US Iran agreement...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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!"

Brant,

A few years ago, Glenn Beck was asked how he got so many predictions right. He said he looked at what people said over and over and he took them at their word. Then he connected dots from there.

Iran keeps saying, "Death to America." Leaders and crowds. Over and over and over. They have some choice phrases about Israel, too.

Should we believe them? Or have they changed?

Glenn said he looked for pivot points in the life of a person when he says he has changed. If he can find these pivot points, usually moments of strong suffering or overwhelming epiphany, followed by a drastic change in behavior, he believes in the change. Otherwise, he remains suspicious.

I think as Glenn does on this procedure.

I have not found anything resembling a pivot point in Iran's behavior. On the contrary, Iran has consistently lied and shown to be proud of it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

R R seems to have the there's nothing special about the Jews or Israel so no big deal if they go. Just Israel. Well, as the European intellectual effete are discovering, it's just France, too. Maybe more.

Sunrise, sunset

Sunrise, sunset

Slowly comes the dawn

--Brant

[Selene]

I really wish everyone here would read Allan Drury's entire series from Advise and Consent through to final two (2) novels.

O'bama is Ted Jason light...

A...

[Brant Gaede]

I think I read A n C decades ago. I don't much remember it or what it was about. I think one of novels with "Saturn" in the title was panned by Susan Ludell in The Objectivist. I'd bet all his messages could be condensed into 10 typewritten pages.

--Brant

off to Wikipedia on "Alan Drury"

edit: checking out the first novel, I think I was just too young to think much of the author's messages or even understand many of them--I was 100% anti-communist, however (which explains me ending up in Vietnam as a combatant)--or I may have simply read the novel which confirmed where I was already coming from since I was 11 yo in 1955 and got pissed off over Hungary which would hardly have impressed me nearly as much as AS did a few years later, for while I was already into human rights I wasn't so much into all the rest of it

Edited July 17, 2015 by Brant Gaede

[moralist]

Iran keeps saying, "Death to America." Leaders and crowds. Over and over and over. They have some choice phrases about Israel, too.

Iran was holding it's annual Death to America Rally WHILE they were SCREWING Barry and his poodle Kerry on the deal.

You just can't get more absurd than than that!

Greg

[Selene]

I think I read A n C decades ago. I don't much remember it or what it was about. I think one of novels with "Saturn" in the title was panned by Susan Ludell in The Objectivist. I'd bet all his messages could be condensed into 10 typewritten pages.

--Brant

off to Wikipedia on "Alan Drury"

edit: checking out the first novel, I think I was just too young to think much of the author's messages or even understand many of them--I was 100% anti-communist, however (which explains me ending up in Vietnam as a combatant)--or I may have simply read the novel which confirmed where I was already coming from since I was 11 yo in 1955 and got pissed off over Hungary which would hardly have impressed me nearly as much as AS did a few years later, for while I was already into human rights I wasn't so much into all the rest of it

Well, well, look what it is about - The Throne of Saturn:

The novel's title comes from a quatrain from the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam which appears as the book's epigraph.

Author Drury, a staunch anti-Communist, believed most Americans were naive about the dangers of the Soviet-led communist threat to undermine the government of the United States.[2] The Throne of Saturn depicts a renewed Space Race to reach Mars during which both Soviet and domestic enemies of the United States work to thwart, and possibly destroy, the American mission.[1] Drury wrote the book in 1969 and 1970 while living in Maitland, Florida.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Throne_of_Saturn_%28novel%29

A...

[anthony]

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!"

It's the sign of intellectual bankruptcy when values are sacrificed to expediency. Israel is expendable, precisely because it is the leader in freedom in the Middle East; none of those many other countries, tribes, sects and gangs would be de-stabilizing the area if it weren't for the 'de-stabilizing' influence of the democracy of Israel... apparently. By this 'logic', Israel must go - who cares if it does go? It has been hard understanding the rise of Jew-denigration/Israel demonization lately, but it is coming clearer. A partial answer is it accompanies Western appeasement of Jihadis, whose notions of value are forever anti-West, while the Jews are known for not taking offence with violent vengeance. So, the timid follow the safer option copy-catted from anti-intellectual, convictionless university professors.

It's ironic that they will not buy their security, since what I know of the general Arab mindset is that they reserve their greatest contempt for those they view as hypocrites and cowards.

[william.scherk]

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

Which of the documents is this from, please, Adam?

[Mikee]

It's your own link William, Annex III. You are a pain in the ass...

[Selene]

It's your own link William, Annex III. You are a pain in the ass...

Wow...lol and I was just about to apologize, however, I did feel that Bill would have known which one having read all those blogs and thingys...

A...

[william.scherk]

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

I am longwinded. I hoped to illustrate for readers how I understand the agreements across three perspectives. I did intend to offer information of the general neighbourhood conflicts and bizarreries, so I appreciate if anyone takes on the details. So, you and Tony give me a nod. Thanks back!

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 am not swayed by the security arguments, either. I have spent some time absorbing details of the agreements. As a whole, it seems to me comprehensive and toothy, especially the IAEA intrusion and control. Despite what I said about Saudi and Sunni-majority disquiet, those nations have been encouraging in their public statements about the agreements. Iraq is happy. Turkey is happy, Egypt is if not happy, encouraging.

Israel, I think, dealt itself out of any direct influence at the negotiation table, as was Netanyahu's choice. He can lobby hard for a Republican-led congressional super-majority condemning the whole thing, but even then he will fail. Veto.

I agree with your perceptive comment about the fall of the Ottoman Empire. To my understanding, the construction of the Middle East borders without the consent or consultation of the leagues of humans so sorted out has had lasting ramifications -- what was a Palestine? What was a Jordan, a Syria, an Iraq? Who drew these borders? The victors of the first world war. A war that has not ended in peace treaties and mutual encumbrances on the countries we are looking at. (in other words, 'natural' nations are not yet sorted out in the theatre of conflicts)

For example, Joshua Landis, a US expert on Syria's woes, sees a great ethnic/sectarian "sorting out," with constituencies (ie, Alawites, Sunnis, Shia, Arab-speaking, Kurdish-speaking) enforcing their own dreamed-of sovereignties through population transfers (the post-WW2 name for ethnic cleansing).

He points out the parallels to Europe in which ethnic nationalism has served as the template for almost all its modern states. Romania for Romanian-speaking people. Germany for the Germans, Poles for Poland, etc. The 'purification' of Europe led to the treaties that fixed the borders in place and allowed the supra-national EU to emerge. Millions were mutually-expelled to make the political borders comprise nationality. Greeks expelled from Turkey, Germans expelled from almost everywhere on the East, gruesome injustices in some recent cases (the 'sorting out' in former Yugoslavia).

The Arab World borders are being redrawn along sectarian/ethnic lines, Landis contends. I mostly agree, even though this is fatalistic and cynical. The 'settlement' -- like the panoply of treaties after WW2, will come after the war. It is a bitter truth if true.

To Iran, my reading of the whole shebang taken together means that Iran is shackled to an inspection and reduction regime. Of course they could go for broke down the road and rip up every last dot and detail of the agreements and so incur a snap-back of international sanctions. If they want a bomb, then the entire set of documents are a sham. We shall see. Predictions are in.

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.

Should one 'fact-check' oneself? I would say yes, it is crucial to the validity of one's opinions. It is the realistic whetstone that keeps opinions sharp, honed by congruity with actual states of affairs. Or, to use my new annoying phrase, it's good cognitive housekeeping. Who else is supposed to certify my opinions but me?

Let's say your list of supposed facts were the choice-list for a required twenty-page essay. Here's what I would do, first crossing out the ones that were not contentious enough to interest me:

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.

Each of the topics is interesting to a degree, and each might be contested, but on the whole I agree with the factual-ishness of the crossed-out items. For example, I could argue that topic one covers the wrong angle: who is Iran actually targeting with its heaviest weapons, and what does that mean to America?

Similarly, an interesting comparison of the militaries in 2) could be written, and the Pakistan example is well-taken. Gas prices predictions, I don't relish the research needed to assemble a coherent essay. Deals would be a fabulous topic for those who like the details of commerce.

That leaves 4) and 7), the latter having been revised. I agree that Iran is an advanced nation compared to say, Egypt. More robust education and economy (despite sanctions), advanced manufacturing, R&D, etc, more sophisticated and with a larger cohort of American-influenced technocrats. On iranian sponsorship or complicity in terror attacks against US targets, I suggest you test and verify your assumptions. You will at least gain a more comprehensive understanding of perceived threat -- and you will understand the rationale for arguments against treaties with a terror-funding/directing state.

If provoked, I would give a shortish comment expanding on 6).

Edited July 17, 2015 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Which of the documents is this from, please, Adam?

It's your own link William, Annex III. You are a pain in the ass...

Wow...lol and I was just about to apologize, however, I did feel that Bill would have known which one having read all those blogs and thingys...

I tried to be neutral/pleasant and got Mike riled! Sorry about that. I did not relish running the search items across all the documents linked to above.

In any case, Mike, thanks for the courtesy -- you give the link so that all interested readers (not just WSS Fingerwagger) can read the excerpt in context. Now that I have wagged digits at Brother Robin Reborn, I can respond to Brother Adam Selene's take on Annex III. Annex III: Civil nuclear cooperation.

Everyone gets cake. Even Carol, who seems to visit only to torment us with Canuckistani asides.

[Brant Gaede]

"We shall see," William? What we already know?

The diplomatic advantage is to the stronger party, but moral strength is needed too, at least if you're this country. Strength not used turns into self abuse. Iran wins. What that will mean is what "we shall see." I see one helluva big war. War is going on right now, even though some think it's tip-toe through the tulips' time. Someone is going to push the turbo button, I think, in five or 6 years. You see, Israel is now going to wait out Obama. Then Israel will try to deal with the new President. Ergo: 5 or 6 years. Then somebody is going to do something.

--Brant

in the meantime--cheap oil and 1.53 for gas, this time, next year

in the meantime--kick the can down the roadism continues and everybody--well, almost everyone--is happy until the next time or the next thing

the road to Armageddon

the human brain is smart enough for human macro, biological success, but the programming is horrible for human optimization and happiness ("What did you do during the war, Daddy?" "Well, I didn't shovel shit in Louisiana.")

[Selene]

Let's give the pacifists a test on the "deal."

1) Will United States inspectors be on the teams that can inspect their nuclear facilities? Yes___ No ____.

We will start with the pre-school questions...

[william.scherk]

"We shall see," William? What we already know?

What do you know, after digging a bit into the details of the complicated deal? I said in my lengthy ramble, what I think you are responding to:

To Iran, my reading of the whole shebang taken together means that Iran is shackled to an inspection and reduction regime. Of course they could go for broke down the road and rip up every last dot and detail of the agreements and so incur a snap-back of international sanctions. If they want a bomb, then the entire set of documents are a sham. We shall see. Predictions are in.

I expect you could expand on your our take-home or sketch a scenario of how the deal may unravel. When I said 'predictions are in,' I could have been more explicit. I mean predicitons are in from the parties (they expect each other to observe the details), and in from the pundits and wonks and the major US and international officials.

So, maybe your predictions aren't in yet. I predict, roughly, that Iran will comply. I believe it is in their own best interests to comply.

Of course opinions and predictions may differ, we aren't liable to reach or enforce consensus here! I am guessing you have an argument that Iran will inevitably depart from the letter and intent of the agreements.

[Edit: I see you have added some oomph, Brant. I will perhaps rejig the above ...]

Edited July 17, 2015 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

If Iran doesn't want to comply, then it should start ASAP, for Obama & Company will try to adapt to the reality change from the documents as best it can and this will set up Iran in a stronger position respecting regime change in the US with de facto effectively modifying the de jure.

--Brant

agreements confirm reality or the agreements will be changed even if any change is unacknowledged as such--the reality is the US is very weakly led, but the snapback could tear off heads

[Selene]

Question 2:

Why is the President coming to New York this weekend?

Responses shall be under two hundred [200] words....

[moralist]

To push a UN vote to sanction the agreement on Monday... before Congress can vote on it.

[anthony]

I am not swayed by the security arguments, either. I have spent some time absorbing details of the agreements. As a whole, it seems to me comprehensive and toothy, especially the IAEA intrusion and control. Despite what I said about Saudi and Sunni-majority disquiet, those nations have been encouraging in their public statements about the agreements. Iraq is happy. Turkey is happy, Egypt is if not happy, encouraging.

Wiiliam, I am quite taken with your innocence. I've heard the prime time statements put out by the heads and FM's of Turkey, Jordan, etc. and now I'm the skeptic. You don't suspect any duplicity? I think those Arab neighbors are 1. being very careful not to criticize Obama and the US (for various reasons) 2. being outwardly sweet to Iran, an Iran with future industrial strength, but more critically a growth of military might which will disturb the balance of power. These guys are highly nervous behind their smiling compliments.

Secretly they all backed Netanyahu's crusade, I believe.

[Selene]

Question 3:

Is Saudi Arabia actively pursuing nuclear weapons and the technology to produce them in the mid-term, meaning within five (5) years?

A...

[moralist]

WiIliam writes: I am not swayed by the security arguments, either. I have spent some time absorbing details of the agreements.

Because you have the mindset of a bureaucrat you're afflicted by a peculiar stupidity in regards to human nature. You can't actually do anything real so it's natural for you to believe in every stupid bureaucrat's fantasy that words on paper actually have power to control evil people. If it's any consolation, your stupidity is shared by Obama and Kerry, both of whom are being played for fools.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

I am not swayed by the security arguments, either. I have spent some time absorbing details of the agreements.

Because you have the mindset of a bureaucrat you're afflicted by a peculiar stupidity in regards to human nature. You can't actually do anything real so it's natural for you to believe in every stupid bureaucrat's fantasy that words on paper actually have power to control evil people. If it's any consolation, your stupidity is shared by Obama and Kerry, both of whom are being played for fools.

Greg

You are quoting William. If you tell William gravity is the reason the sun and the planets are round, I wonder if he would simply agree or make a ten paragraph post without much of a conclusion one way or the other.

--Brant

but if I were a Christian I'd have to love him--since I'm not, that's your job

win-win, for me; I just like him and his faux empiricism (his facts seem right, but they're only being used to defuse certainty (which can be a good thing)--Michael Marotta seems to be trying to do the opposite and both have questionable results, but it's hard to get the good stuff out of the gumbo [was that a dead mouse?])

[moralist]

but if I were a Christian I'd have to love him--since I'm not, that's your job

Love is not necessarily like.

It's just doing right by others.

There will always be a place in the liberal government bureaucracy for William.

Geg

[william.scherk]

Is Saudi Arabia actively pursuing nuclear weapons and the technology to produce them in the mid-term, meaning within five (5) years?

Is Saudi Arabia actively pursuing nuclear weapons? I would say no -- not at the present time. They do not have even a research reactor. They are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and have signed up for the IAEA 'comprehensive safeguards' agreement.

There has been lots of speculation that the Saudis have nuclear desires, that they wish to collaborate with Pakistan, that they would like to break with the treaties and initiate a nuclear weapons programme.

I don't really know what the Saudis have in their minds right now.

What is your guess, Adam?

1) Will United States inspectors be on the teams that can inspect their nuclear facilities? Yes___ No ____.

I find it quite unlikely at the moment, so I would guess No. The USA and Iran have no formal state-to-state relations via embassies. I do not see that changing in the near future.

The Geneva agreements generally put IAEA inspectors in the field with Iranian approval. If my memory is correct, only nations with normal diplomatic relations with Iran can supply the pool of inspectors. I understand -- but correct me if am wrong -- Iran can still stymie or block particular nationals from the inspection teams.

What is your take-home, Adam?

Why is the President coming to New York this weekend?

Responses shall be under two hundred [200] words....

I will try to keep it short. He appeared at a private fund-raising dinner. He went to a Broadway show with his daughters. He spent the night in a hotel. He is due back in Washington tonight.

Do I get a slice of cake?

[Brant Gaede]

The major Saudi oil production facilities are within range of thousands of conventional Iranian rockets. There is no way I can imagine Iran wasting a nuclear weapon on an Arab target. Real regime change in Iran is unlikely to change the basic, ongoing metric. Why would Iran stop the bomb getting if it had military rulers? Even democratic rulers would still leave the military in the strongest position albeit behind the ostensible rulers. Pakistan? Who knows? It's bombs have always been a counter to India's first. There may be no second.

--Brant