| 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. |
There was also a wonderful discussion on Charlie Rose last week from a Mideast expert who said that although the deal had flaws, it also provided some important geopolitical benefits in terms of US's role in the region, such as getting better behavior out of the Sauds.
Link - ( New Window )
Livni and Herzog are more similar to Bibi these days than different.
"If a deal cannot guarantee that Iran can't get the bomb, then it doesn't solve the problem it was meant to solve"
He correctly points out that a deal is never guaranteed and therefore implies that no deal could ever be made. Follow that and you've got war.
Its actually a puff piece, not to be taken seriously by anyone.
1)Iran is a bad actor in the world community, commiting "vile" activities throughout the region and world;
2) The current sanctions should remain as punishment until Iran gives up such activities;
3) Only the sanctions are and can prevent Iran from doing even worse.
But the facts as I understand it are that the UN sanctions were originally established because of Iran's progress towards nuclear weapons capability and non-conformity with IAEA requirements and non-proliferation agreements, not for sponsorship of terrorism or other such activities.
The fact that Iran now agrees to stop all progress, over the next 15 years or so, towards nuclear weaponry would seem to meet the objectives of the original sanctions.
To demand the agreement prevent all such research and development for all time is asking for the impossible. And to now fail to withdraw the sanctions because Iran may use their improving economy to commit other bad acts is simply disingenuous. The partner nations who agreed to the UN sanctions won't and shouldn't agree to keep them in place after Iran has met the initial conditions for nuclear non-proliferation. If you want or need to deter other behaviors then the world community can take up other actions accordingly.
Anyway, that's my take - in a nutshell - the sanctions were designed to stop Iran's rapid progress toward nuclear weapons and this agreement accomplishes that.
Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. What makes the president confident that the $100 Billion of released funds will be used in a way other than increasing their funding of terrorism and making the mid east more unstable than it is now.
I pray congress can block this deal. Mr Obama's legacy is not worth putting future generations at risk.
From everything I know about how the Treausry dept unilaterally implements and enforces economic sanctions, "snap back" capabilities are an ellusive fantasy.
From the NYTimes review paraphrasing Juan Zarate's book on financial sanctions, Treasury's War:
This book was published in 2013, but it may be ahead of its time.
NYTimes review of Tresury's War - ( New Window )
Sure. But it might also tell us that the Israeli political spectrum and its interests might overlap partially, but not completely with ours on this particular issue.
Israel matters to US foreign policy for good reasons (moral and practical). That does not mean that their particular views on this issue should be decisive or in fact hold the weight we typically (and often carelessly) afford them.
"If a deal cannot guarantee that Iran can't get the bomb, then it doesn't solve the problem it was meant to solve"
He correctly points out that a deal is never guaranteed and therefore implies that no deal could ever be made. Follow that and you've got war.
Its actually a puff piece, not to be taken seriously by anyone.
It's a good piece because it confirms his beliefs.
I don't disagree with most of what you say, but the purpose of the UN sanctions was to gain compliance with nuclear non-proliferation, nothing more. We can't now move the goal posts and say to Iran and our partners who joined us in the sanctions that we won't lift them for other reasons that suit our agenda and interests despite nuclear compliance by Iran.
1)Iran is a bad actor in the world community, commiting "vile" activities throughout the region and world;
2) The current sanctions should remain as punishment until Iran gives up such activities;
3) Only the sanctions are and can prevent Iran from doing even worse.
But the facts as I understand it are that the UN sanctions were originally established because of Iran's progress towards nuclear weapons capability and non-conformity with IAEA requirements and non-proliferation agreements, not for sponsorship of terrorism or other such activities.
The fact that Iran now agrees to stop all progress, over the next 15 years or so, towards nuclear weaponry would seem to meet the objectives of the original sanctions.
To demand the agreement prevent all such research and development for all time is asking for the impossible. And to now fail to withdraw the sanctions because Iran may use their improving economy to commit other bad acts is simply disingenuous. The partner nations who agreed to the UN sanctions won't and shouldn't agree to keep them in place after Iran has met the initial conditions for nuclear non-proliferation. If you want or need to deter other behaviors then the world community can take up other actions accordingly.
Anyway, that's my take - in a nutshell - the sanctions were designed to stop Iran's rapid progress toward nuclear weapons and this agreement accomplishes that.
Weren't the banking sanctions put in place years before the whole issue of Iran and nukes bubbled to the surface? And don't the escrowed funds go all the way back to the Iranian hostage crisis?
2. The President Vetoes it.
3. Europe will drop all sanctions regardless.
4. If the Republicans capture all branches of government in 2016, the deal is gone, anyway.
5. We would end up being the only country to maintain sanctions, and with Europe not complying, money flows into Iran to fund terrorism throughout the world.
6. Then what? Do what John McCain said: "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran? That's the answer?
All Middle East Experts please chime in and help explain what is the correct course of action if it is not diplomacy and/or time deterrence? Is it #6? If so, air campaign, drone campaign, boots on the ground, 1 or more plutonium devices, what?
Soleimani, head of the QUDs force is 58, as is Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander Ali Jafari. They'll still be on the scene in 15 years. And both organizations have many younger members with an economic interest is maintaining the status quo. And the next cleric who expresses moderate views will be the first.
The chances, imho, for the younger pro-western youth (if they really are pro-West, I'd refer to them instead as modernists) to be in a position of power is really rather remote.
Quote:
I don't pretend I'm impartial on the subject as Tehran has plenty of American blood on its hands. But to suppose that Iran won't reinvest some of those unfrozen assets back into its activities abroad is unreasonable. Iran's commitments - to Assad, to Hezbollah, to the Palestinians - far outstripped available resources and so most were unfulfilled. They have the money, and some of the architects of Iran's activities abroad were specifically advantages by this agreement. Even if this slows the nuclear program, and I'm not convinced it will, Iran's activities and the consequences of them (how willing are the Sunni states likely to be to fight ISIS now?) are an unknown commodity and a potentially very dangerous one.
I don't disagree with most of what you say, but the purpose of the UN sanctions was to gain compliance with nuclear non-proliferation, nothing more. We can't now move the goal posts and say to Iran and our partners who joined us in the sanctions that we won't lift them for other reasons that suit our agenda and interests despite nuclear compliance by Iran.
But the goalposts from Iran's standpoint were already moved. They received carrots unrelated to the nuclear program and the sanctions that accompanied it, specifically an end to sanctions against top architects of Iran's Intel and terrorism programs. I just see a lot of downside from this deal even if the nuclear piece goes smoothly, and I doubt it does.
2. The President Vetoes it.
3. The Senate fails to override the veto
Corrected for accuracy
So I'll look into it further and thank you both for pointing me in this direction. Better to learn something and grow than simply be a stubborn old fool.
I may be wrong but in my experience, knowledge and technology proliferate. It's what they do. I'm guessing there's enough information and know-how in the public domain (in addition to what can be stolen) that just about any state that really wants a nuclear weapon can develop one. There's not a thing we or anyone can do about it. The cat is out of the bag. More states will go nuclear in my lifetime, I'm certain. Even the North Koreans pulled it off.
So my question is, what options did we have? We can't stop them from pursuing something they want to pursue. What's the next best option? Maintain isolation and fail to engage? All that gets us is an Iran doing what it wants to do anyway with no one talking to or keeping an eye on them. We can exert influence a lot more effectively once we're inside.
I don't know how good this specific deal is but some deal and rapprochement were always the right strategic move strategically.
Also, I don't believe the snapback is toothless like the author implies. The US and EU imposed sanctions on Russia pretty quickly and the West actually has meaningful economic ties with that country.
Quote:
What we need is time for the old guard in Iran to die off and the younger, more pro-American, pro-Western society crowd to assume power. Once that happens, the hope is that they'll either not want to develop nukes, or they'll be the sort of people we can actually trust with them.
Soleimani, head of the QUDs force is 58, as is Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander Ali Jafari. They'll still be on the scene in 15 years. And both organizations have many younger members with an economic interest is maintaining the status quo. And the next cleric who expresses moderate views will be the first.
The chances, imho, for the younger pro-western youth (if they really are pro-West, I'd refer to them instead as modernists) to be in a position of power is really rather remote.
People have been banking on a youthful pro-western seizure of power in Iran going back decades.
A view of the deal - ( New Window )
Link - ( New Window )
And the failure of its writing is crucial because it masks the problems with the thesis, so far as I could stick around to read it. To wit, it rightly asks the question I demand of a criticism of the Iran deal:
Alright! Now we're cooking. This guy is going to explain why/how the current sanctions regime could have continued, or what was so awesome about the status quo -- remember, the one that had Bibi holding up the cartoon bomb and telling us Iran was 6 months away.
We're going to finally have the answer other than "fuck you" and "act tougher" or just "get a better deal". Ok Mr. Wieseltier, Im ready for your alternative.
Oh, so "fuck you" writ fancy. No alternative here. Continue, please
His argument is that it isnt a permanent, guaranteed solution. But what is a permanent solution? Why would Iran give us everything we want? What happened to realism? We could have the best deal ever, and 10 years from now Iran could say screw it, we'll eat the penalties and restart the program. Crucially of course, the status quo doesnt prevent Iran from getting the bomb and isnt even as good as the new deal.
His only decent point is that the deal strengthens the contemptible Iranian regime. True, and fair point (though he ignores the fact that the sanctions were crumbling, according to our European allies). But it's not like this was a regime on the brink. It's a strong regime anyway. What's the track record for tough economic sanctions causing regime change? Didnt happen in Cuba. Or North Korea. Or Iran to date. I think it had some success in sub-Saharan Africa, but that was apartheid issues (SA, Rhodesia? B/F my time).
I will come back in the evening and summarize his key points for those who can't or won't watch.
Link - ( New Window )
Been waiting a 1000 years for the more fanatical islamic crew to die off. 15 years more will do it? Ok. Sure.
The benefits of this deal are very apparent for Iran. Can't see many for the US.
The benefits of this deal are very apparent for Iran. Can't see many for the US.
Im not operating from that assumption. My working hope is that this kicks the can down the road at least 10 years. Isnt that a good thing? What solution was going to guarantee that Iran would never again have nuclear ambition?
I got two problems with the anti-deal argument. The first is that the current heroes of the status quo are the same ones telling me Iran is 6 months away from a bomb. Well what kind of leverage do they have at that point? And no one in favor of the status quo has ANY PLAUSIBLE plan for maintaining or strengthening the sanctions.
My second problem is that the opponents of this deal keep comparing it to some idealized perfect deal, but they have no explanation for how we get there or why Iran says yes. "Negotiate a better deal" and "Be Tougher" are not valid alternatives. Negotiate a better deal is like me saying the Mets should have traded Meisner for Tulo instead of Clippard -- it's not a plan, it's a wish.
With the caveat that Iran doesn't cheat...
Maybe status quo gets them there a bit earlier but with less certainty as they need to balance economy and the bomb. And the world watches them as a terrorist nation a la North Korea. The deal delays them so they can't get the bomb for 15 years but then they get it with more certainty and with legitimacy given by the rest of the world.
Status quo gives them incentive to hide and sneak from inspections; the deal gives them 14 days notice to hide.
Status quo gives them an economic struggle and perhaps gives us some leverage...actually the proof of that is that it forced them to the table in the first place. The deal gives them the veneer of restoration of the sanctions, but the practicality is that once lifted, there is no practical way to put them back. In the meanwhile, we have to face the fact that we just became terrorism's banker.
I don't see that much difference in the nuclear part but I feel like the terrorism part just got a boost.
2) They have specifically and explicitly stated that they will wipe Israel off the map.
I think that was the best hope Obama and the rest of EU Three (UK, France, Germany) have...that Iran will eventually become an asset instead of an enemy
I think that was the best hope Obama and the rest of EU Three (UK, France, Germany) have...that Iran will eventually become an asset instead of an enemy
Which is either breathtakingly naive or incredibly cynical.
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 )