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

So what's the alternative to this deal? More sanctions?

The Chinese and Russians probably would have eventually walked away and lifted sanctions on their own if an agreement didn't happen. The restrictions on banking can only happen if all the major players stick to the sanctions and I highly doubt that happens if there is no agreement. The only reason Russia and China even agreed to those sanctions was the administration's promise that the intention of sanctions were to get Iran to the negotiating table.

Plus sanctions wont stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. If they want weapons, they'll get them with or without sanctions. An agreement at least provides us with some actual leverage and it props up the moderate wing of the Iranian government at the expense of the hardliners.

Propose an actual alternative to the agreement and we can then have a conversation as to what approach is best. But so far all I hear are MORE SANCTIONS and silly conditions that aren't productive or effective.

 

And if anyone was to use a nuk the entire world would probably turn against them.

Yep, an attack on Iran's bargaining power to have sanctions removed.

 

The same deal, but Iran expressly acknowledges Israel's right to exist?

 

We're not proxy diplomats for Israel. If Israel wants to enforce their own sanctions on Iran and insist on an explicit statement on their right to exist, that's their business. The US is negotiating for the best interests of the United States, not merely to preserve Israel. Netanyahu acts like the US is a tour guide that booked him at a bad hotel

 

He has a captive audience right now in the United States to appeal to. The hard right sees Israeli interests as being US interests and is convinced that Obama is looking out for neither. Just listen to Glenn Beck shows or other guys of that ilk. They genuinely believe that Obama's agenda is anti-American. He WANTS to hurt America.

 

Oh come on. If that happens, then the hardliners institute a coup and throw Rouhani and Javed Zarif in jail. You know this would never ever fly and the Iranian right will use this as momentum to seize the government.

There is a political balancing act in Iran that we have to acknowledge. The Iranian right will revolt the second that clause gets thrown in. Not only will they want to topple the government, but they'll restart the nuclear program the next day.

The advantage of this deal is that if executed properly, the moderates in the Iranian government will get to take credit for improving relations with the West and reducing sanctions/boosting the economy.

You add the Israel clause and the moderates will be cast as traitors to the revolution and the whole agreement falls apart. You'll end up with a much more radical Iranian government. This government now is much more favorable than the government of Ahmadinejad. Requring a recognition of Israel ensures collapse of this government.

Any idiot in Israel outside of the Israeli right will pick up on this. It's only Netanyahu and the other jokers on the right that somehow believe that adding a clause like that would actually improve Israeli security. That clause would be disastrous for Israel.

A good parallel is when the Israelis forced the Lebanese government to "recognize" Israel. (Yes there is technically a treaty signed by the Lebanese government recognizing Israel)

And what good did that treaty do. The government collapsed in a matter of weeks and now we have Lebanese governments that will have nothing to do with Israel. A piece of paper means nothing if you dont have a government that will acknowledge it and I guarantee you that Iran will get a far worse government if we put added a condition to recognize Israel.

 

Okay, interesting argument, geeimsobored.

 

I didn't believe you were capable of appreciating rational arguments contrary to your existing opinions on this subject. Kudos, I'm pleasantly surprised.

 

geeimsobored said it pretty nicely.

This statement is just not productive to anything in these negotiations. The fact is that it doesn't matter one bit if Iran does or doesn't recognize Israel as a nation. Israel's security and nationhood is all but guaranteed...BY ISRAEL ITSELF! Adding in a statement that is pure political theater is not going to help get a real deal done.

 

Isn't that a strong argument AGAINST the deal Obama is trying to make, though? If what you are saying is true - what's the point?

 

Are you just arguing for the sake of arguing now?

 

No, I'm just asking a question, based on what geeimsobored said. If you take his exact sentence, it sounds like an argument against the deal.

 

How is that an argument against the deal? If Iran doesn't follow through, the sanctions get re-instated. You build diplomatic agreements like this with safeguards. If we don't follow through with reducing sanctions, then Iran is free to restart its nuclear program.

Both sides have incentives to follow the agreement. However, that is assuming the current governments stay the same. My point was that a radical right wing government would proceed to void the entire treaty and make it nothing more than a piece of paper. (like Lebanese governments have done with their treaty with Israel) If you take what I said literally then treaties are worthless as a whole.

The moderates in Iran know how precarious their position is. They won the election on the promise of improving the economy so they'll do what they have to meet that goal. That means ending the sanctions. The US and the international community want Iran to stop building nuclear weapons so they'll follow through on their end. If one side fails, then the deal is off and we're back to where we are now.

Again this all assumes the current governments stay intact. The other variable is China and Russia who would probably object to adding an Israel clause as well. We need them to play ball or sanctions become watered down since the effectiveness on the banking freeze depends on their cooperation.

Look, Israel needs the surrounding states to eventually recognize it. We all agree on this. But this agreement is not the way to do this.

 

Thanks, geeimsobored.

 

Why do people insist on irrationally conflating things?

Be happy that we can stop Iran from getting a bomb. But no...if they don't recognize Israel's right to exist you rather them have a bomb?

 

Actually I gave you a link a while ago that you were too lazy or dumb to read.

Here is an excerpt. There is no doubt. You are the dumbest human on the planet.

This is from the link I gave you when you complained it was 40 pages long. It is 17 pages and the quote is from the abstract.

 

Dude, that article isn't what the is in the nuke deal. It's not relevant even. It assumes no modifications to the heavy water reactor - here it is from your article:

That's not what Iran has agreed to:

http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8336219/iran-nuclear-deal-plain-english

No weapons grade plutonium will be produced. You keep calling others dumb when it's you who isn't listening. It's comical.

 

Bandwagoner: New Yorker is either too dense to understand, too stubborn to admit that he is clueless or both. My money is on "both". Don't waste your time.

 

So a report on weapons grade plutonium being produced from an LEU core is not relevant to this:

Gotcha Sweet Tard.

 

No, the current Iranian regime, while certainly not ideal, is stable. They are capable of and motivated to comply with the terms of the agreement, partly because we didn't make any outrageous demands having nothing whatsoever to do with the Iranian nuclear program or the sanctions in place because of it (like the demand Netenyahu insists on).

The point is to reach an agreement that is likely to have its terms met, resulting in the lack of a nuclear weapons program in Iran in exchange for relaxing the sanctions. It would appear that such an agreement has been reached, much to the chagrin of biased partisans who are desperate to make sure Obama doesn't get credit for anything positive happening while he is president.

I don't think you are one of the partisans to whom I refer, you have other biases on this issue. However, I appreciate you taking other poster's arguments and recognizing their validity as you did earlier.