Slashdot Mirror
Why the Framework Nuclear Agreement With Iran Is Good For Both Sides
Lasrick writes: Ariane Tabatabai breaks down the details of the framework agreement between Iran and the P5+1 that was announced Thursday. It appears to be better than most analysts expected, with positive outcomes for both sides. It truly seems historic: "A number of these steps will, in effect, be irreversible. They will not just limit Iran's nuclear capability for 10 to 15 years, but will reshape it entirely and indefinitely. ... [B]oth sides stand to gain from the framework agreement, which should also be considered a victory for the global nonproliferation regime. Ahead of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference that begins in late April, where no major achievements in nonproliferation are likely to be announced, the framework agreement is a very important success."
nuclear weapons ARE tech. nerds of the geopolitical bent have interest in what's going on here, too. and if anything else, this is literally "stuff that matters".
but here's your refund for a free article, if you still don't like it.
But even if we give them the deal I ran will renege on the deal. They have not upheld a single item from past deals. Why should they start now?
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
Iran has been 6 months away from a bomb for the past 20 years.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com...
FYI: Israel was never a signatory to the NPT.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Obama can't make treaties with other nations, the Constitution says so.
The president is authorized to negotiate treaties, they're just not binding until ratified by the Senate. A variety of presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have negotiated treaties that failed to be ratified by the Senate. What we have so far isn't even an unratified treaty, it's just a framework agreement of things that might go in a treaty that is still to be negotiated.
Existing sanctions weren't really keeping them from developing a bomb, so that really left us four choices:
1) Ignore the situation until they get around to having a bomb.
2) Attempt to increase sanctions, even though many international partners probably won't play ball, in the hope that they'll suffer an internal revolt.
3) Military action, either bombing or an invasion. The goal being to either destroy their facilities or overthrow their regime.
4) Negotiation, in order to delay their efforts, re-integrate them into the international community and influence their regime using soft power to change the attitudes of their citizens and leadership over time.
One is stupid, two probably won't work since everyone wants Iran's oil and several countries will ignore the sanctions while many more will refuse to increase them. Nearly 74% of Americans favor stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons however only 29% support direct military action in order to prevent it, at the same time 56% support easing of some sanctions in return for restrictions & inspections of Iran's nuclear program even if that doesn't end it completely. It seems to me that the president is following the will of the people quite accurately.
I'm pro-military and I served in Marines. I have no problem with military intervention if that becomes necessary but it's stupid to go that route without at least trying to negotiate our way out of the problem first. Sure, we could flatten them if we were willing to pay the price but that sort of action isn't free in dollars or lives.
No kidding. BTW it's not just President Obama who has stopped war with Iran. During the Bush administration the US military prevented the Bush administration from doing it.
http://thinkprogress.org/secur...
"Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush’s nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM.
Fallon’s resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier was followed by a shift in the Bush administration’s Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. That shift, for which no credible explanation has been offered by administration officials, suggests that Fallon’s resistance to a crucial deployment was a major factor in the intra-administration struggle over policy toward Iran."
Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a difficult battle. - Plato
The lack of follow through with NK in the Bush administration should be part of your discussion
You may also want to consider the state of the Iraqi nuclear program as a result of IAEA and UN treaties and observation in the 90's
In this case we actually were able to dissect the country, and despite the horrible warnings coming from the war mongers on the right, the IAEA program was completely effective
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Um in case you didn't notice, Ahmadinejad is not longer president of Iran
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Here is the timeline on NK, do you just make shit up or are you gonna claim that CNN is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to call out your bull?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/...
1998
August 31 - North Korea fires a multistage rocket that flies over Japan and lands in the Pacific Ocean, proving the North Koreans can strike any part of Japan's territory.
November 17 - The U.S. and North Korea hold the first round of high-level talks in Pyongyang over North Korea's suspected construction of an underground nuclear facility. The United States demands inspections.
1999
February 27-March 16 - During a fourth round of talks, North Korea allows U.S. access to the site in exchange for U.S. aid in increasing North Korean potato yields. U.S. inspectors find no evidence of any nuclear activity during a visit to site in May.
September 13 - North Korea agrees to freeze testing of long-range missiles while negotiations with the U.S. continue.
September 17 - President Bill Clinton agrees to ease economic sanctions against North Korea.
December - A U.S.-led international consortium signs a $4.6 billion contract to build two nuclear reactors in North Korea.
2000
July - North Korea threatens to restart its nuclear program if the U.S. does not compensate it for the loss of electricity caused by delays in building nuclear power plants.
2001
June - North Korea warns it will drop its moratorium against testing missiles if the U.S. does not pursue normalized relations with North Korea. It also says it will restart its nuclear program if there is not more progress on two U.S.-sponsored nuclear power plants being built in North Korea.
2002
January 29 - President George W. Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address. "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger," he says.
October 4 - U.S. officials, in closed talks, confront North Korea with evidence that they are operating a nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 nuclear agreement. Specifically, the U.S. has proof that they are operating an uranium enrichment facility. North Korea admits that is has been operating the facility in violation of the agreement. The information is NOT made public.
October 16 - The Bush Administration first reveals that North Korea has admitted operating a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement. They have NOT, apparently, admitted having any nuclear weapons.
December 22 - North Korea says it has begun removing IAEA monitoring equipment from nuclear facilities.
December 31 - North Korea expels IAEA inspectors.
2003
January 10 - North Korea withdraws from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Wherever You Go, There You Are
"If they're really that determined, they're going to get nukes anyway. At least this way they can use some of that money to fund Isis." (for various values of militant Islamic nutjobs)
FTFY.
No, that's not fixed. Iran is spending a ton of resources right now fighting Isis. Iran is Shia, Isis is Sunni. They're going to be violently opposed to each other until this 1400+ year Islamic civil war ends (good luck with that). Iran and Isis aren't friends, and over there, unlike the US, they believe that "The enemy of my enemy... is still my enemy."
The framework agreement says they will keep their first gen centrifuges and put the newer ones in a UN monitored holding area.