Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's basically a "hand shake" between Obama and the Iranian leaders.

The next president could rescind those agreements (unless it's ratified by UN, so it may be difficult to do so).

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.

The more I read on this, the more I think this is actually a pretty solid deal (presuming it goes through).

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.

 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.

 whembly wrote:

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, it has done 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.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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, it has done 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?

 whembly wrote:

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.

Heh... Boehner is the crazy lobster. Imma steal that.

 whembly wrote:
Heh... Boehner is the crazy lobster. Imma steal that.

I imagine Biden would be the blue Zoidberg.

Boehner has seemed pretty subdued on it so far, though.

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.

 Ouze wrote:
Boehner has seemed pretty subdued on it so far, though.

Well aside from the Netanyahu invite, and subsequent Middle-East visit.

Sure, sure besides that.

After doing a lot of reading on this over the weekend, it does some a decent deal

But

I believe the Republicans running for President will make this a campaign issue a la Truman in the 1940s in regard to taking on Communism.

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.

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

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.

 Ouze wrote:
Sure, sure besides that.

I know we're on the same page, but I'll add some fuel to the fire.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Pakistan is not run by an apocalyptic theocracy.

 whembly wrote:
^ Fraz has the right of it.

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.

Me and Iron Captain in agreement about politics? A bit weird ^^. But yeah, spot on.

 Breotan wrote:

 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?

Actually the Sinai Peninsula is the land choke point between Asia and Africa.

 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?

@Ouze.

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.