There is much information and misinformation floating around about the US/Iran agreement and negotiations. I have read some authors who know something about the situation who state that Iran isn't really developing nuclear capability. They may have some enrichment operations for show but the intention was never to develop weapons but to use the threat as leverage for negotiation. Going into the talks based on what I read, I expected for the US to ease sanctions while Iran agreed to back off on their nuclear development. That seems to also be the reason Iran now has Rouhani as president to present a more flexible figurehead than Ahmadinejad. Apparently, the US has national interest in easing sanctions in Iran to provide more economic/political stability. Looking at the ME overall, the US is benefitted by a stable Shia regime to counterbalance the Sunni powers in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. That's the real issue at hand, counterbalance. We would all do well to remember that as talks progress because I expect more deals to be made.
Monahorns, I appreciate your comments and will gladly read a few of your articles, but everything I have read has stated the exact opposite. Iran Watch gives a timeline of nuclear development in Iran and I have read many articles on the ability of Iran to develop systems that approach nuclear weapons development without crossing the line. One important thing to note is the limited peacetime uses for highly enriched uranium. One of the few is medical nuclear radioisotopes which I was personally used as a consultant. At least here in the US there was no need to increase production of medical radioisotopes because the supply outstripped demand by a huge margin so the material was basically being given away. As for your second paragraph, we currently are concerned more with Iranian power than Arabian power. Before the Iraq war that was not the case, but the power vacuum in Iraq and our complete withdrawal gave Iran a lot of power in Iraq. Iran was also flexing its muscle in Syria and Lebanon and putting pressure through Hezbollah on Israel. This Iranian aggression has been kept in check indirectly by a proxy war that we are fighting in Syria by supplying the enemies of the Iranian-supported regime. We have also been keeping Iran in check through world sanctions against Iran. These sanctions in particular have crippled the Iranian economy and has slowed the ability of Iran to supply Hezbollah and provide support for Assad in Syria. As a counter, Iran is very intent on building nuclear weapons so the West can't intervene.
This one encapsulates what I have read. www.stratfor.com/weekly/israelis-saudis-and-iranian-agreement
I may have overstated, but the overall context of the article talks of the Iran nuclear program as leverage to negotiate the economic sanctions away. The statements you quote are based on what the US or Israel would do in the case of Iran having weapons but doesn't state Iran's intention in all this, which is what I was trying to communicate. Now the information or analysis of the situation may be wrong but the tone of the author dismisses the real threat of Iran ever having nuclear weapons.
My view is that Obama and Kerry are taking a calculated risk that either will or won't pay peace dividend wrt Iran and might allow a bomb quicker than if no new agreement were lifting the hard fought for sanctions. It also diverts attention away from the long list of questions the Administration is facing right now that would tend, in my opinion, to cause them to take more risk than usual in such matters as this post topic. Time will tell. With 3 years left before Obama leaves office he might be held accountable on this one since he is more on the record concerning it. The Krauthammer article raises some valid concerns.
Holy ****! Now they're blaming Bush for having to make this deal! And if they're blaming Bush, you know it can't be that good of a deal otherwise they would take full credit for it. Nothing is ever their fault, they absolutely have no shame.
So what is your magic solution? You guys think we should just bomb them now? The sanctions have never been lifted so they are just about to work right? Diplomacy is about what can be accomplished. War is easy. This may end up with us bombing them, but I sure wish we had tried everything with Iraq first.
So what is your magic bullet solution? Attempting a diplomatic solution is making things half-assed? I think Iran gets bombed at the end of all this and the sanctions never get lifted although maybe Iran will comply next Monday. We will see.
The Obama "plan" bought us a chance at a diplomatic solution. It did nothing negative at all. Sanctions have worked so well like in the democratic bastion of Cuba. War worked great in Vietnam and Iraq too. I still think we wind up bombing Iran, but I am glad adults are making decisions and trying to avoid this bad outcome.
I gotta agree with paso on this. The diplomacy route doesn't seem to be working, and I had no expectation that it would work, because if the alleged bad guy is really committed, none of this **** matters. It's a charade. However, I don't really see how it harmed anybody to make the effort. If anything it makes us look good for the candy-*** Europeans who don't like us throwing our weight around without asking their permission. If in the meantime, they actually got a bomb, then I could understand, but they haven't. Paso will understand this. It's a little like going to mediation with Progressive Insurance, Farmers, or Allstate. I know they're all a bunch of greedy fucks who are going to waste my time (I've even told them that before.), but it doesn't hurt my case to go. Furthermore, it'll look bad to the judge if I refuse to go. It costs a little money up front, but I'll get that back in taxable court costs after I beat them. It just doesn't hurt to go and enjoy a really nice lunch at the Headliners Club in downtown Austin (at least if you pick the right mediator).
