Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Iran Deal

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
    Agree with most of what you are saying, but I don't think you can really contend that the Iranian state is as powerful & all pervasive as the DPRK. It is plenty powerful enough to crush most dissent, but on its worst day it doesn't touch the DPRK on its most liberal. I think the point here is that Iran has a big enough economy & strong enough state to deal with the sanctions while building a bomb if that was what it chose to do. I also suspect there is a fair bit of support for building a bomb given internal perceptions (not entirely unrealistic) of potential external threats.
    Iran expected that in addition to sanctions there would be a military response that would ultimately make nuclearization very much more costly without any guarantee that it would succeed. NK feared no such response because of its deterrence along the DMZ and also had much less to lose due to the already desperate state of its economy.

    In addition, while Iran can crush dissent on a temporary basis, but NK has crushed even the thought of dissent on a long term basis in the population.

    Originally posted by Astralis
    and mao was far more an enemy to the US than the ayatollahs ever were.
    Mao and the US shared a common existential enemy in the USSR. We share no such existential enemy with Iran today.

    the ultimate calculus is that while the US does not want iran to have nuclear weapons, she is also extremely, extremely loath to fight a war over the issue. even the most hawkish republicans aren't advocating that at this time. all they want is a continuation of the sanctions, which 1.) wouldn't happen if Russia/China didn't think the US was trying to do a deal, and 2.) were ultimately ineffectual to their stated goal, which is to deter Iran from getting nuclear capability.
    Reluctant != will not. It's the administration that has determined it is not willing to make war even a credible threat. That is the critical breaking point of US policy.

    Furthermore:

    A. Sanctions would continue in significant ways without Russian and Chinese participation.
    B. China and Russia would not dare disassemble the sanctions regime if they believed that it was the only thing holding back a US attack.
    C. Iran has not gone nuclear. Therefore, the combination of sanctions, covert sabotage, and constant threat of overt attack have been effective.

    These should have been leveraged to attain a much more favorable deal.

    Instead, the administration chose to trade these significant leverage for a poor deal while disingenuously pushing the false notion that the combination in C was failing in a way that necessitated a bad deal. This then became a self-fulling prophecy of their own making.

    This collection of arguments, which they have made and you are repeating, are a poor fig leaf for the failure of Obama's weak foreign policy. Obama's only "hope" of "salvaging" this deal is that he has created such poor choices for us now at this point that his failed deal may actually be the least bad option.... or so he argues. Even then, this deal is so unpalatable, for even Democrats, that Obama is really just counting on the convincing just 1/3rd of the votes in the House or the Senate to side with him.

    I think he will probably get his 1/3, and probably more, but, what a shameful, shoddy performance. Worse yet, this could be the seed for terrible problems down the line.
    Last edited by citanon; 07 Aug 15,, 08:27.

    Comment


    • citanon,

      Mao and the US shared a common existential enemy in the USSR. We share no such existential enemy with Iran today.
      on a far less scale than the USSR, of course, but ISIS.

      the point being, we reached a deal with an enemy who has killed far more americans than Iran ever did, with absolutely enormous risks involved.

      there's far less risk here.

      Reluctant != will not. It's the administration that has determined it is not willing to make war even a credible threat. That is the critical breaking point of US policy.
      as I said, what is a credible threat? Iran has accessed for a long time now that US intervention hasn't been a credible threat, just due to Iraq war exhaustion. if Bush couldn't credibly threaten war with forces next door, how would Obama do it?

      moreover, given how the number of centrifuges went up, if there was a threat, it sort of backfired...

      C. Iran has not gone nuclear. Therefore, the combination of sanctions, covert sabotage, and constant threat of overt attack have been effective.
      ah, so the Obama iran policy until now has been successful? :-)

      seriously, the deal just reduced the number of operating centrifuges, which the Iranians would not have done absent a deal. the question is are they closer to a nuclear capability pre-deal than they were in 2002, and I think we both know the answer to that question.

      if the current regime was fully successful then there would be no incentive for Obama to change this.
      Last edited by astralis; 07 Aug 15,, 15:06.
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • I'm sorry but when did we ever overtly threatened Iran? I do not recall one warning order, let alone a stand to order. No training runs. Not even a dash to their borders to test their defences.
        Chimo

        Comment


        • Originally posted by astralis View Post
          citanon,



          by "handling" iran, you mean war. as i said, -bush- didn't want to "handle" iran, and that was with 100K+ US troops next door and USAF/USN in the vicinity, the US public riding high on a 21 day campaign into Baghdad.



          actually, iran does have a secret police, and a cult of personality around the ayatollah. really, the only thing NK has on iran is being able to threaten seoul.

          given what they were doing before the deal, they would have had their deterrence and sanctions, which they could live with. lifted sanctions means iran will have a stronger conventional capability, but stronger or not that is meaningless against the might of US conventional capability.

          the ultimate calculus is that while the US does not want iran to have nuclear weapons, she is also extremely, extremely loath to fight a war over the issue. even the most hawkish republicans aren't advocating that at this time. all they want is a continuation of the sanctions, which 1.) wouldn't happen if Russia/China didn't think the US was trying to do a deal, and 2.) were ultimately ineffectual to their stated goal, which is to deter Iran from getting nuclear capability.

          by the way, these are the exact same arguments for/against the US dealing with communist china in the 1960s-1970s. the only difference being that these are stricter controls against iran having a nuke than china ever had.

          and mao was far more an enemy to the US than the ayatollahs ever were.
          We really need to get that Like button working again

          Comment


          • an interview with the boss-man. heh, funny how the Mao-Nixon thing came up as well.

            http://www.vox.com/2015/8/7/9115653/...interview-iran
            There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
              We really need to get that Like button working again
              Working on it :-)
              “He was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat or a guttersnipe. He represented the shadow, the inferior part of everybody’s personality, in an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why they fell for him.”

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                Iran is currently occupying coastal Syria, most of Lebanon and central Iraq.

                You forgot Mexico
                Few years ago, I remember reading about a plot that involved Iranian agents in Mexico and somehow related to the Saudi and an embassy. It was FOiLED by the intelligence community.


                Define occupation ...
                Is Okinawa under U.S. Occupation ?
                Is Yemen under Saudi occupation. Or is the fact that the Saudi will bring their own puppet in Yemen makes the occupation a non-occupation and not an offence in your eyes.

                Iran has no business inteferring in other' affair. Period. But the fact is, geopolitics is zero sum game and for one government to gain influence another entity must loose influence. Ignoring that is ignoring history. Doesn't excuse any of Iran' deeds but let's not be naive and think it is only Iran that is doing that.

                Ps: not pointing to you personally, but I always find it surprising how folks on this board somehow think the world is green and everything that U.S. And their allies do is always legal.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  Wait until Iran explode her first nuke, then "the people are really great" will be dancing in the streets. There is plenty of ignorant popular support for an Iranian bomb. There are a few intellectually who fears it but none who would not rejoice at an Iranian made mushroom cloud.
                  I think average Iranian concern is the price of milk, bread and other basic needs.

                  But you are right that there is a sense of "I don't want my nation to be f@&Ed by these guys again so if the nuke helps prevent that and all the better". But there is no animosity against Israel and no one cares and don't even see the latter as s natural enemy.

                  Strictly speaking of the people.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by xerxes View Post

                    Define occupation ...
                    .
                    Xerxes, long time no see mate! Good to have you back. Occupation? Iran currently has standing armies based in all three.
                    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                    Leibniz

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      as I said, what is a credible threat? Iran has accessed for a long time now that US intervention hasn't been a credible threat, just due to Iraq war exhaustion. if Bush couldn't credibly threaten war with forces next door, how would Obama do it?

                      moreover, given how the number of centrifuges went up, if there was a threat, it sort of backfired...
                      I have never seen any indications for war. None. Not under Bush Jr, not under Obama. But Bush Jr slowed down the Iranians far more than Obama ever did.

                      Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      ah, so the Obama iran policy until now has been successful? :-)

                      seriously, the deal just reduced the number of operating centrifuges, which the Iranians would not have done absent a deal. the question is are they closer to a nuclear capability pre-deal than they were in 2002, and I think we both know the answer to that question.
                      The answer is two fold. The Iranian effort was actually bigger under Bush than it was under Obama. Two things got in the way. AQ Khan sold junk to the Iranians and CHANGAI-I turned out to be duds. While not exactly reseting the clock, it did set Iranians efforts back at least a decade. They had to learn how to fix AQ Khan's junk and to find out Pakistani mistakes with CHANGAI-I.

                      Bush at the very least got the P5+1 together, which is far more than Obama ever did. It was Bush who convinced the Chinese and the Russians to share their intelligence on the Iranian nuclear weapons program. When the combined intel was fully shared, then the scope of the Iranian program was then and only then fully appreciated by all.

                      Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      if the current regime was fully successful then there would be no incentive for Obama to change this.
                      It was the best deal Obama could have gotten but by no means it was the best deal possible.
                      Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 07 Aug 15,, 22:58.
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                        Xerxes, long time no see mate! Good to have you back. Occupation? Iran currently has standing armies based in all three.
                        Likewise Parihaka, good to see you as well
                        i see that you changed your avatar ... cannot remember the old one
                        But it wasn't this one.

                        Occupation:
                        Don't really see that as occupation, they have their proxies, agents and the Guards there, much like Russia proxies in Eastern Ukraine. But there is no Iranian military garrison like the way Israel has on Palestine or Russia has in Crimea.

                        Food for thoughts:
                        I think their influence in Iraq is seen more as an equity to keep .. while influence in Syria and elsewhere is seen more like tradable currency

                        Comment


                        • P5+1 worked together to get the deal and all the others support it

                          Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                          I have never seen any indications for war. None. Not under Bush Jr, not under Obama. But Bush Jr slowed down the Iranians far more than Obama ever did.

                          The answer is two fold. The Iranian effort was actually bigger under Bush than it was under Obama. Two things got in the way. AQ Khan sold junk to the Iranians and CHANGAI-I turned out to be duds. While not exactly reseting the clock, it did set Iranians efforts back at least a decade. They had to learn how to fix AQ Khan's junk and to find out Pakistani mistakes with CHANGAI-I.

                          Bush at the very least got the P5+1 together, which is far more than Obama ever did. It was Bush who convinced the Chinese and the Russians to share their intelligence on the Iranian nuclear weapons program. When the combined intel was fully shared, then the scope of the Iranian program was then and only then fully appreciated by all.

                          It was the best deal Obama could have gotten but by no means it was the best deal possible.
                          Also you fail to consider the significant number of Iranian businessmen who want liberalization and commerce with the West. There have been changes in Iran; Rouhani isn't Ahmadinejad and R's election was a reflection of this. The Supreme Leader still is such but there has been some liberalization and it behooves the West to reinforce that whenever possible. No one trusts Iran and caution is wise. But it's not wise to overstate their power. The only war the Revolutionary Guard has fought directly was the disaster against Saddam's Iraq. Their top General in Syria was recalled because of poor results. The regime in Iraq that we insist on giving all arms through is ineffectual and has reverted to using the Shia militias with Iranian support. That's a much bigger problem for us, even though to date they, too, have only nibbled at driving isis out of Ramadi. Iran is, and has been, under the Islamic Revolutionary Guard largely a paper tiger. With the revolution they lost almost alkl of their skilled air force. (btw, many of whom I chatted with in Tel Aviv in the 70s-they were being trained by the Israeli air force). Israel has probably over a hundred nuclear weapons and an eons more sophisticate means of missile delivery and more conventional air force. And Iran knows this. At worst we gain inspectors on the ground that we now don't have, knowledge of a sizable portion of the nuclear materials destroyed (even if their cheating keeps it from reaching the 98% reduction promised in the agreement. Six sites and cores go offline immediately as the inspectors, all experts in nuclear weapons detection, at various stages of development will be immediately overseeing those sites. All this seems to me to be vastly preferable to what we now have and, of course, the sanctions and stricter ones and not excluding military action can all be imposed if we find them cheating. To say nothing of supporting action by Israel, in that event. The idea that somehow our negotiators, with joint chiefs signing off on the deal, including the best of a Conservative UK government would sign off on it if a better one were possible is ludicrous. It's easy to make military action seem easy but as we've found out in Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan, it's easier to talk the win than achieving it short of a permanent US presence there-something unrealistic economically or politically. This seems like a real Win for us and our Allies in this agreement,even if not perfect. cf pragmaticliberalism.com and search under Iran. Actions and failing to take actions like if we rejected this deal, among our allies included, have consequences. And using the big stick does as well. Consider, in Iraq we had a big-mouthed, but little action Saddam, but though a Sunni his Baath Party was basically non-religiouos and kept the lid on Islamic Jihadist movements. We overthrew him militarily, as we or Israel could have done at any time, and the result is a weak Shia governement that won't integrate the Sunnis or share governmental power and oil revenues with them in any significant way, and in the void stepped ISIS who wouldn't have had a shot to do so with the dictator Saddam H. in power--to say nothing of the Iranian influence on the weak Shia government. I argued this at the time we went in-fulfilling Rumsfeld, Cheaney, Wolfowitz, Perl, etc.'s
                          long standing push to get us in war to overthrow Saddam-something Bush's father eschewed doing when he easily could have, and for the very reasons I give. Black and white solutions to grey situations spells disaster as we also learned in Viet Nam.

                          Comment


                          • I am not going to weigh through a long dribble without paragraphs. It is your job to make it easy for us to understand your message. Not for us to blind our eyes to a mess.

                            Correct your post into paragraphs and make it easy for me to understand, then I will answer you but as of now, all I see is a dribble.
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • What makes this deal bad is that it now renders all other options off the table. Sanctions now can't be maintained because of this deal. The Israel threat is now mute because of this deal. A preventive US military strike is now unpalatable because of this deal. Obama has ensured that no effective action can be taken now to prevent Iran, even the next president will have to do a Bush (unilateral action) to change the situation, this is such a mess!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Zinja View Post
                                What makes this deal bad is that it now renders all other options off the table. Sanctions now can't be maintained because of this deal. !
                                I don't understand, isn't one of the hallmarks of this deal the stringent regime of routine IAEA inspections which upon denial of access results in the reinstallment of pre-deal sanctions and evaluation for further economic and/or military action? This isn't to mention increasing the time it would take for Iran to build a weapon if it were to back out of the deal?

                                Found this article that seems to give the Cliffnotes: http://www.vox.com/2015/7/16/8974507...plained-expert
                                Last edited by Red Team; 09 Aug 15,, 14:18.
                                "Draft beer, not people."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X