I think you’re attempting to justify an egregious breach of diplomatic protocol with an unsubstantiated hypothetical.
Oh, please. Obama was just jealous he had to stick to all his normal channels for lambasting Israel’s’ foreign policy.
Not quite. Heads of state don’t speak before the legislative bodies of allies to rail against the foreign policies of their counterpart.
What does this babble refer to?
This is a very serious accusation. Please provide a citation for this claim.
More illiterate babble. The JCPOA is the most intrusive inspections and verification regime in history. Are you implying that upon the subset of the agreement , Iran will legally be able to pursue nuclear arms? What are you basing that statement on? Iran is party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) which is referenced numerous times in the nuclear deal. It forbids non-nuclear weapon states from pursuing atomic arms. It’s commitment to the NPT is perpetual. In addition, Iranian accession to the IAEA’s Additional Protocol -an additional layer of safeguards and verifications- will have to be permanent at the end of the JCPOA or the clerical regime will face the specter of a concerted air campaign against its nuclear infrastructure and a renewed sanctions regime.
“All I am saying is that a nearly $4B assistance package pretty much has to be considered support.”
Not babble by a long shot
What a load of horse shit. It is 15 year green light at best. if they don’t do what the North Koreans did with a similar agreement
I can’t think of anything more laughable than you believeing that after 10 to 15 years of having their economic resources opened . And developing nuclear weapons, that they would have any fear of airstrikes. They are already installing one of the most sophisticated air-defense systems in the world. Russia’s finest
If this is such a fun idea why did it fail so miserabley with a much poorer nation than Iran. North Korea
I’m referring to what you wrote above.
Your green light comment implies that you believe that upon sunset of the agreement, Iran will be able to legally pursue nuclear arms. Having developed nuclear weapons? The deal materially makes the prospect of a successful Iranian breakout or sneakout nearly impossible. You clearly haven’t studied the JCPOA or the NPT, so why loudly opine about something you can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of?
1 Like
LOL, this is a guy who wants to know on another thread why the media “has it out” for Trump, whose entire existence can be summed up as “loudly opining about things he doesn’t know the rudimentary basics of.”
You’re mixing posters and comments up verne.
What good does all of that do once Iran has nukes?
1)The inevitablity of a nuclear Iran is a big assumption; 2) Israel’s conventional superiority will continue to be a keystone of Israeli grand strategy.
Mutually assured destruction (MAD) is an implementable doctrine in a conflict dyad when the nuclear weapon states in question are capable of pursuing massive retaliation and can sustain an initial nuclear strike. According to a 1999 declassified US Defense Intelligence Agency report, the intelligence community estimated that Israel possessed between 60-80 nuclear warheads. It isn’t unreasonable to assume that number is higher now. That significant quantity gives Israel the ability to massively retaliate. The Israeli Navy has procured three German made dolphin class submarines, which can deploy nuclear capable Popeye Turbo cruise missiles. This gives Israel a secure second strike capability. By contrast, a nuclear Iran’s immature arsenal would confer neither of the requirements of MAD.
I’m curious to your sources regarding Israels nuclear arsenal, not sceptical just would like to see more.
Also to address your last point regarding Israels upper hand in a Nuclear conflict. With regards to the current War with Radical Islam the deterrent of MAD has been virtually eliminated. The public understanding is that if any such entity gains nuclear capibility it will surely be used. However this proclivity to mutually assured distruction is often in my opinion wrongly correlated with ME dictators/pseudo Religious dictators as well as the religious zealots who would actually welcome such destruction.
[quote=“sig805, post:37, topic:221772”]
…With regards to the current War with Radical Islam the deterrent of MAD has been virtually eliminated
…[/quote]
Bismark can correct me if I’m wrong; but MAD is a doctrine only applicable to Nuclear Armed Nation-States.
(In the example given; Israel and a Nuclear-armed Iran would fit that criteria).
It’s not applicable to widely scattered Terrorist Groups and/or cells.
No, it’s a matter of record. Since we’ve established that monetary payments speak louder than words, off the top of my head Obama just gave Iran 400 million dollars. Cash payment = support.
Settlement of decades-old outstanding claims under international law as part of a wider diplomatic effort (parallel negotiation, announced day of nuclear deal implementation) to keep Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state is not comparable to US military aid to Israel, which amounts to “here is a bunch of American-made heavy weaponry.” They aren’t even close to similar. Reagan wasn’t “supporting” the Iranians when he upheld our end of the Algiers Accords and by executive order conveyed claims like these to international arbitration. And to the extent that any of this was about Israel, it was about a diplomatic push to keep Israel’s regional rival from developing the bomb.
Analogies don’t work, but because everybody loves them: my neighbors Uri and Ahmed are in a big dispute. Ahmed and I have some history of our own, going back to when he locked my kids in his house and I cut down his favorite tree, refusing to pay damages for it.
Uri is a real close friend, and I give him a ton of shit every year, everything from firewood to lawn care equipment to cars.
Ahmed is going to install very costly outdoor lights that will point directly into Uri’s (and mine and everybody else’s, but mostly Uri’s) house at night. This could tear apart the fabric of the neighborhood. I want to stop such a thing from happening, so I talk to Ahmed. We agree to all sorts of things in an effort to stop me and Uri from having to head over there and smash the shit with baseball bats. We give each other our stuff back (I had some of Ahmed’s pets in my house, and he had some of mine)…and we settle old disputes. I agree to pay for that tree I destroyed all those years ago.
Only in the upside-down fantasy world that the Right has built around Obama does my payment to Ahmed constitute “support” – or any other term falsely implying it to be remotely comparable to what I give to Uri every year