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.

 Frazzled wrote:

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

Thanks Obama

How is that our problem?

This. We don't owe anything to any of the nations in the region.
While I support a plan of action that allows the region to steer its own course, you can't ignore the fact that Israel is nothing if not a troublemaker, to it's neighbors and to those who blindly support it.

I am against it, we are in a position of strength yet we are giving one of the bigger violators of humans rights a $150 billion dollars of frozen money. The same country that bank rolls Hamas and other terror groups and supports blowing up buses of children for the hell of it. Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table. And who exactly is going to be doing the inspections? Last I heard it wasn't us. What do we get out of the deal besides pissing off our allies? Not one thing that I can see

Col. Dash wrote:
I am against it, we are in a position of strength yet we are giving one of the bigger violators of humans rights a $150 billion dollars of frozen money. The same country that bank rolls Hamas and other terror groups and supports blowing up buses of children for the hell of it. Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table. And who exactly is going to be doing the inspections? Last I heard it wasn't us. What do we get out of the deal besides pissing off our allies? Not one thing that I can see

Saudi Arabia And the other Gulf states.

Should I go on with a list of Nations your Country supports in the middle east who have Human rights violations? The Sauds pour Billions, BILLIONS (more than western nations commit to international aid by an order of magnitude) to promote extremist wahabist teachings - with money funneled to terror groups with designs on the west?

In your version of the world the US is only leveling the playing field in this strategic area.

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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

Thanks Obama

How is that our problem?

This. We don't owe anything to any of the nations in the region.
While I support a plan of action that allows the region to steer its own course, you can't ignore the fact that Israel is nothing if not a troublemaker, to it's neighbors and to those who blindly support it.

I both ignore and refute that. However, it does not impact my question. The US needs to protect its own interests, not any other nation at all. It is not an obligation of the US to protect Israel, any more than the US is obligated to protect Iran when Israel kicks its teeth in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
I am against it, we are in a position of strength yet we are giving one of the bigger violators of humans rights a $150 billion dollars of frozen money. The same country that bank rolls Hamas and other terror groups and supports blowing up buses of children for the hell of it. Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table. And who exactly is going to be doing the inspections? Last I heard it wasn't us. What do we get out of the deal besides pissing off our allies? Not one thing that I can see

Saudi Arabia And the other Gulf states.

Should I go on with a list of Nations your Country supports in the middle east who have Human rights violations? The Sauds pour Billions, BILLIONS (more than western nations commit to international aid by an order of magnitude) to promote extremist wahabist teachings - with money funneled to terror groups with designs on the west?

In your version of the world the US is only leveling the playing field in this strategic area.

best to get off your high horse.
Britain supports SA as well. Without GB there would be no SA, no Gulf states.

People keep bringing up the hostages as a reason to oppose this deal, because it didn't include the hostages.

This is a nuclear deal, not a hostage deal. Successfully negotiating and implementing this deal opens the door to further diplomatic efforts, like the hostages. Refusing this deal slams that door shut, as it proves to Iran's leadership that the US cannot be trusted to make good on any future deals.

Not every deal can or should have everything one side wants. The political mentality that we have to get everything we want every time, all the time, is why we have government shutdowns (and the expenses involved in preparing for them even when they don't actually happen) turning into a regular thing now.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
People keep bringing up the hostages as a reason to oppose this deal, because it didn't include the hostages.

This is a nuclear deal, not a hostage deal. Successfully negotiating and implementing this deal opens the door to further diplomatic efforts, like the hostages. Refusing this deal slams that door shut, as it proves to Iran's leadership that the US cannot be trusted to make good on any future deals.

Not every deal can or should have everything one side wants. The political mentality that we have to get everything we want every time, all the time, is why we have government shutdowns (and the expenses involved in preparing for them even when they don't actually happen) turning into a regular thing now.

Thats a nonsensical argument. they could have been added as a requirement starter for even having talks.
Where is the money related to nukes?
Where is the opening of weaponry purchases related to nukes?
Oh they aren't....well look over there!

Now the administration could go to them backchannel and say "release them now or we won't support the agreement" or even to"your ships may start sinking" (and sink some).

It's not nonsense at all. Not every deal can have everything one side wants. That mentality is why our government is broken.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
It's not nonsense at all. Not every deal can have everything one side wants. That mentality is why our government is broken.

Wait, they get over $150Bn back and we get no hostages. Trump is right. They got rolled like Amish teenagers at a used car dealership.

 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.

Care to explain the logic behind this stance?

Col. Dash wrote:
I am against it, we are in a position of strength

In what sense? Sure, we have strength, that's *why* Iran is negotiating at all. That said, what further concessions would you have them make in regards to their program short of simply having them abandon it, that our other negotiating partners would also see as necessary?

yet we are giving one of the bigger violators of humans rights a $150 billion dollars of frozen money. The same country that bank rolls Hamas and other terror groups and supports blowing up buses of children for the hell of it.

Sure that money could finance all sorts of things. Lets not forget that the US has its own history in the region with far more spent on similarly unsavory groups. Nobody is saying that the Iranians are saints, but it's not like the US hasn't spent far more resources doing far more harm and funding groups that also do terrible things. Such is also a secondary issue, the negotiations were about the Iranian state's nuclear capabilities, not the Iranian state's regional shadowgames.

Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table.

Because, again, it's a separate issue. Trying to bundle everything into a single agreement is usually a great way to get a negotiation to fail.

And who exactly is going to be doing the inspections? Last I heard it wasn't us.

The IAEA will be doing the inspections. It's not a directly bilateral agreement between the US and Iran, so it's not going to be The US state department sending just US inspectors.

What do we get out of the deal besides pissing off our allies? Not one thing that I can see

Insurance against Iran developing nuclear weapons and the ability to turn to the world and say "we tried the diplomatic route" if they renege on the agreement and force must be used instead. We get to remove antagonizing pressures in the region, and the like? That seems to be what we went into these negotiations for in the first place. I mean, what is there to really "get" if we're not ostensibly looking to extort anything here?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Squidmanlolz wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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

Thanks Obama

How is that our problem?

This. We don't owe anything to any of the nations in the region.
While I support a plan of action that allows the region to steer its own course, you can't ignore the fact that Israel is nothing if not a troublemaker, to it's neighbors and to those who blindly support it.

I both ignore and refute that. However, it does not impact my question. The US needs to protect its own interests, not any other nation at all. It is not an obligation of the US to protect Israel, any more than the US is obligated to protect Iran when Israel kicks its teeth in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr. Burning wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
I am against it, we are in a position of strength yet we are giving one of the bigger violators of humans rights a $150 billion dollars of frozen money. The same country that bank rolls Hamas and other terror groups and supports blowing up buses of children for the hell of it. Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table. And who exactly is going to be doing the inspections? Last I heard it wasn't us. What do we get out of the deal besides pissing off our allies? Not one thing that I can see

Saudi Arabia And the other Gulf states.

Should I go on with a list of Nations your Country supports in the middle east who have Human rights violations? The Sauds pour Billions, BILLIONS (more than western nations commit to international aid by an order of magnitude) to promote extremist wahabist teachings - with money funneled to terror groups with designs on the west?

In your version of the world the US is only leveling the playing field in this strategic area.

best to get off your high horse.
Britain supports SA as well. Without GB there would be no SA, no Gulf states.

No high horse mounted. I thought it went without saying that our own teeny tiny meddling in minor affairs may have some small significance in that region.

Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table.

Because, again, it's a separate issue. Trying to bundle everything into a single agreement is usually a great way to get a negotiation to fail.

but you can bundle releasing hundreds of billions of dollars. Nonsense.

No high horse mounted. I thought it went without saying that our own teeny tiny meddling in minor affairs may have some small significance in that region.

ok, fair enough.

 Frazzled wrote:

Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table.

Because, again, it's a separate issue. Trying to bundle everything into a single agreement is usually a great way to get a negotiation to fail.

but you can bundle releasing hundreds of billions of dollars. Nonsense.

If I recall correctly, that money was frozen as a direct response to Iran's nuclear program, and was always a factor in the "carrot/stick" part of the negotiations, much of which has already been earmarked for development and infrastructure projects. It'll cost at least that much to re-develop Iran's petroleum production industry, which seemingly everyone wants to have happen.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table.

Because, again, it's a separate issue. Trying to bundle everything into a single agreement is usually a great way to get a negotiation to fail.

but you can bundle releasing hundreds of billions of dollars. Nonsense.

If I recall correctly, that money was frozen as a direct response to Iran's nuclear program, and was always a factor in the "carrot/stick" part of the negotiations, much of which has already been earmarked for development and infrastructure projects. It'll cost at least that much to re-develop Iran's petroleum production industry, which seemingly everyone wants to have happen.

The EU wants Iranian oil. If we accept that Iran wants a functional nuclear power and will eventually have one and that the EU will sooner or later go back to buying Iranian oil it's really in our best interests to try to make sure that a nuclear armed Iran is pushed to moderation and reform as much as possible and that won't happen if we continue to isolate them. Moreover, if the EU are going to drop their sanctions then it makes any sanctions we choose to impose on our own ineffective. If we're not going to attack them miltarily and we can't hurt them enough to matter economically and we can't stop them from ever going nuclear then we should make the best deal we can to make the transition to a nuclear Iran as safe as possible.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table.

Because, again, it's a separate issue. Trying to bundle everything into a single agreement is usually a great way to get a negotiation to fail.

but you can bundle releasing hundreds of billions of dollars. Nonsense.

If I recall correctly, that money was frozen as a direct response to Iran's nuclear program, and was always a factor in the "carrot/stick" part of the negotiations, much of which has already been earmarked for development and infrastructure projects. It'll cost at least that much to re-develop Iran's petroleum production industry, which seemingly everyone wants to have happen.

Hey its a side issue. Money is just money. The treaty was just nuke monitoring for release of sanctions.

See how it works?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Not to mention we don't get our hostage back, and from what I have heard, that was never even on the table.

Because, again, it's a separate issue. Trying to bundle everything into a single agreement is usually a great way to get a negotiation to fail.

but you can bundle releasing hundreds of billions of dollars. Nonsense.

If I recall correctly, that money was frozen as a direct response to Iran's nuclear program, and was always a factor in the "carrot/stick" part of the negotiations, much of which has already been earmarked for development and infrastructure projects. It'll cost at least that much to re-develop Iran's petroleum production industry, which seemingly everyone wants to have happen.

The EU wants Iranian oil. If we accept that Iran wants a functional nuclear power and will eventually have one and that the EU will sooner or later go back to buying Iranian oil it's really in our best interests to try to make sure that a nuclear armed Iran is pushed to moderation and reform as much as possible and that won't happen if we continue to isolate them. Moreover, if the EU are going to drop their sanctions then it makes any sanctions we choose to impose on our own ineffective. If we're not going to attack them miltarily and we can't hurt them enough to matter economically and we can't stop them from ever going nuclear then we should make the best deal we can to make the transition to a nuclear Iran as safe as possible.

Blah blah thats great but in not the best deal. We still have hostages. WE should stop the deal until the hostages are released. Or just hold onto the bucks. If needed things need to start happening until those hostages are released.

Ultimately, it's not a bilateral agreement. None of our negotiating partners care about prisoners Iran holds. The leveraging power being exerted was economic, but there's no way that the EU countries and China and Russia were going to make prisoners a deal breaking issue.

If we want to scuttle the deal over that, we can, but making it part of the deal isn't something any of our negotiating partners would really care about, and if we scuttle it over that, then they're simply going to walk away and there will be no leverage over Iran save for going to war over the issue.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately, it's not a bilateral agreement. None of our negotiating partners care about prisoners Iran holds.

So what? Give a gak about them not I give.

The leveraging power being exerted was economic, but there's no way that the EU countries and China and Russia were going to make prisoners a deal breaking issue.

We keep the money. Suddenly Iran will release them.

If we want to scuttle the deal over that, we can, but making it part of the deal isn't something any of our negotiating partners would really care about, and if we scuttle it over that, then they're simply going to walk away and there will be no leverage over Iran save for going to war over the issue.

Its this binary logic that led to such a crappy deal. As you yourself noted, its not all or nothing. Kerry couldn't negotiate his ass off a toilet seat.
Also, scuttle the deal. Who cares? It doesn't actually do anything except give them bank. They build a bomb in six months so what?

 pities2004 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.

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

I look at it as Bible prophecy about Israel pretty much being alone in the world coming to pass. A quick read of these threads coupled with what's happening in the world bears it out more and more.

 Peter Wiggin 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.

Care to explain the logic behind this stance?

Flamebaiting for flamebaiting's sake.

Well I can see how there could be arguments supporting that point, but the way it was put across didn't really convey them. Though the one I'm hearing is giving your enemy a bigger gun than your ally because your ally's been pissing off your enemy too much and you don't want to deal with that crap.

Woo thread derailing! This thread doesn't have much to do with Israel unless we're talking about the effects any talks with Iran would have on the region. Though the other countries have just as much a stake in this should Iran take to swinging its dick about in the wake of this (and the current US administration's stance of trying to clean its hands of the Middle East).

Besides my original objection...

This is a tactical error for Democrats politically long term.

Why? Because this Iranian "Deal" is Obamacare all over again. This deal is even MORE unpopular than Obamacare... Obama, and by extension the Democrats, owns it.

Fair or not, anything that Iran does now will be linked to this deal.

Kinda like, how Iraq is a disaster and Bush/Republicans are still being blamed for it... only 100x worst.

Relapse wrote:


I look at it as Bible prophecy about Israel pretty much being alone in the world coming to pass. A quick read of these threads coupled with what's happening in the world bears it out more and more.

...Sorry, couldn't tell if your point was serious or not, so just defaulted to snide retort.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Ultimately, it's not a bilateral agreement. None of our negotiating partners care about prisoners Iran holds.

So what? Give a gak about them not I give.

They have to be on board for the negotiations to go anywhere.

The leveraging power being exerted was economic, but there's no way that the EU countries and China and Russia were going to make prisoners a deal breaking issue.

We keep the money. Suddenly Iran will release them.

There's no indication of that. We've *been* keeping their money. Likewise, as soon as any of the other nations decide not to play ball, Iran gets access to capital markets again, and while not as nice as getting their funds unfrozen, will work for their economic needs and then the leverage for negotiation of any sort goes out the window.

If we want to scuttle the deal over that, we can, but making it part of the deal isn't something any of our negotiating partners would really care about, and if we scuttle it over that, then they're simply going to walk away and there will be no leverage over Iran save for going to war over the issue.

Its this binary logic that led to such a crappy deal. As you yourself noted, its not all or nothing. Kerry couldn't negotiate his ass off a toilet seat.
Also, scuttle the deal. Who cares? It doesn't actually do anything except give them bank.

Aside from the prisoners thing, what's crappy about it?

As for scuttling the deal, a lot of people care, or we wouldn't have a coalition of six nations negotiating it. We want assurances that Iran won't make nuclear weapons. That was the core aim of the whole thing. Adding prisoners and other secondary or tertiary conditions is what we call "scope creep", and is usually one of the best ways to make a project fail. It's not like the prisoners are going to be taken out and shot just because they weren't included in *this* deal, it's not like their release is permanently off the table or that we don't have other leverage for them.

Nobody is saying the situation is perfect. But from a realpolitk standpoint, there is no better deal that was going to get the OK of all parties involved.

They have to be on board for the negotiations to go anywhere.

Hardly, they are just looking for a reason they can break and start selling them stuff again.


As for it being tertiary, again nonsense. Thats the only tangible issue for the US. Assurances they aren't going to build a bomb are a joke and never worth anything. Further, again if they did so what?

 whembly wrote:
Besides my original objection...

This is a tactical error for Democrats politically long term.

Why? Because this Iranian "Deal" is Obamacare all over again. This deal is even MORE unpopular than Obamacare... Obama, and by extension the Democrats, owns it.

Fair or not, anything that Iran does now will be linked to this deal.

Kinda like, how Iraq is a disaster and Bush/Republicans are still being blamed for it... only 100x worst.

It's an interesting world you live in where access to healthcare for the first time ever to millions of Americans is "unpopular". It was unpopular with the Republican party, to be sure, but real Americans very strongly support it.

 Frazzled wrote:

They have to be on board for the negotiations to go anywhere.

Hardly, they are just looking for a reason they can break and start selling them stuff again.

Yes, and having them on board for the negotiations was the only way to choke off every alternative so Iran would *have* to negotiate. If the other powers feel they did their fair share only for the US to scuttle it for what they would inevitably see as a tertiary issue, will dramatically damage that will to continue to cooperate, and open avenues for Iran to get around US sanctions and then the US's only alternative regarding Iran's nuclear program will be war.

As for it being tertiary, again nonsense. Thats the only tangible issue for the US.

It might be a tangible thing, but was tertiary to the endeavor of ensuring Iran's nuclear program was not capable of producing nuclear weapons.

Assurances they aren't going to build a bomb are a joke and never worth anything.

Ultimately, this is what it comes down to. For those that are convinced that there's no agreement that will be adhered to, then there's no deal that would ever be good enough. I'm not going to change anyone's mind on that.

Further, again if they did so what?

Well, that's another issue entirely, but it has been longstanding US policy to not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. If we're ok with that, then so be it, but that would constitute a dramatic shift in policy.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Relapse wrote:


I look at it as Bible prophecy about Israel pretty much being alone in the world coming to pass. A quick read of these threads coupled with what's happening in the world bears it out more and more.

...Sorry, couldn't tell if your point was serious or not, so just defaulted to snide retort.

I'm actually dead serious.

 Psienesis wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Besides my original objection...

This is a tactical error for Democrats politically long term.

Why? Because this Iranian "Deal" is Obamacare all over again. This deal is even MORE unpopular than Obamacare... Obama, and by extension the Democrats, owns it.

Fair or not, anything that Iran does now will be linked to this deal.

Kinda like, how Iraq is a disaster and Bush/Republicans are still being blamed for it... only 100x worst.

It's an interesting world you live in where access to healthcare for the first time ever to millions of Americans is "unpopular". It was unpopular with the Republican party, to be sure, but real Americans very strongly support it.

More people oppose it, than support it. That's by definition "unpopular":
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

The Democrats, to this day, are still paying the price for it...

Likewise with this Iranian Deal, it's even more unpopular:
http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/08/support-for-iran-nuclear-agreement-falls/

Relapse wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Relapse wrote:


I look at it as Bible prophecy about Israel pretty much being alone in the world coming to pass. A quick read of these threads coupled with what's happening in the world bears it out more and more.

...Sorry, couldn't tell if your point was serious or not, so just defaulted to snide retort.

I'm actually dead serious.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

They have to be on board for the negotiations to go anywhere.

Hardly, they are just looking for a reason they can break and start selling them stuff again.

Yes, and having them on board for the negotiations was the only way to choke off every alternative so Iran would *have* to negotiate. If the other powers feel they did their fair share only for the US to scuttle it for what they would inevitably see as a tertiary issue, will dramatically damage that will to continue to cooperate, and open avenues for Iran to get around US sanctions and then the US's only alternative regarding Iran's nuclear program will be war.

Inversely, they couldn't negotiate it without US either. No hostages, no one even shows up to talk.

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:

Relapse wrote:


I look at it as Bible prophecy about Israel pretty much being alone in the world coming to pass. A quick read of these threads coupled with what's happening in the world bears it out more and more.

...Sorry, couldn't tell if your point was serious or not, so just defaulted to snide retort.

I'm actually dead serious.

You've got your opinion, I've got mine. The Bible already said Israel was going to have the world turn against it, and it's playing out right before our eyes.