Iran: No deal reached, only framework; Iran can still enrich

I have thought about it a bit. If the strongest theoretical threat are inspections in case it comes out that Iran has just broken all promises under the "framework agreement" and basically just stalled the West so that it has more time to build the bomb - do we really think there is a strong incentive for Iran (a known evil, repressive, scheming government) - to not build the bomb? What is the strongest theoretical sanction?

 

I would take this seriously had Republicans accepted that the "American people spoke in November" in either 2008 or 2012. Unfortunately, they damaged our economy in their Quixotic quest to "make Obama a one-term president," which was their number one goal, even above repairing a reeling economy or getting Americans back to work.

You're a clown, just like those you support, and you have earned your new moniker, bigpuffery, through statements like the one I quoted here.

 

You are using alot of words to say nothing.

The question cannot be any more straightforward:

What is a better alternative to slowing down or stalling an Iran nuke than this?

 

Yes, just like the Iraq war would finance itself, the Iraqis would greet us as liberators and they are in the "last throes" of the insurgency.

Your delusion knows no bounds.

 

It isn't as much their military as the size of the country and its terrain. Iraq was a cakewalk compared to a boots on the ground invasion of Iran.

 

I asked a question myself. Your question is valid, but my question is also valid. One could argue that one is basically removing a theoretical threat to Iran with the deal because it does not have a strong enough theoretical sanction attached to it, thereby actually helping Iran to gain more time and operate more freely in what they need to do to build the bomb. So the alternative could be (and I'm not sure) that no deal is better than a deal that actually helps Iran to build the bomb more freely, while Iran's government is laughing at the West as a toothless tiger.

 

True feelings of conservatives in bold. Boys dressed as men. Paranoid android.

 

No point arguing with Simon Bar Sinister.

 

I am not proclaiming to be an expert on this topic, so I am thinking out aloud and asking questions more than anything.

A somewhat weird theoretical question just crossed my mind.

Imagine Iran had a nuclear bomb - just one - and could only use it once. Who do you think would they rather use it on - Saudi Arabia or Israel?

 

NO MORE WAR! Make love, not war. Smoke peace pipe.

No more Mussolini Linguini.

 

Neither. They don't want to actually use it.

 

If Iran could use it only once- would use on one country....Iran. Smart enough to know that using nuclear bomb would cause end of the world, might as well go first.

 

Iran might would rather use their nuclear weapon on Israel because Israel would rather use their nuclear weapon on them.

But debating on what people would rather do is really reaching.

 

Short of an all out invasion, Iran is going to get the bomb. The United States cannot keep all the rest of the world from getting the capacity and ability to do so.

Is Iran laughing at the West and especially the USA? If you are familiar with the region and the history, the answer is: "Yes." Although I would argue that their opinion of the USA and the West already was low.

I do not know what the easy answer is honestly. Short of an all out war on the Middle East......... Iran, Syria, Turkey and others..... there is limitations as to what can be done. The USA has a population that is just fed up with involvement in the Middle East, so short of the use of the "bomb" or an all out invasion of Israel, it is unlikely we see another full scale ground war anytime soon.

Having said that....... If Iran or another Middle Eastern nation were to use a "bomb", I would feel very badly for the decent people in the Middle East because they would cease to exist and the whole region would be turned into a giant museum and theme park complete with TGI Fridays and the migration of Westerners and Jews to populate the area.

 

I, for one, would welcome another country to the ultimate sanity of Mutually Assured Destruction. It tends to limit conflicts to battles between proxies. They are smaller conflicts and do not effect the masses of people World Wars do. They leave the major nations able to deliver humanitarian aid.

It seems the real focus for Iran is the Shia/Sunni religious civil war. Attacking Israel would be counter to the strategies of that engagement. A placated relationship with the West allows them more open access to the world oil markets where they won't be held to the low prices the Chinese can demand from them now. It's going to take billions in oil income to arm their religious allies and build any atomic power generation.

It's almost funny that the same people that think everyone in the US should carry a gun for their own protection would want Iran to be defenseless in a nuclear world.

The Iranian Nuclear Deal: What the Experts Are Saying
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/iran-nuclear-deal-nonproliferation-experts

 

This addresses one thing that some want (no nuclear enrichment in Iran) that is not viable...

 

Josh???

 

War is so easy. Just a silly intended/or unintended mistake or an act done by a crazy and boom!

Preventing war is so much harder. I'm thankful most of the world is trying their hardest to prevent another war in the crazy ME area. Those that don't like this haven't come up with any better alternative other than war. No thx.

 

You live in a world where Obama operates as a king, and every action the US takes (whether positive or negative) is directly his doing, absent of any advisors, lobbyists that he may still be tied to, the American public, or party platform ideology. Grow up.

Whats the alternative to this deal? Leaving the sanctions, further drooping the Iranian public (which is filled with a majority pro-west student population) into poverty which ofcourse opens the door to religious radicalization? Bombing Iran? That worked out well in Iraq...

How do you address the dropout from any course of action (which I still haven't heard from conservatives) that the "freedom party" would take to oppose this president's action?