I came across an opinion piece in the Observer that asserts that Obama sees Iran as his chance to have a lasting legacy the way Nixon did when opening up China. If so, it explains why the administration is so determined to make a deal despite the clarion calls of disaster should such a deal actually happen.
The Editors wrote:President Obama Must Not Complete a Disastrous Deal With Iran
Forget Churchill—Obama Isn't Measuring up to Neville Chamberlain
US Secretary of State John Kerry (C) waits prior to world powers representatives meeting to pin down a nuclear deal with Iran, on March 30, 2015 at the Beau Rivage Palace Hotel in Lausanne. (Photo: BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)
With the US on the brink of signing an agreement that will lift the crippling economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for alleged guarantees that Iran will limit its nuclear ambitions to peaceful means, the Observer urges President Obama not to place his personal hunger for a legacy issue ahead of his most solemn duty – protecting America’s national security.
Barack Obama has been compared to British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain , who concluded the ill-fated Munich Pact with Hitler in 1938. But Chamberlain acted out of a sincere belief that he was avoiding a greater evil. Chamberlain was not thinking of his place in history. He was thinking only of the Britain that he loved, a Britain that was all but disarmed, exhausted, and vulnerable. He was dealing with a nation that had been decimated by the Great War, a nation whose “best and brightest” five years earlier had declared in the infamous Oxford Oath that they would not fight for king or country, and a nation that was as materially unprepared for war as Germany was prepared to fight. Chamberlain dealt from a position of weakness, one that Hitler continually exploited in the negotiations, even by changing the time and place to make it more inconvenient for the British leader to attend them.
In sharp contrast, Mr. Obama is acting out of personal aggrandizement. He believes he is replicating President Richard Nixon’s historic opening of China. For Mr. Obama, the Iranian nuclear arms deal is about his place in history. Mr. Obama is dealing from a position of strength that he refuses to use. The sanctions have hurt Iran. Falling oil prices only add to Iran’s vulnerability. Instead of using the sanctions to pursue his original promise that Iran would not get the bomb, Mr. Obama has moved the goal post. Iran would not get the bomb immediately. It would be permitted to enrich uranium well beyond the 5 percent need for generating nuclear energy and be left with a breakout capacity to create a bomb.
Meanwhile, Iran is refusing surprise inspections, the hallmark of any such agreement, and has ruled its military facilities, such as the enrichment plant at Fordo, off limits to any inspections, period. Iran continues to showcase public displays of Israel being obliterated by an Iranian nuclear bomb, and even in the midst of negotiations government-orchestrated mass rallies cry out, “Death to America.”
If Chamberlain possessed America’s strength and was dealing with Iran’s weakness, would he be negotiating as Mr. Obama is? Would he be more concerned about a Jew building an extra bedroom in Jerusalem than an Iranian building a bomb at Fordo?
Before becoming prime minister, Chamberlain held two ministerial portfolios. He was considered a thoughtful and effective cabinet member. Upon becoming Prime Minister in 1940, Winston Churchill appointed Chamberlain to the new War Cabinet.
History has debated whether Chamberlain was the reckless appeaser that he is stereotyped as or the man who dealt from a position of extreme weakness against a foe he was unprepared to go to war against and who sacrificed part of Czechoslovakia to buy Britain time to rearm. Even Churchill, who filleted Chamberlain with his famous “choice between war and dishonor and now will get both” zinger, understood that Chamberlain was acting in good faith and kept his vanquished predecessor in his War cabinet.
It is unrealistic to hope that Mr. Obama could emerge as a modern Churchill in this chaotic and dangerous chapter in human history. But even Chamberlain would not have made the disastrous agreement that Mr. Obama seems so eager to conclude.
Mr. Obama is an amateur who is enthralled with the sound of his own voice and is incapable of coming to grips with the consequences of his actions. He is surrounded by sycophants, second-rate intellectuals, and a media that remains compliant and uncritical in the face of repeated foreign policy disasters. As country after country in the world’s most dangerous region fall into chaos—Libya and Yemen are essentially anarchic states, even as Syria and Iraq continue to devolve—Mr. Obama puzzlingly focuses much of his attention and rhetoric on Israel, childishly refusing to accept the mandate its people have given their prime minister in an election that, by the way, added three additional seats to the country’s Arab minority.
We can debate whether we should ever have been in Iraq, but Mr. Obama’s hasty withdrawal to make good on a campaign promise created the power vacuum filled by the Islamic State. In Syria, he vacillated over the enforcement of red lines and whom to arm. There too, he created a vacuum filled by the Islamic State.
In Egypt, he withdrew support for President Hosni Mubarack, who for thirty years kept the peace with Israel and turned Egypt into a stable and reliable ally. Obama permitted the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood to come to power failing to realize that one election, one time, resulting in a tyranny is not democracy.
In Libya, President Muammar al-Gaddafi, once an international pariah, had reversed course as far back as 1999 and attempted to reenter the community of nations, even giving up his nuclear program. Libya was a stable dictatorship that was willing to engage in economic and diplomatic relations with the West. Its revolutionary ambitions of pan-Arabism and its expansionist tendencies had abated. When revolutionary forces rose up against Gaddafi, Mr. Obama not only verbally supported the revolutionaries, he sent NATO war planes to assist them. Gaddafi was defeated and murdered. Libya is now in chaos and another hot house for Islamic extremism.
he deal with Iran follows in the wake of these foreign policy disasters. Among our traditional Sunni allies in the region, it is seen as a betrayal not simply because it advances Iran’s nuclear ambitions but also because it encourages Iran’s support for the Houthi Shiite militia in Yemen and Iran’s adventurism in Iraq. The lifting of sanctions means more resources for Iran to transfer to its meddlesome proxies like Lebanon’s Hezbollah, the assassin of Lebanon’s democratic aspirations. The nuclear deal gives Iran an unacceptable nuclear umbrella that will compel the Gulf State Sunnis to launch their own nuclear programs, setting off a disastrous proliferation in the region.
The Iran deal is a march toward the nuclear abyss hand-in-hand with the world’s largest exporter of terrorism– the patron of Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthi militias in Yemen, Shiite militias in Iraq, and operatives killing Jews in Argentina. Regrettably, a naïve, petulant President Obama sees this as a crowning part of his legacy and nothing will stand in his way.
Until Mr. Obama released a 1987 classified report detailing Israel’s nuclear program, we believed that the president’s Iranian policy was motivated by a different vision of America’s interests in the Middle East. Admittedly, it is one that would be difficult to dissect, let alone to explain.
But Mr. Obama’s latest petulant act shows that this is not a president motivated by policy but by personal feelings. He sacrificed the security of our close ally and its seven million citizens because he felt slighted. How else does one explain that Israel’s nuclear program is made public while the report’s description of the programs of our NATO partners is redacted?
We might call for Mr. Obama to find his inner Churchill and walk away from this tragedy, but we would be happy if he would simply find the character of the “real” Neville Chamberlain, who when dealing from a position of America’s strength would never have signed a deal with the devil. Ultimately, this deal will come back to haunt Mr. Obama’s legacy far more than Munich haunted Chamberlain’s.
No you're not. The administration has effectively said it as well.
The problem is, Obama is no Nixon. To bring them to the table Nixon started Linebacker and threatened to go Dr. Strangelove on them (and China). When things got stuck Linebacker restarted and they wheeled out the crazy german plan again.
Yes, the editors are wrong. So wrong, I don't even know where to begin!
"a Britain that was all but disarmed, exhausted, and vulnerable. He was dealing with a nation that had been decimated by the Great War, a nation whose “best and brightest” five years earlier had declared in the infamous Oxford Oath that they would not fight for king or country, and a nation that was as materially unprepared for war as Germany was prepared to fight. "
Slightly OT, but that is one of the biggest historical myths you'll ever read - that Britain was weak during the 1930s. It's been shot down in flames so many times it's unbelievable. I may start a new topic on this, but that is a load of bull. During the 1930s, Britain made more guns than the USA. Yes, the USA, had the world's largest navy, spent billions on upgrading Singapore's defences, and spent more on the RAF than the Germans did on the Luftwaffe. Britain controlled the Middle east through the oil fields, dominated South America through its vast commercial interests, and had all the war materials it needed suck as rubber, tin, and manganese, coming from South east Asia.
There was only one country that could challenge the UK, and it certainly wasn't Germany. It starts with a U and ends in an A
"History has debated whether Chamberlain was the reckless appeaser that he is stereotyped as or the man who dealt from a position of extreme weakness against a foe he was unprepared to go to war against and who sacrificed part of Czechoslovakia to buy Britain time to rearm. Even Churchill, who filleted Chamberlain with his famous “choice between war and dishonor and now will get both” zinger, understood that Chamberlain was acting in good faith and kept his vanquished predecessor in his War cabinet."
More bull. Chamberlain acted as he did, because UK public opinion was against another war, not because the UK was weak. There is a difference between a strong country reluctant to fight, and a weak country reluctant to fight. Bear in mind, it had been only 22 years since the battle of the somme.
"and a media that remains compliant and uncritical in the face of repeated foreign policy disasters."
Whoever wrote this has obviously never heard of Fox News or Charles Krauthammer
"We can debate whether we should ever have been in Iraq, but Mr. Obama’s hasty withdrawal to make good on a campaign promise created the power vacuum filled by the Islamic State. In Syria, he vacillated over the enforcement of red lines and whom to arm. There too, he created a vacuum filled by the Islamic State."
Getting rid of Saddam created the power vacuum that was filled by Iranians as well. ISIL are just another actor.
"Obama permitted the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood to come to power failing to realize that one election, one time, resulting in a tyranny is not democracy."
I'm pretty sure the Egyptian people voted in the Muslim Brotherhood and I'm pretty sure the new Egyptian dictator is not running a democracy either.
"In Libya, President Muammar al-Gaddafi, once an international pariah, had reversed course as far back as 1999 and attempted to reenter the community of nations, even giving up his nuclear program. Libya was a stable dictatorship that was willing to engage in economic and diplomatic relations with the West. Its revolutionary ambitions of pan-Arabism and its expansionist tendencies had abated. When revolutionary forces rose up against Gaddafi, Mr. Obama not only verbally supported the revolutionaries, he sent NATO war planes to assist them. Gaddafi was defeated and murdered. Libya is now in chaos and another hot house for Islamic extremism."
It was David Cameron and that small French guy who pushed for action in Libya, not BHO.
In all, this is total nonsense from the Observer, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest, and they have the nerve to charge £1.50 for this newspaper!
es, the editors are wrong. So wrong, I don't even know where to begin!
"a Britain that was all but disarmed, exhausted, and vulnerable. He was dealing with a nation that had been decimated by the Great War, a nation whose “best and brightest” five years earlier had declared in the infamous Oxford Oath that they would not fight for king or country, and a nation that was as materially unprepared for war as Germany was prepared to fight. "
Slightly OT, but that is one of the biggest historical myths you'll ever read - that Britain was weak during the 1930s. It's been shot down in flames so many times it's unbelievable. I may start a new topic on this, but that is a load of bull. During the 1930s, Britain made more guns than the USA. Yes, the USA, had the world's largest navy, spent billions on upgrading Singapore's defences, and spent more on the RAF than the Germans did on the Luftwaffe. Britain controlled the Middle east through the oil fields, dominated South America through its vast commercial interests, and had all the war materials it needed suck as rubber, tin, and manganese, coming from South east Asia.
There was only one country that could challenge the UK, and it certainly wasn't Germany. It starts with a U and ends in an A
"History has debated whether Chamberlain was the reckless appeaser that he is stereotyped as or the man who dealt from a position of extreme weakness against a foe he was unprepared to go to war against and who sacrificed part of Czechoslovakia to buy Britain time to rearm. Even Churchill, who filleted Chamberlain with his famous “choice between war and dishonor and now will get both” zinger, understood that Chamberlain was acting in good faith and kept his vanquished predecessor in his War cabinet."
More bull. Chamberlain acted as he did, because UK public opinion was against another war, not because the UK was weak. There is a difference between a strong country reluctant to fight, and a weak country reluctant to fight. Bear in mind, it had been only 22 years since the battle of the somme.
Agreed to a great extent. IIRC but Britain was much less impacted by the Depression than either Germany or the US of Texas. And of course sentiment was against the war. No reason for it to be otherwise. Germany was a minimal direct threat to Britain. Arguably Germany was a minimal direct threat to France as well, if both had steered clear of a treaty with Poland. But that’s another thread.
"and a media that remains compliant and uncritical in the face of repeated foreign policy disasters."
Whoever wrote this has obviously never heard of Fox News or Charles Krauthammer
"We can debate whether we should ever have been in Iraq, but Mr. Obama’s hasty withdrawal to make good on a campaign promise created the power vacuum filled by the Islamic State. In Syria, he vacillated over the enforcement of red lines and whom to arm. There too, he created a vacuum filled by the Islamic State."
Getting rid of Saddam created the power vacuum that was filled by Iranians as well. ISIL are just another actor.
Agreed. Argument One on why the USA should leave dictatorships alone.
"Obama permitted the tyrannical Muslim Brotherhood to come to power failing to realize that one election, one time, resulting in a tyranny is not democracy."
I'm pretty sure the Egyptian people voted in the Muslim Brotherhood and I'm pretty sure the new Egyptian dictator is not running a democracy either.
Agreed. Argument Two on why the USA should leave dictatorships alone.
"In Libya, President Muammar al-Gaddafi, once an international pariah, had reversed course as far back as 1999 and attempted to reenter the community of nations, even giving up his nuclear program. Libya was a stable dictatorship that was willing to engage in economic and diplomatic relations with the West. Its revolutionary ambitions of pan-Arabism and its expansionist tendencies had abated. When revolutionary forces rose up against Gaddafi, Mr. Obama not only verbally supported the revolutionaries, he sent NATO war planes to assist them. Gaddafi was defeated and murdered. Libya is now in chaos and another hot house for Islamic extremism."
It was David Cameron and that small French guy who pushed for action in Libya, not BHO.
In all, this is total nonsense from the Observer, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest, and they have the nerve to charge £1.50 for this newspaper!
Agreed. Argument Three on why the USA should leave dictatorships alone.
I would like to think that this is part of a well coordinated effort to sideline Russia in the Middle East, and to prevent the area becoming a stage for proxy wars. By bringing Iran into the fold America isolates Assad and his regime further.
The issue with this plan though is balancing our developing relationship with Iran against our existing relationships with our allies in the region.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: I would like to think that this is part of a well coordinated effort to sideline Russia in the Middle East, and to prevent the area becoming a stage for proxy wars. By bringing Iran into the fold America isolates Assad and his regime further.
The issue with this plan though is balancing our developing relationship with Iran against our existing relationships with our allies in the region.
Yeah, but reaching out to Iran will seriously annoy the Saudis, and as others have said, will push the Saudis towards getting their own bomb, and thus kick off another arms race.
Say what you want about the cold war, but at least there was an understanding between the USA and the Soviets over nuclear weapons.
Unstable Middle Eastern regimes with nuclear weapons = total F*****G disaster!! Apologies to the mods, but it needed saying.
I was referring to their view on Obama's pursuit of this treaty, but if their history is so far off can their view on the negotiations far behind?
I don't know how much experience you have with UK newspapers, but the Observer is infamous for running this type of 'piece.'
Plus, the Observer cheered on Obama when he pulled troops out of Iraq, backed strikes against Libya, and pushed for action in Syria, so for them to criticise Obama over Iran and his previous decisions regarding the ME, is pretty hypocritical.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Yeah, but reaching out to Iran will seriously annoy the Saudis, and as others have said, will push the Saudis towards getting their own bomb, and thus kick off another arms race.
Say what you want about the cold war, but at least there was an understanding between the USA and the Soviets over nuclear weapons.
Unstable Middle Eastern regimes with nuclear weapons = total F*****G disaster!! Apologies to the mods, but it needed saying.
I don't doubt that this has the very real potential for a Middle East arms race, especially with the Saudis having a reasonable relationship with Pakistan
So, why is this deal with Iran such a problem? And why does the US think Iran is so evil, when compared to other Middle-Eastern nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran is actually pretty progressive and peaceful? They hate Israel and the US, but which Arab muslim nation doesn't? And considering the extremely agressive foreign policy of Israel and the US, I can't blame them.
Iron_Captain wrote: So, why is this deal with Iran such a problem? And why does the US think Iran is so evil, when compared to other Middle-Eastern nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran is actually pretty progressive and peaceful? They hate Israel and the US, but which Arab muslim nation doesn't? And considering the extremely agressive foreign policy of Israel and the US, I can't blame them.
Multiple threats to destroy israel, funding hezbollah, at one time hamas, denial the holocaust and calling america the great satan etc. I would not call them peaceful, you could call them progressive but anything seems like that when compared to wahhabism.
Iron_Captain wrote: So, why is this deal with Iran such a problem? And why does the US think Iran is so evil, when compared to other Middle-Eastern nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran is actually pretty progressive and peaceful? They hate Israel and the US, but which Arab muslim nation doesn't? And considering the extremely agressive foreign policy of Israel and the US, I can't blame them.
Iran humiliated the USA in the 1970s. The USA have not forgotten, nor will they forgive, in my view.
As for your other point, Jordan doesn't hate the USA, UAE, doesn't hate the USA, Kuwait doesn't hate the USA, and I'm pretty sure one or two other nations in the region aren't all that bothered by the USA.
Considering how Iran has launched their own satellites, one of which circles over the United States every 90 minutes, and that Iran has such a large nuclear program, they could have build many bombs by now. It would seem like they instead are purely using it as a power resource. Let's not forget that Iran came to the discussions willingly, their goal to reduce/remove sanctions.
With so few friends in that region of the world, it's about time relations improved. Please leave the political bickering to issues that won't have international ramifications (won't happen though, the AIIC that China has many US allies joining was created because of political delays by the US house and senate, so we are already being affected by politicians that aren't working for the overall good of the nation.)
Ustrello wrote: Multiple threats to destroy israel, funding hezbollah, at one time hamas, denial the holocaust and calling america the great satan etc. I would not call them peaceful, you could call them progressive but anything seems like that when compared to wahhabism.
That and providing arms and training to enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan, which lead to the deaths of US service personnel
Ustrello wrote: Multiple threats to destroy israel, funding hezbollah, at one time hamas, denial the holocaust and calling america the great satan etc. I would not call them peaceful, you could call them progressive but anything seems like that when compared to wahhabism.
That and providing arms and training to enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan, which lead to the deaths of US service personnel
The Iraq and Afghanistan argument doesn't wash with me, because we know that Pakistan, an 'ally' of the USA, was helping the Taliban left, right and centre, and yet, the USA did nothing about it.
I remain convinced to this day that elements of Pakistani intelligence knew where Bin laden was hiding, and said nothing to the Americans.
My two cents: I do not care if the Iranian government gets an atomic bomb. They are not nice, but they are reasonably sensible and competent, else the country would be a wreck, not a regional power. I mean, neighboring Pakistan's government is not even able to control their whole country, and yet those guys have the bomb! They let their politicians be killed by irate Islamist mobs! Iran is a model of stability, sense, progress and enlightenment compared to Pakistan. (Okay, that may be a bit of hyperbole)
However, I really care of some of the embargo is lift, because it actually hurt the population, people that already have to suffer from the lack of democracy and human rights, and from the corruption. And it hurts them a lot.
So, hurray for Obama or something.
Ustrello wrote: Multiple threats to destroy israel, funding hezbollah, at one time hamas, denial the holocaust and calling america the great satan etc. I would not call them peaceful, you could call them progressive but anything seems like that when compared to wahhabism.
That and providing arms and training to enemy combatants in Iraq and Afghanistan, which lead to the deaths of US service personnel
Yes, but the US itself has done that as well. Also, Saudi Arabia has a worse human rights record and has funded groups like Al Qaeda, Al Nusra and ISIS, all of which are quite a bit worse than Hezbollah. The only reason the Saudis are not all that hostile to Israel is that both are US allies. There is no love for Israel in Saudi Arabia, they still have a boycot ongoing and do not even recognise Israel as a state.
And as for Iran having called the US the great Satan, is the US now getting angry over being called mean names? The US called Iran, 'the Axis of Evil', so I think that is square now. And when compared to the US and Israel, Iran is very peaceful. When is the last time Iran invaded another country and bombed the gak out of it?
Iron_Captain wrote: So, why is this deal with Iran such a problem? And why does the US think Iran is so evil, when compared to other Middle-Eastern nations such as Saudi Arabia, Iran is actually pretty progressive and peaceful? They hate Israel and the US, but which Arab muslim nation doesn't? And considering the extremely agressive foreign policy of Israel and the US, I can't blame them.
Why do you think we think the other nations aren't evil?
The other ones aren't trying to get the bomb at the same time they are making official statements about wiping out other countries.
"We can debate whether we should ever have been in Iraq, but Mr. Obama’s hasty withdrawal to make good on a campaign promise created the power vacuum filled by the Islamic State. In Syria, he vacillated over the enforcement of red lines and whom to arm. There too, he created a vacuum filled by the Islamic State."
Getting rid of Saddam created the power vacuum that was filled by Iranians as well. ISIL are just another actor.
Getting rid of Saddam created the power vacuum. The USA filled it as long as we were there, and Obama chose to vacate it, which helped set conditions for ISIS' offensive in Iraq.
Frazzled wrote: The other ones aren't trying to get the bomb at the same time they are making official statements about wiping out other countries.
That's a bit tricky, ain't it? How can you negotiate anything with a country that you assume is serious when it threats dropping a nuclear charge on a neighbour?
I mean, surely the US knows those threats to be complete vapour if it even sits down for the appetizers, much less the main course?
Hordini wrote: Getting rid of Saddam created the power vacuum. The USA filled it as long as we were there, and Obama chose to vacate it, which helped set conditions for ISIS' offensive in Iraq.
Funny, I thought we left because Iraq refused to sign a SOFA.
Should we have become a hostile occupying force instead?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The Iraq and Afghanistan argument doesn't wash with me, because we know that Pakistan, an 'ally' of the USA, was helping the Taliban left, right and centre, and yet, the USA did nothing about it.
I remain convinced to this day that elements of Pakistani intelligence knew where Bin laden was hiding, and said nothing to the Americans.
I believe that too. But the official line was always that rogue elements of Pakistani intelligence were aiding and abetting the Taliban. When it's the Revolutionary Guard doing it that is another matter
Hordini wrote: Getting rid of Saddam created the power vacuum. The USA filled it as long as we were there, and Obama chose to vacate it, which helped set conditions for ISIS' offensive in Iraq.
Funny, I thought we left because Iraq refused to sign a SOFA.
Should we have become a hostile occupying force instead?
Wasn't there an Iraqi election going on that time? (tried to google-fu... coming up blanks).
If so, they the Iraqi voters share this burden... no?
Hordini wrote: Getting rid of Saddam created the power vacuum. The USA filled it as long as we were there, and Obama chose to vacate it, which helped set conditions for ISIS' offensive in Iraq.
Funny, I thought we left because Iraq refused to sign a SOFA.
Should we have become a hostile occupying force instead?
That's certainly a factor, but it didn't seem like Obama was pushing particularly hard to come to a SOFA agreement. He seemed more than happy to withdraw as quickly as possible.
I think you're moving the goalposts a bit now. You're saying it was Obama's fault that the Iraqi's refused to sign a new SOFA, despite a year of negotiating, because "he didn't try very hard"?
Ouze wrote: I think you're moving the goalposts a bit now. You're saying it was Obama's fault that the Iraqi's refused to sign a new SOFA, despite a year of negotiating, because "he didn't try very hard"?
For the record Ouze I think thats a blue whale of a BS argument. They didn't want us there. We should have left, did leave, and should stay gone.
Also - now we're getting into the realm of speculation, obviously - I think what's happening now would have happened anyway regardless of how long we stayed. Ultimately the country is very divided and unless you get someone running it like Saddam Hussein did, those underlying faults will eventually rupture. Just my opinion, again.
Ouze wrote: Also - now we're getting into the realm of speculation, obviously - I think what's happening now would have happened anyway regardless of how long we stayed. Ultimately the country is very divided and unless you get someone running it like Saddam Hussein did, those underlying faults will eventually rupture. Just my opinion, again.
Again we're in agreement. I'm scared. someone hold me, and get me some bourbon!
Ouze wrote: Also - now we're getting into the realm of speculation, obviously - I think what's happening now would have happened anyway regardless of how long we stayed. Ultimately the country is very divided and unless you get someone running it like Saddam Hussein did, those underlying faults will eventually rupture. Just my opinion, again.
Again we're in agreement. I'm scared. someone hold me, and get me some bourbon!
Ouze wrote: I think you're moving the goalposts a bit now. You're saying it was Obama's fault that the Iraqi's refused to sign a new SOFA, despite a year of negotiating, because "he didn't try very hard"?
I'm not saying it's 100% Obama's fault - obviously the Iraqis bear responsibility for it as well. But it's a two-way street, and like I said, I think Obama was more than happy to cash out his "ended the war in Iraq" campaign promise credit. Do you not think that the negotiations at the time seemed a bit halfhearted?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Also - now we're getting into the realm of speculation, obviously - I think what's happening now would have happened anyway regardless of how long we stayed. Ultimately the country is very divided and unless you get someone running it like Saddam Hussein did, those underlying faults will eventually rupture. Just my opinion, again.
I think it's possible that ISIS might have attempted an offensive, and they probably would have been successful in Syria, but had we still been in Iraq in any meaningful way, I don't think they would have made the successful gains into Iraqi territory that they have. Our staying might have also prevented or at least helped to mitigate the quick degradation of the Iraqi officer corps, something that had a significant effect on the Iraqi's defense falling apart when ISIS began their offensive.
Pray tell why not? Amazingly, the region was no worse or better than before we came along.
Lets say we pulled our "not boots" on the ground out right now, quit bombing etc. RIGHT NOW?
Syria: Assad would finish the remaining non ISIL guerrilla groups and then move on ISIL. Turkey would be ticked but would be unlikely to invade Syria. If they did...meh. Iran: would still be Iran. SA: would still be SA. Every place in between would still be a war zone until this phase of the Hatfield/McCoy "ME Edition" war burned out again (to be restarted in a few decades).
here's an interesting twist. What if Israel gave independence to Gaza/West Bank and then attempted to side with the Arabs against the Persians?
cincydooley wrote: Does anyone think there's any reasonable way that the US can completely pull back from the region as a whole?
Could we feasibly take a selectively isolationist stance on the middle east for, I dunno, 3-5 years?
What, with the pro-Israel lobby in Washington and John McCain threatening to Invade Syria every five minutes?
Good luck with that!
I've said it once, I've said it a million times, why o why won't somebody in Washington read about the British Empire and the Middle East?
You guys have a blueprint of what not to do, and still you screw it up.
America: get the hell out of the Middle East while you still can. It will drag you down, spit you out, and when you've been weakened, you'll hear the Chinese laughing at you as they take your number 1 spot as global superpower.
We left of lot of equipment in Iraq. We were expecting a SOFA (Agreement just for Ouze) to be signed. When it was known there was a high chance it was not going to happen we tried to get out as much as we could via roads and airlifts to Kuwait
Getting rid of Saddam created the power vacuum. The USA filled it as long as we were there, and Obama chose to vacate it, which helped set conditions for ISIS' offensive in Iraq.
Nonsense. ISIL took advantage of the situation in Syria as a result of their ongoing civil war and the weak nature of the Iraqi defense force. Having US presence would have only deterred their incursion into Iraq.
Hordini wrote: Do you not think that the negotiations at the time seemed a bit halfhearted?
I don't think they were halfhearted, merely patient.
Within a couple months of the deadline the US pressed quite hard for Iraq to take a stand on the issue of legal immunity for US troops. Some people cite this as the decision which killed negotiations, but the legal status of US soldiers had been on the table since negotiations began and Iraq always waffled on it. Given the amount of time Iraq had to develop and articulate a position on such a critical issue, it seems quite clear to me it was never going to agree to a SOFA that the US would like.
juraigamer wrote: Having US presence would have only deterred their incursion into Iraq.
Maybe. A continued US presence in Iraq would have been a powerful recruiting tool.
That seems rather optimistic, given that ISIS is a Salafist group and there are ~4 million Saudi Salafis. I mean, I guess the Wahabists could turn against them, but no one really wants that kind of violence in Saudi Arabia.
Eh......think you got the wrong poster there Dogma
As for recruitment tool/deterrent we're about to see if that hold true in Afghanistan. If it does then maybe the same could have been said about Iraq. Though there is a big difference between the general population of Iraq and Afghanistan
Though there is a big difference between the general population of Iraq and Afghanistan
Yeah, I've never gotten the impression that many people in Afghanistan are chasing a new Caliphate. This makes sense as, to wit, its was never a region particularly fond of being a part of a Caliphate.
Getting rid of Saddam created the power vacuum. The USA filled it as long as we were there, and Obama chose to vacate it, which helped set conditions for ISIS' offensive in Iraq.
Nonsense. ISIL took advantage of the situation in Syria as a result of their ongoing civil war and the weak nature of the Iraqi defense force. Having US presence would have only deterred their incursion into Iraq.
More disturbing news out today regarding the Middle East. The UN estimates at least 80,000 foreign fighters have participated in fighting in Syria and Iraq.
When these people go home, I'd be worried.
Even if I was an average gun owner in America, I'd still be worried, because battle hardened killers would be a tough proposition for any average armed citizen to take down, if they went on a rampage. We seen it in Paris not long ago.
I'm sure the military folk will back me up on this.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: More disturbing news out today regarding the Middle East. The UN estimates at least 80,000 foreign fighters have participated in fighting in Syria and Iraq.
When these people go home, I'd be worried.
Even if I was an average gun owner in America, I'd still be worried, because battle hardened killers would be a tough proposition for any average armed citizen to take down, if they went on a rampage. We seen it in Paris not long ago.
I'm sure the military folk will back me up on this.
Don't let them back in. Thats what countries around the world should be doing now.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: More disturbing news out today regarding the Middle East. The UN estimates at least 80,000 foreign fighters have participated in fighting in Syria and Iraq.
When these people go home, I'd be worried.
Even if I was an average gun owner in America, I'd still be worried, because battle hardened killers would be a tough proposition for any average armed citizen to take down, if they went on a rampage. We seen it in Paris not long ago.
I'm sure the military folk will back me up on this.
Don't let them back in. Thats what countries around the world should be doing now.
It would be a hard sell trying to stop American citizens from entering America, especially if they went through multiple countries to cover their tracks.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: More disturbing news out today regarding the Middle East. The UN estimates at least 80,000 foreign fighters have participated in fighting in Syria and Iraq.
Don't forget one thing about that crazy previous Irani president - he had absolutely zero power to actually do anything. Their president ranks below the Ayathollah and the religious council, and anything he tries to do they can shoot down if they don't like it. He was just a convenient scapegoat, making idiotic statements and shouting threats so the people didn't think too much about what's wrong at home.
The new president is negotiating because the real leaders allow it.
Spetulhu wrote: Don't forget one thing about that crazy previous Irani president - he had absolutely zero power to actually do anything. Their president ranks below the Ayathollah and the religious council, and anything he tries to do they can shoot down if they don't like it. He was just a convenient scapegoat, making idiotic statements and shouting threats so the people didn't think too much about what's wrong at home.
The new president is negotiating because the real leaders allow it.
I think it's more likely the Iranians came to the table because the sanctions were biting hard. Which makes it all the more stranger why they eased up on them...
Anyway, is this a historic deal? Are Israel correct to say that this threatens their survival?
I think it's more likely the Iranians came to the table because the sanctions were biting hard. Which makes it all the more stranger why they eased up on them...
The point of sanctions is to bring Leaders to the table.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Anyway, is this a historic deal? Are Israel correct to say that this threatens their survival?
A nation who chants "Death to Israel", refuses to recognize their existence, and funds and supplies terrorist groups to attack Israel not only has had sanctions eased but also has improved standing on the world stage.
I think the rest of the Middle East's reaction to Iran will be interesting.
I think it's more likely the Iranians came to the table because the sanctions were biting hard. Which makes it all the more stranger why they eased up on them...
The point of sanctions is to bring Leaders to the table.
A cynic could say that the point of sanctions is to bring down a regime, which could have happened with Iran if the pressure was applied.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Anyway, is this a historic deal? Are Israel correct to say that this threatens their survival?
A nation who chants "Death to Israel", refuses to recognize their existence, and funds and supplies terrorist groups to attack Israel not only has had sanctions eased but also has improved standing on the world stage.
I think the rest of the Middle East's reaction to Iran will be interesting.
We can pretty much guarantee that the Saudis will be on phone right now recruiting every available nuclear physician/engineer/worker under the sun!
A cynic could say that the point of sanctions is to bring down a regime, which could have happened with Iran if the pressure was applied.
When have sanctions brought down a regime?
The 1940s when the USA sanctioned Japan over China. As a result of feeling the squeeze, the Japanese ordered their carriers to set sail for Hawaii, and the rest is history...
Spetulhu wrote: Don't forget one thing about that crazy previous Irani president - he had absolutely zero power to actually do anything. Their president ranks below the Ayathollah and the religious council, and anything he tries to do they can shoot down if they don't like it. He was just a convenient scapegoat, making idiotic statements and shouting threats so the people didn't think too much about what's wrong at home.
The new president is negotiating because the real leaders allow it.
I think it's more likely the Iranians came to the table because the sanctions were biting hard. Which makes it all the more stranger why they eased up on them...
Anyway, is this a historic deal? Are Israel correct to say that this threatens their survival?
I'd bet good money Israel hits them within 12 months and SA and Egypt start their own programs within two years. With active centrifuges still operating? Come on this is the Chamberlain agreement of our time.
Spetulhu wrote: Don't forget one thing about that crazy previous Irani president - he had absolutely zero power to actually do anything. Their president ranks below the Ayathollah and the religious council, and anything he tries to do they can shoot down if they don't like it. He was just a convenient scapegoat, making idiotic statements and shouting threats so the people didn't think too much about what's wrong at home.
The new president is negotiating because the real leaders allow it.
I think it's more likely the Iranians came to the table because the sanctions were biting hard. Which makes it all the more stranger why they eased up on them...
Anyway, is this a historic deal? Are Israel correct to say that this threatens their survival?
I'd bet good money Israel hits them within 12 months and SA and Egypt start their own programs within two years. With active centrifuges still operating? Come on this is the Chamberlain agreement of our time.
whembly wrote: Dunno man... a fully armed and operational nuclear Iran is terrifying.
No, it is not. We have a fully armed and operational nuclear Pakistan already, and this is ten times more frightening, yet nobody gives a damn about it.
… no.
It will make their position a bit weaker when negotiating stuff, though.
They may come to the same conclusion and decide to send in the jets. It's long been assumed the Saudis would look the other way if Israel flew jets over Saudi Arabia to attack Iran...
They can. Either they will destroy the nuclear plants, or their jets will be destroyed by anti-aircraft weaponry. Anyway, this would cause lots of troubles in the region, but I still think it would just mean a big intensification in the war by proxy, rather than a straight-out war.
whembly wrote: Dunno man... a fully armed and operational nuclear Iran is terrifying.
No, it is not. We have a fully armed and operational nuclear Pakistan already, and this is ten times more frightening, yet nobody gives a damn about it.
Disagree... Pakistan hate India... that's what we'd worry about. Good thing India has nuke too and MADD is in play.
Iran is Mr. "I want to wipe Israel off the map and destroy anyone else we hate" character.
whembly wrote: Disagree... Pakistan hate India... that's what we'd worry about. Good thing India has nuke too and MADD is in play.
Pakistan hates India. Iran pretends very hard to hate Israel. Even if we believe them (and I do not, actually), how is that different? Israel has nuke too!
Frazzled wrote: One could argue Israel should just go for broke.
Who's going to help Iran? Its now in a sunni shia war.
That's the scary part, though, when a country feels trapped in a corner. In the 1940s, the Japanese saw American sanctions and the American fleet at Pearl as a knife to Japan's throat, and you know the rest.
If Israel feels desperate enough, God knows what could happen.
whembly wrote: Dunno man... a fully armed and operational nuclear Iran is terrifying.
No, it is not. We have a fully armed and operational nuclear Pakistan already, and this is ten times more frightening, yet nobody gives a damn about it.
Disagree... Pakistan hate India... that's what we'd worry about. Good thing India has nuke too and MADD is in play.
Iran is Mr. "I want to wipe Israel off the map and destroy anyone else we hate" character.
Yeah, true, but you forget Pakistan went rogue not long ago. They were supposed to be an 'ally' of the USA, but they helped the Taliban, and kept quiet over Bin Laden's hiding place. You guys were smart not to tell them you were making a grab for Bin laden.
Apocalyptic theocracy?
How much do you know about the Iranian regime, exactly? You seem way off the mark.
Iran’s theocracy adheres to Islam’s apocalyptic return of the “Mahdi”... It is believed his return will lead to Islam’s establishment as THE world’s religion. However, his return will only be triggered by global chaos. And, the mullahs are on public record saying man can be the catalyst in causing it. Is this not the ultimate purpose for which Tehran seeks nuclear weapons?
Apocalyptic theocracy?
How much do you know about the Iranian regime, exactly? You seem way off the mark.
Iran’s theocracy adheres to Islam’s apocalyptic return of the “Mahdi”... It is believed his return will lead to Islam’s establishment as THE world’s religion. However, his return will only be triggered by global chaos. And, the mullahs are on public record saying man can be the catalyst in causing it. Is this not the ultimate purpose for which Tehran seeks nuclear weapons?
Exactly. This is not Khruschev aiming for hegemonic advantage. These are guys who want to start the rapture A Bomb style.
whembly wrote: Iran’s theocracy adheres to Islam’s apocalyptic return of the “Mahdi”...
You do realize that they base their politics on this belief about as much as the U.S. would base their politics in their belief for the return of the Antichrist and the apocalypse ?
How familiar are you with the actual history of the Islamic Republic, and how their institutions work?
Frazzled wrote: You're right. I mispoke. They are an enlightened democracy. They haven't stoned anyone to death in at least 48 minutes.
Sarcasm and hyperbole will get you nowhere. There is a whole lot of possibilities in between apocalyptic theocracy and enlightened democracy.
The Islamic Republic is a theocratic, non-democratic republic that I would trust any day over the Pakistani government. At least the IRI has control over its own territory, and both the government and the opposition are way more reasonable than a bunch of Pakistani factions.
Apocalyptic theocracy?
How much do you know about the Iranian regime, exactly? You seem way off the mark.
How much do people know about Iran to begin with? Scary "Axis of Evil" and everything but they're weaker than the other big players in the Middle East, with a military budget surpassed by such powerhouses as Australia and Greece. There's nothing they can do against Israel except give money to others that don't like Israel. An open attack would be a disaster for Iran.
A nuclear armed Iran would go a long way to stabilizing the Middle East. Of course, full stability would require each of the stable nation states (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait) gets nuclear weapons, too. That way, everybody has the bomb, and everybody is participating in Mutually Assured Destruction. Israel can't nuke Iran without Iran nuking Israel. Iran can't nuke Israel without Israel nuking Iran. Iran can't nuke SA without SA nuking Iran. Israel can't nuke Kuwait without...
You get the idea.
Frankly, nuclear weapons are powerful tools for peace, as long as *both* sides in a conflict have them. Once mutual annihilation is on the table as a consequence of war, wars start to happen less. India and Pakistan used to go to war so often you could literally set your watch by it. Then they both got the bomb. They started a shooting war that came thiiiiiiiis close to going nuclear, but then somebody pointed out that neither country would win that scenario, so the shooting stopped. Now, they may fire off a few rounds over the border to remind the otehr guy that they still hate them, but nobody's heart is in it much. They haven't gone to war in over a decade.
Once the big players in the Middle East all have nukes, war gets taken off the table as a viable tool of statecraft. Sure, you don't want them falling into the hands of certified lunatics like ISIS (which is why I specified stable countries getting nukes, rather than everybody getting them) but the stable countries in the Middle East are run by sane people. They may not like the US much, and they may be super-duper conservative, but they aren't crazy. They don't want to vanish in a ball of atomic fire.
And no, if Iran gets the bomb they will not give it to Hezbollah (or Hamas) so that a terrorist nuke can be detonated in Tel Aviv. They won't. How do I know this with 100% certainty? Because, if a nuke is ever detonated in Tel Aviv, Mossad will know who put it there (as there is a very short list of possible suspects) and Tehran (and probably two other Iranian cities) will disappear in a mushroom cloud.
And the Council of Clerics knows this. They aren't nearly stupid enough to think that giving the bomb to Hezbollah would fool Israel for a second, and they know exactly how brutal and absolute Israel's response would be. They prefer to antagonize Israel through low-key terrorist attacks (a few rockets over the border, a few tunnels under the West Bank...), rather than full-scale wars, because Israel would retaliate in a way they would not survive.
A nuclear weapon would not make Iran more aggressive. It might make Israel less aggressive, though.
Hybrid... are you familiar with the term “taqiyya”?
It's a practice of deceiving an enemy as to its true intentions. This practice is sanctioned in the Koran to further Islam’s goals and has often been used successfully against the West. gak man, the current President admits to deceiving the West(from a smuggled vid):
So no... Tehran is far more dangerous than Pakistan.
They're a shia-ISIS as far as I'm concerned, and they both want the same thing. (ISIS=sunni Caliphate / Tehran= shia Caliphate)
The problem is that you know them well enough to know they are not suicidal fools. But Whembly and Frazzled have seen too much propaganda to realize this.
Yeah, I am, actually. Certainly better than you do. It is about being allowed to pretend false stuff about your religion to avoid persecution. Tons of Shia will be forced to do it when they have to come to Saudi Arabia for their foolish pilgrimage of nonsense, lol. Serves them well for having such silly ideas.
But you did not answer me. How much do you know about the history and inner workings of the IRI?
For your interest, I know the big picture about the institutions in IRI (it is analogous with the French republic, but where the Constitutional council and the leader they elect, currently Ali Khamenei, get some extra powers that makes it completely undemocratic. For instance, the members of the equivalent of the Constitutional Council can only be religious people, and, worse, the Supreme Leader gets to put veto on candidate for the Presidential election. They also have control of the paramilitary organization called the Pasdaran. The army is much closer to the people than the Pasdaran, because they have all the young men doing military service there and because they do not share the ideological roots of the Pasdaran.
I also happen to have been in Iran. Twice. I have family there, and some of my best friends been born there and lived there for more than 20 years. In case you think that would make me too sympathetic of the IRI, none of them backs the regime, they are all apostates, I personally hates religion in general and Islam in particular (you can easily find proof for that here on Dakka), I have family in Israel too, and my grand-mother was even a German Jew.
So, I believe I have much better hindsights about the IRI, and no reason to paint them in a good light. What do you have going for you?
Hybrid, I truly believe 95% of Iranians just want to be left the feth alone.
I'm good friends with a co-worker who's Iranian (emigrated here before the Shah fell). Lived in Shiraz and still visits there every year (he won't bring his daughter).
Granted, it's anecdotal, but he (and his family) absolutely despises the ruling class (hence, my careful distinction between Tehran vs Iran).
They don't even understand what Tehran's up to... but, alas, that's what it's like living under a theocracy.
Frazzled wrote: Pakistan is not run by an apocalyptic theocracy.
Neither is Iran in anything but the most neocon of fantasies.
To put it differently, they're pretty interested in getting long term influence in several spheres and have been for a long time. You'd agree this is true, wouldn't you?
Someone planning on a school shooting ending in suicide probably doesn't spend much time beforehand setting up a 401k.
Here's a (fairly long) opinion piece on why the current Iran deal is pretty solid.
(Also, as a side note, when you copy and paste an article into Dakka and it keeps all the formatting, anyone else like mmmmmmmmmmmmmm yeah that feels good)
When Aaron Stein was studying nuclear non-proliferation at Middlebury College's Monterey graduate program, the students would sometimes construct what they thought would be the best possible nuclear inspection and monitoring regimes.
Years later, Stein is now a Middle East and nuclear proliferation expert with the Royal United Services Institute. And he says the Iran nuclear framework agreement, announced on Thursday, look an awful lot like those ideal hypotheticals he'd put together in grad school.
"When I was doing my non-proliferation training at Monterey, this is the type of inspection regime that we would dream up in our heads," he said. "We would hope that this would be the way to actually verify all enrichment programs, but thought that would never be feasible.
"If these are the parameters by which the [final agreement] will be signed, then this is an excellent deal," Stein concluded.
The framework nuclear deal establishes only the very basics; negotiators will continue to meet to try to turn them into a complete, detailed agreement by the end of June. Still, the terms in the framework, unveiled to the world after a series of late- and all-night sessions, are remarkably detailed and almost astoundingly favorable to the United States.
Like many observers, I doubted in recent months that Iran and world powers would ever reach this stage; the setbacks and delays had simply been too many. Now, here we are, and the terms are far better than expected. There are a number of details still to be worked out, including one very big unresolved issue that could potentially sink everything. This is not over. But if this framework does indeed become a full nuclear deal in July, it would be a huge success and a great deal.
Iran gives up the bulk of its nuclear program in these terms
The framework deal requires Iran to surrender some crucial components of its nuclear program, in part or even in whole. Here are the highlights:
Iran will give up about 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges.
Iran will give up all but its most rudimentary, outdated centrifuges: its first-generation IR-1s, knockoffs of 1970s European models, are all it gets to keep. It will not be allowed to build or develop newer models.
Iran will give up 97 percent of its enriched uranium; it will hold on to only 300 kilograms of its 10,000-kilogram stockpile in its current form.
Iran will destroy or export the core of its plutonium plant at Arak, and replace it with a new core that cannot produce weapons-grade plutonium. It will ship out all spent nuclear fuel.
Iran would simply not have much of its nuclear program left after all this.
A shorthand people sometimes use to evaluate the size of Iran's nuclear program is its "breakout time." If Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei woke up tomorrow morning and decided to kick out all of the inspectors and set his entire nuclear program toward building a nuclear warhead — to "break out" to a bomb — right now it would take him two or three months. Under the terms of the framework, his program would be so much smaller that it would take him an entire year to build a single nuclear warhead.
These terms are not abject surrender. Iran is allowed to keep a small nuclear program, and it won some concessions of its own. For example, what little uranium enrichment is allowed will be done at Iran's facility at Natanz — a hardened, reinforced-concrete structure that was once used for covert enrichment and that the US had hoped to close.
Iran will also be allowed to do some research at Fordow, another hardened facility the US had wanted to close, though the research is restricted and will be barred from using fissile material. These are not big concessions, and they matter mostly for their symbolic value, but it's something.
Still, when you look at many of the specifics laid out in the framework, the hard numbers and timetables and the detailed proscriptions, those all tend to be quite favorable to the United States.
The core issue that the framework really nails
Even though the agreement is only a framework, the summary released on Thursday goes into striking detail on an issue that was always going to be among the most crucial: inspections.
Whatever number of centrifuges Iran has or doesn't have, whatever amount of uranium it's allowed to keep or forced to give up, none of it matters unless inspectors have enough authority to hold Tehran to its end of the deal — and to convince the Iranians that they could never get away with cheating. To say the US got favorable terms here would be quite an understatement; the Iranians, when it comes to inspections, practically gave away the farm.
"I would give it an A," Stein said of the framework. When I asked why: "Because of the inspections and transparency."
There are two reasons inspections are so important. The first is that super-stringent inspections are a deterrent: if the Iranians know that any deviation is going to be quickly caught, they have much less incentive to try to cheat, and much more incentive to uphold their side of the deal.
The second is that if Iran were to try a build a nuclear weapon now, it likely wouldn't use the material that's already known to the world and being monitored. Rather, the Iranians would secretly manufacture some off-the-books centrifuges, secretly mine some off-the-books uranium, and squirrel it all away to a new, secret underground facility somewhere. That would be the only way for Iran to build up enough of an arsenal such that by the time the world found out, it would be too late to do anything about it.
Really robust inspections would be the best way stop that from happening. They would prevent Iran from sneaking off centrifuges or siphoning away uranium that could be used to build an off-the-grid nuclear weapons program, without the world finding out.
The inspections issue has not gotten much political attention. When I spoke to Jeffrey Lewis, the director of the East Asia Nonproliferation Program at Middlebury's Monterey Institute of International Studies, on Tuesday before the framework was announced, he seemed worried that negotiators would not focus on it much. Rather, overwhelming political focus in Washington and Tehran on issues like Iran's number of allowed centrifuges seemed likely to push inspections from the top priorities.
Lewis suggested that a top item on his wish list would be inspections so robust that inspectors don't just get to visit enrichment sites like Natanz and Fordow, but also centrifuge factories. That, he said, "would be a big achievement."
Sure enough, come Thursday, Lewis got his wish and then some: centrifuge factory inspections is one of the terms in the framework, and it's pretty robust. For the next 20 years, inspectors would have "continuous surveillance at Iran's centrifuge rotors and bellows production and storage facilities."
"I was shocked to read that they got them to agree to let us walk around their centrifuge production facilities. That's amazing," Stein said.
It's not just centrifuge factories. Inspectors will have access to all parts of Iran's nuclear supply chain, including its uranium mines and the mills where it processes uranium ore. Inspectors will also not just monitor but be required to pre-approve all sales to Iran of nuclear-related equipment. This provision also applies to something called "dual-use" materials, which means any equipment that could be used toward a nuclear program.
"The inspections and transparency on the rotors, and the bellows, and the uranium mines is more than I ever thought would be in this agreement," Stein added.
Other favorable items buried in the terms
Stein pointed out two details in the framework that I'd missed, both of which appeared to be pretty significant concessions by the Iranians.
First, Iran has finally agreed to comply by a rule known as Modified Code 3.1 of the Subsidiary Arrangements General Part to Iran's Safeguards Agreement, shorthanded as Modified Code 3.1. It says that Iran has to notify inspectors immediately on its decision to build any new facility where it plans to do nuclear work — long before construction starts.
Iran in the past has either rejected this rule or stated that it would only notify inspectors a few months before introducing nuclear material at a facility — a "cover your ass" move in case the world caught them building a new nuclear site. Tehran's promise to comply may signal that it intends to stop building such covert facilities.
Second, Stein reads the framework as including Iran's ballistic missile program — something that critics of the deal warned would be left out. Indeed, even many supporters of the negotiations have said that it would be unlikely that American negotiators could get the deal to cover ballistic missiles or other conventional weapons programs; it would simply be asking for too much in one agreement.
"It looks like they were able to expand the scope beyond just nuclear issues," Stein said. He pointed to a line in the section that explains the UN Security Council would replace its old resolutions imposing sanctions on the nuclear program with a new resolution that incorporated the finalized deal.
The line reads, "Important restrictions on conventional arms and ballistic missiles, as well as provisions that allow for related cargo inspections and asset freezes, will also be incorporated by this new resolution."
"The way I read that is that they address the ballistic missile issue, that that will remain in the new UN Security Council resolution," Stein said. "So you're going to keep the restrictions on ballistic missiles that are already present."
The giant gaping hole in the framework terms
Still, this is just a framework deal on the basic terms; it covers a lot, but not everything. And there is one really important topic that is referenced only vaguely: how and when the world will lift its economic sanctions on Iran.
This has been a major sticking point throughout negotiations. The Iranians demand that all sanctions be lifted right away; their country needs a functioning economy, they say, and if they're complying with all of the restrictions as of day one then they shouldn't have to endure crippling sanctions on day two. But the US and others worry, with good reason, that if they lift all sanctions immediately then Iran will have far less incentive to follow through on its commitments, as it would be very difficult to re-impose those sanctions. And Iran has cheated on such agreements before.
This is a really difficult issue; each side has to trust, to some degree, that the other side will uphold its end of the deal. And someone has to go first. After decades of enmity, that's hard.
The terms in the framework do not come near solving this issue. Iran and the world powers, apparently failing to find a solution, have largely punted.
"I read the fact sheet as confirming that they are still far apart on scheduling sanctions relief," Lewis said in an email. "Still a very large devil — a Great Satan if you will — in the details."
What the terms do say is that the US, Europe, and UN Security Council will remove their sanctions after Iran fulfills its end of the deal. But it is still very unclear how exactly that gets determined, when that happens, or whether it means the sanctions are lifted all at once or over time.
The terms do suggest that the IAEA will have "teeth," as Stein put it, in punishing Iran if it concludes that the Iranians are not upholding their commitments. And if Iran breaks its end of the bargain, the sanctions will in theory "snap back."
Russia, though, opposes putting any sort of automatic enforcement mechanism into UN Security Council sanctions. So it's not clear if "snap back" means that sanctions will automatically trigger back into place (unlikely) or if the US would have to try to corral the necessary votes to bring them back manually (very difficult).
This was always perhaps the hardest issue. It remains the hardest issue. That the negotiators could not find anything more detailed to say is concerning.
This, so far, is about the best we could ask for
"Really, it's a very strong framework," Jeffrey Lewis said when I asked him what he thought.
"As a framework it's very good," tweeted Mark Fitzpatrick, the director of the Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Program at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He added, "A sharp critic of Iran and skeptic of the talks told me after the announcement that it seemed to be heavily tilted in favour of the West."
The Arms Control Association issued a statement saying that the "historic" agreement "promises to lead to one of the most consequential and far-reaching nuclear nonproliferation achievements in recent decades."
Everyone is very careful to note that this is a provisional framework. It could fall apart before it becomes a full, final deal. The negotiators, between now and the end-of-June deadline, could get bogged down in details like sanctions relief. It will be hard, and it could fail.
But we do have something substantial and important in this framework. The terms in the agreement are just about the best that we could hope for — even better, in some ways, than many had thought possible. The concessions from Iran are painful and many; the concessions by the US minor and few; the details surprisingly robust.
President Obama is framing the deal, somewhat defensively, as the best alternative to war. Indeed it is that. But it is also the start of what could become a substantial and long-term curb to Iran's nuclear program, a major step toward reducing the hostility between Iran and the West, and thus a potentially transformative change for the region.
whembly wrote: Granted, it's anecdotal, but he (and his family) absolutely despises the ruling class (hence, my careful distinction between Tehran vs Iran).
Tehran? Did you mean the IRI? Because as far as city foes, Tehran is certainly not that bad. Qom is.
I do not like the government either, trust me. I just know this Mahdi stuff is not how they rule the country. They may believe in it, but the same way that Bush or Obama believe in the apocalypse and the coming of the Antichrist. They have a pretty comfortable (for them) situation, and they do not want to risk it. Not for personal reasons (being in power has its advantages) and ideological reasons. An Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland would kind of ruin both.
whembly wrote: Granted, it's anecdotal, but he (and his family) absolutely despises the ruling class (hence, my careful distinction between Tehran vs Iran).
Tehran? Did you mean the IRI? Because as far as city foes, Tehran is certainly not that bad. Qom is.
I do not like the government either, trust me. I just know this Mahdi stuff is not how they rule the country. They may believe in it, but the same way that Bush or Obama believe in the apocalypse and the coming of the Antichrist. They have a pretty comfortable (for them) situation, and they do not want to risk it. Not for personal reasons (being in power has its advantages) and ideological reasons. An Iran turned into a nuclear wasteland would kind of ruin both.
I'm just going by my Iranian co-worker says... he says Tehran to signify the ruling party.
It's an "agreement"; so does not require ratification the way that a actual treaty would.
They can instead block elements of it, or vote for further sanctions which will scuttle the deal. That seems an unlikely outcome in my opinion; since they'd need a veto-proof majority.
It would have to be ratified by Congress first, no? The executive branch does not have power to enact treaties. Only negotiate them. Congress is the ones who make them final.
It seems its a deal with just Obama but how many here actually think Congress is going to vote to lift economic sanction? UN Nuclear Committee(?) is a bit hamstrung to being IIHC there be no surprise inspections of Nuclear facilities in Iran. Sounds so much like a Gentleman Agreement between Obama and Pres. of Iran not the Ayatollah(sp?)
If Israel decides to pull the trigger to delay Iran implementation of something close to a Nuke missile I'm sure Saudi Arabia going to let them through their airspace like they did when Iraq nuclear plant got blown away by Israel.
djones520 wrote: It would have to be ratified by Congress first, no? The executive branch does not have power to enact treaties. Only negotiate them. Congress is the ones who make them final.
As a treaty... yes you're right.
However, nothing is stopping Obama's States Dept from making an agreement (as I supposed it'd be in the form of an Executive Order).
Absent a treaty, the States Dept + the UN could pass a resolution, and there's nothing impactful that Congress can do to stop it.
Ouze wrote: Here's a (fairly long) opinion piece on why the current Iran deal is pretty solid.
There are conflicting opinions all over the place on this. There are even people translating the Persian language version of the agreement and showing all the alleged loopholes that allow Iran to basically do nothing.
BlaxicanX wrote: Could someone link me to an article that comprehensively explains what's in this "deal"?
Most of the google results I'm getting is just partisan BS from CNN, Fox etc.
That's all we really have at the moment. Also, you need both the English and Persian (translated by unbiased source) versions to compare.
Absent a treaty, the States Dept + the UN could pass a resolution, and there's nothing impactful that Congress can do to stop it.
Well, that's not strictly true. As is always the case Congress has the ability to pass legislation which dictates the action of the Executive. Now the Executive usually gets a lot of leeway with respect to matters of foreign policy, but if Congress really wanted to it could pass legislation to tie the Executive's hands with respect to a given state. I mean, ithasdone it before.
This is also true of any interaction the US might have with the UN. Congress obviously cannot force other UN members to do anything, but it can pass legislation forcing the US Executive to behave in a particular fashion. For example, it could pass legislation requiring State to argue for sanctions against Iran; it would be a massive overreach, but it could be done.
Absent a treaty, the States Dept + the UN could pass a resolution, and there's nothing impactful that Congress can do to stop it.
Well, that's not strictly true. As is always the case Congress has the ability to pass legislation which dictates the action of the Executive. Now the Executive usually gets a lot of leeway with respect to matters of foreign policy, but if Congress really wanted to it could pass legislation to tie the Executive's hands with respect to a given state. I mean, ithasdone it before.
This is also true of any interaction the US might have with the UN. Congress obviously cannot force other UN members to do anything, but it can pass legislation forcing the US Executive to behave in a particular fashion. For example, it could pass legislation requiring State to argue for sanctions against Iran; it would be a massive overreach, but it could be done.
That's unlikely... no? Because it'd have to be a veto-proof legislation... right?
That's unlikely... no? Because it'd have to be a veto-proof legislation... right?
Well, if you're going to engage in Congressional overreach you may as well get The President to use his veto, thereby summoning all your "Executive overreach!" minions.
But yeah, it is unlikely, only a crazy lobster would look in the coelacanth tank.
Honestly a deal at this point is for the best, Iran is only 60-90 days away from making a bomb if they wanted. My guess is it will go one of two ways, either they make it and are using the negotiations as a shield or distraction or they legitimately don't want one.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The signs are there, and as she is part of the current administration, Republicans will use this as a stick to beat her with.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The signs are there, and as she is part of the current administration, Republicans will use this as a stick to beat her with.
I thought this was Kerry's baby.
It is, but Hilary Clinton will be guilty by association.
The signs are there, and as she is part of the current administration, Republicans will use this as a stick to beat her with.
I thought this was Kerry's baby.
It is, but Hilary Clinton will be guilty by association.
I don't think any serious candidate would try to brand her with this as it is really easy for her to deflect. After all, this is Kerry's doing, not her's. I would expect it to come up during debates as to whether or not she'd stick with it. I'd also expect an omnibus package of the worst of Obama and then equating Hillary as being simply a third term of all that.
Apocalyptic theocracy?
How much do you know about the Iranian regime, exactly? You seem way off the mark.
You're right. I mispoke. They are an enlightened democracy. They haven't stoned anyone to death in at least 48 minutes.
Well, they are no true democracy, but compared to other Middle Eastern countries Iran is in fact remarkably progressive and stable. And compared to the Arab monarchies of the region, they are much more democratic.
In the end, all the faked human rights and theocracy outrage, as well as the 'but they want to nuke Israel' fearmongering are just excuses for the West they can hide their geopolitics behind. If Western politicians truly cared for human rights and democracy, they should sanction Saudia Arabia rather than Iran.
And to call them 'apocalyptic' is laughable, just as you should not take their 'death to Israel' (an opinion shared by pretty much everyone in the Middle East btw) all that serious. Just like in the West, you will find that in Iran, the words of a politician do not always correspond with their actions or actual opinions. And just to clarify, in Iran, clerics are politicians.
Ouze wrote: Here's a (fairly long) opinion piece on why the current Iran deal is pretty solid.
There are conflicting opinions all over the place on this. There are even people translating the Persian language version of the agreement and showing all the alleged loopholes that allow Iran to basically do nothing.
BlaxicanX wrote: Could someone link me to an article that comprehensively explains what's in this "deal"?
Most of the google results I'm getting is just partisan BS from CNN, Fox etc.
That's all we really have at the moment. Also, you need both the English and Persian (translated by unbiased source) versions to compare.
And isn't this just the basic "framework" for the deal? They still have to actually iron out all the details, technicalities, and legalese.
And we still have our dysfunctional, hyper-partisan Congress to deal with, where one side says up just because the other side says down. While there are some in Congress who have to proverbially stand up and and thump their chests about how a deal that is anything less than taking all nuclear capability away and sending Iran back to fossil fuels alone for their power needs is completely unacceptable, that is not how compromise and deal-making works.
And, from what I've read over the years, the Iranian people are just fine and actually like America. It's the Iranian government we keep having hissy fits with.
It's the Iranian government we keep having hissy fits with.
Like I said earlier, Iran humiliated the USA in the 1970s, as you probably know. Washington does not forget, and certainly does not forgive!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: Me and Iron Captain in agreement about politics? A bit weird ^^. But yeah, spot on.
I don't know why you're in agreement with him - if you're gay in Iran, you get a rope around your neck. If you take drugs in the West, you go into rehab. In Iran, you get a rope around your neck. I wouldn't exactly call it that progressive. Sure, when compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran looks like Switzerland, but not exactly progressive.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I don't know why you're in agreement with him […] If you take drugs in the West, […] Sure, when compared to Saudi Arabia, Iran looks like Switzerland, but not exactly progressive.
I am in agreement with him, and you are too, because he said:
Iron_Captain wrote: but compared to other Middle Eastern countries Iran is in fact remarkably progressive and stable.
Tannhauser42 wrote: And we still have our dysfunctional, hyper-partisan Congress to deal with, where one side says up just because the other side says down.
I would not expect the Congress to actually be an obstacle here. Oh, there will be a lot of huffing and puffing, but the deal is fundamentally a sound strategic decision that goes beyond day to day politics and has surprisingly little to do with the nuclear program.
Look at the map. Notice Iran being the big choke point between Asia and Africa. Ask yourself, who in Asia would kill for a land connection to Africa?
The US are doing what they should have been doing for ages - building a wall around China.
His Master's Voice wrote: Look at the map. Notice Iran being the big choke point between Asia and Africa. Ask yourself, who in Asia would kill for a land connection to Africa?
Iran is the big choke point between Asia and Africa? Does Egypt know about this?
That's actually pretty solid. Having inspectors with complete access is a must for any deal IMO.
I am suspicious Iran is making all these promises in the hopes of having sanctions lifted immediately after the ink dries and then renege, but so far so good.
Heck, it's not just Africa. It's the Silk Road being open again too.
China's historic connection to Africa was aquatic. That primarily remains the same, but it also has planes now; and the Trans-Siberian railway links it to Europe.
Although I wish for Iran to open up its a very different situation to the NIxon in China story. You can draw up a few comparisons but the balance the world was in was quite different from today.
dogma wrote: China's historic connection to Africa was aquatic. That primarily remains the same, but it also has planes now; and the Trans-Siberian railway links it to Europe.
Both air and sea connections are easy to disrupt not just by the US, but by India in the near future as well. China has no intention of letting Russia be the intermediary between them and Europe either.
It's really not a hard concept to grasp. Having a direct land connection to both Europe and Africa that bypasses US naval hegemony AND the Russians is paramount to China.
Both air and sea connections are easy to disrupt not just by the US, but by India in the near future as well. China has no intention of letting Russia be the intermediary between them and Europe either.
China doesn't really have a choice, unless it wants to build a railway through Indian allies and hostile states.
Holy Crap, has anyone listened to Christine Fair and her lecture series on Pakistan? Why aren't we worried about these nut jobs and their nuclear weapons but we are worried about the Iranians?
I remember when Pakistan tested their first nuke.......and then eventually India tested their nuke.......and we wonder if North Korea was going to launch a massive invasion South when rumors came around they had nukes.....then Cuba still have the installations ready to receive nukes from Russia..........Israel we kind of knew had nukes.....then the US Air Force got a brain fart and flew nukes across the US coast to coast....we're in a high word "nuke" usage world.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: Holy Crap, has anyone listened to Christine Fair and her lecture series on Pakistan? Why aren't we worried about these nut jobs and their nuclear weapons but we are worried about the Iranians?
Because Iran is our “enemy” and Pakistan is our “ally”. Remember those words mean nothing about us sharing values or long term goals or anything, it is about immediate money and power.
Oh come now
US of A has nukes. USSR had nukes
US of A has nukes. FDR has nukes
Pakistan has nukes. India has nukes.
Israel has nukes. Iran might get nuked
Sgt_Scruffy wrote: Holy Crap, has anyone listened to Christine Fair and her lecture series on Pakistan? Why aren't we worried about these nut jobs and their nuclear weapons but we are worried about the Iranians?
Because Iran is our “enemy” and Pakistan is our “ally”. Remember those words mean nothing about us sharing values or long term goals or anything, it is about immediate money and power.
Uzbekistan is cheaper. Which we do at times if we coordinate with Uzbeki Jingle truck haulers to have border crossing papers. Some odd reason Afghan's do not like Uzbeki's
Jihadin wrote: Uzbekistan is cheaper. Which we do at times if we coordinate with Uzbeki Jingle truck haulers to have border crossing papers. Some odd reason Afghan's do not like Uzbeki's
You have to fly supplies into uzbekistan, you can ship them into Iran - which is a stable country by the way. Unlike the primary supporters of the the Taliban.
dogma wrote: China's historic connection to Africa was aquatic. That primarily remains the same, but it also has planes now; and the Trans-Siberian railway links it to Europe.
Both air and sea connections are easy to disrupt not just by the US, but by India in the near future as well. China has no intention of letting Russia be the intermediary between them and Europe either.
It's really not a hard concept to grasp. Having a direct land connection to both Europe and Africa that bypasses US naval hegemony AND the Russians is paramount to China.
You don't really think China is going to send its armies into Iran and Egypt, do you? It is far, far more profitable for them to gain an indirect but reliable connection by establishing close ties with Iran and Russia rather than fighting them. China has definitely been making moves towards this. They have set up quite a lot of treaties with Russia over the past years, founded the SCO, and there is already a lot of cooperation between China and Iran. China also seems to be warming up to India lately (India even applied for SCO membership last year). The lifting of sanctions against Iran would also mean Iran could finally join the SCO.
Also, why would the US or India want to disrupt China's connections to Africa? They would have to use force to do so, and that could mean war. War with China is not really in the interests of both the US and India.
Jihadin wrote: Uzbekistan is cheaper. Which we do at times if we coordinate with Uzbeki Jingle truck haulers to have border crossing papers. Some odd reason Afghan's do not like Uzbeki's
You have to fly supplies into uzbekistan, you can ship them into Iran - which is a stable country by the way. Unlike the primary supporters of the the Taliban.
Oh Gaddang not Uzbekistan.....so many damn Stan's Sorry about that Scruffy.
Turkmenistan being we barged quite a lot of "equipment" from Germany.
Uzbekistan was for something else. Only used for over flow in case Manas was full
Meh... this really reads to me that Schumer is willing to assert the authority of Congress as a coequal branch to be involved in the process. Plus, he's known to cross the aisle for anything impacting Israel.
Meh... this really reads to me that Schumer is willing to assert the authority of Congress as a coequal branch to be involved in the process.
The Legislative branch's powers are separate from that of the Executive and Judicial. They carry the same overall importance, but not in the same areas of state activity; notably SUPCOM can strike down legislation and the President can veto it.
By Eli Lake
The Barack Obama administration has estimated for years that Iran was at most three months away from enriching enough nuclear fuel for an atomic bomb. But the administration only declassified this estimate at the beginning of the month, just in time for the White House to make the case for its Iran deal to Congress and the public.
Speaking to reporters and editors at our Washington bureau on Monday, Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz acknowledged that the U.S. has assessed for several years that Iran has been two to three months away from producing enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. When asked how long the administration has held this assessment, Moniz said: "Oh quite some time." He added: "They are now, they are right now spinning, I mean enriching with 9,400 centrifuges out of their roughly 19,000. Plus all the . . . . R&D work. If you put that together it's very, very little time to go forward. That's the 2-3 months."
Brian Hale, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, confirmed to me Monday that the two-to-three-month estimate for fissile material was declassified on April 1.
Here is the puzzling thing: When Obama began his second term in 2013, he sang a different tune. He emphasized that Iran was more than a year away from a nuclear bomb, without mentioning that his intelligence community believed it was only two to three months away from making enough fuel for one, long considered the most challenging task in building a weapon. Today Obama emphasizes that Iran is only two to three months away from acquiring enough fuel for a bomb, creating a sense of urgency for his Iran agreement.
Back in 2013, when Congress was weighing new sanctions on Iran and Obama was pushing for more diplomacy, his interest was in tamping down that sense of urgency. On the eve of a visit to Israel, Obama told Israel's Channel Two, "Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously we don’t want to cut it too close."
On Oct. 5 of that year, Obama contrasted the U.S. view of an Iranian breakout with that of Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who at the time said Iran was only six months away from nuclear capability. Obama told the Associated Press, "Our assessment continues to be a year or more away. And in fact, actually, our estimate is probably more conservative than the estimates of Israeli intelligence services."
Ben Caspit, an Israeli journalist and columnist for Al-Monitor, reported last year that Israel's breakout estimate was also two to three months away.
A year ago, after the nuclear talks started, Secretary of State John Kerry dropped the first hint about the still-classified Iran breakout estimate. He told a Senate panel, "I think it is fair to say, I think it is public knowledge today, that we are operating with a time period for a so-called breakout of about two months."
David Albright, a former weapons inspector and president of the Institute for Science and International Security, told me administration officials appeared to be intentionally unspecific in 2013, when the talking points used the 12-months-plus timeline. "They weren't clear at all about what this one-year estimate meant, but people like me who said let's break it down to the constituent pieces in terms of time to build a bomb were rebuffed," he said. Albright's group released its own breakout timetable that focused solely on the production of highly enriched uranium, not the weapon itself. It concluded Iran was potentially less than a month away.
When USA Today asked a spokeswoman for the National Security Council about Albright's estimate, she responded that the intelligence community maintained a number of estimates for how long Iran would take to produce enough material for a weapon.
"They have made it very hard for those of us saying, let's just focus on weapons-grade uranium, there is this shorter period of time and not a year," Albright told me. "If you just want a nuclear test device to blow up underground, I don't think you need a year."
This view is supported by a leaked document from the International Atomic Energy Agency, first published by the Associated Press in 2009. Albright's group published excerpts from the IAEA assessment that concluded Iran "has sufficient information to be able to design and produce a workable implosion nuclear device based upon (highly enriched uranium) as the fission fuel."
Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA analyst who is now an Iran expert at the Brookings Institution, told me that most of the technical estimates about an Iranian breakout were not nearly as precise as they are sometimes portrayed in the press. "The idea there is such a thing as a hard and fast formula for this is nonsense," he said. "All the physicists come up with different answers depending on what inputs they use."
In this way, Obama's new, more alarmist figure of two to three months provides a key selling point for the framework reached this month in Switzerland. When Obama announced the preliminary agreement on April 2, he said one benefit was that if it were finalized, "even if it violated the deal, for the next decade at least, Iran would be a minimum of a year away from acquiring enough material for a bomb."
Hence the frustration of Representative Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. "We've been researching their claim that a deal would lengthen the breakout time for Iran from two to three months to a year," he told me of the administration. "We're just trying to confirm any of their numbers and we can't confirm or make sense of what they are referencing."
Nunes should hurry. The Iranian nuclear deal is scheduled to breakout in less than three months.
So, this administration declassifies the report that intelligence has known for years... that Iran's breakout period is about 3 months. ("breakout" meaning, if desired, it'll take them 3 months to make/ignite one).
So, why declassify now???? To get us to panic to support his "deal"??
O.o
All the more reason to scrutinize the deal in all of it's minute details.
Jihadin wrote: Problem would come from Israel. Would they do a first strike or wait to become the test target
Unless Israeli are really, really dense they would know that they would never be the target of a nuke from the current Iranian government, or any foreseeable future one. IRI is not ISIS.
Jihadin wrote: Problem would come from Israel. Would they do a first strike or wait to become the test target
Unless Israeli are really, really dense they would know that they would never be the target of a nuke from the current Iranian government, or any foreseeable future one. IRI is not ISIS.
Do you have the utmost belief that IRI won't assist with other terrorist groups to use the nukes? (even if it's a dirty bomb style?)
I have the utmost belief that IRI is too clever to work against its own interest. If it was that stupid, it would have collapsed long ago, instead of becoming a regional power despite the embargo and all the US pressure against them.
Their interest is Israel being a convenient scapegoat, and a useful propaganda tool for their agenda and interest. The status quo serve them perfectly for that. A war against Israel, which would be inevitable should any terrorist organization use Persian nukes, would be absolutely disastrous and would lead to the end of IRI, or at least an Iran in ruins even if by some trick I cannot even imagine they would manage to win the war. Not a profitable outcome.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: I have the utmost belief that IRI is too clever to work against its own interest. If it was that stupid, it would have collapsed long ago, instead of becoming a regional power despite the embargo and all the US pressure against them.
Their interest is Israel being a convenient scapegoat, and a useful propaganda tool for their agenda and interest. The status quo serve them perfectly for that. A war against Israel, which would be inevitable should any terrorist organization use Persian nukes, would be absolutely disastrous and would lead to the end of IRI, or at least an Iran in ruins even if by some trick I cannot even imagine they would manage to win the war. Not a profitable outcome.
How is that any different, then, with their logistical support to Hezbellah/Hamas? Or, even the Shia insurgency in Iraq/Yemen? Their actions, imo, just pushes past the idea they're wanting to establish their "spheres of influences".
How is that any different, then, with their logistical support to Hezbellah/Hamas? Or, even the Shia insurgency in Iraq/Yemen? Their actions, imo, just pushes past the idea they're wanting to establish their "spheres of influences".
I already addressed this earlier in the thread. Supporting a terrorist group that fires rockets and mortars across a fence, or performs the occasional suicide bombing helps them keep up their "We fight against the Zionist occupation" street cred (and keeps their arab neighboors from suddenly remembering that the Iranians are Persian and focusing their ire on the IRI) and doesn't generate the risk that Israel will retaliate with a full-scale military strike on Iranian soil. The IRI provides money and some armament to Hezbollah and Hamas, but not enough to provoke Israel into starting a shooting war. Iran gets to poke Israel. Israel gets to bomb Hamas. Hamas gets to die for the struggle. Everybody is happy.
A nuke going off anywhere in Israel? Or a dirty bomb going off? Israel would respond in only one way: nuke whichever country provided the bomb/radioactive material to the terrorists.
And Iran knows this. Iran knows that if they give a nuke to someone who uses it against Israel, or if they help someone else build a nuke to use on Israel, that Israel will not be satisfied until at least three Iranian cities are replaced with mushroom clouds. The IRI isn't suicidal. They know the consequences of using a nuke on Israel, and they know that they will lose any war with Israel (conventional or nuclear). The IRI has no interest in using a nuke on Israel, or giving a nuke to someone who will.
How is that any different, then, with their logistical support to Hezbellah/Hamas? Or, even the Shia insurgency in Iraq/Yemen? Their actions, imo, just pushes past the idea they're wanting to establish their "spheres of influences".
I already addressed this earlier in the thread. Supporting a terrorist group that fires rockets and mortars across a fence, or performs the occasional suicide bombing helps them keep up their "We fight against the Zionist occupation" street cred (and keeps their arab neighboors from suddenly remembering that the Iranians are Persian and focusing their ire on the IRI) and doesn't generate the risk that Israel will retaliate with a full-scale military strike on Iranian soil. The IRI provides money and some armament to Hezbollah and Hamas, but not enough to provoke Israel into starting a shooting war. Iran gets to poke Israel. Israel gets to bomb Hamas. Hamas gets to die for the struggle. Everybody is happy.
A nuke going off anywhere in Israel? Or a dirty bomb going off? Israel would respond in only one way: nuke whichever country provided the bomb/radioactive material to the terrorists.
And Iran knows this. Iran knows that if they give a nuke to someone who uses it against Israel, or if they help someone else build a nuke to use on Israel, that Israel will not be satisfied until at least three Iranian cities are replaced with mushroom clouds. The IRI isn't suicidal. They know the consequences of using a nuke on Israel, and they know that they will lose any war with Israel (conventional or nuclear). The IRI has no interest in using a nuke on Israel, or giving a nuke to someone who will.
You're trying to sound reasonable on something that ought to be considered batgak insane.
You really can't reason with folks like these... I mean, this is exactly the scorpion vs frog parable.
if they give a nuke to someone how would Israel know?
Because Mossad would find out and tell them. Or, even if Mossad doesn't find out, Israel would just say "It was the Iranians" and fire a few nukes back. Who would blame them, at that point?
You're trying to sound reasonable on something that ought to be considered batgak insane.
You really can't reason with folks like these... I mean, this is exactly the scorpion vs frog parable.
If you're referring to Hamas and Hezbollah, you may be right. If you are referring to the IRI as "batgak insane" then you don't know enough about the IRI to have an informed discussion on this topic.
You're trying to sound reasonable on something that ought to be considered batgak insane.
You really can't reason with folks like these... I mean, this is exactly the scorpion vs frog parable.
If you're referring to Hamas and Hezbollah, you may be right. If you are referring to the IRI as "batgak insane" then you don't know enough about the IRI to have an informed discussion on this topic.
What makes you more qualified than me?
Point being, Iran leadership sponsors terrorism... publically. And these are people that we can take their word?
whembly wrote: Point being, Iran leadership sponsors terrorism... publically. And these are people that we can take their word?
Who said anything about taking them at their word? Did any of us pointed to Iranian declaration as something to be taken literally? Actually we explicitly called those posturing, meaning they should NOT be taken at their word.
This isn't a schlong measuring contest... just genuinely curious why he's so dismissive.
Oh, and... what's your point?
whembly wrote: Point being, Iran leadership sponsors terrorism... publically. And these are people that we can take their word?
Who said anything about taking them at their word? Did any of us pointed to Iranian declaration as something to be taken literally? Actually we explicitly called those posturing, meaning they should NOT be taken at their word.
Point being, Iran leadership sponsors terrorism... publically. And these are people that we can take their word?
I've studied the history of that part of the world (and the US involvement in it) for a few years now (not in an academic capacity, I will admit) so I've got a good handle on what things are like historically and culturally over there. You once referred to the Iranians as an apocalypse cult (or something very close to it) which shows a pretty strong lack of understanding on the subject. I'm not trying to be mean, but it's just the sort of thing that shows your knowledge of Iran is limitted.
It's not about taking them at their word. It's about understanding what their goals are and how their actions serve those goals. Iran does not want to destroy the west, or rule the world, or actually burn Israel to the ground. They want to be a dominant power in their area, but the same can be said of most countries. Most nations want to be able to call the shots for their particular part of the world, whether they choose to use economic means or military means or cultural means. Dominance means security.
The US dominates the North American continent (and a few other places as well). Does that make us evil or insane?
Germany dominates Western Europe through economic means. Does that make them evil or insane?
China is close to dominating the Pacific Rim (give 'em a decade and it'll likely be theirs) through a combination of economic means and military means. Does that make them evil or insane?
Iran supports Bashar Assad. Why? Because he is a guy they can control, who shares a border with them. If they support/dominate the guy on their border, then that's one border that they won't be invaded across (ISIS notwithstanding). So even though the rest of the world has turned against Assad, they still support him, in the hopes that he will beat ISIS and hold onto the country, thus keeping one of their borders secure. Does that make them evil or insane? Well, the US has supported dictators that are widely considered "evil" (one of them was even Iranian!) to secure our interests.... was the US evil or insane?
Iran supports terrorist groups that attack Israel. This serves Iran's goals of keeping arab ire directed away from them. Iranians are muslim, but they aren't arab, they are Persian. That distinction may not mean much to us here in the US, but in that part of the world it is important. Persia used to be an empire with the arabs under their heel, and memories are long in that part of the world. Without Israel to focus on, Iran's neighboors might start to realize they don't like the idea of a resurgant Persian Empire... So, yes, Iran supports terrorist groups against Israel. Terrorist groups that, it should be noted, have no actual chance of succeeding in toppling Israel. Does that make them evil or insane? Well, the US has supported terrorist groups before (remember the Contras?) because it served our interests to do so. Does that make the US evil or insane?
Iran worked to undermine the US occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. They supported the religious militias that we were engaged in combat with in several cities (although, once we started paying the militias more than the Iranians the attacks died down). Does that make them evil or insane? Before you answer, try looking at the Iraq war from an Iranian's point of view: It's 1986 and Soviet Russia just invaded and overthrew the government of Mexico. Yes, the government was corrupt and despotic and evil, but now a country that you are enemies with has a large military force situated on your border and can invade you with little effort. Should the US just sit back and wait to see if the USSR chooses to attack? Or should the US try to destabilize and stymie the Soviet occupation to keep their military off-balance and too wrapped up battling an insurgency to consider marching into Texas? Would fething with the Soviets make the US evil or insane?
Iran is not insane. That is a simple fact. They may or may not be evil, but that can be said about a great many countries on the world's stage. What is clear about the IRI is that it's leaders are involved in realpolitik. they do what works to further their nation's interests. That's why they are working with the US against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, becuase a stable and secure Iraq and Syria means two stable and secure borders for Iran. That's why they are working against the US in Yemen, because controlling Yemen would increase their sphere of dominance over that part of the world.
Do we trust Iran just because Iran tells us something? No, of course not. We can rely on them to not blatantly act against their own self-interest, however. Nuking Israel is not in their own self-interest. Bucking the unified international community isn't in their self-interest, especially since the sanctions have hurt them so much. Trying to play a shell game and give inspectors the run-around like Saddam did isn't in their self-interest (especially since they saw that playing the shell game got him deposed an killed). The IRI isn't insane and it isn't trying to bring about the End of Days. It's a country like many others that engages in some pretty shady things to keep itself secure and to expand it's influence. If you want a genuinely evil and insane country to worry about, you'll have to look at North Korea.
But of course, they already have the bomb, don't they? Why isn't more time spent worrying about them?
sqiddy... I appreciate you taking the time to reply, and yet on it's merits you're making all the sense of the world.
However, it's the:
We can rely on them to not blatantly act against their own self-interest, however. Nuking Israel is not in their own self-interest.
Line assumes that we're dealing with rational people.
I'm not ready to go there... it isn't all about Iran. It's about the stability of the region. A nuclear Iran is the precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.
Just about every major nation there is affluent enough to buy the materials/expertise to weaponize nuclear materials. Here's the big concern... that region suffers religious/sectarian strife often enough, that having access to these bad boys is going to be harrowing.
Yemeni government fell recently guys. What if Yemen had nukes prior to it's downfall?
Many of you opined? MADD policy would work in this region...
Are you sure? Really, really sure?
Or, do you care enough?
Frankly, if major states have power in that region, I don't think MADD would be enough... I think we'd need a "trip wire" force permanently, ala in South Korea, to keep everyone honest.
I'm not ready to go there... it isn't all about Iran. It's about the stability of the region. A nuclear Iran is the precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.
OK, see this is a different debate to the one we've been having (or that I thought we were having). Now that I know where you're coming from, I think I can engage you in a more meaningful discussion.
You are absolutely right to be worried about nuclear proliferation, in that bombs can end up in the hands of crazy people when a government collapses. That is why Pakistan gives me night sweats. Not that they might nuke India (MADD works when it's between nations) but that when (not if) the goverment totally collapses, some crazy Bin Laden wannabe will scoop one up and set it off.
I absolutely believe MADD works (all the evidence supports this), but for MADD to work, the people with the bombs have to be a) stable nation states and b) sane. ISIS is neither of these things. Boco Harum is neither of these things. Al Shabab is neither of these things. Hamas and Hezbollah are neither of these things.
So I agree that nukes should never end up in their hands. And you are right, unstable nation states that collapse can't guarantee their bombs won't fall into the hands of crazy people. I absolutely agree unstable nations shouldn't have nukes.
But Iran is stable. And sane. As for Yemen, the collapse there surprised a lot of people. It had been brewing for a while since the Arab Spring, but the speed at which it happened was a shock. Prior to the collapse, I would've characterized Yemen as reasonably stable. A lot of other people would, too. Which leads to another concern: how do you tell if a country is stable enough to own nukes? The answer is: you don't. It's not 100% foolproof. Yeah, there are some red flag indicators (a current armed insurgency going on inside the borders is one such tip-off) but nobody is sure when a sudden political shift could lead to a civil war or government collapse. I mean, look at the US... to an outsider it looks like we are probably a decade away from such a collapse... we have all of the guns in the world, and we have two political parties that spend more time screaming that the other party is trying to DESTROY AMERICA than actually fixing all the fundamental problems the country has... A foreigner could be forgiven for thinking the US is headed toward a governmental collapse. Are we stable enough to own nukes?
Preventing countries from getting nukes is a good and noble endeavor. But the genie was let out of the bottle too long ago and he can't be put back inside. The only way to prevent a nation from trying to develop the bomb is to address the reasons why they want it in the first place. North Korea? They want it to hold over South Korea and Japan so they can bully them around. Pakistan wanted it to beat India with. India wanted it to beat Pakistan with. We wanted it to beat Japan with. The USSR wanted it to keep us from beating them with it.
And Iran...? Well, there's a very good argument that Iran only wants it to keep Israel from using it's own nukes as an unspoken threat in the Middle East. Of course, the counter argument is that Iran wants it so that Israel won't try to stop Iran from taking over the Middle East. So, self-defense or expansionist millitary clout: why does Iran want it? Can't say for certain. Maybe a little from column A and a little from column B. I can say that the fact that Israel has it at all is a factor in Iran's efforts to get the bomb, and that's the elephant in the room that nobody in the government (on either side) is interested in talking about.
Frankly, if major states have power in that region, I don't think MADD would be enough... I think we'd need a "trip wire" force permanently, ala in South Korea, to keep everyone honest.
Or, even better, we get gone and stay out of there. We are not the world's policeman.
Frankly, if major states have power in that region, I don't think MADD would be enough... I think we'd need a "trip wire" force permanently, ala in South Korea, to keep everyone honest.
Or, even better, we get gone and stay out of there. We are not the world's policeman.
Frazzled wrote: Sure it is. All "advisors" get on a plane and leave. Gas that puppy up. Its the one thing Obama was doing right until Libya happened.
Then expect more Libyas.
Hillary is that you? You mean where France and Britain start bombing a dictatorship, dragging us into it and having that country turning into a charnel house of violence and terrorism.
Seems if we had done the Fraz plan it would have never happened.
We can rely on them to not blatantly act against their own self-interest, however. Nuking Israel is not in their own self-interest.
Line assumes that we're dealing with rational people.
Because we are.
whembly wrote: A nuclear Iran is the precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.
Like a nuclear North Korea was a precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.
Like a nuclear Israel was a precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.
whembly wrote: Yemeni government fell recently guys. What if Yemen had nukes prior to it's downfall?
If the Yemeni government had managed to get access to nuke, it would have required it to be stable. They fell because they were not, and the fact they were not stable is already enough to make sure they could not get any.
Nobody would have been okay with letting them get nuclear weapons. Your friends from the CIA would likely have arranged a revolution or a coup d'état before the program could have even started, and all the scientists involved would likely have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the back .
We can rely on them to not blatantly act against their own self-interest, however. Nuking Israel is not in their own self-interest.
Line assumes that we're dealing with rational people.
Because we are.
I'm arguing differently.
whembly wrote: A nuclear Iran is the precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.
Like a nuclear North Korea was a precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.
Like a nuclear Israel was a precursor to a nuclear arms race in that region.
que? China has it... South Korea / Japan by proxy, has it too (The US). Not a good example.
whembly wrote: Yemeni government fell recently guys. What if Yemen had nukes prior to it's downfall?
If the Yemeni government had managed to get access to nuke, it would have required it to be stable. They fell because they were not, and the fact they were not stable is already enough to make sure they could not get any.
Nobody would have been okay with letting them get nuclear weapons. Your friends from the CIA would likely have arranged a revolution or a coup d'état before the program could have even started, and all the scientists involved would likely have committed suicide by shooting themselves in the back .
wut? "If the Yemeni government had managed to get access to nuke, it would have required it to be stable. " Says who? You've been watching too much Jack Bauer's "24" or Alias.
If that terrible nightmare day of Israel being nuked by Iran ever happened, Iran would be wiped off the map, and the Ayatollah's head would be on a pole.
Every country in the region would give the green light to a massive American bombardment of Iran and the 100,000 marines ready to invade at the back of it. The Saudis would probably join in. Most of NATO would be there.
The Iranians are not stupid - they attack Israel, they sign their own death warrant.
If that terrible nightmare day of Israel being nuked by Iran ever happened, Iran would be wiped off the map, and the Ayatollah's head would be on a pole.
Every country in the region would give the green light to a massive American bombardment of Iran and the 100,000 marines ready to invade at the back of it. The Saudis would probably join in. Most of NATO would be there.
The Iranians are not stupid - they attack Israel, they sign their own death warrant.
100K worth of Marines eh......US is at pre WWII level military strength.
If that terrible nightmare day of Israel being nuked by Iran ever happened, Iran would be wiped off the map, and the Ayatollah's head would be on a pole.
Every country in the region would give the green light to a massive American bombardment of Iran and the 100,000 marines ready to invade at the back of it. The Saudis would probably join in. Most of NATO would be there.
The Iranians are not stupid - they attack Israel, they sign their own death warrant.
100K worth of Marines eh......US is at pre WWII level military strength.
Ok, maybe not 100,000 marines, but with your $600 billion annual defence budget, I'm sure you could cobble together an army group.
You're the expert on the US military, but from the top of my held I could cobble together a force consisting of:
101st Airborne, 82nd Airborne, 10th Mountain, 1st infantry division, 2 armoured divisions (you still have tanks don't you ) at I'm sure you have at least 3-4 marine divisions as well.
Plus the usual signals, engineering, artillery stuff, special forces etc etc
Add 4-5 British divisions and a combination of European divisions, and I'm sure the 100,000 mark could be achieved.
Jihadin wrote: US is at pre WWII level military strength.
I would hope so, because wouldn't it be pretty weird to build your military up to the levels needed to fight 3 countries simultaneous during the largest conventional war in history and then consider that the "normal" mark and where we should stay? "Well, we're at 41% of GDP, lets leave it here, guys".
Jihadin wrote: US is at pre WWII level military strength.
I would hope so, because wouldn't it be pretty weird to build your military up to the levels needed to fight 3 countries simultaneous during the largest conventional war in history and then consider that the "normal" mark and where we should stay? "Well, we're at 41% of GDP, lets leave it here, guys".
Anyway, whatever. It's obvious retaliation for the US blocking the Iranian ship from entering Yemen a few days ago- the Marshal Islands ship will likely be held for a week or two and then released. It's a non-incident.
Anyway, whatever. It's obvious retaliation for the US blocking the Iranian ship from entering Yemen a few days ago- the Marshal Islands ship will likely be held for a week or two and then released. It's a non-incident.
Interestingly enough... there's very few "US flagged" merchant ships in the world. Flagging under a country like Liberia, Panama or The Marshall Islands are popular for that reason... while the US has very strict regulations, work rules and pay requirements.
That's like saying we shouldn't care about Puerto Rico if they get invaded. (they also operate as Free Association to US).
One is an independent country with its own sovereign government in a free association with the United States, the other is a United States Territory. One of the falls under US jurisdiction and has United States citizens, the other one doesn't.
d-usa wrote: One is an independent country with its own sovereign government in a free association with the United States, the other is a United States Territory. One of the falls under US jurisdiction and has United States citizens, the other one doesn't.
USA has a legal obligation to treat an attack on Marshall Islands like an attack on the USA, it seems...
Even our own state's dept page:
The United States has full authority and responsibility for security and defense of the Marshall Islands, and the Government of the Marshall Islands is obligated to refrain from taking actions that would be incompatible with these security and defense responsibilities.
I've wondered about that. If you're a US based ship, but you're flying a Liberian flag of convenience, does the Navy still protect you? I mean, you want to duck out of the costs of registering in that country, well, you opted out, right?
d-usa wrote: Sorry, I forgot that it is futile to argue against all the random blogs and RSS feeds that count as facts in whembly land.
So the Department of State's own website is a random blog/RSS feed in "whemblyland".
O.o
Cool story bro.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: I've wondered about that. If you're a US based ship, but you're flying a Liberian flag of convenience, does the Navy still protect you? I mean, you want to duck out of the costs of registering in that country, well, you opted out, right?
I'm not so sure about that... need to ask my dad as he's been around sailors up in Alaska for most of his life. My gut feeling is, maybe.
In this case, they were were flying the Marshall Island flag... which the US is obligated to defend/support.
Ouze wrote: I've wondered about that. If you're a US based ship, but you're flying a Liberian flag of convenience, does the Navy still protect you? I mean, you want to duck out of the costs of registering in that country, well, you opted out, right?
I think thats how it works.
Naval rules and regulations are kinda wonky sometimes, and flag flying has always had important meaning.
Back in the 1800s, if you were flying one kingdoms flag it meant all the enemies of that flag had open season on you, no matter what your actual flag was.
whembly wrote: So the Department of State's own website is a random blog/RSS feed in "whemblyland".
There is an obvious distinction between the Marshall Islands, and Puerto Rico. In broad strokes the US is far more likely to abandon the Marshall Islands, and it certainly isn't going to start a war over a ship flagged there.
Back in the 1800s, if you were flying one kingdoms flag it meant all the enemies of that flag had open season on you, no matter what your actual flag was.
But this is 2015. We now have these awesome things called "GPS" and "satellite internet". Hell, I'm sitting in a Chicago apartment and I can tell you where the Maersk Kensingnton is thanks to marinetraffic.com.
whembly wrote: So the Department of State's own website is a random blog/RSS feed in "whemblyland".
There is an obvious distinction between the Marshall Islands, and Puerto Rico. In broad strokes the US is far more likely to abandon the Marshall Islands, and it certainly isn't going to start a war over a ship flagged there.
There is also an obvious distinction between a US ship and a Marshall Island ship, considering that even with a Compact of Free Association they are two very distinct countries.
Just as there is an obvious distinction between the defense of a country and the defense of a single ship flying that countries flag.
If Iran boarded a German ship it would be pretty foolish to pretent that the German ship is basically a US ship because of NATO or other similar treaties. A foreign sovereign country doesn't become the United States just because we have an agreement to provide a country with national defense. It is a ship that belongs to the Marshall Islands, no matter how many treaties and papers from the State department are posted.
whembly wrote: So the Department of State's own website is a random blog/RSS feed in "whemblyland".
There is an obvious distinction between the Marshall Islands, and Puerto Rico. In broad strokes the US is far more likely to abandon the Marshall Islands, and it certainly isn't going to start a war over a ship flagged there.
There is also an obvious distinction between a US ship and a Marshall Island ship, considering that even with a Compact of Free Association they are two very distinct countries. Just as there is an obvious distinction between the defense of a country and the defense of a single ship flying that countries flag.
If Iran boarded a German ship it would be pretty foolish to pretent that the German ship is basically a US ship because of NATO or other similar treaties. A foreign sovereign country doesn't become the United States just because we have an agreement to provide a country with national defense. It is a ship that belongs to the Marshall Islands, no matter how many treaties and papers from the State department are posted.
And yet... this administration wants to have an agreement, any agreement at apparently any cost, with the Iranian government over nukes.
.
besides that.
