Really? In what way is this bad deal any different from the North Korean bad deal? I'm waiting with baited breath for your song and dance routine to show the rest of us how so very different they are.
Funny how the same people always bluster over things that end up being so benign. The greatest threat to world security right now is ISIS/Al-Qaeda . They are actually actively engaged in genocide. The only possibility of limiting them is a coalition of US and Iranian interest. The US can't do it alone because we are infidels outnumbered a million to one. Iran can't do it alone because they don't have air power or intelligence abilities. It's always a common enemy that necessitates compromise between factions. If capitalist and Bolsheviks can work together, the US and Iran can.
Let me get this straight. You're solution to ending ISIS/Al-Qaeda is to ally with Iran against them....the worlds largest state sponsor of terror for decades? Yeah that's gonna end well.
Hey man, give me a realistic alternative and I will listen. But remember you have maybe 100,000 fanatics entrenched with in the indigenous population. You can't bomb them out without killing thousands of innocents, you can't man a 100,000 man expeditionary force that can root them out without taking massive US casualties from guerrilla warfare. Everyone, on all sides, see the US as The Great Satan, you will never own the hearts and minds. Your current erstwhile allies the Saudi's are funding some of these guys. Your chance of influencing future developments in the region are best served by a wartime alliance of mutual interest. A more benign Iran, ceded control of all Shia areas, is the best shot at order. They are actually the most civilized actor willing and available.
How does $1.25 a gallon gas sound? What better way to keep the current party in the White House than to have low gas prices and optimism in the economy come election time?
I don't have one, short of waiting them out over the long term (decades) while SLOWLY making progress with them. I simply see this deal as capitulation by an administration desperate for a foreign policy victory that was unnecessary. Status quo (as unsatisfying as it was) was preferable. I sincerely doubt that this deal does much of anything to slow Iran's progress towards the bomb, but we have certainly strengthened the hold on Iran of it's current ruling faction which is hostile to America in its rhetoric and actions. Our best hope WAS eventually a more moderate government would be in place (i.e. Gorbachev in the Soviet Union) and then get a true negotiation that would lead to lasting peace. That possibility has sadly just about been extinguished by yesterday's announcement.
I'm really glad that you followed along in that it's so rare you manage to. That was my point. Nuking someone that is 1000 miles away (Like the distance from Tel Aviv to Tehran) is different than nuking someone you share a border with (like North Korea and South Korea). There's only 100 miles between Pyongyang and Seoul, North Korea nuking South Korea would be counter productive in that they'd like to control all of the Korean Peninsula....Iran just wants to destroy Israel which could be done by nuking it. Iran has no loyalty to the Arabs surrounding Israel and wouldn't care if they had to deal with the fallout.
Also, I know that technically one country nuking another is crossing a "red line" but we also said that about using chemical weapons and did nothing after that happened in Syria. Iran might be willing to gamble on their ability to simply apologize to everyone after the fact being that no one wants to go to war with a nuclear country.
While I've always been a supporter of Israel, let's not delude ourselves; it's much more likely that Israel resorts to the nuclear option before any of it's enemies.
If you're going to wait them out for decades they will have a nuke before then. Not exactly. The hardliners have always played the nationalism card by pointing out how much the US wants to hold them back through sanctions and threats of military force. Without those it will be harder for them to continue to try to unite the people against the Great Satan.
Depends on the enemy. No one nukes a country they share a border with, so Israel wouldn't nuke those countries and those countries wouldn't nuke Israel. When it comes to Iran, I could see it happening. There would be crazy political repercussions, but I wouldn't put it past them.
Sigh. Just the usual stupid: Iranians, Hezbollah, Hamas, Ruskies, etc. so crazy. Since they so crazy they might not mind being blown off the face of the map. After all they so crazy. you can never tell.
Which is about 130 more than the average liberal attention span (Yes We Can! bzzzzzzzzzz). Now that we've taken care of the monkeys flinging poo part taken away, perhaps you'd care to prove me wrong by bringing something substantive to the discussion? We went into the discussions with the stated goal of Iran never having a nuclear bomb. Was that achieved? No. So badly missed, in fact, that we kept changing the goal. Iran went into the discussion with the objective of having the sanctions removed. Was that achieved? Yes. Which is essentially the problem with Obama's foreign policy (is there even really an actual foreign policy? Not sure...)...he gives good speeches, but then fairly shortly has to retreat from them. Not the foundation on which solid relationships or negotiations can take place. What does the U.S. really get out of this? Not much. We've seen how effective inspections with notice are, and Iraq often had much less than 3 weeks. Plus, if we need to provide evidence of the need to inspect prior to the inspection being granted...where is that going to come from? Iran reducing their nuclear stockpile is a nice objective...but we've seen that before too. Hopefully this time will go much better. But it is far cry from what our going in line in the sand was. That happens in negotiations...which is why one should be careful before drawing any lines in the sand. Everyone should understand this. Iran absolutely was bent on building a nuclear weapons arsenal. Nothing they did with their nuclear program makes sense outside of a military capability---not the number of centrifuges, not the buying of the sites, heck not really even the embarkation on a nuclear program to begin with, when they have so much reserves of fossil fuel. Has that desire changed? It doesn't look like it. So, we kicked the can down the road a bit. Is that really success? Maybe, but it certainly isn't something anyone (outside of Iran) should be jumping for joy over. Not one single real issue was resolved, and so we will still be in the same boat later that led to this situation to begin with. There isn't really any way we can claim victory here, whereas Iran might. What does that tell you about this deal?
I don't think Iran intends to use nuclear weapons. They just want to have them. They can achieve a lot just by having them. The threat of nuclear weapons carries a lot of weight. Iran's goal has been to be the predominant military power in the region. With nuclear weapons, they would probably become that. Here's the question to consider on Iran's actually using them. What would be our response? If Iran nuked Tehran, what would we do? The answer to that will tell you how likely Iran is to actually do it. Would Isreal still be able to retaliate (could they even do so now. on their own?)
With oil at $55 and Saudi Arabia selling bonds to cover budget shortfalls there won't be a lot of money in making this deal for Iran. They have 40 million barrels on ships but the US has 400 million barrels stored. They have been suffering under sanctions and the populace is ready for a better quality of life. That and they have a proxy war with Saudi to pay for. There is a lot to lose by non-compliance and a lot to gain by lowering tensions with the West. Their plate is full without a suicide attack on Israel.
I do agree that there are many different reasons for Iran to want nuclear weapons but you just posed the million dollar question, what would the US do about it if they did nuke Israel? The answer depends on who is in office. The response of this administration to crossing "red lines" has been basically nothing at all.....and Syria isn't a nuclear power. If the right administration was in power, I think Iran could get away with a nuclear attack without a retaliatory nuclear attack. There would obviously be sanctions and other political fallout, but that could be seen as worth it. As to Israel's response, they are pretty tiny, it would be pretty difficult for them to retaliate if hit by a surprise attack with sufficiently powerful nuclear weapons.
Is it? War between who and who, exactly? Further, you are contradicting yourself. First you say war was certainly in the near future, then say we couldn't even make a realistic threat of it, much less do it. It's one or the other.... Personally, I certainly didn't see us going to war over this, regardless of the outcome. Iran probably assumed the same. They were concerned about the sanctions, though.
