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."
Neville Chamberlain's hands were tied by the unwillingness of his people to go to war for Czechoslovakia. Condemn the man all you want; as the leader of a democracy his policy choices were constrained by public opinion, just as BHO's are. Do you think you could have done better in Chamberlain's hands? British and French policymakers couldn't sell their peoples on a war in 1936, when Hitler first telegraphed his intentions, despite the fact that Germany had no army worthy of the name and would have been curb stomped by the Franco-British Alliance.
This may turn out to be a bad deal, I'm skeptical that Iran can be trusted, but the political reality of the situation is there's no appetite in the United States (let alone the rest of the West) to go to war over what the Iranians might do. Check back in 20 years to find out if BHO managed to thread the needle better than Chamberlain.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
From the second the GW Bush made his crazy ill-advised "Axis of Evil" speech and then proceeded to invade one of those Axis members, it was pretty much guaranteed that Iran and North Korea would pursue nukes (and NK has already succeeded). They're not stupid. They know nukes are the only way to assure you won't be invaded or overthrown by the U.S.
So if you don't suck up to Iran and give them a deal that says "We're not going to invade you if you'll just play ball," then it's really only a matter of time. Mossad can car-bomb all the scientists it wants. The U.S. can release a hundred Stuxnets. But eventually it WILL happen.
So if you don't give them a deal, you're really only assuring it. Now, maybe they'll still do it anyway. But at least this way there is a CHANCE they won't.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
They're going to get nuclear weapons if there ISN'T a deal. Rejecting the deal will only assure it. At lease this deal gives us a chance to stall it, or maybe make some headway on becoming finally more friendly. You know "friendly," as in they're one of only two allies who can help to really fight Isis (the other being the Assad regime in Syria). "Friendly" as in WE FUCKING NEED THEM.
The only other option is to go to war with them and overthrow the government. And we saw how wonderfully that turned out in Iraq, didn't we?
So, are you going to add another state to the caliphate or deal?
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
This draws my attention back to the Cold War, when the 'imminent threat' of Mutual Assured Destruction was used by the leaders of the USSR and USA to justify the election of hawkish leaders and the spending of significant portions of the GDP of each country on military build ups
It was great for hawkish leaders and the people who sell weapons, but not so good for everybody else, with the USSR even being driven to financial bankruptcy
At what point do we say, "hey this isn't good for anybody but Likkud, the Mullahs and whoever is selling them weapons, maybe we should try a different approach?"
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Israel didn't ask our permission. And also Israel isn't actively involved in exporting Islamic terrorism around the world.
Attack with an Iranian weapon in 1.5 years.
Attack with an Iranian weapon Iran will admit to responsibility for, in four years (they want time to stockpile more than a few nukes before going on a full offensive).
Read it and weep. A thousand centrifuges in an un-killable under-mountain facility. Once sanctions are lifted they would take a long time to restart, so even IF you catch Iran cheating you can do nothing now to stop the inevitable.
If I lived in a coastal community I would move out immediately.
I hope Iron Dome can be switched to "reflect".
Nothing like some irrational fearmongering to brighten your day.
What on earth does your mental model of Iranians look like?! A nation of genocidal suicide bombers??
You know how many wars Iran has launched since 1979? Zero.
You know who does the suicide bombings? Not Shias, the dominant religion in Iran.
Yes their human rights record sucks, yes the probably want a Nuke or at least some practical Nuclear expertise to deter attacks from Israel or the US. But they're not cartoonish supervillians and I have no idea what evidence you're basing your predictions on. Healthy relations between the US and Iran is a good thing for everybody.
I stole this Sig
If "third world" Pakistan can control itself while wielding nuclear weapons, I'm sure Iran can as well. The inescapable fact of the matter is this: The United States does not "militarily" mess with nation possessing nuclear weapons. This fact alone makes the weapons highly desirable.
Didn't stop us from covertly assassinating a high-valued target with a special-ops team.
"Screw Sun, cross-platform will never work. Let's move on and steal the Java language." - Visual J++ Product Manager
Self defense? Self defense is in protecting within your borders, not in expanding them and putting up more and more settlements on occupied land, and self defense is not about sabotaging ever single peace plan that comes along. Build a settlement, wait for the retaliation, then claim that the peace process is off because of the retaliation.