That Iran Deal

[Harry Bosch]

I cannot accurately describe how fucking stupid it would be to renege on a deal not even five years old that seven separate nations agreed to simply because an Israeli Prime Minister who is under a pretty serious criminal investigation says so. It certainly sends a clear message to the folks in North Korea about any deal they might have with the US.

This is probably Trump's true legacy of his Presidency. He has, now and forever, cemented the United States reputation as completely unreliable in international agreements, subject to any whimsical change after the next election cycle.

I agree that reneging is bad optics. But the whole agreement was a sandcastle. Or maybe house of cards. Look at this letter by State Department to Mike Pompeo while he was still in Congress.

And on merits it was a deal that Obama should never have agreed to.

Sure the Iranian leaders are assholes. They are murderous thugs. But the US has essentially been in a state of war with Iran since 1979. We've disrupted their elections (to put it mildly), put dire sanctions on them, censored them in the world court whenever possible, carried many covert military actions against them, and have stolen their money. Of course they hate us as well. Of course when we send our troops to their neighboring countries, that they supported terrorist actions against us.

Obama and our allies tried to end the war. Trump is going to make it far worse.

 

[funinspace]

I cannot accurately describe how fucking stupid it would be to renege on a deal not even five years old that seven separate nations agreed to simply because an Israeli Prime Minister who is under a pretty serious criminal investigation says so. It certainly sends a clear message to the folks in North Korea about any deal they might have with the US.

This is probably Trump's true legacy of his Presidency. He has, now and forever, cemented the United States reputation as completely unreliable in international agreements, subject to any whimsical change after the next election cycle.

I agree that reneging is bad optics. But the whole agreement was a sandcastle. Or maybe house of cards. Look at this letter by State Department to Mike Pompeo while he was still in Congress.

And on merits it was a deal that Obama should never have agreed to.

Sure the Iranian leaders are assholes. They are murderous thugs. But the US has essentially been in a state of war with Iran since 1979. We've disrupted their elections (to put it mildly), put dire sanctions on them, censored them in the world court whenever possible, carried many covert military actions against them, and have stolen their money. Of course they hate us as well. Of course when we send our troops to their neighboring countries, that they supported terrorist actions against us.

Obama and our allies tried to end the war. Trump is going to make it far worse.

^This.

However, though they are 'murderous thugs', what are we (the US)? The US knowingly supported Iraq's Hussein chemical weapons attacks on Iran. reported on it

https://www.counterpunch.org/2004/06/17/how-reagan-armed-saddam-with-chemical-weapons/

Washington’s support (innocuously referred to as a “tilt” at the time) for Iraq became more open after Iran succeeded in driving Iraqi forces from its territory in May 1982; in June, Iran went on the offensive against Iraq. The US scrambled to stem Iraq’s military setbacks. Washington and its conservative Arab allies suddenly feared Iran might even defeat Iraq, or at least cause the collapse of Hussein’s regime.

Using its allies in the Middle East, Washington funnelled huge supplies of arms to Iraq. Classified State Department cables uncovered by Frantz and Waas described covert transfers of howitzers, helicopters, bombs and other weapons to Baghdad in 1982-83 from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Kuwait.

Howard Teicher, who monitored Middle East policy at the US National Security Council during the Reagan administration, told the February 23, 1992, LA Times: “There was a conscious effort to encourage third countries to ship US arms or acquiesce in shipments after the fact. It was a policy of nods and winks.”
<snip>
Conventional military sales resumed in December 1982. In 1983, the Reagan administration approved the sale of 60 Hughes helicopters to Iraq in 1983 “for civilian use”. However, as Phythian pointed out, these aircraft could be “weaponised” within hours of delivery. Then US Secretary of State George Schultz and commerce secretary George Baldridge also lobbied for the delivery of Bell helicopters equipped for “crop spraying”.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26...rove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

According to recently declassified CIA documents and interviews with former intelligence officials like Francona, the U.S. had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983. At the time, Iran was publicly alleging that illegal chemical attacks were carried out on its forces, and was building a case to present to the United Nations. But it lacked the evidence implicating Iraq, much of which was contained in top secret reports and memoranda sent to the most senior intelligence officials in the U.S. government. The CIA declined to comment for this story.

Yet, what we get to hear about is from October 1983: LEBANON BOMBING!!!

 

[Derec]

Sure the Iranian leaders are assholes. They are murderous thugs.

With you so far.

But the US has essentially been in a state of war with Iran since 1979.

Well they did attack the US embassy and held hostages.

We've disrupted their elections (to put it mildly), put dire sanctions on them, censored them in the world court whenever possible, carried many covert military actions against them, and have stolen their money. Of course they hate us as well. Of course when we send our troops to their neighboring countries, that they supported terrorist actions against us.

We have good reason for these actions against the Iranian theocrats. And their support for terrorism goes far deeper than reaction to US troops in their vicinity. They also hate the State of Israel for example and are funding terrorists who seek to obliterate it.

Obama and our allies tried to end the war. Trump is going to make it far worse.

Trying is not enough. Obama gave Iran lifting of sanctions and gave them 400 million dollars on top of that for no reason (they should be paying damages to all the Americans their terrorists murdered instead!) and what Iran did with this windfall is fund more terrorism. Yay for peace, or something.

 

[Derec]

It is not just bad optics, but bad policy. Why should any country trust the US to make a deal and stick by it? Especially now, with the reneger in chief trying to pull out or change lots of agreements?

What effect this will have going forward remains to be seen. Perhaps you are right. I hope not.

The Iran Deal, despite the lies and fears of it critics, was not a bad agreement. At the least, it postponed Iran's nuclear weapon development and helped inch Iran a little closer to the rest of the world through engagement.

No, it is a bad deal. For a temporary delay in their nuclear program the Iranians got a huge windfall: removal of sanctions and 400 million in free money that should have went to compensate US citzens harmed by Iranian proxies like Hezbollah. They got a lot more out of this deal than they gave up . And what have they been doing with this come up? They increased their support for international terrorism.

We are not in a position to bomb Iran into submission.

I think we are. We have the bunker busters for example.

If we are serious about reducing the violence in the Middle East, we need to earn trust with the gov't of Iran to bring them to the table. We don't have to like or trust Iran, but we have to try to successfully deal with them. Just like we don't have to like or trust Russian, but we have to try to deal with them. To an adult, that means realizing we will not get our all of our goals accomplished, and that we will have to compromise.

But the deal already lifted sanctions without getting any concessions on missiles or terrorism support. Why would Iranians want to sit down and negotiate those unless they demand even more expensive concessions?

The problem is that we do not have an adult as POTUS. And that there are too many children running around in adult bodies.

Yeah, yeah. Trump should have handled this differently. But he is not wrong about it being a rotten deal.

Dropping the deal to because Obama made it is childish and stupid. Listening to the lies of Bebe and acting to please the Saudis is, at best, focusing on small short-term gains at the cost of possibly large medium and longer term losses.

Yeah I know the Left loves to hate Bibi. But he is not lying. Iranians are not trustworthy. And long-term this deal will hardly make a dent on Iranian nuclear program. But they will have ten years of economic prosperity and 10 years worth of missile development for when they finally get the nuclear bomb.

 

[Derec]

We didn't give them 400 million bucks! We gave them their money back. We sold them F-16s in the 70s. They put down about a Billion dollars. But we only sent them half the planes. They wanted their money back!

First of all, that money was paid by the legitimate government of Iran, not these theocratic usurpers. Second, that money should have been used to pay damages to US citizens killed and maimed by Iranian clients like Hezbollah.

 

[Derec]

As part of the deal Iran agreed to permanent monitoring of its nuclear program.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action

What good is continued monitoring when restrictions on centrifuges and enrichment are only for 10 and 15 years respectively?

 

[Underseer]

So by destroying the deal, now 10 years becomes zero years.
Is zero less than ten or is zero greater than ten?

My point is that Obama should never have agreed to such a weak deal. The Euros wanted to trade with Iran (and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards who controls big chunk of the economy) unhindered and Obama went along with them. The deal was all carrot. What is needed now is a big stick.

That doesn't answer the question.

You are arguing that because ten years is not long enough, we should therefore destroy the deal, which would change ten into zero.

Is ten greater than or less than zero?

Please answer the question.

 

[Jayjay]

If Trump is such a master negotiator, why didn't he negotiate a better deal before the current one expired?

If Iran is determined to get nukes, it will get them regardless of any sanctions. Just like Israel did. And to me, it seems that Iran is indeed taking a page from Israel's handbook and deliberately keeping its nuclear capacity vague and secret.

 

[cycomiko]

Prior to the Iran deal, their leadership could point the US as the bad guy that was causing the economy to fail. We were the people applying sanctions and we were to blame (in their eyes). Roll back the sanctions and suddenly they don't have the US as a boogeyman anymore. Their economy was is still in the shitter and the people of Iran began to protest late last year. If we don't institute more sanctions, perhaps a new revolution will come. By instituting those sanctions we're playing right into the hands of the hardliners. But, you know....keep doing the same old shit until it works.

Why does everyone talk about this deal not including missiles and terrorism etc etc? This deal was specific to the nuclear issue. Can we not have more deals to address the other stuff? We certainly can't now that we've backed out of this agreement.

 

[Derec]

That doesn't answer the question.
You are arguing that because ten years is not long enough, we should therefore destroy the deal, which would change ten into zero.

If a military confrontation with Iran is inevitable, which it is unless the weird beards get overthrown, isn't it better to do it now rather than 10 years from now when they are richer due to all the trade with the Euros and have missiles that are 10 years worth more advanced?

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

But the US has essentially been in a state of war with Iran since 1979.

Well they did attack the US embassy and held hostages.

And the US did depose the democratic government and install the Shah.

Let me guess how you are working this:
John hits Mike
Derec starts watching
Mike hits John back
Derec says Mike hit first

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If Trump is such a master negotiator, why didn't he negotiate a better deal before the current one expired?

Correction, the current one didn't expire. The GOP in Congress, upset with the Iranian deal not requiring their involvement (of which they'd have obstructed and block it), passed a law requiring President Obama to periodically give the GOP an opportunity to publicly gnash their teeth in dissension.

Trump is just flat out leaving the agreement. It is impossible to tell how badly this has devastated America's ability to negotiate any deals like this, with emerging nuclear powers or power-to-be. *cough* North Korea. North Korea developed the bomb to protect the Kim Dynasty. And now Trump expects the Kim Dynasty to give up the nukes for a promise that America won't remove them from power? North Korea was never going to give up the nukes, but Trump just fucked up those negotiations terribly.

If Iran is determined to get nukes, it will get them regardless of any sanctions. Just like Israel did. And to me, it seems that Iran is indeed taking a page from Israel's handbook and deliberately keeping its nuclear capacity vague and secret.

It isn't as vague with Iran. The plan with Iran is to insert as many delays and hope the nation becomes more moderate as time passes on.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it is a bad deal. For a temporary delay in their nuclear program the Iranians got a huge windfall: removal of sanctions and 400 million in free money that should have went to compensate US citzens harmed by Iranian proxies like Hezbollah. They got a lot more out of this deal than they gave up . And what have they been doing with this come up? They increased their support for international terrorism.

You neglect to mention that this multicountry deal helped to bring to the table. You forgot to mention they agreed to intrusive inspections for more than 15 years. You forgot to mention that the $400 million was Iranian money in the first place. More importantly, you either forgot or don't realize that any voluntary deal must appeal to all parties - no one is going to get everything they want.

I think we are. We have the bunker busters for example.

You think wrong. Name a ME country where we have bombed it into submission so that the world was a safer place.

But the deal already lifted sanctions without getting any concessions on missiles or terrorism support.

So? The deal was good enough for every member of the UN Security Council and Germany and Iran. And why shouldn't Iran or any other country have a missile program in order to defend itself (or attack others)? It's not like Iran is sitting in the middle of a nice peaceful region where everyone gets along and are good neighbors.

Why would Iranians want to sit down and negotiate those unless they demand even more expensive concessions?

Is there a point here? They made a deal and were abiding by it - there is no dispute about that.

Yeah, yeah. Trump should have handled this differently. But he is not wrong about it being a rotten deal.

Only time will tell.

Yeah I know the Left loves to hate Bibi. But he is not lying.

Of course he is. Otherwise his information would have come from after the deal, not pre-deal.

Iranians are not trustworthy.

So? The deal is dependent on verifiable results. And the Iranians were abiding by the deal.

And long-term this deal will hardly make a dent on Iranian nuclear program. But they will have ten years of economic prosperity and 10 years worth of missile development for when they finally get the nuclear bomb.

You have no clue whether it would have made a dent or not after 10 years.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So by destroying the deal, now 10 years becomes zero years.
Is zero less than ten or is zero greater than ten?

My point is that Obama should never have agreed to such a weak deal. The Euros wanted to trade with Iran (and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards who controls big chunk of the economy) unhindered and Obama went along with them. The deal was all carrot. What is needed now is a big stick.

The deal was crap. The problem is that it's probably the best deal we were going to get--Europe was more interested in trade with Iran than in keeping them from getting the bomb.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the deal was crap, what would a deal with no inspection be?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If the deal was crap, what would a deal with no inspection be?

It will be amazing. Simply spectacular. Honestly, everyone will get tired of talking about what an absolutely superb deal it will be. Not that the fake news will ever mention that, of course.

 

[Jayjay]

I think EU should look into enforcing tariffs and import restriction on Israeli goods from occupied territories. After all EU is losing billions of dollars in contracts because of Bibi, so it's only fair Israel pays its share of the costs.

 

[laughing dog]

So by destroying the deal, now 10 years becomes zero years.
Is zero less than ten or is zero greater than ten?

My point is that Obama should never have agreed to such a weak deal. The Euros wanted to trade with Iran (and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards who controls big chunk of the economy) unhindered and Obama went along with them. The deal was all carrot. What is needed now is a big stick.

The deal was crap. The problem is that it's probably the best deal we were going to get--Europe was more interested in trade with Iran than in keeping them from getting the bomb.

The only way to insure a country does not get atomic weapons in the long run is too annihilate that country. Sane adults realize that since genocide is not the answer, they realize the dealing with reality instead of wishful thinking is the appropriate course of action.

 

[Derec]

The only way to insure

You mean "ensure", surely? Or am I mistaken because English is my second language?

a country does not get atomic weapons in the long run is too

Two simple mistakes in a single sentence, and you have the gall of claiming my English is bad! Oh the irony!

annihilate that country.

At least you used "annihilate" correctly in a sentence, so that's something.
Also,

All kidding aside, you do not need to annihilate Iran. A series of targeted strike against their nuclear facilities, the Revolutionary Guard facilities and the theorcratic leadership in Tehran should do the trick.

Sane adults realize that since genocide is not the answer, they realize the dealing with reality instead of wishful thinking is the appropriate course of action.

That does not mean we should enter bad deals though.

 

[jonatha]

As part of the deal Iran agreed to permanent monitoring of its nuclear program.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action

What good is continued monitoring when restrictions on centrifuges and enrichment are only for 10 and 15 years respectively?

It ensures they only enrich to the degree permitted to any signatory to the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, well short of weapons grade.