Iran Nuclear Deal

Discussion relating to current events, politics, religion, etc
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Iran Nuclear Deal

#1 Post by mockbee » Tue Jul 14, 2015 9:18 pm

Image

Kerry looks happier than a dog with three balls. :hehe:



The Opinion Pages | Editorial
An Iran Nuclear Deal That Reduces the Chance of War

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD, NYTimes
JULY 14, 2015


The final deal with Iran announced by the United States and other major world powers does what no amount of political posturing and vague threats of military action had managed to do before. It puts strong, verifiable limits on Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon for at least the next 10 to 15 years and is potentially one of the most consequential accords in recent diplomatic history, with the ability not just to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon but also to reshape Middle East politics.

The deal, the product of 20 arduous months of negotiations, would obviously have provided more cause for celebration if Iran had agreed to completely dismantle all of its nuclear facilities. But the chances of that happening were effectively zero, and even if all of Iran’s nuclear-related buildings and installations were destroyed, no one can erase the knowledge Iranian scientists have acquired after working on nuclear projects for decades.

As described by Mr. Obama and other officials, the deal seems sound and clearly in the interest of the United States, the other nations that drafted it and the state of Israel. In return for a phased lifting of international economic sanctions, Iran will reduce by 98 percent its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, which can be processed further into bomb-grade fuel, and reduce the number of operating centrifuges used to enrich that fuel by two-thirds, to 5,060. These limits mean that if Iran ever decides to violate the agreement and make a dash for a nuclear bomb, it will take a year to produce the weapons-grade fuel needed for a single bomb, compared with a couple of months now.

Many of the various restrictions in the agreement will be in force for 10 to 25 years. Some, notably Iran’s agreement to constant and technologically advanced monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency, will last indefinitely, as will its commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to never produce a nuclear weapon. Inspectors will have access to suspicious sites “where necessary, when necessary,” President Obama said, and if Iran cheats, that will be detected early enough to respond, including by quickly reimposing sanctions or taking military action.

The deal nearly faltered on a demand by Iran and Russia that United Nations bans on the purchase and sale of conventional weapons and ballistic missiles be lifted immediately. But in the end, the accord requires that the conventional weapons ban remain in place for five years and the missile ban for eight years — assuming Iran abides by its commitments.

It is deeply unsettling that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel derisively dismissed the deal immediately as a “historic mistake.” He, Republicans in Congress and most candidates for the Republican presidential nomination have opposed negotiations with Iran from the outset yet offered no credible alternative to a negotiated settlement. The Republican presidential hopefuls repeated that formula today — condemnation of the deal with no credible alternative to offer.


That said, no one should have any illusions about Iran, which considers Israel a sworn enemy; often condemns the United States; supports Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations; and aspires to greater influence in the region. Once sanctions are lifted, it stands to gain access to billions of dollars from accounts in international banks that have been frozen and from new oil exports and other business deals.

American officials say that Iran will get that money over time, and that its immediate priority will be to deal with pressing domestic needs. More important, many American sanctions will remain in place even after the deal is implemented, including those relating to Iran’s support for terrorism and its human rights violations. The United States has to be extremely vigilant in monitoring how Iran uses those new funds and in enforcing those sanctions.

Agreeing on the nuclear deal is just the first step. Congress gets to review and vote on it. Powerful forces, like Mr. Netanyahu, have vowed to defeat it, and Mr. Obama may have to make good on his vow to veto any resolution of disapproval. It would be irresponsible to squander this chance to rein in Iran’s nuclear program.


Iran isn't benign like Cuba, but boy.....this is a good direction. The alternative was nothing, or war. The Iranian people deserve it.

It sure has been an eventful Summer, with the two SCOTUS decisions going Obama's way and now this.

User avatar
Pandemonium
Posts: 5720
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 3:18 pm

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal

#2 Post by Pandemonium » Thu Jul 16, 2015 2:38 pm

I think this is going to backfire big time in a few years. Not just because Iran's current government/ruling party can't be trusted, but because it's going to lead to Israel being even more edgy and likely jumping the gun with military action if they even think Iran is about to make a move against them.

Yeah, I agree "what's the alternative?" but it's not like anyone has to go to "war" with Iran in the next week, month, year or whatever because a deal didn't get done this time around. I honestly think the Western Coalition figured that maybe it isn't such a great idea degrading Iran with the sanctions to the point the people finally revolt leading to another Middle East country stuck in civil war leading to anarchy and groups like ISIS getting a foothold like what happened in Syria. But once they uncork that bottle, it's going to likely mean war to get Iran back in line the next time if they decide to go rogue.

User avatar
mockbee
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:05 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Iran Nuclear Deal

#3 Post by mockbee » Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:08 pm

Pandemonium wrote:I think this is going to backfire big time in a few years. Not just because Iran's current government/ruling party can't be trusted, but because it's going to lead to Israel being even more edgy and likely jumping the gun with military action if they even think Iran is about to make a move against them.

Yeah, I agree "what's the alternative?" but it's not like anyone has to go to "war" with Iran in the next week, month, year or whatever because a deal didn't get done this time around. I honestly think the Western Coalition figured that maybe it isn't such a great idea degrading Iran with the sanctions to the point the people finally revolt leading to another Middle East country stuck in civil war leading to anarchy and groups like ISIS getting a foothold like what happened in Syria. But once they uncork that bottle, it's going to likely mean war to get Iran back in line the next time if they decide to go rogue.

The ultimatum issue in compliance is an interesting one, but I think instead of war, we will just go back to heavy sanctions, I think the Iranians in power (outside Khamenei and his minions) really, truly want the sanctions to remain lifted.

The Iranian people aren't bad people, just like the Syrians, just there are some very bad seeds that allow ISIS to take a foothold in an unstable state, which I assume is the same point you are making. Also for as bad as Khamenei is, I think ISIS would be swiftly dealt with in Iran, no one in a stable state wants anything to do with that.

We will see how much power Ali Khamenei wields in regards to inspections and compliance, and if he balks, then back to square one. My understanding is that war is not on the table at this point, unless aggressive action is taken, not for non-compliance. I don't think we lose face if we just put sanctions back in place, but that will have to happen if they go rogue. And maybe you say, how do we know if they go rogue, well, we know less than nothing now, if that is really an argument.

Post Reply