'Historic' Iran nuclear deal reached

CassandraW said:

I thought it worth pointing out that this particular style of bombast and dismissiveness wins those on the left no points at all with anyone who doesn't already agree with them. Indeed, it turns off a vast number of moderates, independents, and the uninformed who might otherwise be convinced.

But feel free to do it anyway.

Click to expand...

CassandraW said:

I thought it worth pointing out that this particular style of bombast and dismissiveness wins those on the left no points at all with anyone who doesn't already agree with them. Indeed, it turns off a vast number of moderates, independents, and the uninformed who might otherwise be convinced.

Click to expand...

rugcat said:

True, but that's not the point. For some, it's more important to vent one's rage and spleen then it is to convince others of the justness of a cause or the injustice of a situation.

In fact, secure in their own righteousness and rectitude, those who indulge in over-the-top bombast have no interest in convincing others. Nor can there be any shades of gray on any issue.

Those who disagree in any fashion on matter, no matter how minor, are seen as the enemy, devoid of any redeeming qualities and beneath contempt. They are stupid and uninformed at best.

Rush Limbaugh is the poster child for this sort of rhetoric on the right. Unfortunately, the left is not always immune to similar types of expression. It's sad because not only does it harden the positions of those on the right, it ends up making some of those on the left just not give a damn anymore.

Click to expand...

"Tehran will not sign a final nuclear deal unless world powers simultaneously lift economic sanctions imposed on Iran, the nation's president said Thursday.

The United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany — the so-called P5 +1 group — reached an understanding with Iran last week on limits to its nuclear program in return for lifting crippling economic sanctions.

The U.S. has previously said the sanctions would be lifted in phases, but the details have not yet been negotiated."

Click to expand...

CassandraW said:

I think we'd all gain if everyone cut down on the bombast and engaged in actual substantive discussion, but that might be too much to hope for.

Click to expand...

c.e.lawson said:

Tom Cotton did NOT say we should go to war. He is saying we should be tougher in our negotiations with the largest terrorist sponsoring state who chants "Death to America" and who is making a fraction of the concessions we are in this deal. This framework is dangerous, riddled with holes and unrealistic expectations of honesty and transparency from a country who is not trustworthy. And obviously, Iran's understanding of this framework is much different than President Obama's.

Click to expand...

Well, say the administration apologists, what’s your alternative? Do you want war?

It’s Obama’s usual, subtle false-choice maneuver: It’s either appeasement or war.

It’s not. True, there are no good choices, but Obama’s prospective deal is the worst possible. Not only does Iran get a clear path to the bomb but it gets sanctions lifted, all pressure removed and international legitimacy.

There is a third choice. If you are not stopping Iran’s program, don’t give away the store. Keep the pressure, keep the sanctions. Indeed, increase them. After all, previous sanctions brought Iran to its knees and to the negotiating table in the first place. And that was before the collapse of oil prices, which would now vastly magnify the economic effect of heightened sanctions.

Congress is proposing precisely that. Combined with cheap oil, it could so destabilize the Iranian economy as to threaten the clerical regime. That’s the opening. Then offer to renew negotiations for sanctions relief but from a very different starting point — no enrichment. Or, if you like, with a few token centrifuges for face-saving purposes.

And no sunset.

That’s the carrot. As for the stick, make it quietly known that the United States will not stand in the way of any threatened nation that takes things into its own hands. We leave the regional threat to the regional powers, say, Israeli bombers overflying Saudi Arabia.

Consider where we began: six U.N. Security Council resolutions demanding an end to Iranian enrichment. Consider what we are now offering: an interim arrangement ending with a sunset clause that allows the mullahs a robust, industrial-strength, internationally sanctioned nuclear program.

Such a deal makes the Cuba normalization look good and the Ukrainian cease-fires positively brilliant. We are on the cusp of an epic capitulation. History will not be kind.

Click to expand...

“I vacillate between the various theories I’ve heard, but you know, if you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing.”

“This is a totally radical regime that is the premiere sponsor of state terrorism in the world, and Obama’s about to give them nuclear weapons. It’s — I can’t think of a more terrible burden to leave the next president than what Obama is creating here.”

~ Evil Dick Cheney on Hugh Hewitt's radio show

Click to expand...

There's a great YouTube of Dick Cheney in 1995 defending [President] Bush No. 1 [and the decision not to invade Baghdad in the first Gulf War], and he goes on for about five minutes. He's being interviewed, I think, by the American Enterprise Institute, and he says it would be a disaster, it would be vastly expensive, it'd be civil war, we would have no exit strategy. He goes on and on for five minutes. Dick Cheney saying it would be a bad idea. And that's why the first Bush didn't go into Baghdad. Dick Cheney then goes to work for Halliburton. Makes hundreds of millions of dollars, their CEO. Next thing you know, he's back in government and it's a good idea to go into Iraq.

The day after 9/11, [CIA chief] George Tenet is going in the [White] House and [Pentagon adviser] Richard Perle is coming out of the White House. And George Tenet should know more about intelligence than anybody in the world, and the first thing Richard Perle says to him on the way out is, "We've got it, now we can go into Iraq." And George Tenet, who supposedly knows as much intelligence as anybody in the White House says, "Well, don't we need to know that they have some connection to 9/11?" And, he [Perle] says, "It doesn't matter." It became an excuse. 9/11 became an excuse for a war they already wanted in Iraq.

It's Dick Cheney in 1995* being interviewed on why they didn't go into Baghdad the first time under the first [President] George Bush. And his arguments are exactly mirroring my dad's arguments for why we shouldn't have gone in this time. It would be chaos. There'd be a civil war. There'd be no exit strategy. And cost a blue bloody fortune in both lives and treasure. And this is Dick Cheney saying this. But, you know, a couple hundred million dollars later Dick Cheney earns from Halliburton, he comes back into government. Now Halliburton's got a billion-dollar no-bid contract in Iraq. You know, you hate to be so cynical that you think some of these corporations are able to influence policy, but I think sometimes they are. Most of the people on these [congressional] committees have a million dollars in their bank account all from different military-industrial contractors. We don't want our defense to be defined by people who make money off of the weapons.

Senator Rand Paul

Click to expand...

c.e.lawson said:

rabburrel - I'm going to be more optimistic that there are ways to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb in 2 or 10 years. I don't want to throw in the towel so soon.

Click to expand...

CassandraW said:

Yes. It is a vicious and destructive cycle, and I believe it has contributed heavily to both political polarization and political apathy in the U.S.

By the way, I do not suggest for a minute that the right doesn't engage in a buttload of posturing and idiocy. And I would not vote for Tom Cotton, for the record. But it's not because he's intellectually inferior.

All I am suggesting is that the left would gain more with Average Joe, come election time, if they cut down on the sneering at their opponents' intellectual prowess. And they'd be less likely to underestimate their opposition.

I think we'd all gain if everyone cut down on the bombast and engaged in actual substantive discussion, but that might be too much to hope for.

Click to expand...

raburrell said:

...And the problem there is that Russia and China both realize it's an excellent way to keep us occupied, so they have no interest in helping. Which is why no matter what, if we tried to push for a 'tougher' deal (whatever that means) those sanctions are going to collapse.

There is no good solution here. And that sucks, but it is what it is.

Click to expand...

rugcat said:

But what he did say is that if tougher sanctions do not have the desired effect, we then need to employ military force. And as all military experts have pointed out, it is not possible destroy Iran's nuclear capabilities simply by bombing raids. So what exactly is meant then by military options if not an actual war?
--ME. Short of invading Iran and blowing the reactors to kingdom come--which is not going to happen for obvious reasons--the only thing one could do, if push came to shove--would be to bomb the reactor sites and at the very least set the Iranian scientists back a few years. I doubt a similar STUX-like program is going to work again. It might, but I'm sure the Iranians already have safeguards up.

And although no one can say with certainty what to perceptions would do. But you should keep in mind that many astute individuals who have studied the middle east for years, including some military men Who are far from Liberal, believe that increasing sanctions will do nothing more than increase Iran's determination to develop a bomb and I'm sure they will pour all of their energies into that objective.
--ME. Who's to say that isn't what Iran has been doing all along? Regardless of what political bent you have, I doubt that anyone, left or right wing, is willing to take Iran's word that they're just developing nuclear power for energy to power its country. It more than likely is. However, given the volatile nature of the Middle East, given the fact that Iran has continuously made warlike overtures, it's also more than likely they want to amass their own nuclear arms. If anyone believes they want nuclear power ONLY for peaceful purposes, I've got some swampwater in Utah...

Iran may well have a segment of the population chanting "Death to America" but we have people in power chanting "let's bomb the crap out of those m***********s."
--Me. True on this.

The framework of this agreement includes unprecedented access to all Iranian facilities by inspectors. And let's not forget, this is not simply a deal between the US and Iran. It involves five of our closest European allies, countries closer to and with a lot more to fear from them than we do. They seem to believe that the deal is a step forward and a hopeful sign of progress, not to be thrown away lightly. Are they too all misguided and naïve?
--ME. What do you think? In the past, Iran allowed inspectors in, but only on their timetable. They delayed, hid evidence, lied...and even if they allow inspectors in to see the obvious, ask yourself this question: What else might they be hiding?

It all may be irrelevant, however. The opposition on the right, led by a new wave of neocons like Tom Cotton, are winning the PR war. They are pushing the views of Benjamin Netanyahu, who sounds eerily like our well beloved Dick Cheney, whose prescient predictions of the war in Iraq proved to be so accurate.
--ME. You may not like Bibi--well, a lot of people don't--but at the same time, he's right to be concerned. Let's face it, armed Arabic countries who already hate Israel and have repeatedly, hyperbole or not, chanted "Death to Israel" ad infinitum, possessing atomic weapons is a nightmare come true. Or, if you believe in Satan, a devil's wet dream. Take your pick.

I don't think this deal will ever come to fruition. And I believe that sooner or later, probably sooner, we will be faced with an intransigent, now unshakably hostile Iran on the verge of achieving a nuclear bomb.

At which point we may well go to war with consequences at least as grave as those resulting from our adventure in Iraq.

Click to expand...

J.S.F. said:

You do have to fear a nuclear Iran. JMO...

Click to expand...

J.S.F. said:

---

See above, please. And I'd have to agree with the last two paragraphs in your post although I'd rather not see it reach that point. While you can call me a neo-con (I've been called far worse, so g'hed) I don't think it's unfair for Bibi to be alarmed. Yes, he's a right-wing hawk. No doubt. But while he plays to the crowd, Iran possessing nuclear weapons is a legit concern to everyone in the region. Not just Israel.

And before anyone says "Israel already has atomic weapons" I'm going to agree. I'm sure they have a shitload of them. But at the same time, they don't go around threatening to atomize other countries and wipe them off the face of the Earth. They don't engage in hyperbole. They're hardly innocent in this. But you don't have to fear a nuclear Israel. You do have to fear a nuclear Iran. JMO...

Click to expand...

Michael Wolfe said:

Why?

Click to expand...

J.S.F. said:

---

If you haven't figured it out by now, then I'm not going to do your homework for you. I mean, really. Think about destabilization and take it from there.

Click to expand...

Michael Wolfe said:

No need for condescension. Destabilization as a likely outcome is something that should be argued for, imo, not just assumed. I'm pretty sympathetic to the Waltzian view, personally, the idea that a nuclear Iran would shift the balance of power in such a way as to make an actual hot war between Iran and other states (like Israel) less likely, rather than more likely.

Click to expand...

backslashbaby said:

I think the article didn't consider Saudi Arabia enough, though. They really might get the bomb, too, if Iran does, I think. They've certainly said so. Not that that changes much from what the article asserts, except that there would be an arms race in the region, imho.

Click to expand...

Michael Wolfe said:

No need for condescension. Destabilization as a likely outcome is something that should be argued for, imo, not just assumed. I'm pretty sympathetic to the Waltzian view, personally, the idea that a nuclear Iran would shift the balance of power in such a way as to make an actual hot war between Iran and other states (like Israel) less likely, rather than more likely.

Click to expand...

I don't think they have any physical reason to fear a nuclear Iran, because Iran has pretty much no reason to go to war with them.

Click to expand...

Reminiscent of the "Great Game" played out in Afghanistan between Great Britain and Russia more than a hundred years ago, Saudi Arabia and Iran are engaged in their own decades-long strategic rivalry for power and influence in the Middle East, stretching from the Mediterranean Sea to the Gulf and Arabian Sea. It is built mostly along sectarian and ideological lines - Saudi Arabia as the leader of the Sunni Muslim world, and Iran as the leader of the Shia Muslim world.

While recent high-level discussions between the Saudi and Iranian foreign ministers would suggest a possible thawing in their cold relations, the fact of the matter is, too much bad blood exists between them for any meaningful, long-term rapprochement, at least in the near-term. The more likely state of affairs is that they are simply reassessing their strategies, taking into account all the events in the region, and preparing their next moves on the Middle East chessboard.

In playing their Great Game, Saudi Arabia and Iran have engaged in a series of proxy wars to undermine each other, some hot and some cold, throughout the Middle East. In Lebanon, it's the Iran-backed Hezbollah. In Syria, it's the longtime Iran-backed Assad regime. In Iraq, it's an Iran-backed Shia government which was, prior to the US invasion in 2003, solidly in the Sunni camp.

In Bahrain and the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, Iran works behind the scenes to undermine those governments through the Shia communities, a threat Saudi Arabia takes so seriously that they sent military forces into Bahrain in 2011 to help quell the Shia uprising there. And then there is Yemen. While it is debatable as to how involved they were in supporting the Houthi uprising, the sudden turn of events on the ground there does play favourably into Iran’s hand.

Click to expand...