In 18 consecutive days of talks here, American officials said, the United States secured major restrictions on the amount of nuclear fuel that Iran can keep in its stockpile for the next 15 years. It will require Iran to reduce its current stockpile of low enriched uranium by 98 percent, most likely by shipping much of it to Russia.
That measure, combined with a two-thirds reduction in the number of centrifuges spinning at Iran’s primary enrichment center at Natanz, would extend to a year the amount of time it would take Iran to make enough material for a bomb should it abandon the accord and race for a weapon — what officials call “breakout time.”
But American officials acknowledged that after the first decade, the breakout time would begin to shrink. It was unclear how rapidly, because Iran’s longer-term plans to expand its enrichment capability, using a new generation of centrifuges, will be kept confidential by the Iranian government, international inspectors and the other parties to the accord.
१४ जुलै, २०१५
Obama's Iran deal.
Announced this morning.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१७६ टिप्पण्या:
It was unclear how rapidly, because Iran’s longer-term plans to expand its enrichment capability, using a new generation of centrifuges, will be kept confidential by the Iranian government, international inspectors and the other parties to the accord.
Good job. HARD negotiation there, Kerry.
Does anyone (including the President) honestly think this is going to keep Iran from developing their weapons?
Never believe anything this administration says.
Belmont Club notices the pottage at any cost effect.
If you're not at the table, you're on the menu.
the breakout time would begin to shrink. It was unclear how rapidly
Hopefully not faster than it takes Kerry to collect his peace prize.
"Does anyone (including the President) honestly think this is going to keep Iran from developing their weapons?"
I believe Obama does. He may be the most naive man on the planet.
Orig Mike,
He's not that naive; I think he is setting up his post-Presidency tour.
Purely Domestic Political move to make Opponents look bad if they refuse to certify the plan.
I didn't see anything about inspections in my skim of the article. Are they going to let peasants see the text of the agreement?
Naivety doesn't figure into any of this.
Purposefully paving the road for the "Death to America/Israel" chanters does.
The madness of deceit.
I do not think the details of the "deal" matters, since the ayatollahs have no intention of complying with it anyway, just like they have repeatedly stated.
They - and Obama - wanted the sanctions lifted, and - hey! - mission accomplished!
Odds of an Israeli strike on Iran just went way up I'd say.
Obama believes that eventually everyone who wants nukes will get them. It's inevitable. That's a common leftist assumption.
So he figures we haven't bargained anything away.
Refresh my recollection.
Are these Iranians the same Iranians whose Parliament was chanting "Death to America" last week?
Luckily, we have a "deal."
Now we are "safe."
When sanctions on Iran are lifted, what will they do with the extra money coming in?
The administration has done a good job of ensuring that the worst effects of all its policies will happen on someone else's watch.
Can we talk about the rush to label things as "historic" as soon as they happen?
The "Historic" Cuban deal.
The "Historic" Iran deal.
Doesn't history decide what is historic?
Well, why should we have nukes and not others. It simply isn't fair.
They caved on anytime-anywhere inspections. If the Iranians are able to decide where inspectors will be allowed, and when, they can easily develop nuclear weapons in secret. If you know where the inspectors will be, it's trivial to move the centrifuges and other equipment. They can be packed up as small as a few semi-truck trailers. This is "deal" is outrageous.
"Peace in Our Time!"
Comments here are interesting. This would be wonderful news if it's all true. I'm fine with pushing the time for Iran to develop nukes more than a decade into the future; perhaps by then the horse will learn to sing and Iran's politics will have drastically changed. In the meantime, the fewer sanctions the better, the more Iran has contact with the outside world the more it will be influenced by it. Witness Cuba.
_If_ it's all true. But why is a kneejerk response called for?
"Peace in our time!" Oh, boy. Haven't we been here before? The definition of insanity is to keep trying the same thing and expecting a different result.
Reuters is reporting that "Iran is not likely to receive many of the benefits from the lifting of sanctions until next year because of the need to ratify the deal and verify its implementation." That's after Iran's National Security Council reviews the deal and if their labyrinth of domestic political institutions bless off on it (same on our side with Congress, and the P5+1 leaders). There's still plenty of time for everything to fall apart, and even after implementation, for Iran to renege, so a cynic like me is not even close to celebrating yet.
The real test will be how do Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States perceive the situation-- if they believe the deal is working / can work and they are sufficiently confident in US security guarantees should Iran renege, then the status quo will prevail. On the other hand, if they don't believe the deal can work and/or if they lose confidence in US security guarantees, then classical realist theory and the security dilemma tells us that they're going to do something to balance the believed emerging Iranian nuclear threat -- and that's really the wildcard (Israeli opposition to the deal is already public, but we'll see how their calculus comes out as well).
I wouldn't be shocked if the Saudi's had purchased a few nuclear weapons from Pakistan by the end of the year. Why not?
MikeR,
A lot of people have decided to instinctively view contemporary affairs in terms of either "Republicans good, Democrats bad!" or "Democrats good, Republicans bad!" and everything- everything!- is viewed in those terms, as something they can cheer for or against, without the need to do any rigorous analysis and even in complex issues or disciplines for which the person is not the least bit well-informed. (Ironically, historic affairs are also being viewed under the same lens, which is absurd given the changes to the partisan structure and demographics over generations, but that's a different issue).
There's lots of reasons to be skeptical of this deal- there's reasons to be skeptical of any deal- but when you look at many of the comments, that's not what you're going to get.
That's terrible. Why have a deal if that's the deal?
Completely unenforceable, and everybody knows it. The Iranians have no political will to be transparent, and the Obama administration has no political will to enforce it. It's just window dressing to hide a presidency that can't claim any achievements otherwise.
The Iranians have been cheating all along. Why would anyone expect them to change ?
Has any great power, negotiating from a position of superior strength, ever achieved less?
because Iran’s longer-term plans to expand its enrichment capability, using a new generation of centrifuges, will be kept confidential by the Iranian government, international inspectors and the other parties to the accord.
You can watch the old stuff but not the better, new stuff.
Why would Iran have come this far, and endured the sanctions so far, if they didn't want nuclear weapons?
And if they do want nuclear weapons, why would they negotiate in a way that doesn't give them a path to nuclear weapons?
"I wouldn't be shocked if the Saudi's had purchased a few nuclear weapons from Pakistan by the end of the year. Why not?"
I hope they do. What else is going to keep them safe? Certainly not Obama's "agreement".
Let's remember: Iran started this program without anyone knowing. Pakistan and India developed nuclear weapons without anyone knowing. Libya and North Korea each developed a nuclear program while under an inspections program.
Heading into the Congress of Vienna, Metternich and Castlereagh had to deal with the question as to whether they could make a deal with Napoleon that he would respect, or if he wouldn't accept any limits and would merely break out of a deal the moment it made more sense for him to do so. As a litmus test, they offered him France's "ancient frontiers" (which generously included a number of historically non-Frank provinces), he refused and so they had to excise the revolutionary cancer and replace him with a Bourbon who could make a deal and the Concert of Europe followed.
Nixon and Kissinger faced the same dilemma with detente and Russia - their litmus test was SALT I, which at the time faced plenty of criticism from the likes of Reagan and Scoop Jackson who believed that the Soviets would never adhere to any deal and were merely using it as cover to continue to gain a strategic edge. In this case, however, Nixon and Kissinger were right and the Soviets did respect the deal.
History is filled with these examples. They mean little to the current situation in Iran, but are illustrative in understanding that it's neither the first nor the last time that a party has made a deal and then had to warily watch if or whether the deal was even going to be honored.
@Original Mike
If the Saudi's go nuclear, you can be sure the Egyptians won't want to be left behind. And if we have Arab and Persian nuclear powers, you can be sure that the Turks will want to develop their own nuclear capability. I can't begin to imagine a stable nuclear balance of power in the mid-east. Won't it be lovely?
“This is the most transparent administration in history,” Obama said...
February 12, 2013
The administration lied to Congress about what would be the minimum parameters for the agreement. This should make any prior vote null and void. Congress should never again give away it's right and responsibility to approve treaties (and this is most definitely a treaty). I hope Congress votes this down in such large numbers that Obama can't override, but I suspect Democrats will cave along with the RINOs.
Freeman,
Note that "will be kept confidential by the Iranian government, international inspectors and the other parties to the accord" includes the US (and perhaps more immportantly, the French). It does not, however, include the countries most affected by the security dilemma- Israel and the Gulf States. They will have to trust that the IAEA and P5+1 are competently inspecting the new centrifuges.
Smoke and mirrors to destroy Israel without retaliation. The unexpected slaughter of the Jews and American Christians is Iran's assignment and Obama just gave them the tools they need. Obama is Evil in person.
Sebastian said...
Has any great power, negotiating from a position of superior strength, ever achieved less?
We are not negotiating from a position of superior strength, because they know how little Zero is willing to do.
Amichel said...
agree completely. We got sold out when Obama gave in on the non-negotiable "any time, any where" inspections.
This ranks with Munich as a cave...
This movie is a remake. The original starred North Korea instead of Iran. The script, however, has not changed. And I remember how the original ended.
And so certain Gulf states will feel an even greater need for protection from a nuclear threat. They will either get their own weapons, or we will have to guarantee their security (which we are already doing, but with lower stakes). Is either of those options appealing? Actually, they aren't options. We don't really have a choice, except as to whether or not we will guarantee their security. If we refuse, then the other "option" is pretty well automatic.
MikeR said...
I'm fine with pushing the time for Iran to develop nukes more than a decade into the future; perhaps by then the horse will learn to sing and Iran's politics will have drastically changed.
Chuck Todd explained the deal similarly. But it seems strange to make a deal where the good outcome is that your counterpart decides to simply give you what you want a decade or so from now. If that's your interest, why give anything? Waiting seems more prudent.
A) If this doesn't produce a de facto defensive alliance between Egypt, the Saudis and Israel nothing will,
B) Obama did state this as a goal of his administration,
C) It appears we are opting to normalize relations on the basis that maybe Iran won't nuke up if it gets normalized relations.
The confidence level might not be high, but the alternatives aren't very good either.
Congress isn't going to be happy, but I think they'll shuffle and moan and pass it through.
Considering this administration's prior efforts in foreign policy, there are no prospects for optimism. The incompetence is staggering. Why would deal with Iran - probably the only country in the world that has expressed the desire for the apocalypse - be different?
Obama and Kerry wanted a deal with Iran in the very worst way and that's exactly how they went about getting an agreement.
It's certainly quite possible that some combination of Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt and even Turkey might seek to develop a nuclear weapons program or acquire nuclear weapons in the face of this deal- but let's remember that, despite what many neo-realists predicted, South Korea (and other East Asian states) chose not to develop nuclear weapons in the face of North Korean demonstrating they actually had nuclear weapon capabilities (and not just a clandestine program). And Egypt didn't develop a nuclear weapons program even in the face of Israel's covert program, pre-Camp David and while they fought several shooting wars with each other. Of course, Seoul, Tokyo, et. al. were reassured by American security guarantees, and it's unlikely the Sunni states would get anything close to that, but it's possible some other options can be developed to reassure them. We just don't know.
As far as I know, the Emirates are the only Gulf state to have a nuclear energy program- a South Korean firm is constructing something like 40 GW capacity for them- but the enrichment is supposed to take place outside the country. With the deal allowing Iran to do their own enrichment, we might see the UAE demand that they be allowed to do the same- we'll have to see.
MikeR said...
I'm fine with pushing the time for Iran to develop nukes more than a decade into the future.
Does this deal in any way do that? Their breakout time is still only expected to be one year, and that's assuming they don't cheat on the deal before said breakout.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
Their breakout time is still only expected to be one year, and that's assuming they don't cheat on the deal before said breakout
The One Year clock is from when they start, which is not the same as when we notice. That could be zero if they continue as they have...
The NYT article says:
"The Obama administration’s assertion that “breakout time” will be extended to a year during the first decade of the accord, a substantial increase from the current estimate of two to three months, has been one of the White House’s selling points for the agreement."
Currently breakout time has been two to three months? How long has this negotiation process been going on? Longer than that. It doesn't make sense. Do we even know that Iran doesn't already have a device, but just hasn't tested it yet? How do we know?
Another thing, they may have a time limit to allow inspectors in, but that's after its been determined a possible violation needs to be checked. How long can they delay that determination with talks? 2 or 3 months?
Worst case scenario for Iran, they get 150 billion dollars when the sanctions are lifted, which is like 40 or 50 percent of their total economy, its huge for them. Restoring the sanctions, if it could even be done, wouldn't undo that windfall.
Are these Iranians the same Iranians whose Parliament was chanting "Death to America" last week?
Luckily, we have a "deal."
Now we are "safe."
When sanctions on Iran are lifted, what will they do with the extra money coming in?
Remember how pissed Obama and his people were at Netanyahu for saying there wouldn't be a two-state solution in his lifetime (a basic reality looking at the shithole that is Palestinian "culture").
Even though it was intended for his domestic audience, Obama found it deeply offensive.
"Death to America"? Nah, that ain't too bad for Swag Master B.
If the Saudi's go nuclear, you can be sure the Egyptians won't want to be left behind. And if we have Arab and Persian nuclear powers, you can be sure that the Turks will want to develop their own nuclear capability. I can't begin to imagine a stable nuclear balance of power in the mid-east. Won't it be lovely?
THAT, in the end, is the Obama legacy. A nuclear arms race in the most unstable region on Earth.
This ranks with Munich as a cave...
It's far worse.
After all, Chamberlain didn't have Chamberlain as an example of how idiotic this policy is.
"Breakout time" refers to the time required to produce enough weapons grade uranium (WGU) for a nuclear weapon -- i.e., 90 percent enrichment of 27kg of U-235. There's still several other steps between amassing the WGU and actually having a nuclear weapon.
But, sure, it's definitely possible that Iran has already covertly done that. It's also possible they even bought one on the black market, say, from some enterprising dude in Kazakhstan after the Soviet Union broke up and before Nunn-Lugar made it more profitable for him to turn it over to the US-led effort. In either case, they'd be keeping it quiet because they want the sanctions relief so they can pay their bills and fund their proxies to sow discord throughout the Middle East. We don't know.
SO here's the likely scenarios:
1) A non-nuclear Israeli first strike at the Iranian production facilities that lead to all-out war between the two countries.
2)A nuclear arms race in the middle east. (Note: that while Israel was the only nuclear power in the area, there was no arms race because the arabs knew that Israel wasn't going to use them under any normal circumstances. Now that Iran will soon have them, the other arab powers are going shopping in Pakistan and North Korea. If their neighbors and fellow muslims can see just how untrustworthy the Iranians are, why can't Obama and Kerry?)
3)An Iranian nuclear first strike on Tel Aviv
4) An Iranian nuclear strike at the Great Satan. (this one makes me wish I'd stayed in the midwest rather than moving to within 2 hours of NYC)
These range from really terrible to catastrophic and Obama will disavow any responsibility for the results. After all, he really believes that his his self-assessed "good" intentions are all that matter.
Can anyone state in clear terms what benefit America and the free world gained in crafting this agreement?
@ Bobber Fleck
I would say the only benefit to this agreement is that it removed any shadow of the slightest doubt that Iran is looking to arm itself with atomic weapons.
@ Bobber Fleck
Well it benefits Obama. That's the same thing isn't it?
Assuming the US and the other non-Iranian actors are not idiots, what's in it for us? Much has been made of the legacy angle and I don't want to minimize it, particularly with individuals as vain as Obama and Kerry. So why are we seemingly so eager, almost desperate, to trade away something so concrete as sanctions for something so etherial as promises of good behaviour. I can only think that Obama and the others have potentially appreciative friends who stand to make the economic killng of the century doing business in Iran once sanctions are lifted. Naked crony capitalism. Does anyone else have insight into this?
P.S.: With the outcome of this deal so uncertain, does Obama really want to risk his legacy to be that of Chamberlain's?
"President Barack Obama heralded a historic nuclear agreement with Iran Tuesday as an opportunity for the longtime foes to move in a "new direction," while sharply warning Congress that it would be irresponsible to block the accord." --ABC News
OK. Obama answered my question about how this benefits America. We are moving in a "new direction". New directions are always good. New directions are a form of change, and change is always good. We all hope for change.
I really like this deep thinking stuff.
Curious George said...
Well, why should we have nukes and not others. It simply isn't fair.
I know CG is being facetious but when debating progressives on the subject, they always come to this argument at some point. I don't want to debate them here, or anywhere, but I would ask them this: Why should we trust people like you to conduct non-proliferation treaties?
For all his talk of "Peace in our time," I understand that however sick at heart about it, Chamberlain had figured out where things were going, and had finally increased Britain's military budget and made production of fighter planes a very high priority by the time of "Munich."
Obama - not so much.
It will require Iran to reduce its current stockpile of low enriched uranium by 98 percent, most likely by shipping much of it to Russia.
Which will not happen. Since Iran has nixed any inspections.
A major war in the middle east is now inevitable. The only question is, how much or the rest of the world will be dragged into it.
I'm about 50/50 on these. So. Whatever.
Obama and Kerry seem to think this will seal their legacy as great peacemakers.
Which would be true if this brings about peace.
The people of the future aren't stupid. If this produces a war, no one will think fondly of O and K.
So are they delusional? And what about the other players?
Here's where I'd link to some piece in my own blog -- except that I just don't know what to think of it, and I can't write a blog post that says nothing more than "this worries me greatly." Well, I guess I could, but I couldn't promote it.
MayBee said...
Can we talk about the rush to label things as "historic" as soon as they happen?
The "Historic" Cuban deal.
The "Historic" Iran deal.
Doesn't history decide what is historic?
7/14/15, 7:32 AM
So far, it has. We are 0 for 2.
For all his talk of "Peace in our time," I understand that however sick at heart about it, Chamberlain had figured out where things were going, and had finally increased Britain's military budget and made production of fighter planes a very high priority by the time of "Munich."
Neville alse EVENTUALLY learned that Hitler was full of shit. I have little faith in Obama having a similar epiphany.
CWJ said...
Assuming the US and the other non-Iranian actors are not idiots...
You assume too much and yes Valerie Jarret has negotiated a great package for you know who.
Don't worry. Valerie Jarrett says the Iranian Military are another JV team.
The question is now whether the Saudis will ally with Israel to destroy Iran's JV team before the middle east is in world war III.
King Obama sees this as a two for: the world population is reduced by a third or more and the Jews in Israel get incinerated. That is a legacy for sure.
The only amusing thing that will come out of this whole debacle will be the MSM and Jewish Dems lecturing us in 3 years after Iran tests their bomb about how the Iranian breakout was entirely predictable because of the failures of George Bush and how Obama's agreement delayed the inevitable, and how he was brilliant in buying us 2 more years before tel Aviv is a glassy bowl...
Shades of the US Communist Party and the MSM flipping in June 1941.
Jane the Actuary said...
Obama and Kerry seem to think this will seal their legacy as great peacemakers.
Which would be true if this brings about peace.
The people of the future aren't stupid. If this produces a war, no one will think fondly of O and K.
So are they delusional? And what about the other players?
Obama and Kerry want this deal as part of their legacy, so it will be. It's good to remember that Chamberlain has his legacy and so does Quisling. Just because you have a legacy, it isn't always a good one.
The appeasers are no doubt jizzing right now. Even worse on "Democracy Now", they're downright saying Israel has to "live with the Islamic Republic of Iran". Not a peep about all the terrorism.
Fuck appeasers and fuck liberals.
You can all go to bloody hell.
The interesting Dance, a Ballet almost is "What does HRC think about the Deal?"
Be very careful reading her parsing of the meaning of "is"
here's a summary of this deal:
1. Iran gets to develop nukes.
2. US gets to look weak and pathetic.
In other words, the Obama regime got exactly what it wanted.
Trinity: July 16, 1945.
This could be the most interesting part of the first two debates. Rand Paul vs. 9. Will any of the others find a way to try to make W share in the blame with Obama and Clinton?
The people of the future aren't stupid. If this produces a war, no one will think fondly of O and K.
So are they delusional?
I don't think they're delusional. It's more that they're ignorant, since neither is willing to attempt to understand why people disagree with them.
This is probably an easy one for Hillary. According to CBS News:
After meeting with Democrats on the Hill, Clinton said that based on what she knows about the deal so far, it is "an important step in putting the lid on Iran's nuclear program." However she suggested the deal's success is not a given.
"This agreement will have to be enforced vigorously and relentlessly," she said. The deal includes "access for inspections and transparency that was absolutely necessary," she continued, "but we have to treat this as an ongoing enforcement effort."
"As president, I would be absolutely devoted to ensuring the agreement is followed," she added.
It's kind of a no-brainer for her. If it "works" (and for the purposes of her getting elected- which I suspect is her only objective- "works" means Iran only needs to go about 15 months without being caught breaking-out or sneaking-out (a creep-out probably wouldn't be detectable in that timeframe), she's good to go. If Iran cheats in the first 15 months, she can blame Iran for cheating and praise the administration for enforcing the agreement "vigorously and relentlessly."
I'm not sure a whole lot of Americans are swayed by foreign policy, anyway- some key donors, absolutely, but the average voter likely has far greater concerns on his or her mind.
I expected someone to riff on my "idiots" assumption, but I'd really appreciate some substantive feedback on the body of my comment above. Obama already has his peace prize. Who in western europe and North America stands to profit from lifting sanctions, because this seems to be the one concrete near term thing that this agreement will accomplish. I don't know the answer, but since we got dragged into the Libya fiasco because Europe believed they would benefir economically from a Ghadaffiless Libya, it would be naive to assume there weren't similar calculations at work here.
"Benghazi" shows that the U.S. had a lot to do with the "Arab Spring."
Do you have any evidence that "Europe" had anything to do with it?
Alex said...
The appeasers are no doubt jizzing right now. Even worse on "Democracy Now", they're downright saying Israel has to "live with the Islamic Republic of Iran". Not a peep about all the terrorism.
Obama has just given Iran permission to build a bomb. By controlling the verification process, Iran can now go ahead at their own pace. 10 years means nothing if you don't mean to abide by it. Iran will get their bomb.
With the bomb Iran will blackmail the middle east and Europe into letting them use it against Isreal.
If everything goes Irans way, and up until now it has, they will have a bomb in the next two or three years. Perhaps sooner.
The willful teenagers not only have the keys to the car, Obama has given them the keys to the liquor cabinet.
Only Boehner can stop this now.
CWJ,
I'll try... So, first, on some level, at least half of the P5+1 participants likely believe that the agreement has a reasonable chance of succeeding- that is, they believe that Iran has done the calculations and would prefer the increased funds from the lifting of sanctions to possessing nuclear weapons (or, if they're skeptical, they likely believe that even if Iran intends to creep-out, once they see the money pouring into their coffers, they'll re-assess in favor of postponing nuclear weaponization). And that even if Iran did try to break the agreement, the inspections regime would be successful in detecting the breach quickly enough to determine other means of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. (Russia and China may not really care about all of this- they may have concluded that Iran is going to break-out, but figure that even with a couple of bombs, Iran is going to mess with Israel, the Arabs, even Europe, but they're good).
In terms of what the West gets would be (beyond a theoretical nuke-less Iran, which they would perceive as a benefit) a cheaper oil supply and commercial opportunities for them to sell their products to Iran. Assuming Iran dedicates just $25B or so to support terrorist activities, that still leaves a pretty good chunk of change to import whatever the Europeans manufacture these days, I don't know.
CWJ
I don't think Obama has considered this 10 years down the road. I think he thinks this just has to last until he leaves office. Then the inevitable blow up will be the next presidents problem. As for the other members, they're just fait accompli and hoping this doesn't get out of hand in the near future. They're worrying about their euro.
The complexity is going to come when Iran tests their new bomb and the mad scramble for alliances begins. A short time after that there will be a war.
I like Roger Simon's comment on this: "Somewhere Frank Marshall Davis is smiling." I think the "somewhere" is the circle of Hell reserved for Commies, and that Uncle Frank has been smiling ever since Barry took office.
Hagar, I guess you're talking to me. I don't want to make this about Libya. It was just a recent historical example. But my recollection was that the initial impetus to get directly involved in toppling Ghadaffi came from European countries. That I said Europe only means that I can not recall which specific countries at the moment. That the US went along was I think primarily for symbolic rather than economic reasons. That it blew up in everyone's faces afterward, has nothing to do with what were people's motives and what they expected at the time.
Elections have consequences. America bend over and take it take it real good
CWJ,
After the March 2011 UN resolution, France was the first to strike Qaddafi's forces. The initial coalition partners were Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Italy, Norway, Spain, the UK and US. France and Italy did do much of the initial sorties, but it wasn't long before we were doing the bulk of it. No knock intended on our allies, but our relative capacity is just so much greater than everyone else- combined.
Bobby, Thanks. Obviously, I'm more in agreement with your second paragraph than the first. My suspicion is that there are some number of "Solyndra's" on both sides of the Atlantic who expect to profit handsomely from lifting sanctions and whose political allies expect to be rewarded in return. The released bank funds are a one time cost in achieving the real objective.
I know this puts me in Robert Cook territory. But if your real objective is to clear the way to lifting sanctions and the rest of it is window dressing to justify that, then this is the only scenario that makes sense to me in such a seemingly lopsided deal.
Bobby, Also thanks for your 1:12 comment.
July 14, 2015: In early July Saudi and French officials met in France to approve a procurement deal worth over $12 billion. Among the items involved are two nuclear power plants, fifty Airbus airliners, dozens of helicopters, several patrol boats plus military aircraft and several other industrial items related to nuclear energy and nuclear technology in general.
Rusty,
Maybe so. But I'd like to think that someone on our side expects to get something more concrete than some politicians' legacies. Selling out international stability for filthy lucre is more understandable to me than doing it for image alone.
But the problem with the Solyndra-style conspiracy theory applied to the P5+1 is that you'd be talking about phenomenally well-placed individuals who have the ear of at least the influential advisors (if not the persons themselves) of Francois Hollande, Angela Merkel, David Cameron and Barack Obama. I mean, influential enough to get them to deliberately downplay the chances of an Iranian renege and sell the world down the river for the chance at making a few billion dollars (which, to me, would seem like a pittance to someone with this kind of influence). Nothing in this world would ever surprise me, but if the cabal were this influential and nefarious for such low stakes, it would be like something right off South Park.
Hopefully this deal will be just the first step in a major detente with Iran. As I have been saying for years now, we also need to reopen the embassy, reestablish full diplomatic ties with Iran, and probably an American University of Tehran would not be a bad idea, either.
@CWJ,
The US persisted in claiming that the "Sgt. Schulz War" was all "Europe" and NATO's doing, and there were no US military forces involved; no "boots on the ground." So an intrepid jurnalist asked at a press briefing, "If that is so, what's with all those F-18's with USAF markings we see overhead?" And the US spox said, "Oh, those aren't ours. NATO borrowed them for a few weeks," or words to that effect.
Now if you want to believe that those sneaky Europeans can just call up a USAF general and ask to "borrow" his planes and pilots for some dastardly colonialist plot somewhere, and get them, go ahead, but I do not.
"Hopefully this deal will be just the first step in a major detente with Iran."
The voice of the fantasy world of the left.
"at least half of the P5+1 participants likely believe that the agreement has a reasonable chance of succeeding- that is, they believe that Iran has done the calculations and would prefer the increased funds from the lifting of sanctions to possessing nuclear weapons "
I believe these are the same people (with the exception of Russia) who thought that loaning billions to Greece was a good investment.
Bobby,
I don't think it has to be an organized cabal or that one needs to explicitly lobby all the political leaders simultaneously in a coordinated fashion. Solyndra was just one of many companies that benefited from Democrat Party initiatives. What they had in common was that they supported the party and had the party's ear, not that they formed some cabal.
If enough corporate actors independently make it known to their governments that they'd be happier without the sanctions than with them, and that the governments themselves also saw some political plus to getting a deal, combined with an extended period of informal discussion among the P5+1 while stuck waiting on Iran, there's no need for the level of conspiracy you suppose.
@Michael K:
"The voice of the fantasy world of the left."
Sure. Because one only needs to look at places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Somalia to see how terrifically American military interventionism has been working out in the last decade and a half.
J. Farmer,
Thing is, detente with Iran is going to require them ending (or at least significantly reducing) their state-sponsorship of terrorism. Let's just say there's a 70% chance that Iran intends to and will honor the agreement to halt pursuit of nuclear weapons (btw, 70% is an absurdly high estimate, in my opinion). Now let's say there's only a 50% chance that Iran will use the compliance windfall to significantly increase their financing of the various terrorist regimes (this, I would say, is aiming ridiculously low). The output gives you a 1 in 3 chance of establishing the conditions necessary for detente. If anything, I suspect that if the Iranian regime does honor the agreement, it's only because they have concluded that financing asymmetric warfare in the Middle East is a better use of their resources and more likely to achieve their objectives than building a nuclear weapon.
Maybe this all will lead to a better future. I just don't see it.
Michael K, nowhere in there am I presupposing their beliefs are correct or accurate- I don't know nearly enough about the material to make any kind of assessment like that- just merely that this is likely what they believe.
CWJ, if you're suggesting that financial incentives played some role in influencing the Western countries' decisions to negotiate with Iran, that is, combining with strategic, psychological, political and other factors, I couldn't disagree with you. I think it would have to be some part of the equation, I just don't think it's the whole formula.
@Bobby:
"Thing is, detente with Iran is going to require them ending (or at least significantly reducing) their state-sponsorship of terrorism."
No, it wouldn't.
Given that the people who like the deal are the same people who are pretty much wrong about everything else, I guess we should say goodbye to Israel now.
So long, Schlomo!
You're proposing that Iran continues to support state-sponsored terrorism against Israel and the Sunni Arabs, destabilizing the area and causing them to make greater investments in their security portfolios, and an American administration just says "yeah, well, that's their problem, not ours?" I suppose it's possible if some neo-isolationist fervor sweeps across the country and you see a widespread transformation in our foreign policy, but I don't see that as very likely.
Consider that detente with the Soviet Union collapsed under a combination of Cuban intervention in sub-Saharan Africa, Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (and destabilizing of the Persian Gulf) and an inability to sufficiently extend human rights to Soviet citizens (chiefly, the "exit tax" charged to Jewish emigres).
@William Chadwick:
"Given that the people who like the deal are the same people who are pretty much wrong about everything else, I guess we should say goodbye to Israel now."
I don't know. All the people telling us how awful this deal is were the same ones telling us what a great idea it would be to smash up Iraq and transform it into Iran's most significant Arab ally.
@Bobby:
"I suppose it's possible if some neo-isolationist fervor sweeps across the country and you see a widespread transformation in our foreign policy, but I don't see that as very likely. "
It has nothing to do with isolationism. The Iranian regime is a significant regional actor, and its regime is not going away anytime soon. We should accommodate ourselves to those facts instead of burying our heads in the sand and continuing to pursue a pointless policy of confrontation.
Bobby,
Fair enough. My job for the last 15 years of my working life was as a "dealmaker." Negotiating and then writing original contracts was more than half of my responsibilities. Going into a negotiation, I always made sure that I not only knew what I needed and what I could if need be give up or bend, but also to the best of my abilities what my eventual partner needed and what he could give up or bend. I attribute my success to that ability.
I can not prove it, but after watching the ebb and flow of these negotiations, my gut tells me that the nonnegotiable objective of both sides was lifting the sanctions.
Ah, I think we're defining "major detente" a little bit differently- I was thrown off by your American University bit- but if you're just talking about a relaxation of tensions (the classic definition) then I think it's more feasible. I still think it's unlikely that an American administration would restore full diplomatic relations with Iran while they were toppling Sunni regimes (a la Yemen) and actively destabilizing the Middle East (look at the reaction on Cuba, for example, who are essentially a broken nation and not destabilizing anything but their own citizens these days). But it's certainly more feasible than the kind of public diplomacy and citizen diplomacy effort that I thought you were suggesting.
"Because one only needs to look at places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Somalia to see how terrifically American military interventionism has been working out in the last decade and a half."
Wait until you see what it looks like after an American city is nuclear rubble.
You people just don't get it. There is a combination of fantasy and Israel hatred over at HuffPo and you seem to be infected with that same virus.
It does make feel better about being as old as I am. Three of my children voted for the least qualified president in history but I do feel sorry for my other two children who had nothing to do with his depredations.
@Bobby:
Most of the world seems content to maintain good relationships with the US despite our destabilizing the Middle East and North Africa and turning two major countries in those regions into anarchic breeding grounds for terrorists.
@Michael K:
"Wait until you see what it looks like after an American city is nuclear rubble."
What reactionary histrionics. So, Michael, if the US had abandoned the talks, what limitations would there then have been on Iranian nuclear development? How would you get Russia and China on board for more sanctions after walking away from negotiations that they were still involved in? Absent sanctions, what mechanism short of invasion/occupation would the US have to deter Iranian nuclear development?
J. Farmer,
Accepting your charges (with which I disagree) only for the purposes of advancing this discussion, your underlying point- that the US could maintain "good relationships" with other countries whose activities we find de-stabilizing and reprehensible since they do the same with us- would still only be valid if you believe that the American electorate believes that other governments should be judged by the same standards by which we judge our own. Do you believe that? Or do you believe that the American electorate firmly believe that we're allowed to do things to others that we would not allow them to do to us?
The ayatollahs want us out of the Middle East so that they can deal with the Sunnis without us interfering, and the Sunnis are (or were, they may have given up on us) desperate to keep us there to keep that from happening.
Which is mostly why there has not been any major attacks against the "U.S. homeland" since 9/11/01. It is not in the governments' interest to make the Americans hopping mad with another Pearl Harbor until they get their own war settled.
But a major war betwen the Shia and the Sunnis would not be likely to stay local; especially since Israel is right there and a bone sticking in the throats of both sides.
Plus the unpredictable loonies that no one has control over.
Remember how WWI began with a couple of idiot college students assassinating an otherwise quite inoffensive Austrian archduke and his wife?
Farmer, I do not have the time or inclination to teach you history.
@Bobby:
"Accepting your charges (with which I disagree)..."
Which charges are those? You do not believe that US military intervention in Iraq and Libya has been destabilizing to the region?
"Do you believe that?"
No. I am saying what I think US foreign policy should be, not what I think is possible or even likely to happen. If the entire American electorate disagreed with me, my opinion would remain unchanged.
"Or do you believe that the American electorate firmly believe that we're allowed to do things to others that we would not allow them to do to us?"
Sure, but that's also completely besides the point. You pointed out Iranian support regime for the Houthis (which is itself already overblown in the popular press), but I don't see why that should cause any serious impediment to US relations with Iran. Richard Nixon was shaking hands with Mao for a photo op in the middle of that country's Cultural Revolution.
@Michael K:
"Farmer, I do not have the time or inclination to teach you history."
If you can't answer any of the obvious, sensible questions I asked, just be man enough to admit it. Pathetic.
J. Farmer,
Ah, well, if it's just what you think it should be regardless of how things would actually play out in reality -- that is, if what you're calling for is just all in your head -- then you're really in no position to disagree with Michael K calling it a "fantasy world." I think that's kind of the definition of "fantasy."
@Hagar:
"Remember how WWI began with a couple of idiot college students assassinating an otherwise quite inoffensive Austrian archduke and his wife?"
I would say it began with Austro-Hungary, with German acquiescence, vengefully declaring a stupid war against Serbia over the actions of "a couple of idiot college students."
Witness Cuba
Are you aware of yourself?
Or were you being ironic?
@Bobby:
My impression of Michael K's response was not that he was criticizing it merely because he believed it improbable but because it was a bad idea. Seems to me he and you could easily say, "Yeah, I would like to see that, too, but I doubt it would be possible with the American electorate." We'd be in bland agreement. But if you have other reasons for opposing such a foreign policy, then those reasons would probably be fruitful sources of disagreement.
My immediate reaction is: This must be a hell of a deal if the first thing Obama does is threaten Congress with a veto.
...if the US had abandoned the talks, what limitations would there then have been on Iranian nuclear development? How would you get Russia and China on board for more sanctions after walking away from negotiations that they were still involved in? Absent sanctions, what mechanism short of invasion/occupation would the US have to deter Iranian nuclear development?
The word sanctions is key in most of your questions. Sanctions is what motivated Iran to talk. The sanctions are a heavy burden for Iran to carry, forcing it to subsidize even gasoline for its citizens. Now money may be diverted to pet Islamist projects - like developing nuclear weapon technology - once trade is generating new funds. Sanctions significantly slowed nuclear development. The sanctions are gone.
The Russians and Chinese would never support more sanctions in nay case, so that is not a consideration.
Invasion of Iran was not an option, as revealed by Obama's Red Line fiasco. But at least sanctions were effective in slowing Iran's development of nuclear devices.
Doing nothing would have been better than what we got.
That Iran is developing ICBM technology is also interesting, since now more money will be available for that. As one wit said, Israel and Iran are on the same continent, so the ICBMs aren't meant for Israel.
And, finally, when one sees martyrdom, even of an entire nation, as a big plus, mutually assured destruction plays a very small role in one's calculations. I keep thinking of the Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times."
And just like that, Trump is back again asking, "Why didn't President Obama at least trade for the four Iranian prisoners?" <----Not an exact quote.
Imagine Jeb Bush saying something like that. Yeah, I can't either.
@gerry:
"The word sanctions is key in most of your questions. Sanctions is what motivated Iran to talk. The sanctions are a heavy burden for Iran to carry, forcing it to subsidize even gasoline for its citizens."
Yes, and such sanctions are only effective with broad multilateral support. Russian and Chinese agreement to the latest sanctions regime was important to their effectiveness. Absent Russia and China (and probably France, too), US sanctions wouldn't hope to achieve much against Iran.
Blogger J. Farmer said...
Hopefully this deal will be just the first step in a major detente with Iran. As I have been saying for years now, we also need to reopen the embassy, reestablish full diplomatic ties with Iran, and probably an American University of Tehran would not be a bad idea, either.
Oh, and maybe get back those US Prisoners. As an afterthought, right? Right after we reopen the embassy, reestablish full diplomatic ties with Iran and start an American University there. Yeah, right after those more important and pressing things.
If the Obama administration aren't the worst negotiators in the world, who is?
Because these guys can't get a damn thing. And if you point that out to them, their supporters just whine they couldn't get anything more without a war with China and Russia and the World, blah blah blah.
Lame. Most pathetic administration ever. I can see John Kerry bowing even now as he pisses his pants before signing the deal.
"If you can't answer any of the obvious, sensible questions I asked, just be man enough to admit it. Pathetic."
I can but I won't. If you would like a reading list maybe I could provide that. You could start with what I am reading today. The biography of Raymond Spruance, "Quiet Warrior."
Yesterday I read Fierce Patriot, a Biography of William T Sherman.
Start there and let me know when you finish. Oh, and I assume you have read "The Leaning Tower," the first thing anyone interested in the middle east should read.
J. Farmer,
Yes, and such sanctions are only effective with broad multilateral support.
Well, perhaps in the real world where those things matter, yes, but maybe Gerry's talking about how the sanctions regime should have remained in place and that would be his opinion even if the Russian and Chinese governments did not agree with him. It's improbable but apparently, sometimes the improbable and the unlikely don't much matter when formulating our opinions.
Also, there's room for debating how imminent was the collapse of the sanctions regime-- could it have been maintained for another two years or five? Ten years or fifteen? these things matter entirely when comparing the comprehensive agreement to the status quo -- but that's a separate discussion and also unlikely that we will come to an informed decision given how little we really know and understand the internal characteristics and the political dynamics of the countries in question.
@Michael K/
Slightly tangential, but did you know old W.T. was the first President of my alma mater LSU? (Actually of LSUs predecessor Louisiana Military Institute.) For that reason (and others) LSU is known as The Old War Skule ) And the President while I attended in the 60s was one of Patton's Generals, Troy H. Middleton. Our baseball stadium is named after a former student football & baseball star who was KIA in WW II and whose heroic performance which cost him his life earned him the nation's second highest award for gallantry, the DSC (Distinguished Service Cross). Additionally, our memorial bell tower, or Campanile, is dedicated to LSUs WW I dead with names inscribed on bronze plaques on the rotunda walls.
** stadium name is Alex Box
"Slightly tangential, but did you know old W.T. was the first President of my alma mater LSU? "
Yes and the trustees tried to convince him to stay as war approached. Sherman, while fierce in war was conciliatory in peace and got into a lot of trouble with Stanton after Lincoln was shot for agreeing to generous terms for the surrender of Johnston and the rest of the Confederacy. He warned the trustees of the Louisiana school that they were fools to think they could prevail but they ignored him.
He never spoke to Stanton again and refused to shake his hand at the great review in Washington city.
Sherman had much to do with the building of the transcontinental railroad and Grenville Dodge, who was the chief engineer, was a general in Sherman's army during the war.
By the way, he was an ancestor of, I believe, Patton's wife.
Obama believes Israel is an illegitimate nation.
Obama supports the Palestinian cause and largely sympathizes with radical Islam
Obama wants to weaken Israel
Obama wouldn't bother Obama if Israel were destroyed tomorrow
Obama hates Israel
Obama believes the USA is a force for evil in the world
Obama cozies up to the enemies of the USA, getting nothing in return
Obama wants to weaken the USA
Obama hates the USA
Progressives, Liberals, Democrats the Left agrees with Obama.
Michael K/
PS: FWIW, Heh, I often kiddingly tell people I once served a four year stint at the Pentagon as the Dorms I lived in were four refurbished Civil War-era, 3-story brick Barracks arranged in shape of the Pentagon (but unconnected, although officially called "The Pentagon Barracks"-the street was the fifth side,lol Were unique in that no horizontal halls, but five separate entrances with 4 rooms around each of the vertical stove-piped landings with communal bath)
Michael and virgil,
I knew all that as well. Sherman talked the warrior's game, but it was Grant who quietly prosecuted the cruel neutrality of warfare. (TM A Althouse).
"Never believe anything this administration says."
Never believe anything any administration says...without unimpeachable verification.
"'I wouldn't be shocked if the Saudi's had purchased a few nuclear weapons from Pakistan by the end of the year. Why not?'
"I hope they do. What else is going to keep them safe? Certainly not Obama's 'agreement.'"
7/14/15, 8:10 AM
Safe from whom?
J Farmer: "It has nothing to do with isolationism. The Iranian regime is a significant regional actor, and its regime is not going away anytime soon. We should accommodate ourselves to those facts instead of burying our heads in the sand and continuing to pursue a pointless policy of confrontation"
Substitute "Soviet Union" for "Iranian regime" and you would have an opinion that was widely distributed by western leftists/liberals/MSM (but I repeat myself) throughout the '70's and '80's....right up until the moment they were proven wrong.
'cuz "bad luck" one supposes.
Robert Cook: "Safe from whom?"
No one.
Go back to sleep.
Odds of an Israeli strike on Iran just went way up I'd say.
I wish this was true, but sadly it is not.
In the meantime, the fewer sanctions the better, the more Iran has contact with the outside world the more it will be influenced by it. Witness Cuba.
I’ve witnessed Cuba and what I saw was Cuba gets everything Castro wanted and the USA gets nothing. Just like today with Iran.
Thinking the mullahs will foment less terrorism because of Western influence is delusional. Any “contact” with the West will be tightly controlled and rigidly censored. The “outside world” will be thoroughly restricted. Ditto Cuba.
As I have been saying for years now, we also need to reopen the embassy, reestablish full diplomatic ties with Iran, and probably an American University of Tehran would not be a bad idea, either.
One wonders if the commentor knows what happened the last time America had an embassy in Iran.
Because one only needs to look at places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Libya, and Somalia to see how terrifically American military interventionism has been working out in the last decade and a half.
I’m wondering: Just when and how America militarily intervened in Pakistan, Yemen, Syria or Somalia?
As for Afghanistan, THAT was a result of Obama’s campaign rhetoric about Afghanistan being Bush’s “forgotten” war. After his election Obama then had to half-heartedly wage a timid, undermanned war there in order to “keep” his campaign promise – but it was just window dressing to say he tried.
About Iran: Bush handed Obama a victory that Obama promptly made into a defeat.
There were those of us that knew with Obama’s re-election that Iran was sure to get to nuke up.
grackle: "I’ve witnessed Cuba and what I saw was Cuba gets everything Castro wanted and the USA gets nothing. Just like today with Iran."
I think you mean Cuba gets everything Castro wanted (and obama wanted for Castro) and the USA gets nothing. Just like today with Iran.
"Sherman talked the warrior's game, but it was Grant who quietly prosecuted the cruel neutrality of warfare. (TM A Althouse)."
Sherman was the modern developer of maneuver warfare. Liddell Hart's biography of him points out that he was the first to use the telegraph and his messages are preserved so they give an unusually good record of his decisions. His troops loved him and called him "Uncle Billy" because they knew he was sparing of their lives.
Grant was far less concerned with casualties and probably needed Sherman to do what he did. Sherman did not like sole command so he needed Grant as well.
Sherman's most able opponent was Joe Johnston and they became friends after the war. Johnston was at Sherman's funeral and was cautioned about going into the bad weather at his age. He ignored it and said, "Sherman would do it for me."
He died a couple of weeks later of pneumonia.
Patton was an intense student of Sherman's tactics.
"Sherman was the modern developer of maneuver warfare."
I really don't want to argue this with you on an Iran thread, but really. So using a telegraph somehow trumps Grant's Vicksburg campaign with Sherman sitting at Grant's knee. As long as we're using a Brittish deck, I'll see your Liddell Hart and raise you a Fuller.
Look, my comment was that Sherman trash-talked but that Grant didn't. Your comment did nothing to rebut that.
CWJ said...
Rusty,
Maybe so. But I'd like to think that someone on our side expects to get something more concrete than some politicians' legacies. Selling out international stability for filthy lucre is more understandable to me than doing it for image alone.
And then CWJ, some men just want to watch the world burn. There is very little for the west to gain here. Iran has gotten what it wanted. We have obtained...................................................................?
CWJ,
I turn over my king to you sir.
Rusty,
BTW, My roots are in Geneva. Where are you? Just curious. No need to answer unless you want to.
Michael K,
I apologize for my pique.
We should have a competition to see who has had the most hysterical overreaction to the Iran deal.
Honorable mention goes to Ben Stein - "This is a deal that is going to make Neville Chamberlain’s Munich Pact with Hitler seem trivial by comparison.”
Good work Ben, it's certainly hysterical although it lacks originality, as evidenced by ...
Sen. Mark S. Kirk of Illinois - “Neville Chamberlain got a better deal from Adolf Hitler”.
The Observer - "Forget Churchill—Obama Isn't Measuring up to Neville Chamberlain".
And what about this one, Ariel Sharon - “Don’t repeat the terrible mistake of 1938 when the enlightened democracies of Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a temporary solution. Do not try to placate the Arabs at our expense, Israel will not be Czechoslovakia”. Oops, sorry, that one was in reference to Bush Jr's war on Iraq.
Or this one, Howard Phillips -"signing of the INF Treaty (is like) British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain's signing of an accord with Nazi Germany's Adolf Hitler in 1938". My bad, again, that was in reference to Reagan.
Well, I suppose one could listen to the continued ravings of AReasonableMeltdown, or one could simply look to the residents of the region to gauge an appropriate response.
To summarize: Those happy about the deal? Iran, Assad of Syria (yes, THAT Assad, the one Obama said had to go), and, ARMeltdown.
About what one would expect.
Free cash, increased trade, no inspections (unless, wink-wink, we say it's cool to come on in and take a look), and, oh yeah: death to America!
CWJ - I prefer Sherman to Grant because he didn't throw his men away pointlessly in battles like Cold Harbor. All Grant cared about was winning the war no matter how many men were thrown into a pointless meat grinder. Sherman had compassion.
"All Grant cared about was winning the war..."
Alex inadvertently stumbles onto the point.
"... no matter how many men were thrown into a pointless meat grinder."
And then floats away.
The "pointless meat grinder" was Bull Run followed by the Peninsula Campaign followed by Antietam, a second Bull Run, Fredericksburg and Chancelorsville, with a save at Gettysburg. Dancing forward only to dance back. They are the men dead to no purpose. And yet, Grant must always somehow account for Cold Harbor.
I have no brief against Wm T Sherman at all. But someone had to pin Lee's army while the other ran wild. The last time they failed to pin Lee he sent Longstreet to surprise the Union at Chickamauga. So let's see both of these excellent generals fulfilling their proper strategic roles.
True Sherman got the sexier campaign in Georgia & South Carolina while Grant was slogging it in Virginia for 12 months.
"We should have a competition to see who has had the most hysterical overreaction to the Iran deal. "
ARM, let's wait a year or two. You will have plenty of opportunity to quietly forget your enthusiasm.
Maybe this will help.
Sherman had compassion.
Tell that to Georgia.
Grant killed soldiers. Sherman killed civilians.
North Korea got the bomb under Bush's careful and thoughtful watch, after he cancelled the 'Agreed Framework'.
@Eric:
"If the Obama administration aren't the worst negotiators in the world, who is?"
What did the the previous administration manage to achieve vis-a-vis Iran? If Romney had won the presidency in 2012, what would he have been able to achieve and through what mechanism? Everyone here seems very vaguely on what the practical alternatives are and what reasons we have for believing they would be effective.
@Michael K:
"Oh, and I assume you have read "The Leaning Tower," the first thing anyone interested in the middle east should read."
I have referenced that book more than once in comments to this very blog. I really have absolutely no idea how someone could read that book and come away believing that the only thing that can protect us from Looming Tower II is nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq. But who was talking about a history question? I asked you what policies you supported going forward and how you would solve some of the practical obstacles to a diplomatic solution, and you have now written twice to tell me that you can be bothered to reply to me.
@Drago:
"Substitute "Soviet Union" for "Iranian regime" and you would have an opinion that was widely distributed by western leftists/liberals/MSM (but I repeat myself) throughout the '70's and '80's....right up until the moment they were proven wrong."
We mostly did accommodate ourselves to the Soviet Union. Drawing a red line down the center of Europe and establishing NATO were perfectly reasonable responses to Stalin's action in Eastern Europe. Getting mired down in stupid civil wars in third-world hellholes across the globe was never necessary to "contain" the Soviet Union and was mostly a pointless waste of life and resources. The Soviet Union collapsed mostly due to its massively inefficient economic system and its need to prop up its client states. This is whole beside the point that Iran does not pose anything remotely near the threat to the US as the Soviet Union did.
Kudos to Imam Barack for securing the release of persecuted Americans as part of the deal. Oh, wait....
ARM got in with his "look at Bush" stuff way late. Farmer had to carry most of the load for the Obamadupes today. Small wonder.
It's al taqiyya all the way, Farmer. That's all anyone needs to know when dealing with the Ayatollahs. That is, for those short sighted enough to deal with the Ayatollahs at all. But then we do NEED an American U. In Tehran. Maybe Pastor Abedini, Amir Hekmati and Jason Rezaian can get out of prison on scholarship.
J. Farmer said...
@Eric:
"If the Obama administration aren't the worst negotiators in the world, who is?"
What did the the previous administration manage to achieve vis-a-vis Iran?
Which country sits between Iraq and Afghanistan? Connect the dots from there.
CWJ said...
Rusty,
BTW, My roots are in Geneva. Where are you? Just curious. No need to answer unless you want to.
I'm in Batavia. Since 1993
AReasonableMan said...
North Korea got the bomb under Bush's careful and thoughtful watch, after he cancelled the 'Agreed Framework'.
That would be Clinton. Madelene Assured us that everything was alright.
@Hombre:
"Farmer had to carry most of the load for the Obamadupes today"
If you want to narrowly make this about the petty personalities involved, you are more than welcome. I don't give two shits about Obama, and I have disagreed with much of his foreign policy (especially the idiotic Libyan intervention). The empirical reality is that this deal places more constraints on Iran's nuclear program than at any time since its inceptions. There is broad public support in Iran for a domestic nuclear program, and Iran has the right under the NPT to such a program.
The hard reality is that a country determined to obtain a nuclear weapon is likely to do so eventually short of invasion and occupation. And even in some possible scenario where the US would invade and occupy, it would then face asymmetric war in the form of a guerilla insurgency. An insurgency which would likely be the recipient of a large amount of domestic public and international support. Hypothetically, if Russia handed nuclear weapons over to Iran tomorrow, how much could we feasibly do about it?
@Rusty:
"Which country sits between Iraq and Afghanistan? Connect the dots from there."
Correct. The previous administration did manage to eliminate two of Iran's most significant regional enemies and push Iraq into its sphere of influence. This is a good thing in your estimation? My question was, in retrospect, poorly written. I had actually intended to ask what the previous administration had managed to accomplish with regards to limiting Iran's nuclear program? What prevented them from achieving their objectives, and why are those obstacles no longer a factor?
Yes, and such sanctions are only effective with broad multilateral support.
Apparently not given that we were the only ones not dealing with Cuba and the country is still a financial shit pile.
Rusty said...
That would be Clinton.
North Korea's first bomb test was in October 2006, nearly six years after Bush took office. Nothing is ever Bush's responsibility is it Rusty? He was just a place holder between Democratic presidents, who bear all responsibility for anything that goes wrong.
You are an extreme partisan.
J. Farmer said...
Correct. The previous administration did manage to eliminate two of Iran's most significant regional enemies and push Iraq into its sphere of influence.
It is pointless attempting to reason with Rusty. He is an unhinged partisan. Even the most basic facts elude his grasp.
AReasonableMan said...
Rusty said...
That would be Clinton.
North Korea's first bomb test was in October 2006, nearly six years after Bush took office. Nothing is ever Bush's responsibility is it Rusty? He was just a place holder between Democratic presidents, who bear all responsibility for anything that goes wrong.
You are an extreme partisan.
Madelene Albright was there to get NK to quit its nuclear program in return for food and other considerations.
You were saying something about partisanship?
damikesc,
OT, but Cuba isn't a "financial shit pile" primarily because of the sanctions -- it's a "financial shit pile" primarily because their crony-socialist economic system severely produces little to no wealth. The sanctions didn't help, sure, but as they are lifted- and assuming the changes don't bring a precipitous erosion of the Castro regime and/or its socialist policies- Cuba will still be a "financial shit pile." Things will improve, sure, but not as much as people think.
Socialism just doesn't work in the real world.
Six years Rusty. Six years. They could have built the bomb, taken it apart, gone on vacation for several years and still had plenty of time to set off an explosion. When are you going to take Bush Jrs dick out of your mouth? And, you didn't address J. Farmer's point about the advisability, or lack thereof, in taking out Iran's biggest regional threat and turning it into a client state of Iran.
"Which country sits between Iraq and Afghanistan? Connect the dots from there."
Correct. The previous administration did manage to eliminate two of Iran's most significant regional enemies and push Iraq into its sphere of influence. This is a good thing in your estimation?
Why yes it is, from a strategic point of view.
My question was, in retrospect, poorly written. I had actually intended to ask what the previous administration had managed to accomplish with regards to limiting Iran's nuclear program?
Continued funding for Israel. There was the very real threat that we would come to Israel's aid in the case of Iranian aggression. Of course that is off the table now.
What prevented them from achieving their objectives, and why are those obstacles no longer a factor?
Obama. Iran no longer fears us. We have given away Iraq. We are giving away Afghanistan. There is no reason to take the United States seriously because, under pressure, we give up. The one thing that would have obviated this whole process would have been if the Obama administration had acknowledged the Iranian green movement in its infancy. Rather than two years later after all the leaders were killed or in prison.
Now we have given them permission to build a bomb. The only question remaining is how soon will they have it.
Just more extreme partisan blather. You don't have even the vaguest concept of why the Iraq war was such a strategic failure, as is acknowledged by the vast majority of the country. You are pathetic.
Absent sanctions, what mechanism short of invasion/occupation would the US have to deter Iranian nuclear development?
7/14/15, 2:48 PM
Bombing. Duh.
And, you didn't address … point about the advisability, or lack thereof, in taking out Iran's biggest regional threat and turning it into a client state of Iran.
I’ll address that:
Obama committed an enormous foreign policy blunder by withdrawing all occupation troops from Iraq , thereby throwing away Bush’s victory in Iraq, the abandonment of which facilitated the rise of ISIS and the influence of Iran. Announcing the withdrawal date in advance so that ISIS and Iran could plan and gear up for Obama’s abandonment of Iraq was a nice touch.
I had actually intended to ask what the previous administration had managed to accomplish with regards to limiting Iran's nuclear program?
What nuclear program? The anti-war folks during Bush’s administration were all claiming there was no such thing, that Iran was merely a peaceful nation being slandered by rightwing nuts.
Bush did offer to negotiate with Iran over the nuclear issue but only with the provision that the Iranians suspend nuclear enrichment – a key element that Obama promptly abandoned as soon as he was in office.
Below is a summary of Bush’s Iran policies:
The Bush administration added to the long history of attempted engagement with Iran, having some initial success, but growing disillusioned over time as Iran failed to respond positively.
The administration left behind a robust international framework for coordinating incentives to encourage positive behavior from the Iranian regime, as well as diplomatic and economic pressure if it failed to comply with U.N. resolutions.
The administration developed a new set of tools to exert economic pressure by cutting off Iran from the international financial system and persuading multinational businesses to sever ties with the regime.
The administration enhanced the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, encouraged and facilitated increased defense cooperation among Arab allies—on air defense, missile defense and in other areas—and worked to enhance the defense capabilities of individual friends and allies.
As the Bush administration left office, there was increasing debate within Iran about the wisdom of the regime’s foreign policy, its economic performance and the lack of political freedom.
http://tinyurl.com/njzwksl
They [the British people] should know that there has been gross neglect and deficiency in our defenses; they should know that we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road; they should know that we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have, for the time being, been pronounced against the Western democracies: “Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting.” And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proferred to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigour, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.
Winston S. Churchill 5 October 1938; the closing paragraph in his speech in the Parliamentary debates following the French and British deal with Hitler on Czechoslovakia.
The Czechs were not participants in the deal that dismembered their county, as Israel and the Sunni Arab states were not at the negotiating table over Iran's nuclear program. As someone has observed: “If you are not at the table, you are on the menu.”
In the press at the time, Churchill, and not Hitler, was considered the warmonger.
I can't wait for all the arguments that background radiation and fallout are good for you from the Left.
AReasonableMan said...
Just more extreme partisan blather. You don't have even the vaguest concept of why the Iraq war was such a strategic failure, as is acknowledged by the vast majority of the country. You are pathetic.
You got nuthin' huh.
Saudi Arabia is now pursuing a nuke program of their own.
You were saying?
Remember the North Korea nuke deal? How did it work out?
https://twitter.com/nberryhill/status/621392314779475968/photo/1
About like that, Tim.
One can be sure any drunkta--er, "thinktank" calling itself the "United States Institute of Peace" is a front for foaming-mouthed warhawks and neocons. That the article detailing Bush's heroic attempts to work with Iran is written by Stephen J. Hadley, a former Bush administration flunky, guarantees the information conveyed is 100% propaganda.
As far as I know, the Emirates are the only Gulf state to have a nuclear energy program...
The Saudis recently signed a nuclear power cooperation deal with the Russians. They already had deals for reactors with other countries (including us). Saudi Arabia plans to build 16 nuclear power reactors over the next 20 years.
Daniel Larison has, as usual, been essential reading over the last few days.
The behavior of Iran hawks in this debate wasn’t unusual for hard-line critics of diplomatic engagement, but was unfortunately very typical. If engagement doesn’t immediately change another state’s external and internal behavior in all respects, hawks denounce it as a betrayal. If negotiations yield an agreement, they will complain that it doesn’t solve problems it was never meant to address. If it doesn’t result in the total capitulation of the other side, they will deem it a “giveaway” that must be opposed. Should negotiations drag on, hawks will insist that our side abandon the process, but if there is any sign that the other side is considering the same they will cite it as proof that they were never serious about diplomacy anyway. At each stage, hawks will feign support for a diplomatic process that they think should never have begun and that they hope will fail, and they will do their utmost to undermine the talks whenever they can. This has nothing to do with the details of any particular agreement, but is rooted in their basic contempt for diplomacy and the compromises that it requires.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-deal-with-iran-is-a-serious-blow-to-threat-inflation/
but is rooted in their basic contempt for diplomacy and the compromises that it requires.
Except this wasn't diplomacy. This was aquiessence. Iran got evrything they wanted, farmer. What did we get?
@Rusty:
"What did we get?"
Have you read any of the details of the deal? There are a number of restrictions on their nuclear program, and they will be under an IAEA inspection regime. That is a greater level of restriction than the program has been under in its history.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा