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.
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.
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.
Iran has been 6 months away from a bomb for the past 20 years.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com...
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
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
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
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
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.