Thoughts on the Iran deal?

[Guest MormonGator]

I think it's a horrible idea. Reminds me of Neville Chamberlin 

[kapikui]

I think it's a horrible idea. Reminds me of Neville Chamberlin 

I would comment, but you about summed up my opinion.

[pkstpaul]

The people who run that country are pure evil. Given resources, they would run tyranny over the entire Mideast. Imposing sactions was not just about nuclear power. It has to do with state-sponsored terrorism accross the entire region and horrible atrocities they have imposed on their own people. If not for Russia supporting them, with their own limited amount of resources, Iran's leadership would have fallen long ago and there would be a limited democracy - and prosperity - there.

 

To remove santions is to grow evil. We are unleashing Pandora's box.

[Vort]

We're trying to pacify monsters. What could possibly go wrong?

[Guest MormonGator]

We're trying to pacify monsters. What could possibly go wrong?

 Exactly. 

[Palerider]

Not a good deal at all

[Average Joe]

 

What could possibly go wrong?

 

After all

 

 

Mutation is the key to Darwinian evolution

[cdowis]

Obama is paving the road to Armageddon --

"Warning, construction zone. Your tax dollars at work"

Edited August 19, 2015 by cdowis

[thoughts]

I'm uncomfortable with the reliance on intelligence about how quickly Iran could get nukes.   I'm also very uncomfortable with giving Iran all the withheld money and lifting restrictions on their purchase of weaponry.   It is pretty clear that Russia will benefit by selling arms to Iran as well.

And I just don't trust the current administration to be working in the national best interest. 

 

None of this makes the deal bad, but because of all of it, I cannot support the deal.

[Guest]

Let's hit it point by point:

1.)  Iran's uranium stockpile will be reduced to no more than 300kg for the next 15 years (98% reduction from current level) and will only be allowed to run only up to 5,000 out of its 20,000 centrifuges.  This will be enough to give Iran the capability to enrich uranium to 4% that is needed to produce nuclear energy (it needs 90% enrichment to make a bomb).  In addition, Iran can only run uranium enrichment activities in Fordo (Iran has 2 enrichment facilities - Fordo and Natanz) for the next 8 years.  Natanz can only run research and development activities, not actual production.  The centrigues in Natanz can only be used to produce radioisotopes for non-energy, non-weapon applications such as medicine and agriculture.

 

Pros:  What we want is 0 enrichment activities, 0 uranium stockpile, 0 centrifuges.  Of course we can't get that.  So a 98% reduction of the stockpile and a 75% reduction of centrifuges is a lot closer to 0 than what we currently have.

 

Cons:  Only for the next 15 years.  What happens after 15 years?  The Obama Administration believes it will revert to today's status quo.  But, that's not stated in the agreement.  So, as far as the agreement goes, unless another deal can be made within the next 15 years, Iran is free to do anything.  That's why Netanyahu stated infront of joint Congress - 15 years is a drop in the bucket... it took 18 years for us to put sanctions on Iran after we found out it was making bombs in secret.  And that was with NPT in place.  Iran can just stonewall negotiations for the next 15 years and drop a bomb on Israel the day after.

 

2.)  Iran will redesign the Arak nuclear reactor to be incapable of producing weapons-grade plutonium.  Any spent fuel in Arak will be exported out of the country.  It will also not build any other heavy-water reactors in Iran for the next 15 years.

 

* Arak is a heavy-water reactor (can consume un-enriched uranium to produce nuclear energy).  The upside to this is that it will not require nuclear enrichment to function (no risk for creating weapons-grade uranium).  The downside to this is that heavy-water reactors produces a lot of spent fuel (irradiated uranium).  And, with enough spent fuel, one can reprocess it to chemically extract weapons-grade plutonium.  

 

Pros:  No more risk of nuclear proliferation from spent fuel.

 

Cons:  For the next 15 years.  The 2013 agreement already stopped any activity in Arak, so this is not much of an improvement.

 

3.) IAEA will have access to continuously monitor Iran's declared nuclear sites.  IAEA will also verify that no nuclear materials transfer happens in secret.  IAEA can invoke established additional protocols to inspect other sites it deems suspicious.  IAEA can inspect military sites only if Iran permits it.  If IAEA wants to inspect a military site and Iran disagrees, they will go to arbitration.

 

Pros:  Continued monitoring and more invasive than we have today.

 

Cons:  Remember the 6 resolutions that have been passed in the 90's and 2000's and still Iran refuses to comply?  Why would this be any different?

 

4.)  Sanctions to be lifted.  Iran will gain access to $100B frozen assets and be able to export oil again.  Iran's calculated lost oil revenue due to the 2013 sanctions is $150B (from Jan 2013 to July 2015). 

 

Pros:  This is good for the people of Iran.

 

Cons:  In 15 years when the deal expires, Iran will have a lot of money to wipe out its neighbors.

 

 

Overall

The international community is making this deal as a response to the change in Presidency in Iran.  Ahmadinejad was an extremist and was very vocal in his desire to wipe Israel out of the map.  Iran replaced him with Rouhani who is thought of as a "moderate" and so he will be different than his predecessor and would be more than likely to obey deals.

 

But... is that really true?  It is now found out that the US have been negotiating to give Iran nuclear capability even before Rouhani was elected.  So, that basis is, at least, not true.  And we keep on hearing stories about side deals that are occurring outside of the P5+1 that is even more suspect than this.

 

In addition, if you've been following foreign affairs closely, it is quite obvious that the Iranian president is a public figurehead.  Khamenei and the clerics run that country.  Ahmadinejad simply vocalized what Khamenei desires.  Rouhani is the same.  So, it stinks of a ruse to get this deal in place so the ayatollas can get what it wants out of the P5+1's and then it will have more freedom to do what it always does regardless of who gets elected US President in 2016.

 

Now, Americans might get bamboozled into thinking there's a change in Iran.  But, Iranian neighbors understand them better than that - so, what it can possibly do is have all these countries arming itself.  And in the case of Israel, a pre-emptive strike can be eminent.

 

So, one might think - well, Iran has been singled out!  There are many countries in the middle east with Nuclear Energy and Pakistan in the middle east even has nuclear bombs, and even North Korea - a so-called axis of evil - has it, why can't Iran have nukes?

 

Well, plain and simply, Iran built and tested bombs in secret for 18 years in defiance to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.  And couple that with the continued promise of terrorism that Iran keeps on flinging against Sunnis, Christians, and Jews, it fostered fear and mistrust in the region. 

 

But, but, but... Israel has nuclear weapons (even if Israel wouldn't admit to it)!  Well, plain and simply, Israel, just like Pakistan and India, are not signatories of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.  Even if they arm themselves with nukes, it wouldn't be non-compliant to IAEA nor UN regulations. 

 

And so it stands.  Iran needs to have a change of HEART for a nuclear arms race not to occur in the Middle East.

 

But... that's just my take on it.

Edited August 19, 2015 by anatess

[mirkwood]

Cons: Iran is an evil regime with the destruction of Israel (and all other infidels) as one of its top priorities. 

 

As was said before, what could possibly go wrong?

[Guest]

Cons: Iran is an evil regime with the destruction of Israel (and all other infidels) as one of its top priorities. 

 

As was said before, what could possibly go wrong?

 

What does that have to do with this deal?   I don't see how having a deal, or not having a deal.. .is going to change that.

 

Just because a regime is evil doesn't mean we can't make agreements with them.

[Windseeker]

Let's hit it point by point:

 

1) "24-day waiting period is sufficient" - John Kerry

 

2) "24-day waiting period is sufficient" - John Kerry

 

3) "24-day waiting period is sufficient" - John Kerry

 

4.)  Sanctions to be lifted. Iran will gain access to $100B frozen assets and will finally be able to destroy Israel and any other enemies.

 

“I never, in four years, had a discussion about anywhere, anytime.” - John Kerry

[Guest]

 

Let's hit it point by point:

 

1) "24-day waiting period is sufficient" - John Kerry

 

2) "24-day waiting period is sufficient" - John Kerry

 

3) "24-day waiting period is sufficient" - John Kerry

 

4.)  Sanctions to be lifted. Iran will gain access to $100B frozen assets and will finally be able to destroy Israel and any other enemies.

 

“I never, in four years, had a discussion about anywhere, anytime.” - John Kerry

 

 

Remember, this is a P5+1 deal.  Not a US-Iran deal. 

 

But, even then, there is no way in blazes you can get 24/7 access to a sovereign nation's land - especially military installations - regardless of what Netanyahu says.  Might as well remove all pretense of sovereignty.

 

A sovereign nation cannot remain sovereign if it has to kowtow to baseless allegations.  Therefore, having anytime/anywhere inspections can put Iran in an impossible position of proving a negative.  That is - Iran finds an accusation baseless but the inspectors have to be let in without having to face a challenge on the accusation so they go in and, sure enough, finds nothing but the accusation still persists because now it's - see, they're hiding it!   And this goes on in an endless cycle until we get... Iraq.

[cdowis]

IAEA will have access to continuously monitor Iran's declared nuclear sites. 

 

 

The terms of this arrangement are secret, and the head guy refused to reveal it to congress because he was fearful of the threats that the Iranians made to him personally.

 

Now, tell us where you got your information.  For example, please  define "continuous" and "monitor".

For example, should we be satisfied if the iranians themselves do the "monitoring", and they will "continuously" send us a report on the results.

Edited August 19, 2015 by cdowis

[Guest]

The terms of this arrangement are secret, and the head guy refused to reveal it to congress because he was fearful of the threats that the Iranians made to him personally.

 

Now, tell us where you got your information.  For example, please  define "continuous" and "monitor".

For example, should we be satisfied if the iranians themselves do the "monitoring", and they will "continuously" send us a report on the results.

 

What are you talking about?

 

The parameters of the agreement has been on the white house website well before July 14.   Even Netanyahu gave a speech in joint Congress talking about the parameters under negotiation early this year.  I'm not talking about other deals outside of the P5+1 deal.  We don't know any of them at this point.  Congress has up to 60 days from July 14 to allow the Executive Branch to lift the sanctions against Iran for the US to do its part of the deal. 

 

Here's the full text of the JCPoA if you want to read the whole thing:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/Iran/irandeal.pdf

 

Or you can get a summary of the provisions from here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Comprehensive_Plan_of_Action

[Windseeker]

But, even then, there is no way in blazes you can get 24/7 access to a sovereign nation's land - especially military installations - regardless of what Netanyahu says.  Might as well remove all pretense of sovereignty.

 

You can't station inspectors there..at the site..at all times? 

....last I checked we are still in Japan and Germany, it's not unheard of.

[Guest]

You can't station inspectors there..at the site..at all times? 

....last I checked we are still in Japan and Germany, it's not unheard of.

 

Not unless you have a treaty that says so or you win one on a military conflict.  America has US military bases in Japan and Germany because they installed those bases as "spoils of war" of WWII.   The Philippines used to have US military bases from WWII  but they kicked them out back in the 80's - nothing America can do about that since we are not enemy combatants.  Of course, the US can win them back militarily - which they could do in under 2 hours flat (and then China and Russia will swarm in, North Korea will launch its nukes, and we'll be in WWIII).

 

America doesn't have a base in Iran.

 

So, if you want NATO or US presence in Iran - only way you can do that is strike a deal (which Iran will be stupid to sign unless they have no other option), or go on a military strike (which Iran will come out smelling like roses at this point in time).

Edited August 19, 2015 by anatess

[NeuroTypical]

I'm always astounded at how the prospect of Iran getting nukes is handled in the media and US culture at large.

 

If a Republican is president - it's huge news, our news cycles are literally marinated with information about how the president is somewhere between clueless and evil for ever even considering letting Iran get this close to a nuke.  Every message board out there has numerous active (or actively banned) threads about it.

 

If a Democrat is president - it's minor news, some coverage about how warmongering republicans sound silly arguing about it.  The thread on lds.net will be lucky to get 30 posts.

[Crypto]

We are at #19 now!

[Guest]

We are at #19 now!

 

But my posts don't count because I'm not "US culture at large".

[Crypto]

But my posts don't count because I'm not "US culture at large".

There goes a good portion of the count 

[Guest]

There goes a good portion of the count 

 

But we made it to 2 pages!

[Traveler]

The sad thing about US foreign policy is that we do not seem to be able to find any consistent course.   As far as Middle East policy the only thing we seem to do consistently is switch to the wrong side in major conflicts.  For some time major conflicts have been coming to the surface in the Middle East.  At the center of all conflicts is one of 3 major factors.  The factors are as follows:

 

#1 Religion.  Mostly a conflict between the Sunni and Shiite – This bitter conflict has deeper roots than between Islam and Christian or Islam and Jewish

 

#2. Ethnic.  This is a conflict between Arabic traditions and cultures and anything else – on the Western front it is Western culture capitalism and banking – on the Eastern front it is the trade and Persian materialism.

#3. Water.  Water is the most important resource in Middle East culture as it is in the western United States.

 

All conflicts boil down to one or more of the 3 above.  The deal with Iran appears to me to upset any possible peaceful resolution to anything in the Middle East.  Even if the deal got the nuclear stuff right it appears to have everything else wrong.  I cannot think of a single stabilizing thing in the treaty as I understand it.  It appears to me to be intended to create conflict and insight war in an area of the world that needs no such help.  I think it is like poring gas on a tinderbox and then lighting a match to it. 

 

This is a recipe to change to bring about border changes from Africa, to India – and I believe this could disrupt much of Europe as well.  I find it interesting that Russia is aligning with Iran.  I see nothing in the interest of American middle class.  Not only is America being transformed – so is the world.

[Guest]

#1 Religion.  Mostly a conflict between the Sunni and Shiite – This bitter conflict has deeper roots than between Islam and Christian or Islam and Jewish

 

Sunni-Shia conflict is a modern cook-up.  Middle Eastern People born before the 70's have lived a time where nobody cared if your next-door neighbor is a Sunni or a Shiite.  The "deep roots" of Sunni vs Shiite claim as the rightful heirs of Muhammad is like the East versus West Catholics... they don't agree on who has the proper authority but they don't kill themselves over it.  It wasn't until the 70's when the conflict between Arabs and Persians led politicians to use the ancient Sunni-Shia divide as a means to rally their troops to kill fellow Muslims.

 

Muslims killing Christians and Jews on the other hand has been going on since the time of the 12 Apostles and is still going on today.