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.
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.