the historic iran deal and its opponents

[bud]

with the deal that was signed in the early morning hours in geneva on sunday, the two sides managed to change course from the path to a disastrous war and onto a road that ends with concrete assurance that iran will never obtain nuclear weapons. though it is just an interim agreement, after thirty years of non-relations, the deal is historic.

majority of the world backs what has transpired; diplomacy and a deal, while there are still those who are against it. stephen walt from foreign policy:

There is something of a paradox in the ways that opponents and supporters of a deal approach the whole subject of Iran's nuclear program and the country's broader relations with the United States and other major powers. Opponents of a deal tend to believe that 1) Iran is governed by irrational and highly aggressive Shiite fanatics; 2) it is hellbent on getting a nuclear weapons capability; and 3) if Iran does get the bomb, it will have dramatic and overwhelmingly negative consequences for regional stability and world politics more generally. Given those (unwarranted) beliefs, you'd think hawks would be thrilled with this deal, insofar as it freezes Iran's current capabilities, will reduce the stockpile of 20 percent enriched uranium (i.e., the stuff that could be enriched to weapons grade fairly quickly), and leaves all the truly significant sanctions in place. If the nuclear program is your big concern, then this is a great first step and a more far-reaching comprehensive deal would be even better. (The alternatives -- an unconstrained Iranian program or another Middle East war -- are clearly inferior.)

By contrast, many who support the current deal believe that 1) Iran's leaders are rational individuals seeking to advance Iran's national interests; 2) Iran has not yet decided to seek a nuclear weapon and probably prefers a condition of nuclear latency to a fully developed nuclear arsenal; and 3) getting the bomb wouldn't transform Iran into a major world power overnight and certainly wouldn't enable it to threaten Israel or blackmail its neighbors. If this view is accurate, then a final deal on Iran's nuclear program -- i.e., one that scales back those elements that shorten the breakout period but leaves Iran with some enrichment capacity -- isn't that significant by itself, because Iran wasn't really seeking a weapon anyway and its getting a few bombs wouldn't have that big an impact on world politics.

while those in the 'against diplomacy' side continue to make their case, it's more than likely that their real reason for not supporting diplomacy is not the threat of a nuclear iran, but the threat of iran's resurrection of power in the region. with a large amount of oil, a well-educated and sophisticated middle class and a stable and well-regulated banking system, iran can begin to dominate the region economically. instead of welcoming this, some of the countries who have benefited economically from iran's downfall, are in panic mode and are not ready to lose their piece of the pie.

however, economics is not the only reason for this resistance. religion and culture is also at play here. arab sunni countries, led by saudi arabia and qatar do not want a shiite muslim country to gain power and influence.

in the next 6 months, we will find out about the strength and influence of those who have been relying on the status quo; namely, the sunni arab states and israel, along with their supporters in congress and senate.

Edited November 27, 2013 by bud

[bush_cheney2004]

...in the next 6 months, we will find the strength and influence of those who have been relying on the status quo; namely, the sunni arab states and israel, along with their supporters in congress and senate.

Predictably, you forgot to mention your own nation's opposition:

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says he is "deeply skeptical" of the newly brokered nuclear deal with Iran and says Canada's sanctions will remain in "full force" against the country.

"We will evaluate the deal reached not just on the merits of its words but more importantly, on its verifiable implementation," Baird said at a news conference in Ottawa on Sunday.

He said that because of previous Iranian leaders had made hostile comments toward Israel, “we're deeply skeptical of the deal and the work that's brought us to this stage.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-nuclear-deal-gets-deeply-skeptical-response-from-canada-1.2438467

[bud]

Predictably, you forgot to mention your own nation's opposition:

Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird says he is "deeply skeptical" of the newly brokered nuclear deal with Iran and says Canada's sanctions will remain in "full force" against the country.

"We will evaluate the deal reached not just on the merits of its words but more importantly, on its verifiable implementation," Baird said at a news conference in Ottawa on Sunday.

He said that because of previous Iranian leaders had made hostile comments toward Israel, “we're deeply skeptical of the deal and the work that's brought us to this stage.”

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/iran-nuclear-deal-gets-deeply-skeptical-response-from-canada-1.2438467

what is there to say about them? it's a predictable statement from a government that no longer has any weight or respect in the international stage. harper and his people are zionist lapdogs always ready to read off of the israeli lobby statements.

[Shady]

How is the deal concrete if it's just a short term deal? What happens when Iran breaks it's promse, like it has during other such deals?

[bush_cheney2004]

what is there to say about them? it's a predictable statement from a government that no longer has any weight or respect in the international stage. harper and his people are zionist lapdogs always ready to read off of the israeli lobby statements.

But where is their "AIPAC" blood money ? Do "zionist lapdogs" work for nothing ? The Americans actually cut a deal and will ease sanctions, so what happened to all that "zionist lobby" power ? So much for that nonsense......

[socialist]

This is why Obama will go down in history as the greatest president of all time. Peaceful relations with Iran is the beginning of a peaceful world without needless war. The cowboy style axis of evil garbage only alienates....Obama will go down as the great uniter.

Edited November 26, 2013 by socialist

[bush_cheney2004]

...Obama will go down as the great uniter.

...until he bombs Iran. Just like bombing Libya, Yemen, or Pakistan. That's how you score Nobel Peace Prizes !

[bud]

How is the deal concrete if it's just a short term deal? What happens when Iran breaks it's promse, like it has during other such deals?

who said it's complete? baby steps. the west will ease up some sanctions and iran will be shutting down some of their programs and decrease some of the uranium they've enriched. they will also allow more inspections.

by the way, when has iran broken a promise? you say, during other such deals like something like this has happened in the past. it hasn't. you should look into the deal instead of repeating talking points.

regardless of what has happened in the past, it looks like iran's new government is ready to make a deal and they have the blessing of the supreme leader to do it. they have been nothing but open about their intentions and have done what they can to communicate that. there seems to be no advantage for those in power in iran to allow the sanctions to continue. it seems to be hurting their pocket books. from what has unfolded, my personal opinion is that they are ready to open up relations and to allow their economy to regain strength through trades.

[Shady]

who said it's complete? baby steps. the west will ease up some sanctions and iran will be shutting down some of their programs and decrease some of the uranium they've enriched. they will also allow more inspections.

by the way, when has iran broken a promise? you say, during other such deals like something like this has happened in the past. it hasn't. you should look into the deal instead of repeating talking points.

regardless of what has happened in the past, it looks like iran's new government is ready to make a deal and they have the blessing of the supreme leader to do it. they have been nothing but open about their intentions and have done what they can to communicate that. there seems to be no advantage for those in power in iran to allow the sanctions to continue. it seems to be hurting their pocket books. from what has unfolded, my personal opinion is that they are ready to open up relations and to allow their economy to regain strength through trades.

I didn't say complete, I said concrete, because you said concrete. How is a short term temporary deal concrete?

[bud]

usually when it comes to making a deal that have to do with complicated issues you're going to have different stages. there is a concrete deal as to what each side will be doing in this first stage:

Iran has agreed to halt any enrichment above 5 percent and neutralize any of its stockpile that is near-20 percent.

Iran has also agreed to "unprecedented transparency and intrusive monitoring" of its nuclear program.

In return, the U.S. and its partners have agreed to drop some of its sanctions, amounting to about $6 to $7 billion in relief.

the above looks pretty good, don't you think? immediate halt of enrichment above 5% and neutralizing any stockpile that is near 20% and transparency and frequent monitoring to make sure that iran has followed up on its part in the deal.

Edited November 26, 2013 by bud

[Moonlight Graham]

People are right to be skeptical of iran, but that doesn't mean peaceful diplomacy like this shouldn't be tried. If Iran tries anything fishy the deal can be cancelled in a blink of an eye and sanctions put back into place. There's really no risk here and the deal should be encouraged, unless you want Iran permanently isolated no matter what and want them bombed back into the stone-age like those bastards in the Israeli government do.

[bud]

People are right to be skeptical of iran

i'm curious why you make this comment. does iran have a history of breaking deals? lying about their intentions?

watching and reading some of the news, that's the impression that's given, but i've tried to find examples of why iran shouldn't be trusted, but i can't. perhaps you know.

[Shady]

i'm curious why you make this comment. does iran have a history of breaking deals? lying about their intentions?

.

Yes they do.

[Rue]

MG- I can't logically state to you war is preferable to a negotiated peaceful settlement, no of course not. I will not insult your intelligence.

On the other hand please don't insult mine by trying to reduce this conflict in terms of the Israeli government being bastards or wanting to reduce Iranto the stone age.

Your arguement as to asking the world to give Iran the benefit of the doubt when you won't give the same benefit of the doubt to Israel's government for wanting to protect its people reeks of inconsistency.

Where were you when Iran was exterminating Kurds and Berbers, Bahaiis, Zoroastreans, gays, labour unionists, Christiansm Buddists, journalists, student activists and progressive activists asking for democracy? Does that make their government angels?

Where were you when they were funding Hezbollah's assasination of 3 democratically elected Lebanese leaders and engaging in civil war against their own citizens?

Where are you now as Iran props up Assad and finances his extermination of Syrian Sunnis?

Easy for you to call Israel's government a bunch of bastards for wanting to protect themselves from Iran's call for their extinction. You don't live within seconds of anhiliation from a foreign power or a country that ridicules the slaughter of your people and denies it even happened.

[bud]

Yes they do.

you had a chance to give examples but you didn't. give examples.

[Moonlight Graham]

On the other hand please don't insult mine by trying to reduce this conflict in terms of the Israeli government being bastards or wanting to reduce Iranto the stone age.

I made a statement of that sort, but never did I "reduce this conflict" in terms of what I said. There's obviously a lot more going on with the Iran nuclear issue and this latest deal than what Israel thinks.

Your arguement as to asking the world to give Iran the benefit of the doubt when you won't give the same benefit of the doubt to Israel's government for wanting to protect its people reeks of inconsistency.

How does this deal cause concern for Israel's ability to protect its people?

I also never said I'd give Iran the benefit of the doubt, I basically said they shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt but there is no real harm in at least trying this deal because if Iran goes back on its word there will be little consequences since we can simply restart the sanctions.

Where were you when Iran was exterminating Kurds and Berbers, Bahaiis, Zoroastreans, gays, labour unionists, Christiansm Buddists, journalists, student activists and progressive activists asking for democracy? Does that make their government angels?

Where were you when they were funding Hezbollah's assasination of 3 democratically elected Lebanese leaders and engaging in civil war against their own citizens?

Where are you now as Iran props up Assad and finances his extermination of Syrian Sunnis?

Where did I say I support the Iranian government or that it can be trusted? What I'm saying is that with a new Prime Minister who seems better than the last fool, there is no harm in cautiously trying a deal like this with Iran to see relations can be improved.

Easy for you to call Israel's government a bunch of bastards for wanting to protect themselves from Iran's call for their extinction.

Again, how is this deal hurtful to Israel's security against nuclear weapons from Iran. It's actually good for Israel since it means Iran is agreeing to scale back its nuclear energy program and agree to more inspections etc.

You don't live within seconds of anhiliation from a foreign power or a country that ridicules the slaughter of your people and denies it even happened.

Give me one good reason why Iran is an existential threat to Israel. Give me one good reason why Iran, if possessing nuclear weapons, would ever use them on Israel as a first strike? Please provide evidence for when "Iran's call for their extinction" ever occurred. As for holocaust denial, wasn't that mostly under the last PM and not the current one? Has the current PM made outrageous comments about the jewish holocaust? (maybe he has?).

Also, I do "live within seconds of annihilation from a foreign power". The US and Russia, for example, could wipe out all major Canadian cities pretty quickly, especially with nuclear-armed submarines. There may be other countries with the capability as well, maybe Britain, France, and China?

[bud]

i enjoyed the following from ynet:

Israel could have and should have declared victory. We said it was an international matter – and the world acted. A cautious victory, a victory whose value will be measured over time, a victory requiring a sober and alert observation of what is happening in Iran – but a victory.

But Israel has been acting in recent days like an isolated, deceived and over-righteous country, which insists on snatching a loss from the jaws of victory. In an analogy to a different field, Netanyahu could have claimed to have scored a hard-pressed winning goal of 1:0 in the first match, but instead he laments that his fellow team members prevented him from scoring three goals.

[Rue]

Moonlight you made some fair responses. I appreciate them. Thank you for the clarification.

Moonlight I am debating you hard on this one but please understand I respect you and that is why I do it.

If it sounds personal its not meant to be. I totally respect your opinions-just disagree with some.

I will try answer your question in a nut shell lol keeping in mind who you are dealing with when he says nut shell.

First, to live as we do next door to the US is not the same as living in Israel faced with Iran with due respect.

The chance of Russia or the US blowing up Canada in a nuclear was is far less likely than an attack on Israel by

Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, Fatah hawks, on and on. I don't think I have to explain that and why. I would concede in this day and age any of us might be exposed to the random lunacy of some mad man on the streets yes, but to understand why Israel has what you

think is an unreasonable fear is complex.

Its hard for me to explain without you first understanding how small the land is and how people at serious conflict with one another

live no less than a suburb a way. That proximity-that small area in itself creates a complex collective psychological fear in both

Palestinians and Israelis and indeed between Arab peoples at war with one another outside Israel and with Jews conflicting with each other within Israel proper. Lack of space just by itself creates a tension that can't be understood until you are there on the ground and

see how it impacts on people's day to day perceptions of each other. To make that simple to understand all I will say is ANY people

when crowded become hostile and tense. Add to that lack of water and you have two stressors or environmental features that make

the most civil of people uncivil. Then add to that a lengthy thousands of years old religious conflict with 3 major religions and about 20 other religions and then literally thousands of sub-sects and sects within those religions and it causes yet another feature to the

behaviour pattern.

So its easy to write it off as unreasonable but its deeply entrenched and its part historic, religious, political, social, psychological, environmental, on and on.

Add to that this simple factor. In the middle of announcing this deal with Iran, the leader of Iran called yet again for the end of Israel.

If you are in charge of protecting your people from existential threat, yes when a leader of a sovereign nation keeps calling for the end of your country it makes you belligerent. Of course it does. If you sound weak in response it could endanger your people. Much of

what Netanyahu says is posturing. Its part of an elaborate series of communications between people who are daring one another.

You can't simply look at Netanyahu in isolation and ignore the words he responds to or the context of his words. That is patently unfair.

To dismiss Iran as not being a threat is based on what? Do you have the intelligence reports Netanyahu has? Would you know what he knows? Of course not.

I can tell you this. Anything an Israeli official or former official states to the press is done for a reason. Its not accidental and often it contains a sub-message or sub-text to the other side-one for you, one for them. The sub-text in this tit for tats in the public press

you and I do not know. For all you know in the belligerent rhetoric of Netanyahu was a strategically placed word meant to say something totally different.

What I can tell you is the Arab media has always said one thing to its audience, one to Israel and one to the rest of the world. Israelis understand that. In Israel since it is the only country with genuinely free speech, i.e., a highly inflammable critical press given free reign to openly take down any politician-Israel has to use a different response approach. It can't inflame its population like the Arab media can to unify them. Israelis are too critical and cynical for that.

You don't understand Israelis. When it comes to the threat of Iran or terrorists they live with it daily. They have lived with it since the 1920's in one form or another in the Middle East and thousands of years in Europe. The notion of a leader calling for their extermination is a broken record. They represent the collective psyche of the Jewish identity that now says-never again will we go down without a fight. It doesn't make them belligerent. In fact it makes them very matter of fact-they don't scream...they don't jump up and down burning flags and chanting in unison like in the Muslim Arab world.

In Israel people do not follow their leaders blindly. They don't much like them and are not afraid to say so. Their Army is not an elite privileged source of employment. In fact it is a civilian army for the most part with everyone a member of it.

So the mentality is not belligerence as you call it. Its fatalistic. It can actually appear quite passive up close if you don't understand

it. When Israelis go to war, when they put on their uniform there is no bravado. There is no bluster or fanatic calls to engage in holy war. It is a sense of malaise...a sense of here we go again...here we go again when will this end. Then they have to live in the moment and do what it takes to survive.

You don't understand Israelis and I do not claim to myself although I have lived with them and side by side Palestinians and Beduins.

None of us get to say that. We do not live their lives.

What I do know is the average Israeli and Palestinian are just trying to live each day and do not want to kill anyone or fight but feel forced into their situations. For most Palestinians all they know about Israel is their interaction at checkpoints with the IDF or with settlers. Others have interacted in Israel and no there is no fighting. In fact I hate to burst anybody's bubble but Arabs and Jews for the most part are pretty much the same in that area of the world when they are born there. There's no magic difference.

The Muslim extremism comes from Iran or the Muslim brotherhood. It comes from extremist Muslim groups outside Israel or Palestine and funded and trained in Iran or Saudi Arabia. Doesn't matter much whether they are Shia or Sunni these extremist groups are

using the same rhetoric and they are as dangerous to their fellow Muslims as they are Israelis.

Religious extremism is what Netanyahu is concerned about. So am I and many others who are not belligerent. I do not hate Iranians and neither to Israelis. Polls in Israel repeatedly show they do not want to right Iran. Iranian people are not the issue. Iranians are for the most part held captive by their fanatical regime. The ones we see on t.v. chanting and crying death to Israel and the US are orchestrated. The average Iranian wants to be Westernized again as they once were and hates politics like everyone else.

The point though is, the silent majority in Iran as is the case in the Arab world as well as their progressive moderates are forced to go underground. I believe we make a serious mistake flirting with and giving credence to ANY leader of Muslim extremism because I believe it is a direct attack on progressive Muslims who I believe need to be the future of the Islamic world if it is to transcend its

terrorism.

Say what you want about Netanyahu but he does not kill his enemy. In fact he welcomed Tzipi Levni to sit next to him in cabinet and challenge his views and he gave her the Ministry of Justice office. She more than holds her own in discussions with Lieberman his Foreign Affairs Minister or him. There are also others in his coalition to the right and left of him. You don't know what goes on behind closed doors with him and his cabinet but I can tell you this, what you think is his belligerence, is a careful and consistent message

that may not come across to you as reasonable but sends a very clear and precise message to Iran.

In the Middle East smiling and grinning and making gestures of passivity are considered fatal weakness. Obama is as good as done in the Middle East. He is now considered yesterday's news. Putin has emerged as the man to manipulate and cow tow to when seeking leverage against others. Neither Iran or Israel trust Russia and neither trusts the US or Turkey.

In fact you have no idea what really is going on. India who just months ago was on the verge of a naval war with Iran is now suddenly

making deals to get oil from them shipped to India and Iran is openly pro Pakistan and China, the 2 major enemies of India at this point.

Coalitions or alliances may not appear obvious to any of us because often they arise quickly and are done in secret.

Let me summarize. The latest alleged interim agreement allows Iran to continue enriching uranium. If I am a police officer and I see a man with a weapon on the street, do I say drop it or not? What Europe and the US have signalled Iran is clear-keep enriching your uranium, just do it slower.

It is the position of not just Netanyahu but Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the Gulf States, that as long as Iran is allowed to continuing

enriching uranium, its ability to make a nuclear bomb necessarily continues and of course it does. Saying oh but they can only enrichen uranium to 5% not 20% is ludicrous. The process needed to upgrade from 5 to 20% is a matter of weeks if not days.

Can you guarantee Iran will only use its nuclear weapons for peaceful reasons? How? This is a nation that used chemical weapons against Kurd civlians in Turkey, Iran's northern region and Iraq.

This is a country that engaged in a bloody war with Iraq where it ordered the killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians and shot its own soldiers when they panicked and ran.

This is a country that has killed and abused its Bahaiis, Jews, Christians, Zoroastreans, trade unionists, students, journalists.

This is a country with a huge gestapo police force called a religious police that roam the streets no differently than the Brownshirts of Nazi Germany arresting, beating, torturing and killing anyone not considered Shiite enough.

This is a country you want to appease and tell everyone is a country to sit and talk with and you in the next breath say Netanyahu wants to blow them all up and so does his cabinet.

No of course not. What Israel would like is that the very same Iranians that were Israel's strongest ally in the Middle East and were their sole oil supplier for over 30 years go back to being their friends. The last thing they want is a war with Iran's people

Their clergy council that runs them-well of course they do not trust them. Why would they? How do you tell Israel you want them wiped out and expect Israel to trust such people? What kind of insanity would that be.

That is my best answer for you other than to say, please read the comments the current Iranian regime has made about Israel before you simply state Netanyahu is belligerent.

Then you tell me if Israel should trust anyone but themselves...the current interim deal does one thing only-it turns back on the tap of Iranian oil for European and US markets while allowing China and Russia more wiggle room to sell their own goods to Iran. Its great for Europe and the US, China and Russia but will it help Iranians who want a democracy or Israel or stabilize things in the Middle East...no. Saudi Arabia is already talking about purchasing a nuke from Pakistan, Putin has already managed to get a naval base in Egypt and this current détente if you would call it that will not assist the Iranian people. They won't see one penny of any oil money.

[bud]

To dismiss Iran as not being a threat is based on what? Do you have the intelligence reports Netanyahu has? Would you know what he knows? Of course not.

I can tell you this. Anything an Israeli official or former official states to the press is done for a reason.

you trust bibi's so-called intelligence report above everyone else's? including the u.s.'? several former heads of mossad and other israeli intelligence have come out in support of the negotiations. perhaps bibi has faulty intelligence or is lying. let history be the judge of that:

1992: Israeli member of parliament Binyamin Netanyahu predicts that Iran was “3 to 5 years” from having a nuclear weapon.

1992: Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres predicts an Iranian nuclear warhead by 1999 to French TV.

1995: The New York Times quotes US and Israeli officials saying that Iran would have the bomb by 2000.

1998: Donald Rumsfeld tells Congress that Iran could have an intercontinental ballistic missile that could hit the US by 2003.

link

Let me summarize. The latest alleged interim agreement allows Iran to continue enriching uranium. It is the position of not just Netanyahu but Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the Gulf States, that as long as Iran is allowed to continuing enriching uranium, its ability to make a nuclear bomb necessarily continues and of course it does. Saying oh but they can only enrichen uranium to 5% not 20% is ludicrous. The process needed to upgrade from 5 to 20% is a matter of weeks if not days.

how is it an "alleged" interim agreement when it is an interim agreement that has been signed? where do you get that they can go from 5% to 20% within a matter of weeks? it is so irresponsible to make such comments. you just string together fantasies and expect people to believe you. you need to understand what the proposals are before writing about them and giving your opinion on them:

Iran has agreed to halt any enrichment above 5 percent and neutralize any of its stockpile that is near-20 percent.

Iran has also agreed to "unprecedented transparency and intrusive monitoring" of its nuclear program.

In return, the U.S. and its partners have agreed to drop some of its sanctions, amounting to about $6 to $7 billion in relief.

Can you guarantee Iran will only use its nuclear weapons for peaceful reasons? How? This is a nation that used chemical weapons against Kurd civlians in Turkey, Iran's northern region and Iraq.

i did my thesis on the iran/iraq war. iranians using chemical weapons against kurds is news to me and probably anyone else who knows about iran and the war. can you verify this by posting a link?

This is a country that engaged in a bloody war with Iraq where it ordered the killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians and shot its own soldiers when they panicked and ran.

can you verify the following?

1. iran ordered killing of thousands of iraqi civilians
2. iran shot its own soldiers when they panicked and ran

This is a country that has killed and abused its Bahaiis, Jews, Christians, Zoroastreans, trade unionists, students, journalists.

some of those are true, but killing jews and christians because of their religion is not. the iranian government accepts anyone who follows christianity or judaism. in fact, iran has the largest jewish population in the middle outside of israel. just in tehran, there are 19 synagogues.

in fact: Iranian Jewish community holds rally in support of nuclear program

​you are desperately trying to paint a more extreme picture than there really is. you want extreme, then go to israel's bffs' country, saudi arabia.

This is a country with a huge gestapo police force called a religious police that roam the streets no differently than the Brownshirts of Nazi Germany arresting, beating, torturing and killing anyone not considered Shiite enough.

there is some truth to this, but not as extreme as you want to make it out to be. Just today, someone posted a link (with photos) that paints a more realistic picture of it's like in iran. i'm sharing this to inject reality into your obvious attempt at creating an image that doesn't exist.

newsweek - iran

the current interim deal does one thing only-it turns back on the tap of Iranian oil for European and US markets while allowing China and Russia more wiggle room to sell their own goods to Iran. Its great for Europe and the US, China and Russia but will it help Iranians who want a democracy or Israel or stabilize things in the Middle East

not really. you need to read and understand the agreement, because it looks like you don't really understand what it is.

Edited November 28, 2013 by bud

[Shady]

Why would Donald Rumsfeld be telling congress anything in 1998? Anyways, 2003 is when Iran broke the terms of the prior agreement.

[carepov]

Good points rue I especially agree with you that the main concern is Iranian Religious extremism. That is why I am for the deal - it is an olive branch to the moderates in Iran. My opinion is that this deal is promising - certainly more promising than any alternative that I can imagine. If the P5+1 took Netanyahu's or Canada's approach, it would lead to increased influence by Iranian extremists over its moderates.

If you are against this deal, what would you consider a better (and realistic) alternative to the deal? What kind of a realistic deal do you think Netanyahu would consider a "good deal"?

Also, can you please provide a link showing that: "In the middle of announcing this deal with Iran, the leader of Iran called yet again for the end of Israel."?

[bud]

Why would Donald Rumsfeld be telling congress anything in 1998?

you should take responsibility and use the internet to learn about rumsfeld and his activities in the 90's. you'll understand then.

Anyways, 2003 is when Iran broke the terms of the prior agreement.

iran didn't break the terms of any prior agreements in 2003, but i'm glad that you brought up 2003:

In 2003, Iran approached the United States with an offer to talk about its nuclear program. The George W. Bush administration rejected the offer because it believed that the Iranian regime was weak, had been battered by sanctions, and would either capitulate or collapse if Washington just stayed tough.

So there was no deal. What was the result? Iran had 164 centrifuges operating in 2003; today it has 19,000 centrifuges. Had the Geneva talks with Iran broken down, Iran would have continued expanding its nuclear program. Yes they are now under tough sanctions, but they were under sanctions then as well.

link

[bud]

so there are no misunderstandings on what this deal is, here is a more detailed information on this first phase deal:

Joint Plan of Action

Elements of the First Phase

Iranian actions:

• Convert half of its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent to oxide form and downblend the remainder to an enrichment level of no more than five percent;
• suspend production of uranium enriched to above five percent;
• no further advances in nuclear activities at the Natanz Fuel Enrichment Plant, the enrichment plant at Fordow and the Arak heavy water reactor;
• convert uranium enriched up to five percent produced during the six months to oxide form when the construction of the conversion facility is completed;
• no new enrichment facilities;
• research and development practices, including on enrichment, will continue under IAEA safeguards;
• no reprocessing of spent plutonium fuel or construction of any facility capable of reprocessing; and
• enhanced monitoring including, providing information to the IAEA on plans for nuclear sites and the Arak reactor, negotiating a safeguards approach for the Arak reactor, allow daily IAEA access to Natanz and Fordow, and allow managed access to centrifuge workshops and uranium mines and mills.

P5+1 Actions:

• No new nuclear-related sanctions from the UN Security Council, the EU, and the U.S.;
• pause efforts to further reduce Iran’s oil sales and partial repatriation of frozen Iranian assets from oil sales;
• suspension of U.S. and EU sanctions on petrochemical exports and gold and precious metals;
• suspension of U.S. sanctions on Iran’s auto industry;
• supply and installation of spare parts for Iranian civil airplanes, including repairs and safety inspections;
• establish a financial channel for humanitarian goods using Iran’s oil revenues that are frozen abroad, which can also be used for tuition payments for Iranian student abroad and payment of Iran’s UN dues; and
• increase of the EU thresholds for non-sanctioned trade with Iran.

Elements of a Comprehensive Solution

• An agreed upon duration;
• reflection of the rights and obligations of all NPT parties and IAEA Safeguards Agreements;
• lift all multilalteral and unilateral sanctions on nuclear-related measures;
• define Iran’s enrichment program with agreed upon limits
• resolve concerns about the Arak reactor;
• implement agreed up on transparency measures, including Iran’s ratification and implementation of the Additional Protocol of its safeguards agreement with the IAEA;
• cooperate on civil nuclear projects, including a light water reactor for power, research reactors, and nuclear fuel.

[Rue]

Care I am about to take off but I will get you the latest quote but you should be able to find it

on the internet.

Care you asked a great question. No Israeli leader feels they can make any kind of deal with Iran until Iran

explicitly recognizes Israel's r ight to be a Jewish state. Iran has stated publically it wants Israel disbanded as

a Jewish state and used terms of violence to represent how it will do that.

Today the US announced a large exercise with Israel off the coast of Iran after the interim agreement expires

in 6 months and Netanyahu sent officials to Washington to provide input on a final deal to be arrived at with Iran.

That suggests to me Netanyahu has bought into Obama's initiative for now and it makes it a moot point whether

Israel likes the interim deal or not.

The US has been able to show it has Israel under control which may be the message its trying to deliver with

Iran playing good cop to Israel's bad cop.

I don't trust Iran but the alternative? Going to blow their facilities up is obviously problematic and not realistic.

They are too deep underground and the retaliation from terrorists on Israel after such an attack would

cause serious issues for all kinds of governments in the Middle East.

I think we are seeing a huge game of bluff being played out with Netanyahu the bad guy to Obama's good guy

while Putin sits in the back ground snickering at both and whispering to Iran what to do.

[segnosaur]

I'm not saying the deal is good or bad. (At this point I haven't made up my mind.) However, here is something to consider:

Joint Plan of Action

Elements of the First Phase

Iranian actions:

• Convert half of its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent to oxide form and downblend the remainder to an enrichment level of no more than five percent;
• suspend production of uranium enriched to above five percent;

Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation treaty... They've been claiming they need to enrich uranium for "peaceful purposes".

Ummm... ok. But now they're saying they'll reduce some of the enrichment they've already done (downblending it). That means that either:

- They were enriching to higher levels than they need to for for "peaceful purposes", which suggests they were lying about not trying to obtain nuclear weapons

- They are lying about their plans to keep their enrichment at 5%

- They need a higher enrichment for their nuclear reactors, but will keep the enrichment low, basically meaning they will be wasting money

Here's my solution... agree to the plan, but ensure that all the inspectors responsible for verifying Iranian compliance are from Israel. Then we'll really know how serious they are about the deal.