Iran Agrees to Nuke Deal

[Kylistan]

Well it appears as if diplomatic talks between Iran and 6 world powers (The United States, France, Germany, Britain, China and Russia) have provided some sort of deal on how to handle Iran's nuclear program. President Obama gave a late night briefing to the press, but details on the deal remain largely unknown except for the fact that if Iran complies to whatever the world powers are asking, they will be given access to $4.2 billion in foreign exchange. This may be a step in the right direction for a safer world, but I believe that many of us will be disappointed once the details come out. The Obama White House has had an uncomfortably soft stance on Iran, thus I'm weary to trust his administration in negotiations with them. So Nation States, what do you think about Obama's stance on Iran, and do you think that this deal will create a safer world, or a more dangerous one?

Details on the Deal Revealed:
http://news.yahoo.com/iran-nuclear-deal-reached-geneva-021222943.html

[Geilinor]

Peaceful negotiation is always better than military action when possible.

[Seleucas]

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

[Kylistan]

Peaceful negotiation is always better than military action when possible.

Nobody can argue with that, but if we can't prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons diplomatically, don't you think that we must go to all means necessary. I mean an Iran with the ability to wipe all life off Earth isn't a reassuring thought.

[Geilinor]

Peaceful negotiation is always better than military action when possible.

Nobody can argue with that, but if we can't prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons diplomatically, don't you think that we must go to all means necessary. I mean an Iran with the ability to wipe all life off Earth isn't a reassuring thought.

They agreed to this deal though, so if they follow it, that scenario will never happen.

[Estado Paulista]

This is very good. Hopefully, it will bring stability to the region. However, I'm skeptic about this.

[Kylistan]

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

Even if you do believe in Iran's right to nuclear power, they have a history of constantly evading routine UN inspections of their nuclear power program, so they are still sanction worthy.

[Kylistan]

This is very good. Hopefully, it will bring stability to the region. However, I'm skeptic about this.

My thoughts exactly.

[Avenio]

This may be a step in the right direction for a safer world, but I believe that many of us will be disappointed once the details come out. The Obama White House has had an uncomfortably soft stance on Iran, thus I'm weary to trust his administration in negotiations with them.

What a bizarre train of thought. "Obama's had a soft stance on Iran. It, unlike the last 20 years of 'hard' stances, has gotten real results, so I'm not likely to trust him, and am disappointed that he actually got them to agree to anything substantial."

[Kylistan]

This may be a step in the right direction for a safer world, but I believe that many of us will be disappointed once the details come out. The Obama White House has had an uncomfortably soft stance on Iran, thus I'm weary to trust his administration in negotiations with them.

What a bizarre train of thought. "Obama's had a soft stance on Iran. It, unlike the last 20 years of 'hard' stances, has gotten real results, so I'm not likely to trust him, and am disappointed that he actually got them to agree to anything substantial."

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.

[Regnum Dominae]

Excellent. I'm glad that we didn't just do what Israel wants for once.

[Kylistan]

Nobody can argue with that, but if we can't prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons diplomatically, don't you think that we must go to all means necessary. I mean an Iran with the ability to wipe all life off Earth isn't a reassuring thought.

They agreed to this deal though, so if they follow it, that scenario will never happen.

What if they don't follow through with the deal? Then what would you do? Go back to the table, or take a more militaristic approach?

[Geilinor]

What a bizarre train of thought. "Obama's had a soft stance on Iran. It, unlike the last 20 years of 'hard' stances, has gotten real results, so I'm not likely to trust him, and am disappointed that he actually got them to agree to anything substantial."

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.

[Tekania]

Peaceful negotiation is always better than military action when possible.

Nobody can argue with that, but if we can't prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons diplomatically, don't you think that we must go to all means necessary. I mean an Iran with the ability to wipe all life off Earth isn't a reassuring thought.

Them having nuclear weapons does not make me feel any more or less safe than anyone else with them. So I fail to see the real concern in that aspect.

[Gauthier]

Nobody can argue with that, but if we can't prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons diplomatically, don't you think that we must go to all means necessary. I mean an Iran with the ability to wipe all life off Earth isn't a reassuring thought.

Them having nuclear weapons does not make me feel any more or less safe than anyone else with them. So I fail to see the real concern in that aspect.

Because it'll make their masters in Israel feel butthurt.

[Kylistan]

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.

Well it did free 52 American hostages from Iran, but that's besides the point. I agree that diplomatic negotiations should be our first approach to dealing with Iran, but if we end up ending sanctions on Iran and unfreezing the money in all of these foreign funds without getting them to either shutdown their nuclear program, or at least allow UN inspectors to regularly visit nuclear power plants, then we can't continue to sit on the sidelines and watch them become closer and closer to nuclear weapons.

[Estado Paulista]

We will find out how good this deal really for peace is once we hear from Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Relations betwen America and Saudi Arabia are quite...sour now. They aren't liking Obama's approach on the Middle East.

Does this means it's working?

[New Chalcedon]

Iran shouldn't compromise on their nuclear program; they have a sovereign right to nuclear power.

Power, yes: but that's not the question at hand here. No-one disputes that Iran may undertake nuclear power projects as it pleases - the dispute is over the purpose of Iran's nuclear program, particularly as the IAEA found Iran to be in noncompliance with the safeguards agreement in 2005.

And Iran voluntarily signed away the right to nuclear weapons when it signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1968.

Furthermore, all sanctions against Iran should be dropped.

Sancire poena delenda est? Is that you, Cato?

[Kylistan]

Nobody can argue with that, but if we can't prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons diplomatically, don't you think that we must go to all means necessary. I mean an Iran with the ability to wipe all life off Earth isn't a reassuring thought.

Them having nuclear weapons does not make me feel any more or less safe than anyone else with them. So I fail to see the real concern in that aspect.

I don't understand how you can say this after looking at Iranian history. Their government will do anything to try to get onto the same stage as the world powers. Since the Islamist revolution, they have pursued hostile relations with most of the outside world and they have promised to go to all measures to "wipe Israel off the map". Out of every nation in the world, they are the most likely to actually fire a nuclear weapon, thus them obtaining nuclear weapons brings the majority of the world great amounts of concern.

[Tekania]

Them having nuclear weapons does not make me feel any more or less safe than anyone else with them. So I fail to see the real concern in that aspect.

Because it'll make their masters in Israel feel butthurt.

That's pretty much what it comes down to.... Iran isn't likely to use them as a first strike weapon. I'm frankly more concerned about NK or Pakistan's nuclear arsenal than Iran's.... and Pakistan just barely. Iran is not a crazed state. They may not agree with us, they may not like us, overall... but they're not nuts.

Now, North Korea..... there's a nuclear arsenal to be concerned about.

[Lies and Ignorance]

I'm against the US treating smaller countries like children to be spanked when they aren't in line with US goals. I'm also confused how one can have a "soft stance" against Iran. It's not tobacco or porn. It's a country. You want to regulate/outlaw a country?

Anyhow, their possession of nukes is probably inconsequential, though it might finally put them on better footing with the country that currently has a nuke pointed at every country.

[Kylistan]

I'm against the US treating smaller countries like children to be spanked when they aren't in line with US goals. I'm also confused how one can have a "soft stance" against Iran. It's not tobacco or porn. It's a country. You want to regulate/outlaw a country?

Anyhow, their possession of nukes is probably inconsequential, though it might finally put them on better footing with the country that currently has a nuke pointed at every country.

The problem is that unlike every other country, Iran will actually shoot the nuke. They will so anything to "wipe Israel off the map" and I'm pretty sure anything includes shooting a nuclear weapon at them...

[Lies and Ignorance]

I'm against the US treating smaller countries like children to be spanked when they aren't in line with US goals. I'm also confused how one can have a "soft stance" against Iran. It's not tobacco or porn. It's a country. You want to regulate/outlaw a country?

Anyhow, their possession of nukes is probably inconsequential, though it might finally put them on better footing with the country that currently has a nuke pointed at every country.

The problem is that unlike every other country, Iran will actually shoot the nuke. They will so anything to "wipe Israel off the map" and I'm pretty sure anything includes shooting a nuclear weapon at them...

They're not going to shoot a nuke at country full of disenfranchised Palestinians and holy Mosques, unless they're stupid - and if you think they are, that's quite distasteful.

[Avenio]

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.

How on earth is this allowing Iran to remain dangerous? The West has brokered a deal with Iran for the first time in decades. Their nuclear weapons ambitions are, by their own admission, on the negotiation table. Even if we don't get complete disarmament from this first deal, this is just the first step in a very long diplomatic process. It's a win-win for everyone involved.

[Aggicificicerous]

The problem is that unlike every other country, Iran will actually shoot the nuke.

I see no evidence of that.

They will so anything to "wipe Israel off the map" and I'm pretty sure anything includes shooting a nuclear weapon at them...

You keep using that "wipe off the map" quote. I don't recall any Iranian official ever making such a statement. If anything, it's been Israel that's been attacking Iran recently.