A Thought on the Iran Nuclear Deal

[NobleSavage]

I'm 99% certain Iran has every intention of trying to make a bomb. Why? Because if I were Iran I'd want the damn bomb because the US had no problems invading two counties that border Iran on opposite sides. And that is just the recent history. Can you imagine if Iran invaded Canada and Mexico? Anyhow, I'm I live in the US and I realize that we haven't progressed much at all from apes - we still fight over territory and resources. We fund our terrorists and they fund their terrorists. If we offer an olive branch it isn't gonna work - IMO. Then again, I don't see Iran as an irrational actor and I don't think they would start a nuclear war, it would just shift the balance of power in the middle east.

 

[Derec]

I don't think they would start a nuclear war, it would just shift the balance of power in the middle east.

Even that alone would be ample reason to do everything we can, including military intervention, to stop the weirdbeards from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Iran is destructive enough in the region (Hamas, Hezbollah etc.) without possessing a nuclear weapon. With nuclear weapon they would probably try to invade places like Bahrain and perhaps even Saudi oil fields. Which is why Saudi are thinking about getting a bomb themselves - all in response to the threat of the Iranian bomb which has now become much more likely in the medium term.

 

[jonatha]

Hell, we even murdered their Prime Minister in 1953.

Really? News to me. Which prime minister would that be arkirk?

Akirk is referring to Mohammed Mossaddegh, although he was not killed but kept under house arrest until his death 14 years later.

 

[jonatha]

This agreement is a bad one. It gives Iran unfettered ability to make a bomb after 10-15 years

Unfettered except by the NNPT, of which Iran is still a signatory.

As I recall, they've also signed onto the Additional Protocol as part of the deal, which will make it even harder for them to contravene the NNPT at that point.

 

[NobleSavage]

This agreement is a bad one. It gives Iran unfettered ability to make a bomb after 10-15 years

Unfettered except by the NNPT, of which Iran is still a signatory.

As I recall, they've also signed onto the Additional Protocol as part of the deal, which will make it even harder for them to contravene the NNPT at that point.

Like Iran will honor this treaty. They will honor it about as much as the US honorers its treaties. How many have been broken with Native Americans? Did we live up to the ant-torture treatie? Maybe someone else can fill me in on ones I'm forgetting.

 

[untermensche]

There is a delusion in the West that absolute safety is a possibility.

It thinks it can threaten Iran with it's nuclear weapons and that means nothing.

 

[Ford]

most foreign policy experts disagree with you

Classic argument from authority. Can you tell me why you think my reasons for thinking the deal is bad are wrong?

Sure.

Iran is funding terrorist groups. Lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

Iranian officers are on the ground in Syria, leading troops and stuff. OMG run to the hills!

They call us "The Great Satan." Tremble in your boots, 'Murica!

And what was the other one? Oh yeah. Centrifuges.


Well once upon a time there was a country that didn't just fund terrorist groups, but actually conducted large scale proxy wars against US allies and interests. They had client states in Eastern Europe which were basically puppets of their regime, all armed to the teeth and itching for a fight.

They sent their officers (and whole lots of weapons) to our enemies and encouraged their judicious use. They placed spies in our government, including our intelligence services.

They didn't just call us names...they had as their main goal the destruction of our entire system. The whole idea behind not just the US, but the West in general was one they tried very hard to stamp out.


And they didn't just have a few centrifuges. They had at peak capacity at least ten thousand actual nuclear weapons pointed right at us. Not stored away just in case, but loaded onto planes, on top of missiles inside of silos and submarines, and all ready to be launched at a moment's notice.



There was even a time when they tried to park a whole bunch of nukes just 90 miles off our southern coast.



Yet despite all this, we were able to negotiate not just one, but several nuclear treaties with the Soviet Union. Not only did we not start a nuclear war, we actually managed to reduce both arsenals and are to this day slowly dismantling weapons.

This deal with Iran gives the P5+1 far more leeway over their nuclear program than the US ever had over the Soviets. It goes farther than any treaty we had with a country that actually pointed nuclear weapons at our cities for decades. This is a multi-lateral agreement between six nuclear-armed nations and one that isn't.


Iran didn't win this round. They capitulated.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Unfettered except by the NNPT, of which Iran is still a signatory.

As I recall, they've also signed onto the Additional Protocol as part of the deal, which will make it even harder for them to contravene the NNPT at that point.

Like Iran will honor this treaty. They will honor it about as much as the US honorers its treaties. How many have been broken with Native Americans? Did we live up to the ant-torture treatie? Maybe someone else can fill me in on ones I'm forgetting.

So why DO you hate America?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Trump just stated that if elected President, that he would not rip up the Iran Deal.

 

[untermensche]

Trump just stated that if elected President, that he would not rip up the Iran Deal.

Trump thinks he is going to be elected King and gets to decide which laws to keep and which to throw away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Iran just does it's invasions by more subtle means. I consider Lebanon to be partially under Iranian occupation.

And if they're not after the bomb what's their obsession with enriching beyond reactor grade? And why this obsession with the fuel when they don't have a powerplant to put it in?

Lebanon?

You are deluded.

Lebanon is the place Israel has invaded many times and a place under periods of Syrian control.

If Israel were not behaving so badly Iran would not have even it's meager influence which consists mainly in helping people defend themselves from the constant Israeli aggression in the region.

Lebanon is under partial control of Hezbollah--and Hezbollah is under Iranian control.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We were the greater power in WWII.

I'll admit my analogy is imperfect, but at the outset of WWII, the fact that Germany steam rolled over most of Western Europe sort of puts the lie to the notion that "we" were the "greater power."

We (and by "we" I assume you mean the US) eventually built up enough capacity to take on Germany's western front (with lots of help from the UK, Canada, etc.) and "we" prevailed in no small part due to a rather large Russian bear tearing up the eastern front.

We were the greater power, just not currently prepared for a major war. Germany had no way of getting a quick victory before we could bring out power to bear, they were going to lose.

Had they settled for taking a bite out of Europe and making peace they might have been able to pull it off, but not a total war.

Iran isn't in a position to steam roll over anybody. The last shooting war they had was with Iraq, and at the height of their military power Iran was only able - after 8 years - to fight a draw with a nation "we" (the US and coalition allies) defeated in a matter of days. Twice.


So painting Iran as nascent Nazi Germany with Kerry as Chamberlain clutching a weak agreement that only staved off the inevitable is absurd. We're the ones negotiating from a position of strength. We're the 800 lb gorilla in the region. Iran is appeasing US.

Iran fights by proxy troops. They're in a shooting war even today.

 

[untermensche]

Lebanon?

You are deluded.

Lebanon is the place Israel has invaded many times and a place under periods of Syrian control.

If Israel were not behaving so badly Iran would not have even it's meager influence which consists mainly in helping people defend themselves from the constant Israeli aggression in the region.

Lebanon is under partial control of Hezbollah--and Hezbollah is under Iranian control.

Is Israel under US control?

The US gives Israel a lot more support than Iran gives Hezbollah.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This agreement is a bad one. It gives Iran unfettered ability to make a bomb after 10-15 years

Unfettered except by the NNPT, of which Iran is still a signatory.

As I recall, they've also signed onto the Additional Protocol as part of the deal, which will make it even harder for them to contravene the NNPT at that point.

And they're using the NPT for toilet paper.

 

[Ford]

Unfettered except by the NNPT, of which Iran is still a signatory.

As I recall, they've also signed onto the Additional Protocol as part of the deal, which will make it even harder for them to contravene the NNPT at that point.

And they're using the NPT for toilet paper.

And so many American politicians spend so much time kissing Israel's ass, they don't need toilet paper.

In any case, Israel and her ardent supporters are in no position to lecture any signatory to the NPT. Iran has in the past and will in the future allow UN inspectors access to their facilities. Israel? They won't even acknowledge a fact which everyone in the region already knows: They have a sizable nuclear arsenal already. They won't admit to having the weapons at all, let alone admit anyone from the international community to look at their stockpile.


At their most intransigent, Iran was more open and transparent about their nuclear program than Israel has ever been. When it comes to nuclear weapons, Iran has demonstrated it is far more trustworthy than Israel.


As far as Iran and their obligations under the treaty they've signed, the operative phrase is one uttered by the patron saint of the Republican Party, Ronald Jesus Reagan, who said "trust but verify." Inspections of Iran's nuclear infrastructure under the NPT and this new deal will be as intrusive as anything negotiated by St. Reagan, and 100 percent more intrusive than anything Israel has had to endure.


Pardon me but I'm going to attempt another analogy.

If Iran and Israel were motorists, and the UN was a cop who had them both pulled over under suspicion of having a concealed weapon, Iran would be the guy who said "officer, I have a concealed carry permit in the glove box, I don't have a gun, but I do have a couple rounds of ammunition in the ashtray. Feel free to search the vehicle if you want."

Israel is the guy who refuses to allow the cop to search his car while screaming "Am I being detained?!" in a loud voice, videotaping the proceedings, and demanding to see the officer's badge number so he can sue the department for violating his civil rights.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And they're using the NPT for toilet paper.

And so many American politicians spend so much time kissing Israel's ass, they don't need toilet paper.

In any case, Israel and her ardent supporters are in no position to lecture any signatory to the NPT. Iran has in the past and will in the future allow UN inspectors access to their facilities. Israel? They won't even acknowledge a fact which everyone in the region already knows: They have a sizable nuclear arsenal already. They won't admit to having the weapons at all, let alone admit anyone from the international community to look at their stockpile.

And they never signed the NPT. They are under no obligation to let anyone have a look.

As far as Iran and their obligations under the treaty they've signed, the operative phrase is one uttered by the patron saint of the Republican Party, Ronald Jesus Reagan, who said "trust but verify." Inspections of Iran's nuclear infrastructure under the NPT and this new deal will be as intrusive as anything negotiated by St. Reagan, and 100 percent more intrusive than anything Israel has had to endure.

And the current agreement has no meaningful verification. Inspections can be delayed forever.

 

[jonatha]

Inspections can be delayed forever.

38 days, at which point sanctions automatically kick back in.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Inspections can be delayed forever.

38 days, at which point sanctions automatically kick back in.

If the inspections are refused, yes. If they're simply delayed on technicalities, though...

 

[Crazy Eddie]

If Iran and Israel were motorists, and the UN was a cop who had them both pulled over under suspicion of having a concealed weapon, Iran would be the guy who said "officer, I have a concealed carry permit in the glove box, I don't have a gun, but I do have a couple rounds of ammunition in the ashtray. Feel free to search the vehicle if you want."

Israel is the guy who refuses to allow the cop to search his car while screaming "Am I being detained?!" in a loud voice, videotaping the proceedings, and demanding to see the officer's badge number so he can sue the department for violating his civil rights.

Yup.

Lebanon?

You are deluded.

Lebanon is the place Israel has invaded many times and a place under periods of Syrian control.

If Israel were not behaving so badly Iran would not have even it's meager influence which consists mainly in helping people defend themselves from the constant Israeli aggression in the region.

Lebanon is under partial control of Hezbollah--and Hezbollah is under Iranian control.

Hah!

Iran "controls" Hezbollah about as well as the United States controls the Iraqi Government. Probably less so, since Hezbollah, UNLIKE Iraq, possesses competent leadership.

And so many American politicians spend so much time kissing Israel's ass, they don't need toilet paper.

In any case, Israel and her ardent supporters are in no position to lecture any signatory to the NPT. Iran has in the past and will in the future allow UN inspectors access to their facilities. Israel? They won't even acknowledge a fact which everyone in the region already knows: They have a sizable nuclear arsenal already. They won't admit to having the weapons at all, let alone admit anyone from the international community to look at their stockpile.

And they never signed the NPT. They are under no obligation to let anyone have a look.

And yet Israel, unlike Iran, has actually demonstrated a willingness to use military force hugely disproportionate to the threat environment; they are, in fact, the ONLY country in the region that has any likelihood of employing a nuclear response to a conventional attack. They are also the only country in the region that would have strategic cover to do so, knowing that the United States would employ its own nuclear arsenal to defend Israel if anyone else in the region (Pakistan, for example) decided to counter attack.

Iran has no such assurances from anyone; their first use of a nuclear weapon would also be their last (probably in more ways than one, since building MULTIPLE weapons would take far more time than a frenzied "breakout" with a single device that has never been tested). They have no strategic reason to use a nuclear weapon against Israel or anyone else in the region, and the TACTICAL utility of such a weapon is extremely small (limited, basically, to nuking one of their own cities in order to prevent an invading army from capturing it intact).

Iran giving a nuclear weapon to Hezbollah is a non-starter; Hezbollah would have even less use for such a device and NO efficient way of deploying it. And Iran doesn't even give Hezbollah it's most effective rockets; you're deluding yourself if you think they would give them an atom bomb.

And the current agreement has no meaningful verification.

Which I suppose is why ALL of the arms control experts who have read the deal have said the exact opposite of this.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yup.

Lebanon?

You are deluded.

Lebanon is the place Israel has invaded many times and a place under periods of Syrian control.

If Israel were not behaving so badly Iran would not have even it's meager influence which consists mainly in helping people defend themselves from the constant Israeli aggression in the region.

Lebanon is under partial control of Hezbollah--and Hezbollah is under Iranian control.

Hah!

Iran "controls" Hezbollah about as well as the United States controls the Iraqi Government. Probably less so, since Hezbollah, UNLIKE Iraq, possesses competent leadership.

The purse strings provide a lot of control.

And yet Israel, unlike Iran, has actually demonstrated a willingness to use military force hugely disproportionate to the threat environment; they are, in fact, the ONLY country in the region that has any likelihood of employing a nuclear response to a conventional attack. They are also the only country in the region that would have strategic cover to do so, knowing that the United States would employ its own nuclear arsenal to defend Israel if anyone else in the region (Pakistan, for example) decided to counter attack.

There's no requirement of proportionality in the use of military force. It's expected that you use no more force than you need to accomplish the job but it's acceptable to pound flat minimally effective attackers. In fact, Israel routinely uses less force than would be permitted under the normal laws of war.

Iran has no such assurances from anyone; their first use of a nuclear weapon would also be their last (probably in more ways than one, since building MULTIPLE weapons would take far more time than a frenzied "breakout" with a single device that has never been tested). They have no strategic reason to use a nuclear weapon against Israel or anyone else in the region, and the TACTICAL utility of such a weapon is extremely small (limited, basically, to nuking one of their own cities in order to prevent an invading army from capturing it intact).

1) I think their primary desire for nuclear weapons is to prevent becoming another Afghanistan--taken out for their support of terrorism.

2) I do not trust that they would not try some stupid plot to let their pet terrorists nuke Israel thinking it couldn't be pinned on them.

Iran giving a nuclear weapon to Hezbollah is a non-starter; Hezbollah would have even less use for such a device and NO efficient way of deploying it. And Iran doesn't even give Hezbollah it's most effective rockets; you're deluding yourself if you think they would give them an atom bomb.

No effective way to deploy it? Hafia is a port city. Can you say "fishing boat"?

And the current agreement has no meaningful verification.

Which I suppose is why ALL of the arms control experts who have read the deal have said the exact opposite of this.

There are loopholes all over the verification rules.