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

[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.

 

[Vanadium 50]

What matters is nut bars not getting a nuclear bomb.

Is that true? This agreement, in my view, makes it easier for Iran to get one bomb, and harder for them to get ten. Is that better or worse?

 

[votingmachine]

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.

I agree that the objective is to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. And I approve of this deal. We don't disagree on the endpoint. We disagree on the means to the end. I am much less willing to jump straight to a war. Wars are terrible. They should be the last option, not the first.

I'm not sure what you mean by "what if" mush. "What if" they give up on a path to nuclear weapons? Is that mush? That is the deal.

Under the terms of the deal, Kerry said Iran has agreed to:

• voluntarily remove 98% of its stockpile of enriched uranium
• dismantle two-thirds of installed centrifuges
• take out the core of an existing heavy water reactor and fill it with concrete
• refrain from producing or acquiring highly-enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium for at least 15 years
• ratify through parliament "additional access requirements" for nuclear inspectors

Iran does not have nuclear weapons now. If they do not cheat, they won't have nuclear weapons for the next 10 years. I'm not able to guarantee they won't cheat. If they do, then a military conflict would be a distinct possibility.

The sanctions are lifting. The world recognizes the Iran deal as a deal where Iran stops pursuing weapons and the world stops the sanctions. There really is NO ALTERNATIVE realistically. The sanctions are done. There is not a reason to strike Iran militarily, as they are not pursuing nuclear weapons. Let them reduce the stockpile. Let them dismantle the centrifuges. We all want the same endpoint. Let's see if this deal gets us there.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't yet know where I stand on the agreement, but want to comment on this, as it has come up several times:

I agree that the objective is to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. And I approve of this deal. We don't disagree on the endpoint. We disagree on the means to the end. I am much less willing to jump straight to a war. Wars are terrible. They should be the last option, not the first.

It doesn't appear to me that war is on the table for anyone, so it appears to me that bringing it up and suggesting that others are "willing to jump straight to a war" is a strawman...and not just a strawman applied to others. If a person believes that war is the only other option, they may be more likely to support the agreement, whould would be wrong thinking. So I ask you: if war is not on the table at all - as any option, much less the first for the "no agreement" side - do you still support the agreement?

 

[votingmachine]

I don't yet know where I stand on the agreement, but want to comment on this, as it has come up several times:

It doesn't appear to me that war is on the table for anyone, so it appears to me that bringing it up and suggesting that others are "willing to jump straight to a war" is a strawman...and not just a strawman applied to others. If a person believes that war is the only other option, they may be more likely to support the agreement, whould would be wrong thinking. So I ask you: if war is not on the table at all - as any option, much less the first for the "no agreement" side - do you still support the agreement?

The alternatives to a deal were continued sanctions, or a warfare/conflict solution.

The continuation of sanctions is OFF the table. The UN has approved the deal. It is confusing because we are talking about what WERE the alternatives, and what ARE the alternatives. The sanctions are being lifted in exchange for an Iranian nuclear program change. The US has approved a 60 day Congressional review. The rest of the world is not waiting for that. If at the end of the 60 days, enough of Congress wants to, they can over-ride the President, and force the US to continue sanctions. How that would affect the deal is unknown. It certainly would eliminate the US from any oversight role, as they are not participants in the deal, having rejected it.

I favor Congress approving the deal. If they don't approve it, I hope they don't block it.

I'm not sure if people are suggesting war or not. It would seem that is the other alternative. I understand that people do not like the deal that was negotiated. But that doesn't change that it is what it is. The President has the authority to conduct that negotiation. And he has signed a bill requiring a 60 day review, after which the deal is only rejected if he signs the bill to reject it or if Congress has an over-ride of a vetoed rejection.

There is no other deal. There is no other President. The foreign policy that he pursues is what you get.

 

[russ_watters]

The alternatives to a deal were continued sanctions, or a warfare/conflict solution.

Sure, but you implied that war was the first/most likely option if no deal was reached. Obama is largely responsible for creating that deal-or-war dichotomy, but it is nonsense:

"There really are only two alternatives here. Either the issue of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is resolved diplomatically through a negotiation or it's resolved through force, through war. Those are -- those are the options."

- President Obama, July 15th 2015

The Obama administration's latest argument for the Iran deal -- support it, or there will be war -- is shameful. It is borderline political blackmail. It reveals an administration desperate to avoid debating the deal on its merits, preferring instead to intimidate its critics into acquiescence by accusing them of being warmongers.

https://www.weeklystandard.com/blog...-iran-deal-doesnt-pass-laugh-test_992618.html

But this is Obama we're talking about. He's Commander in Chief of the military, not Congress. I can't imagine anyone actually believes he would attack Iran in any capacity, and as little as six weeks ago was essentially saying there was no military option on the table (as, my recollection is, that has always been his position):

"A military solution will not fix it. Even if the United States participates, it would temporarily slow down an Iranian nuclear program but it will not eliminate it,"

The reason the deal smells bad to me is mostly because of the way Obama went about it. He threatened the US with war to coerce us to accept the deal instead of threatening Iran with war to coerce them to accept the deal!

This is related to his claim in April that a deal had been reached, which was a flat lie, and a pointless/counterproductive one in my opinion. Since he's not running for re-election, he doesn't need to win shouting matches with Republicans - he shouldn't care if they were criticizing him for his failure to reach a deal. All that lie did was back himself into a corner where he had to acquiesce to Iran's demands to avoid the lie becoming permanent. Again: he'd rather win a meaningless battle with Republicans than an important one with Iran. Much of this is paraphrase/summary from here:
http://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2015/04/the-tectonic-shift-in-obamas-iran-policy/

The continuation of sanctions is OFF the table. The UN has approved the deal. It is confusing because we are talking about what WERE the alternatives, and what ARE the alternatives.

I don't see why that is confusing -- we're trying to discuss whether the deal is good or bad and to do that, we have to consider what would have happened if no deal had been reached. Heck, you made the argument, I just challenged your assumption about what the primary alternative was.

The default "option" is essentially always maintaing the status quo if no deal is reached (decision on change is made). The decisions to make a change from status quo are nearly always separate decisions: Deal or status quo? War or status quo? Not "deal or war?".

There is no other deal. There is no other President. The foreign policy that he pursues is what you get.

Of course. But this discussion is about whether we like that policy and in order to judge whether we like it, we need to consider the alternatives.

 

[Czcibor]

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.

Which much stringent (Western) sanctions you mean? Especially if you dislike just "piece of paper" how would you curb their trade potential with ex. China?

 

[Borg]

I don't yet know where I stand on the agreement, but want to comment on this, as it has come up several times:

It doesn't appear to me that war is on the table for anyone, so it appears to me that bringing it up and suggesting that others are "willing to jump straight to a war" is a strawman...and not just a strawman applied to others. If a person believes that war is the only other option, they may be more likely to support the agreement, whould would be wrong thinking. So I ask you: if war is not on the table at all - as any option, much less the first for the "no agreement" side - do you still support the agreement?

I thought that it was on the table for tom aaron.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

I thought that it was on the table for tom aaron.

Well, now we're getting into some shades of grey here. I would likely have supported a short bombing campaign as well. But that's not war, IMO. votinmachine's description included a full-fledged land war and deposing the current Iranian government - he even mentioned a nuclear attack.

Moreover, keeping the threat of an attack on the table is different from actually doing the attack. Obama brought the threat of an attack to the table in his negotiations with Congress, but didn't do so with Iran, for example.

In any case, tom aaron isn't President, Obama is, so I probably should have worded that differently: Obama's table is really the only one that mattered here.

 

[Borg]

Well, now we're getting into some shades of grey here. I would likely have supported a short bombing campaign as well. But that's not war, IMO. votinmachine's description included a full-fledged land war and deposing the current Iranian government - he even mentioned a nuclear attack.

To each his own I guess. I would think that bombing someone's regime into oblivion is pretty warlike.

While votingmachine may have expanded on tom aaron's bombing campaign, there have been plenty of examples in the middle east where U.S. bombing campaigns did become boots on the ground. As for the nuclear attack part, that was also originally brought up by tom aaron's post #3 (whether it's us or the Israelis probably doesn't matter to the Iranians). So, I didn't really see votingmachine's comments as raising to the level of strawman because of that.

 

[russ_watters]

To each his own I guess. I would think that bombing someone's regime into oblivion is pretty warlike.

I don't think an airstrike (similar to the Osirak bombing) - or even several - equates to "bombing someone's regime into oblivion". I don't think it is useful to create an umbrella under which all military action is considered "war", when clearly we all recognize that regardless of the label used, the differences are vast. It looks like part of the same strawman to me.

While votingmachine may have expanded on tom aaron's bombing campaign, there have been plenty of examples in the middle east where U.S. bombing campaigns did become boots on the ground.

I don't agree, but in either case there are also examples of bombing campaigns that didn't, so it is wrong to assume Gulf War III when the more likely scenario is Osirak II.

And again, I probably should have limited this to Obama's table. My point is that one should not base support for this agreement on opposition to an attack, because Obama would never have attacked.