Looks like the West is reaching a deal with Iran over its nuclear program. They're going to agree to scale back their uranium enrichment (no weapons grade uranium), and the United States is going to give Iran a few billion in sanctions relief. Obama fans think it's great. Israel thinks it's awful. Reality is probably somewhere in between. To me the fundamental issue on any of these agreements that involve some nut giving up weapons (whether it's Iran with nukes or Syria with chemical weapons) is trust. Nobody seems to have a good answer. On one hand, we pay cash, which is obviously verifiable. However, the nut is agreeing not to develop the weapons. How do we ever know they'll actually keep their end of the bargain, and how will we know one way or the other? They can dismantle weapons or facilities, but how do we know they don't have facilities or weapons that they aren't disclosing? How do we know they'll never enrich uranium beyond what's necessary for power plants? I think the obvious answer is that we'll never know for sure. So then should we just trust Iran at its word, and what does that mean? Do we lift all sanctions? More significant, do we actually presume their honesty and scale back our military presence in the area and scrap the European component of our missile defense system, which was primarily geared toward the Middle East in general and Iran in particular? (Obama did scale this back our European missile defense, but not completely.) In light of these kinds of issues, I don't really see how any kind of agreement like this can truly resolve anything.
IAEA inspections are intrusive and first rate. It is very difficult to build an atomic bomb and takes serious infrastructure. This agreement appears to permit IAEA inspections and limit Iran in ways that will prevent it from obtaining an atomic weapon. What else exactly do you guys want? I get that nothing Obama or the UN or other countries do will be good enough, but I am curious as to what exactly you think should be done? Iran should be a glass parking lot or what? What would be adequate? I do not take anything Israel says on Iran seriously. They have been wrong again and again and again. They also now have the means with which to take care of Iran on their own (because we sold them some aerial refueling tankers) if they so desire. Israel has tried to manipulate the US on Iran for the past four years. They even tried to influence the election in 2012.
Seriously? Read an interview with the former head of Mossad about where Iran is on manufacturing a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu is a hack trying to manipulate us.
Actions like this are just making it a sure thing that Israel will take Iran out. Way to go Obozo and Kerry.
I am not going to do all your research for you since you should already know this. I will give you a start though. Netanyahu is way ahead of his own intelligence agencies in his claims about Iran. He is a political hack (like the right wing chicken hawks in this country). The Link Why didn't Bush strike Iran? Why doesn't Israel strike Iran? Why is this such a lame *** attempt to make Obama and the Democrats appear weak? It is transparent.
One thing that makes Hornfans so frustrating is the number of posters who do not do any basic research on a subject. It would help if anyone who wanted to post on this subject had at least a basic understanding of Iran's nuclear program and what the agreement does and does not do. You can always have an opinion but having an informed opinion sure is better. For example:
What this means is that I have actually followed the Iran issue for about a decade and you obviously haven't. The devil is in the details and the follow up. The actual inspections and agreement sound very promising. I also think the Israeli intelligence officials are right about Iran. American intelligence officials concur. Iran was still several years from obtaining a weapon. And really the stupid (and frustrating) part of this are the neocon ********* who cannot negotiate a thing. These are the same dumbasses that got us into Iraq (an invasion you no doubt championed). You guys just want to attack Obama and the Democrats have at it.
When have sanctions been effective at removing a regime? Honestly - that's not a rhetorical question. I can think of N. Korea and Cuba. Libya seemed to over-through Kadahfi right after we started loosening sanctions. I understand the theory. It's a rational idea. Does it work? It seems to only galvanize the majority population's support behind the dictator and weaken the minority opposition. USSR? Were we warming up to them with all that glasnost and perestroika stuff before they revolted.
Sanctions are only effective and just about to reach their objective when someone negotiates a diplomatic solution that they do not like. This is an interim agreement. The key will be the additional negotiations. You guys still may get your military strike.
We fear Iran because they are a theocracy ruled by a religious xenophobic and bigoted Muslim zeitgeist. Didn't the increasing wealth and growing middle-class cause the citizens of the Soviet Union to revolt against the communist? I suggest hope and opportunity breed democracy and liberty. Poverty and struggle gives birth to what exists in N. Korea, Cuba, and Iran. Unlike Saudi, I think the Iranian opposition could get enough traction to get rid of the Ayatollah leaders. Iran's people are a lot more westernized than we think. I think the prospect of a successful Iran scares Saudi Arabia more than it scares Israel. It's easy for me to say remove some sanctions on Iran to see what happens because I don't have to deal with a negative consequence. One could say the sanctions are working, but I think Iran has grown as a threat (so the sanctions aren't working).
Has anything changed between September and now? Since the agreement was reached this past weekend, you might want to look today. The Link
This is a portion of an op-ed written by the President of the Council on Foreign Relations (the same group that publishes Foreign Affairs).In reply to:
This one statement yesterday from Kerry kinda outlines the strategy BO and Kerry used and are using Kerry: "“We’re trying to set up a process by which we can verify, know what we’re doing, restraining the program while we negotiate the comprehensive deal,” Kerry said Sunday." Really? You announce a deal and you don't have a verification process? What happens when you TRY and fail? IAEA hasn't shown it is capable when the country stymies it at every turn. No wonder that so many Dems and former BO admin people are coming out and saying what a bad deal this is BUT it is serving the purpose of distracting some from obamacare so for BO and his supporters that must be a good thing
It seems like both sides have plenty of quotes and analysis to validate their view of whether this is a good/bad deal, but I think the bottom line is this: In a few years Iran will have a nuclear weapon, and all the agreements, treaties, understandings, etc. will be viewed as worthless. North Korea perfected the template that Iran is now following.
