US Iran agreement...


moralist

Recommended Posts

"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time...

Go home and get a nice quiet sleep."

--Neville Chamberlain

"When people are saying, All is well and secure, and There is peace and safety, then in a moment unforeseen destruction ruin and death will come upon them as suddenly as labor pains come upon a woman with child; and they shall by no means escape, for there will be no escape."

1Thess 5:3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Me too. This defies even basic common sense. To try to understand, I have to ultimately reduce it down to love of the bad, for being the bad - shades of "hatred of the good... "

Iran is like a recalcitrant serial killer who is openly boastful about what he's done and whom he intends to murder next - there'll always be some altruist-egalitarian who will insist he doesn't mean it, he only needs to be given enough love and acceptance and he'll mend his ways and we can rehabilitate him, and feel sanctimoniously good in the process...

None of the nations of the deal-making Western leaders are close neighbours to Iran, the obvious has to be pointed out. I'm not going to bet against that making a large difference to the deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's the same kind of crap and nonsense Iran exploited when Carter was President. It stopped when Reagan took his oath of office with the simultaneous release of the hostages.

--Brant

more of the same only now it's much more dangerous

WWIII is closer than you think--if you think about it; in the old days almost everyone thought about it which may be one big reason it didn't happen during the Cold War

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Typical right wing neo-con reaction by all you war wishers!!

Take a look at how successful this approach was with North Korea...Bill Clinton prevented North Korea from further nuclear weapon development and now the North Korean people are basking in all the free power from all the peaceful nuclear plants that have made North Korea a wonderful partner in the community of nations...

Isn't that what happened?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mark my words...

...Iran has already violated the agreement.

Iran has twenty four days to hide their fissionable materials before the faux inspections begin. The agreement even allows them to continue their intercontinental ballistic missile program.

Weak spineless feminized liberal males are no match for Islamic fascists. Obama and Kerry got played like violins.

This is the problem with liars... they believe the lies of other liars.

But remember they were elected by liars who believed their lies.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, I remember that idiotic statement that the Sexual Predator who used to occupy the White House the day he made it.

Damn, I remembered it pretty close...good thing I did not miss remember it...

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20131201_iran.jpg

Come to think of it, this cartoon does not work, since we now know that the guy on the left, he is the half white one lied, knowingly, about us suckers keeping a medical plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wonder if this is in the deal?

If implemented, the deal will lift sanctions on Iran’s oil sector, allowing the country to export crude oil as it sees fit. Tehran hopes to double the country’s oil exports.

Meanwhile, a federal law prohibiting U.S. oil companies from exporting their products remains on the books. Industry groups and export ban opponents in Congress are pushing to rectify that imminent imbalance.

“Having the international market flooded with Iranian oil, while at the same time preventing U.S. oil producers access to the same global market, is not in the best interest of the U.S. or our global allies,” said George Baker, executive director of Producers for American Crude Oil Exports (PACE) in a Tuesday statement.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/nuclear-deal-opens-world-markets-to-iranian-oil-as-u-s-export-ban-persists/

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not looking into the argument, but I don't see the problem with Iran developing Nuclear weapons, nor do I see them as a threat to the USA (the hostage incident was terrible but had Jimmy Carter been more careful/vigilant it wouldn't have been nearly as bad).

Let's go over some facts:

1) Iran does not have the missile technology to reach the US.

2) Their air force and navy are insignificant compared to that of the US.

3) Pakistan has had Nukes for a long time and is less politically stable and more violent and lawless than Iran yet has not had any nuclear incidents.

4) There is no evidence that Iran has sponsored terrorism against the US (just against Israel and a few other places).

5) This deal will help keep gas prices down.

6) Forming deals with Iran helps the US negotiate with other countries in the Middle East as we are less dependent on the few (mainly Israel) that we have good relations with.

7) Iran is a democracy and more advanced than most other countries in the Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RR:

Do you live in the United States and are you a citizen of the United States?

Not a trap question, just curious.

Second, what did you major in if you attended college?

I apologize if I have asked you this before.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, well: "peace for our time". Also called kicking the can down the road, aka the argument from pragmatism, aka unprincipled anti-conceptualism, aka philosophical skepticism. They can't harm us for now and we could be friends with a State that sponsors terrorism and has hegemonic designs -- and so what if Iran's close neighbors, who know Iran's nature and intent far better, are worried. So what if all repressed minorities in the Middle East give up hope and trust in America? It represents the level of thinking of many (in the West!) but it's good to see the cards open on the table though. Just a pair of two's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, well: "peace for our time". Also called kicking the can down the road, aka the argument from pragmatism, aka unprincipled anti-conceptualism, aka philosophical skepticism. They can't harm us for now and we could be friends with a State that sponsors terrorism and has hegemonic designs -- and so what if Iran's close neighbors, who know Iran's nature and intent far better, are worried. So what if all repressed minorities in the Middle East give up hope and trust in America? It represents the level of thinking of many (in the West!) but it's good to see the cards open on the table though. Just a pair of two's.

Tony, would you ever describe Iran as a "democracy" like RR did above?

And I would be a hell of a lot more alert from this point on. We had four (4) Marines assassinated today in Tennessee. And of course, they were unarmed...we are rapidly committing suicide in America.

Disarmed Marines!

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RR:

Do you live in the United States and are you a citizen of the United States?

Not a trap question, just curious.

Second, what did you major in if you attended college?

I apologize if I have asked you this before.

A...

I'll take a wild guess that Robin has a college education.. That's where that brand of logic originated.

Greg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Tony, would you ever describe Iran as a "democracy" like RR did above?

A...

Adam,

You can vote. Not much else.

And then just in case, "The Supreme Leader" vets all the candidates in advance. Between he and the Revolutionary Guard and an arbitrarily brutal Judiciary, they all pretty much control the country, repressing most dissent like academics and journalists. It has been called a Democratic Dictatorship, I'd add "religious" to that. Freedom House lists Iran as "unfree". (The highest M.E. scores of democracy, in order: Israel, Kuwait, Tunisia, Lebanon, Turkey, Morocco).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's go over some facts:

1) Iran does not have the missile technology to reach the US.

2) Their air force and navy are insignificant compared to that of the US.

3) Pakistan has had Nukes for a long time and is less politically stable and more violent and lawless than Iran yet has not had any nuclear incidents.

4) There is no evidence that Iran has sponsored terrorism against the US (just against Israel and a few other places).

5) This deal will help keep gas prices down.

6) Forming deals with Iran helps the US negotiate with other countries in the Middle East as we are less dependent on the few (mainly Israel) that we have good relations with.

7) Iran is a democracy and more advanced than most other countries in the Middle East.

There are three ways I look at the agreement. The first is through a security lens, the second is through an arms control lens, and the third is through the lens of politics.

The security lens generally finds the deal to be bad on multiple fronts. It will allow or tend to allow, continued Iranian influence and supervision of the regime of Assad in Syria, the Shia majority in Iraq, and the terror group Hezbollah (in Lebanon against Israel and in Syria against the rebel forces, some of which include the death cult ISIS). Further, the government of Israel feels its security is compromised. The US allies in the UAE, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, feel that Iran's command and control of insurrections in Yemen is just the beginning of further belligerence. On the whole (without nuance), many Sunni-dominated allies of American feel that Iran's coming out of sanction regimes over the next year or so will lead to more tension and likely more outbreaks of military hostilities. The lone hold-out in the Gulf is Qatar, which seems to be fine with the deal. On the fence, but wavering toward the deal is the financial hub of the Gulf, Dubai. Anything that will serve to make Dubai bigger and richer ...

Through the political lens, I find all is at the moment hysteria among those who reject any deal with Iran. Only the worst-case scenarios and the direst predictions are currency here. The best antidote to this hysteria is absorbing the flip side in Israeli media, where push-back has appeared. The details of the deal are important to both the hysterics and the 'steady as she goes' cynics. The differences come down to interpreting each element of the deal as it pertains to nuclear technology. Israel with its secret and unacknowledged hundred nuclear bombs will find its way forward, I think. I think the hysteria will subside ...

Through the arms control lens, this is the most interesting view, at least so far. The framework of understanding is that the deal is very good -- in the sense that it will dampen weaponizing 'breakout' by the Iranian regime, and will reduce military tensions. I'll give a couple of thoughtful essays that cover this ground through that lens if anyone is interested.

Robin, I think you will benefit by scrutinizing each of the numbered points above, challenging your own opinion, and digging into the history of Iran since 1979. I respect your opinions, but you may find on further investigation and analysis, that your list of certainties will need revision.

For example, to call Iran a democracy full stop is in my opinion factually wrong. The Supreme Leader is not elected by the people. All candidates for Parliament are screened by an unaccountable religious body -- as are candidates for their presidency. Every level of Iranian governance is supervised by clerical authority. It is at best described as a theocracy having features of a republic, but with every feature (assembly, media, law, military, social mores) tightly controlled by turbans. It's nine-tenths the 12th century Vatican, one tenth modern Egypt.

The USA's closest Middle East ally after Israel and Turkey is Saudia Arabia, an absolute autocracy without a written law code or constitution. Iran's system seems brighter and freer in comparison, but you must remember that the governance is equally harsh. Iran stones or crushes or hangs its sexual deviants, imprisons, tortures and abuses political opponents, and funds terror-list entities across the Muslim world. Much like America's ally, Saudi -- a harsh, puritan religion is the highest authority, by the sword or the noose or the dungeon.

In the Bizarro World of Middle East alliances and cults and sects and violence, America finds itself in a strange position in Syria and Iraq. Iran is the closest, richest ally to Syria's rump-state 'secular' dictatorship. Saudi is its greatest foe. How will Iran and the USA learn to operate in full mutual cognizance, if not together -- will Iran seek to end the war? I don't know, but I do have hope.

Relationship status: complicated.

My personal opinion is largely swayed by the arms control wonks I follow, but there is no getting around the present white-hot political hysteria. Is a greater war than the one in Iraq/Syria (and Yemen) likely to catch fire in the region over the next five to ten to fifteen to twenty years? In the short run I guess that Iran will 'help' bring the Syria conflict to a partial end, forcing its client dictator into a negotiation with its non-psychotic Islamist and secular opponents. This will allow a more united effort to crush every last vestige of ISIS from Syria and Iraq.

Does Iran want to escalate that war and pour more of its proxies and 'trainers' and money into further death and destruction of the fabric of life? I doubt it very much. Does it think it can 'win' the war for its Assad, while battling a crazy-quilt of anti-Assad groups? Not really.

So, in the short and medium turn, Iran will seek to turn down the temperature in the region, and begin to behave like any other bizarre and slightly deranged sectarian autocracy in the neighbourhood. I think Iranian behaviour going forward will become more predictable. That the US and Iran can shout at each other in person at a high level gives me a scrap of hope that the devastation and refugee emergencies will begin to ramp toward a settlement -- the negotiation will be as arduous as those just completed. If the Great Satan and its European minions (and limping, angry Russia) can shout it out with Iran ... then such hopes might be realized in the next two years.

The seeming wild card, Israel, can destroy Iran with its nuclear weapons, right now, if it wanted, instantly inflict as many casualties as have already died and been maimed in Syria, in an effort to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions by removing its military echelons. I don't see that happening. Israel is not insane, and maybe we have to keep in mind the stray notion that Iran is also not completely religiously insane, just crazy and dangerous. Like Pakistan, a democracy at the moment. Like India, a democracy in full measure. They are enemies with nuclear tipped missiles pointing at the other. I expect a war between them before a nuke-tipped conflagration between Israel and Iran.

When I was my own most hysterical about The Great Islamic Satan, I imagined its kook President Ahmadinejad was on a speed run to Final Days, Madhi & Jesus and Armaggedon, that Israel would use a punishing nuclear deterrent and that WW3 and 4 were coming.

In essence, my grasp of the whole situation is that some knobs have been turned. Most say the knobs have ratcheted up significantly, up past danger. I prefer to interpret the knobs as having been on the whole ever so slightly turned down from extremely bad to merely bad and awful. If America can snuggle in the sack with Saudi Arabia, it can have a few chaste kisses with Iran. As with the opening between Cuba and America, it opens a door that was closed. Nixon went to China. Reagan went to Moscow and signed the INF. The USA, France, England, China, Germany and Russia went to Geneva.

Ultimately, I wonder if it is right to ask, "what is the better plan?"

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My question: Will the Iranians learn to make portable nukes and hand them out to terrorists? If so, we are in for a world of pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, has anyone read the agreement, I have not.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, has anyone read the agreement, I have not.

I preferred to read summaries and analysis/commentary from the wonks who live and breathe this shit, just looking at the whole document in a few places to see the details remarked upon. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action has annexes of great interest. I recommend the Wikipedia Summary of Provisions for its relative depth, and here I post their links to the document and annexes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no cause to 'ratchet the knob' that I can tell, William. (A thoughtful analysis, by the way). Tensions are high enough in the region. Why interfere there, now? Sometimes the status quo is good enough until a nation reforms itself..

By comparison, from another country that was under economic sanctions (The Sullivan Act, anyone?) white South Africans unilaterally decided in the final all-white referendum to change our own order from within. Essentially the majority (led by the last Afrikaner President, the prescient de Klerk) began feeling strongly that it was unconscionable to keep black South Africans disenfranchised and suppressed. Not by the sanctions so much, which had hardly an effect on the country, or the "armed struggle" which was mostly ineffectual and a myth - but a rational and moral sea-change by the white people themselves who'd become sick of being regarded as a pariah state.

(And SA wasn't threatening the West every other day - or funding terror elsewhere).

South Africans did what they had to do, and then applied for acceptance back in the global village. IOW, only after we began to repair our political landscape did we (effectively) go cap in hand to the West.

Iran is a reversal of all that. Arrogantly, they have reformed not a jot of their internal affairs or external involvements - or at least independently begged for sanction relief with promises of reform. No, the 5 + 1 pitched up and made overtures to them, not the other way around. All under the unlikely rationale that the carrot of relaxed sanctions will (somehow) block Iran's development of nuclear weapons? Is Obama dreaming? Perhaps too, he sees Iran as an ally against ISIS - but "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is an evident and unprincipled fallacy, no more so than in the Middle East.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Selene I have no idea why you ask me these personal questions that have no clear connection to the topic at hand (and I think I dodged them earlier) but I'll answer.

I live in the US, I am a citizen of the US, my parents immigrated here (not from the middle east).

I went to an elite selective college and majored in both Mathematics and Computer Science

@William, thanks for the extensive post, though it seems more like a lecture on the Middle East than a reply to me.

Regarding security, nothing that you have said has convinced me that the US is less secure if these deal is approved. I do not think Israel's perspective matters, they are a cause of instability in the region. Furthermore the region has always been insecure since the Ottoman Empire fell. Iran may use a nuclear program to flex its muscles more, but I do not think it can acquire territory beyond the Shi'a areas of Iraq.

I don't claim to be an expert on the Middle East, if you think any of my facts are wrong please tell me, but I am not going to go through and fact check myself. I suppose my claim of Iran being a democracy is misleading, but it is more of a democracy than any country in the Middle East other than Israel or Turkey.

@Baal I'm not sure Iranian suitcase nukes are a realistic problem. Pakistan has nukes and Osama was living a few miles from their biggest military school...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not looking into the argument, but I don't see the problem with Iran developing Nuclear weapons, nor do I see them as a threat to the USA (the hostage incident was terrible but had Jimmy Carter been more careful/vigilant it wouldn't have been nearly as bad).

Let's go over some facts:

1) Iran does not have the missile technology to reach the US.

2) Their air force and navy are insignificant compared to that of the US.

3) Pakistan has had Nukes for a long time and is less politically stable and more violent and lawless than Iran yet has not had any nuclear incidents.

4) There is no evidence that Iran has sponsored terrorism against the US (just against Israel and a few other places).

5) This deal will help keep gas prices down.

6) Forming deals with Iran helps the US negotiate with other countries in the Middle East as we are less dependent on the few (mainly Israel) that we have good relations with.

7) Iran is a democracy and more advanced than most other countries in the Middle East.

And therefore your position is because of these "facts"?

--Brant

they deserve the bomb and we deserve them having it?

just Israel--again--just the Jews, again: Iran is going to solve the Jewish problem!

"'Once I was blind

But now I see'

The end of all

Jewish conspiracies!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting:

4.3.
Supply of state-of-the-art instrumentation and control systems for the above research and power reactors, including joint design and manufacturing, as appropriate;

4.4.
Supply of nuclear simulation and calculation codes and software solutions with regard to the above areas, including joint development, as appropriate;

4.5.
Supply of first and second loop main equipment as well as core of the above research and power reactors, including joint design
and manufacturing, as appropriate;

4.6.
On-the-job training on fuel management scenarios and reshuffling for the above research and power nuclear reactors;

4.7.
Joint technical review of Iran’s current nuclear reactors, upon the request by Iran, in order to upgrade current equipment and systems, including concerning nuclear safety

How special. We not only provide the largest world terrorist sponsors with the training and the technology, we even are going to teach these psychotics how to protect their nuclear facilities.

Probably from the Israeli's

A....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now