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.
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.