they were prominent before and after the revolution of 1979.
During the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Fadayan members served as foot soldiers for Khomeini.
Many of its members went on to serve in the Islamic Republic regime.
Lets clear up all the remaining major strands that allow us to put the pieces together on the overthrow of Mosedegh,
once again, imho, understanding the what why and how of the 1953 plot is essential to beginning to understand Iran.
What we need to do to finish covering the Fedayan is to note that they published a lot of journals and newspapers. Why is that important?
As far back as 1946, they blamed the US or British spys and agents for the assassinations they themselves committed.
Why? Because the Brits were slowly turning their relations with the feudal families over to the Americans. When the coup took place the stories that the US was behind it came from Fedayan publications.
Why? To cover the tracks of the mullahs in case the coup failed and from the Shah in case it succeeded. Its easily verified as a source. Get chris r on the case. I first heard it from Iranian exiles but it turned out to be valid.
Another important piece of the puzzle is provided by looking at the life and times and role of the Tehran based Ayatollah. As you can see now going back to the 1891 revolts about tobacco, the Ayatollah in Tehran was vital to the mullah playbook for he was emeshed in and economically central to the bazzar merchants, the street gangs and much of Tehran University and the students there.
For several centuries that role was often played by the Bebahanni family of mullahs. Often famous scholars but some generations were more street focused. They came from the line of fundamentalists who first came from Lebanon in 1500Ad.
Behbahani assisted his father in his political activities during the Constitutional Revolution. When his father was assassinated in July 1910, he inherited his great influence in the capital.
After WWII he emerged as one of the most influential politically involved mullahs. At first, he expresed his support for the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry brought about by Moá¹£adeqh. But in early 1953, he adopted an increasingly hostile stance. He opposed plans for calling a referendum which would vest emergency powers in Mosadegh and threatened to mobilize against him.
In August 1953 displaced Behbahani pulled out the clerical students and the bazzar workers and the street gangs Using Mullah playbook 101 ( Omaha, Omaha).
He was the one who distributed money to the gangs and bazzar merchants on behalf of the plotters, money received from Kermit Roosevelt and known around town as “Behbahani dollars”. We know this from Iranian publications, letters and CIA reports by Roosevelt.
Behbahanî also facilitated the coup by ordering via fatwa his followers into the Tehran streets at the time of its occurrence. Faced with a choice between the continuation of Moá¹£adeqh’s premiership and the return of the shah from his exile, Behbahanî clearly preferred the latter alternative from fear that Moá¹£adeqh’s administration would soon yield to rule by the Tudeh Party.
Almost predictably, Behbahani’s relations with the Pahlevi regime began to sour in 1959. The major issue that turned Behbahani against the government was the planned redistribution of land. Behbahani published an open letter denouncing the limitation of landed holdings as contrary to Islamic law. Thereafter his relations with the government continually declined, to the point that in early 1962 he sent a letter to the shah denouncing the repression of Bebahani’s own call for Tehran demonstrations in support of free elections to overthrow the Shah.
Just so you get a flavor for how life works…post 1979, Behbahani’s two sons now run the import export licensing agency.
So ironically with the lifting of the sanctions….once again America provides “Behabanni Dollars”.
Tomorrow, we will run into the other important right out of central casting Ayatollah at the time of the coup….Ayatollah Kashani.
During WWII, the Tudeh, aided by the Russians grew tremendously and were the unions in just about every industry especially the labor part of the Oil Industry. The degree the mullahs were threatened as a power base on the everyday economic ground and in the halls of power shrunk tremendously during the war. And the consent of the governed freedom to manuever that the feudals enjoyed prior to the war shrunk.
But as we have seen the feudals were extremely tone deaf especially when it came to striking deals with foreigners. Into this mix came four relevant facts anyone trying to understand 1953 should know:
1) The Americans showed up during WWII. And after WWII without any pressure they kept their WWII promises and left as they had promised. This amazed almost all factions in Iran.
2) The Russians did not. The Brits did not.
3) The Shah and many but not all of the 16 post war Prime Ministers up to 1953 went right back to striking deals with the ex colonial powers. Yes I said 16 Prime Ministers from 1943 to 1953.
4)Those who had a nationalist streak in the ME noticed one thing more than any other….The way American companies and the American nation did business at a time no other colonial power ever did…not the Russians, the French, the Spanish, the Italians or the Germans or the Dutch or the Belgians.
Lets look at this when it comes to oil. The Saudi King controlled the rights to drill. And drilling was expensive and costly and guess work. It was risky. And getting to the surface and to markets from place like the Saudi desert was a monumental task to consider. To get away from the Europeans the House of Saud had reached out to meet a legend they heard of…one John D Rockefeller.
They formed a company as partners. This was unheard of to the ME. They bore the costs for exploration so the percent of the oil if found was high for Standard Oil. But lower than any other nations deal from any other power. Notice the company not the US nation made a deal. By terms of the deal the Americans started to train actual Saudis in the industry rather then keep them out of it as if it was a secret. And they kept their word. That was in 1937, the war delayed progress. But by 1950 the extent of Saudi oil was legendary. And you know what the Americans did? When asked the first time they cut a breakthrough deal …a fifty fifty deal to share people, knowledge, expenses and profits. That stood the test of time and was the leading best deal any nation ever got until 1988.
The other ME nations were stunned and mad that any of them would grant any less to any foreigner.
In the early 1950s Iran actually looked up to the Americans. I repeat, we were idealized by most factions of Iran and that grew when Truman pressured the soviets to leave (of course that was about our fears of communist takeover) Iran.
Sentiment for nationalization of Iran's oil industry grew. From all factions of the nation except the royalists and feudals, In November 1950, the committee concerned with oil matters, headed by Mosaddeq, rejected a draft agreement from the Brits which offered the government slightly improved terms. These terms did not include the fifty-fifty profit-sharing provision that the Americans had given the Saudis.
Subsequent negotiations were unsuccessful because the Shah and the feudal families failed to persuade the oil company of the strength of nationalist feeling in the country.
When finally offered fifty-fifty profit-sharing in February 1951, sentiment for nationalization of the oil industry had become too widespread.
The Prime Minister at the time, Razmara, advised against nationalization on technical grounds.
He was assassinated by the Fadayan arm of the mullahs on March 1st 1951. On March 15, the parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry.
In April the Shah yielded to demonstrations in the Tehran streets by the bazzar and street gangs of Bebahanni and Kashani by naming Mosaddeq prime minister. This was important because the Ayaollahs and mullahs expected reciprocation on their issues from Mosedegh.
Instead, Mosadegh got closer to and named more Tudeh to his cabinet and into Parliment because he needed offsets to the feudals and did not like the mullahs or religion in the affairs of state. That move was a big problem to the Dulles brothers and the USA overall.
And it illustrates a huge weakness of Mosadegh. He was more tone deaf than the feudals. He was like Jimmy Carter. Moralistic and rigid. Even if he did not like them on principal...the mullahs had proven to be the force of consequence at turning points and crisis since 1880. And being tone deaf to buying off the “moderate mullahs” ( meaning the more concerned with their vig) via concessions to their economic interests left the fundamentalist wing issues free to find common ground in the ire of the moderate mullahs and Ayatollahs.
The final stages of all around stupid human not listening to the other guy was set in motion. by the time its done we will conclude than no one played smart or long or wise. even the US. Except for one faction....the Mullahs. They never pretended to listen. By this time the majority of mullahs had one objective, short term tactics evolve but to them, the results were obvious...only a return to a mullah led world would work. and in the universities growing new mullahs at Qom and Najaf....that conclusion began to develop a new generation of baby boomer mullahs who would arrive into shoulder against the wheel in ....oh about 1980
There is a guy name Mao who threw out the old world order in 1949 and sent troops into Korea to defeat us.
There is the McCarthy thing wreaking havoc on cabinet and military morale.
Some Shah guy is weak and not in control as his country rots and the brits showing the second tier talent drain post WWI is still haunting progress as there are simply to many Montgomerys. Their withdrawl from colonialism is proving a problem in Eygpt, India, this new thing called Pakistan and all over Africa and the ME and this place called Iran which is a direct southern shot for the Soviets for their long desired warm water port.
Reluctantly, we have to do something to bolster this iran place...way too many more important priorities. I mean I no sooner hear out the CIA on Iran and next on m meeting schedule is an update on problems in Cuba? when will it end?
So if you go look at the record pre mid year 1953, we have a weak Shah and his useless impotent feudal families on one side and a possible ally in the army and also the mullahs who have followers amongst the ordinary people and who also hate the communists. Those are our only allies and this Prime Minister giving the Brits derived fits seems to be a pro communist sympathizer.
So yeah Kermit go talk to the Shah and this Army guy. they have already indicated they are willing to move so we at least have some allies willing to start the change. And take the money you need to pay people who come forward. All these places are so corrupt. Its like when we needed cooperation in Naples and Sicily and had to pay shits like Luciano the pimp to make the right introductions
Kermit goes over there and just concentrates on meeting Zahedi and Shahboy as they requested. Their seconds tell him they hope to do it by decree but just in case have reached out when the time comes if it ever gets to that and a coup or fight against the communists. So we have a few army units and some preachers who will tell the faithful to be pro Army. Yeah the priests over their got newspapers and they slime us and blame us for things they actually do....but that's to escape retribution. They are killing off Tudeh on a weekly basis so what do we care who they use to deflect investigation?
Its reading the pre 1953 CIA material not the post 1953 claiming credit for a role larger than we played that is most convincing as to whom is zooming who before and during the coup.
To me the coup is a final act in a long running play. Mosedegh was a dead man walking since 1951. Only the timing and the pretext remains unknown. Guy is probably lasting this long cause he has the Brits to demonize to the domestic audience.
All the best Kermit...don't do anything rash...just make it easier for them to do what they are going to do anyway. Sooner we help it happen before the Communists and Soviets get stronger from this bumbling the better. I don't want to be on TV at some senate hearing asking "who lost Iran?"
Well someone poked the bear ... and then the bear gave us a treatise in 3 acts on the subject.
It's too damn humid in NYC today to sit inside and read all of this, but I will bookmark for my next flight.
Hope you are well Bill and thanks for laying this all out, a subject I've long been interested in but too overwhelming to bite into. This is an outstanding starting point, as always.
the next time someone says to you that we overthrew Mossedegh and changed the course of ME history for which the Iranians rightfully hate us....remember the following quote:
"Mossadegh was not a Muslim and I said he will be slapped and it was not long after that he was slapped in the 1953 coup. and if he had lasted he would have slapped Islam"
...Ayatollah Khomeni.
"Yesterday, Tehran shook under the feet of anti foreign Muslims. Mossedegh, the bloodthirsty old ghoul, resigned under the blows from the Muslims. All government centers were seized by the Muslims and the Army of Islam"
...Newspaper of the Fedayan the day after Mossdegh resigned.
Sure sounds like a bunch of people mad we took away their beloved Mossedegh. Sure sounds like something we did that really hurt them deeply
Ayatollah Kashani was the son of an Ayatollah that was killed by the British in 1870.
Even though Kashani publicly supported Mosadegh their relations were problematic from the very beginning. As early as November 1951, the British Embassy reported that Kashani was so disgruntled with Mosadegh that he had put out "feelers" in many directions, including the U.S. Embassy. His main thesis is the danger of communism and the need for immediate American aid.
Kashani's opposition came into the open by mid-1953 once Mosadegh sent a referendum to dissolve Parliament, drafted an electoral bill enfranchising women, tended to favor state enterprises over the bazaar, refused to ban alcohol, and declined amnesty to assassins from the Fedayan.
The awarding of government contracts, also played a role. Kashani's two sons had set up a lucrative business buying and selling import licenses for prohibited goods using their father's threats.
By mid-1953, before Kermit got even sent to Iran, Kashani was urging the bazaars to support General Zahedi, the nominal leader of the prospective coup. He also praised the shah for being "young," "kindhearted," and highly "popular." Kashani's closest mullahs support in Parliament denounced Mosadegh as a dictator worse than Hitler and a Socialist more extreme than Stalin.
On the shah's triumphant return the Fedayan newspaper hailed the coup as a "holy uprising," and praised the shah as the world's Muslim hero. Not surprisingly, Navab Safavi, their leader, was promptly released from prison and permitted to go on a world tour.
Notice the only people in this narrative who understand you cant let Vito live are the mullahs?
In retaliation and to gain leverage in the talks, Britain imposed a worldwide embargo on the purchase of Iranian oil and froze Iran's sterling assets and banned export of goods to Iran. But under American pressure, the Brits improved its offer to Iran. But once again it was too little and too late and freedom to maneuver inside Iran was lost. By the time a decent offer arrived, anti-British feeling, agitation by radical mullah elements, over promising by Mosadegh, the storm of even lower level assassinations and intimidations meant that only Iran's maximum demands were acceptable.
The economy began to suffer from the loss of foreign exchange and oil revenues. Meanwhile, Mosadegh's stacking the parliament with Tudah and his intransigence on the oil issue were creating friction between the prime minister and the shah. In the summer of 1952, the shah refused the prime minister's demand for the power to appoint the minister of war (and, by implication, to control the armed forces).
Mosadegh resigned. Hoping for concessions from Mosedagh if he returned to power ….three days of rioting organized by the mullahs followed, and the shah was forced to reappoint Mosadeqh to head the government.
But Ayatollah Kashani and Bebahanni did not get any thanks, concessions or respect from Mosedegh and they turned on him completely and began to take the Tudeh threat to them even more seriously. As domestic conditions deteriorated Mosadeqh grew more inflexible. He demanded full powers in all affairs of government for a six-month period. He also obtained approval for a law to reduce, from six years to two years, the term of the Senate ( sort of like the House of Lords in England) and thus brought about the dissolution of that body.
Mosaddeq's support in the lower house of the Parliament ( traditionally a bastion of mullah allies and mullahs) was dwindling so the prime minister proposed to dissolve Parliament entirely and then claimed a secretly counted massive vote in favor of the proposal, and dissolved the legislative body. By this time the treats of assassination by the Fedayan were so strong that he and his team was a virtual prisoner in his own family compound.
Initially pro Mossedegh, now the United States began to conclude that no reasonable compromise with Mosadegh was possible and that, by working with the Toudeh, Mosadegh was increasing the chances of a communist-inspired takeover. In June 1953, the Eisenhower administration approved a plan to allow Kermit Roosevelt to Iran to coordinate plans with the shah, the mullahs and the Iranian military.
In accord with the plan, on August 13 the shah appointed Zahedi prime minister to replace Mosadegh. Who refused to step down and arrested the emissary from the Shahs office. The shah fled the country, and Zahedi went into hiding.
But that caused the mullahs to go into all out overdrive. After four days of non stop rioting, army units, students and street crowds defeated Mosadeghs Tudeh led street forces. The shah returned to the country. Hundreds of Tudeh Party officers and political activists were arrested and sentenced to death.
So now lets step back and in the next post examine the beyond wrongheaded and simplistic claim that we overthrew a popular Prime Minister against popular will so we could get oil and the canard which follows….our involvement is what caused the 1979 Revolution.
Maybe before we do that we should spend time on the leading Ayatollah of the time…Kashani. That lets view all of the actions of all the major players….and by extension how small a role we played. Like idiots, we gave out some small amount of dollars that they spread to their own street gangs called “Bebahanni Dollars”
Like a clown, the dumb ass americans spent on what was going to happen anyway….and served as the patsy covering the mullahs tracks…in the mullahs own propaganda newspapers.
We did not kill anyone. We sent no weapons. We spoke to the Shah and told him we wanted him to rule? Duh…So did he? We told an Army General who was already appointed Prime Minister but fled before we got there that…we liked him? We met mullahs and asked how can we spend and they told us? Pretty leading edge CIA mojo working on this case.
This is leading a coup? Uh…or is this is us in the way back seats riding the train others loaded, filled, steered and drove? And telling fish tales back home on Capitol Hill to justify more budget?
In the years which followed the mullahs protested and Kashani, Bebhanni and Khomeini were exiled or under house arrest. Mullahs feeding Tudeh to SAVAK was a multi decade sport until they were wiped out. No Don Cicci mistakes….all of them and often their families…one of the biggest losses of life and defeats the Communist movement ever suffered.
Lets wrap up in a few more posts tomorrow. No reason BBI has to be repeating age old propaganda they asked us to swallow as if we fell off the turnip truck yesterday.
It is true that we had American companies in iran and iranian oil during the post Mossadegh Shah era. Gas was 35 cents a gallon and global production easily exceeded demand until the late 1990s. Speculation on price barely affected or added to the price. American oil companies were there at global standard contracts for the time and largely because the Britt were anathema in iran after 1953.
So we did not play a part because of oil. We played a part because of the Soviets and the communists.
We played the tiniest and stupidest of roles and late and comedic in 1953.
Iran had a very short intro into the Industrial Revolution. Times of change challenge all factions in a society.
Iranian and Shia mullahs are not priests or preachers or rabbis. They are one of the alphas of their world. It is often the family business. Many mullahs are quite commercial. Many serve. Some are scholars. Some are mild.
But starting in 1880 there was a steel cage match of one hundred years duration. Feudal lords, nationalists, merchants, poor people, communists, royalists, old shah dynasty, new shah dynasty, military leaders, Germany England and Russia and America all entered the ring.
So did the mullahs. At the end of the 99th year the mullahs won by knockout.
The tactics in a crisis never ever varied. The tactics to instruct in between never varied.
The goal never varied.
So when the students protested the Shah in 1979 the media idiots and most Americans were sympathetic to anyone who told truth to power and assumed like we often do that the result of the process would be a more moderate and open society.
Later the poor people took to the streets.
We never understood it was an old play book and foreigners were always a rallying cry.
Of all the players the mullahs get credit in their land for standing up for Iran free of outsiders. When time does forget and their version of the greatest generation no longer gets credit and their failings become a bigger part of the way they are judged...we shall see...Meanwhile no one in Iran knows a different way.
That's who they are. They are not going to be allies of anyone outside iran. Some will be pan Shia but thats some. it's an impulse of some and not the nation. Meanwhile the nation has huge internal problems. But defending themselves from outsiders? The mullahs did that and while Russia sits north and America spent a decade to the left and right and south....no one dared come into the heartland and if it takes the mullahs 99 years...they will have a bomb to defend themselves.
Unknowing self flagellation that we caused it is beyond making the narrative of the world about us. ..it's made up.
what would typically get from a sports site, thank you.
When you find some time, if you want to do a thing on Yemen, which is another inexplicable area to most of us, I am sure it would be well received.
I, like most of us, fail to understand the whole Iran/Yemen tie in, and the 'who does what' right now there is also really a mystery as to - what, if anything, our (USA) role is or should be.
Thanks Don. Not a place that looks like its going to change anytime soon and not a place we can do much....imho.
savant....don't know much about Yemen...never thought there was much to know.
Reminds me of the Kiowa, Comanche, Pawnees, Apache, and Southern Cheyene all packed in west of the Mississippi and pushed down from the good land where the buffalo roam by the more powerful Sauds...I mean Souix.
Saudis make sure it stays weak....the old Great Game Brit used to play with India, Pakistan, Afghan and Russia. Shia makes sure they don't fade away. its a six top family game and some outlaws in a godforsaken place. imho
the Sioux were numerically superior to the Comanche Â
But I thought none of the other tribes were very successful against them in war, at least from the point when the Comanche developed their peerless horsemanship that far surpassed anything the other Plains tribes were capable of.
basically saying that it is so complex over there, everyone hedging, everyone 'saying A, hedging B and doing C' (or something) implying that even the friggin Saudis may be hedging a tad with their arch enemies the Iranian Mullahs.
However, the thread has me thinking that I had underestimated the Shiite Iranian/Lebanese Mullahs in their endurance and their never ending duplicity.
Of course, as an American, my (naïve?) instinct is that such duplicity is ultimately self defeating, I mean, how lovely can the end resulting culture ever be in such a world?
However, I do feel somewhat sharper on the subject now having read this.
in the history of the western hemisphere before the invention of the revolver and the repeating rifle. They were probably the equal of the Mongols in this regard, though not in any others.
Btw, add me to the list of thank you's for your contribution to this thread. I haven't read it all yet, but I copied and pasted it to a doc on my hard drive and will be referring to it repeatedly in future discussions about Iran.
My two cents is that the sanctions were put in place to get Iran to come to the table. And its nice to see that the strategy worked (as opposed to Russia, where it's not). Since they got a deal, it really can't be all bad, even if falls apart. You can't expect too much when you are dealing with enemies. Likelihood of success or failure will almost certainly be determined by unforeseen events. Isreal is the wildest of wildcards.
let's hope you're right
Great deal.
And no, the alternative is not war. It's keeping the sanctions on. Lifiting them just gives Iran more money to fund its terrorism. I can't see how anyone who supports Israel would be for this deal.
On the bright side, oil prices are dropping. Nice trade off.
That will never be public infomation and its value will never be explicit.
To your journey!"
Sanctions may have brought Iran to the table but maintaining them effectively is more difficult every year. If we can get even some concessions it may be the best we can do.
Supposedly, if Iran cheats, diplomats built in a mechanism to "snapback" financial sanctions. I would like to know more about this "snapback" machanism. I hope it involves magic. Because I don't think diplomacy and finance will be of any help.
Great deal.
And no, the alternative is not war. It's keeping the sanctions on. Lifiting them just gives Iran more money to fund its terrorism. I can't see how anyone who supports Israel would be for this deal.
On the bright side, oil prices are dropping. Nice trade off.
Frankly, sanctions or Iran caving isn't the choice at all. You need international consensus to keep a proper sanctions regime in place, that consensus was fast fraying if not disappearing completely. Unilateral sanctions are useless. You either cut a deal like this or you've cosigned yourself to an active, terribly costly (politically and diplomatically), almost certainly unilateral intervention two or so years from now.
Sanctions may have brought Iran to the table but maintaining them effectively is more difficult every year. If we can get even some concessions it may be the best we can do.
The question at the end will be are the Iranians closer to a weapon with the deal or with continued sanctions? I don't think that is an answerable question. I do think, however, that we bargained eliminating sanctions not because they were ineffective but that we felt sorry for the people being hurt by them. Not that this is an ignoble pov but IMO it should not be the driver of a policy with this type of potential outcome.
I do think it is a near certainty that if Iran does get a weapon, they will use it (if only as a blackmail devise but I would not bet that they wouldn't go further than that). So we have to make plans for that with or without the deal. I do say that even if war is the best way to prevent it, then overall that is a positive thing.
Until then, I will wait and listen to people, pro and con, debate the merits and flaws before Congress. I think that being able to have Congress hold the deal up to scrutiny and public debate is the best thing about this process. How anyone could feel that circumventing Congress, as originally planned, is a good thing.
So that's my feelings...neither accept nor reject without more information. Originally I just planned to post "Well, Chris Mathews or Barack Obama likes it, so it's bad", but I thought it to be too childish a response, so I put more effort into it.
I disagree completely. Sanctions are working great, not because of political consensus, but because as the market stands, private investors are terrified of doing business in Iran for fear of Treasury reprisals.
On the other hand, once you lift the sanctions, you usually can't just "snap them back" as before, since the expectation regime has an incubation period of months or years in order to influence international investors.
Unringing that bell may be easier said than done.
Sanctions may have brought Iran to the table but maintaining them effectively is more difficult every year. If we can get even some concessions it may be the best we can do.
I agree. It's not like the world is just the US and Iran. Russia and China will do what they want, so no deal could just mean an unrestrained Iran getting whatever it needs from Russia. I dont know whether this is an effective treaty, but those criticizing it should be preparred to explain in detail how they would prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Everyone saying "oh, sanctions!" should remember that before this treaty process the hawks were all saying that Iran was on the cusp of having the bomb despite sanction.
If your primary objective is instead general suppression of state-supported terrorism or punishing our enemies then you will not like this deal.
Seems reasonable to me, but the last thing I negotiated was a fantasy baseball trade.
Can he give a quote on foreign policy that doesnt read like he's soiling himself while giving it?
If Congress were acting in our best interest, I would agree with this. But the elections are coming, so many will grandstand to the far left and far right. And many will automatically oppose it because that is how they deal with the current administration.
Sadly, I seriously doubt Congress can agree as to what month this is.
And now they have cash for Hezbollah, Hamas and Bashar Assad, too.
Quote:
Bottom line for me is that Iran is getting the bomb deal or no deal.
And now they have cash for Hezbollah, Hamas and Bashar Assad, too.
As opposed to before. Oh, wait.
Quote:
I think that being able to have Congress hold the deal up to scrutiny and public debate is the best thing about this process.
If Congress were acting in our best interest, I would agree with this. But the elections are coming, so many will grandstand to the far left and far right. And many will automatically oppose it because that is how they deal with the current administration.
Sadly, I seriously doubt Congress can agree as to what month this is.
But at least the public gets to see the details and because of witnesses brought before panels, probably get get reasonably informed perspective from both sides. That has value, IMO. And I wouldn't write off the Congress itself. There was a significant amount of caution expressed by Democrats to make you think that everyone is taking this seriously. Additionally, individual Congressmen are pulled by different groups (Israel and Jewish lobbies, people, businesses, countries with ties to Saudi Arabia, Egypt,etc) that are the most at risk here and that could impact their perspectives and break up party unity in different ways.
The upside of this deal for us, IMO, is that we'll be able to infiltrate Iran deeper than we are able to currently and it will give us some level of oversight over their whole program.
I can't see many more advantages for us because, again, Iran has been in the driver's seat all along.
1. One of the keys is the specifics of the verification process. That's why it's difficult to accurately assess the deal until the details come out.
2. The potential "snap back" of sanctions is a joke. Russia and China will never follow through, and the EU governments will be under a lot of pressure to continue trade.
3. The whole thing appears to be drafted, based on the summary, so that it is not a treaty that has to be ratified by Congress. This means that this deal will happen, as there is no way that Obama will not get 34 Dem Senators
to foil a potential override of his veto of Congressional
disapproval. What I currently can't determine is what powers that gives the next President with respect to the deal, which can be complicated by whatever goes through the UN.
4. The summary I saw didn't lay out the timetable for when Iran gets the $150 billion of escrowed funds, just that it wouldn't all be paid to Iran immediately. That's important.
Quote:
“It will make everything worse, and I live in fear that we have set in motion a decade of chaos.”
Can he give a quote on foreign policy that doesnt read like he's soiling himself while giving it?
A decade of chaos?
Wake up Lindsey! You are already in it!
Quote:
In comment 12370100 Big Al said:
Quote:
Bottom line for me is that Iran is getting the bomb deal or no deal.
And now they have cash for Hezbollah, Hamas and Bashar Assad, too.
As opposed to before. Oh, wait.
As opposed to before where they didn't have that cash windfall to fund Hamas, etc. That IS a significant change. As I said earlier, I'm interested in when those funds are released.
Quote:
is the key. Iran can't be trusted, but they can be verified. They cheat, back come the sanctions
1. One of the keys is the specifics of the verification process. That's why it's difficult to accurately assess the deal until the details come out.
2. The potential "snap back" of sanctions is a joke. Russia and China will never follow through, and the EU governments will be under a lot of pressure to continue trade.
3. The whole thing appears to be drafted, based on the summary, so that it is not a treaty that has to be ratified by Congress. This means that this deal will happen, as there is no way that Obama will not get 34 Dem Senators
to foil a potential override of his veto of Congressional
disapproval. What I currently can't determine is what powers that gives the next President with respect to the deal, which can be complicated by whatever goes through the UN.
4. The summary I saw didn't lay out the timetable for when Iran gets the $150 billion of escrowed funds, just that it wouldn't all be paid to Iran immediately. That's important.
If I was Congress and thought that the deal was bad, then I would definitely sue if I cold. How can it not be a treaty? I think that needs to be decided upon,almost regardless of the topic in question. There are too many end-arounds the Constitution nowadays, it seems, and I think in general we need better clarification.
As to rebel's point above, I tend to agree. This administration does not know how to use its power or negotiate from strength.
The upside of this deal for us, IMO, is that we'll be able to infiltrate Iran deeper than we are able to currently and it will give us some level of oversight over their whole program.
I can't see many more advantages for us because, again, Iran has been in the driver's seat all along.
Thats a pretty one-sided view. And if thats the case, why would they ever consider making a deal with their enemy?...
Quote:
Their sufficiently successful pursuit of nuclear technology despite sanctions brought us to the table. They're the ones negotiating from a position of strength, not us.
The upside of this deal for us, IMO, is that we'll be able to infiltrate Iran deeper than we are able to currently and it will give us some level of oversight over their whole program.
I can't see many more advantages for us because, again, Iran has been in the driver's seat all along.
Thats a pretty one-sided view. And if thats the case, why would they ever consider making a deal with their enemy?...
Answer: To free up $150 billion.
It feels rushed (i.e., legacy item).
Iran's leaders have repeatedly and publicly said "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".
Iran is already using military force to undermine regional security and expand their influence.
Constitutionally, how is this not a "Treaty"?
Quote:
In comment 12370100 Big Al said:
Quote:
Bottom line for me is that Iran is getting the bomb deal or no deal.
And now they have cash for Hezbollah, Hamas and Bashar Assad, too.
As opposed to before. Oh, wait.
Well no, they actually didn't. Their actual outlays were much less than their promises.
It feels rushed (i.e., legacy item).
Iran's leaders have repeatedly and publicly said "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".
Iran is already using military force to undermine regional security and expand their influence.
Constitutionally, how is this not a "Treaty"?
This doesnt feel rushed to me. The Death to America and Death to Israel stuff really gets you? Reagan called Russia the Evil Empire while also negotiating with Gorbachev. I have no idea what you're getting at with your 3rd point, and your 4th point is just irrelevant legalese (in terms of good deal/bad deal).
Do you have any substantive criticisms of the terms of the deal, and in particular an equal critique of the alternatives? Because all I hear about from the peanut gallery is no deal and more sanctions -- without any suggestion that this would work.
Iran is not a friend. It's an enemy who is fighting proxy wars against us now. I don't support making our enemies stronger. Can they circumvent boycotts? Sure. But don't tell me that the #1 economy in the world (and Europe) not trading with them isn't hurting.
They are not going to abide by any deal. They will break it. Your attitude seems to be, "they are going to build nuclear weapons any way, so why bother?" I can't fathom that line of thinking.
When you former Obama Administration officials tell you this is not a good deal, then that should tell you something...right?
Quote:
In comment 12370124 RB^2 said:
Quote:
Their sufficiently successful pursuit of nuclear technology despite sanctions brought us to the table. They're the ones negotiating from a position of strength, not us.
The upside of this deal for us, IMO, is that we'll be able to infiltrate Iran deeper than we are able to currently and it will give us some level of oversight over their whole program.
I can't see many more advantages for us because, again, Iran has been in the driver's seat all along.
Thats a pretty one-sided view. And if thats the case, why would they ever consider making a deal with their enemy?...
Answer: To free up $150 billion.
Not to mention sanctions relief as a whole.
A nation recovering from poverty is a nation with less animosity.
Meanwhile, from the United States perspective, their nuclear production is going to drop by about 75% I believe? I could be wrong, but it's in that neighborhood, I think? How is that not a good thing? Additionally, we're going to have a much clearer view into their operations as a whole.
Bottom line, it's a deal between two countries that have barely spoken for 60 years. The key question is whether or not both sides are serious about this being the beginning of a less hostile relationship. Given the incentives that exist for Iran to comply, I believe the answer to that question is yes.
The sanctions regime is faltering, to be sure. Maybe next time people say "the sanctions were working 13 years ago" they should remember the difficulty in enforcing sanctions when the international community is less than supportive. But some sanctions, poorly implemented, strike me as a better alternative than a shitty deal that glosses over some awful behavior from Iran over the last ten years.
Why couldn't Iran just build a bomb is there's no deal?
A nation recovering from poverty is a nation with less animosity.
Meanwhile, from the United States perspective, their nuclear production is going to drop by about 75% I believe? I could be wrong, but it's in that neighborhood, I think? How is that not a good thing? Additionally, we're going to have a much clearer view into their operations as a whole.
Bottom line, it's a deal between two countries that have barely spoken for 60 years. The key question is whether or not both sides are serious about this being the beginning of a less hostile relationship. Given the incentives that exist for Iran to comply, I believe the answer to that question is yes.
No offense but I think this is dangerously naïve. They're trading a temporary (and difficult to verify) lull in their pursuit of nukes for the resumption of oil sales and the lifting of other sanctions. After a sufficient passage of time they have every incentive to use their additional financial resources to pursue those nukes, knowing full well that sanctions will take time to implement, if they're implemented at all.
Also, keep in mind that Israel came close to launching air attacks against Iran a number of years ago because of this.
A nation recovering from poverty is a nation with less animosity.
Meanwhile, from the United States perspective, their nuclear production is going to drop by about 75% I believe? I could be wrong, but it's in that neighborhood, I think? How is that not a good thing? Additionally, we're going to have a much clearer view into their operations as a whole.
Bottom line, it's a deal between two countries that have barely spoken for 60 years. The key question is whether or not both sides are serious about this being the beginning of a less hostile relationship. Given the incentives that exist for Iran to comply, I believe the answer to that question is yes.
Mike, you assume that Iran is a rational actor. A skeptic doesn't have to go far to assume otherwise... that is to say that they are directed by a religiously inspired supreme leader motivated a regional/global takeover of Shiism.
It is not immediately clear to laypeople that the ayatollah and the Iranian administration react to economic incentives the same way as other states.
The argument seems to be, "if we welcome Iran back into the international community, they will stop it and be nice."
Yeah right.
Eric: Your response to me is unfair and ridiculous. I said the constitutional point was irrelevant "in terms of good deal/bad deal" which is what the thread asks.
Tell me how sanctions are preventing a nuclear Iran? I get how they hurt Iran economically, but specifically tell me how they prevent a nuclear bomb in Iran. They dont. So your alternative continues to be the do nothing about it approach in my book.
And as for Israel, I dont know when the gentiles started giving a fuck about my people's homeland, but I assure you my attitude is not callous. I actually dont know if this is a good deal or a bad deal. Im just not coming in with the preconceived hawk/right wing notion that any deal is bad because the Iranians are bad guys. The Sauids are bad guys too, and they fund terrorists. So what do you want to do about that? Sanctions?
This isnt 1981. There isnt some bombing run we can do to knock out Iran's nuclear program.
Also, keep in mind that Israel came close to launching air attacks against Iran a number of years ago because of this.
Because the deal will make it much harder for them to build a bomb in the short-medium term, while also decreasing their isolation from the international community. Both are good things IMO.
Quote:
By lifting sanctions on Iran, particularly on oil exports, they now have an incentive to entirely cease any exploration of nuclear armory capability. Previously, asking Iran to behave was like asking someone serving life in prison to behave. There was no incentive. Their country just opened itself up to one of, if not the very best opportunity for wealth they have... oil exports.
A nation recovering from poverty is a nation with less animosity.
Meanwhile, from the United States perspective, their nuclear production is going to drop by about 75% I believe? I could be wrong, but it's in that neighborhood, I think? How is that not a good thing? Additionally, we're going to have a much clearer view into their operations as a whole.
Bottom line, it's a deal between two countries that have barely spoken for 60 years. The key question is whether or not both sides are serious about this being the beginning of a less hostile relationship. Given the incentives that exist for Iran to comply, I believe the answer to that question is yes.
No offense but I think this is dangerously naïve. They're trading a temporary (and difficult to verify) lull in their pursuit of nukes for the resumption of oil sales and the lifting of other sanctions. After a sufficient passage of time they have every incentive to use their additional financial resources to pursue those nukes, knowing full well that sanctions will take time to implement, if they're implemented at all.
Dunedin: After a sufficient passage of time they have every incentive to use their additional financial resources to pursue those nukes,
This to me implies that you believe their country isn't entitled to prosper under fair and safe circumstances. Ultimately, if we are ever going to find peace with Iran, we are going to have to give them the opportunity to prosper the same way we do.
It's an element of trust we (unfortunately) do have to extend if there's even the slightest bit of hope for a long period of peace. Maybe it is naive, but I don't think so. I think both nations have created a big opportunity here. It will take Iran 4x longer to make a nuclear bomb now than before, so the additional financing would not be permitted for these practices anyway.
I'm sorry, but this idea that Iran is going to sneak in and use all money from oil sales to build a bomb and nuke Israel is the naive perspective to me.
What do Iranian threats have to do with the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict/ peace-process? IMO, the Iranian-Israeli conflict should be considered independent of what is going on in that process.
In fact, the United States negotiating with Iran over the last two years has done more for Middle East peace than 60 years of direct mediation. So much so that a Saudi prince is publicly planning a trip to Jerusalem.
Quote:
They were going to dispute any deal, no matter how beneficial to the west, with Iran. The majority of European nations back the deal and think it's a good thing. If Israel is ever going to get the peace their people deserve, they're going to need to embrace the concept of their foes having a productive presence in the international community.
What do Iranian threats have to do with the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict/ peace-process? IMO, the Iranian-Israeli conflict should be considered independent of what is going on in that process.
In fact, the United States negotiating with Iran over the last two years has done more for Middle East peace than 60 years of direct mediation. So much so that a Saudi prince is publicly planning a trip to Jerusalem.
Should be? Absolutely. But that's not the reality, otherwise Netanyahu wouldn't be vehemently condemning the deal the way he is.
I think a lot of European nations also wouldn't really mind seeing Israel disappear altogether. The Euros are cowardly, appeasing little bitches. Sure, they'll act tough against Greece and Portugal but put them in a room with Russia or Iran and it's "thank you sir, may I have another".
Great deal.
And no, the alternative is not war. It's keeping the sanctions on. Lifiting them just gives Iran more money to fund its terrorism. I can't see how anyone who supports Israel would be for this deal.
On the bright side, oil prices are dropping. Nice trade off.
Centrifuges are pretty hard to dismantle and hide in 14 days. This deal isn't perfect, few are, but it cuts Iran's uranium enrichment program by nearly 70%. And if Iran tries to stall, the US and its allies only need 5 of 8 votes to reinstate sanctions. I don't know how anyone could expect to get Iran to agree to better terms for the US, but I suspect that many have no interest in a deal with Iran of any kind.
As for Israel's security, the longer it takes Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, the safer Israel is. And let's be real, Iran understand that of they tried anything with Israel, they'd be a parking lot in 30 minutes.
Quote:
I can't imagine anyone who really cares about Israel would be so callous about this. One bomb and Israel is gone.
Eric: Your response to me is unfair and ridiculous. I said the constitutional point was irrelevant "in terms of good deal/bad deal" which is what the thread asks.
Tell me how sanctions are preventing a nuclear Iran? I get how they hurt Iran economically, but specifically tell me how they prevent a nuclear bomb in Iran. They dont. So your alternative continues to be the do nothing about it approach in my book.
And as for Israel, I dont know when the gentiles started giving a fuck about my people's homeland, but I assure you my attitude is not callous. I actually dont know if this is a good deal or a bad deal. Im just not coming in with the preconceived hawk/right wing notion that any deal is bad because the Iranians are bad guys. The Sauids are bad guys too, and they fund terrorists. So what do you want to do about that? Sanctions?
This isnt 1981. There isnt some bombing run we can do to knock out Iran's nuclear program.
Well there probably is a bombing run (or bombing runs), it would just be problematic for umpteen reasons. The Saudis are bad actors, to be sure, but they're at least tactful about their bad behavior. The Iranians do it and brag about it, they organize protests at which folks chant death to the US and Israel, and frankly the Iranian government has the blood of several hundred US servicemembers on its hands over the last ten years.
It feels rushed (i.e., legacy item).
Iran's leaders have repeatedly and publicly said "Death to America" and "Death to Israel".
Iran is already using military force to undermine regional security and expand their influence.
Constitutionally, how is this not a "Treaty"?
It's not a treaty because it's not legally binding. It's considered politically binding. Which is why the republican congress guys who undercut the deal by saying that it will only last until the next republican president are now in the position of saying it's not strict enough.
We toppled a sitting government without a reasonable contingency plan for how we were going to put it back together. How it got to that point is beyond anything that can be addressed here, beyond anything I could intelligently address without a buttload of research, but yes, the end result of a situation that could have been exceedingly destabilizing for Tehran was something else entirely.
Quote:
In comment 12370100 Big Al said:
Quote:
Bottom line for me is that Iran is getting the bomb deal or no deal.
And now they have cash for Hezbollah, Hamas and Bashar Assad, too.
As opposed to before. Oh, wait.
Let's just say they have a heck of a lot more cash now.
Since January 2009.
Quote:
Since when is the Constitution irrelevant
Since January 2009.
I don't think hyperbole is going to do this conversation any favors.
A nation recovering from poverty is a nation with less animosity.
Meanwhile, from the United States perspective, their nuclear production is going to drop by about 75% I believe? I could be wrong, but it's in that neighborhood, I think? How is that not a good thing? Additionally, we're going to have a much clearer view into their operations as a whole.
Bottom line, it's a deal between two countries that have barely spoken for 60 years. The key question is whether or not both sides are serious about this being the beginning of a less hostile relationship. Given the incentives that exist for Iran to comply, I believe the answer to that question is yes.
You are thinking that Iran is rational. They are not. The only reason they want oil money is to fund terrorism and keep their regime in power. The people in charge are rich already. And they are religious nuts. The same people who criticize any American politician that has religious beliefs are ok with these fundamentalist nutters having unlimited funds and nukes. Amazing.
Quote:
I can't imagine anyone who really cares about Israel would be so callous about this. One bomb and Israel is gone.
Eric: Your response to me is unfair and ridiculous. I said the constitutional point was irrelevant "in terms of good deal/bad deal" which is what the thread asks.
Tell me how sanctions are preventing a nuclear Iran? I get how they hurt Iran economically, but specifically tell me how they prevent a nuclear bomb in Iran. They dont. So your alternative continues to be the do nothing about it approach in my book.
And as for Israel, I dont know when the gentiles started giving a fuck about my people's homeland, but I assure you my attitude is not callous. I actually dont know if this is a good deal or a bad deal. Im just not coming in with the preconceived hawk/right wing notion that any deal is bad because the Iranians are bad guys. The Sauids are bad guys too, and they fund terrorists. So what do you want to do about that? Sanctions?
This isnt 1981. There isnt some bombing run we can do to knock out Iran's nuclear program.
I've always been an Israel supporter. Do you think just because someone is not Jewish they can't support Israel? First and foremost, they are the only Democratic state in the ME and have been a staunch ally of the US. There is a symbiotic relationship between Israel and the US. I am old enough to remember the 67 and Yom Kippur wars when Israel alone stood against the Arab countries. It was akin to our Revolution against the British. And then there is the Holocaust aspect. Israel is a haven for those who have been subject to genocide on a large scale. How can you not be for them having a homeland where they will be safe. And I repeat, I don't see how anyone who supports Israel can support this deal.
The nuclear issue and these others should not be linked.
Any change in Iranian attitudes towards Israel is not going to occur under external pressure. At best it is going an evolutionary process if it happens at all driven by the Iranians themselves.
Second, what we deem as Iranian support for terrorism (Hezbollah, Shiite militias in Iraq etc)is Tehran defending what it perceives as vital security interests. You were not going alter that behavior through sanctions. Ok there is the argument that Iran will now have more money to spend on financing more meddling. However, the Iranian leadership also has pressing domestic needs they know they have to fund to ensure their own hold on power. In short the Iranians themselves face difficult guns or butter issues.
Lastly, in the end the agreement is about getting greater transparency over the Iranian nuclear program, which it does. Whether it is sufficient is open for debate.
At the end of the day, both the US and Iran need a fresh start in how we deal with each other. The world is becoming an increasingly more complicated and dangerous place and in some cases we have shared interests. Yes we need to be watchful and prudent in dealing with the Iranians but we also need to find a way to work with them as well. Perhaps this agreement will serve as a foundation.
Quote:
They were going to dispute any deal, no matter how beneficial to the west, with Iran. The majority of European nations back the deal and think it's a good thing. If Israel is ever going to get the peace their people deserve, they're going to need to embrace the concept of their foes having a productive presence in the international community.
What do Iranian threats have to do with the Arab-Israeli-Palestinian conflict/ peace-process? IMO, the Iranian-Israeli conflict should be considered independent of what is going on in that process.
In fact, the United States negotiating with Iran over the last two years has done more for Middle East peace than 60 years of direct mediation. So much so that a Saudi prince is publicly planning a trip to Jerusalem.
ME peace? Are you insane? It's great that the Saudi's are warming up to Israel, but when you understand the reasons behind it, it's not exactly peaceful. And Iran has a heck of a lot to do with the I/P conflict. #1 they support Hamas financially and with arms and supplies. That should have been taken into consideration.
Whe SA and Jordan and UAE get nukes and they align with Israel, do you still think things will be peaceful? And I didn't even get into Syria.
Should be? Absolutely. But that's not the reality, otherwise Netanyahu wouldn't be vehemently condemning the deal the way he is.
Although the New York Times would like to pretend otherwise, it's not just Netanyahu. You can't find a single Israeli political party that endorses this deal. And that's because the Iranian administration, every day, calls for the destruction of Israel, not the PLO. Tehran funds Hezbollah in the North and they fund Hamas in the South and the Sinai.
Peace with the PLO is an indepent variable.
That said, I would have difficulty negotiating with a nation that was responsible for planting IEDs in Iraq, a tactic that was unnecessary to exert their influence.
The guys who are all celebrating this for Obama are just doing because they like Obama. They dont even know what it is.
[url]http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/energy/Commentary%20on%20the%20Nuclear%20Deal%20between%20Iran%20and%20the%20P5%2B1.pdf[/url]
The guys who are all celebrating this for Obama are just doing because they like Obama. They dont even know what it is.
When our troops come into contact with Shia-backed and led Iranian militia?
And again, why financially support someone who is backing regional terrorist groups?
I hope I'm dead wrong about all of this, but it seems like we're enabling greater regional conflict here unless Iran's leaders miraculously change their ways.
In the last year, we've made 'peace' with the Talaban,
Cuba and now Iran.
Cuba was an outpost that was dangerous to our security,
if Russia or China placed troops or weapons.
Coming to accomadation with the Talaban allows us to control
Afganistan which is on the 'Silk Road' that China wants to
reinvent to free them of the danger of the US Navy & the US
Submarine force. Iran is also part of the Silk Road and both
Iran and Afganistan present a danger to Russia's southern
borders and prevents their incursion into the Middle East.
The new Silk Road will allow easy access into European markets for the Chinese. If EU plays their cards wrong,
Greece will play a role in the Chinese expansion
Iran gives us more oil to be dumped on world markets, suppressing the price of oil and weakening Russia.
Iran in the past has been an enemy of the US $dollar along
with Russia, China, Venezuela, Libya and Syria. Libya
has paid the price for resisting the US dollar hegemony
and now so is Syria. Venezuela won't last much longer,
they are on a downward slope which will end with a new
government, more friendly to the $. That leaves China &
Russia who are both accumulating gold which they may use
to back a new world currency.
This new accomadation with Iran is a 'game changer'
The war between US & NATO vs Russia & China is currently
being won by US & NATO. Only danger might be if it degenerates into a shooting war and God forbid, nuclear
war which is unlikely, as long as everyone is in their
right mind. More likely their will be proxy wars like
what's going on in the Ukraine.
Does anyone truly believe that Iran doesn't or couldn't
accquire nuclear weapons. Supposedly, even Saudia Arabia
'owns' nuclears that are currently 'hidden' in Pakistan,
paid the money and got the Bomb.
That said, I would have difficulty negotiating with a nation that was responsible for planting IEDs in Iraq, a tactic that was unnecessary to exert their influence.
It was very necessary to exert their interests. Had the Sunnis been the only ones fighting, ultimately defeated by America et al with some help from a mostly Shia Iraqi military. Iran needed the militias, it needed the sectarian conflict, and it desperately needed instability among Iraqi Shia to prevent Najaf and Karbala from becoming serious rivals to Qom for the spiritual leadership of the region's (and the world's) Shia.
Geopolitical Theories - ( New Window )
Geostrategy in Cental Asia - ( New Window )
Exactly my point. This is a country that has interests they need to protect. This deal helps protect this interests and drastically decreases their nuclear capabilities.
Iran has 78 million people. At one point or another, we are going to need to reach peace with this country. They aren't going anywhere.
The ' - ( New Window )
The argument seems to be, "if we welcome Iran back into the international community, they will stop it and be nice."
Yeah right.
That's the vibe I'm getting to.. in theory, that would be great! The reality is, they are who they've been for decades.. and they are NOT changing. All this does is give them more power and money to move forward with their agenda.
Then:
You interjected the word Palestinian into your first post, but I had never mentioned them specifically at any point. In fact, I wasn't even alluding to them at all. I was discussing Israel's opportunity for peace, in general.
And again, why financially support someone who is backing regional terrorist groups?
You mean like Saudi Arabia? They are at least as bad an actor as Iran is, but the US historically turns a blind eye to their activities.
There are no perfect solutions. Iran is acting against our interests in Iraq and Syria, but in concert with them in places like Yemen (where the Saudis are not). This agreement at the very least delays Iran's development of a nuclear weapon. If talks failed, and sanctions were kept in place, what is to stop Iran from going full speed ahead to develop nuclear capability? The reality is that nuclear capability increases one's bargaining position. Just look at Pakistan and N Korea.
I think you give them too much credit. There are intelligent, rational people who have a leadership role in what happens in Iran. There are also millenarians and loons. In Putin, in Tehran, we have a tendency to assume that outcomes that are positive for them are the result of design. My sense on Ahmadinejad was that they were initially terrified that his rhetoric was going to help bring about a war. When it brought about higher oil prices instead they let him run with it. Sometimes these miscalculations end positively, but if they don't you could see war or even a nuclear exchange. Throw in a Saudi bomb, which everyone understands to be the eventual outcome of a Shia bomb, and the possibility of miscalculation, or that one of the aforementioned millenarians or loons gets his hands on the button, becomes much greater.
Quote:
Just shocked that so many people want to enrich a country that is aggressively expanding it's influence through force throughout the region. Doesn't make sense to me.
But these criticisms don't address the main purpose of the agreement, constraining and getting greater transparency over the Iranian nuclear program. Does the agreement achieve that? You were never going to be able to use sanctions to leverage a change in Iranian behavior across the board.
The argument seems to be, "if we welcome Iran back into the international community, they will stop it and be nice."
Yeah right.
That's the vibe I'm getting to.. in theory, that would be great! The reality is, they are who they've been for decades.. and they are NOT changing. All this does is give them more power and money to move forward with their agenda.
Quote:
Just shocked that so many people want to enrich a country that is aggressively expanding it's influence through force throughout the region. Doesn't make sense to me.
The argument seems to be, "if we welcome Iran back into the international community, they will stop it and be nice."
Yeah right.
That's the vibe I'm getting to.. in theory, that would be great! The reality is, they are who they've been for decades.. and they are NOT changing. All this does is give them more power and money to move forward with their agenda.
But these criticisms don't address the main purpose of the agreement, constraining and getting greater transparency over the Iranian nuclear program. Does the agreement achieve that? You were never going to be able to use sanctions to leverage a change in Iranian behavior across the board.
And they're in negotiation with countries which overthrew their last democratically elected leader and who then publicly armed their invader during a war which they didn't start. It's international politics, every bodies shit stinks. The Western powers don't exactly have clean hands, few countries do.
The teeth are that the sanctions "snap back". The concessions are removal of like 2/3 of the centrifuges, reducing the stockpile of uranium (by 98%) and shipping out spent fuel and other stuff. I don't know if it's "enough" but they are making concessions.
At least now there is a pretense of a halt to manufacturing enriched uranium. This 14 days waiting period for Iran to allow an inspection is unacceptable to me.
14 days is there for what? It doesn't take 14 days to get visas ready for the inspectors. Paperwork can be streamlined. The only reason to have a 14 day waiting period is to allow Iran to alter what is going on at that designated site.
Crazy.
Quote:
I'm not opposed to a deal in principal, but what exactly is it that we supposedly got out of this? Inspections will be merely "requests". There doesn't appear to be any teeth to this at all.
The teeth are that the sanctions "snap back". The concessions are removal of like 2/3 of the centrifuges, reducing the stockpile of uranium (by 98%) and shipping out spent fuel and other stuff. I don't know if it's "enough" but they are making concessions.
But they don't snap back, they have to be reimposed. Which will take time and a consensus that may not exist if and when a violation occurs.
One alternative would be a deal in which the sanctions automatically snapped back into place without going through a "review process" if Iran was found to violate the terms of the deal.
Or being granted unrestricted access to all sites.
Or not allowing them to continue their research into advanced centrifuges (which would reduce their time to bomb).
Sometimes a shit deal is actually worse than no deal at all. Tom Cotton's position, which is simply that Iran is not a trustworthy or even a worthy negotiating partner, is certainly coherent, even if you disagree.
Which of 2 possibilities would Israel prefer? a) hold out indefinitely for a much better treaty while Iran continues its program? b) accept the concessions now and try to get the Iranians to live up to their part of the treaty.
All it takes is 1 nuke lobbed on Israel to start WWIII.
Yeah, it's the carrot. The sanctions "stick" is always there.
Quote:
I see the usual suspects-Tom Cotton wouldn't be pleased if this deal didn't have Iran being wiped off the map-but for those reasonable individuals, what's the other options?
Sometimes a shit deal is actually worse than no deal at all. Tom Cotton's position, which is simply that Iran is not a trustworthy or even a worthy negotiating partner, is certainly coherent, even if you disagree.
Assuming that's true, how are sanctions with no attempts at oversight better?
What percentage, then, did we get of what we wanted?
Quote:
In comment 12370607 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I see the usual suspects-Tom Cotton wouldn't be pleased if this deal didn't have Iran being wiped off the map-but for those reasonable individuals, what's the other options?
Sometimes a shit deal is actually worse than no deal at all. Tom Cotton's position, which is simply that Iran is not a trustworthy or even a worthy negotiating partner, is certainly coherent, even if you disagree.
Assuming that's true, how are sanctions with no attempts at oversight better?
They have limited oversight. They lack access but not intelligence. It's not an ideal situation, but do you want to reward bad behavior from a state with its meathooks in most of the instability in the region? Is that going to make them less adventurous, or more (especially when the financial benefits of sanctions relief manifest themselves)?
dismantling the more modern centrifuges/reducing stockpile by 98% and exporting spent fuel barely crimps? What are your terms?
Quote:
In comment 12370619 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
In comment 12370607 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
I see the usual suspects-Tom Cotton wouldn't be pleased if this deal didn't have Iran being wiped off the map-but for those reasonable individuals, what's the other options?
Sometimes a shit deal is actually worse than no deal at all. Tom Cotton's position, which is simply that Iran is not a trustworthy or even a worthy negotiating partner, is certainly coherent, even if you disagree.
Assuming that's true, how are sanctions with no attempts at oversight better?
They have limited oversight. They lack access but not intelligence. It's not an ideal situation, but do you want to reward bad behavior from a state with its meathooks in most of the instability in the region? Is that going to make them less adventurous, or more (especially when the financial benefits of sanctions relief manifest themselves)?
Hmmm.. We have our meathooks in most of the instability too. :)
Again, I don't know enough about the deal to say whether it's a good one. But, it sure doesn't seem to me that the sanctions have done much to stop them from developing nukes.
The deal includes inspections, which is not the same as taking Iran at it's word at all. I'd say you've stretched "almost entirely" beyond its definition.
The nuclear issue and these others should not be linked.
Any change in Iranian attitudes towards Israel is not going to occur under external pressure. At best it is going an evolutionary process if it happens at all driven by the Iranians themselves.
Second, what we deem as Iranian support for terrorism (Hezbollah, Shiite militias in Iraq etc)is Tehran defending what it perceives as vital security interests. You were not going alter that behavior through sanctions. Ok there is the argument that Iran will now have more money to spend on financing more meddling. However, the Iranian leadership also has pressing domestic needs they know they have to fund to ensure their own hold on power. In short the Iranians themselves face difficult guns or butter issues.
Lastly, in the end the agreement is about getting greater transparency over the Iranian nuclear program, which it does. Whether it is sufficient is open for debate.
At the end of the day, both the US and Iran need a fresh start in how we deal with each other. The world is becoming an increasingly more complicated and dangerous place and in some cases we have shared interests. Yes we need to be watchful and prudent in dealing with the Iranians but we also need to find a way to work with them as well. Perhaps this agreement will serve as a foundation.
Best, most realistic post so far on this thread
Look, you can say that no deal is better than a bad deal. But under no deal Iran gets the bomb. That's a terrible outcome. Maybe under this deal they dont get the bomb. Or some say just negotiate a better deal, as if nobody thought of that. Especially unhelpful are the scenarios that effectively ignore the will of Russia and Europe, as if we had any ability to just dictate to the rest of these countries what they would have done.
It just seems to me that the critics are essentially Waldorf and Statler up in the gallery with nothing to add. Do nothing was not a long term solution.
That's just fucking stupid. Sometimes when you talk too much you ensure that more people die later, and sometimes you're trading someone else's safety for your own. No, not every diplomatic foray is 1938 and not every opponent is Adolf Hitler, but diplomacy is ineffectual without the credible threat of coercion, up to and including military force.
Why not?
For those against negotiating at all I'm curious as to just how you think that's a better alternative in making sure Iran doesn't get a nuclear weapon. Sanctions have run their course. Russia/China and the EU aren't going to honor them any more in the current climate so how are they going to be the least bit effective? You may not be satisfied as to all of the details of inspections, but how is that preferable to not being let in at all? Eric you say you fear this was rushed for a legacy. Seriously? we first reached out to Iran in 2006 during the Bush administration and were re-buffed. Once the sanctions to more out of them they agreed to come to the table during the current administration. This is a deal that is basically 5-6 years in the making. How can you say that's rushed? As for Israeli politics Netanyahu has been ridiculous here. Obama gets blame here too for the breakdown of that relationship. They both have acted like children at times. Netanyahu's pandering to the religious right in his country has been pathetic. Yes even much of his political opposition there is against negotiating and the deal. You know what though they are realists. They knew it was going to happen and rather than getting an Israeli voice at the table, Netanyahu's behavior got them bupkus. as a result he is getting a ton of criticism for that.
Quote:
Do nothing was not a long term solution.
Why not?
Declining a "request" likely has implications and ramifications on the deal. Iran decling a request is probably no different than refusing an IAEA inspection, which inspectors have become very accustomed to
Sanctions aren't even being lifted until they meet certain standards. Inspections of nuke facilities - those are not requested. Requesting inspections of some military facilities. Again, I'm not sure if the deal is a good one or not. But you're not characterizing it accurately.
Quote:
because war and oil and tension and fear can be monetized. There will always be those who feel the best solution to a problem is to wipe it off the map and show them that America is the biggest and the baddest and the best. Those are the people that feel Obama is a fag for talking to these people instead of somehow laying down the law. This is the real world. This isn't a giant game of Risk. If there is ever going to be peace it is going to come from people looking each other in the eye and coming to an agreeable understanding. That takes time and the right people sitting at the table. I don't know that this treaty is perfect, but it's a treaty. It's a step in the right direction and maybe it leads to more talk and more cooperation and maybe an even better treaty. People talking is always better than people dying.
Sounds like a quote from Neville Chamberlain. Spelling of name?
It was only time that we hit our first Chamberlain reference. You win!
76. If Iran’s explanations do not resolve the IAEA’s concerns, the Agency may [b]request[b] access to such locations for the sole reason to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at such locations. The IAEA will provide Iran the reasons for access in writing and will make available relevant
information.
77. Iran may propose to the IAEA alternative means of resolving the IAEA’s concerns that enable the IAEA to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the location in question, which should be given due and prompt consideration.
78. If the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA cannot be verified after the implementation of the alternative arrangements agreed by Iran and the IAEA, or if the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory arrangements to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the specified locations within 14 days of the IAEA’s original request for access, Iran, in consultation with the members of the Joint Commission, would resolve the IAEA’s concerns through necessary means
agreed between Iran and the IAEA. In the absence of an agreement, the members of the Joint Commission, by consensus or by a vote of 5 or more of its 8 members, would advise on the necessary means to resolve the IAEA’s concerns. The process of consultation with, and any action by, the members of the Joint Commission would not exceed 7 days, and Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.
76. If Iran’s explanations do not resolve the IAEA’s concerns, the Agency may request access to such locations for the sole reason to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at such locations. The IAEA will provide Iran the reasons for access in writing and will make available relevant
information.
77. Iran may propose to the IAEA alternative means of resolving the IAEA’s concerns that enable the IAEA to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the location in question, which should be given due and prompt consideration.
78. If the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA cannot be verified after the implementation of the alternative arrangements agreed by Iran and the IAEA, or if the two sides are unable to reach satisfactory arrangements to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear materials and activities or activities inconsistent with the JCPOA at the specified locations within 14 days of the IAEA’s original request for access, Iran, in consultation with the members of the Joint Commission, would resolve the IAEA’s concerns through necessary means
agreed between Iran and the IAEA. In the absence of an agreement, the members of the Joint Commission, by consensus or by a vote of 5 or more of its 8 members, would advise on the necessary means to resolve the IAEA’s concerns. The process of consultation with, and any action by, the members of the Joint Commission would not exceed 7 days, and Iran would implement the necessary means within 3 additional days.
Iran doesn't care if they have to wait 15 years to wipe Israel off the map. They will still want to do it 15 years from now and likely will try. Sanctions would have slowed them down more than this deal.
I still think the notion of snap-back is oversold. It's not automatic, even if everyone was in agreement on the fact of a violation it would still take time to reimplement.
Quote:
In comment 12370637 GiantJake said:
Quote:
because war and oil and tension and fear can be monetized. There will always be those who feel the best solution to a problem is to wipe it off the map and show them that America is the biggest and the baddest and the best. Those are the people that feel Obama is a fag for talking to these people instead of somehow laying down the law. This is the real world. This isn't a giant game of Risk. If there is ever going to be peace it is going to come from people looking each other in the eye and coming to an agreeable understanding. That takes time and the right people sitting at the table. I don't know that this treaty is perfect, but it's a treaty. It's a step in the right direction and maybe it leads to more talk and more cooperation and maybe an even better treaty. People talking is always better than people dying.
Sounds like a quote from Neville Chamberlain. Spelling of name?
It was only time that we hit our first Chamberlain reference. You win!
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
Do nothing was not a long term solution.
Why not?
Because Iran would continue to work on the bomb and would eventually develop it. So it's not like but-for this deal, there was going to be an non-nuclear Iran.
I have no idea if this was a good deal or not. A bad deal is not as good as continuing to work towards a good deal (or the conditions precedent to such a deal, e.g. making things tougher on Iran). I get all that. Frankly, I dont think a single person on this board is qualified to assess the deal. Hell, I think most of Congress is unqualified to assess the deal.
I also dont get the motive for the administration to agree to an obviously bad deal. I dont see what is in it for them (a bad deal is worse for legacy than no deal). And a lot of the criticism is coming from camps that think Obama is the worstest president who evah lived, and who have no idea what it is like to actually negotiate an international security accord and/or deal first hand with Russia, Iran, and Europe. Oh no, the Republicans in Congress and Bibi dont like something Obama did? They must be right!
The biggest surprise is that she actually took a stance!
Quote:
They knew it was going to happen and rather than getting an Israeli voice at the table, Netanyahu's behavior got them bupkus. as a result he is getting a ton of criticism for that.
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
When Israel signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and comes clean about its nuclear weapons program, then maybe it will get a seat at the table.
That is all I am going to say about this.
This doesn't apply to known locations.
14 days for unknown sites is reasonable if our current intelligence and future surveillance is good.
That is all I am going to say about this.
said it is always wise to negotiate.
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
Absolutely that is a possibility. By "seat at the table" I also mean some sort of input into the process. I'm sure Netanyahu in all of his hubris probably would say he didn't want any. well that's his own folly because the deal was happening with or without him.
One of the bottom lines that is clear is that despite some of the views expressed here, the US and its partners were not necessarily negotiating from a position of strength.
deal - ( New Window )
One of the bottom lines that is clear is that despite some of the views expressed here, the US and its partners were not necessarily negotiating from a position of strength. deal - ( New Window )
Thanks Reb. I dont care for Feldman on a personal level (he's a prick -- I know him from my law school and synagogue). But he was also the guy that the last administration sent to Iraq to write their constitution. So he's not just some ivory tower academic who doesnt have a real sense of the forces at play in western Asia.
That is all I am going to say about this.
It's a requirement to mention him in these threads, even in passing. 'Peace in our time' is also acceptable.
Anyone know when the decade of chaos is supposed to commence?
they are one of the few countries in the world with second strike capacity
they have 5 or 6 subs equipped with nuclear missiles
so if Iraq were to lobbed a nuclear bomb at israel , Iran would be wiped off the face of the earth.
So far Mutual Assured Destruction has kept unstable countries like North Korea and Pakistan from launching nukes , Iran may want regional power and prestige from a nuclear arsenal but in the end they would not be dumb enough to actually use the weapons.
that is the Realpolitik.
But no surprise. This was pre-ordained when Kerry, a JFK wannabe and one of the architects of the "Castro really wanted to play for the Yankees and Ho Chi Minh wanted to run the Parker House but we forced them to become revolutionaries" school of international relations, became Secretary of State.
So, here's the question now. Which of the states from the other religious branch of Islam will get the bomb to counter the Iranians?
Quote:
to this deal? If there was no deal, couldn't Iran just build a nuclear weapon since they already are subject to sanctions and have no incentive to hold back?
One alternative is to continue the policy that forced Iran to the table in the first place- sanctions and Israeli saber rattling.
But no surprise. This was pre-ordained when Kerry, a JFK wannabe and one of the architects of the "Castro really wanted to play for the Yankees and Ho Chi Minh wanted to run the Parker House but we forced them to become revolutionaries" school of international relations, became Secretary of State.
So, here's the question now. Which of the states from the other religious branch of Islam will get the bomb to counter the Iranians?
The Pakistanis an they already have it.
Quote:
is a drama queen and a dolt.
That is all I am going to say about this.
It's a requirement to mention him in these threads, even in passing. 'Peace in our time' is also acceptable.
Anyone know when the decaDde of chaos is supposed to commence?
have a field day
Let them? They were already doing it? I dont understand this criticism.
Quote:
In comment 12370739 Don in DC said:
Quote:
is a drama queen and a dolt.
That is all I am going to say about this.
It's a requirement to mention him in these threads, even in passing. 'Peace in our time' is also acceptable.
Anyone know when the decaDde of chaos is supposed to commence?
Doubling down on someone else's poorwaze Qa comment. The thread police deciding that some references cannot be made even when appropriate.
Nope. It's a corollary of Godwin's Law.
is Bomb bomb bomb Iran. Diplomacy is for pussies
Quote:
In comment 12370841 schabadoo said:
Quote:
In comment 12370739 Don in DC said:
Quote:
is a drama queen and a dolt.
That is all I am going to say about this.
It's a requirement to mention him in these threads, even in passing. 'Peace in our time' is also acceptable.
Anyone know when the decaDde of chaos is supposed to commence?
Doubling down on someone else's poorwaze Qa comment. The thread police deciding that some references cannot be made even when appropriate.
Nope. It's a corollary of Godwin's Law.
Link - ( New Window )
And comparing this to Munich is absurd.
enriching uranium and buying arms. They were already doing both things, fairly successfully.
If this can help begin a reset of our relations with Iran, that would be a good thing indeed.
Quote:
In comment 12370668 Stu11 said:
Quote:
They knew it was going to happen and rather than getting an Israeli voice at the table, Netanyahu's behavior got them bupkus. as a result he is getting a ton of criticism for that.
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
When Israel signs the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and comes clean about its nuclear weapons program, then maybe it will get a seat at the table.
Absolutely irrelevant to whether they would have had a seat in these negotiations, but enjoy your fixation.
Quote:
Already making a lot of money on the international market and buying arms from Russia and China? Is that what you're telling me?
enriching uranium and buying arms. They were already doing both things, fairly successfully.
Yes, they were enriching uranium. I meant enrich in the sense of generating wealth, which they currently cannot do. And I'd dispute that they are fairly successful at re-arming - that's the reason they wanted a deal in the first place.
Quote:
I think both you and they should consider the possibility that if Israel had a seat at the table Iran wouldn't have shown up. Impossible to prove but also difficult to refute.
Absolutely that is a possibility. By "seat at the table" I also mean some sort of input into the process. I'm sure Netanyahu in all of his hubris probably would say he didn't want any. well that's his own folly because the deal was happening with or without him.
Stu - It takes two to tango. Bibi certainly has hubris, but this administration treated him poorly from Day 1. IMHO they would have snubbed him, but probably have done it with less enthusiasm which is caused by recent events.
Bibi's speech to Congress might've been the tipping point, but his relationship with this admin had gone south well before then.
Are you suggesting that a President of USA should be kissing Bibi's butt?
Quote:
My my, we can't have that! The horror!
Are you suggesting that a President of USA should be kissing Bibi's butt?
Kissing his butt? No. Showing him the respect of a close ally? Yes.
The idea that he would allow an ally's arch-rival to go nuclear (or at least have a clear path to do so) out of spite is almost too fanciful to entertain outside of talk radio. I don't like his foreign policy and I think he could stand to treat our allies better than he occasionally does our enemies, but I don't buy that.
have been gotten with cooperation rather than grandstanding. Just my opinion
The idea that he would allow an ally's arch-rival to go nuclear (or at least have a clear path to do so) out of spite is almost too fanciful to entertain outside of talk radio. I don't like his foreign policy and I think he could stand to treat our allies better than he occasionally does our enemies, but I don't buy that.
Are you still talking about Israel or did we switch to Saudi Arabia? :=)
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
Quote:
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
For better or worse, his speech also brought a much bigger spotlight to the negotiations and potentially got the Obama admin to hold firmer on some points.
Quote:
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
Bibi's speech to Congress might've been the tipping point, but his relationship with this admin had gone south well before then.
Sort of dovetailing our previous discussion on the rise of antisemitism in Europe and US academia.
Quote:
In comment 12371099 Headhunter said:
Quote:
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
For better or worse, his speech also brought a much bigger spotlight to the negotiations and potentially got the Obama admin to hold firmer on some points.
I'd say that was more Menendez and Schumer. It got Menendez indicted with evidence DOJ had had for 3-4 years.
Quote:
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
Hilarious. Same crap the conservatives have said about every single thing they don't like. This weird fantasy world where Obama is a hardliner on one hand and soft as jelly on another.
Parliamentary system. 75+% of voters cast their ballots for a party that WASNT Bibi's. And he had a very, very hard time forming a coalition government with just a 1 vote margin (meaning any one of the 5 coalition parties and 61 coalition members of Knesset can topple the Israeli government).
But in any event, I think the loser comment was about this Iran deal. I have really mixed feelings on Bibi. If I was in Israel I might vote for him. But his power play against a sitting American president is baffling. And was very, very poorly executed. He has really forgotten that he needs Obama a lot more than Obama needs him. And by public challenge and policies that -- right or dumb -- are making Israel look bad internationally, he's not doing a whole lot to curry the favor of the American president. Now he may not care, but if he was better at his job he would have had private influence on this Iran deal, rather than a ticket to the peanut gallery.
Quote:
In comment 12371069 Greg from LI said:
Quote:
My my, we can't have that! The horror!
Are you suggesting that a President of USA should be kissing Bibi's butt?
Kissing his butt? No. Showing him the respect of a close ally? Yes.
How about Bibi showing some respect? Lecturing Obama in front of the press back in 2010?
Quote:
Already making a lot of money on the international market and buying arms from Russia and China? Is that what you're telling me?
enriching uranium and buying arms. They were already doing both things, fairly successfully.
And now they have money to do more of both.
Which is why they re-elected him days later when he was projected to lose. SMH.
Quote:
In comment 12371099 Headhunter said:
Quote:
what I did say it was a dumb play on Bibi's part that didn't influence the negotiations. He could of not granstanded and discussed his concerns and Israeli concerns that might of come into play, but he kind of shot himself in the foot as far as having a voice behind the scenes. Dumb move, Israel gains 0
From Jan. 20, 2009 on, the attitude shown towards the Israel by the current administration strongly suggests that Bibi never would have had a voice behind the scenes. The wisdom of his speech to Congress can be debated, but he would have been shut out even if he hadn't made it. About the only real result was that the door that would have been closed anyway was slammed shut.
Hilarious. Same crap the conservatives have said about every single thing they don't like. This weird fantasy world where Obama is a hardliner on one hand and soft as jelly on another.
Fantasy? He's hard on domestic enemies and people he thinks he can push around (Israel) and he's soft on Russia, China and Iran. It's blatantly obvious.
I wish I was surprised, but I'm not.
I'm all for good debate and disagreement but damn this shit is like WWI with both sides hunkered down in the trenches trying to avoid the other's artillery over and over and over no matter the topic..
And when?
Hope all's been well with you, sir.
You mean of course, Wasserman, Wax, and Pelosi. I agree with
you, they are crazies.
Quote:
But I put that more on John Boehner and the crazies who run Congress.
You mean of course, Wasserman, Wax, and Pelosi. I agree with
you, they are crazies.
Well, Pelosi opposed it. Waxman is retired. And Debbie was so so on it. I don't get your post, but knowing you, I shouldn't be surprised.
It was a tremendous slap in the face of the administration. You don't invite a foreign leader to come to your country and speak before Congress and piss all over the current president.
Same email address?
Hope all's been well with you, sir.
And, if I'm not mistaken, they still have weapons grade plutonium from then. LBJ keeps on giving.
Quote:
We supplied materials for their first research reactor in '67, no?
Hope all's been well with you, sir.
And, if I'm not mistaken, they still have weapons grade plutonium from then. LBJ keeps on giving.
Huh? We were in bed with Iran until '79 when the Shah was deposed. But totally-LBJ is so to blame. Damn him for not seeing the future!
The manner in which you asked makes me suspect the answer is Israel.
Yup, Obama is Chamberlain. This is Munich all over again.
And this is why your party has lost 5 out of the last 6 popular votes in the presidential election.
Same email address?
Yep. My name at gmail. Would love to hear from you.
Quote:
And what other nation gave significant help on this subject?
The manner in which you asked makes me suspect the answer is Israel.
Wasn't it the Germans who started Bushehr? I know the Russians completed it.
The downside of historical consciousness is the tendency to see phantoms everywhere.
Deal - ( New Window )
Not a big Obama fan and I've been underwhelmed with his foreign policy in general but this deal is the result of reason and realism.
Quote:
And what other nation gave significant help on this subject?
The manner in which you asked makes me suspect the answer is Israel.
Looks like you might have guessed right. Link covers relationship when the Shah was in power. Have no idea how accurate.
Did Israel help start Irans nuclear program - ( New Window )
If you don't think Iran will cheat, and cheat big time on this deal, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you.
In my field we have a saying: bad data is worse than no data. To paraphrase: a bad deal is worse than no deal.
If you don't think Iran will cheat, and cheat big time on this deal, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you.
In my field we have a saying: bad data is worse than no data. To paraphrase: a bad deal is worse than no deal.
you did read the terms of the deal right?
So I ask the question -- what was the alternative for Chamberlain? Go to war in 1938?
Link - ( New Window )
I thought the goal was elimination.
The core of the heavy water reactor in Arak will be removed, and it will be redesigned in such a way that it will not produce significant amounts of plutonium.
I have serious doubts Iran will let this happen. If they do, they probably have another facility that is unknown to the West.
Once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified that Iran has taken steps to shrink its programme, UN, US and EU sanctions will be lifted.
Again, sounds good "on paper"; the devil is in the details.
Good luck ever getting the sanctions reimposed.
I don't dislike 'progressive', you are closed minded
and your 'ego' will never allow you to see the obvious.
Sorry, I replied to you, exchanges with the closed minded
can only get worse, especially when you are an egotistic.
Sorry man, my bad......a 'mind' is a terrible thing not
to have :)
Quote:
In comment 12371136 SanFranNowNCGiantsFan said:
Quote:
But I put that more on John Boehner and the crazies who run Congress.
You mean of course, Wasserman, Wax, and Pelosi. I agree with
you, they are crazies.
Well, Pelosi opposed it. Waxman is retired. And Debbie was so so on it. I don't get your post, but knowing you, I shouldn't be surprised.
It was a tremendous slap in the face of the administration. You don't invite a foreign leader to come to your country and speak before Congress and piss all over the current president.
I don't know where you guys come up with this stuff. You can disagree with the deal without going to such extremes.
Or that he didnt just say no deal and continue the sanctions ... which even Britain said we going to be less severe going forward.
Or that he doesnt just invade Iran. A country 5x the size of Iraq with 2x the population
And btw, if Iran is really run by the religious zealots hell bent on war/nukes, why would anyone believe that economic pressure via sanctions would bring Iran to its knees, especially after they didnt work for years (and leaving aside how much Europe and Russia didnt want them)?
What's the magic solution that Obama missed?
Quote:
Iran will reduce its enrichment capacity by two-thirds. It will stop using its underground facility at Fordow for enriching uranium.
I thought the goal was elimination.
Quote:
Iran’s stockpile of low enriched uranium will be reduced to 300kg, a 96% reduction. It will achieve this reduction either by diluting it or shipping it out of the country.
The core of the heavy water reactor in Arak will be removed, and it will be redesigned in such a way that it will not produce significant amounts of plutonium.
I have serious doubts Iran will let this happen. If they do, they probably have another facility that is unknown to the West.
Quote:
Iran will allow UN inspectors to enter sites, including military sites, when the inspectors have grounds to believe undeclared nuclear activity is being carried out there. It can object but a multinational commission can override any objections by majority vote. After that Iran will have three days to comply. Inspectors will only come from countries with diplomatic relations with Iran, so no Americans.
Once the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has verified that Iran has taken steps to shrink its programme, UN, US and EU sanctions will be lifted.
Again, sounds good "on paper"; the devil is in the details.
Quote:
If there are allegations that Iran has not met its obligations, a joint commission will seek to resolve the dispute for 30 days. If that effort fails it would be referred to the UN security council, which would have to vote to continue sanctions relief. A veto by a permanent member would mean that sanctions are reimposed. The whole process would take 65 days.
Good luck ever getting the sanctions reimposed.
As a signatory of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Iran was always permitted to enrich uranium for peaceful non-military purposes. The proble has always been their Highly Enriched Uranium efforts.
Hopefully there will be extensive hearings and investigations by the Congress. The Administration seemed to be in a "a deal at almost any cost" mode during the negotiations, which worries me greatly.
Frankly, I don't trust that the Administration negotiated with the long term best interests of country in mind and were much more concerned with the short term optics of "getting a deal done". I'm surprised we haven't heard, "We have to sign this treaty to find out what's in it."
It certainly doesn't appear that the Administration were tough negotiators and I'm very concerned about hidden concessions.
The Iranian regime and their people (the "Death To America" crowd) shouldn't be trusted on anything that relies on "good faith", "better cooperation" or "turning them from enemies to friends".
My guess is that the Ayatollahs are celebrating and having a good laugh this evening.
The US & Iran, are going to be allies. The fundementalism
of Iran is going, probably over the next 10 yrs.
In the end, we will give them nukes.
Persia, aka Iran, is an old culture and has been a world
power. We both have something to gain from each other,
things that are now, won't be tomorrow.
Remember the fall of Viet Nam, 1975, who would have thought
that today, we are strategic partners.
The 'propaganda' that is swallowed by the 'public' is not
the truth.
Today the 'Nuclear Club' consists of US, Russia, China,
India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, France, and probably
2 or 3 countries.
Countries who can join the club easily are Germany, Japan,
Iran,Eygpt, South Africa, Canada, Brazil, Australia,
Mexico, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Ukraine, Poland,
etc....Iran got our attention, and once we back down from
the stance we have had since the Shah's fall, we can be
friends. If you are under the impression, that Iran is the
only country using terrorism, look a little closer to
home. The nuclear issue was never what it was about,
it was about the dollar and oil. Those details can be
worked out.
Does anyone remember the Gulf of Tompkin, the 'Domino
Theory', let's wise up, an enemy needs to be 'demonized'
until we become 'friends'. In my lifetime, China has been
the enemy twice and our friend twice.
Stop reading the Times, they are a mouthpiece.
As Bismarck told the young Wilmelm II, we have no friends,
we have no enemies, we are here to preserve our state.
It's like a 'three card monte game', it's so obvious and
yet, it has been played since the beginning of time
because people prefer, the lie!
Roman aphorism: 'People want to be deceived, so deceive
them'. Some lose their lives to keep the game going,
which is very sad.
Quote:
Sustaining the sanctions regime if the U.S. Walked away from the table because there was growing momentum and desire on the part of the Europeans for some kind of a deal. Plus if you walked away from a deal you were never going to get the Russians or the Chinese back on board who would probably accuse the United States of using sanctions to enact regime change in Iran.
The US & Iran, are going to be allies. The fundementalism
of Iran is going, probably over the next 10 yrs.
In the end, we will give them nukes.
Persia, aka Iran, is an old culture and has been a world
power. We both have something to gain from each other,
things that are now, won't be tomorrow.
Remember the fall of Viet Nam, 1975, who would have thought
that today, we are strategic partners.
The 'propaganda' that is swallowed by the 'public' is not
the truth.
Today the 'Nuclear Club' consists of US, Russia, China,
India, Israel, Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, France, and probably
2 or 3 countries.
Countries who can join the club easily are Germany, Japan,
Iran,Eygpt, South Africa, Canada, Brazil, Australia,
Mexico, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Ukraine, Poland,
etc....Iran got our attention, and once we back down from
the stance we have had since the Shah's fall, we can be
friends. If you are under the impression, that Iran is the
only country using terrorism, look a little closer to
home. The nuclear issue was never what it was about,
it was about the dollar and oil. Those details can be
worked out.
Does anyone remember the Gulf of Tompkin, the 'Domino
Theory', let's wise up, an enemy needs to be 'demonized'
until we become 'friends'. In my lifetime, China has been
the enemy twice and our friend twice.
Stop reading the Times, they are a mouthpiece.
As Bismarck told the young Wilmelm II, we have no friends,
we have no enemies, we are here to preserve our state.
It's like a 'three card monte game', it's so obvious and
yet, it has been played since the beginning of time
because people prefer, the lie!
Roman aphorism: 'People want to be deceived, so deceive
them'. Some lose their lives to keep the game going,
which is very sad.
One take way is that they have been on the trail for 60 years. Another is that they are resourceful. Another is that 60 years is not a well funded priority. Another is that their proximity to Russia left them off our list of unable to visibly help for quite some time after Cuba Missile crisis resolution....and then again once we could not be two faced openly helping while working to deals with the Soviets. So we did it through proxies.
Remember Russia is very sensitive to Iran in that the largest Communist Party in the world by a wide margin used to be Iran and four of its regions were the only ones in history that voluntarily asked to join the Soviet Union. Like it or not the mullahs kicked major Soviet ass from 1920 to now.
'Some ideas are so wrong, they can only be accepted
by an intelligent mind'.
This is a very interesting series if you like it,
hit the person who posted it. There are about 9 episodes
and I don't think you'll look at history the same again.
1984 War Is Peace and It's Purpose - ( New Window )
Irans oil industry needs $300B a year of foreign investment to get to average technology for the fields. Recent years have attracted about $11b per year.
Letting them come on stream right now just hurts Russian mob cash flow and smacks Iran badly as China demand implodes with their slow motion wreck.
I would give dollars to donuts that there is a sidebar agreement that has them committed to trading in dollars as the reserve currency and not supporting the losing last hopes of China and Russia to change that.
Imho we are in www3 with China and Russia via monetary policy and cyberspying
So I ask the question -- what was the alternative for Chamberlain? Go to war in 1938? Link - ( New Window )
Deej, I think Chamberlain was reasonable and expected the
same of the Germans. Relying on others reasonability can
be fatal.
He recognized that the Germans had European demands that
were not unreasonable. His error was that Germany would
be placated when their legitimate claims were met and
the injustices of the Versailles Treaty were corrected.
Sometimes, we see circumstance and delude ourself.
The Nazi's were gangsters. They were never going to
be satisfied. Chamberlain realized that by the beginning
of 1939.
I think he has gotten a bad rap. His appearance may have
done him in. He looked like 'thinker' and difinitely
not a 'tough' guy. The intertwining of the German & English
upper classes was a something that the history books
conveniently forgot. Why did Rudolph Hess, parachute into
England. Why was he kept a prisioner until he died, never
telling the complience of the English upper class with
the Nazi. Look up Prescott Bush and John Foster Douglas
Americans who dealt with the Nazi's before WW2, kept the
lines of communications open during the war and assisted
many Nazi's to escape trial after WW2.
Also Check out Prince Bernhardt of Belgium, a prime Bilderburger who was also during the war a member of
the Waffen SS.
Irans oil industry needs $300B a year of foreign investment to get to average technology for the fields. Recent years have attracted about $11b per year.
Letting them come on stream right now just hurts Russian mob cash flow and smacks Iran badly as China demand implodes with their slow motion wreck.
I would give dollars to donuts that there is a sidebar agreement that has them committed to trading in dollars as the reserve currency and not supporting the losing last hopes of China and Russia to change that.
Imho we are in www3 with China and Russia via monetary policy and cyberspying
Bingo, they will trade in dollars.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, those countries who
try to destroy the dollar or create an alternative
are our 'enemies'. China & Russia are the 'last of the
Mohegans'. The problem, we have to be careful not to
back them against the wall. If they unite, which would
definitely be an alliance of convenience as they are not
natural allies....there may be problems. Before 'fighting'
I see a 'Gold War'. If gold increases, it weakens the dollar
and shows it vulnerability.
The strong dollar 'broke' Russia in '89-90, and it looks
like it is going to break Russia again.
China is 'structurally' unsound. The chickens are coming
home to the roost.
I love how, you, the OP, starts the thread as if it were a question when you clearly only wanted to antagonize those that disagree. But carry on.
Under new agreement: Reduces Iran's stockpile of LEU by 98%. Reduces number of centrifuges to 5,060. Inspections of military facilities. International Arms embargo--NOW including Russia and China-- to remain in effect for at least 2 years even if IAEA determines Iran never tried to build a bomb.
Well, if you buy the analogy (which I don't) then France would be Premier Daladier. Pre-war France and it's situation is a subject in and of itself. China was already about 20% occupied by Japan while in the middle of a civil war. Stalin was busy purging his generals. I assume you already know who England and the Eurozone (Germany) are.
Link - ( New Window )
So I ask the question -- what was the alternative for Chamberlain? Go to war in 1938? Link - ( New Window )
Here are the problems I see. First, it's quite true that the UK was not prepared for war. But what the article fails acknowledge is that 1938 Germany, while more prepared than the UK, was not the Germany of September 1939. The panzers were not the panzers of May 1940, and the Czechs had some relatively formidable fixed defenses. There was no guarantee that they would have swept through in a 2 week campaign.
Consider this as well. Hitler had made all his land grabs through bluff and bluster. When his troops crossed over the bridges into the Rhineland in 1936, their commanders had been told that if they saw resistance from the French who were marginally occupying the territory (IIRC no forces there but the right send troops in) they were to turn around and return to the east side of the Rhine. We will never know what calling his bluff in 1938 would have created. One thing I will posit is that if Hitler had invaded he would have been in no position to blitz the rest of Western Europe within a year and the French/British et. al. would have rearmed much quicker.
Finally, by proclaiming "peace in our time" Chamberlain oversold, badly oversold the agreement.
I did not go into it with an open mind. There are things about it I like. But I can't get around the fact that I didn't think it was a good idea in the first place and that despite the entreaties of people here whom I like and respect to separate Iran's nuclear ambitions from its bad behavior in the region I don't think that they should, or can, be separated.
It's not even months. In 15 years Iran will have the ability to produce enriched uranium and then there is no stopping them. And they don't mind waiting 15 years. Israel is completely boxed in now. If they want to do something, they have to do it now.
Quote:
I hear one POV and I'm for it, I hear the opposite POV then I'm against it. Bottom line it's going to take weeks if not months before i make up my mind
I did not go into it with an open mind. There are things about it I like. But I can't get around the fact that I didn't think it was a good idea in the first place and that despite the entreaties of people here whom I like and respect to separate Iran's nuclear ambitions from its bad behavior in the region I don't think that they should, or can, be separated.
The fact that the deal lifts sanctions against Qasem Soleimani, who was responsible for the death of so many US troops in Iraq but is not involved in their nuclear program means they can't be separated. Sanctions are also lifted against other Quds Force and Revolutionary Guard commanders. People say that we may be looking at a new ruling class in 10-15 years, but these people (as opposed to the septuagenarian and older ayatolas and clerics) are in their 50's and younger, some in their 30s. They're not going anywhere in the next 10-15 years.
Reb8VA, your previous post was a really awesome take on this treaty and the situation with Iran. Thanks for posting it.
While reading, a couple questions/thoughts crossed my mind:
1) This might seem naive, but why isn't mutually assured destruction still a viable deterrent for the use of nuclear weapons on an "informal" level. Obviously we cannot hedge our bets to mutually assured destruction on a geopolitical level, but there seems to be a fear of Iran having a nuclear weapon from many people on this board. We have second strike capability, as does Israel - is there a reason that people feel mutually assured destruction doesn't offer some layer of protection against a nuclear Iran?
2) There's been a multitude of articles that I've read and a ton of anecdotal evidence (much of it coming from people I know on a personal level) that there is a deceptively large, growing, liberalized segment of Iran. A strata of their population that aren't just dogmatic religious fanatics, don't hate western culture (even embracing it to an extent), and believing in secular governance. I've also heard a lot of this stems from their youth.
Obviously any country has divisions, but the contention that Iran is just completely filled with religious crazies top to bottom is something I haven't read/heard. Now the amount of power that these subsections of Iranian society hold is something that I have no idea about, and I know Greg from LI alluded that they don't really have much influence. I know a lot of Iranian-Americans, and while I'm sure their view might be skewed somewhat by being American, they have placed emphasis on the fact that a large portion of the country, particularly the youth, are not really religious zealots.
3) Which brings me to my next question... it's clear the sanctions have impacted Iran enough to bring them to the negotiating table. However, would it be safe to assume that the impetus for their willingness to negotiate, or maybe more appropriately the source of their economic pain imposed by the sanctions is more about economic issues for their populace as opposed to an inability to fund other terrorist groups? And if this is the case, would opening up trade and allowing funds to flow into Iran benefit the aforementioned [comparatively] liberalized groups in Iran in a way that could benefit us by liberalizing their internal politics a bit? Or would it swing in the other direction - effectively strengthening the hard line stances of the theocracy in power by making the population of Iran more content?
(Is Iran even really a true theocracy?)
4) I think many people ignore the fact that this distrust is mutual. While we may not have much of a reason to trust the Iranians, they have absolutely zero reason to trust the US. We overthrew their democratically elected leader. If that happened here 35 years ago, there wouldn't be many people who would be willing to negotiate with the country that organized the coup. Yes, they have made "Death to America" statements - but we have called this country an axis of evil as well.
I have news for people - Iran is a country of close to 80 million people and those people (the Persians) have been a major factor in the region for over 2000 years and will continue to be indefinitely. We have to be able to talk to them.
And mutually assured destruction does and doesn't apply here. It would likely have the impact of preventing a willful state action to nuke Israel. It would not, however, have a significant deterrent effect regarding any other serious geopolitical dispute Iran might have, such as ongoing feuds with the Sunni states of the region. Natural restraint might, but not the certainty that the United States or Pakistan would retaliate for a warhead launched at a non-nuclear state. But the bigger issue is that Iran has proven bellicose even without a nuclear deterrent, there is no reason to suggest that they would be less so with them, when the fear of any sort of regime change or other existential threat to Tehran is essentially off the table.
There are those who believe that Iran (at least some of the mullahs) don't care about mutually assured destruction. They have no problem with suicide bombing, this would be that on a much larger scale.
That is a brilliant observation.
At best it delayed a nuclear Iran down the road a bit.
At worse it made the region less stable and will cause the Saudis etal to follow suit.
I don't think it was an "historic" agreement. Sanctions were were being eased by others. It's an arms agreement. Those of us a little long in the tooth were use having them occur on a regular basis.
What technology and spare parts Iran can obtain will be telling. Something Bill2 could opine on.
Quote:
of anyone who believes in diplomacy, yet they totally ignore the hawkish mistakes of Versailles after WWI which helped hatch a climate ripe for someone like Hitler to hatch in the first place.
That is a brilliant observation.
Brilliant? One was a peace treaty imposed on a defeated adversary and is still pitifully misunderstood and referenced at least as often as Munich. The other was an act of appeasement in advance of a likely war. The relationship between the two is tenuous at best.
That's the rub of it to me. There are a lot of people who are comparing this ACTUAL deal to some fantasy world where we can dictate terms to Iran, or where the sanctions regime was not teetering as it is. So you get a lot of people saying "no deal is better than a bad deal" as if that is a truism. In part:
If you believe American power is limited, this agenda is absurd. America needs Russian and Chinese support for an Iranian nuclear deal. U.S. officials can’t simultaneously put maximum pressure on both Assad and ISIS, the two main rivals for power in Syria today. They must decide who is the lesser evil. Accepting that American power is limited means prioritizing. It means making concessions to regimes and organizations you don’t like in order to put more pressure on the ones you fear most. That’s what Franklin Roosevelt did when allying with Stalin against Hitler. It’s what Richard Nixon did when he reached out to communist China in order to increase America’s leverage over the U.S.S.R.
And it’s what George W. Bush refused to do after 9/11, when he defined the “war on terror” not merely as a conflict against al-Qaeda but as a license to wage war, or cold war, against every anti-American regime supposedly pursuing weapons of mass destruction. This massive overestimation of American power underlay the war in Iraq...
Along these lines, and interesting (if a bit too political) take from Beinart at the Atlantic.
Link - ( New Window )
So, yes, I think this is a rather apt comparison. Certainly much more apt than comparing Obama and Kerry's role in a 6-way negotiation to Chamberlain's summit with Hitler in Munich.
If we adopted a more difficult stance, we would have been left standing alone. The sanctions would have likely come down from the rest of the major powers, and our leverage would have evaporated.
This is what you and others are complaining about, and this is why you are wrong. We are not omnipotnent, and this wasn't a bi-polar negotiation. It was multipolar, and if Iran had succeeded in isolating us in these negotiations, the result would have been much, much worse for us and for Israel than the result that was obtained.
Now, you'll go and rationalize something to say in response, because you don't like Obama and always find something to kvetch about, but you really can't rebut this point, because it is reality.
There are those who believe that Iran (at least some of the mullahs) don't care about mutually assured destruction. They have no problem with suicide bombing, this would be that on a much larger scale.
out of curiosity, what course of action would have liked Obama to encourage?
So, yes, I think this is a rather apt comparison. Certainly much more apt than comparing Obama and Kerry's role in a 6-way negotiation to Chamberlain's summit with Hitler in Munich.
It didn't guarantee shit, that's a myth that started with dovish French and especially British commentators in the 1920's. Munich is a shitty analogy, Versailles a much shittier one. We are not treating a vanquished enemy, we are treating an enemy that surveys a regional scene it has done much to leave in disarray and sees itself in a position of geopolitical strength.
If we adopted a more difficult stance, we would have been left standing alone. The sanctions would have likely come down from the rest of the major powers, and our leverage would have evaporated.
This is what you and others are complaining about, and this is why you are wrong. We are not omnipotnent, and this wasn't a bi-polar negotiation. It was multipolar, and if Iran had succeeded in isolating us in these negotiations, the result would have been much, much worse for us and for Israel than the result that was obtained.
Now, you'll go and rationalize something to say in response, because you don't like Obama and always find something to kvetch about, but you really can't rebut this point, because it is reality.
You are predictable in the ends to which you will go to support anything the Administration does. This might be the right move, it might not, but trying to pretend that this was the only move we could have made is a stretch. It is at least debatable whether rewarding bad behavior is a smarter move in the medium and long term than leaving the sanctions regime in place knowing that our partners were going to erode theirs. There are second and third order effects from this decision (known unknowns) that we will be dealing with for the next decade plus, regardless of whether or not Iran succeeds in going nuclear. For instance, what are Saudi and Turkey going to do about ISIS now?
First, I think Dune's 10:43 is an excellent partial response.
Second, beyond the details of the nuclear aspects which are continuing to be rolled out, there are the non-nuclear aspects which have me questioning the deal. Why was it necessary to take Qasem Soleimari off the sanctions list when he was in no way connected to Iran's nuclear program? And if this was an insistence by the Iranian's why didn't the 4 US, for lack of a better phrase, "political prisoners" currently being held in Iran (including the CNN reporter) become a quid pro quo? It almost seems like they had a laundry list of unrelated (to the nuclear program) demands they got through and we got nothing
What I still haven't seen is an exact timetable for the release of the $150 billion in frozen Iranian funds, so
I will have to wait to comment on that.
And as far as Beinart and Congress goes, please. Anyone who thinks that there won't be 34 Senators to prevent an override of Obama's veto is delusional. This agreement will go into effect.
And mutually assured destruction does and doesn't apply here. It would likely have the impact of preventing a willful state action to nuke Israel. It would not, however, have a significant deterrent effect regarding any other serious geopolitical dispute Iran might have, such as ongoing feuds with the Sunni states of the region. Natural restraint might, but not the certainty that the United States or Pakistan would retaliate for a warhead launched at a non-nuclear state. But the bigger issue is that Iran has proven bellicose even without a nuclear deterrent, there is no reason to suggest that they would be less so with them, when the fear of any sort of regime change or other existential threat to Tehran is essentially off the table.
I'm trying to separate the actual physical risks and concerns with the geopolitical risks and concerns (as they relate to Americans).
Quote:
disputes that there are non-crazy elements in Iran, we simply dispute that they have a meaningful role in government.
And mutually assured destruction does and doesn't apply here. It would likely have the impact of preventing a willful state action to nuke Israel. It would not, however, have a significant deterrent effect regarding any other serious geopolitical dispute Iran might have, such as ongoing feuds with the Sunni states of the region. Natural restraint might, but not the certainty that the United States or Pakistan would retaliate for a warhead launched at a non-nuclear state. But the bigger issue is that Iran has proven bellicose even without a nuclear deterrent, there is no reason to suggest that they would be less so with them, when the fear of any sort of regime change or other existential threat to Tehran is essentially off the table.
This makes sense. Sounds like the bomb itself gives massive leverage that we don't want Iran to have.
I'm trying to separate the actual physical risks and concerns with the geopolitical risks and concerns (as they relate to Americans).
Certainly. And some of this is hyperbole, some of this is overblown, but some of these are issues that any reasonable analysis, whether it starts from a critical posture or a supportive one, has to contend with. First, what impact will this have on Iran's non-nuclear foreign policy? Second, what impact will this have on the Sunni states in the region and both their foreign policy and their nuclear ambitions?
If you were Mexico and focused solely on what you described as a leading Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump, you could scare yourself into a froth about America.
2) ME nations do not have safety valves for nuts nor medicine nor remotely the coherence to internally enforce what they agree to.
3) It is very common for the USA to focus on the potential "threats" posed by an enemy. But we ignore the daily focus on problems of the majority of the state leaders and managers. We emphasize someone elses right bicep but ignore core sinew and real ability to project power. Iran does not have enough trucks to invade anyone. Or fuel distribution. or steady electrical production. Iran exports less non oil products in a year than Finland exports lace. We emphasize the bomb and ignore the inability to target or maintain or fire it on time. SO for example, at the height of the Cold War our own estimates of the Soviet rocketry indicated that they could launch all their missiles and only 20% would land here and within an average of +/- 100 miles. Meanwhile we could land 97% within one quarter mile of the target. In 1979. But they at the time had more tanks. But they had 1/10 the spare parts ( tanks run through spare parts at a very high rate) and had only 20% of the tanks with experienced trained tank crews and had about 60% of their army classified with drug or alcohol abuses and an daily absentism and dissertion rate in excess of 25% ( ours was less than 1%). We focused on their bombs. They focused on getting the army fed.
So it is also useful to not fear the mighty Iran. They are not a monolith or a well functioning nation.
You do know that:
They have to export their oil to other nations to refine and then buy it back?
You do know their oil production technology requires $300B in foreign capital investment per year and they average $6B to 11B per year?
You do know that they have one of the worst internal tax collection rates on the planet? Their smuggling and black market and lack of computers and lack of tax collectors and lack of honesty all adds up to over 25% of their GDP is lost to tax evasion?
You do know they have major smuggling crime syndicates importing the poppy and distributing to Europe and Russia? in fact they are the number one trafficker in opium. You know that is true despite the fact that they are also the number one nation in annual tons seized? And the number one nation in state seized and then lost from "storage"?
And a huge amount of their oil is smuggled outwards right from the fields eluding their Oil Ministry and revenues to the nation?
You know they are one of the worlds major traffickers of women and female children?
You know they are neck and neck with Russia for the worlds largest nations with the most corrupt local police, governance and justice?
You know that alcohol is banned in Iran? Did you know it smuggles $2.5M worth of alcohol per day into the nation and millions more is internally brewed?
Did you know its aquifers are draining 1.5 Feet per year for the last 15 years? That a huge percent of its land is actually sinking? That the water level has gone down 50 feet in the last 50 years?
Did you know that as a result only 12% of the land farmed in 1971 is farmed now? They import their food!!
Just how powerful are you over the long haul if you have to import your food?
Did you know that projected access to food per each person is an index called the "food security index". Did you now Irans is 12%. ( we have 100% and the highest rating by the way).
Did you know that the USA has 810 vehicles per 1000 people? Did you know that Iran has 200 per 1000 people?
I dunno....mullahs and Guards got problems.
Maybe they export their nuts like lots of countries who don't use Valium instead?
So...yeah...we need to pay attention to them and they are a nuisance and could cause temporary but not nation threatening problems.
But can we calibrate some folks sense that they are a bigger threat to us than 1941 Japan and Germany on steroids rolled into one?
They got 25 years of cards way worse then ours
Too late, George Bush beat him to it.
They import electricity at times.
They have frequent brownouts even in Tehran.
They are not in shape to invade Kansas anytime soon
That's a fair point, but neither strength nor weakness exists in a vacuum. Overplaying a strong hand is a form of weakness, one that led to the madness in Iraq, IMO. The fact of the matter is, like it or not, Iran is our ally in Iraq and Syria. While we each have different motivations, we both want the destruction of ISIS.
That is why I have a hard time with objections to this deal. No player in the ME is a perfect player, far from it. Our allies in one area are our adversaries in another. I hate to keep bringing Saudi Arabia into the conversation, but they are the largest state sponsors to ISIS, al qaeda, and the Taliban - the 3 groups we've most recently been at war with.
Iran, too, has played a enormous part in the instability in the region, in particular with Israel's sworn enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah, but I agree with Reb that they are not as irrational as some players in the ME that we play footsy with (namely Pakistan).
They import electricity at times.
They have frequent brownouts even in Tehran.
They are not in shape to invade Kansas anytime soon
This and your previous post are excellent, pertinent points, but do you believe that the mullahs will put the bulk of this beneficence to use revamping the power grid or are they more likely to put it to use making good their financing pledges to Hezbollah and Hamas and fighting a proxy war in Yemen?
Quote:
is not absurd. Saying you need to send in the tanks everywhere is absurd. Weakness is self-perpetuating, as is strength.
That's a fair point, but neither strength nor weakness exists in a vacuum. Overplaying a strong hand is a form of weakness, one that led to the madness in Iraq, IMO. The fact of the matter is, like it or not, Iran is our ally in Iraq and Syria. While we each have different motivations, we both want the destruction of ISIS.
That is why I have a hard time with objections to this deal. No player in the ME is a perfect player, far from it. Our allies in one area are our adversaries in another. I hate to keep bringing Saudi Arabia into the conversation, but they are the largest state sponsors to ISIS, al qaeda, and the Taliban - the 3 groups we've most recently been at war with.
Iran, too, has played a enormous part in the instability in the region, in particular with Israel's sworn enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah, but I agree with Reb that they are not as irrational as some players in the ME that we play footsy with (namely Pakistan).
But while we do want their help against ISIS, the mere fact that they are helping us against ISIS makes it more likely that Turkey and Saudi will support (not directly of course) ISIS and comparable entities against an Iranian-led opposition?
Quote:
but what should Neville Chamberlain have done? I'm not a pre-WWII expert (but I'm about to be forever tarred as a Chamberlain apologist). But this Slate article says that historians have forgiven him because he basically had no option. NC was advised that Britain was powerless to fight a German invasion of Czechoslovakia is Sept. 1938. The Axis already supported eachother whereas the Brits had potentially a dangerous Soviet Union, a shaky France, and no USA (legally neutral). Wouldnt necessarily have the support of the Canadians and Aussies. And a population that was weary as hell from WWI. Plus the knew Hitler was bad, but I dont think anyone in Sept. 1938 anticipated that he would be modern history's greatest monster. Or so the article outlines.
So I ask the question -- what was the alternative for Chamberlain? Go to war in 1938? Link - ( New Window )
Here are the problems I see. First, it's quite true that the UK was not prepared for war. But what the article fails acknowledge is that 1938 Germany, while more prepared than the UK, was not the Germany of September 1939. The panzers were not the panzers of May 1940, and the Czechs had some relatively formidable fixed defenses. There was no guarantee that they would have swept through in a 2 week campaign.
Consider this as well. Hitler had made all his land grabs through bluff and bluster. When his troops crossed over the bridges into the Rhineland in 1936, their commanders had been told that if they saw resistance from the French who were marginally occupying the territory (IIRC no forces there but the right send troops in) they were to turn around and return to the east side of the Rhine. We will never know what calling his bluff in 1938 would have created. One thing I will posit is that if Hitler had invaded he would have been in no position to blitz the rest of Western Europe within a year and the French/British et. al. would have rearmed much quicker.
Finally, by proclaiming "peace in our time" Chamberlain oversold, badly oversold the agreement.
Good point, Chamberlain, 'oversold' the agreement.
WW1 destroyed the 'flower of European youth', it was a
slaughterhouse. Chamberlain's attempt to avoid that
was the attempt of a 'human being' to try to avoid the
unthinkable.
Hitler and the Nazi's were 'True Believers'.
Chamberlain made the mistake of presuming they were humans
rather than a 'death cult' who would never live in peace
and there was no placating them.
I think of I Claudius when Caligula advises Tiberius
about the danger of Sejanus, 'If you want to get rid of
a dog, let another take care of it'.
'Sometimes, you need very bad people to get rid of
bad people'. Chamberlain was a reasonable rational human
who didn't assess the Nazi's correctly. Churchill did!
The British were carried into WW1 with little prime
motives. They shouldn't have been there. But, they feared
the Germans controlling Europe. Their response was geopolitical.
As far as what should have been done pre-WW2, hindsight
is 20/20. Like US has been fearful of a nuclear war and
rightful so, England like most her allies couldn't or
wouldn't believe that any country would be so barbaric
to return to the 'meatgrinder' of WW1.
Problem with history is 'zeitguest' there is a 'feeling'
that doesn't transcend generations. As they say, 'you
had to be there'. :)
There is only one problem with Iran and that's Moslem
fundementalism which I think may have hit it's high water
mark. Continuing in a 'state of war' only feeds into their
paranoia and makes US the demon who must be resisted.
The Shah left a bad taste in many of the Iranians and
the fact that we supported him, brought us in conflict
with Iran.
If stop fighting them, I think the craziness of the
fundementalist will recede without effort on our part.
They offer the Iranians very little. They make life in
Iran terrible.
Here are the problems I see. First, it's quite true that the UK was not prepared for war. But what the article fails acknowledge is that 1938 Germany, while more prepared than the UK, was not the Germany of September 1939. The panzers were not the panzers of May 1940, and the Czechs had some relatively formidable fixed defenses. There was no guarantee that they would have swept through in a 2 week campaign.
Consider this as well. Hitler had made all his land grabs through bluff and bluster. When his troops crossed over the bridges into the Rhineland in 1936, their commanders had been told that if they saw resistance from the French who were marginally occupying the territory (IIRC no forces there but the right send troops in) they were to turn around and return to the east side of the Rhine. We will never know what calling his bluff in 1938 would have created. One thing I will posit is that if Hitler had invaded he would have been in no position to blitz the rest of Western Europe within a year and the French/British et. al. would have rearmed much quicker.
Finally, by proclaiming "peace in our time" Chamberlain oversold, badly oversold the agreement.
No doubt that Chamberlain oversold the treaty, but the rest of your statement has the benefit of hindsight, a benefit Chamberlain did not have. He very likely did not know that the Panzers were not quite ready for prime time, and he almost certainly didn't know that Nazi command had been instructed to retreat at the first sign of resistance.
I look at how war weary this country was after Vietnam, even decades later, and yet people question the moves of nations most impacted by the devastating losses of WWI less than 20 years later.
From what I can tell, everyone in their mother knew we had a shitty hand and that hand would only get worse in the future. Russia hates us. China isnt particularly inclined to let us dictate any order in the world. Europe didnt even like these sanctions and was publicly telling everyone that the sanctions would be eased even without a deal. Notwithstanding sanctions, people believed that the Iranians were making progress towards the bomb (indeed, the opponents of the deal were the most convinced of great progress). And Iran saw that the US didnt have such an easy time in Iraq and Afghanistan, are is still committed to some degree in those countries, and there's not good solution in Syria.
So what precisely was the USA supposed to do to convince a rationally acting Iran that we were in a position of power? What's the better play the Kerry and Obama missed, as you can see it? If it was "do nothing" then at least fairly acknowledge the problems with that strategy. I think Beinart's omnipotence thesis has a lot of validity.
If you were Mexico and focused solely on what you described as a leading Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump, you could scare yourself into a froth about America.
2) ME nations do not have safety valves for nuts nor medicine nor remotely the coherence to internally enforce what they agree to.
3) It is very common for the USA to focus on the potential "threats" posed by an enemy. But we ignore the daily focus on problems of the majority of the state leaders and managers. We emphasize someone elses right bicep but ignore core sinew and real ability to project power. Iran does not have enough trucks to invade anyone. Or fuel distribution. or steady electrical production. Iran exports less non oil products in a year than Finland exports lace. We emphasize the bomb and ignore the inability to target or maintain or fire it on time. SO for example, at the height of the Cold War our own estimates of the Soviet rocketry indicated that they could launch all their missiles and only 20% would land here and within an average of +/- 100 miles. Meanwhile we could land 97% within one quarter mile of the target. In 1979. But they at the time had more tanks. But they had 1/10 the spare parts ( tanks run through spare parts at a very high rate) and had only 20% of the tanks with experienced trained tank crews and had about 60% of their army classified with drug or alcohol abuses and an daily absentism and dissertion rate in excess of 25% ( ours was less than 1%). We focused on their bombs. They focused on getting the army fed.
So it is also useful to not fear the mighty Iran. They are not a monolith or a well functioning nation.
You do know that:
They have to export their oil to other nations to refine and then buy it back?
You do know their oil production technology requires $300B in foreign capital investment per year and they average $6B to 11B per year?
You do know that they have one of the worst internal tax collection rates on the planet? Their smuggling and black market and lack of computers and lack of tax collectors and lack of honesty all adds up to over 25% of their GDP is lost to tax evasion?
You do know they have major smuggling crime syndicates importing the poppy and distributing to Europe and Russia? in fact they are the number one trafficker in opium. You know that is true despite the fact that they are also the number one nation in annual tons seized? And the number one nation in state seized and then lost from "storage"?
And a huge amount of their oil is smuggled outwards right from the fields eluding their Oil Ministry and revenues to the nation?
You know they are one of the worlds major traffickers of women and female children?
You know they are neck and neck with Russia for the worlds largest nations with the most corrupt local police, governance and justice?
You know that alcohol is banned in Iran? Did you know it smuggles $2.5M worth of alcohol per day into the nation and millions more is internally brewed?
Did you know its aquifers are draining 1.5 Feet per year for the last 15 years? That a huge percent of its land is actually sinking? That the water level has gone down 50 feet in the last 50 years?
Did you know that as a result only 12% of the land farmed in 1971 is farmed now? They import their food!!
Just how powerful are you over the long haul if you have to import your food?
Did you know that projected access to food per each person is an index called the "food security index". Did you now Irans is 12%. ( we have 100% and the highest rating by the way).
Did you know that the USA has 810 vehicles per 1000 people? Did you know that Iran has 200 per 1000 people?
I dunno....mullahs and Guards got problems.
Maybe they export their nuts like lots of countries who don't use Valium instead?
So...yeah...we need to pay attention to them and they are a nuisance and could cause temporary but not nation threatening problems.
But can we calibrate some folks sense that they are a bigger threat to us than 1941 Japan and Germany on steroids rolled into one?
They got 25 years of cards way worse then ours
Bill2, this is a very sound post.
Good work, man~:)
The pious give to the thousands of local mullahs...so they get rent.
the Guards get rent
the guards and the mullahs split the oil rent
the communists, trade unionists, royalists and nationalists were fought off and eliminated by the mullahs for they tried to get rent from the same neighborhoods.
In 1920 they were all locked in a steel cage match. The mullahs changed sides and fought in different ways but never lost focus on what this generation of Ayatollahs lost their fathers over. Their rent versus the state.
And I don't buy off for one minute that we overthrew any democratic leader. the mullahs did and they did so ruthlessly and they insisted on the post overthrow propaganda. They they wiped out Tudeh by feeding them to Savak. Then they got Pahlevi.
Reading the history of the mullahs 1890 to 1920 changes a lot of perspective on the mullahs. they are not priests. expect in Qum. They are Guards of their day...control of the local neighborhood economy was the family business. The Black Hand went to church as well. Donated heavily. Black Hands are a natural selection in nations beyond national mechanisms for control
the rest are words. imho
He might have had better options before Munich, but it seems to me that maybe there wasnt anything else that could have been accomplished there.
The nation does not hate us.
China does not hate us. Their elite are trying to keep domestic control anyway they can. If they think they could do that without being externally aggressive they would.
both impulses may be more alive then we wish to acknowledge right here right now.
Quote:
is not absurd. Saying you need to send in the tanks everywhere is absurd. Weakness is self-perpetuating, as is strength. If every expansionist or terrorist (or separatist) power went on the march at once, even a strong hegemon would not be able to hit them all. But if each in its rational calculation believes there is a probability of active opposition and serious consequences, it is more likely that each would decline to do act. If, however, a hegemon (regional or global) is perceived to be weak, the leaders of expansionist powers or terrorist or separatist movements may rationally decide that the hegemon is unlikely to act against them, certainly not if more than one such event is already in progress. This is why revolutions tend to happen in waves (1848, the 1860's, etc etc).
From what I can tell, everyone in their mother knew we had a shitty hand and that hand would only get worse in the future. Russia hates us. China isnt particularly inclined to let us dictate any order in the world. Europe didnt even like these sanctions and was publicly telling everyone that the sanctions would be eased even without a deal. Notwithstanding sanctions, people believed that the Iranians were making progress towards the bomb (indeed, the opponents of the deal were the most convinced of great progress). And Iran saw that the US didnt have such an easy time in Iraq and Afghanistan, are is still committed to some degree in those countries, and there's not good solution in Syria.
So what precisely was the USA supposed to do to convince a rationally acting Iran that we were in a position of power? What's the better play the Kerry and Obama missed, as you can see it? If it was "do nothing" then at least fairly acknowledge the problems with that strategy. I think Beinart's omnipotence thesis has a lot of validity.
If I had all the answers I would be doing something else professionally, and probably for more money. But what you say ignores the role that the Administration's decisions (and those of our allies, to be sure) have played in bringing this situation to bear. By "pivoting" out of the Middle East (and out of Iraq) we have made our hand, vis a vis Iran, considerably weaker. By drawing down our military considerably even as these crises have popped up we have made our hand weaker and made us look unwilling and unable to undertake significant new military commitments. Not that we should actually undertake them, rather the plausible prospect of our doing so should be there. And while we weren't going to go to war over any one act that Russia has done (and shouldn't have), our dithering and half-hearted response to the dismemberment of the Ukraine has certainly not given our Allies any renewed confidence in our willingness to stand up for them. Rotating a few National Guard brigades through Eastern Europe and the Baltic is a nice gesture but it's a little late in the game.
If you were Mexico and focused solely on what you described as a leading Presidential Candidate, Donald Trump, you could scare yourself into a froth about America.
2) ME nations do not have safety valves for nuts nor medicine nor remotely the coherence to internally enforce what they agree to.
3) It is very common for the USA to focus on the potential "threats" posed by an enemy. But we ignore the daily focus on problems of the majority of the state leaders and managers. We emphasize someone elses right bicep but ignore core sinew and real ability to project power. Iran does not have enough trucks to invade anyone. Or fuel distribution. or steady electrical production. Iran exports less non oil products in a year than Finland exports lace. We emphasize the bomb and ignore the inability to target or maintain or fire it on time. SO for example, at the height of the Cold War our own estimates of the Soviet rocketry indicated that they could launch all their missiles and only 20% would land here and within an average of +/- 100 miles. Meanwhile we could land 97% within one quarter mile of the target. In 1979. But they at the time had more tanks. But they had 1/10 the spare parts ( tanks run through spare parts at a very high rate) and had only 20% of the tanks with experienced trained tank crews and had about 60% of their army classified with drug or alcohol abuses and an daily absentism and dissertion rate in excess of 25% ( ours was less than 1%). We focused on their bombs. They focused on getting the army fed.
So it is also useful to not fear the mighty Iran. They are not a monolith or a well functioning nation.
You do know that:
They have to export their oil to other nations to refine and then buy it back?
You do know their oil production technology requires $300B in foreign capital investment per year and they average $6B to 11B per year?
You do know that they have one of the worst internal tax collection rates on the planet? Their smuggling and black market and lack of computers and lack of tax collectors and lack of honesty all adds up to over 25% of their GDP is lost to tax evasion?
You do know they have major smuggling crime syndicates importing the poppy and distributing to Europe and Russia? in fact they are the number one trafficker in opium. You know that is true despite the fact that they are also the number one nation in annual tons seized? And the number one nation in state seized and then lost from "storage"?
And a huge amount of their oil is smuggled outwards right from the fields eluding their Oil Ministry and revenues to the nation?
You know they are one of the worlds major traffickers of women and female children?
You know they are neck and neck with Russia for the worlds largest nations with the most corrupt local police, governance and justice?
You know that alcohol is banned in Iran? Did you know it smuggles $2.5M worth of alcohol per day into the nation and millions more is internally brewed?
Did you know its aquifers are draining 1.5 Feet per year for the last 15 years? That a huge percent of its land is actually sinking? That the water level has gone down 50 feet in the last 50 years?
Did you know that as a result only 12% of the land farmed in 1971 is farmed now? They import their food!!
Just how powerful are you over the long haul if you have to import your food?
Did you know that projected access to food per each person is an index called the "food security index". Did you now Irans is 12%. ( we have 100% and the highest rating by the way).
Did you know that the USA has 810 vehicles per 1000 people? Did you know that Iran has 200 per 1000 people?
I dunno....mullahs and Guards got problems.
Maybe they export their nuts like lots of countries who don't use Valium instead?
So...yeah...we need to pay attention to them and they are a nuisance and could cause temporary but not nation threatening problems.
But can we calibrate some folks sense that they are a bigger threat to us than 1941 Japan and Germany on steroids rolled into one?
They got 25 years of cards way worse then ours
bill2, I was actually going to post something related to your first point, and it's awesome to hear you think the same thing out loud... I wonder how much "death to america" rhetoric is related to internal Iranian politics and posturing to the population of Iran to project the appearance of strength. Is it merely propoganda? The truth probably lies in the middle. But I find it hard to believe that the Iranian negotiators actually are fully indoctrinated under that rhetoeic, and that we'd even take a seat at the table if they were.
Thanks for educating me man. Much appreciated and I look forward to your posts.
Quote:
Deej is spot on again. If we were any "tougher" we risked losing the rest of the P5+1. Russia is not our friend. Neither is China. And really, in some ways, neither is the Eurozone (Germany).
If we adopted a more difficult stance, we would have been left standing alone. The sanctions would have likely come down from the rest of the major powers, and our leverage would have evaporated.
This is what you and others are complaining about, and this is why you are wrong. We are not omnipotnent, and this wasn't a bi-polar negotiation. It was multipolar, and if Iran had succeeded in isolating us in these negotiations, the result would have been much, much worse for us and for Israel than the result that was obtained.
Now, you'll go and rationalize something to say in response, because you don't like Obama and always find something to kvetch about, but you really can't rebut this point, because it is reality.
You are predictable in the ends to which you will go to support anything the Administration does. This might be the right move, it might not, but trying to pretend that this was the only move we could have made is a stretch. It is at least debatable whether rewarding bad behavior is a smarter move in the medium and long term than leaving the sanctions regime in place knowing that our partners were going to erode theirs. There are second and third order effects from this decision (known unknowns) that we will be dealing with for the next decade plus, regardless of whether or not Iran succeeds in going nuclear. For instance, what are Saudi and Turkey going to do about ISIS now?
Just as I predicted.
We forget that outside of North America and Europe, 80% of the people over 45 were raised in villages of 200 people or less. Like the childs game Battleship where you cant see where the other guy is planted and have to slowly guess....many many people assume that if it was not seen...it was not heard.
Quote:
Here are the problems I see. First, it's quite true that the UK was not prepared for war. But what the article fails acknowledge is that 1938 Germany, while more prepared than the UK, was not the Germany of September 1939. The panzers were not the panzers of May 1940, and the Czechs had some relatively formidable fixed defenses. There was no guarantee that they would have swept through in a 2 week campaign.
Consider this as well. Hitler had made all his land grabs through bluff and bluster. When his troops crossed over the bridges into the Rhineland in 1936, their commanders had been told that if they saw resistance from the French who were marginally occupying the territory (IIRC no forces there but the right send troops in) they were to turn around and return to the east side of the Rhine. We will never know what calling his bluff in 1938 would have created. One thing I will posit is that if Hitler had invaded he would have been in no position to blitz the rest of Western Europe within a year and the French/British et. al. would have rearmed much quicker.
Finally, by proclaiming "peace in our time" Chamberlain oversold, badly oversold the agreement.
No doubt that Chamberlain oversold the treaty, but the rest of your statement has the benefit of hindsight, a benefit Chamberlain did not have. He very likely did not know that the Panzers were not quite ready for prime time, and he almost certainly didn't know that Nazi command had been instructed to retreat at the first sign of resistance.
I look at how war weary this country was after Vietnam, even decades later, and yet people question the moves of nations most impacted by the devastating losses of WWI less than 20 years later.
But there's another bit of hindsight that he didn't have that works the opposite way. The Czechs had some significant fixed defenses in place in the Sudetenland. Not the Maginot Line, but not a joke either. And the conventional wisdom from WWI ran that these fixed defenses would inflict significant casualties on an invading army. The invasions of Poland and France through the Ardennes hadn't happened yet. So the superiority of armor over fixed defenses hadn't been established and support for the Czech's retention of the Sudetenland might have given Hitler pause.
I hope you are not saying that none of it will be. The question in my mind is how much, and I think it will be significant.
Quote:
is not absurd. Saying you need to send in the tanks everywhere is absurd. Weakness is self-perpetuating, as is strength. If every expansionist or terrorist (or separatist) power went on the march at once, even a strong hegemon would not be able to hit them all. But if each in its rational calculation believes there is a probability of active opposition and serious consequences, it is more likely that each would decline to do act. If, however, a hegemon (regional or global) is perceived to be weak, the leaders of expansionist powers or terrorist or separatist movements may rationally decide that the hegemon is unlikely to act against them, certainly not if more than one such event is already in progress. This is why revolutions tend to happen in waves (1848, the 1860's, etc etc).
From what I can tell, everyone in their mother knew we had a shitty hand and that hand would only get worse in the future. Russia hates us. China isnt particularly inclined to let us dictate any order in the world. Europe didnt even like these sanctions and was publicly telling everyone that the sanctions would be eased even without a deal. Notwithstanding sanctions, people believed that the Iranians were making progress towards the bomb (indeed, the opponents of the deal were the most convinced of great progress). And Iran saw that the US didnt have such an easy time in Iraq and Afghanistan, are is still committed to some degree in those countries, and there's not good solution in Syria.
So what precisely was the USA supposed to do to convince a rationally acting Iran that we were in a position of power? What's the better play the Kerry and Obama missed, as you can see it? If it was "do nothing" then at least fairly acknowledge the problems with that strategy. I think Beinart's omnipotence thesis has a lot of validity.
This. And Dune's response -- nonsense about how we pivoted away from the Middle East and let this happen -- ignores the limitations of our budgets, the limited threat posed by Iran relative to the cost of keeping our foot on its neck, and the other global priorities we have to address.
Moreover, Dune's response is a clear deflection and fails to address the reality that this deal is the best option under the current circumstances, regardless of who you want to blame for those circumstances.
Quote:
In comment 12371930 Don in DC said:
Quote:
Deej is spot on again. If we were any "tougher" we risked losing the rest of the P5+1. Russia is not our friend. Neither is China. And really, in some ways, neither is the Eurozone (Germany).
If we adopted a more difficult stance, we would have been left standing alone. The sanctions would have likely come down from the rest of the major powers, and our leverage would have evaporated.
This is what you and others are complaining about, and this is why you are wrong. We are not omnipotnent, and this wasn't a bi-polar negotiation. It was multipolar, and if Iran had succeeded in isolating us in these negotiations, the result would have been much, much worse for us and for Israel than the result that was obtained.
Now, you'll go and rationalize something to say in response, because you don't like Obama and always find something to kvetch about, but you really can't rebut this point, because it is reality.
You are predictable in the ends to which you will go to support anything the Administration does. This might be the right move, it might not, but trying to pretend that this was the only move we could have made is a stretch. It is at least debatable whether rewarding bad behavior is a smarter move in the medium and long term than leaving the sanctions regime in place knowing that our partners were going to erode theirs. There are second and third order effects from this decision (known unknowns) that we will be dealing with for the next decade plus, regardless of whether or not Iran succeeds in going nuclear. For instance, what are Saudi and Turkey going to do about ISIS now?
Just as I predicted.
I made a substantive point and posed a question, you responded with nothing. You have little to contribute to a foreign policy discussion other than fellating the current occupant of the Oval Office. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to answer that question.
If I had all the answers I would be doing something else professionally, and probably for more money. But what you say ignores the role that the Administration's decisions (and those of our allies, to be sure) have played in bringing this situation to bear. By "pivoting" out of the Middle East (and out of Iraq) we have made our hand, vis a vis Iran, considerably weaker. By drawing down our military considerably even as these crises have popped up we have made our hand weaker and made us look unwilling and unable to undertake significant new military commitments. Not that we should actually undertake them, rather the plausible prospect of our doing so should be there. And while we weren't going to go to war over any one act that Russia has done (and shouldn't have), our dithering and half-hearted response to the dismemberment of the Ukraine has certainly not given our Allies any renewed confidence in our willingness to stand up for them. Rotating a few National Guard brigades through Eastern Europe and the Baltic is a nice gesture but it's a little late in the game.
We can argue about why we have a weak hand in Iran. I can say we look weak because the adventurism of the last administration showed the real limits of American power. I can say GWB used up a lot of America's good will. Your argument is like if a GM said to a coach, "it's week 6 -- how do we fix the running game" and the coach responds "you should have drafted more OLs". It's all relevant to how we got here, but we're here. But sitting here in July 2015 the situation is what it is, and I havent even heard an defense of a viable alternative to making this deal.
It attribute Russia mostly to the same explanation. We shot out wad in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russians saw what we had, saw that we were exhausted, war weary, and broke, and took their chance while oil prices were high. The Bush administration showed the world that ability to assert our will post Soviets/Gulf War wasnt all it was cracked up to be. What would Saint Ronald Reagan have done in response to the Ukraine invasion? Acted tough?
Story from the top newspaper in Tehran:
"I headed to the bank the other day to pay the phone bill. No sooner did I go inside when the electricity went out. The tellers politely asked the customers to go to other banks.
But the problem was that the whole neighborhood was suffering from a power outage.
This is now happening frequently and is regarded as outrageous by the people across the country, especially in Tehran, the capital.
Fars News Agency, a semi-official news website, has devoted an entire section to power outages in different parts of the country, including Bandar Abbas, a port city in the south, Sistan-Baluchestan, a province in the east, Esfahan and Shiraz in central Iran and Mazandaran province in the north.
The outage is so painful that, according to the Persian-language section of Fars News, "several lawmakers have warned the government and the energy minister on the frequent blackouts and power outages in the capital and many other cities and called for urgent action."
The energy ministry has announced that as of June 21,the media will publicize blackout timetables so that people can adjust their daily routines.
There are signs the ministry is in trouble. The newspaper Kargozaran quoted Mohammad Parsa, the head of the construction contractors' syndicate, as saying that the "the debt of the power ministry to the contractors is increasing and the contractors are on the verge of bankruptcy "
Experts say that poor maintenance of the electricity grid is also a factor in the frequent outages.
Ok...what happens to your life without electricity on a steady basis?
Getting things done becomes havoc
Food ...already in shortage...spoils at a rapid rate
Medicine and health care become difficult
Water and water treatment systems and plants become inadequate so the water supply and basic potable water is in further difficulty.
Manufacturing many many things becomes very difficult.
Among the sanctioned items...refrigeration and electrical generation and decision control systems for running water systems and electrical power plants. ( these items come from japan, Germany and the US...Russia...China...not so much).
As I said...outside of oil...this nation exports less than Finland exports lace. Somehow I don't see them rising above annoyance if we keep the Straights of Hormuz clear and they trade in dollars. I suspect those are covered in side bar agreements. And since Buffet is GE...their might be a delegation from GE Power Systems already in Tehran.
At least for a while. Ultimately, the fact that he started the war when he did probably saved the world. If he had waited 5 more years before fully challenging France, Britain and Russia, during which time the German army would have become full mechanized, Russia would have probably fallen before their strategic depth and foreign aid would have allowed them to catch their breath and dig in effectively.
I am not sure for I did not follow that thread of conversation within the thread
Quote:
If I had all the answers I would be doing something else professionally, and probably for more money. But what you say ignores the role that the Administration's decisions (and those of our allies, to be sure) have played in bringing this situation to bear. By "pivoting" out of the Middle East (and out of Iraq) we have made our hand, vis a vis Iran, considerably weaker. By drawing down our military considerably even as these crises have popped up we have made our hand weaker and made us look unwilling and unable to undertake significant new military commitments. Not that we should actually undertake them, rather the plausible prospect of our doing so should be there. And while we weren't going to go to war over any one act that Russia has done (and shouldn't have), our dithering and half-hearted response to the dismemberment of the Ukraine has certainly not given our Allies any renewed confidence in our willingness to stand up for them. Rotating a few National Guard brigades through Eastern Europe and the Baltic is a nice gesture but it's a little late in the game.
We can argue about why we have a weak hand in Iran. I can say we look weak because the adventurism of the last administration showed the real limits of American power. I can say GWB used up a lot of America's good will. Your argument is like if a GM said to a coach, "it's week 6 -- how do we fix the running game" and the coach responds "you should have drafted more OLs". It's all relevant to how we got here, but we're here. But sitting here in July 2015 the situation is what it is, and I havent even heard an defense of a viable alternative to making this deal.
It attribute Russia mostly to the same explanation. We shot out wad in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Russians saw what we had, saw that we were exhausted, war weary, and broke, and took their chance while oil prices were high. The Bush administration showed the world that ability to assert our will post Soviets/Gulf War wasnt all it was cracked up to be. What would Saint Ronald Reagan have done in response to the Ukraine invasion? Acted tough?
I'm not sure that's what it demonstrated. Poor judgment, perhaps, but it didn't demonstrate our inability to project power quickly and in devastating fashion. Both conflicts did that reasonably well. They demonstrated our inability to create government and civil society de novo, they demonstrated the limits of our patience as an electorate, etc etc. And certainly they took advantage of the fact that we were otherwise occupied.
What would Saint Reagan have done? Who knows? Set up a few MIRVs west of Kiev? Maybe nothing. The Soviet tanks didn't roll on his watch though, which doesn't exactly make your point either.
Your one point is pretty much spot on, arguing over exactly how we got here is not terribly relevant except as a caution for future action. But if we want to pose a credible security deterrent, announcing a goal of 450,000 end-strength for the Army the same week as we announce that deal doesn't really do much to help things. I understand the budgetary constraints, but you can't help appreciating the timidity of our allies when it seems like the only spending program we want to cut is the DOD.
Quote:
In comment 12371972 Dunedin81 said:
Quote:
In comment 12371930 Don in DC said:
Quote:
Deej is spot on again. If we were any "tougher" we risked losing the rest of the P5+1. Russia is not our friend. Neither is China. And really, in some ways, neither is the Eurozone (Germany).
If we adopted a more difficult stance, we would have been left standing alone. The sanctions would have likely come down from the rest of the major powers, and our leverage would have evaporated.
This is what you and others are complaining about, and this is why you are wrong. We are not omnipotnent, and this wasn't a bi-polar negotiation. It was multipolar, and if Iran had succeeded in isolating us in these negotiations, the result would have been much, much worse for us and for Israel than the result that was obtained.
Now, you'll go and rationalize something to say in response, because you don't like Obama and always find something to kvetch about, but you really can't rebut this point, because it is reality.
You are predictable in the ends to which you will go to support anything the Administration does. This might be the right move, it might not, but trying to pretend that this was the only move we could have made is a stretch. It is at least debatable whether rewarding bad behavior is a smarter move in the medium and long term than leaving the sanctions regime in place knowing that our partners were going to erode theirs. There are second and third order effects from this decision (known unknowns) that we will be dealing with for the next decade plus, regardless of whether or not Iran succeeds in going nuclear. For instance, what are Saudi and Turkey going to do about ISIS now?
Just as I predicted.
I made a substantive point and posed a question, you responded with nothing. You have little to contribute to a foreign policy discussion other than fellating the current occupant of the Oval Office. If you feel otherwise, please feel free to answer that question.
What question? You mean what are the Turks and Saudis going to do about ISIS now? I assumed that was rhetorical, because the answers are obvious.
They will do the same things they would have done anyway, because they will continue to pursue their national interest.
The Turks will continue to be preoccupied with protecting their flank from Kurdish separatism and a potential insurgency emanating from a nascent Kurdistan that could emerge from the vacuum left by a contracting ISIS. They will leave ISIS alone and will take what opportunities they can to undermine and hurt the Kurds whenever they can without antagonizing the U.S. -- their nominal NATO ally -- too directly.
The Saudis will continue to do what they do. They will sell a fuckton of oil. They will cater to and placate Wahhabi zealots, and allow them to funnel money to Sunni militants (including ISIS and Al Qaeda) while pretending to be our ally in the Gulf. They will continue to buy a shitload of weapon systems from us, and they will work with the other Sunni states to crush the Shiite militants in Yemen.
That's what they will do.
The nation does not hate us.
China does not hate us. Their elite are trying to keep domestic control anyway they can. If they think they could do that without being externally aggressive they would.
both impulses may be more alive then we wish to acknowledge right here right now.
Bill2, you hit the reply before me. Russia doesn't hate us.
They are not crazy about a lot of our culture, but the love
the 'consumer' culture. They also like our creativity
and the openess of our society.
China, the same. The ruling 'clique' is forcing on China
an idealogy they don't want. I'm a fan of Chinese, they
take care of their 'shit' and don't intefere with others.
Having been stifled by 'tradition' they when they have it
love the 'freedom' of America. We all do, except US academia
who think they know better than the rest of us.
The Chinese 'establishment' fears anarchy and chaos.
They have taken advantage of by Western Nations throughout
the 19th Century. And they don't trust our motives.
I'm a big believer of trade, 2 people negotiating,
a 'win win situations'.
Chinese and Americans are wonderful combination.
But, they are a long time culture that doesn't want to
be 'lectured' by US. If we can, allow them to take care
of their own problems, I have the 'feeling' that the
Chinese 'Communist' will evolve into something grand.
But, there are elements within both governments, that are
trying to take 'advantage'. They must be removed, by
the voters, they are adding nothing but trouble.
We got to stop 'lecturing' and they have to stop being
'heavy handed'.
Strangers, can't 'suppress' foreign people. They can
annhilate them, but the longer they stay, the more they
are hated.
The best strategy is to get 'others' to fight our wars,
surrogates.
Bush and his minions, a group of technocrats who were the
same people who ran the Viet Nam war, was a disaster.
But you have to ask, what was his goal. He put America
on a 'lockdown', every individual liberty was lost to
Homeland Security. We're being conned. Bush, Trump, Hillary
are disgusting alternatives, but I bet we give them 'money'
and 'power'. If we have a problem with moslem fundementalist
why are they allowed in the country.
This whole 'act' is disgusting.
At least for a while. Ultimately, the fact that he started the war when he did probably saved the world. If he had waited 5 more years before fully challenging France, Britain and Russia, during which time the German army would have become full mechanized, Russia would have probably fallen before their strategic depth and foreign aid would have allowed them to catch their breath and dig in effectively.
Your scenario is one of a myriad of possibilities. What if Hitler hadn't waited a full 5 years? England was rearming, though at a tepid pace. But delay the Battle of Britain a year and the mainstay in the RAF would have been the Spitfire as opposed to the Hurricane, and it wouldn't have been such a close call. The Russian officer corps would have had additional time to reconstitute itself after Stalin's purges. And the predominant tank the Germans would have faced in a delayed Barbarossa would have been the T-34 as opposed to the vastly inferior machines the Red Army actually used. The Sturmovik and it's tank busting capabilities would have had a much larger presence on the battle field. And a key question in the proposition would have been the status of the US. Had Pearl Harbor happened on schedule, you would have had the juggernaut of US industrial production in place much earlier in the conflict.
All speculation of course.
What if the Nazis got the ME 262 into mass production before the war started? Or turned those heavy water operations in Norway into an actual successful atomic bomb project?
Boggles the mind. Too many variables. Fun to ponder though.
The argument seems to be, "if we welcome Iran back into the international community, they will stop it and be nice."
Yeah right.
Eric I don't think anyone in the Obama admin believes that "if we welcome Iran back into the international community, they will stop it and be nice."
The fact is Iran has been a regional power (and many times the regional power) for over 2000 years. They intend to continue in that role and others in the region will continue to look to them to continue that role. Since nobody can come up with a rational plan for changing that fact by using conventional or economic war, dialogue and compromise seems the only alternative.
Getting nuke concessions that include a decent verification regime might at least keep that weapon at a safe remove. Instead of the threat of using nukes they will be reduced to a threat to violate the agreement and develop a nuke.
This agreement makes it at least possible that Iran may some day find it advantageous to use our less hostile relationship to play the russians (whom they also have reason to dislike and distrust) and the chinese. A more self sufficient Iran might be easier to deal with than one which is constrained by reliance on those two.
Of course Iran will continue to be a bad actor. But remember "bad actor" is a relative term in that part of the world and some of our "friends" there do not have clean hands. For that matter neither do we. And when the inevitable fall of the Saudis comes we will need at least some lines of communications to the other major power in that region.
link - ( New Window )
They will need two-thirds of the House to overcome Obama's veto of their dissaproval. That will require that they win some Dem's votes. If all they do is make nasty sound bites for the evening news, then I doubt they are sincere about stopping it. After all, they have conservative allies in Europe (Cameron, Merkel) who are in favor of it. The GOP could lose alot of foreign money in their PACs (thanks Citizens United!) if it fails. Ironic.
Still not sure what Congress is going to do with this. There's a chance the Senate will torpedo it, and I think some of the peripheral stuff could be the red meat that dooms it. The notion that the guy widely considered the architect of the EFP program is granted a measure of absolution by this, even though he has no obvious impact on the nuclear program and the Administration insists this is just about nukes, is going to be a very tough pill for people to swallow.
What if the Nazis got the ME 262 into mass production before the war started? Or turned those heavy water operations in Norway into an actual successful atomic bomb project?
Boggles the mind. Too many variables. Fun to ponder though.
Don, what if Germany had sent 250,000 troops into Africa
right after Dunkirk. They sent that many to hold off the
Brits and US from 42-43.
They could have seized Suez Canal and captured the oil
fields of Arabia at the same time flanking Russia's southern
border. They would have all the oil they needed, made the
Mediterraen a Axis 'lake' and threatened India.
OR if they had the 300 subs that Doenitz wanted.
And what if they had not declared war on the US. If
they were honoring their treaty with Japan, they should
have insisted Japan attack Siberia which would have left
Moscow undefended in December 41, when the fresh Siberian
divisions came to defend and attack the Germans at the
gates of Moscow.
As I've said before, hindsight is 20/20.
Sunni ISIS essentially consider the Shia to be infidels. ISIS in Iran as an invading force with no local support? Surely you jest.
What could replace a toppled mullah regime is anyone's best guess but it likely won't be a sunni dominated group. It would also depend on how the guard reacts to such an event.
I'd sure love to see the mullahs go down, and would gladly welcome the uncertainty, despite the risks that could come with it.
I think this deal is good in the sense that should the senate approve it, the ball is then in Iran's court for the race to be a douche and we get to sit back and let them either abide or fuck themselves in the international limelight.
Where I really dislike it has little to do with the deal itself at all. I just want the mullahs/guard gone to see what the people would be capable of putting together. The Persians are a very bright people and if there were no such autocratic rulers, I could easily envision them adapting to western governments and lifestyles, negating their support for Hamas and other terror activities.
Doubt the mullahs ever are not a part of the equation. But the Quards might finally see that it's just business. There is a price to pay in this world if you wish to play outside the core monetary, trade and stability "covenants". Who tried to live outside the "system" of controls puts and calls?
Saddam, Iran, Castro, Nk, Russia. China is different imho. They are twisting on the vine collateral damage to their and our elites wanting to play nice in the world but unable to stop wanting power now. So the next guys and generation pays for paying it forward. Meanwhile elements in both nations blame the other for the party ending.
Within that bunch all are kleptocrat except Iran whose view of the world is colored by the idea that they are persecuted for their beliefs minorities surrounded by Sunni and infidels
I think Iran has proven many, many times that it does not worry too much about its international reputation.
It's all speculation but:
1. I don't think you could ever get the whole P5 to double down. In the current negotiations Russia and China were on the Iranian side of negotiations as much as they were the P5+1. The most you could expect from them would be a continuation of the current level of sanctions.
2. You've ignored their national identity as Persians. Iran is not a 20th century creation of European diplomats. From the Quds force and the Revolutionary Guards to the nascent youthful democracy groups there would be unity against an invasion by outsiders. This is not the Iraqi Army that flees and leaves their equipment to ISIS. In the 1980's this was a country that sent teenagers armed with pitchforks up against Saddam's tanks and poison gas. And they went forward!!! Also, this time they would be supported Russian arms.
3. I say 2 possibilities. First would be a tacit agreement between the youth and Quds/Revolutionary Guard allowing more freedom for the former and retention of the economic benefits the latter enjoys in return for both groups fighting the outsiders. Second would be the defeat of a common enemy followed by an internal civil war.
The net result is a nation ruled by feelings.
Quote:
I think this deal is good in the sense that should the senate approve it, the ball is then in Iran's court for the race to be a douche and we get to sit back and let them either abide or fuck themselves in the international limelight.
I think Iran has proven many, many times that it does not worry too much about its international reputation.
Maybe rephrased better, it puts us/israel in a much better light when we undoubtedly take the necessary actions if they don't abide
Incidently...don't have time here but the idea that we overthrew the democratic elected Mossedegh is 180 degrees from what happened. One of the self flagellation myths many operate under.
You can't destroy them completely.
Humans are alomost always resourceful enough to keep economies going on some level. Particularly one as large as Iran with a wealth of natural resources. The goal of sanctions was always to bring them to the table. Expecting more is not realistic.
What happens to a national road that passes the town of Corleone? Or anywhere else? The answer is that cost and crews and concrete all somehow wind up in local vig and corruption. And some roads don't get finished for the money runs out.
It's hard to get anything done.
read the indicators above of resistance to central anything interfering with local "anything goes entrepreneurial endeavors"
Then realize that 85% of all non oil corporations belong to the 2000 Guards.
Sicily.
Sign me up for this. I apparently missed the first iteration
Anyway, separate subject for now:
One thing we do not take into account when looking at events from 2000 to 2015 is from a backwards look a century from now.
This century will be about water, food, resources and the reserve currency. And timing. Timing, as the other speculation on the thread about WW2 demonstrates, is often the difference in Empires and their longevity.
In 2000 oil prices and supply and gas prices and supply required an all hands on deck production effort from all existing reasonable extraction cost reserves.
Saddam just cut via constant sabatougue the Trans Arabian 48 inch pipes from Saudi to Europe that ran 6 miles the other side of his legal borders. And then with Chavez challenged the dollar as the means of exchange ( limiting our ability to punish rogues and float through banking crisis of our own making).
China and India and Pakistan were ready outlets for Iranian and Iraqi oil and gas. To the detriment of Europe and the US who needed oil from the Gulf. At the time. Russia was building strength as its oil was selling at a high price. Europe began to panic as Gulf oil was now precious and more expensive and Russian gas and oil was an alternative if it could come through the Caucasus ( Uggh...Azerbijan and Georgia) and the Ukraine ( remember those countries for any particular "reason"?) cheaply without those nations charging a tax that extracted rent from the take the Russians could otherwise have. If it got too expensive...bad for Russia and good for the Gulf.
Since the back up for the dollar was the shipping lanes from the Gulf....and every 5%+ increase in price of oil since 1967 sent our economy in a tailspin 18 months later....the world was precarious in 2000 way before 9/11.
Fast forward. Like the baptism scene in Godfather all the enemies of the family got in the eyeball in the last 15 years. Iranian gas and oil industry is in ruins. Iraq in ruins. Pakistan and India and China no longer the demand they once were. Russia is extracting as fast as it can while prices conspire against its need for cash...and its drain on reserves leaves it within 15 years of all done at any reasonable price point without western willingness to invest.
Meanwhile, reserves equal to Saudi and the worlds second lowest cost to extract and gas equal to nowhere else and liquid condensate ( key building block for vital chemicals) came on stream....in North America due to a new extraction technology still improving at rapid rates that only NA knows how to operate effectively.
Saudi was kept safe, shipping lanes kept open, India and Pakistan delayed. China bled. Russia double bled. Reserve currency intact and now beating the Russians and Chinese with a stick. Europe not down the drain. Yet.
Result? Across the century to come...so far ...we kept the water, the food, the energy, the currency.
Poorer? yes. relative to all the others in the war outside raging in slow motion? Much better cards than anyone else.
Accident of timing? on purpose? luck the residue of design ? or the old adage...95% of life is showing up and good things follow
All of the above. The debate is over the percentages to be assigned to the various components.
Kind words Stu. But beware of falling into the trap of limiting the alternatives to either this deal or war. Obviously none of us were in the room during negotiations, but it certainly seems like Iran wasn't shy about throwing ancillary issues into the negotiations. And it seems like they got a lot of what they were looking for. So the unanswered question in my mind is why the US/P5+1 came away with so little on the ancillary side of things. Perhaps the deal doesn't fly at all if the sanctions are not lifted off of Soleimani. But where is the quid pro quo?
As I've said earlier, there's no way 34 Democratic Senators won't be cobbled together to prevent an override on an Obama veto. But to think we could/should have done better is not to advocate air strikes in Iran's nuclear facilities.
interests.
I think Saudi's have been in the past a good friend of
US. Particulary during the 'banking crisis' of 1969.
The system could have collapsed and the Saudi's helped
through their deposits to help US banking system.
Israel seems like the only 'civilized' people in the Middle
East. They have shown the region what intelligent people
can do without dependence on oil.
But, today maybe our interest and their's have divurged.
The Israelis are worried about their security. Nukes aside, anything the empowers Iran (including lifting sanctions) is bad for Israel. It just is (though one might believe that sanctions weakening with no deal would be even worse).
I dont think either of them are honest brokers when it comes to whether this deal is good for for the United States. They're looking out for themselves, as you'd expect any rational actor to do.
The Israelis are worried about their security. Nukes aside, anything the empowers Iran (including lifting sanctions) is bad for Israel. It just is (though one might believe that sanctions weakening with no deal would be even worse).
I dont think either of them are honest brokers when it comes to whether this deal is good for for the United States. They're looking out for themselves, as you'd expect any rational actor to do.
Precisely.
acton - ( New Window )
The Israelis are worried about their security. Nukes aside, anything the empowers Iran (including lifting sanctions) is bad for Israel. It just is (though one might believe that sanctions weakening with no deal would be even worse).
I dont think either of them are honest brokers when it comes to whether this deal is good for for the United States. They're looking out for themselves, as you'd expect any rational actor to do.
I think the Iran nuke issue is a part of the Saudi-Iranian tug of war.
And yes, both the Saudi's and Israeli's are looking out for themselves. But I don't think that their self interested point of view automatically means it's a good deal for the US. It could be good, it could be bad, it could be the US could have done better. Their viewpoint is not dispositive with respect to the US in either way(s).
As I've said throughout this post, I have no idea if the deal is a good one or bad one. I just viscerally reject the notion that all would be better if we were just tougher, or that the status quo was even a viable option. I do think that a lot of the knee-jerk criticism would have come regardless of what the deal was. There are some people who just think that this president is inept and everything he does is inept or worse.
My initial reaction is that the JCPOA is a little more comprehensive than expected. What I find troubling are the following:
* The assumption of the author that if Iran went "loud and proud" it would simply be solved by US air strikes. First, would the US do it? Second, now that the arms sanctions have been lifted and $150 billion in funds have been unfrozen, COULD the US do it if Iran has hardened the sites on the sly before any nuclear materials are introduced and they've installed the latest in Russian anti-aircraft defenses that the Russians have already offered to sell them?
* Assumption the arbitration process will work through the time period. The members of the Joint Commission right now will almost be certain to vote 5-3, which is necessary to compel inspections. What happens in a few years after what will probably be significant Western European investment in Iran. Will the EU representative or Germany turn it into a 4-4 vote that will preclude inspection of the site in question?
I can provide ways or allegories that while imprecise have visceral impact that shed insights.
and I can give a glimpse into a more layered complex view of Iran so we may understand who is driving and who did what and how much influence we had ( imho very very little) and to quote a famous Aretha song we may better understand just exactly "Who's Zooming Who?"
To start lets first cover the sources of what we know about the "plot to overthrow" the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and how that one sin resulted in the horrible hatred the Iranians have for us and is an object lesson in why we should not interfere.
There are five sources:
1) The long history of Iran since the late 19th Century provides context
2) What the Iranian newspapers said at the time of the coup
3) What the CIA said before
4) What Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA said afterwards
5) What the Brits and US agencies said about it all in 1979 to try to get our people back.
Now one of the things that always amazes me is how vociferously the very same people who insist that the CIA is a bunch of double dealing never honest bureaucratic ass covering liars....insist that the CIAs version of what happened is the version that happened. Which is it? They lie all the time and cant be trusted? or they told the truth about their role in Iran in 1953?
The CIA defends its budget. And its jobs. And the right to more of the same in the future. or to CYA. That's why it says things. Its a bureaucracy. Period. Full Stop. It says things because it lives in the grey zone and is a spy agency. Period. Full stop. it does not record and write history. it does not have any rhyme or reason to be honest. its job is to distort outside the walls and sometimes to clarify within the walls.
If its 1950s and you are amongst the government agencies whose budget and personnel are under review for harboring communists and giving Russia the Bomb...you kind of look for ways to toot your own horn and claim all credit that is not nailed down as the opposite truth.
And if you are the son of Teddy Roosevelt you toot your own horn for you were born to it, learned under a master and need it as well for you will never be the old man.
The most important CIA analysis or report is from 1952 in a report to Eisenhower before the coup and that is where we will start to put it all together once we cover the nature of Iran in 1880 and the context needed to understand how it operates
"how that one sin resulted in the horrible hatred the Iranians have for us and is an object lesson in why we should not interfere.
We also agree that in the West, we not longer think of clergy as participants in the wealth generation elites or in the justice system or involved in tax disputes or passionate about the attempts of the state to redistribute wealth or allocate resources to long term objective or infrastructure. Certainly not after the 95 theses were nailed to the door in Wittenberg.
We do need to realize that nothing is monolithic and the nature of Shia world is a very loose but roughly similar experiences of Islam and the world.
We do need to realize that our degree of internal coherence and controls are not anywhere close to life as late as 1965 in most of the world. What most nations experience for all born before 1965 is a nation with a capital. Controlled by the leader. After the radio station, the newspaper, the army is all in control...the rest outside the capital is kind of a no mans land. villages and even cities are kind of controlled. judge, jury, charity, and schools and prime economic engines by warlords. or the law, or the Black Hand. or the mullah.
most nations 80% of the nation is on farms or in small villages. and they do not ever travel more than 25 miles away in their lifetimes.
Iran in 1800 to 1960 was feudal. Elite families had sons in the government, the military, owning businesses in the town,
I don't exist to give laze dumb useless fucks like you a handbook for living in the world.
And proof of that is that in years of posting no one went and found contrary information. I don't make up things you useless piece of shit. I don't give a flying fuck if you stay stupid and pointless. If I do the work and you want to go further its all out there. fucking cunt for brains
look you are a below average shit. stay that way. but don't pretend you do anything but troll
if you want to learn... or debate on equal footing....go do the fucking work asswipe. or stay stupid which is you for years now
look you are a below average shit. stay that way. but don't pretend you do anything but troll
if you want to learn... or debate on equal footing....go do the fucking work asswipe. or stay stupid which is you for years now
Bravo, sir, bravo.
Radar's act is one of consistent embarrassment on BBI for years. His unwavering need to play the contrarian on almost every issue to his constant need for links and references wholly supports your description above. The next time he makes a salient point on any topic being discussed will be his first.
Hope all is well, sir.
Do you ever wonder why the vast majority of people on BBI think of you as a joke? Or are you so lacking in self awareness that you actually think people don't laugh at your posts but instead take them seriously? Seriously...someone should slap the shit out of you for your tired act.
That should tell you, Radar, how tiresome your act has become. Go away, asshole.
Ill give you 2 hours to put forth your referenced or not alternative contrarian ( which is what I was doing) pov on Iranian history and the Mosedegh "coup"
go nuts. let see what you got shithead
Make it good. you have an objection then obviously you can do better.
Not all of us are as lazy spoon fed and stupid as you are.
Come on...expecting really good work now...no looking it up...just what you think from all you have learned.
Let see the full power of the chris.
let me know if you need help babygirl
rooting for you to show us you got game Chrissy.
54 minutes now...I know you can discuss this in detail from many aspects off the top of your head....you know...so we get curious and do more our own homework
I don't expect anyone to take anything that is said without checking....checking is how you learn. I know the shit asswipe. I don't reference it to know it, And I dont post about what I don't know.
What you did was the reverse. Took off your pants in the town square and showed you got nothing of substance.
post several posts of substance like many others on the thread.
or shut up.
By the way such things like the list of five sources of core information ought to give you a clue.
the 95 thesis on the door at Wittenberg is sourced from the 95 thesis on the door at Wittenberg
Mosadegh you look up yourself. Kermit Washington is the son of TR you can find in 2875 books and 3481 articles and 495 pictures. you do that by typing in Kermit Washington. the source of Kermit Washington is Kermit Washington. The reference is the same as the source dummkopf.
dummkopf is a German word. German is sourced by typing it.
Iran is a feudal society in the 19th century is found in 7,800 books.
the CIA report before the coup is found by looking up CIA reports on Iran before the coup.
Doing your own homework is so so hard
It aint in the sources its in how you understand and make insightful connections between the material.
oh wait a minute...you cant do that. You think copying is thinking. Now I get it.
Full on shit for brains.
still waiting for several substantive contributions to the thread topic
I dunno....do most people on BBI source what they know if they know it?
to me hiding behind what other people say is a chickenshit out. If you had to just check it to post on it then you don't yet know what you are talking about. ( dates and numbers and spellings to me is another story...that's just being decently accurate enough to not confuse the reader) You either label as your opinion of point of view or as a possibility or insight or way of thinking...or you present it with adequate homework knowing if their is another set of facts someone on BBI will know them
For example, Iran was a "feudal" society or the Wests separation of religion and state and individual started with the Greeks. Is there an opposite possible conclusion that needs to be sourced? Are we going to find a source that says " The leaders of Greece were one and the same as their teenaged virgins at Delphi...especially those Spartan leaders" or "Iran in the 19th century was a diverse moderate democratic society composed of a very large middle class and their top 1% rotated voluntarily to the bottom after a year at the top"
im sorry...I have no idea how many things I have read about Greece nor its legal code nor its early elite democracies nor its tribal leader oligarchy forms of city state governance. I can either post or not. imho if you want books on Greece...that's what Amazon is for.
I dunno...does anyone know how many times and ways they know that religion and state and individual rights are more separated in the West than in Islam? I have no clue anymore how many different ways and sources and places and precise differences I could point out. Should I stop posting?
And its history...its not science where sources might be actually required and customary.
I dunno. I thought we just posted and then discussed it and moved on. Since 2006 no one told me I needed footnotes to post?
If I am annoying tell me. to be honest, I either dont know sources because I read it 57 different ways from Sunday ages ago or I assume if I am wrong I will learn and say thanks.
Greg this is your fault. I actually just wanted to honor your request as favors go back and forth in karma over the years and we are both fans of the same kinds of topics. I think I have your email but if not if Ronnie or Dune can forward me your email I will reply ...but no footnotes or sources Greg. You check and learn more when and if you wish.
Near as I know Lincoln freed the slaves ages ago so we can all learn or consider things at the depth we wish to.
No more chris. Stay away and I will do the same. I do not recall ever challenging your integrity. Much less doing so and having no basis or substance to challenge....just dumpster diving fly over and shit like a pigeon on a thread you have made no contributions or have no horse in the discussion. Life is too short to spend time dealing with free range clowns.
We are done. All the best. Take care.
I deliberately wrote that to understand this subject we are going to look in turn in the posts to come at the five possible core sources of facts or context ( does everyone on BBI lay out their case as clearly)....and some cluck escapes and writes that he objects to the lack of sources and references.
then faced with the challenge to be rigorous and substantive ( kind of what he was objecting to ...he flys away.
I know that in econ or finance threads or political ones I don't cite very often...because I heard it from a directly involved person or saw it myself or think it because that's what I think. I didnt look it up. why would I? But I don't make anyone think what I do. Or even care if they do. I don't like to leave wrong stuff on important issues unchallenged but the vast vast majority of all we ever know is uncertain and subject to interpretation.
Especially history. its the history of HUMAN events. Of course its subjective. its about humans.
I dunno. if you are willing to say thanks if you are wrong and debate opinion with respect...this is a discussion board. when did it turn into a conference where we were all giving our academic papers?
I must have missed the memo that chris received.
I'm not going to intervene on Bill2's behalf and defend his integrity; even though he's my friend, he can do that on his own.
Instead I want to say something as an audience member. You've just insulted us and in doing so made a seriously stupid assumption. Do you think when Bill2 says (perhaps obliquely), for instance, that we might have had good reasons for invading Iraq in 2003, that I, or anyone else for that matter, automatically buys what he says? That just because Bill2 has said something, I'm convinced he's right?
That's absurd. My line of work (as an academic) involves constant skepticism about people's arguments (this isn't to say academics have a monopoly on skepticism). The reason I listen to Bill2 (without necessarily *always* agreeing with him) is fourfold: a) his facts are always sound; b) he connects his arguments with his facts in persuasive, if not always clinching ways; c) he argues in good faith; d) he puts forward his own opinions, which are always different from what I'll find in the academic and media mainstream (either in conclusions or level of analysis).
We see all three things in bits and pieces on this board. d) is common enough; everybody and their mother on this board is a goddamn sociologist of Islam and everyone and their mother has opinions on the failures of race politics, the Palestinian people, or the poor more generally. I left this board for close many months precisely because I was tired of encountering d) without seeing a), b), and c) come along with it.
That you implicitly charge Bill with not meeting a) or c) is doubly insulting. I'm not going to dwell on c). You have to really just be hardheaded about being a contrarian to seriously charge that. I feel sorry for you. That sort of sensibility must be draining and in such a useless way too.
a) is what particularly annoys me. Do you think that if Bill posted things that were patently false, he wouldn't be called out on them? That there aren't enough curious, literate, and critical adults on this board that a claim such as "Mossadegh sold five Titians and his first born son to the Caliph Abu Bakr" couldn't be challenged? Do you really think you're that much smarter than us? I mean that you're assured of your own intelligence has been blatantly obvious for years. But to assume that we're all Bill2 groupies without the ability to think and factcheck on our own? Go fuck yourself, radar.
I've spent many years in school and I've come to the conclusion that academics are good at some things and horrible at others. I do think academics do exceptionally well at making organized arguments and specific arguments. I think they benefit from rigorous cross checking and generate a lot of data that the rest of us all benefit from. What we don't do well, and this is part of the reason I still stick around and read Bill2's posts, Phil's and a few others, and try to talk to friends who work in business and other "real world' sectors is see how theory fails and how people act and behave on a day to day basis. The great benefits I derive from Bill2's posts (and this is aside from the personal advice he gave me years ago and I still keep today and the model of behavior he's set which I constantly fail to live up to, but hope that perhaps in a decade or so I'll approximate) are i) the expansion of my knowledge base and ii) having another outlook from which to understand the world.
Whenever Bill posts a fact that I do NOT know I go and look it up. It's easy; the internet's right there and I also have institutional access to other reference materials. I don't check each and every claim but that's also because I trust the man. The many facts I have checked have led me to expand my reading and simply learn more. I don't need to take Bill's facts and necessarily end up with his conclusions, even if the man is terrible persuasive.
As for ii), the vast majority of news analysis we read is short-term. It focuses on the micro dynamics of small events over time horizons of a few years, perhaps a decade at most. Bill's time horizons are typically "imperial", to use a distinctly unlovely phrase. That is, he forces me to think about the material foundations of whatever geopolitical system is in place and the continuities and discontinuities of that system. Do you know who else thought on this level? Marx. So does Perry Anderson, Charles Tilly, Michael Mann, Jared Diamond, etc. Some of us do our own reading chris and we listen to Bill for very good reasons.
You've insulted a friend, but that's fine; he can fight his own battles and do so ably. But you've also insulted me as a listener and that's something I can and should respond to.
It's a shame that after a month of fasting on a day of celebration this is how I should start it, but I think it's necessary. I want Bill2 around because selfishly I've become a better thinker (and person) because of him. And I'm not going to let you jeopardize that. I'm jealous of my knowledge.
You're also a Bulls fan who I assume doesn't live in Chicago which makes you the scum of the earth.
I used to wonder why some of the oldest old timers here went out of their way to demean Radar. The answer has become obvious: he not only deserves it, but he craves it.
A somewhat complex, but not all that impressive, amalgam of passive aggressiveness and masochism. It would be sad if he wasn't such a royal, top-of-the-line pain in the ass.
I think Bill2 knows a lot of shit. If you doubt what he says, you can do your own research. You may learn something. And while you are doing your research look up the word credibility.
Radar throws rocks. That's all he's capable of doing. Whether that's a willful choice on his part or simply a result of his natural intellectual shortcomings, I don't know.
Id only ask him to post his counter comments ( rooted in layers of knowledge) when I am done my response to Greg sometime this weekend.
On this subject, my way of looking at it is my way of looking at it. If I learn new things I will change my way of looking at it. My goal is to get better by stumblingly articulating my way through why things happen. Check what you want to check or don't or whatever. If you check you got better. I am pretty skeptical and don't accept what I hear. and all of this is incomplete and just an aspect of what happened. I am less interested in what happened and more interested in why it happened because all complex events reveal patterns and those patterns do not go away and they often repeat themselves with different dates and names. Since the struggles of Islam and the Gulf will be with us for years....backwards will have threads and strands we will see in the future
I think this subject is really useful for understanding aspects of what we observe and will keep observing.
I am going to add two earlier in time sources of context for Mossedegh and Islam and Iran so we might reflect more widely.
1) Some of the nature of Islam
2) Some of why and how a particular strain of "Iranian" behavior we see happened....and how it may play out.
Lets start by looking at the teachings of the J writer, Jesus/Paul, Mohammed, Buddha and any of the revolutionary visions for how to live better. All answered needs in their societies for answers to troubling questions and a way to think and a way to teach. All planted and thrived in and maybe because the societies they arose from were in crisis. absent rooting in their setting no relevance and no audience would connect.
The J writer took root in a troubled oppressed wandering tribe asking for ways they were different and trying to hold on to that difference as a special identity. Same need for unique Identity led to how and why the Iroquois designed their tortures the way they did. (soften that up and you get fraternity hazing...go check on how that connection hangs together chris). His setting
Jesus found the rules of the Judiasm elites ( Sadduces) of the era and the rules of Rome incomplete answers for why and how to live and endure suffering. He tried to answer the question....how do I be a better individual? ( In that sense Buddha did as well). How setting was the people he knew amongst a tribe under rule and nowhere near the destiny they imagined for themselves. but his world was citified and had a "church" ( Pharisees and Sadduces) and a "state" (Rome) in conflict with the average individual desires and aims in a complex post tribe society. he came along as the tribe was wrestling with social strata, taxation and complexities.
Paul took that and turned it into how to pass the core lessons along to beyond the tribe, how to connect it to the culture and mythology of the Western tradition as known at the time and how to teach and how to take the message down through the ages. In many ways he was a greater genius than Christ. he answered the question...how to change the world faster than one at a time. A question neither Christ nor Buddha was interested in answering as near as we can tell. His setting was the Greco Roman life of the mind.
Christ and Paul separated the moral life from the roles of the state. And their teachers or priests were wholly dedicated to the cause and service of their community ( in theory and design)
Mohammed had a different challenge. How to live better is the question. His tribal small village...water hole world is the setting. his tribal situation was much different than Israels. In that world the alpha leader of the local wolf heap had to be warrior, judge, best trader of goods with the outside world, teacher and pious example and the local groups scholar. For the strong and the less strong. He wrote for small groups operating in scarcity and a dog eat dog world. prior to mohammed the alpha was just the might makes right guy for the other semi mighty. the rest fend for themselves. what ever he did...Mohammed did move his society from might makes right to a structure of covenants the strong and the weak could live within.
So context One....alpha equals local holy man teacher with some warrior and some might makes right coursing through his blood. in a small village operating in scarcity this model answers a lot of questions. Hence ...Mullahs. Ambitious leaders of the community who have at least some learning of Islam via at least memorization of the Koran. And are free to be judge, educator, trader, banker, warrior
Is it the only adaptation a small tribe/small village takes to endure and produce a line of leaders? No. American Indians have shaman chiefs and councils. And small towns the world over have war lords and strong men. But the Black Hand is an example of a tradition of alpha leadership for the locals for matters of economics and justice beyond the eyes of the rulers and the church.
As Islam evolved with a belief system that matched their local reality...they had to add more "scholars" to interpret and add more coherence to wider organizations of people...hence ...a level above local village mullah....Ayatollahs.
in the next post lets discuss a tiny but important aspect of the Iranian experience with Mullah dom. and later we will take these two pillar traditions and show how they played out at the time of Mosadegh and to this day...and therefor in the future.
I've learned that if 1 is willing to learn, bbi is a great place to learn about a lot of different areas of the social spectrum.
1) Mohammed did a great service to his times and lands by moving the local alphas from capricious to ruled by covenant ( the Koran)
2) that unleashed a lot of social energy for the lands of scarcity for many centuries
3) the local alpha is often the mullah
4) Mullahs are involved in resource allocation decisions from strong to weak and to expand the pie at the water hole they lead.
5) In a complex society resource allocation decisions are hard and rewards delayed and not local. All the issues Iran faces ( water, food, electrical, oil, gas) require allocation effectiveness.
6) I believe this weakness in Irans core is one reason they overthrew Mosedegh and constantly revolt and it will hold their entry into the modern world back for a long time
gotta go now
Otherwise, this was entertaining on many levels.
Otherwise, this was entertaining on many levels.
Fair enough, but he's been here this morning. I know, he's researching.
Quote:
wee hours of the morning is probably unrealistic -- radar was likely sleeping after another of his hit and run posts.
Otherwise, this was entertaining on many levels.
Fair enough, but he's been here this morning. I know, he's researching.
Agreed, once the sun came back up, it then becomes realistic to expect some kind of response.
Quote:
wee hours of the morning is probably unrealistic -- radar was likely sleeping after another of his hit and run posts.
Otherwise, this was entertaining on many levels.
Fair enough, but he's been here this morning. I know, he's researching.
Bill, you've been a gentleman on this site for so long and an example of how we should treat each other. Everyone is entitled to one of those days.
As for radar, I eagerly await is documented and sourced assessment.
There is a reason for that and it is both interesting and important:
Irans conversion to Islam was for many centuries one of the most lukewarm for most of Iran self identified as Persian and unlike the desert people of Arabia...they had a great culture. As a result for example, Islam was not the national religion until the 16th century
What happened in the 16th Century
The Safavids.
The Safavid dynasty was not Iranian, they were from Lebanon. The Safavids were radical Shia, and upon their occupation they imported a group of Shia clerics, olima, from Lebanon -- hence the connection of Iranian Shia establishment with the Hizb’allah -- including the author of the rule of Jurisprudents, meaning the god-given rule of clerics, that Khomeini adopted 300 years later and implemented in Iran again in 1979.
The imported Shiite establishment overrode the Iranian culture and civilization of human rights, equal rights of women, freedom of worship and respect for all, dismissing it as pagan and enforcing a new culture of Islamic Sharia laws written by Madjlesi.
Half of the Shia Clerical establishment never considered themselves Iranian, as they are rooted in Lebanon and have kept the ties by intermarriage. In 1979, when asked Ayatollah Khomeini about his feelings going back to Iran after all these years, Khomeini responded that Iran is not important, it is only a source and a base to establish his Islamic foundation to spread in the region.
What did the mullahs of this branch of Islam from Lebanon believe in?
Broadening their focus to economic life. Tightly focusing on the complete education and health and charity of the poorest people and insuring their complete loyalty, forming guards, gangs or militia and aggression.
Hezbollah is a direct follower of these tenents. as Is half of the clerical population of Iran. Lebanon influenced Iranian fundamentalism not the other way around. Hezbollah is not new. It is 500 years old.
and the use of inner city poor fused into weapons when economic freedom and a voice over resources of the mullahs is threatened by the state is a tenant of this Lebanese branch of Islams development.
The next contextual subjects we need to visit to understand is Iran as a colony. And how the radical branch of mullahs handled disputes over economics and disputes with the state...far far before Mosedegh or 1979. Or the years since
Less surprisingly, it's very clear why no one buys yours.
But in winning this round, he proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's a cowardly troll. People like radar besmirch the character of their betters because they possess none themselves.
Also when I am done there are pieces to footnote as they are singular sources ( meaning if you don't know where to look it's not like you will find it confirmed multiple places. This to me is always the weakest part of controversial recent history. Spin has been around since the dawn of humankind but it's an art form recently. I raced though the safavids for iran's many beliefs are also sourced in the challenges of being a colony and the challenge of modernity
never-the-less -- I thoroughly enjoyed reading your eviseration of him -- it was AweSomE!!!!!
Also when I am done there are pieces to footnote as they are singular sources ( meaning if you don't know where to look it's not like you will find it confirmed multiple places. This to me is always the weakest part of controversial recent history. Spin has been around since the dawn of humankind but it's an art form recently. I raced though the safavids for iran's many beliefs are also sourced in the challenges of being a colony and the challenge of modernity
Actually their track record is worse than France. Since the 12th century:
Genghis Khan went all out Genghis on Iran....sending night terrors down through the ages. Iran was the nation that was available when he got really irritable. iran tried to sue for peace but the Khan killed every diplomat on every mission and sent the heads back. He no longer gave cities a choice of living if they surrendered on day one.
then the Ottomans kicked butt despite sending a much smaller Army
then the Russians shrunk Iranian lands four times in four wars. each time Iran paid more to placate them. The last two they paid Russias cost to whip them
in between an Afghan warlord marched west and took over for a few years.
then Russia came from the north and the Brits came from the south and established two slave colonies.
Saddam with 25% of the population fought them to a standstill.
We dropped in to the left and the right for a few years. while owning their shipping channel. Meanwhile Russia took some of their Caspian sea fields and the way to ship the oil north.
Remember 300 Greeks stopped these guys. Alexander whipped them in battle after battle when he was 30% of their size.
They don't remember winning. So part of their fierce paranoia and attachment to defending themselves via a bomb is from national shame.
And of all the nations with colonies...the Brits usually leave the most administrative systems and practices and an education system and generally were the most enlightened of the colonial powers. With one exception....Iran.
Now lets turn to a post about how the mullahs handled the growing challenge of modernity in the 19th and 20th Century...
The Iranian were helpless to stop the public humiliation of foreigners buying up place after place...until the Shah at the time sold the tobacco concession...throwing 200,000 workers into turmoil. ( and many mullahs who had "investments" in the tobacco farms, transport, production and selling).
to cut to the chase, the local mullahs, working poor and merchants slowly escalated the street protests and expanded the protestors to include students. eventually the Grand Ayatollah issued a fatwa against smoking. Which the nation heeded. The Brits and Shah were forced to backtrack.
It was the first victory against any outsiders and the Shah in centuries.
And the lessons it taught the people is that only the mullahs stood up. And the mullahs learned that street protests by ruffians and students and the younger mullahs worked. And they learned that they alone amongst the previously wealthy could use religion and the inner city poor they tended to win concessions and gain economic power.
Hmm...1891....a pattern emerges?
The next crisis was far larger...the Constitutional Crisis of 1907
I will let anyone who wishes to read this part of Iranian history on their own.
Note two things....the street gangs, the mullahs, the students, the fatwas.
and note the names of the Ayatollahs and more prominent mullahs. those name you will hear again as the sons fought Mosadegh and the grandsons the 1979 Revolution.
If you read the lives of some of the prominent Mullahs you will read many had parents or grandparents killed or publically executed by the powers than be and you will see plenty of children and grandchildren who are now in charge of significant money making opportunities and also in the loose collection called a "government"
Kashani, Behbanni, Khomeni. All lost fathers to the shah of that time. Some lost children once they were grown emerging mullahs.
Blood feuds and honor, screams about the Vig. Sound familiar?
Next we will finally fast forward to Mosadegh.
Btw, mullahs are fierce, willfull, passionate and many are mad bad and dangerous to know.
Btw, many Persian women are fierce, willful, passionate and many are mad bad and dangerous to know.
But I won't cite how I would know that...
Your posts are extremely enjoyable.
There was a range of mullah reactions to the Constitution and post Constitutional revolution. The idea of curbing the feudal system, the foreign looting of the country and the Shah of the Qafar dynasty was a desired goal. But the inheritors of the Safvids school of fundamentalism were starting to promote the idea that the real solution was return to sharia law and rule by the mullahs.
A steady diet of taxes and protests and fights between the police of the feudals and Shah and the mullahs and their followers continued. Into the fray came the trade unionists and then in the 1920’s the communists.
By the 1950’s many mullahs have grandfathers and fathers who were murdered or executed. As you will see, the major players in 1953 and 1979 were children when their fathers were killed for pursuing what the mullahs thought was Allahs work.
In 1921, a mullah was dragged out of his house and killed in front of his son by the officials of the Shah. Don Cicci got the father. He got Paulo. He got the wife. He missed 9 year old Vito Andolini. The Shahs troops left the sobbing family…and the 9 year old named Ruhollah.
As in Ruhollah Khomeini.
Tick tock. Tick tock. Game on.
In 1922, a scion of a feudal family, General Reza Khan Pahlevi, made a deal with the Russian Cossacks and armed with that division of Cossacks, staged a coup and had himself named Prime Minister.
At last the old Shah of the Qafars was gone and the new Shah seemed interested in some form of constitutional process. He made five big mistakes:
1) He built a major railroad and turned over construction to the Russians and the Brits with incredible sweetheart deals.
2) He financed it by taxes on sugar, tobacco and alcohol. You know…the industries that fed the mullahs and their followers.
3) He thought the mullahs with their old beliefs and anti modern backwardness and money from grubby low profit businesses and no army were impotent.
That’s a mistake that the Russians, feudals, monarchists, constitutional moderates, Communists, Russians and Brits all made as well.
4)He became close to the Germans. Theoretically not the Russians or the Brits. Technologically advanced. Eager to “help” He decided to stay neutral when the war started.
5)WWII started and the Russians simply walked over their border and the Brits landed by sea.
In 1941 he was forced to turn over the throne to his son and go into exile.
The war ends. Oil becomes even more important. The Brits withdraw their troops as do the Russians but the Brit oil interests and the new Shah start all over as the feudal players had since 1880.
By now the communists are the worlds largest communist Party…the Tudeh.
But the mullahs did not weaken or fade away. They now started to play tougher.
The two main Ayatollahs were Ayatollah Behabanni and Ayatollah Kashani.
In the next tier down were two younger mullahs. Rulhollah Khomeini and Navab Safavi.
Safavi clearly was the leader of the fundamentalist activist arm of the movement ( the Fadayan) but he and Khomeini were side by side and the degree of Khomeini’s active involvement in the actual assassinations to follow is unclear. What is clear is that he issued the fatwas and edicts that sanctioned the assassinations squads that furthered the mullahs causes over the next ten years…including the ones key to the destruction of Mossadeghs attempts to rule as a constitutional elected nationalist
There were many assassinations of lower level representatives, journalists on the wrong side, Tudah officials and foreigners. The overall effect was great fear amongst the feudal families and those who tried to be constitutionalists. Meanwhile some Ayatollahs played footsie with the Shah and some with the constitutionalists. It was hard to know where the mullahs really stood. They switched side at the slightest mistake to their interests and they bore grudges. For a long time.
But the first major disruptive assassination was of a nationalist, anti-clerical author named Ahmad Kasravi, who was shot and killed in 1946. Kasravi was definitely a target of Khomeini. He left letters and the fatwa he issued around and the Shahs people brought him in for questioning.
Hussein Emami, the assassin and a founding member of the Fadayan, was promptly arrested and sentenced to death for the crime. Kashani and Khomeini and many of the Shia clergy pressured the Shah to give Emami a pardon, taking advantage of the Shah's political difficulties — such as the occupation of Azerbaijan province by Soviet troops — at that time.
In 1949, the group killed court minister (and former prime minister) Abdolhossein Hazhir.
On 7 March 1951, the Prime Minister Haj-Ali Razmara was assassinated, in retaliation for his advice against nationalizing the oil industry.
Three weeks later the Education and Culture Minister Ahmad Zangeneh was assassinated by the group.
Later in 1951, the Fadayan made an attempt on the life of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.
Although the Fadayan strongly supported the nationalization of Iran's foreign-owned oil industry, they turned against the leader of the nationalization movement, Mohammad Mossadeq, when he became prime minister, because of his refusal to implement the sharia law and appoint strict Islamists to high positions.
Another assassination attempt on 15 February 1952 badly wounded Hossein Fatemi, Mosaddeq's foreign minister.
In 1955, Navab Safavi was finally executed. The group continued on.
Next they assassinated Prime Minister Hassan Ali Mansour in 1965.
Mansour is reported to have been "tried" by a secret Islamic court made up of Khomeini followers Morteza Motahhari and Ayatollah Mohammad Beheshti and sentenced to death "on a charge of `warring on Allah”.
Remember those names….they were prominent before and after the revolution of 1979.
During the 1979 Iranian Revolution, Fadayan members served as foot soldiers for Khomeini.
Many of its members went on to serve in the Islamic Republic regime.
They and their sons still “serve” Allah.
once again, imho, understanding the what why and how of the 1953 plot is essential to beginning to understand Iran.
What we need to do to finish covering the Fedayan is to note that they published a lot of journals and newspapers. Why is that important?
As far back as 1946, they blamed the US or British spys and agents for the assassinations they themselves committed.
Why? Because the Brits were slowly turning their relations with the feudal families over to the Americans. When the coup took place the stories that the US was behind it came from Fedayan publications.
Why? To cover the tracks of the mullahs in case the coup failed and from the Shah in case it succeeded. Its easily verified as a source. Get chris r on the case. I first heard it from Iranian exiles but it turned out to be valid.
Another important piece of the puzzle is provided by looking at the life and times and role of the Tehran based Ayatollah. As you can see now going back to the 1891 revolts about tobacco, the Ayatollah in Tehran was vital to the mullah playbook for he was emeshed in and economically central to the bazzar merchants, the street gangs and much of Tehran University and the students there.
For several centuries that role was often played by the Bebahanni family of mullahs. Often famous scholars but some generations were more street focused. They came from the line of fundamentalists who first came from Lebanon in 1500Ad.
Behbahani assisted his father in his political activities during the Constitutional Revolution. When his father was assassinated in July 1910, he inherited his great influence in the capital.
After WWII he emerged as one of the most influential politically involved mullahs. At first, he expresed his support for the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry brought about by Moá¹£adeqh. But in early 1953, he adopted an increasingly hostile stance. He opposed plans for calling a referendum which would vest emergency powers in Mosadegh and threatened to mobilize against him.
In August 1953 displaced Behbahani pulled out the clerical students and the bazzar workers and the street gangs Using Mullah playbook 101 ( Omaha, Omaha).
He was the one who distributed money to the gangs and bazzar merchants on behalf of the plotters, money received from Kermit Roosevelt and known around town as “Behbahani dollars”. We know this from Iranian publications, letters and CIA reports by Roosevelt.
Behbahanî also facilitated the coup by ordering via fatwa his followers into the Tehran streets at the time of its occurrence. Faced with a choice between the continuation of Moá¹£adeqh’s premiership and the return of the shah from his exile, Behbahanî clearly preferred the latter alternative from fear that Moá¹£adeqh’s administration would soon yield to rule by the Tudeh Party.
Almost predictably, Behbahani’s relations with the Pahlevi regime began to sour in 1959. The major issue that turned Behbahani against the government was the planned redistribution of land. Behbahani published an open letter denouncing the limitation of landed holdings as contrary to Islamic law. Thereafter his relations with the government continually declined, to the point that in early 1962 he sent a letter to the shah denouncing the repression of Bebahani’s own call for Tehran demonstrations in support of free elections to overthrow the Shah.
Just so you get a flavor for how life works…post 1979, Behbahani’s two sons now run the import export licensing agency.
So ironically with the lifting of the sanctions….once again America provides “Behabanni Dollars”.
Tomorrow, we will run into the other important right out of central casting Ayatollah at the time of the coup….Ayatollah Kashani.
During WWII, the Tudeh, aided by the Russians grew tremendously and were the unions in just about every industry especially the labor part of the Oil Industry. The degree the mullahs were threatened as a power base on the everyday economic ground and in the halls of power shrunk tremendously during the war. And the consent of the governed freedom to manuever that the feudals enjoyed prior to the war shrunk.
But as we have seen the feudals were extremely tone deaf especially when it came to striking deals with foreigners. Into this mix came four relevant facts anyone trying to understand 1953 should know:
1) The Americans showed up during WWII. And after WWII without any pressure they kept their WWII promises and left as they had promised. This amazed almost all factions in Iran.
2) The Russians did not. The Brits did not.
3) The Shah and many but not all of the 16 post war Prime Ministers up to 1953 went right back to striking deals with the ex colonial powers. Yes I said 16 Prime Ministers from 1943 to 1953.
4)Those who had a nationalist streak in the ME noticed one thing more than any other….The way American companies and the American nation did business at a time no other colonial power ever did…not the Russians, the French, the Spanish, the Italians or the Germans or the Dutch or the Belgians.
Lets look at this when it comes to oil. The Saudi King controlled the rights to drill. And drilling was expensive and costly and guess work. It was risky. And getting to the surface and to markets from place like the Saudi desert was a monumental task to consider. To get away from the Europeans the House of Saud had reached out to meet a legend they heard of…one John D Rockefeller.
They formed a company as partners. This was unheard of to the ME. They bore the costs for exploration so the percent of the oil if found was high for Standard Oil. But lower than any other nations deal from any other power. Notice the company not the US nation made a deal. By terms of the deal the Americans started to train actual Saudis in the industry rather then keep them out of it as if it was a secret. And they kept their word. That was in 1937, the war delayed progress. But by 1950 the extent of Saudi oil was legendary. And you know what the Americans did? When asked the first time they cut a breakthrough deal …a fifty fifty deal to share people, knowledge, expenses and profits. That stood the test of time and was the leading best deal any nation ever got until 1988.
The other ME nations were stunned and mad that any of them would grant any less to any foreigner.
In the early 1950s Iran actually looked up to the Americans. I repeat, we were idealized by most factions of Iran and that grew when Truman pressured the soviets to leave (of course that was about our fears of communist takeover) Iran.
Sentiment for nationalization of Iran's oil industry grew. From all factions of the nation except the royalists and feudals, In November 1950, the committee concerned with oil matters, headed by Mosaddeq, rejected a draft agreement from the Brits which offered the government slightly improved terms. These terms did not include the fifty-fifty profit-sharing provision that the Americans had given the Saudis.
Subsequent negotiations were unsuccessful because the Shah and the feudal families failed to persuade the oil company of the strength of nationalist feeling in the country.
When finally offered fifty-fifty profit-sharing in February 1951, sentiment for nationalization of the oil industry had become too widespread.
The Prime Minister at the time, Razmara, advised against nationalization on technical grounds.
He was assassinated by the Fadayan arm of the mullahs on March 1st 1951. On March 15, the parliament voted to nationalize the oil industry.
In April the Shah yielded to demonstrations in the Tehran streets by the bazzar and street gangs of Bebahanni and Kashani by naming Mosaddeq prime minister. This was important because the Ayaollahs and mullahs expected reciprocation on their issues from Mosedegh.
Instead, Mosadegh got closer to and named more Tudeh to his cabinet and into Parliment because he needed offsets to the feudals and did not like the mullahs or religion in the affairs of state. That move was a big problem to the Dulles brothers and the USA overall.
And it illustrates a huge weakness of Mosadegh. He was more tone deaf than the feudals. He was like Jimmy Carter. Moralistic and rigid. Even if he did not like them on principal...the mullahs had proven to be the force of consequence at turning points and crisis since 1880. And being tone deaf to buying off the “moderate mullahs” ( meaning the more concerned with their vig) via concessions to their economic interests left the fundamentalist wing issues free to find common ground in the ire of the moderate mullahs and Ayatollahs.
The final stages of all around stupid human not listening to the other guy was set in motion. by the time its done we will conclude than no one played smart or long or wise. even the US. Except for one faction....the Mullahs. They never pretended to listen. By this time the majority of mullahs had one objective, short term tactics evolve but to them, the results were obvious...only a return to a mullah led world would work. and in the universities growing new mullahs at Qom and Najaf....that conclusion began to develop a new generation of baby boomer mullahs who would arrive into shoulder against the wheel in ....oh about 1980
Its the early 1950s, you are the President:
There is a Korean thing
There is a Russian nuclear power in late 1949
There is still limping Europe. there is Berlin.
There is a guy name Mao who threw out the old world order in 1949 and sent troops into Korea to defeat us.
There is the McCarthy thing wreaking havoc on cabinet and military morale.
Some Shah guy is weak and not in control as his country rots and the brits showing the second tier talent drain post WWI is still haunting progress as there are simply to many Montgomerys. Their withdrawl from colonialism is proving a problem in Eygpt, India, this new thing called Pakistan and all over Africa and the ME and this place called Iran which is a direct southern shot for the Soviets for their long desired warm water port.
Reluctantly, we have to do something to bolster this iran place...way too many more important priorities. I mean I no sooner hear out the CIA on Iran and next on m meeting schedule is an update on problems in Cuba? when will it end?
So if you go look at the record pre mid year 1953, we have a weak Shah and his useless impotent feudal families on one side and a possible ally in the army and also the mullahs who have followers amongst the ordinary people and who also hate the communists. Those are our only allies and this Prime Minister giving the Brits derived fits seems to be a pro communist sympathizer.
So yeah Kermit go talk to the Shah and this Army guy. they have already indicated they are willing to move so we at least have some allies willing to start the change. And take the money you need to pay people who come forward. All these places are so corrupt. Its like when we needed cooperation in Naples and Sicily and had to pay shits like Luciano the pimp to make the right introductions
Kermit goes over there and just concentrates on meeting Zahedi and Shahboy as they requested. Their seconds tell him they hope to do it by decree but just in case have reached out when the time comes if it ever gets to that and a coup or fight against the communists. So we have a few army units and some preachers who will tell the faithful to be pro Army. Yeah the priests over their got newspapers and they slime us and blame us for things they actually do....but that's to escape retribution. They are killing off Tudeh on a weekly basis so what do we care who they use to deflect investigation?
Its reading the pre 1953 CIA material not the post 1953 claiming credit for a role larger than we played that is most convincing as to whom is zooming who before and during the coup.
To me the coup is a final act in a long running play. Mosedegh was a dead man walking since 1951. Only the timing and the pretext remains unknown. Guy is probably lasting this long cause he has the Brits to demonize to the domestic audience.
All the best Kermit...don't do anything rash...just make it easier for them to do what they are going to do anyway. Sooner we help it happen before the Communists and Soviets get stronger from this bumbling the better. I don't want to be on TV at some senate hearing asking "who lost Iran?"
It's too damn humid in NYC today to sit inside and read all of this, but I will bookmark for my next flight.
Hope you are well Bill and thanks for laying this all out, a subject I've long been interested in but too overwhelming to bite into. This is an outstanding starting point, as always.
"Mossadegh was not a Muslim and I said he will be slapped and it was not long after that he was slapped in the 1953 coup. and if he had lasted he would have slapped Islam"
...Ayatollah Khomeni.
"Yesterday, Tehran shook under the feet of anti foreign Muslims. Mossedegh, the bloodthirsty old ghoul, resigned under the blows from the Muslims. All government centers were seized by the Muslims and the Army of Islam"
...Newspaper of the Fedayan the day after Mossdegh resigned.
Sure sounds like a bunch of people mad we took away their beloved Mossedegh. Sure sounds like something we did that really hurt them deeply
"According to the honorable law of Islam the punishment for betraying Jihad while in position to lead the country is death"
Yep...they sure blamed us
Even though Kashani publicly supported Mosadegh their relations were problematic from the very beginning. As early as November 1951, the British Embassy reported that Kashani was so disgruntled with Mosadegh that he had put out "feelers" in many directions, including the U.S. Embassy. His main thesis is the danger of communism and the need for immediate American aid.
Kashani's opposition came into the open by mid-1953 once Mosadegh sent a referendum to dissolve Parliament, drafted an electoral bill enfranchising women, tended to favor state enterprises over the bazaar, refused to ban alcohol, and declined amnesty to assassins from the Fedayan.
The awarding of government contracts, also played a role. Kashani's two sons had set up a lucrative business buying and selling import licenses for prohibited goods using their father's threats.
By mid-1953, before Kermit got even sent to Iran, Kashani was urging the bazaars to support General Zahedi, the nominal leader of the prospective coup. He also praised the shah for being "young," "kindhearted," and highly "popular." Kashani's closest mullahs support in Parliament denounced Mosadegh as a dictator worse than Hitler and a Socialist more extreme than Stalin.
On the shah's triumphant return the Fedayan newspaper hailed the coup as a "holy uprising," and praised the shah as the world's Muslim hero. Not surprisingly, Navab Safavi, their leader, was promptly released from prison and permitted to go on a world tour.
Notice the only people in this narrative who understand you cant let Vito live are the mullahs?
In retaliation and to gain leverage in the talks, Britain imposed a worldwide embargo on the purchase of Iranian oil and froze Iran's sterling assets and banned export of goods to Iran. But under American pressure, the Brits improved its offer to Iran. But once again it was too little and too late and freedom to maneuver inside Iran was lost. By the time a decent offer arrived, anti-British feeling, agitation by radical mullah elements, over promising by Mosadegh, the storm of even lower level assassinations and intimidations meant that only Iran's maximum demands were acceptable.
The economy began to suffer from the loss of foreign exchange and oil revenues. Meanwhile, Mosadegh's stacking the parliament with Tudah and his intransigence on the oil issue were creating friction between the prime minister and the shah. In the summer of 1952, the shah refused the prime minister's demand for the power to appoint the minister of war (and, by implication, to control the armed forces).
Mosadegh resigned. Hoping for concessions from Mosedagh if he returned to power ….three days of rioting organized by the mullahs followed, and the shah was forced to reappoint Mosadeqh to head the government.
But Ayatollah Kashani and Bebahanni did not get any thanks, concessions or respect from Mosedegh and they turned on him completely and began to take the Tudeh threat to them even more seriously. As domestic conditions deteriorated Mosadeqh grew more inflexible. He demanded full powers in all affairs of government for a six-month period. He also obtained approval for a law to reduce, from six years to two years, the term of the Senate ( sort of like the House of Lords in England) and thus brought about the dissolution of that body.
Mosaddeq's support in the lower house of the Parliament ( traditionally a bastion of mullah allies and mullahs) was dwindling so the prime minister proposed to dissolve Parliament entirely and then claimed a secretly counted massive vote in favor of the proposal, and dissolved the legislative body. By this time the treats of assassination by the Fedayan were so strong that he and his team was a virtual prisoner in his own family compound.
Initially pro Mossedegh, now the United States began to conclude that no reasonable compromise with Mosadegh was possible and that, by working with the Toudeh, Mosadegh was increasing the chances of a communist-inspired takeover. In June 1953, the Eisenhower administration approved a plan to allow Kermit Roosevelt to Iran to coordinate plans with the shah, the mullahs and the Iranian military.
In accord with the plan, on August 13 the shah appointed Zahedi prime minister to replace Mosadegh. Who refused to step down and arrested the emissary from the Shahs office. The shah fled the country, and Zahedi went into hiding.
But that caused the mullahs to go into all out overdrive. After four days of non stop rioting, army units, students and street crowds defeated Mosadeghs Tudeh led street forces. The shah returned to the country. Hundreds of Tudeh Party officers and political activists were arrested and sentenced to death.
So now lets step back and in the next post examine the beyond wrongheaded and simplistic claim that we overthrew a popular Prime Minister against popular will so we could get oil and the canard which follows….our involvement is what caused the 1979 Revolution.
Maybe before we do that we should spend time on the leading Ayatollah of the time…Kashani. That lets view all of the actions of all the major players….and by extension how small a role we played. Like idiots, we gave out some small amount of dollars that they spread to their own street gangs called “Bebahanni Dollars”
Like a clown, the dumb ass americans spent on what was going to happen anyway….and served as the patsy covering the mullahs tracks…in the mullahs own propaganda newspapers.
We did not kill anyone. We sent no weapons. We spoke to the Shah and told him we wanted him to rule? Duh…So did he? We told an Army General who was already appointed Prime Minister but fled before we got there that…we liked him? We met mullahs and asked how can we spend and they told us? Pretty leading edge CIA mojo working on this case.
This is leading a coup? Uh…or is this is us in the way back seats riding the train others loaded, filled, steered and drove? And telling fish tales back home on Capitol Hill to justify more budget?
In the years which followed the mullahs protested and Kashani, Bebhanni and Khomeini were exiled or under house arrest. Mullahs feeding Tudeh to SAVAK was a multi decade sport until they were wiped out. No Don Cicci mistakes….all of them and often their families…one of the biggest losses of life and defeats the Communist movement ever suffered.
Lets wrap up in a few more posts tomorrow. No reason BBI has to be repeating age old propaganda they asked us to swallow as if we fell off the turnip truck yesterday.
It is true that we had American companies in iran and iranian oil during the post Mossadegh Shah era. Gas was 35 cents a gallon and global production easily exceeded demand until the late 1990s. Speculation on price barely affected or added to the price. American oil companies were there at global standard contracts for the time and largely because the Britt were anathema in iran after 1953.
So we did not play a part because of oil. We played a part because of the Soviets and the communists.
We played the tiniest and stupidest of roles and late and comedic in 1953.
Iran had a very short intro into the Industrial Revolution. Times of change challenge all factions in a society.
Iranian and Shia mullahs are not priests or preachers or rabbis. They are one of the alphas of their world. It is often the family business. Many mullahs are quite commercial. Many serve. Some are scholars. Some are mild.
But starting in 1880 there was a steel cage match of one hundred years duration. Feudal lords, nationalists, merchants, poor people, communists, royalists, old shah dynasty, new shah dynasty, military leaders, Germany England and Russia and America all entered the ring.
So did the mullahs. At the end of the 99th year the mullahs won by knockout.
The tactics in a crisis never ever varied. The tactics to instruct in between never varied.
The goal never varied.
So when the students protested the Shah in 1979 the media idiots and most Americans were sympathetic to anyone who told truth to power and assumed like we often do that the result of the process would be a more moderate and open society.
Later the poor people took to the streets.
We never understood it was an old play book and foreigners were always a rallying cry.
Of all the players the mullahs get credit in their land for standing up for Iran free of outsiders. When time does forget and their version of the greatest generation no longer gets credit and their failings become a bigger part of the way they are judged...we shall see...Meanwhile no one in Iran knows a different way.
That's who they are. They are not going to be allies of anyone outside iran. Some will be pan Shia but thats some. it's an impulse of some and not the nation. Meanwhile the nation has huge internal problems. But defending themselves from outsiders? The mullahs did that and while Russia sits north and America spent a decade to the left and right and south....no one dared come into the heartland and if it takes the mullahs 99 years...they will have a bomb to defend themselves.
Unknowing self flagellation that we caused it is beyond making the narrative of the world about us. ..it's made up.
Imho
When you find some time, if you want to do a thing on Yemen, which is another inexplicable area to most of us, I am sure it would be well received.
I, like most of us, fail to understand the whole Iran/Yemen tie in, and the 'who does what' right now there is also really a mystery as to - what, if anything, our (USA) role is or should be.
savant....don't know much about Yemen...never thought there was much to know.
Reminds me of the Kiowa, Comanche, Pawnees, Apache, and Southern Cheyene all packed in west of the Mississippi and pushed down from the good land where the buffalo roam by the more powerful Sauds...I mean Souix.
Saudis make sure it stays weak....the old Great Game Brit used to play with India, Pakistan, Afghan and Russia. Shia makes sure they don't fade away. its a six top family game and some outlaws in a godforsaken place. imho
Much appreciated.
Link - ( New Window )
However, the thread has me thinking that I had underestimated the Shiite Iranian/Lebanese Mullahs in their endurance and their never ending duplicity.
Of course, as an American, my (naïve?) instinct is that such duplicity is ultimately self defeating, I mean, how lovely can the end resulting culture ever be in such a world?
However, I do feel somewhat sharper on the subject now having read this.
Fascinating book on them:
Empire of the Summer Moon - ( New Window )
Again, thanks!