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."
Global humanity fucked up when we let Isreal have nuclear weapons and shit all over the NPT. This just kicks the can down the road. T2-style Judgement Day will be a few years later than expected is all.
Iran will mothball all its NES and Playstation-level cetrifuges, while keeping all its Xbone and PS4 centrifuges running full tilt. Wouldn't you, in the same situation?
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.
"You can keep your doctor if you like him."
Now you are trusting the same man to not allow a nuclear war to happen.
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.
No matter how much that is being disliked, Iran is a sovereign nation and no other nation has a right to tell them what to do. Even if they wear funny dresses, hang criminals, and stone women suspected of adultery.
Yet, it seems, they have received an offer that they cannot refuse.
With the global powers playing reverse stick and carrot... Ukraine voluntarily gave nukes for guarantees and has been given a cold shoulder after 20% of the country was first raped then annexed. Israel has nukes and nobody dares to attack them, because they know that the response will be swift.
Speaking of Ukraine, Poland had guarantees in 1939 and back then Western Powers followed through and did declare war to Germany, when they invaded Poland. Ukraine had guarantees from 4 countries, yet were royally shafted.
Lesson learned by the governments: you never give up any rights.
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.
Yes, I keep hearing the comparison of Germany in 1938 to Iran today
That leads me to ask a few questions
How is it that Iran is comparable to a country that had been a economic leader in Europe for the prior several hundred years?
Germany had been a colonial empire, with militarily help colonies across the globe, is there any comparison to Iran's status?
Germany had just waged a global war a couple of decades prior, and had waged wars against other global superpowers over the prior few hundred years going back to the Ottoman Empire, is there any comparison to the capabilities of Iran?
Finally, Netanyahu has been saying that it 1938 for about a decade, at what point do we say... gee I guess that he may not have a valid point?
Wherever You Go, There You Are
All we had to do, was simply not lift the sanctions.
That was it. All we had to do was LITERALLY NOTHING, and they still fucked it eight ways from sideways.
The new agreement guarantees Iran will have plenty of money to finish up work on shine new nuclear weapons and improve the ICBMs they already have (oh, you thought any kind of nuclear agreement would be linked to getting rid of ICBMs with no other purpose than nuclear weapon delivery? HA HA HA HA HA).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Which won't change the underlying fact that there's no appetite in the United States for sustained military conflict.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
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
Kendall,
Sure, and will they use magical powers to prevent the retaliation from the hundred-odd nukes that Israel has?
Hardliners in Iran and Israel both use this issue to stay in power, the longer the status quo, the worse the jerks that get into office
Wherever You Go, There You Are
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.
Some things need to be said...
Iran has been 6 months away from a bomb for the past 20 years.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com...
Just what did you think Iran was going to do with all the money that floods into the country after sanctions are lifted? A fleet of Ice-Cream trucks? Infrastructure for the people that constantly demonstrate against the ruling regime?
No, that money is going to go into full scale nuclear weapon development. You'll see in a year or so.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not sure that jab works here. It was an honest mistake.
There's nothing about The Affordable Care Act that mandated the insurance companies "reorganizing to meet federal standards" in a fashion that would deny you access to your favourite physician. Obamacare set new, higher standards for the minimum coverage, and the ensuing chaos of getting the most money out of the customer as possible was often achieved by reducing the "available doctors" to the smallest cheapest subset they could get away with.
It might be a fair jab, if you read through this agreement and found subtle holes that due to market forces and greed would allow a nuke to slip into existence, but now that "unannounced inspections" by the IAEA guaranteed by the plan, it's not just Obama that they need to trick.
Personally, I think it's great. I think starving out those people is part of what keeps them dangerous. My Iranian friends in the states are cultured, happy, fun people. So I see the potential for their country becoming a stabilizing element in the region when the previously-quite-appropriate sanctions can be safely lifted.
No, you are just uninformed
Fear is the mind-killer, if you let it lead you then you are just an animal, barely human
Wherever You Go, There You Are
If you like your uranium enrichment program, you can keep your uranium enrichment program.
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
Yes, I keep hearing the comparison of Germany in 1938 to Iran today
That leads me to ask a few questions
I might be able to help. Mind you, the comparisons aren't exact, but IMO close enough...
How is it that Iran is comparable to a country that had been a economic leader in Europe for the prior several hundred years?
Iran is and was an economic leader in its own region since 1979 at the very least.
Germany had been a colonial empire, with militarily help colonies across the globe, is there any comparison to Iran's status?
Yes. Iran sponsors and funds numerous terror organizations and activities across the globe at this time.
Germany had just waged a global war a couple of decades prior, and had waged wars against other global superpowers over the prior few hundred years going back to the Ottoman Empire, is there any comparison to the capabilities of Iran?
Globally/superpower-like? No. However, it did endure an 8-year-long war with what was then Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Google for 'Shatt-Al-Arab' (I believe that's the proper spelling). It was pretty big from the POV of the butcher's bill.
That said, consider that once in possession of nuclear weapons, Iran will essentially be a superpower, and has stated numerous times over (even as recently as last week) that their policy is to annihilate a certain other country in the region, and do so by any means possible.
Furthermore, consider that while North Korea is kept in check by China (without whom NoKo would essentially collapse from within economically), Iran has no tempering authority over its planning and actions. Further still, consider that Iran can essentially control the Straits of Hormuz, through which the vast majority of Mideast oil is transported.
So - we have a hysteric pack of nutcases running the country who wants the ultimate weapon in order to achieve their goals of domination and the eradication of the country that Mr. Netanyahu happens to represent.
This can get very ugly, very fast... and this time, we get to add the potential for nuclear weapons to the aggressor's side of the balance sheet, perched atop missiles that they're desperately trying to make capable of reaching any point on the globe... including your home city.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
They're going to get nuclear weapons if there ISN'T a deal.
If Obama would stop warning the Israelis off of bombing the shit out Iranian enrichment plants (and actively denying them airspace travel through Iraq to do it), this whole question would have been settled long ago.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
MAD only worked because both sides of the conflict were rational and relatively sane. Iran has no such encumbrance.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
This administration is following the play book of every previous administration, which is to try and 'fix' whatever is going on in middle East in the last couple of years of the president's second term.
I have low expectations.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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
No, it is ok to negotiate Iran onto a path that delays them from getting a nuke for the next 15 years, as opposed to the current path where, according to Netanyahu, they will have a nuke in the next year or two
This also opens the doors to interaction with other countries, reduces the influence of their hardliners and makes way for a less antagonistic Iran
Wherever You Go, There You Are
MAD only worked because both sides of the conflict were rational and relatively sane. Iran has no such encumbrance.
There are no signs the Iranian leadership is irrational or insane; far from it. Considering the snake pit of the middle east, I would say that they have played the game about as well as they possibly could. That doesn't make them nice people, but being nice doesn't get you points in this game.
So yes, they know about MAD, and they are motivated by it. It is more their opponents I'm worried about.
It was an honest mistake.
No it wasn't. BHO isn't that stupid. He said what he needed (or thought he needed) to say to get his bill passed. Anybody who followed the issue at even a casual level immediately knew that he made a promise that he couldn't keep.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
MAD only worked because both sides of the conflict were rational and relatively sane. Iran has no such encumbrance.
MAD worked against the likes of Joesph Stalin and Mao Zedong, the latter of whom actually believed that he could fight and win a nuclear war. The Iranians have nothing on that level of crazy paranoia. Nor do they possess the Soviet Union's technological skill or the Chinese demographic advantage. In the hierarchy of current and historical threats to Western Civilization they fall somewhere between "annoyance" and "existential". We can't casually dismiss them but we don't need to be kept awake all night worrying about them either.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"from Israel's POV: destroy their nuke capability and risk a conventional war with that country"
Do you mean commit a war crime to not risk but taunt Iran into a war?
"or let it continue unabated and get wiped out by the same country"
Why would Iran commit suicide
"incidentally the same country which has officially and loudly vowed to destroy you multiple times"
Saying over and over does not make it true
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
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.
At this point, BHO is legally barred from running again. Public opinion cannot influence his fate over the next 2 years. He has nothing tying his hands other than trying to work with the Senate in getting his foreign policy agenda pushed through. The difference between BHO at this point and Chamberlain in 1938 is night and day...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
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
Waiting until war was inevitable also gave the west the moral high ground rather then now a days where bombing people on the other side of the world seems ordinary and preemptive war is looked on favourably. We are fast becoming the bad guys, at least morally and we're also harvesting the results in the middle east and perhaps soon at home. Good for the fascists who are salivating at the increasing police state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Even if Iran does not use weapons directly, they can provide small nuclear devices to terrorist groups.
They can but they won't. Fissile material has an isotopic signature that's as unique as your DNA. Any nuclear weapon detonated by a non-state actor would immediately be traced back to its source by the global community.
Question: how do we know the signature of the Iranian fissile material, since we don't have access to their fissile material in the first place?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Actually only one side was rational and relatively sane, the other side figured that God was on their side, that they could put nukes on the oppositions borders with no blow back and when the blow back happened (tit for tat, they put nukes close to the opposition as well) the crazies came very close to starting Armageddon.
The same crazies seem to think that they can bomb anyone they feel like it and no one else better even think about it unless their religious believes might lead to the rapture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Agreed. Even if they had passed no law at all, "You can keep your doctor," is total bullshit. Our insurance system was and is in a constant state of churn. My wife had to change doctors three times in five years even before the ACA. Even if the ACA had been perfect and had zero impact on the status quo, people would have lost their doctors. That promise was obvious bullshit at the time.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Insurance companies have been evil lying bastards since the first day they crawled out of the primordial swamp. I'm amazed any politician from any party would support them. But no, they felt that had position Obama's plan as the worst thing ever in American history but claiming things were just great under the old system. In reality Obamacare is not very good at all but it's a helluva lot better than what we had before it.
Risk a conventional war with *everyone* you mean. No one in the region is just going to sit back after Israel does a first strike act of war. The US isn't going to be backing up Israel either, the public support for their shennanigans is drying up.
So ya, we claim that Iran has said they want to destroy us. However Iranians remember us singing that stupid song, they've heard the politicians asking to destroy Iran, and they've read all the boneheaded articles on Slashdot wanting to destroy Iran. So at the same time back in Iran they're trying to fan the flames of the hotheads there by saying "See, the US has said they want to eliminate us as a country!"
Do you have evidence that they were pursuing The Bomb in violation of Clinton era agreements?
I'm curious, because all the information I can find seems to show the entire thing went into a rapid "build a nuke quick" tailspin only after Bush called them part of the Axis of Evil (not that I'm in any way defending NK)
I'm not actually trying to assign any blame... but it appears you've been called out and shown evidence of your claims being bullshit, and entirely avoided responding to them. What *was* Clinton's damage?
They can but they won't. Fissile material has an isotopic signature that's as unique as your DNA.
Which doesn't matter, because the world dithers for a few years accusing Iran of providing the material, Iran denying this, right up until Iran has what they feel like are enough nuclear weapons.
Citation needed.
Ok, not quite ready but basically ready by the time Iran wants to use them. I should have said "under development", and the agreement reached does nothing to alter the development of ICBMs (which historically were included in other nuclear treaties since a big part of what makes nuclear weapons imposing is where they can reach).
They're not proof against precision nuclear strikes, nothing is, and that's exactly the type of attack the United States would be most apt to launch in response to a nuclear attack.
I'm highly dubious we'd actually do so. Crossing that nuclear line is too high a bar now, even in response to a nuclear attack.
How many of the sites does Iran purposefully locate next to major population centers...
You betray your ignorance by lumping ISIS in with the Iranians; they're actually mortal enemies.
You betray a lack of reading comprehension. I didn't say they were together; I said they wanted the same thing. That is very different...
They seek to regain that glory.
Lots of glory to be had in death.
The Cold War saying "trust, but verify" applies here.
Only problem is we know they cannot be trusted, and we will not be able to verify.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"[Iran] did endure an 8-year-long war with what was then Saddam Hussein's Iraq"
That America backed by providing military intelligence and allowing Iraq to fly the Stars and Stripes on its oil tankers (thus making any attempt by Iran to blockade Iraq an act of war against America). At the same time, America blew an Iranian civilian aircraft out of the sky, lied about it not broadcasting on civilian frequencies and awarded medals to all sailors when the ship got back to port. Meanwhile, our erstwhile buddy, Saddam, was using chemical weapons that we failed to condemn as he was fighting a country whose democratic government we had toppled in 1953 and who were "inexplicably" pissed with us. So, yeah, can't trust those Iranians.
"Iran sponsors and funds numerous terror organizations and activities"
And America doesn't?
"Iran ... has stated numerous times ... that their policy is to annihilate a certain other country in the region, and do so by any means possible."
Aside from John McCain "joking" with his notorious "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" song, everybody knows the "wipe Israel off the map" quote was a mistranslation that has been covered many times (see here for a reputable source). But don't take my word for it. If you still don't believe it, ask a Farsi speaker. There is not even an idiom in Farsi for "wipe off the map".
And before you call them biased and say that "they would say that", consider the political leanings of my Farsi speaking friends (and countless other Iranians who came to the West). Clue: they all left Iran in 1979.
--- "We've always been at war with Eastasia."
"according to Netanyahu"
Whose own statements have been repeatedly undermined by leaked MOSSAD reports stating that Iran has neither the capabilities or wish to build nuclear weapons. - and those same reports pointed out that had Iran wished to build any, it could have many years ago as they've had more than enough highly enriched uranium onhand for a couple of decades.
Iran needs to be brought in from the cold. They have good reason for distrusting the west, even before a certain coup against a democratically elected government back in the 1950s
The prime use of them being out there has been as a bogeyman the West could point to to justify its military activities in the middle east - and as it turned out, the most destabilising influence in the Middle East since the end of the Cold War has been the West's military activities (Apart from the puppet govts such as Saddam Hussain, the Syrian clusterfuck is a direct result of french bureaucracy and a deliberate plan to keep the area weak by dividing tribes up into different countries, post WW1, against the advice of T.E.Lawrence - who drew up plans which would have kept things stable and secure)
And of course the fact that Iran's been out in the cold means the establishment there could use the West as a bogeyman to keep their own people subjugated. Noone won anything except the arms suppliers.