The Iran Deal

[Zinja]

Hey if Soviets get a bomb. Hey if Chinese get a bomb. Hey if Norks get a bomb...

Great idea! Lets just let Iran get one. KSA can have one too! Not forgetting Turkey. Oh, Egypt too! How about Iraq? UAE? Why just restrict to the ME only, why not Japan, SK, Vietnam, Malaysia? Actually I have an even better plan: while still at it, lets toss ISIS one as well, afterall having a nuke rationalises people - so we are told @@.

]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.

Are you saying today's Japan, SK, Australia, today's Germany, South Africa etc are much worse loonies?

Only they were looking for a bomb until Uncle Sam put the umbrella. Before centrifuges arrived in Iran.

Umbrella over who? i don't understand your sentence.

[JAD_333]

.... 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.

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.

I'm having trouble with the logic here. Just because the deal isn't as tough as some people would like doesn't mean the negotiators did a bad job. Maybe no negotiator could have done better. Iran determined how far it would go, not the negotiators.

[Firestorm]

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!

Georgia? No. But what do you think would happen if the Russians tried something like that in Poland or Estonia? The US chooses the allies who are worth it and who aren't. Iran can claim to do that as well.

Obviously you have missed the Ayatollah seminary lecture classes.

The Ayatollah's power in strategic decisions is limited, despite the hype. He can shout "Death to Israel" as much as his Sunni counterparts. That doesn't mean the govt. which knows Tehran will grow a mushroom cloud if they try anything, will act on his wishes.

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?

The US and China already did. The Chinese gave Pakistan nukes. The Americans declared them a Major Non-NATO ally. India had to accept that. Now on top of that you are telling us to stop buying oil from Iran because they threatened to annihilate someone else. WTF? We get threatened once a month, by your ally, no less, who gets free weapons from you. We even swallowed this cr@p and reduced our trade with Iran. Even voted against them in the UN. Now you've finally reached a deal with them. But wait, one of your political parties doesn't agree with the other. So you won't accept the deal you signed. And we have to suspend our deals with Iran for even longer, till you make up your minds. Awesome!

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just giving you a perspective from a third country which did support the sanctions you asked for. The Chinese did as well. They will be even less likely to extend them any further. You might find some leverage over India. You have none over China. The sanctions and negotiations are both dead if the Chinese say "Screw you guys, we're going home." So complain all you want. But something tells me that Israel and the GoP will have to accept this deal, as it is.

[Doktor]

And we are saying lessons need to be learnt than repeat the same mistakes again!

How? You tried everything short of military action.

And you want the tenderbox that is the Korean peninsula duplicated in the middle east because its such a wonderful model - really?

Yes, because now it is very different.

[Doktor]

Great idea! Lets just let Iran get one. KSA can have one too! Not forgetting Turkey. Oh, Egypt too! How about Iraq? UAE? Why just restrict to the ME only, why not Japan, SK, Vietnam, Malaysia? Actually I have an even better plan: while still at it, lets toss ISIS one as well, afterall having a nuke rationalises people - so we are told @@.

Look at the history and don't put words in my mouth. I'm not saying give nukes to them all, I'm saying the even if Iran gets a nuke, chances are they wont drop it anywhere.

Are you saying today's Japan, SK, Australia, today's Germany, South Africa etc are much worse loonies?

So, if those seeking nuclear weapons are loonies, what does it say about Israel?

Umbrella over who? i don't understand your sentence.

KSA

[Zinja]

I'm having trouble with the logic here. Just because the deal isn't as tough as some people would like doesn't mean the negotiators did a bad job. Maybe no negotiator could have done better. Iran determined how far it would go, not the negotiators.

Your argument could work the other way too. Just because a deal is a bad deal does not mean that is the best that can be obtained.

In the case though, the negotiators and the whole administration are at fault here, they were bad negotiators. The administration started fighting congress, Israel and even Arab countries before even the first sentence of the deal was written. Much wiser negotiators would have used the belligerence of its allies to advantage and extracted more concessions from Iran. They should have used the belligerence to play the good cop/bad cop on Iran the way Kissinger used Nixon on the NV. Instead in their misguided policy of fighting friends and coddling enemies they allowed Iran to cease the initiative and put them on the back foot. However a pariah nation that was forced to the table kicking and screaming ended up dictating the terms is testament of the negotiators' incompetence in my opinion.

[JAD_333]

Your argument could work the other way too. Just because a deal is a bad deal does not mean that is the best that can be obtained.

In the case though, the negotiators and the whole administration are at fault here, they were bad negotiators. The administration started fighting congress, Israel and even Arab countries before even the first sentence of the deal was written. Much wiser negotiators would have used the belligerence of its allies to advantage and extracted more concessions from Iran. They should have used the belligerence to play the good cop/bad cop on Iran the way Kissinger used Nixon on the NV. Instead in their misguided policy of fighting friends and coddling enemies they allowed Iran to cease the initiative and put them on the back foot. However a pariah nation that was forced to the table kicking and screaming ended up dictating the terms is testament of the negotiators' incompetence in my opinion.

Some people with far more expertise than me say it's a good deal. Some say it's bad. I don't look at as a good or bad. I don't know if the negotiators on our side--that would include 6 countries and the UN--can be called incompetent. They were guided by nuclear scientists, as were the Iranians. They were dealing with a sovereign country, not a lump of clay that you can shape any way you choose. The only incompetence I've seen so far is from the typists, who mis-numbered the paragraphs in the treaty text.

As for the good cop-bad cop thing, I think it was very much a factor in getting a deal out of Iran. US played good cop publicly getting Israel to back off. That's how it works.

[SteveDaPirate]

Obama Clinches Vote to Secure Iran Nuclear Deal

WASHINGTON — Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland on Wednesday came out in support of President Obama’s Iran nuclear accord, the 34th Democrat in favor. Her decision gives Mr. Obama the votes needed to assure the deal will survive a congressional challenge.

“Some have suggested we reject this deal and impose unilateral sanctions to force Iran back to the table. But maintaining or stepping up sanctions will only work if the sanction coalition holds together,” Ms. Mikulski, the longest serving female senator in history, said in a statement.

“It’s unclear if the European Union, Russia, China, India and others would continue sanctions if Congress rejects this deal. At best, sanctions would be porous, or limited to unilateral sanctions by the U.S.”

[JAD_333]

It's hard to believe that every single Republican member of Congress truly thinks it's a bad deal and almost every Democrat thinks it's good.

[SteveDaPirate]

It's hard to believe that every single Republican member of Congress truly thinks it's a bad deal and almost every Democrat thinks it's good.

If you already know what the outcome will be (not enough support to override a veto) there is little to be gained as a member of congress in voting against party lines.

[Zinja]

Georgia? No. But what do you think would happen if the Russians tried something like that in Poland or Estonia? The US chooses the allies who are worth it and who aren't. Iran can claim to do that as well.


The Ayatollah's power in strategic decisions is limited, despite the hype. He can shout "Death to Israel" as much as his Sunni counterparts. That doesn't mean the govt. which knows Tehran will grow a mushroom cloud if they try anything, will act on his wishes.


The US and China already did. The Chinese gave Pakistan nukes. The Americans declared them a Major Non-NATO ally. India had to accept that. Now on top of that you are telling us to stop buying oil from Iran because they threatened to annihilate someone else. WTF? We get threatened once a month, by your ally, no less, who gets free weapons from you. We even swallowed this cr@p and reduced our trade with Iran. Even voted against them in the UN. Now you've finally reached a deal with them. But wait, one of your political parties doesn't agree with the other. So you won't accept the deal you signed. And we have to suspend our deals with Iran for even longer, till you make up your minds. Awesome!

Don't shoot the messenger. I'm just giving you a perspective from a third country which did support the sanctions you asked for. The Chinese did as well. They will be even less likely to extend them any further. You might find some leverage over India. You have none over China. The sanctions and negotiations are both dead if the Chinese say "Screw you guys, we're going home." So complain all you want. But something tells me that Israel and the GoP will have to accept this deal, as it is.

I think you are in the wrong thread pal. I see that you have major issues with Pakistan and you trying to turn this thread into a Pakistan/India issue. Your view is clouded to relevant issues of this thread.

[Firestorm]

I think you are in the wrong thread pal. I see that you have major issues with Pakistan and you trying to turn this thread into a Pakistan/India issue. Your view is clouded to relevant issues of this thread.

Oh, my view is clouded is it?

This is what I said in the last para

"You might find some leverage over India. You have none over China. The sanctions and negotiations are both dead if the Chinese say "Screw you guys, we're going home." So complain all you want. But something tells me that Israel and the GoP will have to accept this deal, as it is."

This is what Sen. Mikulski said, acc. to that link SteveDaPirate posted later.

“Some have suggested we reject this deal and impose unilateral sanctions to force Iran back to the table. But maintaining or stepping up sanctions will only work if the sanction coalition holds together,” Ms. Mikulski, the longest serving female senator in history, said in a statement.

“It’s unclear if the European Union, Russia, China, India and others would continue sanctions if Congress rejects this deal. At best, sanctions would be porous, or limited to unilateral sanctions by the U.S.”

In, other words, if the Chinese walk out, the sanctions are a joke. So accept this deal, because you have no other choice. If, Israel feels it has been shortchanged, well too bad. But others have been screwed over worse before and then forced to participate in these sanctions. That's all I was saying.

[citanon]

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2015...?oref=d-skybox

Survey: 2/3 of Natsec Pros Give Iran Deal Thumbs Down

September 1, 2015
By Bradley Peniston

A Defense One survey finds deep skepticism among U.S. active-duty military and civilian government employees in national-security jobs.

Just 26 percent of U.S. national security workers believe that the West’s nuclear agreement with Iran is good for America, and even fewer think it will help Israel or Saudi Arabia, a new Defense One survey shows.

Asked to evaluate the statement “The Iran nuclear deal is a good deal for the United States,” some 66 percent of responders disagreed — and two-thirds of that group “strongly disagreed.”

The group’s outlook was even dimmer about the deal’s effect on U.S. allies. Most respondents said that it would have a somewhat or mostly negative impact on the security of Israel (71%), Saudi Arabia (67%), the Gulf Arab states (67%), Jordan (59%), Iraq (58%), and Europe (53%).

So what should the U.S. do about it? Some 62 percent said that the U.S. would be better off simply rejecting the deal and keeping current sanctions in place. (31 percent disagreed.) And about half said that the U.S. should compensate by increasing arms sales to countries in the Middle East. (38 percent disagreed.)

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40160[/ATTACH]

The survey comes as Obama administration officials appear to be wrapping up the 34 Senate votes they need to stop congressional Republicans’ efforts to scuttle the deal.

The survey was conducted by Defense One and Government Business Council, the research division of Government Executive Media Group, between August 20-27. The survey was emailed to a random sample of Defense One, Government Executive and Nextgov subscribers. There were 465 respondents from the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, State, and the military service branches. Of that total, 15 percent were active duty military and 7 percent were military reservists. Fifty-eight percent of respondents are at least GS/GM-13, or military equivalent. The margin of error is +/-3.29 percent.

[Officer of Engineers]

Some people with far more expertise than me say it's a good deal. Some say it's bad.

The most obvious flaw. The 10 year limit. Iran did covert weapons research for 30 years. What's another 10?

[citanon]

The most obvious flaw. The 10 year limit. Iran did covert weapons research for 30 years. What's another 10?

Exactly. The Ayatollahs do not have our term limits.