Nuclear Deal With Iran

[Sam]

My question is, what if Israel attacks Iran anyway?

I would say that Israel, like Iran, is a rational actor and knows that there is no benefit to doing that. Even if the USA would come to its aid, the immediate and long-term loss to Israeli security would be far worse than Iran getting the bomb. A nuclear Iran is problematic, even though the nuclear armament would be used for defensive strategy. An unjustified Israeli attack on Iran would be catastrophic.

[Sea of red]

There's no way to police who does/doesn't get nuclear arms. We have reached the point where a little turd country like North Korea could develop a nuclear arm and in theory, use it in anyway they want. There's nothing we can do about it and we've got learn it does no good to try and police this. Hell, we are the only ones to ever use a nuclear weapon and we think world is going to listen to us about responsibility with this technology? Get real. Nobody will take that song seriously.

Iran vs Israel will be no different than USSR vs USA. Both parties will never actually push the button. If Iran wanted to do some damage to Israel and bring hell on Earth they can do it just fine - and with little effort - outside of the use of nuclear weapons.

[seer]

Part of the deal involves Iran reducing its nuclear stockpile by 98%.

And how are going to really know this without snap inspection?

[Sam]

And how are going to really know this without snap inspection?

How would you know it with a snap inspection?

[seer]

How would you know it with a snap inspection?

So you agree that there is no real way to verify? At least with unfettered inspections we have a chance of catching them. And from what I have read, we have to give Iran a 24 day notice before we can inspect a site, and there is a real question on whether we can even inspect military sites.

[Sam]

So you agree that there is no real way to verify? At least with unfettered inspections we have a chance of catching them. And from what I have read, we have to give Iran a 24 day notice before we can inspect a site, and there is a real question on whether we can even inspect military sites.

No, I don't. The question was worded to allow the cynical response, which you have provided, as an effort to determine the level of seriousness you were lending to your question. Your answer demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge or trust in the methods and competence of the IAEA, which means that you wouldn't accept any nuclear deal that doesn't (somehow) completely verify (to your level of approval) the depletion of Iran's stockpile.

And if that's fine for you, you can have it. But any serious discussion of the nuclear agreement has to begin with the knowledge or assumption that the IAEA is, at the least, competent and that the multiple countries involved in this deal have a sufficient amount of trust that Iran's nuclear stockpile and its ability to "break out" can be verified. Operating under that framework, I'm willing to trust that Iran's ability to move fissile material back and forth between distant sites in a period of weeks is not greater than the international community's ability to monitor such large movements.

If, for example, Iran had great quantities of uranium at a site and appealed the IAEA's inspection, they'd have to move that uranium to some distant site (with enough time to eradicate any trace of its storage). But how many spy satellites would instantly be trained on that facility 24/7?

There's a basic rule that should be kept in mind on this deal: if there's something in a years-negotiated international nuclear arms treaty that seems like an obvious blind spot, it's more likely that you're missing something rather than the experts at the IAEA are missing something.

[Starlight]

But how many spy satellites would instantly be trained on that facility 24/7?

Well that's one of the several things everyone knows (except the conservatives apparently) about this deal, but won't say out loud... that the US, Israel, and others will have their spy agencies and intelligence agencies monitoring what's going on within Iran, so if Iran tries to cheat they'll know exactly where to send the inspectors for a random spot-check.

But that doesn't fit into the conservative mantra of "Iran WILL get nuclear weapons without us knowing no matter how thorough our checks are, because we didn't go to WAR forever and ever, and pay trillions of dollars to the the military industrial complex who's been lobbying us and footing our campaign bills."

I also saw today someone demanding to know why the 3 or 4 US prisoners in Iran weren't released as part of this deal, which also had me face-palming. Presumably they were, everyone will however pretend that they weren't and that when they are released in a month or so's time it will be celebrated as entirely coincidental and totally fortuitous and part of a 'new era' of relations between the two countries fostered by growing mutual trust and determination to work together against the common enemy of ISIS etc, because that's the way it works.

[Sam]

Well that's one of the several things everyone knows (except the conservatives apparently) about this deal, but won't say out loud... that the US, Israel, and others will have their spy agencies and intelligence agencies monitoring what's going on within Iran, so if Iran tries to cheat they'll know exactly where to spend the inspectors for a random spot-check.

But that doesn't fit into the conservative mantra of "Iran WILL get nuclear weapons without us knowing no matter how thorough our checks are, because we didn't go to WAR forever and ever, and pay trillions of dollars to the the military industrial complex who's been lobbying us and footing our campaign bills."

I also saw today someone demanding to know why the 3 or 4 US prisoners in Iran weren't released as part of this deal, which also had me face-palming. Presumably they were, everyone will however pretend that they weren't and that when they are released in a month or so's time it will be celebrated as entirely coincidental and totally fortuitous and part of a 'new era' of relations between the two countries fostered by growing mutual trust and determination to work together against the common enemy of ISIS etc, because that's the way it works.

I certainly hope you're right about that last part. I could see it going both ways, there, but would be surprised if a prisoner release wasn't part of the deal's roll-out.

I really do think that a good bar to this topic would be the entry question "Did the US find the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that the Bush administration claimed were there?" If someone doesn't get that one right, they probably don't have enough of a hold in reality to criticize/praise this deal ...

[Starlight]

I really do think that a good bar to this topic would be the entry question "Did the US find the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that the Bush administration claimed were there?" If someone doesn't get that one right, they probably don't have enough of a hold in reality to criticize/praise this deal ...

True enough.

Also if they can't answer the historical question of "for what historical reasons does Iran dislike the US?" they probably shouldn't be in the discussion either. I've seen conservatives say things like "we know from Iran's history that they're not trustworthy"... and I'm like "wait, wait, wait... who overthrew whose democratically elected government for financial gain? Whose senators have openly been sending letters to the enemy saying "you can't trust our country, we're not going to keep to our side of the agreement"?"

[Juvenal]

Obama Makes His Case on Iran Nuclear Deal

Only hours after the conclusion of an agreement with Iran to lift oil and financial sanctions in return for curbs on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, President Obama is a man who evinces no second thoughts whatsoever about the deal he struck. In a 45-minute interview in the Cabinet Room, the president kept stressing one argument: Don’t judge me on whether this deal transforms Iran, ends Iran’s aggressive behavior toward some of its Arab neighbors or leads to détente between Shiites and Sunnis. Judge me on one thing: Does this deal prevent Iran from breaking out with a nuclear weapon for the next 10 years and is that a better outcome for America, Israel and our Arab allies than any other alternative on the table?

There's a 45-minute interview between the president and Thomas Friedman at the link.

[seer]

But that doesn't fit into the conservative mantra of "Iran WILL get nuclear weapons without us knowing no matter how thorough our checks are, because we didn't go to WAR forever and ever, and pay trillions of dollars to the the military industrial complex who's been lobbying us and footing our campaign bills."

Hey Homer, you never saw me justifying the war in Iraq for instance. There were a number of high profile conservatives against said war. And I certainly do not want endless war, I have two grandchildren, but with groups like ISIS I don't know if we will have a choice. There are real bad actors in this world and that is a fact. The other problem is, if Iran cheats will Obama actually do anything - remember his whole red line in the sand thing.


http://www.theamericanconservative.c...s-against-war/

[One Bad Pig]

I personally can't take that sort of comment seriously; it imagines the Iranian regime as not only inherently hostile but held back from a self-defeating war with the West (or Israel) by the lack of resources devoted to combating ISIS. That's not backed by history or reason.

There's this concept called 'terrorism,' Sam. Iran has been waging war by proxy for going on 40 years now.

[Mountain Man]

I know what side Hillary and Bush will take, but what side will Obama take?

I'm pretty sure Obama would defend Iran and go to war with Israel. He has a soft-spot for oppressive, terrorist regimes.

This entire fiasco is basically Obama handing Iran a gift-wrapped nuclear weapon and saying, "Have fun, ya'll!"

[Juvenal]

There's this concept called 'terrorism,' Sam. Iran has been waging war by proxy for going on 40 years now.

The current sanctions regime was never intended to address that. China, for instance, would never have agreed to it, and Putin's Russia would have disagreed just to spite our sanctions on them over their invasions of Crimea and Ukraine. The P5+1 were all on board, but only because they agreed with us that Iran can't be allowed a nuclear weapon.

[Juvenal]

I'm pretty sure Obama would defend Iran and go to war with Israel.

It's time to check your meds again.