Iran Nuclear Deal

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
401

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:
Do you think the higher positions of mI5 and the CIA are made up of 24 year olds? Do you think military personnel have any clue about what intel, what insight the intelligence services have?

And yes the intelligence services were basically told what position to have by the political leadership in regards to the Iraq war. They basically did what was asked of them, which was provide support for the launching of war.

However almost every single intelligence service worldwide deemed Saddam to have access to biological weaponry and to be pursuing a WMD capability, including for example, the Russians. No one is saying intel is never wrong, they are saying the intelligence community actually have access to sensitive and secret information and details military personnel and the general public do not.

Why on earth would serving or retired military personnel have any clue about the intel and everything that goes in to making these decisions?[/quote]

Again, lol. Whatever, I don’t really care at this point. You and Bismark got what you wanted. The deal will stand. It is what it is.

I’ll make sure and resurrect this thread in 5 years when we are bombing Tehran. [/quote]

Although I disagree with your prediction that the US will be bombing Tehran in 5 years (or thereabouts), I think you’re right with “it is what it is”. The discussion should move onto the implementation of the agreement and predictions of the geopolitical consequences of Iran abiding by the deal or cheating. At this point that’s the more interesting and relevant debate. The perceived merits and pitfalls of the agreement have been exhausted, both on this board and in the news. The deal is done, it’s over.

My prediction is that in 5 years Iran will still be vilified and considered an enemy of the US and Israel. The deep mistrust and decades old negative perceptions are too ingrained to wash away quickly. Generally though I think Iran will be smart enough to not act in a way that rustles the US into a military campaign. Despite the rhetoric, Iran has been trying to integrate itself with the rest of the world for a long time now, albeit on its own terms and without losing face. Iran was embarrassed in the early 2000s by the US when it attempted a nuclear deal and that really empowered the IRGC and the rest of the hardliners while weakening those who wanted reform. Khatami was neutered and the IRGC was able to put their candidate, Ahmadinejad, in power.

Iran tried to go its own way and develop a self-sufficient society and economy. This strategy failed, especially after Obama was able to muster broad international support for crippling sanctions near the end of the last decade. The IRGC’s candidate in 2013, Ghalibaf, was crushed by Rouhani in 2013. This was a clear signal to the regime that Iranians demanded change and rejected isolation.

It is very clear to the Iranian regime that in order to survive it has to shed the pariah state label, at least in the eyes of the EU and major Asian nations. This is why I believe Iran will stick to the agreement.

What also needs to be considered is that the rest of the world, including staunch US allies in Western Europe and Northeast Asia, does not view Iran in the same way Americans do. Iran’s economy is going to expand on a massive scale over the next several years. This is going to bring prosperity and easier living to ordinary Iranians. Iranians will also be proud that the rest of the world, except the US and Israel, will be treating them as partners and not as a pariah state or colony. They will not accept going back to isolation and lean times unless there is an attack on their homeland. The regime risks extinction if it screws this up.

Iran is always evolving. I think the tailwinds for positive change are stronger than the headwinds. Iranians were pissed off at being treated like a colony, and evolved into a pariah state. Now Iranians are pissed off at being treated like a pariah state, and will evolve into a modern nation. It’s either that or regime change. The status quo is not sustainable.

Just my thoughts, happy to hear other’s opinions.

402

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

We have tightened our ties to Shia forces on the ground, we are very likely to be arming and funding them through Kurdish forces in the region. Our entire posturing and attitude seems to be pointing to the natural ally in the region being the force on the ground, that is isolated and hated by every other Sunni group around them.[/quote]

Ok, but what about the Iraqi Shia militia men who refused to fight ISIS while the US was bombing ISIS from the air. What about the Shia militia who said if US troops put boots on the ground to fight ISIS, we will attack the US forces also? They don’t sound very much like allies to me. Never mind the fact that Iran supplied the Shia fighters with IED technology during the Iraq occupation.

403

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

We have tightened our ties to Shia forces on the ground, we are very likely to be arming and funding them through Kurdish forces in the region. Our entire posturing and attitude seems to be pointing to the natural ally in the region being the force on the ground, that is isolated and hated by every other Sunni group around them.[/quote]

Ok, but what about the Iraqi Shia militia men who refused to fight ISIS while the US was bombing ISIS from the air. What about the Shia militia who said if US troops put boots on the ground to fight ISIS, we will attack the US forces also? They don’t sound very much like allies to me. Never mind the fact that Iran supplied the Shia fighters with IED technology during the Iraq occupation.[/quote]

Well nothing you said is wrong, it simply highlights the ever changing alliances in real world terms. For example we are very likely funding Shia forces in Iraq, through kurds and other means, who previously killed many U.S servicemen.

You ask why would Shia who don’t like us and we have previously targeted join forces? Because of a common enemy and lack of other options. Just like every other alliance, this is based on a new set of circumstances which necessitates a new set of strategies and alliances.

404

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

When you simplify a position to a point of absurdity, it becomes easy to knock its straw body down. [/quote]

Go for it.[/quote]

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.

Again, it is not enough to lambast the deal. Critics must offer a viable alternative. Foreign policy is rarely constituted by choosing the ideal. What is the alternative? No one has answered this question satisfactorily. [/quote]

I have offered many potential alternatives, alternatives posited by experts sitting in high seats whose job it is to deal with foreign affairs. It’s your own damn fault if you skipped it.[/quote]

Bistro’s definitely been the ostrich in that regard.[/quote]

Except he hasn’t. You yourself have done nothing but criticize the deal. Do you have an alternative Push? He came into this discussion with his mind made up despite being wholly unfamiliar with something as basic as the Treaty on the Non-Prologeration of Nulear Weapons. The alternatives he did offer were the result of magical thinking. Increased sanctions? Nope, ignores international political economics. Israeli military action? Nope, it ignores the military-technical and political reasons why a preventative strike by the IAF is not viable. Covert action? Nope, the scale of Iran’s nuclear program and the demonstrate proficiency of Iran’s internal security organs precludes that option. [/quote]

I didn’t propose those alternatives. You’re making shit up again. Arguing against things I did not say.

405

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

When you simplify a position to a point of absurdity, it becomes easy to knock its straw body down. [/quote]

Go for it.[/quote]

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.

Again, it is not enough to lambast the deal. Critics must offer a viable alternative. Foreign policy is rarely constituted by choosing the ideal. What is the alternative? No one has answered this question satisfactorily. [/quote]

I have offered many potential alternatives, alternatives posited by experts sitting in high seats whose job it is to deal with foreign affairs. It’s your own damn fault if you skipped it.[/quote]

Bistro’s definitely been the ostrich in that regard.[/quote]

Except he hasn’t. You yourself have done nothing but criticize the deal. Do you have an alternative Push? He came into this discussion with his mind made up despite being wholly unfamiliar with something as basic as the Treaty on the Non-Prologeration of Nulear Weapons. The alternatives he did offer were the result of magical thinking. Increased sanctions? Nope, ignores international political economics. Israeli military action? Nope, it ignores the military-technical and political reasons why a preventative strike by the IAF is not viable. Covert action? Nope, the scale of Iran’s nuclear program and the demonstrate proficiency of Iran’s internal security organs precludes that option. [/quote]

I didn’t propose those alternatives. You’re making shit up again. Arguing against things I did not say.[/quote]

Oh? You didn’t write this?

I hope you’re right. This program is way more entrenched than Iraq’s was when Israel took it out. It would not be a small operation. Of course, I wouldn’t put it past the Mossad to be in Tehran waiting for permission to take out key leaders and scientists involved with the program. It would certainly help ‘negotiations’ if they were to take out some of the key players.

Or this?

Well first and foremost if not this deal, then all options are still on the table. Under this deal we limit our options. We basically have to sit on our hands until Iran screws up. And they will have to screw up pretty big for the ‘snap back’ to take effect. Obviously in a trade agreement there are two sides. In a snap-back scenario we not only have to worry about the effects to Iran, we have to worry about the other partner in the trade agreement and the country they are operating from.

We still have sanctions and we can sanction further, though admittedly they would have little more effect than they have now.
We can look to freeze more assets of Iran. We cannot stop Russia or China from weaken their ties by meddling in their affairs. We can go after their interests. We can reel in their support of terrorists like Hezbollah, we can take the restraint off of Israel, to deal with matters as they see fit. We can attack their internet blockade and release the free flow of information into the country, we can back opposition parties and increase their influence. We can blockage their ships from reaching South America. There are tons of things we can do if we wanted to to make their lives miserable and bring a better set of concessions from them.
We can even do positive things like provide support for clean energy solutions in exchange for negative impacts to their atomic energy plans. Provide humanitarian aid and relief to the population, etc.
Supporters of the plan have been arguing that if not the JCPOA then it will be war. Last time I checked, we were and are still pretty far from war with Iran. This is not like the Cuban Missile Crisis as the obamites have been trying to make it.
We have options and we can negotiate a better deal if we have the right combination of pressure and relief. Relieving sanctions in good faith while negotiating was a horrible idea. It put us in a weaker position. We provide relief when Iran acts right and only when they act right.

My mistake.

406

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]DBADNB1 wrote:

When you simplify a position to a point of absurdity, it becomes easy to knock its straw body down. [/quote]

Go for it.[/quote]

It’s been done ad nauseum. The “debate” in this thread is really between those who have studied the pertinent literature and came to a reasoned conclusion and those who can’t be bothered to learn the rudimentary basics of a subject but are content with twirling in circles spraying nonsense in all directions.

Again, it is not enough to lambast the deal. Critics must offer a viable alternative. Foreign policy is rarely constituted by choosing the ideal. What is the alternative? No one has answered this question satisfactorily. [/quote]

I have offered many potential alternatives, alternatives posited by experts sitting in high seats whose job it is to deal with foreign affairs. It’s your own damn fault if you skipped it.[/quote]

Bistro’s definitely been the ostrich in that regard.[/quote]

Except he hasn’t. You yourself have done nothing but criticize the deal. Do you have an alternative Push? He came into this discussion with his mind made up despite being wholly unfamiliar with something as basic as the Treaty on the Non-Prologeration of Nulear Weapons. The alternatives he did offer were the result of magical thinking. Increased sanctions? Nope, ignores international political economics. Israeli military action? Nope, it ignores the military-technical and political reasons why a preventative strike by the IAF is not viable. Covert action? Nope, the scale of Iran’s nuclear program and the demonstrate proficiency of Iran’s internal security organs precludes that option. [/quote]

I didn’t propose those alternatives. You’re making shit up again. Arguing against things I did not say.[/quote]

Oh? You didn’t write this?

I hope you’re right. This program is way more entrenched than Iraq’s was when Israel took it out. It would not be a small operation. Of course, I wouldn’t put it past the Mossad to be in Tehran waiting for permission to take out key leaders and scientists involved with the program. It would certainly help ‘negotiations’ if they were to take out some of the key players.

Or this?

Well first and foremost if not this deal, then all options are still on the table. Under this deal we limit our options. We basically have to sit on our hands until Iran screws up. And they will have to screw up pretty big for the ‘snap back’ to take effect. Obviously in a trade agreement there are two sides. In a snap-back scenario we not only have to worry about the effects to Iran, we have to worry about the other partner in the trade agreement and the country they are operating from.

We still have sanctions and we can sanction further, though admittedly they would have little more effect than they have now.
We can look to freeze more assets of Iran. We cannot stop Russia or China from weaken their ties by meddling in their affairs. We can go after their interests. We can reel in their support of terrorists like Hezbollah, we can take the restraint off of Israel, to deal with matters as they see fit. We can attack their internet blockade and release the free flow of information into the country, we can back opposition parties and increase their influence. We can blockage their ships from reaching South America. There are tons of things we can do if we wanted to to make their lives miserable and bring a better set of concessions from them.
We can even do positive things like provide support for clean energy solutions in exchange for negative impacts to their atomic energy plans. Provide humanitarian aid and relief to the population, etc.
Supporters of the plan have been arguing that if not the JCPOA then it will be war. Last time I checked, we were and are still pretty far from war with Iran. This is not like the Cuban Missile Crisis as the obamites have been trying to make it.
We have options and we can negotiate a better deal if we have the right combination of pressure and relief. Relieving sanctions in good faith while negotiating was a horrible idea. It put us in a weaker position. We provide relief when Iran acts right and only when they act right.

My mistake. [/quote]

Well you found the words. I obviously can’t make you understand what they mean. I am impressed though, that must have taken you a long time.

407

How come all the prisoners held by the Iranians weren’t released as part of the deal? Why did they leave an ex-FBI agent who happens to be Jewish? Why the betrayal?

408

Levinson could very well be dead. For the past several years the US position has been that he likely isn’t in Iran. There is no way to know for sure but there certainly isn’t any proof.

Also consider Levinson was contracted as a spy for the CIA (confirmed by the AP in late 2013) and was on an unauthorized mission in an unfriendly country. Much different than the 5 US prisoners that were released.

7 Iranians were released from US prison. All 7 were in prison for working to side step the trade embargo. No spies or violent individuals.

There is no proof Levinson is alive or in Iran’s custody. If he is alive and in Iran’s custody, Iran would probably want a similar exchange - spy for spy. If a spy for spy deal happened, it would likely be kept quiet.

I am sympathetic to the guy but he decided to go on an unauthorized spy mission in his 60s to a country we were threatening with military action. He was literally a rogue spy and he knew the risks. This is a far cry from a betrayal, especially with the details so murky.

409

And I hope you aren’t insinuating that the Obama administration left out Levinson in the deal b/c he’s Jewish. Because that would be utterly absurd.

410

Of course I was…

But in other news, this nuclear deal turned out to be worse than ever. Check this out:

"John Kerry said Monday that “the world is safer today” because of the Iran nuclear deal. Details of how loud and long the mullahs laughed have not been released.

In reality, the world is more threatened than ever by an aggressive and assertive Iran, confident and swaggering after besting Kerry at the negotiating table."…

“‘The Defense Ministry and the Iranian nation are always ready, and Iran will welcome it’” Islamic Revolution in Iran, Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan said"

Sure, this deal and the unfreezing of the Iranian assets made them feel all warm and fuzzy all the sudden…lol.

411

Great. Now the Iranians have entered into a $600 billion trade deal with the Chinese. Good job Kerry. I also love how Iran criticizes the US in the fight on terrorism but has been exporting terrorism for almost 40 years. You want us to join your country in the fight on terrorism? Stop your belligerent rhetoric and make a peace offering, if not, shut up. If your country is our enemy, expect to be treated as such.

412
413

Good news out of Tehran, though much is yet to be done. History may look back at the JCPOA as a foundational element in the long term evolution of the odious clerical regime.

414

Actually, the scale of the ultraconservative defeat is even more astounding after examining it in more detail.

As the Iranian regime’s managed “islamic democracy” vetting procedures excludes almost all liberal candidates, allowing only a fraction of the moderates, the electorate voted for the most liberal candidates available, including “moderate conservatives”.

Another amazing fact is that one of the women elected on the “moderate” list in Tehran publicly stated that women themselves should choose whether to wear the hijab, thus addressing the taboo topic in Iranian society, not to mention the majority of Muslim nations. We’ll see how the regime reacts in her case and whether they’ll allow her into the parliament.

Would really enjoy seeing gorgeous Iranian women freeing themselves from the oppression of the hijab.

415

This is what I’m hoping and this is the best opportunity the country has seen in a long time for a significant transformation.

You are correct that much is yet to be done. Iranians have to figure out a way to loosen the IRGC’s grip on the economy and domestic affairs. At this point I believe the IRGC is more damaging to the average Iranian than the mullahs.

The IRGC is already losing some influence though. At a minimum it’s no longer acceptable to blatantly steal an election. It’s a start.

416

Nice thoughts. It’s a good sign that the pull for a more modern and liberal society is gaining serious momentum.

I will say that I hope the conversation in Iran doesn’t get too bogged down on subjects such as mandatory hijab. I am American and think the whole concept is absurd and wrong but Iranians need to focus on the big picture. Iranians need to be pushing for a more open and transparent society in all aspects particularly as it relates to the economy. If there is too much focus on things like dress code and alcohol it will stunt progress. Certain issues will take care of themselves if the big picture is addressed. My hope is that issues like mandatory hijab provide fuel for engaged Iranians to demand change on a larger scale.

For sure it is huge progress that it is even a topic of discussion.

417

The major problem in Iran was and still is employment. Or the lack of it, to be precise, excluding make-believe government created jobs for the loyalists.

At the eve of the 1979 revolution there were less than 40 mil Iranians, now they’re just under 80 mil.

Like I said, there is a very strong push for rapprochement with the West among the young, the middle-classes and urban dwellers in general - go east towards the Afghan border and you’ll see mud huts, abject poverty and heroin smuggling as the only career option, with most roads being unsafe after dark even for local police. This is the heartland of conservatives and they tend to play the rich city folk vs. poor pious peasants card a lot.

Far cry from student underground parties in Tehran and gorgeous Iranian women.

We’ll see, maybe everyone making bold statements today ends up in prison literally tomorrow or is forced to flee the country. There’s still a very, very long way to go and the outcome is by no means certain. Still, I wish them all the best.

http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2015/11/04/iranian-actress-who-posted-photos-online-not-wearing-a-hijab-forced-to-flee-country/

418

[quote=“loppar, post:417, topic:210298”]
The major problem in Iran was and still is employment. Or the lack of it, to be precise, excluding make-believe government created jobs for the loyalists.[/quote]

Yep. The make-believe government jobs should be viewed as beneath the dignity of the Iranian people. That type of economy is typical of gulf arab monarchies and Iranians should be embarrassed it’s allowed to happen. It also keeps the IRG in power. It also leads to other problems like water scarcity b/c you have incompetent bureaucrats mismanaging everything.

[quote=“loppar, post:417, topic:210298”]
At the eve of the 1979 revolution there were less than 40 mil Iranians, now they’re just under 80 mil.[/quote]

What’s funny is the mullahs promoted birth control (un-islamic) when they realized population growth was a problem. Now they’re attacking birth control again b/c the goal is a 120 mil population.

[quote=“loppar, post:417, topic:210298”]
This is the heartland of conservatives and they tend to play the rich city folk vs. poor pious peasants card a lot.[/quote]

Ahmadinejad won in 2005 on a populist message and entitlements/subsidies for the poor. What happened was an extreme mismanagement of the economy and failed policies. What these people don’t realize are that conservative elites in Iran don’t care about them or their concerns.

[quote=“loppar, post:417, topic:210298”]
There’s still a very, very long way to go and the outcome is by no means certain. Still, I wish them all the best.[/quote]

Yea, it’s going to be a very long time and it’s going to be frustrating to read commentary arguing that the nuclear deal and detente in general was a mistake b/c Iran isn’t a western-style democracy within 5 years or whatever.

419

In case no one noticed, this is a HUGE story in Iran right now, and everyone there is pretty rattled.

Newly declassified CIA documents published by the BBC show that Khomeini’s seizure of power came with Carter’s blessing as the US held the Iranian Army back. This completely turns on its head the “founding myths” of the Islamic republic.

2 Likes
420

the latest. I don’t get it. If we owed the Iranian government this money before the revolution, why’d we still owe it after that govt. fell? More signs of Obama Administration’s weakness. Iran-Contra pales in comparison.