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.

This deal sounds like a lose..lose for the world...and a win..win for Iran.

I don't get why our state department thinks this is good for America?


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/us/politics/iran-nuclear-deal-senate.html?_r=0
-----------
WASHINGTON — Senate leaders have set a showdown vote for Thursday around 3:45 p.m. that could definitively end Republican efforts to derail President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, with the fate of the bill hanging by a handful of Democratic votes.

With a largely partisan divide over the accord — which is uniformly opposed by Republicans and also by a handful of Democrats — it was unclear whether the measure allowing the Senate to move forward on formally disapproving it had the required 60 votes.

“Let’s be clear about who is moving to end debate,” said Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada and the minority leader, on the Senate floor Thursday morning. “The Republican leader.”
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage


Forty-two Democrats have come out in favor of the agreement, but a few of them could peel away and vote Thursday afternoon to end debate on the Republican resolution of disapproval, arguing that the measure deserves a final up-or-down vote. The president can afford only one defection from the ranks of his supporters to ensure the bill is filibustered.

If two Democratic supporters of the deal join the four declared Democrats who oppose it, the resolution would almost certainly pass the Senate. The House would then have to decide whether to take it up and force a presidential veto. Mr. Obama appears to have an ample cushion in the Senate to sustain his veto.

On Wednesday, House Republicans threw another wrench into the vote by claiming that the White House had not disclosed secret side agreements on the deal, and by arguing that Congress did not actually have its agreed-upon review period. . They also declined to vote on a message to disapprove in that chamber, even though it would have easily passed.

House leaders decided that they would instead hold a vote to approve the Iran agreement to try and force Democrats to assert their support for the accord, which has divided many lawmakers who represent districts with sizable Jewish populations from their colleagues who support Mr. Obama.

With a procedural measure failing in the Senate, Mr. Obama will be free to move forward with the agreement, although Congressional Republicans will probably seek new paths to undermine it.
-------

GG

I think John Kerry took some time off and we had Lando Calrissian negotiating it for us.

I think it's the best deal we're going to get, that it's not a bad deal, and that nearly anything I can do would be more productive than convincing anyone here of that. Clearly OP knows what he's going to think. If anyone else wants to tilt at that windmill, feel free, but I simply wanted to mention that it's not universally disapproved.

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's the best deal we're going to get, that it's not a bad deal, and that nearly anything I can do would be more productive than convincing anyone here of that. Clearly OP knows what he's going to think. If anyone else wants to tilt at that windmill, feel free, but I simply wanted to mention that it's not universally disapproved.

I guess I don't get what is actually good about the deal.. I listened to Hilarys explanation, and what I got from it was that, they don't want all that work they put into the negotiations to go for nothing.

I'm reminded of Chamberlain "Peace in our time" speech.

GG

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's the best deal we're going to get, that it's not a bad deal, and that nearly anything I can do would be more productive than convincing anyone here of that. Clearly OP knows what he's going to think. If anyone else wants to tilt at that windmill, feel free, but I simply wanted to mention that it's not universally disapproved.

Ditto. It's not great, it's what we can expect to get, and throwing it away gaks on our allies that negotiated with us more than it would gak on Iran.

I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.

 Squidmanlolz wrote:
I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.

wow....

When was the last time Israel kidnapped and held US hostages? I suggest you read up on the history of Iran since their Islamic revolution, and their history of supporting terrorists. It might change your opinion.
GG

We got shafted and this reeks of all sorts legacy-building.

Status quo would've been better imo.

Because when high Iranian officials makes it a states policy that the US is the Devil and promises that Israel will cease to exists in 25 years... well then... them.

 generalgrog wrote:

 Squidmanlolz wrote:
I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.

wow....

When was the last time Israel kidnapped and held US hostages? I suggest you read up on the history of Iran since their Islamic revolution, and their history of supporting terrorists. It might change your opinion.
GG

You mean the US supported revolution in 1979, right?

Israel is a far worse evil, just look at the apartheid they're enacting. Israel is guilty of taking more innocent lives than Iran, period.

 whembly wrote:
We got shafted and this reeks of all sorts legacy-building.

Bingo...what I as thinking as well.

GG

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's the best deal we're going to get, that it's not a bad deal, and that nearly anything I can do would be more productive than convincing anyone here of that. Clearly OP knows what he's going to think. If anyone else wants to tilt at that windmill, feel free, but I simply wanted to mention that it's not universally disapproved.

This.

I simply cannot fathom the line of thought that we shouldn't accept it because its a gakky deal, when the alternative is no deal at all. Is that illogical to anyone else, or just me? I mean what the people opposed to this deal are *literally* saying is "We think this deal isn't going to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms, so our solution is to invalidate the treaty and continue to do nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms."

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's the best deal we're going to get, that it's not a bad deal, and that nearly anything I can do would be more productive than convincing anyone here of that. Clearly OP knows what he's going to think. If anyone else wants to tilt at that windmill, feel free, but I simply wanted to mention that it's not universally disapproved.

This.

I simply cannot fathom the line of thought that we shouldn't accept it because its a gakky deal, when the alternative is no deal at all. Is that illogical to anyone else, or just me? I mean what the people opposed to this deal are *literally* saying is "We think this deal isn't going to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms, so our solution is to invalidate the treaty and continue to do nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms."

Why do we need this deal.

Explain this.

 whembly wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I think it's the best deal we're going to get, that it's not a bad deal, and that nearly anything I can do would be more productive than convincing anyone here of that. Clearly OP knows what he's going to think. If anyone else wants to tilt at that windmill, feel free, but I simply wanted to mention that it's not universally disapproved.

This.

I simply cannot fathom the line of thought that we shouldn't accept it because its a gakky deal, when the alternative is no deal at all. Is that illogical to anyone else, or just me? I mean what the people opposed to this deal are *literally* saying is "We think this deal isn't going to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms, so our solution is to invalidate the treaty and continue to do nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear arms."

Why do we need this deal.

Explain this.

If Iran wants to get nukes they have the ability to get them and while we can do things to slow down the process we really can't stop them. Not short of a massive military effort that would likely end up being counter productive in the end anyway. If we accept the fact that Iran becoming a nuclear power is inevitable then the best way to handle them is to try to normalize relations with them as much as possible. If we can increase the amount of communication we have with Iran, if we can help increase the transfer of ideas and information, have a greater social and cultural impact on the people of Iran we increase the chances for some kind of meaningful reform away from a hard line theocracy. If we can help push reforms that lead to moderation there's less of a threat of Iran using nukes for religious/idealogical reasons. Nuclear armed countries have thankfully been reasonable enough not to launch nuclear missiles at people for stupid reasons. The more we can do to normalize relations with Iran the less chance there is of Iran being the country to break that pattern. If trying to prevent Iran from ever getting nukes is an exercise in futility than continuing to do it is clearly counter productive. All it does is make it easier for hard line theocrats to stay in power, churn out more anti West propaganda and have them continue to paint us as the big bad boogeyman that's oppressing them.

It's similar to normalizing relations with Cuba. It doesn't mean that we believe communism and dictatorships are good or condone them, it just shows that we understand that communicating with Cuba, interacting with them on a normal basis will do more to enact positive changes than blockading them and justifying it by portraying them as a much greater threat than they actually are. We're much better off with Cuba as a sugar exporting vacation destination then as a bastion of idealogical communists under a dictatorship that is isolated and producing political refugees for us to take in. The goal isn't to show the world how strongly we disapprove of Castro, the goal is to make Cuba a better nicer neighbor.

Because we as a nation are part of a international community and should show solidarity to our allies?

Maybe as a sorry for the whole removing your democratically elected leader (who was killed) and installing a dictator and allowing him to do what he did because he was like totes bros with Nixon.

If we could just stop giving them a reason to think of us as the great stan I'd be happy.


But I know as well there is nothing that could be said to change minds.

 whembly wrote:

Why do we need this deal.

Would someone perhaps prefer ANOTHER war in the Middle East? Iran is at least stable and, while it does fund some nasty groups, not engaged in open aggression anywhere. Their leaders talk tough but they are realists who know Iran is the old man on the block feebly shouting at the kids to get off his lawn.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

But I know as well there is nothing that could be said to change minds.

And I think that this is the reason why no one is talking about the deal here. Most of the "it's not great, but it's a good deal to have" crowd and most of the "no deal is best deal" crowd knows that both camps are entrenched and nothing will change the mind of anyone on either side. The few people that did care already talked it out in the politics thread way back when it was actually announced and nothing has changed for anyone involved since then.

Spetulhu wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Why do we need this deal.

Would someone perhaps prefer ANOTHER war in the Middle East? Iran is at least stable and, while it does fund some nasty groups, not engaged in open aggression anywhere. Their leaders talk tough but they are realists who know Iran is the old man on the block feebly shouting at the kids to get off his lawn.

Open aggression? You sure about that?

 Squidmanlolz wrote:
I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.

I think this increases the odds that within 24 months Israel and Iran are at war.

As for the US, this is an opportunity to rebalance relationships away from the Gulf States to a more neutral stance and hopefully exit the heck out.

Alternatively, a brief that "Iran has 24 hours to deliver X and X and X to the Turks or we will set your oil fields on fire" works too.

is it a bad deal? Yes. Is this deal or no deal the only option? Of course not. Should we turn it down? No, except for our people being held.

Most opinions on the deal are not based on reasoned and informed analysis, but instead based on inflammatory rhetoric from the political parties and special interest groups. That is very easy to see when the opinions are split almost perfectly along party lines. There are good things in the deal, there are also bad things in the deal, but neither side is willing to admit to both.

And, as far as Iran's "death to X,Y,Z" comments, well, how long ago, as a nation already with an arsenal of nukes, were we chanting "better dead than red" and other similar sentiments? Look up some nice quotes from Curtis Lemay to see the kinds of things our military leaders believed in.

The only real answer I see to Iran is gradual and eventual moderation among the country's leadership. If this deal buys a little time for that, so be it.

 Frazzled wrote:
As for the US, this is an opportunity to rebalance relationships away from the Gulf States to a more neutral stance and hopefully exit the heck out.

Yeah, I dunno what picking sides there has done for the U.S., other than make enemies. There's no moral high ground to be won there...that was lost long ago with the Shah and countless other ways.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Squidmanlolz wrote:
I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.

As for the US, this is an opportunity to rebalance relationships away from the Gulf States to a more neutral stance and hopefully exit the heck out.

You know that won't happen. Half of the opposition to the deal is solely because we're so deeply in bed with Israel. Even before the details of the deal were announced, one pro-Israel group announced their plans to spend at least $20 million on lobbying against it.

 generalgrog wrote:
This deal sounds like a lose..lose for the world...and a win..win for Iran.

I don't get why our state department thinks this is good for America?

Could you perhaps elaborate on...why?



I think It's a great deal, with far more access allowed than the vast majority of arms limitations agreements. I've yet to hear a realistic issue from those opposed as to something fundamentally wrong with it and what could have been changed. I'm fairly certain had this same deal been negotiated by the previous administration there would be no such outcry.

It also has to be remembered that this isn't a bilateral US-Iran thing, it has to satisfy many parties in multiple nations. The US sinking it "just because" is likely going to cause other nations to lift their sanctions with a "well, we tried, we got something workable, and the US fethed it" mentality, basically rendering anything the US does in the future pointless and immediately removing any pressure on Iran to negotiate.

How much are other countries spending?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Squidmanlolz wrote:
I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.

I think this increases the odds that within 24 months Israel and Iran are at war.

As for the US, this is an opportunity to rebalance relationships away from the Gulf States to a more neutral stance and hopefully exit the heck out.

Alternatively, a brief that "Iran has 24 hours to deliver X and X and X to the Turks or we will set your oil fields on fire" works too.

is it a bad deal? Yes. Is this deal or no deal the only option? Of course not. Should we turn it down? No, except for our people being held.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/10/middleeast/iran-khamenei-israel-will-not-exist-25-years/index.html

"Iran's supreme leader: There will be no such thing as Israel in 25 years"

Thanks Obama

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Squidmanlolz wrote:
I personally don't consider Iran a threat to the US, or for that matter the rest of the world. I'd rather Iran have nukes than say Israel.

As for the US, this is an opportunity to rebalance relationships away from the Gulf States to a more neutral stance and hopefully exit the heck out.

You know that won't happen. Half of the opposition to the deal is solely because we're so deeply in bed with Israel. Even before the details of the deal were announced, one pro-Israel group announced their plans to spend at least $20 million on lobbying against it.

We do put a bit too much emphasis on staying in Israel's good graces. We need to act in our country's best interests and Israel will act in there's. More often than not those interests will be at least somewhat aligned but in the instances when they don't it's not a big deal, we're not going to switch from allies to enemies over it. Every country acts in its own self interest that's what foreign policy is all about, communicating/negotiating to help the country further it's best interests. Trying to put other nation's interests ahead of ours usually works out badly for us.

 Frazzled wrote:
How much are other countries spending?

How much are we actually spending? I really don't know.

I keep on hearing $150 Billion getting thrown around, but as far as I can tell that is just the money that we have frozen through sanctions that will get released. Giving Iran their own money back seems a little different than the US handing over our own money.

"Iran's supreme leader: There will be no such thing as Israel in 25 years"

Thanks Obama

How is that our problem?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How much are other countries spending?

How much are we actually spending? I really don't know.

I keep on hearing $150 Billion getting thrown around, but as far as I can tell that is just the money that we have frozen through sanctions that will get released. Giving Iran their own money back seems a little different than the US handing over our own money.

No no I meant on the bill. Sorry I was replying to this and a post got in before mine.

You know that won't happen. Half of the opposition to the deal is solely because we're so deeply in bed with Israel. Even before the details of the deal were announced, one pro-Israel group announced their plans to spend at least $20 million on lobbying against it.

I wanted to discuss it earlier but it's very hard to type while clenching my fists, shaking them in the air and angrily screaming "OBAMAAA"!

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
How much are other countries spending?

How much are we actually spending? I really don't know.

I keep on hearing $150 Billion getting thrown around, but as far as I can tell that is just the money that we have frozen through sanctions that will get released. Giving Iran their own money back seems a little different than the US handing over our own money.

No no I meant on the bill. Sorry I was replying to this and a post got in before mine.

You know that won't happen. Half of the opposition to the deal is solely because we're so deeply in bed with Israel. Even before the details of the deal were announced, one pro-Israel group announced their plans to spend at least $20 million on lobbying against it.

Gotcha

"So no ones talking about the Iran Nuke deal ?"

WTF? How dare you!

I've been posting about this in the political junkie thread for weeks.

Feth, I sat through 2 hours of a Senate oversight committee on this issue, reporting my findings back to dakka and you've got the nerve to say that nobody's talking about this!

My blood pressure is going off the chart

A few points:

1) Iran is getting nuclear power anyway - it's inevitable. Better to give the moderates something to hang their coat onto too. And the deal gives the USA and its allies monitoring ability.

2) Iran is not friendly to US interests, but regime change, given the mess the Middle East is in, would make things worse. Better the devil you know.

3) If this deal collapsed the USA would lose a lot of credibility, and Europe would wash its hands of this and push on with trading with Iran regardless.

4) If the worst came to the worst i.e military action, the USA could hold up its hands and said it tried diplomacy. Iran didn't play ball, we've got no choice.