| If I could believe that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action marked the end of Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon—that it is, in the president’s unambiguous declaration, “the most definitive path by which Iran will not get a nuclear weapon” because “every pathway to a nuclear weapon is cut off”—I would support it. I do not support it because it is none of those things. It is only a deferral and a delay. Every pathway is not cut off, not at all. The accord provides for a respite of 15 years, but 15 years is just a young person’s idea of a long time. Time, to borrow the president’s words, will tell. Even though the text of the agreement twice states that “Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons,” there is no evidence that the Iranian regime has made a strategic decision to turn away from the possibility of the militarization of nuclear power. Its strategic objective has been, rather, to escape the sanctions and their economic and social severities. In this, it has succeeded. If even a fraction of the returned revenues are allocated to Iran’s vile adventures beyond its borders, the United States will have subsidized an expansion of its own nightmares. |
1) The deal clearly sets the timing back to a year from 60 days or so, but not from a running start. Iran would have to massively cheat under the terms of the deal, in order to make up what they are giving up in enriched uranium and centrifuges.
2) If Iran does massively cheat and gets caught, the case for the US and/or Israel to take military steps is much stronger with a deal than without one.
3) Iran is aware of (2).
4) As a consequence, the real timing to fully "go nuclear" is a lot longer than for the Ayatolla to just say "start 'em up"--possibly as long as 10-15 years. This does create a window for internal political pressures within Iran to possibly--not definitely--change.
Watch the Charlie Rose discussion above--and the one linked here--for more details of the positive case.
Link - ( New Window )
I haven't reached a definitive conclusion -- but this rush to judgment is disconcerting.
astoundingly good Iran deal - ( New Window )
[quote]But Olli Heinonen, former deputy director general for safeguards at the IAEA, says that while the type of environmental sampling inspectors will use to search for traces of activity can be used to detect whether a certain amount of enriched uranium was present, such technology does not guarantee that levels that violate the agreement would be detected.
"Twenty-four days is a long time," Heinonen said at a recent media roundtable with reporters in Washington, D.C. "One should not think environmental sampling will solve all our problems."
Paul Pillar, a nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center for 21st Century Security and a former intelligence officer with the CIA and National Intelligence Council, says the difficulty in verifying compliance is that it requires the IAEA to verify Iran is not doing something.
"We can never expect, not just with Iran but any country, the IAEA to again certify a negative. And unless you had millions of inspectors fanning out over a country, combing everything that could possibly be an industrial site – which is far, far out of the realm of the feasible – we can't expect them to do that," Pillar says. "We can expect them to do what they've done with other countries, which is to make sure none of the declared facilities are put to weapons use … and act promptly and with as much expertise as they can muster on any reports or accusations that are brought to them."
Link - ( New Window )
A bigger Western presence in Iran is more likely to diffuse the craziness than further isolation. No one believes we're about to become BFFs but at least one of us can pick up the phone and call the other guy if there's some beef brewing. Moreover, the more contact Iranians have with the West, the more they may realize what a BS deal they're getting from the mullahs and RG.
Am I missing something here?
All we seem to have done is provided billions of $$$ to help fund people trying to kill us.
Am I missing something here?
All we seem to have done is provided billions of $$$ to help fund people trying to kill us.
Yes, you're missing the terms of the deal. Unless you dismiss it as 100% worthless.
Were the sanctions going to stay in place in perpetuity?
Was Iran just going to lay down and take any deal, and cease flexing its muscles in the middle east as much as possible? In what world was and Iran deal going to put to bed all our problems with Iran? Is that a piece of the GOP platform that I missed? The Netanyahu Plan For World Piece?
It's a done deal. There's no way the Senate overrides Obama's veto unless Iran starts, correction - gets caught, cheating in the next 60 days. The real question is how good or bad the deal is.
I have questions about the nuclear aspects and whether delay is sufficient, but we'll find out about that in the next 10-15 years.
But if Iran can get Soliemani (QUDS Force) and others off the sanctions list even though they weren't connected with the nuclear program, get the ability to buy top of the line Russian air defense systems within five years along with missiles, get their frozen funds released within a shorter period than that and don't even have to release the 4 "hostages" they hold then Sec. Moniz is full of it with respect to saying there were no non-nuclear aspects and he and Sec. Kerry got their collective clock cleaned with respect to those issues.
Quote:
Bomb aside, why help a terrorist state that has pledged the destruction of the United States and Israel?
Am I missing something here?
All we seem to have done is provided billions of $$$ to help fund people trying to kill us.
Yes, you're missing the terms of the deal. Unless you dismiss it as 100% worthless.
Were the sanctions going to stay in place in perpetuity?
Was Iran just going to lay down and take any deal, and cease flexing its muscles in the middle east as much as possible? In what world was and Iran deal going to put to bed all our problems with Iran? Is that a piece of the GOP platform that I missed? The Netanyahu Plan For World Piece?
+Infinity.
As I said, I have not made up my mind yet (not that really matters) -- I think the discussion needs, to use your word, to be more fulsome. In many cases people are just going with their preexisting biases and not taking the time for a full and deliberate process.
Lets start with the small stuff. Should release of the 4 "detainees" in Iran really have been a potential deal killer when Soleimani is getting off the sanctions list??
Hope I'm dead wrong.
Link clearly outlines what Iran must do. I know some will not consider the Brookings Institute as an unbiased source. However, it's not an opinion piece. I could not find another source that published a clear and comprehensive outline on how this agreement is suppose to work.
Iran deal timeline - ( New Window )
I don't think anyone is completely 100% in love with this deal, but I sure as hell think it's better than any alternative.
Hope I'm dead wrong.
This deal isnt simply about trusting the Iranians. There are hard limitations, and inspections. My understanding is that big picture we will know if they have reconstituted a nuke weapons program. No inspections regime is going to be perfect -- even with great inspections they can hollow out a mountain that we've never heard of. Or buy the materials from NK. The inspections could be a lot stronger, but they're not nothing.
And not to sound like a broken record, but what is your alternative? How does the status quo improve things? I understand that the status quo was unacceptable and on the verge of deteriorating. Perfect cant be the enemy of good here.
There is also the diplomatic angle, for better or worse. If this fell apart it would have severely weakened the remaining notion of American leadership in the world. If we have a more productive relationship with Iran maybe things can be accomplished. In particular we have a shared enemy in ISIS. We wont be their BFF and I dont count on any liberalization by popular will, but they're a major power center in the region and a productive relationship is better than unproductive.
Ahh but they're the good guys. Well if I"m Iran I want it if Israel has it. Iran has , btw, said for years and way before the sanctions that they will forgo the bomb if Israel gives her's up.
And I believe that Israel is clearly expansionist and again ignoring every UN mandate about the settlements.
I don't understand rewarding a country who has pledged your destruction and is currently fighting proxy wars all over the region.
Ahh but they're the good guys. Well if I"m Iran I want it if Israel has it. Iran has , btw, said for years and way before the sanctions that they will forgo the bomb if Israel gives her's up.
And I believe that Israel is clearly expansionist and again ignoring every UN mandate about the settlements.
Israel is the only true friend we have in that region and the only democracy. I trust Israel.
Beyond that, Israel has few friends in the world, and unfortunately our relations with them are at an all-time low.
And yes, our relationship with Israel sucks right now. It ducked when Bakker was Secretary of State. It's stronger than the two current leaders, though Bibi is more to blame IMO.
Take off the Obama-colored glasses for a moment. We're now economically supporting a country pledged to our destruction.
I don't understand rewarding a country who has pledged your destruction and is currently fighting proxy wars all over the region.
Your first point ignores the fact that the sanctions regime was crumbling. Our allies like Germany said that other nations were "ready to move beyond sanctions". You think we could keep Russia in on a sanctions regime? So the status quo wasnt necessarily to keep the sanctions in place -- I have every reason to believe that the alternative was to watch the sanctions fall apart for no return whatsoever.
Im not even sure what your second point is, if not rhetoric. And deal with Iran was going to give them something and would meet your definition of a reward? What was your solution? War? Iran laying down its arms and regional ambition for no return? That's just fantasy.
But yeah, if there was a fantasy world solution I could see how a real world compromise is disappointing.
Keep the sanctions in place. Encourage others such as the Europeans to do the same.
Would you have traded with the Nazis if others did so too? I don't understand your logic.
If you decided to boycott IBM, would you start buying from them again because others chose to do so?
it's 159 pages, but really about 70 of text, I suggest those of you haven't actually read it.
My initial knee jerk reaction was rhetoric based (if Iran is this happy about it, it can't be that good), but given the options I don't think it's terrible, it all comes down to enforcement and verification.
Full text of Iran Nuclear Deal - ( New Window )
We should at least acknowledge that when the actual topic is Israel, Jews and potential impending destruction, that Godwin is gonna get violated. And history counts and is relevant context. It's simply not the appropriate or normal invocation of Godwin to truncate debate.
I don't think enriching a state committed to death of every American and Jew is laughable, but that's me.
See, I would say that Eric is killing it on this thread. Different strokes...