Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Iran Deal

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

  • Originally posted by Zinja View Post
    Why would it start a race that even Israel with its 'alleged' nukes hasn't started?
    A. Then why we are we having this threat?
    B. Israel is in no conflict with KSA
    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
      Yes. the sanctions regime would probably continue, but. as you point out, without China and Russia, and you could add to the latter most non-European countries. The treaty would then become void, and presumably Iran would continue its nuclear programs as before, leaving the US and its allies with no effective means of stopping Iran short of attacking her enrichment facilities. The threat of an attack along with the now truncated sanctions regime just might prompt Iran to adhere voluntarily to the spirit of the treaty, relying on the existing IAEA inspection framework for verification. But it seems to me better to nail down Iran's commitment to curtail its enrichment activities and seal her pledge to never seek to build or acquire nuclear weapons, than to rely on the unsure prospect of her doing so voluntarily.

      If Congress were to prevail in killing the treaty, the US would face some extremely unhappy allies, particularly in Europe. It would be a rebuff to both China and Russia who negotiated in good faith. It would also cede the moral high ground to Iran. One could argue that taking unpopular actions is sometimes necessary to protect national interests, but the counterargument in this case also holds true. It is not in interests of the US to risk war over an issue when an alternative solution exists. The risk that Iran may cheat is not a good reason to refuse the treaty, since all treaties carry similar risks. The consequences of Iran cheating would be a snap-back of the sanction regime, possible military action, and a loss of international trust.
      Iran does not need this deal to do trade with Mozambique, it needs this deal to trade with the West primarily. There is nothing that Iran can sell Russia, and there is little if anything that Iran needs from Russia other than military gear. China on the other hand, yes, is different. No one is suggesting tearing up the deal and toss it into the air. People are saying stop this deal and send it back because of the legitimate issue that have now been raised. US should pose back these questions to signatories of the deal and try close the loop holes. Make no mistake, this deal does not address the threat of Iran 10 years from now, these concerns deserve answers. The snap back you are talking about I have no faith in its efficacy.

      Iran wants to trade with the West. With a concerted effort from US and her allies on Iran, the payment system still locked up, western tech and DFI withheld, Iran would quickly start to resemble Cuba. For how long would the Mullahs hold back public anger? In the end they would see the light and come to the table. Granted, this strategy carries with it the danger of an all out dash for the bomb by Iran as they may conclude they have nothing to lose.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
        Neither was DPRK.
        They were before they weren't, which is precisely what US is trying to avoid with Iran.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
          A. Then why we are we having this threat?
          Precisely because Iran is a much real threat than Israel. You seem to be skeptical of Iran's ill intentions with the bomb and im saying to you the fact that Iran having the bomb would trigger a race than Israel having to bomb shows that those threatened feel a real danger with Iran, a danger you seem to be skeptical of.

          Originally posted by Doktor View Post
          B. Israel is in no conflict with KSA
          Taking your logic KSA should not worry and start proliferating, after all Iran will not drop the nuke anywhere. Obviously KSA thinks otherwise to your skepticism about Iran's intentions.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Zinja View Post
            Iran does not need this deal to do trade with Mozambique, it needs this deal to trade with the West primarily. There is nothing that Iran can sell Russia, and there is little if anything that Iran needs from Russia other than military gear. China on the other hand, yes, is different. No one is suggesting tearing up the deal and toss it into the air. People are saying stop this deal and send it back because of the legitimate issue that have now been raised. US should pose back these questions to signatories of the deal and try close the loop holes. Make no mistake, this deal does not address the threat of Iran 10 years from now, these concerns deserve answers. The snap back you are talking about I have no faith in its efficacy.

            Iran wants to trade with the West. With a concerted effort from US and her allies on Iran, the payment system still locked up, western tech and DFI withheld, Iran would quickly start to resemble Cuba. For how long would the Mullahs hold back public anger? In the end they would see the light and come to the table. Granted, this strategy carries with it the danger of an all out dash for the bomb by Iran as they may conclude they have nothing to lose.
            I have read the treaty from beginning to end and to tell the truth I am no more in a position than I was before to say whether it is good, medium or bad. I don't even know if it's the best the E3/EU+3 could have gotten from Iran?

            We may find out, if Congress forces the president to go back and ask for more, providing he is willing to try. Say he goes back, what will he demand? A 25, 30. 50. 100 year agreement? Complete dismantling of Iran's enrichment facilities? Unfettered access by IAEA inspectors to every building in Iran? Delay lifting sanctions until Natanz and Arak are covered over in concrete? What are the chances of success? What are the consequences of failure?
            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Zinja View Post
              To compare the dispute between Pakistan and India to that of Iran with Israel is disingenuous. India and Pakistan have a genuine dispute of a real border between them that is in dispute and which understandably is a source of mutual hostility towards each other. Iran on the other hand has nothing of the sort against Israel, Its just plain old anti-Semitism towards a people, that makes them too dangerous to be allowed to have the nuke.
              That is a very arbitrary rule. It is ok to threaten nuclear annihilation if you have a border dispute with another country. But not OK, if you just hate them in general. And the Israelis and palestinians do have a very real dispute. The Iranians could say they are palestinian allies. So according to your rule, it would be ok for them to threaten Israel with nukes.

              And you are basing this on ONE statement, (which may have been misinterpreted) by that retard DinnerJacket, who is no longer in power. The new Iranian leader seems much more rational.

              Secondly, I'm not saying Iran should be allowed to have a nuke. This current deal is a good start. You were able to get support from all of Iran's major trade partners for the sanctions. You forced the Iranians to negotiate and compromise.You signed the deal. Now stick to it. That's how negotiations work.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Zinja View Post
                Or maybe Pakistan is not a NPT signatory!
                And that is a valid argument against Iran. That they cheated after signing the NPT. But the other argument that "Iranians are crazy loons who will nuke Israel at the first opportunity" has been bandied about far too frequently as well, and this makes me laugh. They are far less crazy then their eastern neighbor, which is a "Major Non-NATO ally" of the US, has plenty of nukes and threatens to nuke its neighbor regularly.
                Last edited by Firestorm; 31 Aug 15,, 19:13.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                  And that is a valid argument against Iran. That they cheated after signing the NPT. But the other argument that "Iranians are crazy loons who will nuke Israel at the first opportunity" has been bandied about far too frequently as well, and this makes me laugh. They are far less crazy then their eastern neighbor, which is a "Major Non-NATO ally" of the US, has plenty of nukes and threatens to nuke its neighbor regularly.
                  The "eastern neighbor" is as crazy as a fox. The PA generals did not allot themselves entire districts of prime land @$6 per acre for it all to be blown up in a nuclear armageddon. Stuart Slade confirms that once you grow nuclear, you actually grow more sensible.
                  "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Zinja View Post
                    They were before they weren't, which is precisely what US is trying to avoid with Iran.
                    To which your president said hey, we have a deal.
                    Now another of yours says the same. Did DPRK. throw a nuke anywhere?
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                    Comment


                    • Why has Vietnam got no nuclear ambitions? :D

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Zinja View Post
                        Precisely because Iran is a much real threat than Israel. You seem to be skeptical of Iran's ill intentions with the bomb and im saying to you the fact that Iran having the bomb would trigger a race than Israel having to bomb shows that those threatened feel a real danger with Iran, a danger you seem to be skeptical of.
                        Hey if Soviets get a bomb. Hey if Chinese get a bomb. Hey if Norks get a bomb...


                        ]Sure, it would be nice to not have another one in the club, but Iranians are much more about preservation and they are no more loonies then the above.



                        Taking your logic KSA should not worry and start proliferating, after all Iran will not drop the nuke anywhere. Obviously KSA thinks otherwise to your skepticism about Iran's intentions.
                        Only they were looking for a bomb until Uncle Sam put the umbrella. Before centrifuges arrived in Iran.
                        No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                        To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                          I have read the treaty from beginning to end and to tell the truth I am no more in a position than I was before to say whether it is good, medium or bad. I don't even know if it's the best the E3/EU+3 could have gotten from Iran?

                          We may find out, if Congress forces the president to go back and ask for more, providing he is willing to try.
                          The genie is now out of the bottle so to speak for people to put it back. The humpty dumpty is now broken and Obama has no willingness whatsoever to revisit the issue, as far as he is concerned the clock is not on his side. When you hear UK foreign secretaries saying things like 'Iran is too powerful to be isolated' it means they have calculated that Obama is not going back on the deal otherwise they wouldn't utter such statements which would embarrass them later. Personally i think Obama had very poor negotiators who were outsmarted by Iranian negotiators. Having said that i think with better negotiators in charge, a better deal would have been realised.

                          Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                          Say he goes back, what will he demand? A 25, 30. 50. 100 year agreement? Complete dismantling of Iran's enrichment facilities? Unfettered access by IAEA inspectors to every building in Iran? Delay lifting sanctions until Natanz and Arak are covered over in concrete? What are the chances of success? What are the consequences of failure?
                          Now its very difficult to see what can be achieved since US has already agreed to this messy agreement. They can try and present the issues that opponents of the deal are arguing and ask for proposals to close those loop holes. Obama has thrown away the initiative here, he should have insisted on demands of UN resolutions first before they even started negotiating ie cessation of enrichment.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            That is a very arbitrary rule. It is ok to threaten nuclear annihilation if you have a border dispute with another country. But not OK, if you just hate them in general. And the Israelis and palestinians do have a very real dispute. The Iranians could say they are palestinian allies. So according to your rule, it would be ok for them to threaten Israel with nukes.
                            You are missing the point. My point is India and Pakistan have standing in the mutual dispute as directly affected parties, Iran has none with Israel but plain old antisemitism.
                            The allies card, Iran has as much standing in the matter as the US threatening Russia with inhalation over Georgia, its just baseless!

                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            And you are basing this on ONE statement, (which may have been misinterpreted) by that retard DinnerJacket, who is no longer in power. The new Iranian leader seems much more rational.
                            Obviously you have missed the Ayatollah seminary lecture classes.

                            Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                            Secondly, I'm not saying Iran should be allowed to have a nuke. This current deal is a good start.
                            Says who? Have you asked the opinion of those who are most threatened by the Iranian nuclear threat? How about Afghanstan tells you what is a good deal for you and Pakistan?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Firestorm View Post
                              And that is a valid argument against Iran. That they cheated after signing the NPT.
                              Im glad we could agree on something :).

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                                To which your president said hey, we have a deal.
                                And we are saying lessons need to be learnt than repeat the same mistakes again!

                                Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                                Did DPRK. throw a nuke anywhere?
                                And you want the tenderbox that is the Korean peninsula duplicated in the middle east because its such a wonderful model - really?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X