'Historic' Iran nuclear deal reached

backslashbaby

~~~~*~~~~
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
12,635
Reaction score
1,603
Location
NC
Yeah, I think that there are enough countries afraid of Iran's aggressive Shia coalition that they will take a nuclear Iran very seriously. I figure that they will probably just go nuclear, too, with Saudi Arabia the one to do it. But we really don't know how it will play out.

I just think it's inevitable. And I do think it will play out like North Korea and Pakistan having nukes, where they aren't really used but folks are afraid of them at the same time. I don't know that it will stabilize the region as far as the kinds of wars that occur there. I think those will continue, but something as large and direct as the Iran-Iraq war probably won't.

OTOH, Iran has been so imperialist in the region recently, that it's hard to say that they won't try to capitalize more on being nuclear than other similar countries have. They will not only be nuclear, but supported by Russia. They are already cashing in on that alliance, and I don't think it will get any better once they have the bomb. It might not get any worse, though, either, since they are milking that for all it's worth already.
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
---

By asking "Why?" in your prior post, you knew damn well what the answer would be.

Well, no. I'm familiar with the major lines of argument, but there are different reasons why a particular person might support one side of the argument or the other. I was just seeing if you would expand a little bit. No need for aggressive language here. I didn't mean the question in an unfriendly way, I assure you. ;)


As for the Waltzian view, while you may be sympathetic toward it, I wonder how sympathetic a nuclear-armed Iran would be.

Well, they're the ones looking to go nuclear, so I imagine they would be just as sympathetic.


I might point out that Israel, despite more than having (probably) a number of nuclear weapons, has never threatened any other country with the prospect of using them.

Correct. But I think it's worth noting how many who fear a nuclear Iran are so quick to point to apocalyptic Iranian rhetoric as a basis for that fear. Because, at the same time, one should note the distinction between what governments say and what they do--that's international relations 101. One of the strongest points in the Waltz piece (because he offers specifics in this regard), is that, while Iran is radical, they are still making decisions in terms of costs and benefits, just like any other government. So to my mind, the Iranian rhetoric is largely an empty excuse for alarmism. That's not to say that Iran isn't worth taking seriously, because if anything I would say the exact opposite. But it's crucial I think to understand the real reasons why Iran says what it does, because a lot of people are missing a lot of the meaning, imo.

While that ain't exactly honest (obviously) it's a whole lot better than a regime like Iran's threatening to extend its hold over the Middle East.

The way I'm looking at this, it's not really so much a matter of taking sides between Iran and Israel. And of course, Iran's influence has already increased and will continue, I think, regardless of the nuclear issue.

The key that's important not to lose sight of, imo, is that the nuclear issue is a specific category in a larger power struggle. Since a nuclear Iran is probably a foregone conclusion with enough time passing, we play into their hands way too much by hyperfocusing on it and ignoring the big picture.
 
Last edited:

William Haskins

poet
Kind Benefactor
Absolute Sage
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
29,096
Reaction score
8,846
Age
58
Website
www.poisonpen.net
Exclusive: Britain told U.N. monitors of active Iran nuclear procurement - panel

(Reuters) - Britain has informed a United Nations sanctions panel of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted firms, according to a confidential report by the panel seen by Reuters.

The existence of such a network could add to Western concerns over whether Tehran can be trusted to adhere to a nuclear deal due by June 30 in which it would agree to restrict sensitive nuclear work in exchange for sanctions relief.

Talks between six major powers and Tehran are approaching the final stages after they hammered out a preliminary agreement on April 2, with Iran committing to reduce the number of centrifuges it operates and other long-term nuclear limitations.

"The UK government informed the Panel on 20 April 2015 that it 'is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network which has been associated with Iran's Centrifuge Technology Company (TESA) and Kalay Electric Company (KEC)'," the Panel of Experts said in its annual report. The panel monitors Iran's compliance with the U.N. sanctions regime.

KEC is under U.N. Security Council sanctions while TESA is under U.S. and European Union sanctions due to their suspected links to banned Iranian nuclear activities.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0NL09220150430
 

c.e.lawson

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 21, 2007
Messages
3,640
Reaction score
1,286
Location
A beach town near Los Angeles
(Reuters) - Britain has informed a United Nations sanctions panel of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network linked to two blacklisted firms, according to a confidential report by the panel seen by Reuters.

The existence of such a network could add to Western concerns over whether Tehran can be trusted to adhere to a nuclear deal due by June 30 in which it would agree to restrict sensitive nuclear work in exchange for sanctions relief.

Talks between six major powers and Tehran are approaching the final stages after they hammered out a preliminary agreement on April 2, with Iran committing to reduce the number of centrifuges it operates and other long-term nuclear limitations.

"The UK government informed the Panel on 20 April 2015 that it 'is aware of an active Iranian nuclear procurement network which has been associated with Iran's Centrifuge Technology Company (TESA) and Kalay Electric Company (KEC)'," the Panel of Experts said in its annual report. The panel monitors Iran's compliance with the U.N. sanctions regime.

KEC is under U.N. Security Council sanctions while TESA is under U.S. and European Union sanctions due to their suspected links to banned Iranian nuclear activities.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/30/us-iran-nuclear-idUSKBN0NL09220150430

This is absolutely SHOCKING! :sarcasm

Also from the article in William's post:
Iran, which is has been under sanctions for years, has a long history of illicit nuclear procurement using front companies and other methods of skirting sanctions.

That has enabled it to develop a substantial atomic program in spite of aggressive international efforts to curtail it, U.N. diplomats say. But analysts and Western intelligence officials say sanctions have slowed the development of Tehran’s nuclear program.

I'd like to ask this question:

What has Iran actually done to earn any concessions from the U.S., or to earn relief from sanctions immediately upon inking the agreement (which is what they are demanding)? They have consistently cheated, they have continued to support terrorism, they have shipped arms to Yemen's Huthi rebels for years ( http://news.yahoo.com/iran-arming-y...-202936346.html;_ylt=A86.J7x7oEJV3g8AGxQnnIlQ ), they continue to want the destruction of Israel, they have continued to chant "Death to America".

They cannot be trusted.

And to answer rugcat's question from upthread regarding if I have any idea what a ground war with Iran will look like. My answer is, better than a nuclear war.
 

raburrell

Treguna Makoidees Trecorum SadisDee
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 24, 2009
Messages
6,902
Reaction score
3,781
Age
50
Location
MA
Website
www.rebeccaburrell.com
Meanwhile, Tom Cotton is still doing his best to be a complete tool and help no one, tossing a series of yosemite-samish tweets at Iran's foreign minister. (Who'd had the temerity to note Cotton really can't do much about sanctions being lifted).

Hard to argue that Zarif didn't come out looking better in the exchange, IMO:
“Serious diplomacy, not macho personal smear, is what we need,” Zarif tweeted Thursday. “Congrats on Ur new born. May U and Ur family enjoy him in peace .@SenTomCotton”
 

rugcat

Lost in the Fog
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
16,339
Reaction score
4,110
Location
East O' The Sun & West O' The Moon
Website
www.jlevitt.com
Meanwhile, Tom Cotton is still doing his best to be a complete tool and help no one, tossing a series of yosemite-samish tweets at Iran's foreign minister. (Who'd had the temerity to note Cotton really can't do much about sanctions being lifted).

Hard to argue that Zarif didn't come out looking better in the exchange, IMO:
Yes, Cotton is a shining example of the gravitas a U.S. Senator holds.

He'd be a lot more at home on an internet message board -- or maybe right here on the P&CE forum.
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
What has Iran actually done to earn any concessions from the U.S., or to earn relief from sanctions immediately upon inking the agreement (which is what they are demanding)?
Imo, this is asking the wrong question. Deals between enemies are rarely about rewarding the other guy for what they've earned. Concessions in this context are all about getting concessions in return. If we offered none at all, then what could we possibly hope for in exchange?

They cannot be trusted.

Yes, exactly. That's why I'm so amused by those who say we should have gotten a better deal. When a guy offers to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for ten bucks and you call bullshit, surely you wouldn't change your mind when he offers to throw in the Golden Gate, too?


And to answer rugcat's question from upthread regarding if I have any idea what a ground war with Iran will look like. My answer is, better than a nuclear war.

Chillax, there's no coming nuclear war.

That said, a conventional war probably wouldn't prevent Iran from going nuclear, anyway. It could easily persuade them that the deterrents they currently have are not sufficient, and that they need a nuclear weapon even more than ever.

Imagine if Japan in World War II had carried out a second attack on the same scale as Pearl Harbor. Would the US then have invested more money in the Manhattan project? I wouldn't doubt it.
 
Last edited:

J.S.F.

Red fish, blue fish...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
5,365
Reaction score
793
Location
Osaka
Imo, this is asking the wrong question. Deals between enemies are rarely about rewarding the other guy for what they've earned. Concessions in this context are all about getting concessions in return. If we offered none at all, then what could we possibly hope for in exchange?

--ME. In the past, the USA and other countries have offered concessions, mainly by lifting sanctions (imposed due to the behaviour of Iran and other rogue states) and attempting to offer deals on trade, loans, etc. So far, I think the USA, imperfect as its record has been, has done a lot more. Iran's concessions, if you want to call them that, have been to say "Well, we'll let you look at the sites on our schedule, lie and do business with blacklisted firms, and give you the finger internationally". So really, the West has gotten bupkis in return.


Yes, exactly. That's why I'm so amused by those who say we should have gotten a better deal. When a guy offers to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for ten bucks and you call bullshit, surely you wouldn't change your mind when he offers to throw in the Golden Gate, too?

--ME. Agreed.



Chillax, there's no coming nuclear war.

That said, a conventional war probably wouldn't prevent Iran from going nuclear, anyway. It could easily persuade them that the deterrents they currently have are not sufficient, and that they need a nuclear weapon even more than ever.

Imagine if Japan in World War II had carried out a second attack on the same scale as Pearl Harbor. Would the US then have invested more money in the Manhattan project? I wouldn't doubt it.
--

See above, please.

As for preventing Iran from going nuclear, no, all these sanctions and deals and whatnot are simply stopgaps. Sooner or later Iran will become a nuclear power.

However, I reiterate--and yes, if you want to call this a neocon position, so be it--Iran has proved themselves to be totally untrustworthy in the past. They've taken every 'deal' offered, gone back on their word, and continued to thumb their nose not just at the USA, but other countries as well.

It all comes down to trust. Not just with Iran, but with the other Middle East countries as well--the USA and them, and Israel and the rest of the ME countries. You can talk about concessions all you want, but if past behaviour on the part of the Arabic countries is any proof, what else do you want? I'm not saying that Israel is perfect. No, not at all. But again, they're not threatening to turn another country into an inferno. Hyperbole aside, Iran's just whacked out enough to do it...or give it their best shot.
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
--

See above, please.

LOL. I love when people say that.


However, I reiterate--and yes, if you want to call this a neocon position, so be it--Iran has proved themselves to be totally untrustworthy in the past.

Why would I want to label that as a "neocon" position? Wasn't I basically agreeing on that point?


It all comes down to trust.

But they're not trustworthy, as I think we agree. All the more reason to shift our focus away from trust.

By offering sanctions relief gradually, we only need to trust that they'll act according to their own perceived interests, which is what pretty much every state can be trusted to do.


You can talk about concessions all you want, but if past behaviour on the part of the Arabic countries is any proof, what else do you want?

Sorry, I'm not clear on this point. What exactly are the Arab states proof of?

I'm not saying that Israel is perfect.

And I'm not saying anything about Israel one way or the other. Seems unnecessary for the discussion.
 

J.S.F.

Red fish, blue fish...
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
5,365
Reaction score
793
Location
Osaka
LOL. I love when people say that.
--ME. Glad ya like it. Guess what...see below. ;)

Why would I want to label that as a "neocon" position? Wasn't I basically agreeing on that point?
--ME. I suppose so...but where we disagree is how much Iran can be trusted. People like to label, and if they (not you, necessarily) label me as being a neo-con, no biggie. I'm a big boy, I can handle it.

But they're not trustworthy, as I think we agree. All the more reason to shift our focus away from trust.

By offering sanctions relief gradually, we only need to trust that they'll act according to their own perceived interests, which is what pretty much every state can be trusted to do.
--ME. Here is where we differ slightly. I agree that pretty much every state acts according to its own best interests, perceived or otherwise.

The difference is, in the past when sanctions were gradually lifted with Iran, they went right back to doing what they do--thumbing their nose at the West and rebuilding what was taken away, destroyed, or put on hold. That's why I favor keeping sanctions on them for as long as possible. It may not stop them from their labors nuclear power-wise, but it might make the people a little more concerned over where their country is going. True, it hasn't worked before, but it did stir the shit up over there, at least for a short time. Is it moral? No, it isn't. But right now nothing else seems to be working.

Sorry, I'm not clear on this point. What exactly are the Arab states proof of?
--ME. Duplicitous behaviour in the past, accusing the USA of not providing enough help when the USA has to worry about providing too much. I could cite examples, but it would fill up too many pages...

And I'm not saying anything about Israel one way or the other. Seems unnecessary for the discussion.
--ME. I only included Israel as they do ostensibly possess nuclear weapons and that sooner or later the focus shifts to them and how they're getting more concessions than other countries. They are...but guess who the number one buyer of arms is in the Middle East?

---

See above, please. (Yeah, you knew I was going to do it) :D
 

Michael Wolfe

Jambo Bwana
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 17, 2010
Messages
4,097
Reaction score
382
---
The difference is, in the past when sanctions were gradually lifted with Iran, they went right back to doing what they do--thumbing their nose at the West and rebuilding what was taken away, destroyed, or put on
hold.

Can you give me some specifics here? I'm a little unclear on what you're referring to exactly.

That's why I favor keeping sanctions on them for as long as possible.

There has to be some sort of endgame with regard to sanctions, imo. The sanctions are useful insofar as they can be exchanged for concessions, and I'm not sure the future will offer a better time to make those exchanges. As I've pointed out before, I think it's pretty clear the general appetite for sanctions (especially among P5+1 countries) is trending down, not up. Gotta sell before the value tanks and we lose even more leverage than we've already lost.

Duplicitous behaviour in the past, accusing the USA of not providing enough help when the USA has to worry about providing too much. I could cite examples, but it would fill up too many pages

I would think if we're looking for predictors of Iran's future behavior, Iran's past behavior would be the place to look, not the Arabs.