Historic Iran Nuke Deal

The present situation was not preventing them from moving toward production of a nuclear weapon. They could have just let the sanctions stay in place and in a relatively short time produced a nuclear weapon under the current status quo. The purpose of sanctions is to cause the country so much economic pain that they will come to the negotiating table. That's what happened. Negotiation doesn't take away our ability to seek other options later. Theoretically, with this deal, we'll have longer notice than before if Iran moves toward producing and assembling a nuclear weapon. Dealing now doesn't mean we can't use military force later. Aggressive moves now do prevent peaceful moves later.

Maynard Keenan said:

The present situation was not preventing them from moving toward production of a nuclear weapon. They could have just let the sanctions stay in place and in a relatively short time produced a nuclear weapon under the current status quo. The purpose of sanctions is to cause the country so much economic pain that they will come to the negotiating table. That's what happened. Negotiation doesn't take away our ability to seek other options later. Theoretically, with this deal, we'll have longer notice than before if Iran moves toward producing and assembling a nuclear weapon. Dealing now doesn't mean we can't use military force later. Aggressive moves now do prevent peaceful moves later.

Click to expand...

I agree with much of what you say here, but what this basically amounts to is that the current deal might (if Iran plays nicely) buy us a year or two to come up with a better plan for stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Maybe that's the best that we can get in the current situation. That's fine.

But that is hardly what I would call "historic."

Moving away from what Maynard Keenan is saying and addressing the forum in general, I am particularly bitter about this because I recall the thread we had when the framework of the deal was first announced, and the deal was still heralded as an amazing step towards world peace, with those who questioned its effectiveness shunned as "warmongers", even though nothing was finalized, nothing was signed, and it wasn't clear if there would even be a final deal.

After that I became convinced that people were more concerned with having a deal than any of its content. I haven't seen anything in the reaction to the final product which has made me reconsider that position.

I hope everything turns out for the best.

Forgive me if I'm not very trusting of Iran. We all know how it went after Clinton tried the same thing with North Korea.

MoonlessNight said:

At last we will finally have peace in our time.

Click to expand...

So what would you suggest?

1: Iran has agreed to limit the number of centrifuges that they use to enrich uranium to build nukes - but only for a decade 2: They’ve agreed to allow US inspection of their facilities – but with 24 DAY (not hour) notice.
3: We’ve agreed to lift sanctions so soon hundreds of billions of dollars will go to Iran. I’m thinking they won’t be using that money on infrastructure. Terrorism maybe? 4: We’ve agreed to destroy Israel.

What is NOT part of the deal. Freeing the American hostages – one being Pastor Saeed.

The US made a similar deal with North Korea 20 years ago. Look how that turned out.

Zechariah 12:3 "It will come about in that day that I will make Jerusalem a heavy stone for all the peoples; all who lift it will be severely injured. And all the nations of the earth will be gathered against it.”

Stebany said:

4: We’ve agreed to destroy Israel.

Click to expand...

What page of the agreement documents was that on?

SolomonVII said:

This kind of deal is not what Obama promised during the election.

Click to expand...

Sure it is. One of the reasons I voted for Obama over Clinton in the 2008 primary was because there was a primary debate where he said he wanted to sit down and talk to specific countries who had recently been our enemies, including Iran, and discuss peace. Clinton said she wouldn't do it without a lot of preconditions. This is exactly what Obama promised, apart from that it took him a bit longer than the first year of his administration to get it done.

Watch it for yourself:

MoonlessNight said:

I reserve my use of that quote for situations where a treaty is applauded merely for the fact that it was signed.

Click to expand...

People are bashing it just because it was signed. Why can't I applaud it because it was signed? We can't know the future, but what we can know is that taking a chance on peace is usually a good thing, especially when we have built verification measures into this that will allow us to cancel the agreement if Iran fails to hold up it's end. It gives all countries involved a path towards a better tomorrow, but does not do so in a naive way that means there's no turning back if Iran fails to live up to it's side of the bargain. Worst case, we're back where we started. But we have positioned things now where we have created better possibilities going forward and it is only the worst case that is what would have otherwise simply been the only case.

Besides, I'm pretty sure Iran won't invade Czechoslovakia.

Fish and Bread said:

People are bashing it just because it was signed. Why can't I applaud it because it was signed? We can't know the future, but what we can know is that taking a chance on peace is usually a good thing, especially when we have built verification measures into this that will allow us to cancel the agreement if Iran fails to hold up it's end. It gives all countries involved a path towards a better tomorrow, but does not do so in a naive way that means there's no turning back if Iran fails to live up to it's side of the bargain. Worst case, we're back where we started. But we have positioned things now where we have created better possibilities going forward and it is only the worst case that is what would have otherwise simply been the only case.

Besides, I'm pretty sure Iran won't invade Czechoslovakia.

Click to expand...

Are you familiar with the expression "damned by faint praise?"

Stebany said:

What is NOT part of the deal. Freeing the American hostages – one being Pastor Saeed.

Click to expand...

He's not a hostage, he's a guy who went into another country and broke US law in going there, and had the intent of breaking Iranian law when he got there, and then got there and knowingly broke Iranian law, and then got arrested and went through that country's judicial system. Are Iran's laws just? Nope. But he's not a hostage and he knew full well what he was getting into when he went to that country against our state department's guidance to do something that he knew was a serious crime there. If he wanted to be safe, he shouldn't have gone there. I understand that he felt it was his religious obligation to do what he did, but no where in the bible does it say that it is the responsibility of your country to go to war or to screw up important negotiations because some guy illegally crossed a border and did something he knew was a serious crime in that country and got punished according to their laws and judicial procedure. He should take some responsibility for his actions.

I'll bet we are trying to work for his release behind the scenes, which is cool. Good for us. But we are absolutely right in not sabotaging peace negotiations over this guy. He's no hostage. We didn't send him there. We didn't tell him to do what he did. You go to a country you shouldn't go to and deliberately break their laws that you know they have and that you know they take very seriously, you just might wind up in prison there.

The US made a similar deal with North Korea 20 years ago. Look how that turned out.

Click to expand...

Yeah, South Korea turned into a nuclear wasteland. Oh wait, it didn't? So, basically, the North Korea deal didn't work, but it didn't not work either. North Korea got where it was going, and it's a dark nasty place, but it's neighbors haven't been harmed, and we are no worse off for trying to get them to walk a different path during the Clinton administration than we would have been just ignoring them. We're much better off than we would be if we had invaded like the hawks wanted.

http://time.com/3956853/iran-michael-oren-israel/

The present deal with Iran poses a threat not only to Israel, but to the U.S. and the world
In Israel, one of the world’s rowdiest democracies, politicians rarely agree on anything. Which is why their reaction to the nuclear arms deal with Iran is so unique. For the first time in living memory, virtually all Israelis – left, right, religious, secular, Arabs, Jews – are together calling the deal disastrous.

The reasons might not be clear to many readers of the agreement. According to preliminary reports, its 100 pages contain bewilderingly complex provisions for supposedly delaying Iran from making a bomb. There are international inspections of the Iranians’ nuclear facilities but none that would actually catch them off guard. There are limits to the number of centrifuges with which Iran can enrich uranium to weapons grade, but only for a decade during which not a single centrifuge will be dismantled. And Iran can continue to research and develop more advanced technologies capable of producing nuclear weapons even faster. Most mystifying still, the deal recognizes Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear power without demanding that Iran cease promoting war throughout the Middle East and terror worldwide.

<Staff Edit>

MoonlessNight said:

Are you familiar with the expression "damned by faint praise?"

Click to expand...

What do you suggest we do instead? Start yet another middle eastern war? The last one we started created ISIS. Maybe a new approach is called for.

This is a convoluted situation, as all are in a world where so much is hidden from public view, and most people really don't know what is going on in the world.....even those who think they do, don't. I've learned a lot in the last 8 or 9 years, and yet know that there are many things I don't know. Obama is a Communist, there's no doubt about that. But which camp is he from? The Fabian Socialists of Britain, the kind from the former Soviet Union, etc. And the Neocons are not conservatives at all, they come from former Trotskyites (like their founder Irving Krystal). There's no doubt the they (the Neocons) are against this deal because there number one issue is support for the modern State of Israel, and not the U.S. But the Neocons and the Socialists/Communists and the Fabians and the Fascists ALL want to be on top of the New World Order which they are all vying to bring about. So I don't trust the Democrats or the Republicans because they are all owned by the international banksters (who claim to be Jews, but I don't think they are for a number of reasons).

OPTIONS IN 2013
1) Do nothing and Iran would have been able to build a bomb in 2-3 months, by mid-2013. They had/have the materials for 10 bombs. In addition, Russia was ready to sell missiles and other arms to Iran, when and if they really needed the money.
2) Get the 6+1 countries to agree to negotiations for the nuclear issue only and delay Iran's nuclear production by TWO FULL YEARS.

SITUATION IN 2015
After two years, the European countries were about done with sanctions. Russia was certainly ready to end them. Russia was ready to sell weapons and other missiles to Iran.

OPTIONS IN 2015
A) Allow the talks to end. Russia had indicated that they would immediately honor its weapons contracts with Iran. Iran would be 2-3 months away from building a nuclear bomb of their own, with the materials for ten. The European countries may have kept the sanctions on for a couple of more months, but they would have been gone by winter when they badly need gas and oil.

To be clear, the US could have maintained all the US sanctions. IMHO, we no longer had the will of the 6 to continue sanctions indefinitely.

B) Make the best deal possible now.

That deal will result in a reduction of nuclear stores by 98%. Iran will not have enough material for even one bomb and it will take over a year to gather enough material if they choose to end the treaty. Inspections protocols (much better than even a couple of years ago) will all us any US action that is available now, whenever Iran violates the treaty.

Delivery of weapons by Russia to Iran is delayed 5 years, and missiles for 10 years.



BOTTOM LINE
1) We can continue our policy against Iran's support of terrorism. I would note that it those very terrorists that are the only boots on the ground fighting ISIS, other than Assad's armies. Perhaps, we will learn to accept that Iran's militias in Iraq and Syria are preferable to ISIS. Perhaps not. In any case, these decisions are not relevant to the decision to move back Iran's weapons capability.
2) We have chosen to make a deal.

WHAT WAS/IS THE ALTERNATIVE?
The alternative was NOT to continue to keep Iran from using its own money that is Western banks. The EU was about done with these sanctions. The talks were either done or not. If they are done, then the choices were several choices, almost all which involved strong military action by the US.

Let's be clear. In the 2016 election, the question will be the alternative to this deal with Iran. A Republican president and congress could do a lot to oppose Iran in the world. It will be up to them to present plans to the American people and see if those plans are acceptable.

Fish and Bread said:

What do you suggest we do instead? Start yet another middle eastern war? The last one we started created ISIS. Maybe a new approach is called for.

Click to expand...

It is even worse than you suggest. To oppose Iran now would have meant strong US military action against an Iran that was about become a nuclear power. It is worse because we are already involved in two wars in the Middle East and the only boots on the ground fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria are those boots being financed by Iran.

SolomonVII said:

This kind of deal is not what Obama promised during the election.

Not that it matters. The same people would have voted for him either way, regardless of what he promised.

Click to expand...

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421191/iran-deal-nuclear-agreement-obama-betrayal

The record is clear enough.
This is not what he promised.
But people who would vote for him, would vote for him anyway, just as they did when they became aware that he supported the 'born alive legislation' for abortion.

Stebany said:

1: Iran has agreed to limit the number of centrifuges that they use to enrich uranium to build nukes - but only for a decade 2: They’ve agreed to allow US inspection of their facilities – but with 24 DAY (not hour) notice.

Click to expand...

Ur no. For the vast majority of sites inspection is close to instantaneous. For a very small number of sensitive military sites obviously Iran can't be expected to let foreign powers in willy-nilly. Access has to be negotiated, but the inspectors get to go in after 24 days if Iran doesn't come to the table and let them in earlier. I.e. It's the maximum, and it only applies to a few places where Iran seriously can't be expected to let people in instantaneously for understandable national security reasons. There is nothing relevant that would be secretly going on in those locations that could be successfully hidden from detection in 24 days.

Do not trust people peddling half truths.

3: We’ve agreed to lift sanctions so soon hundreds of billions of dollars will go to Iran. I’m thinking they won’t be using that money on infrastructure. Terrorism maybe?

Click to expand...

A little might. Most will go back to getting the economy working again, and supporting the army in its efforts against the threat in Iraq.

4: We’ve agreed to destroy Israel.

Click to expand...

No you haven't.
Without a deal, iran would build nuclear weapons.
But with or without a deal, Iran would gain nothing from nuking israel.

What is NOT part of the deal. Freeing the American hostages – one being Pastor Saeed.

Click to expand...

Quite rightly.
Though he isn't a hostage - he's in prison because he repeatedly broke the law.

SolomonVII said:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421191/iran-deal-nuclear-agreement-obama-betrayal

The record is clear enough.
This is not what he promised.
But people who would vote for him, would vote for him anyway, just as they did when they became aware that he supported the 'born alive legislation' for abortion.

Click to expand...

How many politicians ever manage to deliver exactly what they promise?

Let alone when you're one party, negotiating with a belligerent power alongside other countries with different agendas?

Should the best hope available be rejected because it's not exactly what the US president promised during an election?

Armoured said:

Still not actually seeing a suggestion of what he should have done differently?

Click to expand...

I hope you aren't holding your breath.