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?
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?