Iran Nuclear Deal

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
341

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Who capitulated again?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/iran-nuclear-deal/world-leader-statements/[/quote]

We did. We gave them so much they would have stupid not to take the deal.

This is what it looks like:
US: We think you are building scissors for the purpose of stabbing people.
Iran: No we’re not. We have a pair of scissors to cut paper, we would never stab somebody with them.
US: Put away those scissorsor we’ll take away your scissors.
Iran: We will not, we need scissors to cut paper, we have no intention of stabbing somebody.
US: You are definitely going to stab somebody, so here’s what we’ll do. We will give you a billion dollars and all the child-proof scissors you want to cut the paper if you turn in your sharp scissors and stop making news ones.
Iran: hmmmm, Okay. We really want our sharp scissors, but we will give them up just to make you happy and you let us have paper to cut.[/quote]

Did you even bother reading the article? Who ended up farther from their pre-negotiations position?

A simplistic and erroneous portrayal based upon a simplistic and erroneous understanding of the issues at hand.

342

600×569 92.3 KB

Any objective person would conclude that Iran is giving up nothing and gaining everything.

344

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Insane to think we can trust the Iranian government.[/quote]

No advocate of the JCPOA is arguing that the US can or should trust Iran. Quite the opposite, in fact. But by all means, continue to trot out your flimsy straw man.

345

[quote]NorCal916 wrote:

  1. Israel knows offense is the best defense.
  2. Obummer knows this.
  3. Israel will strike before Iran gets the bomb.
  4. Obummer knows this.
  5. Iran will have the means/resources to build the bomb.
  6. Israel will attack before bomb is fully developed.
  7. A huge war begins
  8. Israel will get the blame.
  9. Obummer knows this.
  10. It will be another President’s mess to clean up, and of course, Obummer knows this. [/quote]

Before the deal, Israel had no good military option against the Iranian nuclear program because of military-technical and political reasons. If there existed a good option, the IAF would have carried out a preventative strike bak when the Iranian nuclear program was limited to 164 centrifuges in one cascade. This is even more true in the context of a deal and Iran’s imminent deployment of the S-300 surface-to-air-missile defense system.

346

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Most people who read up on this know the Sunnis are backing ISIS. Just the same way the Pakistanis are backing the Taliban.

But what do you have to say about the punishment Pakistan has taken, the vast civilian death toll inflicted upon them by the Taliban? How could the government ISI back this organization which targets it’s civilians? Or are they using it to keep their civilians in line? What’s your take on this?
[/quote]

This is a common Western fallacy - caring about casualties, both military and civilian.

Pakistan is a fairly recent invention, an amalgam of different nations and tribes - Punjabis, Baluchis, Pasthuns… Allegiance goes something like this - family, clan/tribe, then class and far down the list “nation”. As cynical as it may sound there is no intra-national solidarity.

So the country’s political elite doesn’t care when thousands or tens of thousands of dirt poor Pashtuns die in the North West Province. Couple of thousand of urban poor died in Karachi from a heat wave recently and no one in the government lifted a finger about this.

To further expand this, the whole Western military doctrine based itself on kill-ratios - maximizing enemy losses while minimizing your own and if possible keeping civilian casualties if possible.

It’s a whole different matter with dictatorships with a large number of young, poor, able bodied men.

Did the Chinese care about casualties in the Korean War? No. Neither did the Soviets in WW2 nor Khomeini in Iraq-Iran war with human-wave attacks against Iraqi armor.

In fact, massive casualties are desirable from their perspective - they galvanize the population against an external enemy, create martyrs and forge a heroic narrative and help brand dissenters as traitors and foreign spies. Even more so for civilian casualties.

As John Dolan points out if you think this approach is completely alien to the West, here’s a song that glorifies a bunch of extremists, their suicide mission and their subsequent martyrdom stemming from a complete military defeat. From a conventional standpoint, this was an unmitigated disaster.

347

[quote]loppar wrote:

This is a common Western fallacy - caring about casualties, both military and civilian.

Pakistan is a fairly recent invention, an amalgam of different nations and tribes - Punjabis, Baluchis, Pasthuns… Allegiance goes something like this - family, clan/tribe, then class and far down the list “nation”. As cynical as it may sound there is no intra-national solidarity.

So the country’s political elite doesn’t care when thousands or tens of thousands of dirt poor Pashtuns die in the North West Province. Couple of thousand of urban poor died in Karachi from a heat wave recently and no one in the government lifted a finger about this.

To further expand this, the whole Western military doctrine based itself on kill-ratios - maximizing enemy losses while minimizing your own and if possible keeping civilian casualties if possible.

It’s a whole different matter with dictatorships with a large number of young, poor, able bodied men.

Did the Chinese care about casualties in the Korean War? No. Neither did the Soviets in WW2 nor Khomeini in Iraq-Iran war with human-wave attacks against Iraqi armor.

In fact, massive casualties are desirable from their perspective - they galvanize the population against an external enemy, create martyrs and forge a heroic narrative and help brand dissenters as traitors and foreign spies. Even more so for civilian casualties.

[/quote]

Very interesting.

So how do we defeat these people in warfare?

And what about the second part of what I wrote? What is your take on it?

Here it is:

348

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Iran Commander: We?re Getting Prepared to Overthrow Israel

…and we’ve got somebody here yappin’ about the Iranian constitution and what a powerful insurance policy it is.

Good grief.[/quote]

Clearly you had more than a bit of Bookers. I was merely responding to the poster’s asinine description of Iranian domestic politics. I never argued that the Iranian constitution was a pacifying document, your whiskey did.
[/quote]

Nah, I think you meant a bit more than that.

BTW, is Woolsey full of shit?[/quote]

I didn’t, no matter how much you contort and twist my post. The post merely concerned Iran’s convulsed and opaque domestic political structure.

I don’t think he’s correct regarding regional horizontal proliferation. Saudis Arabia won’t endanger its implicit security guarantee from the United States, Turkey its membership in NATO, or Egypt it’s $1.5 billion aid package.

350

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Do you think the US is purposefully stirring up the violence in the Middle East to screw with the Russians, Chinese & Iranians and other old cold war enemies? What is the endgame in all of this? How could we also be backing a group with designs to ultimately destroy us? [/quote]

Honestly, I have no idea.

But I guess it would be too…perfidious for the US of A.

That would have been something out of Putin’s playbook, who immediately after the start of this fresh migrant crisis in the EU announced increased military support for Assad including boots on the ground. This means more refugees and more pressure on EU governments to come to terms with Russia.

American administrations always had and have a somewhat naive and simplistic “let’s clear up this mess” attitude to world problems that usually leaves them open to manipulation from other parties that offer the simplest narrative to explain the situation.

It’s amazing how the US Administration got tricked by Turkey’s Erdogan - under the pretense of launching air strikes against ISIS (or to be correct AN air strike) this covert ISIS backer embarked on an aerial campaign against the Kurds who are actually fighting ISIS.

For those that may have missed, there is a full-fledged war going on in Yemen between shia Houthi rebels backed by Iran and the Saudi/UAE sunni coalition with hundreds and hundreds dead civilians in Saana due to Saudi/UAE aerial bombing.

Now, does anything your President said in the meeting with the Saudi despot makes sense in the current geopolitical context?

351

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Iran Commander: We?re Getting Prepared to Overthrow Israel

…and we’ve got somebody here yappin’ about the Iranian constitution and what a powerful insurance policy it is.

Good grief.[/quote]

Clearly you had more than a bit of Bookers. I was merely responding to the poster’s asinine description of Iranian domestic politics. I never argued that the Iranian constitution was a pacifying document, your whiskey did.
[/quote]

Nah, I think you meant a bit more than that.

BTW, is Woolsey full of shit?[/quote]

I didn’t, no matter how much you contort and twist my post. The post merely concerned Iran’s convulsed and opaque domestic political structure.

I don’t think he’s correct regarding regional horizontal proliferation. Saudis Arabia won’t endanger its implicit security guarantee from the United States, Turkey its membership in NATO, or Egypt it’s $1.5 billion aid package. [/quote]

You do realize that you are arguing with the former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, who has exponentially more knowledge, experience and wisdom than you do, right?[/quote]

So? There are DCIs that disagree with him, in addition to prominent analysts and intelligence officers. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy and one you don’t want to descend to in this debate. The majority of subject matter experts support the nuclear accord. In the article you referenced, he assumes that proliferation will happen. He doesn’t provide evidence or a line of argumentation to support his assertation. I at least attempt to do that.

352

Well, it seems that someone doesn’t mind boots on the ground.

Anyway, this makes this whole discussion irrelevant as there cannot be any military action against Iran after this.

http://defence-blog.com/army/photo-of-russian-troops-in-syria.html

353

[quote]loppar wrote:
Well, it seems that someone doesn’t mind boots on the ground.

Anyway, this makes this whole discussion irrelevant as there cannot be any military action against Iran after this.

http://defence-blog.com/army/photo-of-russian-troops-in-syria.html[/quote]

Interesting development. Not much we can say after US troops spent a decade in Iraq & Afghanistan. Right?

354

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

Interesting development. Not much we can say after US troops spent a decade in Iraq & Afghanistan. Right?[/quote]

Well, they’re there and you cannot force them out. Putin will now prop up Assad even further, making sure the war in Syria goes on and the refugees keep streaming towards Europe.

And this virtually closes the military option.

It seems even John Kerry realized this:

http://www.haaretz.com/news/world/1.674668

355

[quote]loppar wrote:
Well, it seems that someone doesn’t mind boots on the ground.

Anyway, this makes this whole discussion irrelevant as there cannot be any military action against Iran after this.

http://defence-blog.com/army/photo-of-russian-troops-in-syria.html[/quote]

How does Russian support of the Assad regime preclude the American use of force against Iran’s nuclear program? The nuclear deal strengthens both the credibility and efficacy of military action. Did you mean Syria? If so, I wouldn’t disagree. Russian troops there serve as a tripwire for a great power war whose costs would far outweigh any benefits derived from military action.

356

[quote]Bismark wrote:

How does Russian support of the Assad regime preclude the American use of force against Iran’s nuclear program? The nuclear deal strengthens both the credibility and efficacy of military action. Did you mean Syria? If so, I wouldn’t disagree. Russian troops there serve as a tripwire for a great power war whose costs would far outweigh any benefits derived from military action. [/quote]

First of all, Russian troops on the ground cement the regional alliance of opportunity between Russia and Iran. If they’re on the same side in terms of actively ensuring the survival of Assad, it means that the 5+1 format is effectively dead.

Please note I am not talking from a legal point of view, but what from my point of view are practical considerations.

Russia’s siding with Iran, even just to spite the West and milk out some hard needed cash through military/civilian technology transfer adds another diplomatic/psychological hurdle to overcome in terms of military action.

If you haven’t noticed, a growing chorus of politicians in the West has gone down the Putin appeasement route with “one must respect Russia’s wishes and interests” mantra. Since the US of A hasn’t mustered the courage to send lethal aid to Ukraine, what are the odds of effectively gathering the momentum to see the military action through with strong opposition from Russia? Again, I am not talking about legal finesse, but Russian opposition.

They’ve been doing that a lot lately, cynically admonishing the West for a wide array of issues, from Ferguson to military exercises in South Korea. Russian domestic audience loves that, and Putin likes to play the spiteful child.

That is the reason why Israel is, in my opinion, making a proverbial deal with the devil with the Saudis - they want to keep some of the rapidly diminishing leverage over US decision process regarding military action towards Iran together with probably some of the worst people in the world.

When you write such glowing praise for Saudi Arabia in Jerusalem Post, you know something is very wrong here:

357

Syria and Iran’s nuclear program are separate issues. Russia doesn’t want a nuclear Iran anymore than the United States does. If anything, history and geography makes the prospect even more threatening to Russia than the US. The deal provides an implicit casus belli for a preventative air campaign against Iran’s nuclear supply chain. It’s indisputable that the US is more likely to strike with a deal than without one. It’s also indisputable that the virtuous circle between IAEA inspectors and Western intelligence agencies significantly increases the efficacy of collection, analysis, and targeting efforts. Iran understands this. Russia understands this. The United States understands this. A row with Russia is much more palatable to US policymakers than the prospect of containing a nuclear Iran.

It’s very likely that Iran will be the target of American military action if it attempts a breakout to the bomb. Before the deal, Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be set back by 2-3 years by the use of force. With the deal, that increases to a decade or even longer. The clerical regime can’t afford (economically or politically) to invest another $100 billion in nuclear infrastructure while being burdened by even more strenuous sanctions in the wake of at thwarted sprint for the bomb.

Mearsheimer raises some interesting points in these articles. Russia isn’t the bete noir it is commonly portrayed as, though I don’t agree with him wholeheartedly.

The Jpost article doesn’t reflect Riyadh’s stance on the nuclear deal.

358

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Syria and Iran’s nuclear program are separate issues. Russia doesn’t want a nuclear Iran anymore than the United States does. If anything, history and geography makes the prospect even more threatening to Russia than the US. The deal provides an implicit casus belli for a preventative air campaign against Iran’s nuclear supply chain. It’s indisputable that the US is more likely to strike with a deal than without one. It’s also indisputable that the virtuous circle between IAEA inspectors and Western intelligence agencies significantly increases the efficacy of collection, analysis, and targeting efforts. Iran understands this. Russia understands this. The United States understands this. A row with Russia is much more palatable to US policymakers than the prospect of containing a nuclear Iran. It’s very likely that Iran will be the target of American military action if it attempts a breakout to the bomb. Before the deal, Iran’s nuclear ambitions would be set back by 2-3 years by the use of force. With the deal, that increases to a decade or even longer. The clerical regime can’t afford (economically or politically) to invest another $100 billion in nuclear infrastructure while being burdened by even more strenuous sanctions in the wake of at thwarted sprint for the bomb.

Mearsheimer raises some interesting points in these articles. Russia isn’t the bete noir it is commonly portrayed as, though I don’t agree with him wholeheartedly.

The Jpost article doesn’t reflect Riyadh’s stance on the nuclear deal.

[/quote]

Question.

If Putin wants to prop up Assad and we/Obama is plotting his demise, why would we (with NATO support of course) have Turkey take down their missles so Russian MIGs can now operate in Syrian airspace??

Doesn’t make sense.

359

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Syria and Iran’s nuclear program are separate issues. Russia doesn’t want a nuclear Iran anymore than the United States does.
Mearsheimer raises some interesting points in these articles. Russia isn’t the bete noir it is commonly portrayed as, though I don’t agree with him wholeheartedly.

The Jpost article doesn’t reflect Riyadh’s stance on the nuclear deal.

[/quote]

I think you got something wrong - I am not against the deal, merely stating that I believe that military option is off the table, regardless of the terms of the agreement and Iranian eventual breaching of it, although I believe they’re smarter than that.

As far as the Foreign Affairs article is concerned it is actually parroting Russia’s propaganda line about “the evils of NATO expansion” which is factually incorrect.

If one looks at the history of the accession of Eastern Europe countries such as Poland and the Baltic states into NATO one would see that it was to a large degree a result by furious lobbying by the countries themselves, not the Clinton administration who was actually hesitant.

The Russian invasion of Georgia was virtually ensured when NATO membership for Georgia was shelved for the near future at the 2008 summit. This made them fair game for Russia, Georgia immediately and Ukraine six years later.

From Wikipedia:

One has to understand the psychology of the weird quasi-fascist oligarchy in Russia - it behaves like a typical schoolyard bully, albeit with strong nihilistic undertones (as can be seen from their recent activities in the ME) and their constant pushing of boundaries and probing for weaknesses.

Once the “red lines” are blurred, it is difficult to start a momentum for any decisive political or military action. Once, the declared “red line” is Syria was crossed and nothing happened, this signaled to Putin that he can do whatever he wants in Eastern Europe.

What the Americans fail and have always failed to see - from FDRs “feeling he could do business with Uncle Joe Stalin” to GWBs “looking into Putin’s soul” that any attempt at practical compromise or reach out is perceived as a sign of weakness to be exploited.

This is what Putin is doing now - putting Ukraine on hold for a few months until he tips the balance of power in Syria.

As far as official Riyadh is concerned, they are virtually unsurpassed in enthralling the Americans and telling them what they want to hear. Hence the “upbeat” opinion. Besides, they got a free hand in Yemen for some very vague support, which they can withdraw whenever they feel like it.

360

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Who capitulated again?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/iran-nuclear-deal/world-leader-statements/[/quote]

We did. We gave them so much they would have stupid not to take the deal.

This is what it looks like:
US: We think you are building scissors for the purpose of stabbing people.
Iran: No we’re not. We have a pair of scissors to cut paper, we would never stab somebody with them.
US: Put away those scissorsor we’ll take away your scissors.
Iran: We will not, we need scissors to cut paper, we have no intention of stabbing somebody.
US: You are definitely going to stab somebody, so here’s what we’ll do. We will give you a billion dollars and all the child-proof scissors you want to cut the paper if you turn in your sharp scissors and stop making news ones.
Iran: hmmmm, Okay. We really want our sharp scissors, but we will give them up just to make you happy and you let us have paper to cut.[/quote]

Did you even bother reading the article? Who ended up farther from their pre-negotiations position?

A simplistic and erroneous portrayal based upon a simplistic and erroneous understanding of the issues at hand. [/quote]

Yes I did, I just misplaced my rose colored glasses and read it plain.