Iran Agrees to Nuke Deal

[The Serbian Empire]

Look, it's great that a deal was negotiated, but we still don't know most of the details, and I believe that Obama's soft policy on Iran may lead to an agreement that allows Iran to remain dangerous. We will find out how good this deal really for peace is once we hear from Israel and Saudi Arabia.

We've been trying hard policy since 1979. It achieved nothing. In fact, it failed miserably.

Except for massive inflation and nuclear programs in Iran. I suspect the economic warfare defeated Iran on currency pressures raising prices to the point of potential revolt.

[New Chalcedon]

I remember. I also remember thinking that if any other national leader, even an allied one, had interfered so blatantly in US politics, the Marines would be camping out on their doorstep the next day.

But because it was Israel, it was apparently OK for Netanyahu to sabotage the US-Israeli relationship.

It definitely has created a rift.

That's what happens when an outsider backs the losing candidate - the winner is less than inclined to work with them productively.

There's enough AIPAC pressure on the democrats that it hasn't resulted in a complete breakdown, but that kerry interview was a game changer. Now as long as we keep the zionists (I'm looking at you, schumer) from the state department, then maybe something productive will happen.

Perhaps. Although I'm all in favour of America remaining Israel's friend and ally, I do wish that they'd stop giving Israel a pass on so many issues that would bring them down like a ton of bricks on anyone else.

[New Chalcedon]

We've been trying hard policy since 1979. It achieved nothing. In fact, it failed miserably.

Except for massive inflation and nuclear programs in Iran. I suspect the economic warfare defeated Iran on currency pressures raising prices to the point of potential revolt.

And yet despite the "success", Iran's government remains unreconciled - and for all the talk of revolt, 2009 was the year for it and it never happened.

Face it - isolating and sanctioning Iran hasn't done one thing to advance US goals. In fact, by isolating Iran so successfully from most markets, the price of oil has been systematically higher than it otherwise would be.....resulting in damage done to the US economy over all that time.

[DogDoo 7]

Except for massive inflation and nuclear programs in Iran. I suspect the economic warfare defeated Iran on currency pressures raising prices to the point of potential revolt.

And yet despite the "success", Iran's government remains unreconciled - and for all the talk of revolt, 2009 was the year for it and it never happened.

Face it - isolating and sanctioning Iran hasn't done one thing to advance US goals. In fact, by isolating Iran so successfully from most markets, the price of oil has been systematically higher than it otherwise would be.....resulting in damage done to the US economy over all that time.

Isn't the US a net exporter now? So wouldn't high prices help the economy?

[Alien Space Bats]

Isn't the US a net exporter now? So wouldn't high prices help the economy?

No.

High oil prices do not improve American employment as much as low oil prices would.

[New Chalcedon]

Isn't the US a net exporter now? So wouldn't high prices help the economy?

No.

High oil prices do not improve American employment as much as low oil prices would.

This. Oil is far more important as an input into various domestic economic processes than it ever will be as an export earner for the US.

[New Chalcedon]

In related news, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Dumbfuck) claims that the entire thing is merely being orchestrated "to distract attention" from the problems with the ACA rollout:

Amazing what WH will do to distract attention from O-care

OK, so I could understand it if Republicans criticized the President over the terms of the deal - it's all they ever fucking do anyway (well, that and pass 40+ DOA repeal bills in the House), so I wasn't surprised or particularly unhappy when, for instance, Senator Ayotte (R-NH) said this:

Skeptical of Iran deal bc once some sanctions lifted 2 hard 2 go back-need 2 see details on plut react, enrichment-will they stop terrorism?

I mean sure, there's some scaremongering in there, and some demonization and a whole bunch of stupid too, and I can just see her getting up to a podium and piously proclaiming that she has "reservations" about this that make it impossible to vote to end a filibuster on the nomination of the Assistant Secretary of Corn Ethanol Subsidies or something (Oh, wait....she can't do that anymore). And Sen. Kirk (R-IL) is even trying to be helpful:

Senate must enact bipartisan legislation to impose new sanctions if #Iran undermines deal or dismantlement of nuke pgm not underway in 6 mo.

I think that 6 months is too soon to judge, but at least it's not nearly as bad as Cornyn's swipe, because it's on-topic to the deal that the President just reached. But claiming that international diplomacy is being done in an attempt to distract people from domestic concerns? Two thoughts, Senator Cornyn:

First, don't you dare to show your dumbfuck cracker face on talkshows to attack Democrats for being "overly partisan" or "petty" ever again. You've just demonstrated that there is nothing, not one thing, that you won't turn into a petty partisan swipe at a Democrat.

Second, you've just confirmed that the rest of the world should pray that no Republican ever gets within spitting distance of the Presidency ever again. The best we can expect from your party is arrogant indifference; the worst is cynical contempt.

[Seleucas]

This.

Totally...It's not like they'll use them to blow up Israel or anything....That'd NEVER in a MILLION years happen.

More likely that Israel will blow Iran up; Israel has nukes, whereas the US's own National Intelligence Estimate cannot even say that Iran has a nuclear weapons program.

[Divair]

And what a shit job he has done at being Minister of Finance.

Well, this was Bibi's strategery. He didn't scheme his way to the top without knowing how to dispose of rivals.

Anyway, Lapid recently said that a 'Jewish and democratic state' is an unsolvable problem for the Arabs. So let's just focus on neo-liberalism instead!

But.. but.. we must "equalize the burden"! Let's screw over EVERYONE!

[Kingdom of Israel]

You do realize Iran can already make nuclear weapons, they don't need to enrich more uranium.
That means that the deal is bullshit and won't stop Iran from having nuclear weapon- military action is the only choice.

[Myrensis]

You do realize Iran can already make nuclear weapons, they don't need to enrich more uranium.
That means that the deal is bullshit and won't stop Iran from having nuclear weapon- military action is the only choice.

Good luck with that. Let us know how it goes for you.

[Tekania]

You do realize Iran can already make nuclear weapons, they don't need to enrich more uranium.
That means that the deal is bullshit and won't stop Iran from having nuclear weapon- military action is the only choice.

Military action? For what reason? I see no reason for military action.

[Avenio]

You do realize Iran can already make nuclear weapons, they don't need to enrich more uranium.
That means that the deal is bullshit and won't stop Iran from having nuclear weapon- military action is the only choice.

Oh yes. Because if there's one thing that would solve the problem of a hypothetically-nuclear-armed Iran with the least amount of suffering on all sides, it's another exciting military adventure in the Middle East.

[DrakoLand]

Iran shouldn't compromise on their nuclear program; they have a sovereign right to nuclear power. Furthermore, all sanctions against Iran should be dropped.

[New Chalcedon]

You do realize Iran can already make nuclear weapons, they don't need to enrich more uranium.

Given that the US intelligence agencies disagree emphatically with you, I'm going to ask you to source the bolded.

That means that the deal is bullshit and won't stop Iran from having nuclear weapon- military action is the only choice.

So, let me see if I understand this. Your logic seems to run as follows:

(1) Iran must not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons;
(2) But, Iran has the capacity to make nuclear weapons tomorrow;
(3) Therefore, diplomacy cannot do anything to stop them making nuclear weapons;
(4) Therefore, we must invade Iran (I'm sure you realise that a bombing campaign won't stop development of nukes short of carpet-bombing or nuking most of Iran's built-up areas, and then only maybe) and commit hundreds of thousands of troops to a months-long campaign....ignoring the fact that - given you postulate they can build nukes on short notice - they'll have nuclear weapons to use against our troops before we can possibly complete their overthrow.

At least you'll still have soldiers left when Iran has only corpses, I guess. Great going, General Haig.

I'm sure I need not point out that premises (2) through (4) are disputed at best.....right? Not to mention the distinct possibility of Russian or Chinese intervention (diplomatic more than military) on Iran's side....embargoes of the USA and its allies being the least retaliation I'd judge likely for yet another military adventure, this time against a country with warm relations with both Moscow and Beijing.

[Verdum]

Thumbs up for Iran making nukes anyways.

[The Grand World Order]

Now I'll never get my CAR :C

[DrakoLand]

So... who gave the right to any of this G.Powers to tell Iran what to do?

[The Grand World Order]

So... who gave the right to any of this G.Powers to tell Iran what to do?

Our guns, money, and the fact that we already have hordes of nukes to back our already unmatched conventional forces.

[New Chalcedon]

So... who gave the right to any of this G.Powers to tell Iran what to do?

The fact that they voluntarily signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in exchange for assistance with civilian use of nuclear energy...which they received.

[DrakoLand]

So... who gave the right to any of this G.Powers to tell Iran what to do?

The fact that they voluntarily signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in exchange for assistance with civilian use of nuclear energy...which they received.

Yes, cause every nation ever was bound to the agreements they signed.

So... who gave the right to any of this G.Powers to tell Iran what to do?

Our guns, money, and the fact that we already have hordes of nukes to back our already unmatched conventional forces.

This seems more logical.

[New Chalcedon]

The fact that they voluntarily signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in exchange for assistance with civilian use of nuclear energy...which they received.

Yes, cause every nation ever was bound to the agreements they signed.

Our guns, money, and the fact that we already have hordes of nukes to back our already unmatched conventional forces.

This seems more logical.

Oh, sorry, I thought you were talking about right, not might.

[Tekania]

You do realize Iran can already make nuclear weapons, they don't need to enrich more uranium.

Given that the US intelligence agencies disagree emphatically with you, I'm going to ask you to source the bolded.

That means that the deal is bullshit and won't stop Iran from having nuclear weapon- military action is the only choice.

So, let me see if I understand this. Your logic seems to run as follows:

(1) Iran must not be allowed to possess nuclear weapons;
(2) But, Iran has the capacity to make nuclear weapons tomorrow;
(3) Therefore, diplomacy cannot do anything to stop them making nuclear weapons;
(4) Therefore, we must invade Iran (I'm sure you realise that a bombing campaign won't stop development of nukes short of carpet-bombing or nuking most of Iran's built-up areas, and then only maybe) and commit hundreds of thousands of troops to a months-long campaign....ignoring the fact that - given you postulate they can build nukes on short notice - they'll have nuclear weapons to use against our troops before we can possibly complete their overthrow.

At least you'll still have soldiers left when Iran has only corpses, I guess. Great going, General Haig.

I'm sure I need not point out that premises (2) through (4) are disputed at best.....right? Not to mention the distinct possibility of Russian or Chinese intervention (diplomatic more than military) on Iran's side....embargoes of the USA and its allies being the least retaliation I'd judge likely for yet another military adventure, this time against a country with warm relations with both Moscow and Beijing.

Well, to be fair we've known for years than Iran has had the technical expertise to manufacture nuclear weapons if they wanted to. Afterall, we (the US) should know, since we're the ones that gave them that expertise.

But, to be more accurate, there has been no intelligence confirming the opinion that Iran presently has a nuclear weapons program or that has any plans to manufacture nuclear weapons. At the time of their founding they had a nuclear weapons program, but one of the Islamic Republics first actions was to dismantly it because they believe Nuclear Weapons are not compatible with their view of Islamic faith. And while they are shown to possess technology and contruction of facilities which could theoretically or potentially manufacture fissile material for nuclear weapons, there has been no evidence supporting that that is the purpose of those facilities; as such technology is also useful for optimizing and economizing nuclear power production as well.

[Tekania]

So... who gave the right to any of this G.Powers to tell Iran what to do?

Iran did, as they are signatories of the treaties that have established the regulations and such to which the talk it about.

[Tekania]

Yes, cause every nation ever was bound to the agreements they signed.

Correct, and when they do not follow those agreement other signatories may act in ways to encourage said nation which violates such compliance. It's a quid pro quo.... you do this, we do that, if you don't do that then we stop this.