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.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
whembly, minus this deal, what is preventing Iran from restarting their nuclear weapons program and developing a bomb?

With the deal... nothing.

When facts don't matter, solutions become worthless.

Intercontinential missiles were not included...

They could still refine uranium that could be used for atomic weapons...

The deal has very little teeth and didn't little, if at all, to restrain their pursuits.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
So Dutch media are reporting that Trump told Macron today he is quitting the Iran deal. If this is true, we can all marvel at how Trump and co are going to somehow spin Iran getting nuclear weapons as Obama's fault 2 years after he stopped being President.

While simultaneously doing a mega sanctions lifting deal with Lil Kim to get NK to rescind their nuclear programme.

Trumpism requires such epic levels of cognitive dissonance that one has to admire the ability of Trumpists to maintain doublethink.

But people are so stoked for the little guy that he is going to make peace in the Korean peninsula, can't you see how happy that thought makes him? No peace or glory to be gained with the Iran deal, how is somebody supposed to work with such an awful situation?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?

Sure... go with that.

If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.

I think the countries would know that...

Because treaties are ironclad and no country ever broke those?

Yea, because POTUS would need Congress to pass a law to be able to walk away from it.

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?

Sure... go with that.

If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.

I think the countries would know that...

So, do you believe there is no diplomatic solution? Since you seem to be okay with GOP obstructionism that would prevent a binding treaty, and also okay with pulling out of the deal that was negotiated (at great time and expense to your allies too).

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
whembly, minus this deal, what is preventing Iran from restarting their nuclear weapons program and developing a bomb?

With the deal... nothing.

When facts don't matter, solutions become worthless.

Intercontinential missiles were not included...

They could still refine uranium that could be used for atomic weapons...

The deal has very little teeth and didn't little, if at all, to restrain their pursuits.

And yet it was more than nothing.

Also no, they weren't allowed to refine uranium to weapons grade level under the Iran deal, guess what they can do now!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-deal/iran-says-it-can-produce-higher-enriched-uranium-if-u-s-exits-nuclear-deal-idUSKBN1I1158

Salehi warned Trump against taking that course. “Iran is not bluffing. ... Technically, we are fully prepared to enrich uranium higher than we used to produce before the deal was reached. ... I hope Trump comes to his senses and stays in the deal.”

Under the deal, which led to the lifting of most international sanctions in 2016, Iran’s level of enrichment must remain around 3.6 percent.

Iran stopped producing 20 percent enriched uranium and gave up the majority of its stockpile as part of the agreement with the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia.

Uranium refined to 20 percent fissile purity is well beyond the 5 percent normally required to fuel civilian nuclear power plants, although still well short of highly enriched, or 80 to 90 percent, purity needed for a nuclear bomb.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?

Sure... go with that.

If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.

I think the countries would know that...

Because treaties are ironclad and no country ever broke those?

Yea, because POTUS would need Congress to pass a law to be able to walk away from it.

So Trump is cancelling the Iran deal because he thinks Iran is cheating, but an Iran treaty ratified in the US, there is no cheating that!
Lets stop treating this world like an alternate reality where a treaty was actually possible while we're at it.

 Da Boss wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?

Sure... go with that.

If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.

I think the countries would know that...

So, do you believe there is no diplomatic solution?

Sure... sanctions.

Since you seem to be okay with GOP obstructionism that would prevent a binding treaty, and also okay with pulling out of the deal that was negotiated (at great time and expense to your allies too).

Yup.

 whembly wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's cute and all to be like "shoulda done a treaty", but lets also be real, that was a practical impossibility, the GOP was never going to allow that to happen and two thirds majorities were never going to materialize for anything on this subject (or damn near any other) in the political environment that existed then and still exists today, and I'm not sure why people are forgetting that.

If the GOP was never going to do it... maybe the US shouldn't be in this situation in the first place?

Thats one way to look at it, but then, if we follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, methinks we wont like the results of everything that ends up getting tossed...

That said, given that anything short of total, public, and humiliating Iranian capitulation on every point and the eternal barring of Iran from exploring a fundamental energy source for eternity, I'm not sure what would have been able to pass, and at that point, nobody is going to call that a reasonable and balanced outcome, and not one anyone could possibly expect any sovereign nation to agree to. The GOP was looking for a pound of flesh, not simply nuclear non proliferation.

Lets be real, this wasnt sunk because of genuine concerns about Iran's nuclear potentials slipping through, its being driven by domestic and personal political narratives and a lot of Saudi & Israeli lobbying as they play regional power politics.

Iran at this point has no reason to come back to the table. They can bypass US sanctions with access to markets through other powers not withdrawing, not ideal but doable and way better than their pre-deal status, and the US will have no leverage save direct violence.

Alright whembly, we're done.

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?

Sure... go with that.

If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.

I think the countries would know that...

So, do you believe there is no diplomatic solution?

Sure... sanctions.

I agree, sanctions work great, just ask non nuclear North Korea errrr....

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?

Sure... go with that.

If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.

I think the countries would know that...

Because treaties are ironclad and no country ever broke those?

Yea, because POTUS would need Congress to pass a law to be able to walk away from it.

So Trump is cancelling the Iran deal because he thinks Iran is cheating, but an Iran treaty ratified in the US, there is no cheating that!
Lets stop treating this world like an alternate reality where a treaty was actually possible while we're at it.

It's NOT an enforcible treaty.

Please understand... that is my point.

Just because the previous administration said... Cool bro, let's do this, without formalizing a treaty ratification. NOTHING prevents the following administration from pulling out.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?

Sure... go with that.

If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.

I think the countries would know that...

So, do you believe there is no diplomatic solution?

Sure... sanctions.

I agree, sanctions work great, just ask non nuclear North Korea errrr....

Um... NK is coming to the table.

Soooo... seems to be working so far.

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?

Sure... go with that.

If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.

I think the countries would know that...

Because treaties are ironclad and no country ever broke those?

Yea, because POTUS would need Congress to pass a law to be able to walk away from it.

So Trump is cancelling the Iran deal because he thinks Iran is cheating, but an Iran treaty ratified in the US, there is no cheating that!
Lets stop treating this world like an alternate reality where a treaty was actually possible while we're at it.

It's NOT an enforcible treaty.

Please understand... that is my point.

Just because the previous administration said... Cool bro, let's do this, without formalizing a treaty ratification. NOTHING prevents the following administration from pulling out.

No, but at least it gave the IAEA the ability to monitor Iran with the ability to pull out the second Iran violated the deal. Now you have nothing for no reason, its mental trying to justify that.

 whembly wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Well, he pulled out of the deal. I guess we all know what America's word is worth now, eh?

Sure... go with that.

If you wanted it enshrined, it needed to be ratified as a treaty.

I think the countries would know that...

So, do you believe there is no diplomatic solution?

Sure... sanctions.

I agree, sanctions work great, just ask non nuclear North Korea errrr....

Um... NK is coming to the table.

Soooo... seems to be working so far.

After they developed nuclear weapons, yeah that turned out great! In case you missed it, the Iran deal was Iran coming to the table before that happened.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Um... NK is coming to the table.

Soooo... seems to be working so far.

After they developed nuclear weapons, yeah that turned out great! In case you missed it, the Iran deal was Iran coming to the table before that happened.

was just about to point this out, Iran *already* came to the table and NK already has the bomb

Also much of NK's recent turn may have as much to do with their nuclear testing facility collapsing as anything else, sanctions certainly didnt faze them for many years.

Exiting a deal for something that has nothing to do with the deal is pretty stupid.

But Trump has made a policy of undoing anything Obama did, so it’s not a great surprise. It will take many years for the US to recover political goodwill across the world and regain bargaining power for future deals.

 Vaktathi wrote:
the US will have no leverage save direct violence.

Now.... you understand why we had to pullout of the deal.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Um... NK is coming to the table.

Soooo... seems to be working so far.

After they developed nuclear weapons, yeah that turned out great! In case you missed it, the Iran deal was Iran coming to the table before that happened.

was just about to point this out, Iran *already* came to the table and NK already has the bomb

Also much of NK's recent turn may have as much to do with their nuclear testing facility collapsing as anything else, sanctions certainly didnt faze them for many years.

I mean even if NK is serious about talks, how is Trump of all people going to talk Kim out of owning nuclear weapons, is he going to get Guiliani to cut Kim a check for a 130K?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
Exiting a deal for something that has nothing to do with the deal is pretty stupid.

But Trump has made a policy of undoing anything Obama did, so it’s not a great surprise. It will take many years for the US to recover political goodwill across the world and regain bargaining power for future deals.

Yeah thank god that Obama moved troops back into Iraq because of ISIS, or Trump might just have invaded to reverse that one


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
the US will have no leverage save direct violence.

Now.... you understand why we had to pullout of the deal.

Bolton and Pompeo must be holding hands and skipping through fields of daisies by now.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
whembly, minus this deal, what is preventing Iran from restarting their nuclear weapons program and developing a bomb?

With the deal... nothing.

When facts don't matter, solutions become worthless.

Intercontinential missiles were not included...

They could still refine uranium that could be used for atomic weapons...

The deal has very little teeth and didn't little, if at all, to restrain their pursuits.

This is so incredibly false it hurts to read.

Also, no country on earth should expect us to keep our word. We made a deal in goodwill with a country that hates us. To maybe change their outlook on us. So we wouldn't have to hit them with sanctions and hurt innocent civilians. We were gaining traction. Lots of people in Iran love the US and want to be friendly. I seriously doubt that now. Years of building trust and good will with the people of Iran has just been thrown out and the best thing people can say is "should have been a treaty!" No, it shouldn't have to be a treaty. We should have the foresight to move from administration to administration without nuking the work of the previous one just because OBAMA!

As has been said, this now changes things with NK. They don't trust us at all and now they see us reneging on a nuclear deal with another country? I bet that will make the calm and logical NK really happy.

But you are right. It should have been a treaty. At least now we can blame the real villain here. Thanks Obama!

Obama you came and you gave without taking
But they sent you away, Obama
And you trusted me and stopped me from proliferating
And I needed you today, Obama



Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, Trump's speech basically boiled down to "when Iran is ready to bend over we can talk." Incredibly productive negotiating position.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
whembly, minus this deal, what is preventing Iran from restarting their nuclear weapons program and developing a bomb?

With the deal... nothing.

When facts don't matter, solutions become worthless.

Intercontinential missiles were not included...

They could still refine uranium that could be used for atomic weapons...

The deal has very little teeth and didn't little, if at all, to restrain their pursuits.

This is so incredibly false it hurts to read.

Also, no country on earth should expect us to keep our word. We made a deal in goodwill with a country that hates us. To maybe change their outlook on us. So we wouldn't have to hit them with sanctions and hurt innocent civilians. We were gaining traction. Lots of people in Iran love the US and want to be friendly. I seriously doubt that now. Years of building trust and good will with the people of Iran has just been thrown out and the best thing people can say is "should have been a treaty!" No, it shouldn't have to be a treaty. We should have the foresight to move from administration to administration without nuking the work of the previous one just because OBAMA!

As has been said, this now changes things with NK. They don't trust us at all and now they see us reneging on a nuclear deal with another country? I bet that will make the calm and logical NK really happy.

But you are right. It should have been a treaty. At least now we can blame the real villain here. Thanks Obama!

Goodwill?

The answer, really, is to get it ratified by the Senate.

If President Obama and Iran/Allies wanted this arrangement to be more permanent, then Obama should have gone to the Senate. And if he didn’t go precisely because he knew the Senate would say no, then he and everyone (including Iran and our Allies) knew all along he was building on sand. Furthermore, our system was designed to give the Senate ratification power as a check on the President... and if he knew the Senate would say "no", then maybe it isn't worth ratification in the first place.

Obama, P+5 allies and Iran knows this... they ain't dumb here...

Now whose fault is that, really? If you immediate sprout TRUMP! or the GOP! then, you're ignoring that this agreement was an executive discretionary agreement that only holds on the whims of the current President.

Let this be a lesson.

If future POTUS want something of this magnitude to have staying power, then work with the Senate to get it ratified.

It’s still 100% on Trump for withdrawing.

Hilarious, you think the same people who invited Netanyahu to Congress we're going to ratify a treaty with Iran?

Just because one party has an incredible hard-on for punishing Iran no matter the costs this is on Obama? Well I was right about marvelling at how this would be blamed on Obama.

I love that we're back to pretending the GOP under Obama was any other than Obstruct Everything All the Time.

They were open about it, they were vocal about it. They were proud of it.

More nuclear weapons is certainly good for everyone

 d-usa wrote:
It’s still 100% on Trump for withdrawing.

Not.Disputing.That.

You appear, however, to be arguing that laying the framework for a deal that Trump can withdraw from carries more of the fault than actually making the decision to withdraw.

In this thread, simultaneously arguing that the deal was bad because it wasn't ratified by the Senate while also conceding the reality that Obama couldn't have gotten anything whatsoever ratified by the senate because they were operating on a platform of bulk obstruction.

Ta-da!

 d-usa wrote:
You appear, however, to be arguing that laying the framework for a deal that Trump can withdraw from carries more of the fault than actually making the decision to withdraw.

I would say "more"... more like both Trump and previous administration are culpable for different reasons.

It's really a carbon copy of the Paris Accord too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
In this thread, simultaneously arguing that the deal was bad because it wasn't ratified by the Senate while also conceding the reality that Obama couldn't have gotten anything whatsoever ratified by the senate because they were operating on a platform of bulk obstruction.

Ta-da!

Not really.

If Obama truly came up with an awesome deal (it wasn't), then the Senate would certainly entertain it. The problem here, seems that this "deal" was architected with the mindset of "building up Obama's legacy" rather that, an objective view of this whole ordeal.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In this thread, simultaneously arguing that the deal was bad because it wasn't ratified by the Senate while also conceding the reality that Obama couldn't have gotten anything whatsoever ratified by the senate because they were operating on a platform of bulk obstruction.

Ta-da!

Not really.

If Obama truly came up with an awesome deal (it wasn't), then the Senate would certainly entertain it. The problem here, seems that this "deal" was architected with the mindset of "building up Obama's legacy" rather that, an objective view of this whole ordeal.

No, the objective view was that this was the best you were going to get. Why do you think people like Netanyahu, Pompeo and the Saudis hated it so much? Because it wasn't punishing Iran, it was actually cooperating to achieve something.

You do realize that Iran also needed a stake in any potential deal right?

 whembly wrote:


If Obama truly came up with an awesome deal (it wasn't), then the Senate would certainly entertain it. The problem here, seems that this "deal" was architected with the mindset of "building up Obama's legacy" rather that, an objective view of this whole ordeal.

The important thing to remember is that Pompeno and Bolton want a war with Iran. That is why we pulled out of this deal.

Iran came to the table, negotiated in good faith, made compromises that opened them up to criticism from hardliners at home. The moderate government in charge made huge political sacrifices for this deal.

Now Trump tosses all that in the garbage, undermines the moderates and gives red meat to the hardliners. The reward to Iran for coming to the table is increased sanctions.

Utterly bonkers. Toddler diplomacy. The US has burned a lot of political capital, and you guys are not as invulnerable in that regard as you think you are.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
In this thread, simultaneously arguing that the deal was bad because it wasn't ratified by the Senate while also conceding the reality that Obama couldn't have gotten anything whatsoever ratified by the senate because they were operating on a platform of bulk obstruction.

Ta-da!

Not really.

If Obama truly came up with an awesome deal (it wasn't), then the Senate would certainly entertain it. The problem here, seems that this "deal" was architected with the mindset of "building up Obama's legacy" rather that, an objective view of this whole ordeal.

No, the objective view was that this was the best you were going to get. Why do you think people like Netanyahu, Pompeo and the Saudis hated it so much? Because it wasn't punishing Iran, it was actually cooperating to achieve something.

You do realize that Iran also needed a stake in any potential deal right?

You do realize that "no deal" can be better than "any" deal... right?

Iran was *not* fully cooperating and was found to break the agreement numerous times that Obama and the other nations let pass.