Obviously a big deal, here.
Now that we know the essential framework of the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 countries, it's worth discussing the merits of the deal, as well as concerns. From my view:
I think, at this point, no one can legitimately argue that this is a "bad deal", especially without offering a plausible alternative. The criticism that Iran would have to actually abide by this deal is fair, of course — that would be true of any deal but the argument that sanctions relief should be completely based on measurable compliance is not irrational. I think it's clear, however, that there could be no deal without the more liberal relief given here so the question would again be "What's the plausible alternative?"
There are also criticisms of the deal that I believe sound reasonable but, on inspection, are not very good. Lifting the weapons embargo and unfreezing hundreds of billions of dollars will allow Iran to increase its military activity and sponsor militias (and terrorists groups) in the region. This is both good (ISIS) and bad (Israel). But it's very unlikely that sanctions or the weapons embargo would have lasted for long if the USA didn't show extremely good faith negotiations ... or regardless of whether they did.
And, of course, there are just the bad criticisms: "Appeasement! Regime change! The embargo cannot fail but can only be failed! Selling out Israel!" — these are the criticisms I do not believe are worth spending any serious time engaging, as they don't hook into the real world generally and the region's political realities specifically.
Here's a short video from Vox that focuses on the good aspects of the plan, for those who need a jump-start primer on the subject:
Now that we know the essential framework of the nuclear deal between Iran and the P5+1 countries, it's worth discussing the merits of the deal, as well as concerns. From my view:
Pros:
- Diplomatic victory to even get to this point
- Iran's nuclear weapons capability significantly (almost wholly) degraded
- Sanctions relief (citizens)
- Strong inspections ability (with caveat, see Cons)
Cons:
- Sanctions relief (weapons embargo lifted)
- Option for Iran to appeal on-the-spot inspections
I think, at this point, no one can legitimately argue that this is a "bad deal", especially without offering a plausible alternative. The criticism that Iran would have to actually abide by this deal is fair, of course — that would be true of any deal but the argument that sanctions relief should be completely based on measurable compliance is not irrational. I think it's clear, however, that there could be no deal without the more liberal relief given here so the question would again be "What's the plausible alternative?"
There are also criticisms of the deal that I believe sound reasonable but, on inspection, are not very good. Lifting the weapons embargo and unfreezing hundreds of billions of dollars will allow Iran to increase its military activity and sponsor militias (and terrorists groups) in the region. This is both good (ISIS) and bad (Israel). But it's very unlikely that sanctions or the weapons embargo would have lasted for long if the USA didn't show extremely good faith negotiations ... or regardless of whether they did.
And, of course, there are just the bad criticisms: "Appeasement! Regime change! The embargo cannot fail but can only be failed! Selling out Israel!" — these are the criticisms I do not believe are worth spending any serious time engaging, as they don't hook into the real world generally and the region's political realities specifically.
Here's a short video from Vox that focuses on the good aspects of the plan, for those who need a jump-start primer on the subject:
Comment