News Does Iran's Nuclear Deal Increase the Risk of Middle East Proliferation?

[harmony5]

So nuclear experts out there tell me does this deal make it very difficult for Iran to make the bomb?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

This deal will enable Iran to have a bunch of nukes within our lifetimes.

 

[tom aaron]

This deal will enable Iran to have a bunch of nukes within our lifetimes.

I find it all baffling. I was against going into Iraq and Afghanistan. However, my stance on Iran would have been 'You have 14 days to stop all nuclear research or we are going to bomb the facilities and your regime into oblivion.' Zero negotiations...zero.

The only logic I see on this is 'perhaps' Iran would have aligned themselves more with Russia and China. This move heads that off for now.

At the end of he day, the Israelis will act by whatever means necessary, conventional or a tactical nuclear strike, to prevent religious whackos from getting the Bomb. It is unlikely that the Israelis would need a nuke but they will not be held hostage by Ayatollah Nutbar.

 

[russ_watters]

Have the actual terms of the deal been released yet?

 

[harmony5]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/parametersforajointcomprehenisveplanofaction.pdf here are some of the details russ_watters

 

[Vanadium 50]

Have the actual terms of the deal been released yet?

Exactly. I'd like to read them before making up my mind. Or even having an opinion.

 

[Czcibor]

I find it all baffling. I was against going into Iraq and Afghanistan. However, my stance on Iran would have been 'You have 14 days to stop all nuclear research or we are going to bomb the facilities and your regime into oblivion.' Zero negotiations...zero.

The only logic I see on this is 'perhaps' Iran would have aligned themselves more with Russia and China. This move heads that off for now.

At the end of he day, the Israelis will act by whatever means necessary, conventional or a tactical nuclear strike, to prevent religious whackos from getting the Bomb. It is unlikely that the Israelis would need a nuke but they will not be held hostage by Ayatollah Nutbar.

Would this "preventing religious whackos from getting nukes" involve bombing for example Chasid districts in Israel? (or as minimum plan destroying Israel nuclear weapons in case of too religious party forming a gov after next election?) I mean because of quite serious burnt out of Islamic revolution in Iran, I don't see in A.D. 2015 some huge chasm in number religious freaks between Israeli and Iranian societies. Except that in Iran some remnants of them are in gov and policies, however its being subject to change / very serious friction underneath.

 

[russ_watters]

Except that in Iran some remnants of them are in gov and policies,..

Why don't you consider that to be a significant difference?

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Would this "preventing religious whackos from getting nukes" involve bombing for example Chasid districts in Israel? (or as minimum plan destroying Israel nuclear weapons in case of too religious party forming a gov after next election?) I mean because of quite serious burnt out of Islamic revolution in Iran, I don't see in A.D. 2015 some huge chasm in number religious freaks between Israeli and Iranian societies. Except that in Iran some remnants of them are in gov and policies, however its being subject to change / very serious friction underneath.

How long has Israel had nukes without using them?

How long do you think the militant Muslim extremists in Iran will have nukes without using them?

 

[Czcibor]

How long has Israel had nukes without using them?

How long do you think the militant Muslim extremists in Iran will have nukes without using them?

You mean coolheaded Ayatollahs? Or maybe semi-democratically elected parliament where is normal left wing or Jewish member of parliament? They seek for nukes from the same reasons that Jews - deterrence against surrounding hostile Sunni Muslims. The difference is that just in case they can't call US support, but after conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq (in case of Iraq on made up casus belli), they may be a bit paranoiac concerning US intentions. (honestly, shouldn't they be paranoiac?)

From stats hard to manipulate - Iran fertility rate fell below 2.1 already in 2001. (Sure, in 1979 it was 6.4) Or more than 60% of university students are women. I have problems to believe that's a really ultra conservative, fanatically Islamic society. Because nowadays such stats look more like taken from a Western country.

Why don't you consider that to be a significant difference?

By the time they get it the theocratic character of the regime would crumble even further, so the difference would be quite small. Additionally, if the benchmark is a country like Israel, then in spite of political alignment Israel is not so extraordinary a Western secular republic. Let's forget even bthe high level of militarization, we may blame it on enemies (but we would have to give the same benefit to Iran... Coup of 1953... Supporting Iraq with satellite photos to make chemical weapons targeting easier...) Let's look at Israel - secular marriage? Nope. ID card with ones religion stated? Yup. Not granting Israeli citizenship to a holocaust survivor solely because he adopted faith of a family that was hiding him (Roman Catholic)? Yup.

The only thing with nuclear Iran that I'm worried with is starting a nuclear arms race with such nice countries joining it like Egypt or Saudi Arabia... There in case of regime collapse it could be indeed unpleasant.

 

[Bystander]

... even having an opinion.

Seriously, all, could we at least look it over before we set our opinions in concrete?

 

[tom aaron]

Would the Ayatola Nutbar or other officials use a nuke?

No idea...thus why they should be stopped now. Not worth the future risk.

As for using one. There are circumstances in which stable, sane leaders would...including the USA. And...they did and would again if the situation warranted it.

Crazies Think of all the crazy leaders of countries in the past hundred years. There will be equally as many in the next hundred.

Perhaps there is another logic to all this. If (more likely 'when') Iran doesn't fulfill it's obligations, the Israelis will act militarily. Military action will be seen to have more legitimacy. Threatening to destroy Israel, stalling on inspections, etc. The green light for Israel to strike hard. In the aftermath of an Israeli strike there would be complete support of the US President and Congress...some statement like 'regrettable but necessary'.

 

[Czcibor]

Would the Ayatola Nutbar or other officials use a nuke?

No idea...thus why they should be stopped now. Not worth the future risk.

As for using one. There are circumstances in which stable, sane leaders would...including the USA. And...they did and would again if the situation warranted it.

Crazies Think of all the crazy leaders of countries in the past hundred years. There will be equally as many in the next hundred.

Perhaps there is another logic to all this. If (more likely 'when') Iran doesn't fulfill it's obligations, the Israelis will act militarily. Military action will be seen to have more legitimacy. Threatening to destroy Israel, stalling on inspections, etc. The green light for Israel to strike hard. In the aftermath of an Israeli strike there would be complete support of the US President and Congress...some statement like 'regrettable but necessary'.

Does this idea of bombing country to prevent it having nuclear bomb because it may have in unspecified future a crazy leadership applies also to Israel?

Because you know, somewhere between increasing number of Hasidic Jews who are subsidized to study holy scriptures and new settlement on West Bank (what the hell for they are built for?) I would not give Israel leadership sanity top grades...

(Sorry, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...)

 

[adjacent]

This might be of interest.
Revealed: Israel Built and Tested Dirty Bombs
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150609/1023105032.html#ixzz3cVgXlmj3

At the end of he day, the Israelis will act by whatever means necessary, conventional or a tactical nuclear strike, to prevent religious whackos from getting the Bomb. It is unlikely that the Israelis would need a nuke but they will not be held hostage by Ayatollah Nutbar.

It is highly likely that israel already has nukes. They just want to be the only power in the middle east which would help them create the so called "Greater Israel"

 

[Czcibor]

This might be of interest.
Revealed: Israel Built and Tested Dirty Bombs
[link removed according to a policy of not boosting in google Russian propaganda]
It is highly likely that israel already has nukes. They just want to be the only power in the middle east which would help them create the so called "Greater Israel"

I really doubt that "Sputnik" pass any test as reliable source. Any more reasonable source also say so?

Taking it at face value - nuclear armed Israel has no point in researching dirty bombs for offensive reasons. No idea what are rules for dirty bombs, but in case of chemical weapons countries are allowed to produce small quantities of them for testing their own defensive equipment.

Greater Israel? Come on...

 

[HossamCFD]

I haven't checked the deal in detail and so I haven't yet formed an opinion. My general impression is that I'd be very alarmed if Iran acquired nuclear bombs. However I'd be less worried about Iranian leadership using them (I'm of the opinion that the leadership are sensible players, most of the fanaticism is for local public consumption. Also I'd be surprised if Iran remained a theocracy 20 years from now. I can't say that about any other middle eastern theocracy). My main worry would be about the nuclear arms race that would follow and the potential Israeli pre-emptive strike, both would be disastrous for the region.

I quite like this discussion to keep going and not be terminated by the admins so I'd suggest keeping the Israel discussion to a minimum.

 

[adjacent]

I quite like this discussion to keep going and not be terminated by the admins so I'd suggest keeping the Israel discussion to a minimum.

Yes that would be better.

 

[Czcibor]

Good point concerning overemphasising Israel here. Let's look at other players:
-Saudi Arabia - a sworn enemy of Iran, fighting with them proxy wars all over region. Theoretically an important ally of the US, in practice export of Wahhabi Islam is not interest... not only the US, but any civilized country. I don't know... maybe the US should reassure them by selling them some extra guns...
-Russia - theoretically a not bad friend of Iran, just sold them some SAM kit. Some bad tongues were saying that in order to boost hard liner faction within Iran in order to make them able to defend nuclear sites against air strikes, thus unwilling to forge a compromise. Because a deal can be really dangerous for Russia - Iran that's no longer under sanctions would export plenty of natural gas to Europe, which would seriously hit Russian main export product. In worst case scenario Iran may not only be a source of gas, but also a transit country for Turkmenistan.

most of the fanaticism is for local public consumption.

And masses were celebrating making an intrusive agreement the Great Satan? I hope that at least they were not chanting "Deal to America" ;) I think that already demand inside Iran is somewhat limited and that is more a problem of some kind of inertia of official ideology.

 

[russ_watters]

By the time they get it the theocratic character of the regime would crumble even further, so the difference would be quite small.

So...you're saying that you hope by the time Iran gets nukes it has moderated enough not to use them? And that logic doesn't scare you?

Additionally, if the benchmark is a country like Israel, then in spite of political alignment Israel is not so extraordinary a Western secular republic. Let's forget even bthe high level of militarization, we may blame it on enemies (but we would have to give the same benefit to Iran... Coup of 1953... Supporting Iraq with satellite photos to make chemical weapons targeting easier...) Let's look at Israel - secular marriage? Nope. ID card with ones religion stated? Yup. Not granting Israeli citizenship to a holocaust survivor solely because he adopted faith of a family that was hiding him (Roman Catholic)? Yup.

[separate post]
Does this idea of bombing country to prevent it having nuclear bomb because it may have in unspecified future a crazy leadership applies also to Israel?

Because you know, somewhere between increasing number of Hasidic Jews who are subsidized to study holy scriptures and new settlement on West Bank (what the hell for they are built for?) I would not give Israel leadership sanity top grades...

(Sorry, but people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones...)

What does any of that have to do with anything? You're not seriously considering Israel and Iran to be equal in the "responsibility" required to not use nukes, are you? I find it hard to take this line of discussion seriously. Just for funzies though, here's a top 20 list of Iranian threats (mostly threats to annihilate Israel): http://www.buzzfeed.com/jerusalemcenter/sworn-to-destruction-20-threats-iranian-leaders-m-hys5

The only thing with nuclear Iran that I'm worried with is starting a nuclear arms race with such nice countries joining it like Egypt or Saudi Arabia... There in case of regime collapse it could be indeed unpleasant.

You aren't worried about Iran using nukes if it gets them? Are you worried about Iran giving nukes to Syria or a terrorist organization (either on purpose or due to an extremist element stealing them)?

 

[tom aaron]

This might be of interest.
Revealed: Israel Built and Tested Dirty Bombs
http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20150609/1023105032.html#ixzz3cVgXlmj3
It is highly likely that israel already has nukes. They just want to be the only power in the middle east which would help them create the so called "Greater Israel"

Huh? Israel has over two hundred nuclear weapons and precision delivery systems. Not exactly a secret.
Like the USA, Israel will use a nuke if necessary. Period.

Unlike Obama, Netanyahu will not 'hope' that 'maybe' the Regime that vows to destroy Israel will stop its progress towards acquiring a nuke.

As for the thread not getting sidetracked? Not at all. Obama knows that Israel will definitely attack Iran. 100% certain 'if' there is no legitimate reduction of Iran's nuclear ambition. It's all about Israel and security. The US knows that all hell could break lose if Israel attacks Iran.

 

[Czcibor]

So...you're saying that you hope by the time Iran gets nukes it has moderated enough not to use them? And that logic doesn't scare you?

Not specially. I see plenty of countries that region that are moderate enough to hopefully not use them... like Pakistan, Russia or Israel. (with worst grades going to Pakistan, I mean in case of Iran both contemporary regime and gov that could form after a populous uprise would be OK, and I can't say the same in case of political change in Pakistan) But we're talking about bombing Iran not Pakistan, right?

What does any of that have to do with anything? You're not seriously considering Israel and Iran to be equal in the "responsibility" required to not use nukes, are you? I find it hard to take this line of discussion seriously. Just for funzies though, here's a top 20 list of Iranian threats (mostly threats to annihilate Israel): http://www.buzzfeed.com/jerusalemcenter/sworn-to-destruction-20-threats-iranian-leaders-m-hys5

Equally? I grade Israel a bit higher in responsibility, but not extraordinary much.

Do you think it's more serious threat that Regan's: "My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."? (If you are curious - SU leadership was really worried by Reagan posturing and ordered its spies to look carefully for any signals that he starts WW3). I mean in the case Ahmadinejad it seems more being a sexied up translation.

Anyway if we're comparing rhetoric shouldn't we also compare Israeli rhetoric? Concerning bombing Iran and so on?

You aren't worried about Iran using nukes if it gets them? Are you worried about Iran giving nukes to Syria or a terrorist organization (either on purpose or due to an extremist element stealing them)?

Not specially. Too expensive toy to give plus rational enough to understand that would be kept liable in form of massive nuclear retaliation.

Stealing from them? That's an interesting argument... Why such regimes should be more vulnerable to than any other?

 

[HossamCFD]

And masses were celebrating making an intrusive agreement the Great Satan?

The public is keen on lifting the sanctions. Besides, you can always spin the deal and make it appear as a national achievement. Especially that the leadership has always maintained they never intended to build a bomb anyway.

I hope that at least they were not chanting "Deal to America" ;)

Some of them were.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-33578942

'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel' slogans were chanted during Friday prayers at the Tehran University campus in spite of the nuclear deal agreed earlier this week

 

[harmony5]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/parametersforajointcomprehenisveplanofaction.pdf here are some of the specifics of the deal. Let's try to keep more of a technical rather then a political discussion.

 

[tom aaron]

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/parametersforajointcomprehenisveplanofaction.pdf here are some of the specifics of the deal. Let's try to keep more of a technical rather then a political discussion.

Again, it is political...that's the reality.

Technical...the Bible says blah, blah... It doesn't make it reality.

Reality...the Iranian regime is a terrorist state vowing death to Israel. It encourages nut bars to murder Rushdie for the Publication of 'Satanic verses'. It supports suppression of women, gays, etc. This is not a regime that has the same moral compass as most westerners.

Fortunately, there will be large opposition to this in Congress. However, It will pass because Obama is a dud like Bush jr ...and 'politics', not reason will get it passed. Reason will eventually prevail once Iran, once again, starts quibbling about inspections, etc. Israel will have even more support if and when it attacks Iran.

 

[Czcibor]

 

[harmony5]

Again, it is political...that's the reality.

Technical...the Bible says blah, blah... It doesn't make it reality.

Reality...the Iranian regime is a terrorist state vowing death to Israel. It encourages nut bars to murder Rushdie for the Publication of 'Satanic verses'. It supports suppression of women, gays, etc. This is not a regime that has the same moral compass as most westerners.

Fortunately, there will be large opposition to this in Congress. However, It will pass because Obama is a dud like Bush jr ...and 'politics', not reason will get it passed. Reason will eventually prevail once Iran, once again, starts quibbling about inspections, etc. Israel will have even more support if and when it attacks Iran.

By technical whether the laws of nuclear physics permit Iran to produce highly enriched uranium given the constraints of the deal.

 

[Astronuc]

By technical whether the laws of nuclear physics permit Iran to produce highly enriched uranium given the constraints of the deal.

Actually, enrichment is about atomic physics. Nuclear comes later in how it is used.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I've done some looking into this. The agreement relies less on physical inspection and more on paperwork: tracking nuclear materials and technology. My opinion is that this probably increases the probability Iran can build a single bomb, and it definitely increases the probability they can create an effective delivery system. It also probably decreases the probability that they can build ten bombs. Whether that is a positive or negative outcome is likely a matter of opinion.

 

[HossamCFD]

Israel will have even more support if and when it attacks Iran.

I'm sure it will have some support, definitely not mine though.

It encourages nut bars to murder Rushdie for the Publication of 'Satanic verses'. It supports suppression of women, gays, etc. This is not a regime that has the same moral compass as most westerners.

All of the above is true. None of it is a reason to believe Iran would use the bomb against any country. The leadership has shown no evidence they are suicidal nihilists like ISIS for instance. They want to keep in power and they know full well they are going to be the first victims of using the bomb.

I don't want Iran to get the bomb but I don't think getting the bomb is enough justification for invading them and starting a major war. It seems to me things would be much better if no one in the world was allowed to have nukes rather than a few countries deciding who gets to develop them and who doesn't.

 

[phinds]

The most significant thing that jumps out at me about this deal is that we said all along that the one key element is that the IAEA should/must have immediate (24hr at most) access to any and all facilities in Iran for verification inspection. The deal now says they can visit sites 24 DAYS after requesting to do so. This seems to me like total capitulation on our part. 24 days is a lot of time to hide anything they want to hide.

I agree that the tracking vanadium mentioned is important and helpful, but still ... 24 days ?

 

[Bystander]

The leadership has shown no evidence they are suicidal nihilists like ISIS for instance. They want to keep in power and they know full well they are going to be the first victims of using the bomb. I don't want Iran to get the bomb but I don't think getting the bomb is enough justification for invading them and starting a major war.

N. Korea and Kim would be long gone, were that the case. They want one, or a dozen, they will get it (them).

The question I would like to see answered, and to which for cultural reasons (western, and Islamic) will probably never see an answer, is whether any effort was made to communicate the irreversible, expensive, eternal commitment to maintenance and security of such a weapons program, that nuclear weapons are "white elephants."

 

[tom aaron]

N. Korea and Kim would be long gone, were that the case. They want one, or a dozen, they will get it (them).

The question I would like to see answered, and to which for cultural reasons (western, and Islamic) will probably never see an answer, is whether any effort was made to communicate the irreversible, expensive, eternal commitment to maintenance and security of such a weapons program, that nuclear weapons are "white elephants."

Not sure of the point... 'Was made'. What type of answer is someone suppose to provide? What possible agreement? There are so many variables that would have to be weighed.

White elephants? Very influential white elephants.

No nuclear weapons...perhaps the Soviet Union would have invaded and seized Western Europe...perhaps the USA would have attacked Soviet ships supplying North Vietnam. How does one go back and and figure out all the potential scenarios over the last 70 years? Japan wouldn't have surrendered...what if the allies had invaded Japan and fought town to town?

 

[Bystander]

White elephants? Very influential white elephants.

From 1945-1949. Since then, useless.

 

[HossamCFD]

The question I would like to see answered, and to which for cultural reasons (western, and Islamic) will probably never see an answer, is whether any effort was made to communicate the irreversible, expensive, eternal commitment to maintenance and security of such a weapons program, that nuclear weapons are "white elephants."

I don't imagine this was communicated strongly enough nor do I think the Iranians care that much about it. It always seemed to me that Iran was more interested in getting the world to know they're close to getting the bomb than actually getting it. It's a message to the arabs showing that being loyal friends to America won't get you anywhere whereas going head to head would force the world to reconcile with you. Though I acknowledge this might just be a biased view due to my upbringing.

No nuclear weapons...perhaps the Soviet Union would have invaded and seized Western Europe...perhaps the USA would have attacked Soviet ships supplying North Vietnam. How does one go back and and figure out all the potential scenarios over the last 70 years? Japan wouldn't have surrendered...what if the allies had invaded Japan and fought town to town?

Soviets taking over western Europe seems a bit of an exaggeration. You're right it's hard to know what would've happened. My point was that in this day and age the system of deciding who gets the bomb based on how much they like us (among other things) seems a bit arbitrary and unsustainable.

 

[mheslep]

Aside from the eventual level of effectiveness of the Iranian nuclear agreement, my immediate objection is that the agreement is not to be a treaty but rather an executive action by the US President. Congress has no effective role as it would in treaty confirmation. Even the pending 60 day debate in Congress is moot, as Obama goes to the UN in days to call for a release of the sanctions. The lifting of global sanctions have no quick "take back" mechanism.

 

[mheslep]

...Even the pending 60 day debate in Congress is moot, as Obama goes to the UN in days to call for a release of the sanctions. The lifting of global sanctions have no quick "take back" mechanism.

It's done. The UN Security Council voted unanimously to approve the Iran deal. No treaty approval by the Senate, no vote in Congress of any kind that will impact the deal. Iranian sanctions are now on track to be lifted.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/20/un-security-council-endorses-iran-nuclear-deal/

Insert changes to Article II, Section 2 as follows.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur ...

 

[Vanadium 50]

No treaty approval by the Senate, no vote in Congress of any kind that will impact the deal.

SNL weighed in on this (at 90 seconds):

 

[votingmachine]

I favor this deal being tried. I see the comments that Iran might build a bomb, but I see that this is the best path with a chance of not seing that bomb built. It is possible this won't work. In essence though, Iran is agreeing to not pursue a nuclear bomb and the countries applying economic sanctions will largely lift those sanctions.

That is the basic deal. The idea of starting hostile military actions against Iran was mentioned as another route to changing the Iranian path to nuclear weapons. I don't favor that for so many reasons. It is unlikely to work. It does start another war, but that war is likely to end badly. Iran has a large number of "boots on the ground". Any attack would lead to war between Iran, and the US and the US allies. Iran would win that war. The middle East could end up quite a bit more messed up than it is now.

Keeping sanctions and insisting on Iran giving up weapons is no longer viable. Iran just agreed to semi-give up weapons and the countries imposing sanctions agreed with the plan. If the US was to impose some kind of US-only sanctions, then that is unlikely to help.

The bottom line is that there is still a risk of Iran trying to acquire nuclear weapons. That is a very sound military strategy for them. If they have them, they negate the Israeli advantage, and quite possibly, when you consider Pakistan as a potential ally, it might completely negate any Israeli weapons advantage. Of course we don't want that, but be realistic ... they do.

I am reminded of the SALT agreements. The fact is that it is possible to negotiate nuclear weapons deals with enemies. This is one.

There is not any reason to be overly concerned that this deal will not require Congressional approval. As Representative Tom Cotton has pointed out, any President may or may not choose to adhere to an agreement that is not an official treaty. That has been explicitly spelled out. Since the deal involves other countries, it is entirely appropriate that they also enact the deal. The lack of input from Congress during State Department/Executive Branch Foreign policy is ordinary. The strange situation where the US and several other countries are negotiating does make the Congressional approval moot, as the other countrries have accepted the deal. That should be a signal of the quality of the deal.

It is always difficult to predict the future. If this deal does move Iran off a nuclear path, then it will be regarded as an unmitigated success. If it does not then it will be a failure. I see no harm in the deal though. If it works, we are better off. If it fails, we are not worse off. Critics wish that a more US-biased deal was the result of negotiations but the flip-side is that Iranian critics wish for a more Iran-biased deal. The negotiations ended in a reasonable compromise.

 

[mheslep]

but I see that this is the best path

What other paths are you discounting? I hope not only one, war with Iran as the President chants.

 

[votingmachine]

What other paths are you discounting? I hope not only one, war with Iran as the President chants.

There are the two paths that I mentioned: War and continued economic sanctions.

And sanctions were a tool to get Iran to negotiate a deal that stopped a nuclear weapons program.

I understand that there might have been a better deal ... we will never know. I see that the US and allies are giving up somethings and Iran is giving up some things. I'm not able to determine any deal that might have been. I can say that Iran and the US have yet to fully endorse this deal, although the rest of the world is willing to accept it. Many nations hostile to Iran (including the US) have to worry that a economic boost to Iran may further the non-nuclear goals of that enemy state. We just don't know.

What I largely hear is that the best plan was always to go to war with Iran. I think that was always the worst plan. Iran is a state that largely is in conflict with US goals. But we have, and have had that relationship with many countries. And sometimes we make deals in the midst of that hostile relationship (again consider the SALT talks, or current negotiations with China).

I don't see any paths other than the 3 that I mentioned though: War/conflict, economic sanctions, or a negotiated deal. I suppose the conflict could be divided into direct actions and espionage actions, but I have not considered purely espionage/sabotage a truly viable option.

This deal is specifically structured as a foreign policy initiative from the Executive branch. Congress can oppose it, but without a veto-proof majority, they cannot stop the Executive foreign policy actions. All of the republicans candidates are free to put forth an agenda that changes that, in the event of a change of parties in the 2016 election.

 

[mheslep]

and continued economic sanctions.

Sorry I missed it, yes you did.

Keeping sanctions and insisting on Iran giving up weapons is no longer viable. Iran just agreed to semi-give up weapons and the countries imposing sanctions agreed with the plan. If the US was to impose some kind of US-only sanctions, then that is unlikely to help.

I don't see an explanation there of why continued or even more stringent sanctions was not viable, before the US went to the UN and put other countries on another path (lifting sanctions). The present sanctions forced Iran to slow down and talk, so there's evidence that this was the correct direction towards forcing Iran to dismantle its enrichment capability, as well as starving its ability to finance terror/insurrection activities around the world and especially in the ME.

The dismantling of Iranian enrichment would be positively verifiable, and then sanctions would be lifted. As it is, the Iranians have physically done almost nothing, and the US has a piece of paper in return.

 

[mheslep]

that stopped a nuclear weapons program.

No, nothing so far has physically dismantled any part of Iran's nuclear weapons program. The US and partners have a piece of paper that says Iran will stop one year short of a weapon, and some convoluted steps about how to have inspectors verify this. Should Iran be discovered not in compliance then the US and partners have a very steep hill to climb to reimpose sanctions. Example: in the UN prior to this agreement, the US had veto power over any change in sanctions. Now, all other security council member have veto power over reimposing them at a later time, which Russia and China are likely to do.

 

[votingmachine]

Sorry I missed it, yes you did.

I don't see an explanation there of why continued or even more stringent sanctions was not viable, before the US went to the UN and put other countries on another path (lifting sanctions). The present sanctions forced Iran to slow down and talk, so there's evidence that this was the correct direction towards forcing Iran to dismantle its enrichment capability, as well as starving its ability to finance terror/insurrection activities around the world and especially in the ME.

The dismantling of Iranian enrichment would be positively verifiable, and then sanctions would be lifted. As it is, the Iranians have physically done almost nothing, and the US has a piece of paper in return.

It is not clear if the sanctions were or were not sustainable. It requires broad participation for sanctions to work. President Obama was able to get more participation, but most of that participation was given as temporary support, for adding pressure to bring Iran to the table. I've read that there was no way that several nations were going to keep in the US economic coalition that was embargoing Iran.

I don't know if they were viable to continue or not. The thing is that the US negotiated this deal. So NOW the sanctions are not viable. The rest of the world is accepting this deal, and removing sanctions. So in essence, the sanctions are done. The deal is what it is. I accept they negotiated tough, and that they think the deal is the best one. Foreign policy like this is what the Executive branch does.

So the question really isn't whether the sanctions should be lifted ... they will be lifted, by everyone else, or by everyone including the US.

Look at the SALT treaty. It was never ratified, but its terms were always honored by both countries. Congress doesn't really get to stop this sort of executive negotiation.

 

[votingmachine]

No, nothing so far has physically dismantled any part of Iran's nuclear weapons program. The US and partners have a piece of paper that says Iran will stop one year short of a weapon, and some convoluted steps about how to have inspectors verify this. Should Iran be discovered not in compliance then the US and partners have a very steep hill to climb to reimpose sanctions. Example: in the UN prior to this agreement, the US had veto power over any change in sanctions. Now, all other security council member have veto power over reimposing them at a later time, which Russia and China are likely to do.

Umm. That is what I said and what you said:
"The US and partners have a piece of paper that says Iran will stop one year short of a weapon."

We pretty much say the same thing. I think you took the most extreme statement I made out of context. Here are some things I said:
"Iran is agreeing to not pursue a nuclear bomb"
"Iran just agreed to semi-give up weapons"
"If this deal does move Iran off a nuclear path, then it will be regarded as an unmitigated success. If it does not then it will be a failure. I see no harm in the deal though. If it works, we are better off. If it fails, we are not worse off."
"And sanctions were a tool to get Iran to negotiate a deal that stopped a nuclear weapons program."

I think the deal should be given a chance. A lot of republicans don't like the deal, but it is not unreasonable. The only real objection is that republicans would have gotten a better deal if they were President. And while that is a remarkably self-congratulatory position to take, it requires an alternate reality, and we don't have that luxury. Republicans can always win the Executive branch, and conduct foreign policy in accordance with their plans. Tom Cotton has already made it abundantly clear that any republican nominee will be reversing everything, if elected.

 

[mheslep]

It is not clear if the sanctions were or were not sustainable. It requires broad participation for sanctions to work. President Obama was able to get more participation, but most of that participation was given as temporary support, for adding pressure to bring Iran to the table. I've read that there was no way that several nations were going to keep in the US economic coalition that was embargoing Iran.

Agreed, the ability to maintain sanctions would be critical. No doubt that some countries would gripe. But I've not seen where sanctions were impossible to maintain, especially if the US had forcefully made the case that continued sanctions were required to actually dismantle the Iranian program before sanctions were lifted. Also, if it is in fact the case that many major economic powers were signaling they would drop sanctions no matter what, then the current enforcement mechanism in this agreement, i.e. "snap back" sanctions, is farcical.

The Iranian agreement has little in common with SALT. SALT had clear verification procedures in place, e.g. bombers to be chopped up for satellites. to view.

 

[tom aaron]

Agreed, the ability to maintain sanctions would be critical. No doubt that some countries would gripe. But I've not seen where sanctions were impossible to maintain, especially if the US had forcefully made the case that continued sanctions were required to actually dismantle the Iranian program before sanctions were lifted. Also, if it is in fact the case that many major economic powers were signaling they would drop sanctions no matter what, then the current enforcement mechanism in this agreement, i.e. "snap back" sanctions, is farcical.

The Iranian agreement has little in common with SALT. SALT had clear verification procedures in place, e.g. bombers to be chopped up for satellites. to view.

Also with SALT we were dealing with a power that could destroy us 'now'. The Soviets were in a similar position.

In contrast, the regime in Tehran is like a whiny child that doesn't have any real power 'yet'. We do not have to concede anything or negotiate anything. Stop developing your nuclear infrastructure or we will destroy it in 30 days...period. Negotiating with religious nutbars is a fools game when no negotiating is necessary.

 

[votingmachine]

Agreed, the ability to maintain sanctions would be critical. No doubt that some countries would gripe. But I've not seen where sanctions were impossible to maintain, especially if the US had forcefully made the case that continued sanctions were required to actually dismantle the Iranian program before sanctions were lifted. Also, if it is in fact the case that many major economic powers were signaling they would drop sanctions no matter what, then the current enforcement mechanism in this agreement, i.e. "snap back" sanctions, is farcical.

The Iranian agreement has little in common with SALT. SALT had clear verification procedures in place, e.g. bombers to be chopped up for satellites. to view.

The SALT treaty was about ICBM's and anti-ballistic missile defense systems. They never agreed on bombers. You might be recalling a different treaty. I was mostly bringing it up because Congress rejected it but Salt 1&2 were Nixon thru Carter, and then Reagan even kept to the deal. The deal was never ratified as a treaty, but the executive branch honored it anyway, as they were allowed to do.

I think the thing that breaks the sanctions is that there was a negotiation by Iran. Once they started negotiating ... then the goal of sanctions was fulfilled by many of the countries reckoning. A failure to live up to the treaty would be different then. But that is hard to say. Hopefully the Iranians don't break the deal, and that never gets tested.

More sanctions was one alternative to the deal, along with conflict. If approved by Iran, the deal makes sanctions unnecessary, in most of the world's eyes. So the deal as it is takes sanctions as an alternative away.

 

[votingmachine]

Also with SALT we were dealing with a power that could destroy us 'now'. The Soviets were in a similar position.

In contrast, the regime in Tehran is like a whiny child that doesn't have any real power 'yet'. We do not have to concede anything or negotiate anything. Stop developing your nuclear infrastructure or we will destroy it in 30 days...period. Negotiating with religious nutbars is a fools game when no negotiating is necessary.

We can't destroy them that easily. I am not willing to engage in a nuclear attack. It is likely that the Iranian nuclear sites are not easily bombed into non-existence. It is possible that the US can bring a massive amount of non-nuclear devastation into Iran and destroy those sites, but it is not a given. And that would strengthen the current regime. And they would no doubt engage in ground war against Israel at that point. Quite likely with success.

Starting a war is easy. Ending it successfully is much more difficult. We have a massive military advantage everywhere. Yet we still never changed Afghanistan or Iraq very much. We killed the old boss, but meet the new boss ...

I can see many ways that attacking Iran would backfire. In addition to the obvious war in the Middle East, there would likely be increased terrorism. It is possible that we would not be handing China dominance in Asia and Africa while we became bogged down in an asymmetric war in the Middle East.

And the military attack of Iran is not stopped by giving them a chance to stop on their own. When you suggest they needed to just unconditionally surrender or be destroyed, why is that superior to a negotiated conditional surrender, or be destroyed? It is possible to be slightly less absolute, and achieve the same ends with less drama.

 

[VALENCIANA]

The worst thing about Iranian leaders is that their word is worth nothing.
They signed the agreement and already backed on many points which they say they will not comply with.
Obama says that even so, no agreement would be worse.
Why? What can really change?

 

[tom aaron]

We can't destroy them that easily. I am not willing to engage in a nuclear attack. It is likely that the Iranian nuclear sites are not easily bombed into non-existence. It is possible that the US can bring a massive amount of non-nuclear devastation into Iran and destroy those sites, but it is not a given. And that would strengthen the current regime. And they would no doubt engage in ground war against Israel at that point. Quite likely with success.

Starting a war is easy. Ending it successfully is much more difficult. We have a massive military advantage everywhere. Yet we still never changed Afghanistan or Iraq very much. We killed the old boss, but meet the new boss ...

I can see many ways that attacking Iran would backfire. In addition to the obvious war in the Middle East, there would likely be increased terrorism. It is possible that we would not be handing China dominance in Asia and Africa while we became bogged down in an asymmetric war in the Middle East.

And the military attack of Iran is not stopped by giving them a chance to stop on their own. When you suggest they needed to just unconditionally surrender or be destroyed, why is that superior to a negotiated conditional surrender, or be destroyed? It is possible to be slightly less absolute, and achieve the same ends with less drama.

What matters is nut bars not getting a nuclear bomb. Everything else is 'what if' mush. It's like having a crazy nut with a gun living next to my family...I want him gone. I'm not factoring in that the next family might not mow their lawn. The scale of potential problems are vastly different to my security.