ADVERTISEMENT

Iran nuclear deal

Re: Questions For Those Who Know


And one more question. Iranian scientists have been present for all North Koreas testing of the bomb and building of such. How does this deal stop them from obtaining enriched uranium from them? It does nothing but letting them to obtain the knowhow and supplies needed from North Korea. You dreamers can dream on.
 
mjvcaj, you bring up an important point

We often forget the Iranian political situation isn't completely settled with President-elect Hassan Rouhani representing the possibility of a different Iran in the future as compared to the hardliners style which has dominated the past.

Thus the improvement in the Iran economy when sanctions are lifted may or may not go to efforts at supporting ME terrorism as per the hardliners, and instead may go in the direction of making Iran more economically successful for the benefit of its own people and as a model for its neighbors.

We are inclined to see Iran primarily as the state which wants to wipe out the Jewish state of Israel when in reality Iran in many ways has been its own worst enemy by being an outcast. Some Iranians undoubtedly must see this. The agreement if it comes to pass and actually performs as we hope in preventing Iran from developing nukes could also make the end of rule in Iran by the hardliners. Granted this may be just a naive dream on my part, but my dream is probably shared by a good many Iranians, especially younger Iranians born since the 1979 revolution. Young Iranians who deserve a better future than the past experienced by their elders.
 
But what does that do?

First, it will be a bit easier for Iran to cheat sanctions than North Korea. But beyond that, so their people are eating grass grown out of the median of crumbling roads, what does that do for us? They still would have the bomb and still could easily use it. As we see in North Korea, the generals and senior politicians aren't starving.

It may make us feel better that they are suffering for their transgressions. But if our fear is that they want a bomb to use against Israel, I don't think that helps.
 
My thoughts

I don't trust Obama as being a good negotiator and am afraid he got snookered.I am afraid that he's trying to build his legacy rather than make a good dealHowever, having said the previous two things I hope I am completely wrong and that he got a good deal that is verifiable.I am gonna withhold judgement until I see some of the details. From what I've read the whole thing could still fall apart.
 
Precisely my point hoot

I know a few younger Iranians from grad school. They want reform. They are much more progressive than we give them credit for. However, typical of the region, there is a huge clash between the violent conservatives that hold the power and the younger progressives that are seeking change. We almost had something a couple of years back, but the revolution ultimately fell short.

Further economic destruction would only rekindle this movement towards Westernization. I do believe Rouhani is far more progressive than his predecessors, and is pushing for reform, but I remain skeptical that conservatives in power behind him will ever let him do what he and, more importantly, the younger generation, wants.
 
Because the younger generation doesn't care about possessing Nukes

They want change and progress. Not to play Cold War games.
 
Then that could work

But my general belief is nothing increases a human's desire for something than being told they cannot have it.
 
Tell us all the details of the deal.

Then we'll chime in.
 
I don't necessarily agree.

I think a strong economy will make people less inclined to support terrorism. I'm about 100 times more worried about Pakistan already having nukes than Iran having some nuclear power plants.
 
That depends on whether of not the subject holds value

If someone told me guns were banned, it would have no effect on me because I am rather indifferent and don't really care either way to own a guy.
 
The idea that it stops with power plants is silly

If all Iran wanted was peaceful development of nuclear power, it would never have backed itself into a corner to begin with. Those that resist investigation and transparency always have something to hide.

I do agree that Pakistan is very worrisome, particularly to my friends that live in India. And I am not opposed to some sort of harder stance with Pakistan.
 
True, but

This is cast as national pride, that Iran can join the big boys. That may go a bit further.
 
I believe if Iran wanted a nuke...

...it would have one.
 
So if it is legitimately for peaceful reasons

Why did it refuse to allow inspection and provide full transparency?
 
Here are some other critical perspectives on the deal

http://www.wsj.com/articles/reuel-marc-gerecht-and-mark-dubowitz-irans-negotiating-triumph-over-obama-and-america-1428099801


A White House less desperate to make a deal would consider how easily nuclear agreements with bad actors are circumvented. Charles Duelfer has written a trenchantaccount in Politico of how Saddam Hussein tied the United Nations Security Council and its nuclear inspectors into knots in the 1990s, rendering them incapable of ascertaining the truth about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/iran-deal-kerry-flawed-negotiations-close-116623.html#.VR8bMvnF_LE
 
Let me clarify

I agree with Gary Sick who worked for both Republican and Democrat presidents that if Iran had wanted to build a nuclear bomb it would have one by this time or a great deal sooner.

Sick in this article has this to say,

Netanyahu, in various capacities, had been warning of an imminent
Iranian nuclear weapon since at least 1992, when he told the Israeli
Knesset that Iran could have a bomb in three to five years. He and
others, in Israel and elsewhere, have made similar predictions almost
annually for the past two decades.


It is easy to dismiss these predictions as fear-mongering about something that obviously never happened. But it is much more instructive to understand that what they were saying had a basis in fact: During this entire period, Iran was steadily increasing its capability to produce a nuclear bomb. The more interesting fact is that Tehran did not follow through. By virtually every estimate, Iran has had the capability to produce a nuclear weapon for at least a decade. The predictions were wrong, not about Iran's ability but about its willingness to use that capability to produce a weapon. The entire U.S. intelligence community and most of our allies - apparently including Israel - have concluded with high confidence that Iran has not made a decision to build a bomb.

So Netanyahu might very well might have right in 1992 when he predicted Iran would have a nuclear weapon in three to five years. Given that to this very day Iran doesn't have one, a reasonable person might conclude Iran has chosen not to have one.
 
That is a very good point.

We have nothing to lose normalizing relations with this first step. If Saudi wanted to fight they could. We sold then M1 tanks and F16 jets and trained their force at our bases on a ongoing basis. What have they done for us other than buy our arms? They are the major exporters of extremist thought.
 
What's your solution then?

Just nuke Iran now before they get their own nuke?
Or, wait until we elect a Republican president and have him negotiate the same deal Obama is doing now?
 
Well . . .

I couldn't read the WSJ piece, but I wouldn't read it either. Reuel Marc Gerecht is a neocon who's been consistently wrong about everything, yet is still treated as a Very Serious Person in places like the WSJ editorial pages, where there is no penalty for being consistently wrong so long as you're wrong in the right direction. On the other hand, Charles Duelfer absolutely knows whereof he speaks. But he speaks of Iraq, not Iran, and the force of his argument is that we shouldn't have any agreement with Iran. If that's the point he intends, he's obviously wrong.
 
To the extent that sanctions work . . .

They only work if we have international support. And we have international support only to the extent that the rest of the world thinks we're being reasonable. By international standards, "reasonable" excludes the maximalist demands demanded by Bibi Netanyahu (R-Israel).

Team Obama is trying to get the best deal it can get. Since this is a negotiation, it won't be perfect. But since this is reality it must be assessed against the realistic alternatives. That is where the opponents of negotiation reveal themselves as irresponsible warmongers.
 
Here's what's silly

Imagining that we can divine others' motivations by reference to our own experience, which is at odds with their experience. If they don't think the way we think, we're silly to act as though they did.

In the run-up to the Iraq war, I was confident that Saddam had WMDs. After all, I reasoned, why would he risk invasion if he didn't have them? Well, it turned out that, from Saddam's perspective, there was a perfectly sensible answer to that question. As we now know, Saddam feared the consequences if arch-enemy Iran and his own people thought he didn't have WMDs, and until the last days, he didn't think we'd invade on the basis of claims he thought we knew weren't true. Oops.

Your confidence that you understand Iran's leaders is foolishly arrogant. You should face up to the reality that you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
Re: Here's what's silly


I am sorry but based on new news reports what is silly is that we believe one word out of this Prez mouth. He is selling us down the proverbial tube. Period!
This post was edited on 4/4 11:23 PM by davegolf
 
ADVERTISEMENT