Slashdot Mirror
Iran Has Signed a Nuclear Accord
New submitter divide overflow writes: According to the New York Times, 'Iran and a group of six nations led by the United States have agreed to a historic accord to significantly limit Tehran's nuclear ability for more than a decade in return for lifting international oil and financial sanctions against Iran, a senior Western diplomat involved in the negotiations said on Tuesday. The deal, which President Obama had long sought as the biggest diplomatic achievement of his presidency, culminates 20 months of negotiations.' Not everyone approves.
I literally feel nauseous about this Iran deal. I feel nauseous because my daughter’s future is being seriously jeopardized by a deal that lifts sanctions that have been well designed to stop a state sponsor of terrorism from obtaining nuclear weapons, in return for virtually nothing. Somehow, President Obama has convinced his fellow Democrats that infusing Iran with billions of dollars will make the world a safer place. But all it will do is exacerbate Iran’s aggression in the Middle East, and perversely enable western civilization to fund terrorism activities aimed at it.
We have given concessions to a country that has repeatedly lied, hidden, deceived, and repeatedly and boldly declared its intention to wipe out both Israel and the United States. Any member of Congress who votes for this deal must have a death wish. But of course Congress, in typical fashion, gave away its constitutional power to ratify this as a treaty (with 2/3 of Senate support) when it passed the Corker legislation. Assuming the Republican-controlled Congress votes down the Iran deal and the President vetoes it, I cannot imagine that there are enough Democrats (13 Democrats in the Senate and 43 in the House) to join the Republicans in overriding Obama’s inevitable veto.
There’s enough political cover and ambiguity in the agreement that the real risks to U.S. and Israel will become known only incrementally, after the passage of years, and most likely only after President Obama leaves office. By the time the western world realizes what a mistake the Obama Administration has made, it will be too late. I guess that, once again, we have to pass it to reallyfind out what’s in it.
Humm, shall we discuss the half life of Plutonium? More interesting
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
What's crazy? Isolating Iran certainly hasn't worked up until now. I'm glad to see negotiations and compromise.
"You're rational" == "You are rational." Congratulations, you have complemented the poster on his rationality. I suspect you meant "Your rationale..." People should also be aware of the Oxford comma. In closing, I'd like to thank my parents, the Pope and Mother Teresa.
You're rational is the same we followed when arming Afghan jihads against the USSR. That didn't come back to bite us.
The problem with that was, as soon as they ran off the USSR, we wiped our hands and walked away, ensuring that the people with the best access to guns got to rule the country. Had we stayed and helped them rebuild we could probably have swayed most of the country over to our side and enstilled a more democratic government. Instead we got the Taliban.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
The most dangerous thing that could come out of that part of the world is a united empire run by religious fanatics or whose government is influenced enough by fanaticism that it looks away while people within the empire use its resources to cause inflame hatred and commit terrorism. Allowing ISIS to gain control of Iraq and Syria would be less dangerous to America than allowing Iran to gain control of Iraq and Syria because in the first case you have two nations who balance each other instead of one much larger nation trying to unify itself behind a shared hatred.
Iran is already making war against America both directly and by proxy. https://www.washingtonpost.com... http://www.wsj.com/articles/ir... http://www.nationalreview.com/... Does this deal do anything to end that state of war? Does this deal do anything to prevent Iran from gaining domination in Iraq and Syria? Or does it just prevent America and allies from stopping them?
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
It only works if you actually offer an out.
If you just say "sanctions, in perpetuity", then no that won't accomplish much.
So yes, the sanctions worked. It forced Iran to the table, and now they have a deal. So the next time the West decides to punish a country, at least that country knows there is a way out if they do something to change.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
Negotiating a treaty with a country is not the same as "siding with" them. It just means that the countries that sign the treaty agreed on a set of rules of behavior. The alternative to a treaty with Iran isn't "siding against" them, it is having no agreed on rules of behavior, in which case their behavior is unconstrained. So would you rather Iran operate under an international agreement under which they can't have a nuclear program, backed up by inspections and penalties, or would you have them allowed to do anything they want, with no inspections?
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
Like it or not, there are no third options.
Nonsense. That is like saying "you're either with us or against us".
You're trying to narrow the choices to two, when there are always options beyond those.
What everyone needs to understand about this deal is that it is NOT about the geopolitics. It is about limiting the ability of Iran to rapidly produce the fuel for a nuclear weapon. Even with the ability to delay an inspector for a short amount of time it still meets the goals (and yes, 25 days is short when compared to the time needed to design, build, test, and implement an uranium processing facility). Iran has long been able to move money on the black and gray markets, though not as easily as if they were part of the open economy, so anything that monitors and limits their nuclear ambitions is better than where the world is now. Once the domestic economy starts to pick up, the economic incentives should be a strong endorsement to maintain the status quo, and not go back to the sanctions regime. A very large part of the Iranian population has spent their whole life under sanctions and restrictions, and I don't imagine that they will through the modernization of their nation away to push for nuclear weapons, and the Supreme leader and company would do well to remember what happens when you have a large, young, dissatisfied population seeing their world tossed to the gutter. Ask the Shah...
The geo-political and economic results from this were not the main goal. Both Israel and the Gulf States are going to have to quickly adapt to Iran becoming a more potent regional political force. They will have the resources to push their agenda in the area, putting them on the same playing field as the Arab League and Israel. Iran is also likely to become a very rapidly growing economy, after years of pent-up demand. Their technical capabilities make them a rival to Israel economically as well as militarily, but there is a real opportunity for those two nations to partner if they can ever get over the animosity.
In the worst case, the U.S. and Israel return to the sanctions regime and punish anyone who violates it. The dollar is the oil of the world economy, and will remain so for a few decades more at least, so the U.S. has tremendous economic power, and the U.N. is not going to step in to help Iran if they are violating the treaty.
Iran is already making war against America both directly and by proxy.
Did you really mean to post a link about Iran supplying the Taliban with cash and arms without any irony? Because that's exactly what we did. Just to drive the point home: We supplied them with cash and arms. A billion dollars in cash, and only God and Uncle Sam know how much in other goodies (much earlier.) And regarding your third link, that number is dwarfed by American military suicides. The American Military is responsible for dramatically more American Military deaths than Iran could hope for. You're batting .333, pretty good for baseball, shit for Slashdot.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That would be the best of all worlds. I find it ironic that Iran can go forward with working reactors and cutting-edge technology, while the US still is stuck with 70+ year old reactor tech.
In 1914 Serbia was considered only a regional threat.
What's your point here? Serbia didn't start WW1, was the least prepared for it and suffered, proportionally, more than any other nation. The great powers were all poised to jump on each other at the slightest provocation. Don't blame the children when the parents are fighting.
I agree, which is why I support boycott, divestiture and sanctions against Israel.
You are welcome on my lawn.