Iran Nuclear Deal | Imamother

WriterMom

Thu, Jul 16 2015, 4:52 pm

This deal has actually made war more likely and made the world less stable. It will have a trivial impact on Iran's actual progress toward the bomb, given not only the ludicrous terms but also the ability of other states with far harsher circumstances having made great progress toward WMD capacity. It gives Iran legitimacy and money that will amplify its ability to spread terror and hatred. And it increases the odds that the US will be drawn into a war when Iran crosses a line (assuming it's after Obama is gone, because heaven knows he doesn't understand the concept of a line) which is, in fact, how Iraq round 2 got started (not to be confused with Iraq round 1 and Iraq round 3, which had totally separate pathologies.)

Barbara wrote:

**IMNSHO, a subtext of this agreement is that the West wants Iranian assistance in connection with ISIS. ISIS is Sunni. Iran is Shia. Need I say more?

The idea that Sunni and Shia will never work together has been pretty thoroughly debunked.

Barbara

Thu, Jul 16 2015, 4:53 pm

zohar wrote:

Some other possible solutions:
Firstly, double down on sanctions. They were devastating to their economy and they were feeling a lot of pressure. (I know this first hand because a have Persian relatives, some of whom still live in Iran and some who have emigrated within the last couple of years.) The problem with this plan is that many of the other countries won't go along with it and it will water down the affect they will have.

Another option. Threaten Iran that you will give Israel and Saudi Arabia the moral support and material support to attack them.

Anyway, saying that there aren't better options is the dumbest argument out there. Yes,sometimes doing nothing is better. It's like telling someone to give money and guns to someone threatening to kill them because they didn't come up with a better idea.

How is doubling down on the sanctions going to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons? If you believe that they're already close, you also believe that the sanctions didn't stop the nuclear development.

And if you do nothing, they develop nuclear weapons. Why do you think that's not problematic?

Finally, why give "moral support" for Israel to attack? Are you Israeli? If so, are you under 35 and, if so, are you volunteering to participate in such an attack? Is your husband? Are your kids? And if the US thinks its such a great idea, why doesn't it attack on its own? If you're American, I assume you'll enlist to go over there, as will your husband/kids.

WriterMom

Thu, Jul 16 2015, 4:57 pm

Barbara wrote:

If you're American, I assume you'll enlist to go over there, as will your husband/kids.

You can do better than this.

If you're pro-choice, are you obliged to become an abortionist? If you believe people should have the right to own guns, must you yourself own a gun? Of course people can be for or against policies that they will not enforce with their physical bodies. We have an all volunteer force, among other things.

And are you seriously under the impression that the US mil (or any military) wants frum housewives to enlist? Rolling Eyes

zohar

Thu, Jul 16 2015, 4:57 pm

Barbara wrote:

This is not true. I have noticed in the mainstream media, in social media and in real life. If you don't agree with Obama or think he is less than the most wonderful president we ever had, you are a bigot. When you deny it, you are told that you have underlying racism that you are not aware of. No one is allowed to criticize the president. You can't even ask tough questions. Look how General Garret is being treated. For asking a very legitimate question

Barbara

Thu, Jul 16 2015, 5:13 pm

WriterMom wrote:

If your answer is to invade another country, which will inevitably result in the deaths of thousands of young people, then you should be willing to put yourself on the line.

Its so easy to say INVADE when its not you, or your husband, or your child, who could be killed.

5*Mom

Thu, Jul 16 2015, 5:15 pm

Barbara wrote:

It takes money to develop nuclear weapons. Less money = slower development; infusion of money = faster development.

The thing about this deal is that Iran has nothing to lose and everything to gain--even if they violate the terms of the agreement! They walk away with the loot, get a buffer of time without the world breathing down their necks within which to speed up production (I read that there are 2 additional Iranian nuclear plants that are not even included in the agreement; does anyone have more information about this?) and by the time anyone calls foul* they will have their nuclear weapons and the face of the world will be forever changed. Any *deal* requires a certain level of trust between the parties. Are you saying you believe Iran is trustworthy? There are no teeth in this agreement whatsoever to keep them honest. Why would they honor it? Nothing to lose, everything to gain and the joke's on us.

*On paper it may be a 24-day-max procedure but irl I wouldn't bet on it. So the US gets suspicious, demands to inspect, is denied, follows the procedure, Iran continues to deny--round and round we go; no one will be so quick to "snap back" sanctions and even if they do there are other countries involved, making a coordinated effort unlikely. So what this agreement has done is given legitimacy, given sorely needed money to further invest in nuclear proliferation--for no benefit whatsoever. The world is in greater danger now, not less.

WriterMom

Thu, Jul 16 2015, 5:19 pm

Barbara wrote:

This is the chickenhawk argument, and it's nonsense.

OMG Barbara if you're pro the Iran deal will you volunteer to be at ground zero when they nuke us????

That's just as silly, and just as unproductive to sensible argument.

DH is on the DoD payroll, which is about as specific as I'll get about that, and I've yet to hear that argument from anyone military, current or former. They are broadly interested in closing the civil-military divide, but they never argue that to be in favour of using the military you have to be in the military, because that would be a breach of civilian control, which, believe it or not, is a big deal in their world. Since we're not Pakistan. The phrase in which only people in the military get to decide when to use the military is "military dictatorship."

ETA:
5*mom nails it. I happen to think there are some arguments to be made about how this isn't as catastrophic as some are saying, although it's still bad, but I've yet to see those arguments here.

zohar

Thu, Jul 16 2015, 5:46 pm

Barbara wrote:

You are right that the sanctions are not fully effective, mostly because not all the countries that signed onto it up kept it. And if you didn't find it effective, than how is this treaty effective? The only consequence for the Iranians if they cheat, is that, supposably, the sanctions will snap into place.(as if that will ever happen.)
About supporting Israel, it's about the threat. The Iranians know the Israelis are good for it, and if they have no other choice, they will bomb. I think it would be great if the U.S. Would be able to threaten with military action, but I'm afraid it wouldn't be believable.

If you do nothing, they will get nukes. If we do this they get nukes plus tons of money plus the international community teaching them how to protect their nuclear sites against attack, including a potential Israeli one.

WriterMom

Thu, Jul 16 2015, 5:50 pm

Oh come on, Obama is almost certainly, like the vast majority of hard left Democrats whose teachers were Marxists, an atheist. He goes to church because Americans won't elect an atheist.

He also lights a menorah and has a seder at the WH and Michelle's cousin claims to be a Black Hebrew rabbi, but that doesn't make him Jewish.

Besides, even if he were a Muslim, it wouldn't be his beliefs that would be the problem, it would be his actions. I don't care if he gets down on his knees at night and prays to a shrine of Barbie dolls, I want him to make good policy.

zohar

Thu, Jul 16 2015, 5:59 pm

WriterMom wrote:

I totally agree with you about Obama being an atheist and he is only"Christian" because it is politically expedient. I commented that myself on the other thread.

PinkFridge

Thu, Jul 16 2015, 8:57 pm

gp2.0 wrote:

I'm pretty sure these negotiations were based on information that the public is not privy to. Lets say you're the president and you are made aware by your secret intelligence agency that Iran is secretly developing nuclear warheads unchecked, that they are on a runaway train that will have nuclear warfare capability within the next two years, let's assume this hypothetical example is true, it very well may be. What would you do? Given that information, it would seem a blessing to be given the peaceful opportunity to push off that prospect for 10 years and hope the government will undergo a revolution and change during that time, while actively working to stabilize the economy of Iran.

This is just one possible example of what could have prompted this, I could think of at least 10 more, political, psychological, sociological, economical and so on reasons why this deal may have been the best option out of terrible options. So to hear people saying OMG Obama is an anti Semite fool and that's why he did this just seems like a rote response that isn't taking a minute to think things through.

I do not have transcripts in front of me but as I've said, the president has pointedly said that he is not expecting regime change, he knows they're bad actors because that's who we negotiate with, we don't need to negotiate with friends. This plan only deals with the nuclear issue.

PinkFridge

Thu, Jul 16 2015, 8:59 pm

Barbara wrote:

So, please share with us what is so wonderful about those sanctions? They don't seem to have slowed down what you describe as a "runaway train" towards nuclear weapons.

And in the absence of a deal, which permits constant inspection of known nuclear sites, and inspection with notice (24 days, all told*) of other suspected sites, how do you propose stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons? You've already said that if the status quo is left in place, they will have them in 2 years. So you must want something else. What is that?

What happens if when there's a violation? Sanctions?

imeinu

Thu, Jul 16 2015, 9:27 pm

What's really funny about Barbara's arguments is that the military as a whole is overwhelmingly Republican and right-wing Republican at that so if it is those who have to "fight the war's" that should be the decider's then it's them.

Or if you want to look at those in the region then can any Obama supporter name any country in the Mideast that think this is a good idea?

And I am curious since Obama said over and over when running against Romney that military force was on the table and if it took bombing Iran to stop them from getting nukes he would do it then shouldn't the simple offer to Iran be.
End the nuke program or we bomb it?

Or was Obama lying again and again and again in order to get elected?
(Sort of like saying that you had to pass a trillion dollar stimulus for shovel ready jobs that ended up not being shovel ready, that you had to pass his health law to save 1500 dollars on health insurance which never happened, or that he would take action if Syria used chemical weapon's or any other of his myriad examples of "stretching the truth")

(BTW you want examples of those who serve who are against the pact Lindsay Graham is in the Reserves, Joni Ernst is in the Reserves and served in Iraq, McCain's whole family practically is in the Army, Palin's kids serve, basically the majority of those who would be the ones directly affected by a War are the leading opponents of this accord.)

But Obama finally has achieved a miracle he's United Left, Right and Center in Israel they are all against this deal.

And yes achieving any degree of Unity in Israel takes a miracle.

WriterMom

Thu, Jul 16 2015, 10:46 pm

Anyone interested in what Obama is thinking would do well to look up the works of Colin Dueck, who's published extensively on this and argues that Obama's stated and manifest philosophy is that you don't have to negotiate with or assist your friends because they're your friends, you can take them for granted and accommodate/appease your enemies instead. It's an internally consistent approach, if extremely problematic in other regards.

(He's also a very good guy, not that that's relevant to the value of his ideas.)

imeinu wrote:

Or was Obama lying again and again and again in order to get elected?

Yes. But to be fair, that's called being a politician.

Obama isn't dumb, and he doesn't lie that much - he's been quite clear that he thinks a weaker and less influential US and Israel will make the world a better place, and that's what he's worked toward, with quite a bit of success. But if you understand his worldview and values, it does make a kind of terrible sense.

Sanguine

Fri, Jul 17 2015, 5:35 am

imeinu wrote:

But Obama finally has achieved a miracle he's United Left, Right and Center in Israel they are all against this deal.

And yes achieving any degree of Unity in Israel takes a miracle.

Liked the whole post but wanted to comment on this part. 75% of Israelis are against this deal (from an independent polling company). (The other 25% are either Arab or totally uninformed- probably). I've said before - The Middle East mentality is totally different than American mentality. Israel survives because they understand it.

The region is based on Religion. Everyone has their list of "Yaharag V'Al YaAvor" (die before you transgress). One of ours is Killing other people. One of Islam is Jihad. There are enough Chareidi discussions on this forum that we all know what ultra Orthodox is. I may argue that here in Israel the Chareidim aren't "team players" but killing innocent people is certainly the farthest concept from our religion. Preserving life is what we believe in.

America believes in separation of church and state. Israel doesn't at all. The religious controversy is about the level of observance. But Israel is about proud Jews. The government supports the religion in things such as Jewish holidays, chilul shabbat, kashrut standards (even the army)... The religious controversy is about the level of observance. But people who break the religious rules here may be fined but will not be killed. Jews may have our share of crazies (G-d made some people like that), but we would never have a large organization that believes in killing and certainly not a government. We are so careful that our own soldiers risk their own lives by acting so humane. We're crazy - we don't even kill terrorists on the spot if wounding them would be enough to stop them.

But we understand what "fanatical" religion is. We fight for our lives every day here in the Middle East. We understand that some people never play by civilization's rules. America (Obama's crew) refuses to believe that. Our religion and our moral standards are so logical to civilization. Everyone should want that. But guess what! Not everyone wants that.

There are many things that Jews don't agree on (religiously and politically) but the value of life is a pillar in Judaism. It is not a pillar in the Islam religion. Not at all. Jihad is a pillar. Killing innocent babies is a pillar. As a rule the world is opposed to suicide bombers and placing babies as human shields. That's why the world has such a hard time accepting how careful the IDF was last summer while Hamas was hoping to get lucky and wipe out a school full of children.

The unity in Israel when attacked may seem like a miracle but it's really not surprising. We all stand for the same moral code. Iran doesn't - Face it!

ally

Fri, Jul 17 2015, 11:37 am

Barbara wrote:

No, people who refer to President Obama as a "schvartza" (ie, as a "n1gger"), an "anti-semite" and a Muslim are correctly labelled as reactionary bigots. People who don't understand that one can support Israel without being a right-wing hard liner are correctly labeled as reactionary. People who label anyone who doesn't agree with them politically as "anti-semitic" are correctly labeled as idiots (IMNSHO). I am not aware that you have done any of those things.

So, your position is that under the sanctions that you want to keep in place, Iran is and has been developing nuclear warheads "unchecked," that without intervention, it "will have nuclear warfare capability within the next two years."

So, please share with us what is so wonderful about those sanctions? They don't seem to have slowed down what you describe as a "runaway train" towards nuclear weapons.

And in the absence of a deal, which permits constant inspection of known nuclear sites, and inspection with notice (24 days, all told*) of other suspected sites, how do you propose stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons? You've already said that if the status quo is left in place, they will have them in 2 years. So you must want something else. What is that?

*No, I'm not thrilled with this part of the deal. No, I didn't anticipate it would be much better than this. But the real question is ... what is the alternative?

**IMNSHO, a subtext of this agreement is that the West wants Iranian assistance in connection with ISIS. ISIS is Sunni. Iran is Shia. Need I say more?

***ETA, and what do you propose doing about North Korea and Pakistan, while we're on the topic?

I agree the sanctions weren't working. But at least they impeded Iranian enrichment, didn't give their terrorist government funding, legitimacy and formally tie the hands of the West.

The success of the current agreement hinges on trusting that the Iranians don't break it. And well, I don't think that's going to happen. And when they do, until it is spotted, and until it is reported is much more than 24 days. And after the inspection, there has to be unanimous agreement to reapply sanctions. And by this point, they surely will be useless.

The agreement also ignores the impact of the potential increased military prowess of Iran on the rest of the Middle East.

I don't think breaking the status quo for the sake of change, and forcing a compromising agreement on the basis of wishful thinking is in any way constructive or ensures any security. A bad deal is much more dangerous than no deal.

***Having Iran take care of ISIS does not sound like a tactic that is bound to end up in a more stable Middle East.

***The point here is to prevent Iran from approaching the status of North Korea and Pakistan.