America Reaches Deal with Iran

[carlfense]

If you can provide some hard data points or trend lines showing its improved, or stabilized, please share with us all.

Given your arguments in that thread and this one, I have little doubt that that would be a waste of time for the both of us.

 

Have a nice weekend.

[zoogs]

If Iran wanted to show goodwill, it would have released 4 prisoners it still holds as part of this deal, and the Obama administration should have made this part of the deal. That was a big mistake.

So, the thing you would have done differently is secure the same deal, but also negotiated for the release of 4 prisoners. Is that all?...

[HuskerNation1]

 

If you can provide some hard data points or trend lines showing its improved, or stabilized, please share with us all.

Given your arguments in that thread and this one, I have little doubt that that would be a waste of time for the both of us.

 

Have a nice weekend.

 

Same to you...we can agree to disagree

[HuskerNation1]

 

If Iran wanted to show goodwill, it would have released 4 prisoners it still holds as part of this deal, and the Obama administration should have made this part of the deal. That was a big mistake.

So, the thing you would have done differently is secure the same deal, but also negotiated for the release of 4 prisoners. Is that all?...

 

No, I would not be negotiating with Iran period. They have not earned the goodwill of the USA to have sanctions lifted and be treated as though they will actually follow through on their promises this time around. Whether its Israel or England or another of our closest allies, if their leadership states they want to eradicate those countries, and they condone having their people chant "death to America," there is no reason to even think the negotiation outcomes will be positive for US interests.

 

Now in 5 or 10 years, if Iran has become a regime of stability in the middle east, and no longer supports or harbors Muslim extremists and terrorists organizations, I will eat crow and applaud this deal. I would be just as upset about this deal if it were a Republican President, and am not happy with either party's actions (or lack thereof) on a host of issues in the past several years.

[zoogs]

That's the thing, though: it's not entirely up to the USA.

 

The context in which I am understanding this is that present sanctions can't continue simply because we wish them to. If they could, based on the rhetoric coming from the White House, it seems that they would probably just leave it (but I don't know).

 

The problem is that the USA is not unilaterally imposing these sanctions, and they would start to be seen as unreasonable if good faith efforts at diplomacy weren't explored. The result of that would be the sanctions simply falling apart. Then we have no sanctions (we could, still, but the money would flow in internationally -- eliminating the point of the sanctions to begin with), no agreement and therefore nothing to cut the pathway for Iran to a bomb, and they would have substantially less reason to even negotiate with us about it. Because without the carrot of lifting sanctions, what could we give them?

 

From what I've read, it seems as if you're mainly worried this deal is an endorsement of Iran (it's not -- though Iran now has the chance to change; we'll see) or a capitulation of the United States (it's most certainly not).

 

In fact, the hardliners in Iran likely do not welcome this deal. There's an interesting argument for that. A closed Iran sanctioned by an international effort led by the U.S. not only gives the hardliners themselves legitimacy, it advances their anti-USA cause. The younger generation in Iran is already relatively opened up to the world and probably a lot more similar to us than most of us imagine. And now we've cut out the legs beneath the hawks and hardliners to dig in and keep up the cycle.

 

And as for the United States, the sanctions can always return. Yes, maybe the international community at large will be slow to support a judgment that Iran is cheating the deal. But, they already have pretty shaky support for continuing sanctions to begin with.

 

We don't have to like Iran to negotiate with them. Refusing to negotiate with any state we designate as a "bad actor" may appeal in principle, but I fail to see how ignoring opportunities to advance American interests ... advances American interests.

[krill]

 

Just refer to Obama's comments that echo your sentiments about Iran and its behaviors.

 

After that, you expect them to cozy up to America publicly? Without which this deal is a failure?

 

The point of the deal was to cut their pathway to a nuclear weapon. It was not to transform them instantly into a close ally, a subservient puppet state, or to effect a regime capitulation. None of those were options remotely on the table, and it's usually the case in diplomacy. Negotiation is not bulldozing the opponent into submission. It's getting a deal that both sides can accept.

 

I think you are missing the point. Iran has not had a history of being open and honest when it comes to weapons inspections, whether its through the US or UN. They have openly lead chants "Death to America" as well as the desire to eradicate Israel. Unless they have new leadership through fair elections, its complete naive to expect that their behaviors and intent will change. If Iran truly desires to be more accepted by the US and throughout the world, it will have to show more willingness to condemn Muslin extremists and terrorists both within Iran and in the region. They will understand that America is NOT a bad country who intends to do harm to others for no reason. For a century the US has used its resources to help promote peace throughout the world and make it a safer place. If Iran wanted to show goodwill, it would have released 4 prisoners it still holds as part of this deal, and the Obama administration should have made this part of the deal. That was a big mistake.

 

Do you view Iran as an ally or an enemy? Do you think its plausible that they will change their behaviors and actions and truly become a long-term strategic partner in the Middle East similar to Jordan?

 

 

In other words, whatever Iran agrees to, they need to do more, i.e. the infinite moving goalpost?

 

Another nation on this planet with any nuclear capacity scares me, but the doomsday scenario of Iran sneaking to a quick breakout is no worse than North Korea and Pakistan having nuclear weapons. India and Israel are also non-signers of the NNPT and technically in position of arsenals that violate international law. Pretty sure there's plenty to be scared about with signers being shockingly careless with weapons at times too.

 

One thing I think about frequently is that less than ten years after 400,000 Americans died fighting in WWII, (West) Germany and Italy had joined NATO, and Japan also signed a mutual defense treaty. In the last 40 years Iran took over our embassy and embarrassed a President out of office, probably helped with the Beirut bombings, and probably provided shaped charges for IEDs to Shiite militias in the previous decade. We shot down one of their airliners. We probably provided some assistance to Iraq during their brutal war with Iran.

 

Not to brush all that off as irrelevant, but I think if we could get over the terrible things Germany and Japan did throwing the entire world into the bloodiest conflict in history, we can probably get over the rocky past with Iran. Iran is the only country between Israel and India that has a diversified economy, educated middle class, and some semblance of stable, functioning democratic institutions. Human rights are awful by western standards, but quite liberal compared to their neighbors, and would likely improve with better relations. I don't think it's entirely unrealistic to think that Iran could be persuaded to abandon their nuclear program for the same reason the apartheid South African government eventually did, and maybe in the longer term, the theocracy will fade to a more vestigial role with stronger democratic institutions.

 

At any rate, a military strike on Iran would be a catastrophe that wouldn't degrade their nuclear capability, and there's a point where sanctions only drive a nation down the path of completely rogue pariah state (see: North Korea, has nuclear weapons). I guess if taking a chance at this crossroads backfires, then Obama's successor can look forward to total dysfunction stretching from Syria to Pakistan with no solutions. If it works, there may be somewhat better options in Iran, Iraq, and Syria, at least pertaining to the destruction of ISIS, and a return to a modicum of stability.

[zoogs]

Vox: 6 Iran nuclear deal myths

 

Myth #1: It will be easier for Iran to get a a nuclear bomb

 

 

It's worth looking at what actual arms control experts say: that the deal is very good at limiting Iran's nuclear program and is favorable to the United States.

Myth #2: The Iran deal will pave Iran's way to regional and/or global domination

 

 

As Brookings scholar Tamara Wittes wrote, "Iranian meddling across the region will get worse in the wake of an Iran deal — but it was going to get worse anyway."

 

It's worth remembering that this problem would be infinitely worse if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, which would grant it far more power and military cover than any amount of sanctions relief. That's one of the main reasons the nuclear deal was so important in the first place.

Myth #3: The Iran deal will usher in a kinder, gentler, friendlier Iran

 

 

Nor is hostility to the West something that can be solved so easily. As Steve Coll pointed out recently, Iran's regime sees hostility to America as a core value and an essential pillar to maintaining its power. The nuclear deal isn't going to change that.

Myth #4: The Iran deal will ring in a new era of prosperity and openness for Iran

 

 

This myth risks more than just disappointing Iranians who believe it. One reason the nuclear deal went through at all, with all of the painful and humiliating concessions it required Iran to make, was the overwhelming popular demand for it. That gave Iran's moderates the political mandate they needed to overcome hard-liners who oppose the deal. When regular Iranians start to realize that they're not headed for overnight economic relief, they may lose enthusiasm for the deal or even turn against it. They could put more hard-liners into Iran's elected parliament, who might be tempted to cheat on the deal or defy it outright.

^ Now that would be a bad outcome!

 

Myth # 5: Iran will be able to block enforcement of the deal

 

Under that theory, Iran has basically just gotten something for nothing: The current sanctions will be lifted, but with a little luck and sneaking around, the Iranians will be able to get a bomb anyway.

 

When you look at how this deal is structured, it becomes clear that this is just not the case. (...) According to Stein, if Iran tried to cheat on the deal, "the likelihood of getting caught is near 100 percent."

It notes that the U.S. can effectively force the sanctions to snap back within the framework of the deal by using its Security Council veto ability.

 

Myth #6: The deal makes it physically impossible for Iran to build a bomb

 

Iran's pathway to a bomb is considerably longer, better monitored, and more dangerous for it to tread — all of which is meant to deter the country from walking it. But it is not correct to say that the pathway is entirely "blocked." And preventing Iran from testing its limits, from the temptation of cheating, will be a constant responsibility for the international community. (...) We shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that this problem is solved forever.

[Mavric]

I'm not sure all the conclusions drawn from this are accurate. Particularly this section:

And if it does get caught, the deal is set up to make punishment swift and almost totally certain. If one of the parties to the deal believes Iran is cheating, it can first go to the joint committee that's in charge of deal enforcement. But if it's not happy with that committee's decision, it can go to the Security Council, at which point sanctions will "snap back" into place after 30 days unless a new resolution is passed — and the US can veto any resolution, effectively allowing it to force the UN to reimpose new sanctions.

This also applies if, say, Iran tried to block inspectors. Sure, they could lock out inspectors, but that would blow up the deal — it would effectively prove that Iran was cheating without the world even having to catch them red-handed. This was something that so infuriated the world when Iraq's Saddam Hussein tried it in 1998 that it ended with his country getting bombed shortly thereafter.

This makes it sound like everyone will see non-compliance as an open-and-shut case. Not to mention I don't see any mention of how the inspections are to be conducted that I've seen discussed other places.

 

And they specifically cited the reaction to Iraq refusing inspections. How does everyone feel about the response to those refusals now? Somehow I doubt that many will want to take any drastic action because of refusals again.

[Mavric]

Proponents of the nuclear deal with Iran claim that it is the best one possible. They also say that the international sanctions on Iran could not have been maintained indefinitely, and that Europe, Russia and China would soon violate them. The deal’s advocates have accused Israel and other critics of failing to propose an alternative to the current agreement. And, most radically, they warn that either America accepts this deal or goes to war.

 

None of these assertions is true.

 

Instead of blocking Iran’s path to nuclear weaponry, the deal, in fact, provides two paths. Under its terms, Iran could develop advanced centrifuges capable of enriching uranium at 20 times the current rate. By repeatedly exploiting the 24-day head start that the deal affords Iran before it has to let international inspectors visit a suspected site, the ayatollahs could cheat and make a bomb well within the deal’s 10-year time frame.

 

Or Iran could comply with the agreement and emerge with all of its nuclear facilities intact and thousands of advanced centrifuges that can produce an entire arsenal of bombs in virtually no time at all.

 

In the interim, Iran would be released from the sanctions that took the world a decade to impose. These cannot be “snapped back” if Iran were to violate the deal, as its defenders contend, but reinstated only after a lengthy international process that excludes all the contracts signed by Iran before it were to cheat. As such, the deal serves as an incentive for foreign companies to sign a great number of short- and medium-term contracts with Iran. The windfall is estimated to reach $700 billion, according to Israeli government sources.

 

...

 

The biting sanctions enacted by Congress, and approved by President Barack Obama, halted the Iranian nuclear program. They also forced the Iranians to the negotiating table where they would have remained and made far-reaching concessions were the sanctions intensified or at least sustained.

 

These sanctions presented Tehran’s international customers with a choice: Either do business with Iran or with the United States. Russia, China and others might have protested continuing sanctions on Iran but, in the end, it is highly unlikely that they would have forfeited access to America’s $17 trillion economy to cut oil deals with Iran.

 

Link

[BIGREDIOWAN]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iranian-leader-tweets-graphic-of-obama-with-gun-to-head/ar-AAduqQp

[knapplc]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/iranian-leader-tweets-graphic-of-obama-with-gun-to-head/ar-AAduqQp

 

Seems like he fits in pretty well with the more extreme members of the GOP. Is Khameni a closet Republican?

[knapplc]

The agreement may also accelerate one established trend that Iran’s leaders may find deeply unsettling. Fewer of their compatriots have much sympathy for the regime’s constant fulminations against foreign powers; fewer still are prepared to join the ritual chants of “death to America”.

 

In the early years of the 1979 Islamic revolution, the new rulers’ anti-Americanism was in tune with the sentiments of many Iranians who remembered with bitterness how Washington and its allies had supported the Shah’s tyranny.

 

But the generation which saw America as a natural enemy has faded away, leaving today’s Iranians with opinions far more complex than the garish displays might suggest.

 

Sadegh Zibakalam, a professor of political science at Tehran University, said popular attitudes towards the United States had undergone a “historic transformation”.

 

”The slogan ‘death to America’ no longer echoes widely among educated Iranians,” he added. “As a professor at Tehran University, I would tell you that less than 10 per cent of students support the slogan ‘death to America’ – and many of those 10 per cent are thinking of political careers. But even among that 10 per cent, I’m not sure how genuine their anti-American sentiment is.”

 

 

LINK

 

This is actually Israel's greatest fear - that Iran and America may no longer be sworn enemies. Without Iran as the bogeyman, it's going to be much harder to get those billions in arms shipments Israel so desperately wants.

 

A deal like this will resonate with Iran's youth. It will make it harder for the warmongers in Israel, America and Iran to find people willing to agree to keep arming, keep building weapons.

[zoogs]

A perspective from the Jerusalem Post: http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Netanyahu-steered-US-toward-war-with-Iran-the-result-is-a-deal-he-hates-410082

 

But these were benefits that came after the fact. What truly focused US priorities was that Israel made it clear to the White House in 2011-12 that Washington could otherwise be dragged into a war it could not control. One that would likely have devastating effects on both the United States and Israel. Thus started Obama’s urgent search for a nuclear deal.

 

In clinching the deal with Iran, Obama has, above all, succeeded in averting a disastrous war that would not have prevented Tehran from acquiring nukes. And it was Netanyahu who made sure Obama thought war was on the horizon.

[Mavric]

Iran will sign an agreement with Russia next week to receive four S-300 surface-to-air battalions in open defiance of Israel and the United States.

 

...

 

Secretary of State John Kerry made his concerns known to Lavrov regarding Russia’s prospective sale of S-300s to Iran. Marie Harf, a State Department spokeswoman, stated that “We don’t believe it’s constructive at this time for Russia to move forward with this.”

 

Russia appears to have totally ignored Kerry.

 

As far as Israel is concerned, four S-300 systems would severely hamper Israel’s unilateral strike option, though not entirely eliminating it.

 

In April, a former Israeli Air Force official described the S-300 to The Jerusalem Post as “one of the most advanced air defense systems in the world,” further adding that, “This system will be a challenge for an air force to overcome. Its arrival is a significant change in our region.”

 

Dehghan is still in talks with Lavrov about the possibility of purchasing Russian-made fighter jets. A hostile relationship between Iran and the United States means that the Iranian Air Force has had a difficult time performing maintenance and upgrading its largely U.S.-made fleet.

 

Daily Caller

[knapplc]

The nuclear proliferation agreement with Iran was reached in July. The sale of these S300 missiles was known about in April, well before the deal was signed. If this was a deal-breaker, likely the deal wouldn't have been signed.

 

People need to understand that Iran is going to make the best defense deals for Iran. It's not like they're going to lay down weapons because they signed this agreement with the U.S. Every time they buy or make missiles, planes, bombs or boats doesn't need to be news - unless you're Israel, and you want to use this as some kind of scare tactic to drum up more support from Moneybags 'Merica.