What to do about Iran?

[Ma'ake]

So, John Kerry and a number of US experts in nuclear energy and weapons joined colleagues from the UK, Germany, France, China and Russia and pounded out this agreement with Iran, which like any framework, is not perfect. The agreement has received lots of negative reviews from people in Israel and many / most Americans, but has also garnered support from a fairly impressive array of foreign policy experts, some of our own scientists, Nobel laureates, 100 former US ambassadors from both Republican and Democratic presidents, including some big name Republican national security and foreign policy veterans, Colin Powell, Stephen Hadley, Brent Scowcroft, etc.

Netanyahu and many Republicans have blasted the agreement - "Not good enough!"

My question: what is preventing Netanyahu from pursuing a better agreement, on his own? Israel certainly has a lot of bright diplomats who could seek more punitive sanctions from the world community, they have an impressive non-nuclear military capacity, and if need be, they have ~100-200 nuclear warheads they could use as leverage to get Iran to behave like they want them to, or to pre-emptively incapacitate Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons.

Really, at this point, why doesn't Obama tell Netanyahu, "if you think you can do better, by all means, go ahead".

Our nation really doesn't have a shortage of issues that divide us. Now we have millions of Americans who couldn't locate Iran on a world map if their life depended on it declaring the President and all those experts as failures.

If Netanyahu wants to be a friend, to Israel's unquestioned biggest friend in the world, maybe he should try to solve Israel's problem on his own.

[LA Ute]

So, John Kerry and a number of US experts in nuclear energy and weapons joined colleagues from the UK, Germany, France, China and Russia and pounded out this agreement with Iran, which like any framework, is not perfect. The agreement has received lots of negative reviews from people in Israel and many / most Americans, but has also garnered support from a fairly impressive array of foreign policy experts, some of our own scientists, Nobel laureates, 100 former US ambassadors from both Republican and Democratic presidents, including some big name Republican national security and foreign policy veterans, Colin Powell, Stephen Hadley, Brent Scowcroft, etc.

Netanyahu and many Republicans have blasted the agreement - "Not good enough!"

My question: what is preventing Netanyahu from pursuing a better agreement, on his own? Israel certainly has a lot of bright diplomats who could seek more punitive sanctions from the world community, they have an impressive non-nuclear military capacity, and if need be, they have ~100-200 nuclear warheads they could use as leverage to get Iran to behave like they want them to, or to pre-emptively incapacitate Iran's ability to develop nuclear weapons.

Really, at this point, why doesn't Obama tell Netanyahu, "if you think you can do better, by all means, go ahead".

Our nation really doesn't have a shortage of issues that divide us. Now we have millions of Americans who couldn't locate Iran on a world map if their life depended on it declaring the President and all those experts as failures.

If Netanyahu wants to be a friend, to Israel's unquestioned biggest friend in the world, maybe he should try to solve Israel's problem on his own.

I'm no expert on this subject, but here's a good expresion of one aspect of the opposing view:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iran-deals-collapsing-rationale-1437436211?tesla=y

I don't think Iran will even recognize Israel, let alone negotiate with it.

My view is that Iran's going to get nuclear weapons eventually one way or the other so we should focus on how to be prepared for that.

[Ma'ake]

I'm no expert on this subject, but here's a good expresion of one aspect of the opposing view:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iran-deals-collapsing-rationale-1437436211?tesla=y

I don't think Iran will even recognize Israel, let alone negotiate with it.

My view is that Iran's going to get nuclear weapons eventually one way or the other so we should focus on how to be prepared for that.

My hunch also is Iran will get nuclear weapons, eventually, and unless the Ayatollahs are suicidal, they won't nuke Israel.

Lost in the uproar about the agreement is Iran negotiated with us, the Great Satan - which is a pretty controversial topic in Iran, hence the increased saber rattling we're hearing to reassure their population that they're not caving in to the Great Satan - so there is precedent that they'll pragmatically engage with sworn enemies.

If we can engage with Iran, Israel can, as well. Israel just needs to come up with proposals that would attract an engagement, or threaten them with nuclear annihilation, or whatever Netanyahu thinks might work.

We've already done enough in the Middle East to try and stabilize the region.

We need to stop the car, and have Israel come out of the back seat, let them see what driving a car is all about. Because the entire family vacation is turning acrimonious, mostly due to them.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Bibi is a world-class warhawk and a crank. He has been shown by Mossad to be wholly wrong on much of the narrative he creates, and he is a proximal cause of the US re-invasion of Iraq (including the dispersal of significant misinformation).

The fact of the matter is that no weapon in the world is capable of damaging the Iranian underground enrichment site. It is built under a mountain below 160m of solid bedrock, iirc. The technology to damage that simply doesn't exist. I know Netanyahu looks back fondly at time when the IAF bombed the Osirak reactor in Iraq. But that option simply doesn't exist now.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Iran is a hot mess of multiple degrees of inner turbulence. The actual government right now (and the populace alonf with it) is moderate and shows signs of being pro-West, but Ayatollah Khamenei is the de facto leader in many ways. The Ayatollah leads the 'Death To America!' faction, but reality on the ground is far more even.

The people of Iran want and deseve a better economy. They want more freedom of movement, and freedom to travel. They want to get put from under the thumb of religious oppression.

If we back out of this treaty, then Khamenei is empowered. But if we agree to the treaty, then the people and the secular-ish aspects of government are empowered. The added benefit of the treaty is the world community gets to remove all of their enriched uranium AND we pour concrete down nearly all of the centrifuges. This is perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and it likely won't come our way again.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Not to mention ALL of the countries who currently enforce the sanctions are stopping their support, and they won't jump in again.

America/Britain are seen in Iran as the cause of much of their turmoil, and frankly we have done many things to make life far worse in Iran. For example we fomented a coup, installed Assad as the leader, and smiled as he sold off 40% of their oil fields to BP for what amounts to pennies on the dollar; we shot down an Iran Air airliner and killed 290 people (because we identified an Airbus A330 as an F-14 Tomcat...smh), and said 'oops!'; we have crippked their economy for decades through the application of sanctions; we (along with France, Russia, and Britain) carved out a huge chunk of the Ottoman Empire to conglomerate many disparate peoples into the state of Iran and expected them to kowtow to the West, etc. We are NOT without historical blame in this situation.

The sanctions are ending. Period. Full Stop.

If we want 'harsher sanctions' then we will need to enforce them all alone. Backing out of this deal will show the rest of the world powers that we are not negotiating in good faith. And it will cause harm to the Iranian people, which of course could swing the populace to support for the ultra conservative Ayatollah and the Mullahs.


It should also be mentioned that Iran (and now Australia) are the only countries providing direct support the military incursions against ISIS...

[NorthwestUteFan]

I live close to a large population of folks from the middle east, so I have a lot of bus stop conversations with Libyans, Iranians, and Saudis. I'm sure my circle is not representative, but your thoughts accurately describe their feelings. It's easy for me to swing from optimism to pessimism and back again with regards to the middle east.

I think I have posted this pic before. This photo was taken at Tehran University in 1971. The modern cultural influence is apparent. The Iranian people want to return to this, as my Iranian acquaintances over the years will attest.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-yOvi_Hupn0M/VA34gNyV1DI/AAAAAAAA8R0/7lzXbK0PuLw/s1600/Tehran%2C%2Bca.%2B1960s-1970s%2B(9).jpg

It is fascinating to me to see pics from that area and era. In many ways the cities remind me of pics of metropolitan Brazil, especially Saõ Paulo in the same time frame.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-egbHpkF6fcs/VA32r_a6KzI/AAAAAAAA8PY/D6NU0jaxLXg/s1600/Tehran%2C%2Bca.%2B1960s-1970s%2B(1).jpg

[Rocker Ute]

Reducing dependency on oil will get that whole area to chill out. That and fixing the whole Isaac and Ishmael birthright thing.

[jrj84105]

Iran seems like the only nation in the region that has enough semblance of residual civil society to emerge as a stable state rather than an anarchic void. At this point, it seems pretty clear that enemy states are not nearly as threatening to our well-being as the radicalists that proliferate in stateless regions. Iran's threats come across as mostly empty rhetoric designed to quell the radical subset of the population. Israel scares me more as a loose cannon that might actually act on the rhetoric.

[LA Ute]

What about Senator Rubio's views here? Recognizing that reasonable people can disagree about this, I think this is a reasoned position:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=126&v=-5dQIVh_QT4

[jrj84105]

What about Senator Rubio's views here? Recognizing that reasonable people can disagree about this, I think this is a reasoned position:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=126&v=-5dQIVh_QT4

By his rationale, no person who believes in the Book of Revelations should be allowed to hold the office of the president either as that would place nuclear arms under the control of a person with an apocalyptic worldview that includes large scale destruction of the Middle East region. So yeah, I think he's pretty spot on.

[LA Ute]

By his rationale, no person who believes in the Book of Revelations should be allowed to hold the office of the president either as that would place nuclear arms under the control of a person with an apocalyptic worldview that includes large scale destruction of the Middle East region. So yeah, I think he's pretty spot on.

I see your point but think you're jumping on the word "apocalyptic" a bit too hard. I don't think believing in Revelations and the eventual end of the world equates to pledging the destruction of Israel. I thought the reference to Kim of North Korea was pretty compelling.

[concerned]

Rubio argues that Iran will become the dominant military power in the region and eventually possess and use a nuclear weapon. But I do not understand how opposing the deal prevents that from happening, unless we ware willing to use military force now or soon. The money that Iran will get from sanctions relief is not the difference between its achieving military and nuclear aims or not. if Rubio accurately describes Iran's goals, continued sanctions (especially if unilateral) will not prevent Iran from achieving them. As Rubio point out, look at North Korea, a much poorer nation. The only solution to the problem that Rubio identifies is military action. Are we willing to do that? Is he?

[jrj84105]

I see your point but think you're jumping on the word "apocalyptic" a bit too hard. I don't think believing in Revelations and the eventual end of the world equates to pledging the destruction of Israel. I thought the reference to Kim of North Korea was pretty compelling.
It's sort of laughable to compare N Korea's leadership with that of Iran.

[jrj84105]

Rubio argues that Iran will become the dominant military power in the region and eventually possess and use a nuclear weapon. But I do not understand how opposing the deal prevents that from happening, unless we ware willing to use military force now or soon. The money that Iran will get from sanctions relief is not the difference between its achieving military and nuclear aims or not. if Rubio accurately describes Iran's goals, continued sanctions (especially if unilateral) will not prevent Iran from achieving them. As Rubio point out, look at North Korea, a much poorer nation. The only solution to the problem that Rubio identifies is military action. Are we willing to do that? Is he?
Iran is already committed to developing a nuclear deterrent to Israel, and it will expend the resources necessary to achieve that goal even if that means letting people starve if it were to come to that. The only thing that sanctions relief could achieve is to free up some resources for things other than militarization perhaps benefiting a more stabilized civil society. Rubio talks about "the cost of our presence" in that region, and basically, our entire policy has been to defer the costs to the future by undermining anything that would threaten our access to cheap oil. The result is that we've undermined civil society and thrown the region into anarchy where people with nothing to lose turn to radicalized religious ideologies bent on destruction. That was a great long term plan, and apparently some people would like to extend it a few additional decades by reducing Tehran to rubble at the expense of some additional warfare.

[LA Ute]

Rubio argues that Iran will become the dominant military power in the region and eventually possess and use a nuclear weapon. But I do not understand how opposing the deal prevents that from happening, unless we ware willing to use military force now or soon. The money that Iran will get from sanctions relief is not the difference between its achieving military and nuclear aims or not. if Rubio accurately describes Iran's goals, continued sanctions (especially if unilateral) will not prevent Iran from achieving them. As Rubio point out, look at North Korea, a much poorer nation. The only solution to the problem that Rubio identifies is military action. Are we willing to do that? Is he?

My mind rebels against the administration's binary defense of the deal: either we accept this or go to war. Here's a thoughtful analysis of the soundness of that binary argument from the left-leaning Doyle McManus (hint: he seems to buy the binary thinking):

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0729-mcmanus-iran-deal-alternatives-20150729-column.html

And from the other side, here's a reasoned conservative think tank's view:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/07/the-iran-nuclear-agreement-yes-there-is-a-better-alternative

I still think it's inevitable that Iran will get nukes and threaten their neighbors with them. No one has the stomach to go to war with Iran now - including the American public and me. The issues should be how to slow that down and how to deal with that reality when it comes. Will the choice then be binary too -- war or a deal? I don't have a lot of confidence in President Obama on foreign policy -- the "junior varsity" comment about ISIS and the "red line" in Syria, along with the limp response to Putin, all cause me to think he doesn't bring a lot to the table. I hope the next president, whatever party, is more competent.

[LA Ute]

Iran is already committed to developing a nuclear deterrent to Israel, and it will expend the resources necessary to achieve that goal even if that means letting people starve if it were to come to that.

Surely you can see why a lot of smart people find laughable that Iran wants nukes for that purpose?

[concerned]

My mind rebels against the administration's binary defense of the deal: either we accept this or go to war. Here's a thoughtful analysis of the soundness of that binary argument from the left-leaning Doyle McManus (hint: he seems to buy the binary thinking):

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0729-mcmanus-iran-deal-alternatives-20150729-column.html

And from the other side, here's a reasoned conservative think tank's view:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/07/the-iran-nuclear-agreement-yes-there-is-a-better-alternative

I still think it's inevitable that Iran will get nukes and threaten their neighbors with them. No one has the stomach to go to war with Iran now - including the American public and me. The issues should be how to slow that down and how to deal with that reality when it comes. Will the choice then be binary too -- war or a deal? I don't have a lot of confidence in President Obama on foreign policy -- the "junior varsity" comment about ISIS and the "red line" in Syria, along with the limp response to Putin, all cause me to think he doesn't bring a lot to the table. I hope the next president, whatever party, is more competent.

Do you think renegotiating the deal until Iran cries "uncle" is realistic? What would the terms of that deal be? anytime anywhere inspections? If Iran is hellbent on acquiring a nuclear capability, why would they ever cry uncle? What would you expect the next, more competent, president to do? And how will that make a difference?

[LA Ute]

Do you think renegotiating the deal until Iran cries "uncle" is realistic?

No, I don't. But a case can be made that the administration's stance on this issue seems pretty supine. I am no expert on siuch matters, but this is an administration whose foreign policy is founded on not being aggressive. Surely there's a happy medium between Bush's hard-core approach and what we have seen from Obama.


What would the terms of that deal be? anytime anywhere inspections? If Iran is hellbent on acquiring a nuclear capability, why would they ever cry uncle? What would you expect the next, more competent, president to do? And how will that make a difference?

I guess I'd hope to see some evidence that we outsmarted or out-negotiated the Iranians on something. Maybe we did; I just don't see it. I hope so. Instead, it looks like Kerry and Obama got rolled and are saying that's the best they can do. Here are two respected former secretaries of state, KIssinger and Schultz, on what the negotiating vision should have been:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-iran-deal-and-its-consequences-1428447582

[jrj84105]

Surely you can see why a lot of smart people find laughable that Iran wants nukes for that purpose?
I think if you listen to public statements from Iran, it's very worrisome. I think it would also be incredibly worrisome to listen to the public statements that come from our officials.

My understanding of how power in Iran works is that while he wields absolute veto power, much of the massive power of the Ayatollah isn't wielded directly so much as through his pervasive ability to influence the elected legislative and executive branches at multiple levels by his appointed clerical bureaucracy. If the clerics in this bureaucracy were true believers intent on the destruction of Israel, it would be very worrisome. But I don't think that's the case. Much internal political strife in Iran appears to be centered on corruption and self-enrichment by this clerical bureaucracy (at the expense of the self-enrichment of the elected officials). In that respect, as in most bureaucracies, the clerics in Iran as much self-interested political creatures as they are men of religious idealism. And as in the U.S., there's a lot of money to be made by distracting people with Allah while not actually sticking to any ideology other than greed. I think greed tends to welcome reason which is why I think Iran can ultimately respond to reason.

[LA Ute]

I think if you listen to public statements from Iran, it's very worrisome. I think it would also be incredibly worrisome to listen to the public statements that come from our officials.

My understanding of how power in Iran works is that while he wields absolute veto power, much of the massive power of the Ayatollah isn't wielded directly so much as through his pervasive ability to influence the elected legislative and executive branches at multiple levels by his appointed clerical bureaucracy. If the clerics in this bureaucracy were true believers intent on the destruction of Israel, it would be very worrisome. But I don't think that's the case. Much internal political strife in Iran appears to be centered on corruption and self-enrichment by this clerical bureaucracy (at the expense of the self-enrichment of the elected officials). In that respect, as in most bureaucracies, the clerics in Iran as much self-interested political creatures as they are men of religious idealism. And as in the U.S., there's a lot of money to be made by distracting people with Allah while not actually sticking to any ideology other than greed. I think greed tends to welcome reason which is why I think Iran can ultimately respond to reason.

Thanks. Reminds me of "Kremlinology" from the Cold War days.

[NorthwestUteFan]

This treaty allows the rest of the world to destroy Iran's ability to enrich uranium, remove all of their enriched uranium, and force them to import all of their fuel rods. This cannot be overstated. Speaking as a nook-yoo-luhr engineer this is the aspect that matters, IMHO.

There is ZERO military option to accomplish the things this treaty will do, and any military option we try will kill millions of people and will NOT make life better for the 75M+ people who had the bad fortune to be born in Iran.

Israel is NOT helping matters at all. It is a poorly kept secret that Israel has around 350 nukes, enough to obliterate the entire Middle East many dozens of times over. Bibi Netanyahu's saber rattling makes everybody in the region nervous and it justifies the conservative call in those states for a powerful defensive posture. Even Ahmedinejad stated publicly that a nuclear weapon would be strictly defensive because using it would mean instant suicide for Iran.

I do not want to see Iran get a nuclear weapon, and I firmly believe this treaty will remove their ability to create a device. I am also perfectly OK with Iran using nuclear power, and for researching the fuel cycle. Under the terms of this treaty Iran will only be able to keep a very small amount of fuel on site, somewhere around a few hundred kg (uranium is extraordinarily dense so this is a very small amount). This treaty gives us access to any site within a few weeks time, and the presence of any nuclear material can be easily detected for 6 mo to a year or more. (Iraq tried to pull this on us and the particular 'nuclear fingerprint'
was easily detected when inspectors walked into the facility 6+ months after they moved it/sterilized the area).

And finally this treaty will give the peaceful Iranian citizens a decent economy. The only way to weaken the choke hold of the theocracy and bring the more rational voices to the world community is to give the people a better day-to-day life with better opportunities. The secular-ish government needs to deliver a win on this one. If the US backs out then the Mullahs will point at the us and claim victory.

This treaty comes from a position of strength, and it carries the strength of all the big military powers of the world.

[USS Utah]

Many opponents of the nuclear deal with Iran have vocally supported a military option in lieu of the proposed deal. These opponents to the deal claim that the use of military force “can be managed to avoid escalation.” But can escalation be managed? A careful study of the history of coercive bombing campaigns may illustrate that those who have made repeated claims that force can be used against Iran without risking escalation, are perhaps grossly underappreciating the scale and scope of what bombing Iran may entail.

Link:

http://news.usni.org/2015/08/24/opinion-the-problem-with-bombing-iran

You don't make deals like this with your friends. We made deals like this with the Soviet Union, and I don't think we trusted them anymore than we trust Iran. Too many people are opposed to this deal for the single reason that it was negotiated by the Obama administration. "Obama's for it? Then I must be against it!" Pure politics and woefully shortsighted. I'm not a supporter of Obama, and I don't have much confidence in him or Kerry, and I'm also sure that this deal is far from perfect, but there is no realistic military option. If Israel or anyone else bombs Iran's nuclear sites, Iran will close the straits of Hormuz, which will lead to a war nobody wants.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I am not necessarily a fan of the Obama administration and hate Kerry from personal experience, but the selling point of this treaty should be the fact that so many world government leaders back it, the UN backs it, and most of the nuclear regulatory agencies and hundreds of scientists back it. I would hope that the presidential candidates will look beyond their own politics to see the reality of the situation.

Luckily there is just barely enough support in the Senate to keep it alive.

As USS Utah said this is the type of strong deal we used to give USSR. A lot of good will come of it for a lot of people, and yet the big war hammer is still on the table. Interesting that Hillary was rattling that hammer last week when she spoke of the treaty.

[U-Ute]

I am not necessarily a fan of the Obama administration and hate Kerry from personal experience, but the selling point of this treaty should be the fact that so many world government leaders back it, the UN backs it, and most of the nuclear regulatory agencies and hundreds of scientists back it.

Unfortunately for us, this is the primary reason so many people are against it. :(

I'm not sure what drives so many people in this country to automatically mistrust any ideas that aren't strictly from America. I don't know if it is the image "American exceptionalism" or just plain old ignorance. I can't quite put my finger on it.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Wrong, you are capable of putting your thumb on it. I think you just described much of the dynamic.
There is a fundamental, deep,subjective mistrust of everything Obama does.

It doesn't matter at all that this treaty was forged by a broad coalition of world powers. It doesn't matter that this treaty will destroy their ability to enrich uranium. It doesn't matter that the sanctions are ending and that Iran will get their overseas money back whether or not the treaty is ratified.

But Obama's name is on it, so it is obviously not in the best interesr of 'Murrica...

[USS Utah]

Unfortunately for us, this is the primary reason so many people are against it. :(

I'm not sure what drives so many people in this country to automatically mistrust any ideas that aren't strictly from America. I don't know if it is the image "American exceptionalism" or just plain old ignorance. I can't quite put my finger on it.

We don't necessarily like anything that smacks of internationalism even if it does come from America, see Woodrow Wilson and the League of Nations.

[Rocker Ute]

Nothing to worry about here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-test-fires-new-missile-1444610450


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Nothing to worry about here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-test-fires-new-missile-1444610450


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is the treaty fully ratified yet?

[LA Ute]

Nothing to worry about here: http://www.wsj.com/articles/iran-test-fires-new-missile-1444610450

Don't challenge the narrative!

"The Iran agreement is not a panacea for the sectarian and extremist violence that has been ripping that region apart," the secretary said. "But history may judge it a turning point, a moment when the builders of stability seized the initiative from the destroyers of hope, and when we were able to show, as have generations before us, that when we demand the best from ourselves and insist that others adhere to a similar high standard. When we do that, we have immense power to shape a safer and a more humane world."

--John Kerry (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-kerry-iran-deal_55e70fb5e4b0c818f619eac1)

[Rocker Ute]

Is the treaty fully ratified yet?

It certainly isn't a show of good faith as development and testing of these sort of missiles is explicitly banned for seven years in the treaty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

It certainly isn't a show of good faith as development and testing of these sort of missiles is explicitly banned for seven years in the treaty.

Look, Secretary Kerry said "we demand the best from ourselves and insist that others adhere to a similar high standard." Let the process work! The better angels of the Iranian leaders' nature will soon take over!

[NorthwestUteFan]

It certainly isn't a show of good faith as development and testing of these sort of missiles is explicitly banned for seven years in the treaty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder if they wanted to get in one last test before the treaty goes into effect. Nothing yet bans this test, despite looking very bad from a 'good will' standpoint. They probably wanted to show Israel one more saber rattle before they get shut down.


Look, Secretary Kerry said "we demand the best from ourselves and insist that others adhere to a similar high standard." Let the process work! The better angels of the Iranian leaders' nature will soon take over!

The process is not to simply trust in their words, but also to verify they are complying with the restrictions.

There are still powers in Iran who don't want any part of the treaty and would pull any string to derail it. Using Netanyahu's rhetoric against the treaty would seem to be a very effective method to blow it up. Pun intended.

[NorthwestUteFan]

One more thing. Russian airstrikes in Syria last week killed an Iranian general who was in the area as a military advisor to the forces who are fighting against ISIL. I wonder whether Russia had a hand in the missile test. Even though they are a signatory to the treaty, an argument could be made that an unstable Middle East and an isolated Iran is actually in Russia's interest.

If this general was a supporter of the treaty, then it is possible the Russian airstrikes which were miles away from actual ISIL targets were, in fact, intentional.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Iran answered my question today, and their Parliament voted to ratify the treaty voting 161-59 with 13 neutral votes. From here the treaty needs to be approved by the 12-member Islamic Council can either accept it or return it to the Parliament. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei said he will not stand in the way of the treaty, and today issued a statement saying, 'No government in Iran has the right to produce or use nuclear weapons following the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons'.

This is very interesting because Khamenei's statement should bring the hardliners into line with the moderates who sought to derail the agreement.

When this agreement goes into effect it will destroy most of Iran's enrichment capability and will remove their materials which are already enriched. Any attempt to return to production of fissible material will bring the return of sanctions. Iran clearly does not want that to happen, and it appears they will abide by the conditions.

This should be viewed as a pivotal time in Iran's history and it should be a great leap forward for the people. A vibrant economy with thriving international trade on the open market, with the corresponding free flow of information, is precisely the thing the people in that country need.

[NorthwestUteFan]

This is an interesting read: http://mobile.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/10/13/world/middleeast/ap-ml-iran-nuclear.html

[Rocker Ute]

From nytimes.com:

"That limit, combined with a two-thirds reduction in the number of its centrifuges, would extend to a year the amount of time it would take Iran to make enough material for a single bomb should it abandon the accord and race for a weapon — what officials call “breakout time.” By comparison, analysts say Iran now has a breakout time of two to three months.

But American officials also acknowledged that after the first decade, the breakout time would begin to shrink. It was unclear how rapidly, because Iran’s longer-term plans to expand its enrichment capability will be kept confidential.

The concern that Iran’s breakout time could shrink sharply in the waning years of the restrictions has already been a contentious issue in Congress. Mr. Obama contributed to that in an interview with National Public Radio in April, when he said that in “year 13, 14, 15” of the agreement, the breakout time might shrink “almost down to zero,” as Iran is expected to develop and use advanced centrifuges then."

Their ability to enrich uranium is not going away, it has just been temporarily slowed and a year breakout time doesn't seem like much and goes down to a virtual 0 months in only ten years.

We knew who these guys were before we picked them up to paraphrase a favorite Mormon allegory.

Sorry NWUF, but I just don't share your optimism and don't view a year or a decade as long periods of time, certainly not long enough to ensure the safety of me and my children. And this is the same nation that has been sponsoring terrorism throughout the world and sending fighters into Iraq etc...

I


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

The sanctions are ending no matter what. The international community only put the sanctions in place to bring Iran to the table, and with this agreement that coalition will no longer support sanctions. We can either move forward from this point by dumping cement down 2/3 of centrifuges, removing all of their highly enriched materials, and with an inspection regime in place, and with Iran getting back all of their frozen assets and gaining access to trade on the world market, which will depower the political hardliners.

The other option is the sanctions will end, they get back all of their frozen assets, they keep all of their 20%-enriched fuel and 100% of their centrifuges without an inspection regime in place, their economy gets access to most of the whole world except the USA, the hardliners will be empowered and will shift the balance of power back to the hard conservatism of previous regimes to the detriment of the populace who crave freedom, and the military will be empowered to build a bomb even sooner. And if we unilaterally enforce sanctions or blockade the country (literally or financially) we will be seen by the world community as aggressors and our actions as acts of war.

They will still be able to enrich uranium to the ~3.7% necessary for power production, but they will be severely hampered in their attempts to enrich to the level necessary for a bomb (generally 97% ). And all of the partially-enriched stockpiles (20% ) will get removed from the country and will be recycled into powerplant fuel at a recycling facility in France.

The real question at hand is this: Where do we want Iran to be in ten years?

[Rocker Ute]

Where do I want Iran in ten years? Financially stable, powerful and able to enrich uranium for a bomb to set atop a ballistic missile they just tested,, apparently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Do you want to strengthen the belligerent factions in the nation and allow them to gain a nuclear weapon by Christmas this year or by Valentines day next year? Or do you want to put that off by at least a decade plus?

I will take the decade delay, and in the mean time I would work hard to develop an open and honest relationship with the moderate factions within the country to strengthen them politically as they grow the economic opportunities for all people in the highly diverse nation of Iran. Depending on how that decade goes I believe there is an opportunity to move the nation away from the desire to build nuclear weapons.

Further isolation of the nation will not benefit anybody but the hard liners.

[Rocker Ute]

You have a narrow view and a specific narrative that you require to make your explanations, but there is no fixing that, so I'll bow out.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

Stick around. I apologize that this is a complex issue that cannot be boiled down to a couple of tweets.

I strongly believe that we can have a stronger and more permanent and positive effect on the future of Iran if we build closer ties with them than if we isolate them, do all we can to restrict their economy, and threaten them with military action every time they do something we dislike.

We need to have a serious discussion with them regarding the long range missile test last week, and work to convince them to abandon their desire for a bomb. Part of this process will be to discuss their safety concerns and to help them to be more secure. Part of this will be to grow their economy and push them to increase individual liberties for citizens. It may require the US to more strongly support Iran's fight against ISIL as they are the major Middle East country in that battle. We might need to convince Israel to tone down the saber rattling and perhaps give up a bunch of their 300+ nuclear warheads.

Also remember the Strait of Hormuz is shallow, is only about 29 miles wide, and could be blockaded for an extended time very easily by scuttling ships and laying mines. This would shut off the taps on 20%+ of the world's oil supply and would cause significant economic damage worldwide.

[Ma'ake]

An underlying premise of the agreement - IMO - is that people who are not under economic duress have an incentive to be peaceful.

Populations that are suffering - economically, under oppression, etc - are more easily radicalized. Life becomes cheap, and the price to pay for dying for your cause becomes pretty low. Eg, post-WWI Germany, current day Palestinians.

The Iranian people have already been through some very rough times, under the hated Shah, who ruled autocratically, from 1954-1979, after being installed by Operation Ajax (UK & US) to help western oil companies secure access to Iranian oil. (This history is why Americans against the Iraq war asserted it was all about getting Iraqi oil.)

Iran turned religious and radical to overthrow the Shah, but a growing portion of Iranians are tired from the endless penalties the Ayatollahs have brought their nation. As Iran begins to prosper economically, with the sanctions dissolving, more & more Iranians will opt for peaceful co-existence.

I don't expect the vitriol against Israel and the US to disappear, but rather just lose audience share. If non-Americans judged everything in our nation based on what Pat Robertson says, they'd think we're ready to engage in worldwide crusades to bring Jesus to the ignorant heathens.

Iran has 80 million people. They're more diverse than we may think.