What, specifically, about this deal accelerates their timeline? Keep in mind that money is not the source of any delays.
Adding billions and opening up trade with countries previously cut off to them before will do nothing to accelerate their timeline, but they are only believed to be a few months away from a bomb now. If anything saying 3 years is giving the deal more credit than it probably deserves. Assuming compliance with the deal is beyond naive.
So basically, you're saying the deal is bad because it takes the timeframe from 3 months to 3 years (or maybe a bit less)?
I think it doesn't significantly affect the timeframe for a nuke and it gives the Iranians access to billions upon billions of dollars. Basically they get their money and lifted sanctions, and they still get a nuke pretty soon, which once they have it, they'll want to make a new deal after that as a nuclear country.
Scientists' Letter to Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal Top scientists back Iran deal in letter By William J. Broad NEW YORK TIMES AUGUST 08, 2015 NEW YORK — Twenty-nine of the nation’s top scientists — including Nobel laureates, veteran makers of nuclear arms, and former White House science advisers — wrote to President Obama on Saturday to praise the Iran deal, calling it innovative and stringent. The letter, from some of the world’s most knowledgeable experts in the fields of nuclear weapons and arms control, arrives as Obama is lobbying Congress, the US public, and the nation’s allies to support the agreement. The two-page letter may give the White House arguments a boost after the blow Obama suffered Thursday when Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, one of the most influential Jewish voices in Congress, announced he would oppose the agreement. The deal calls for Iran to curb its nuclear program and allow inspections in return for an end to international oil and financial sanctions. The first signature on the letter is from Richard L. Garwin, a physicist who helped design the world’s first hydrogen bomb and has long advised Washington on nuclear weapons and arms control. He is among the last living physicists who helped usher in the nuclear age. Also signing is Siegfried S. Hecker, a Stanford professor who, from 1986 to 1997, directed the Los Alamos weapons laboratory in New Mexico, the birthplace of the bomb. The facility produced designs for most of the arms now in the nation’s nuclear arsenal. Other prominent signatories include Freeman Dyson of Princeton, Sidney Drell of Stanford, and Rush D. Holt, a physicist and former member of Congress who now leads the American Association for the Ad-vancement of Science, the world’s largest general scientific society. Most of the 29 who signed the letter are physicists, and many of them have held what the government calls Q clearances — granting access to a special category of secret information that bears on the design of nuclear arms and is considered equivalent to the military’s top secret security clearance. Many of them have advised Congress, the White House, or federal agencies over the decades. For instance, Frank von Hippel, a Princeton physicist, served as assistant director for national security in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy during the Clinton administration. The five Nobel laureates who signed are Leon N. Cooper of Brown University; Sheldon L. Glashow of Boston University; David Gross of the University of California, Santa Barbara; Burton Richter of Stanford; and Frank Wilczek of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The letter uses the words “innovative” and “stringent” more than a half-dozen times, saying, for instance, that the Iran accord has “more stringent constraints than any previously negotiated nonproliferation framework.” “We congratulate you and your team,” the letter says in its opening to Obama, adding that the Iran deal “will advance the cause of peace and security in the Middle East and can serve as a guidepost for future nonproliferation agreements.” In a technical judgment that seemed more ominous than some other assessments of Tehran’s nuclear capability, the letter says that Iran, before curbing its nuclear program during the long negotiations, was “only a few weeks” away from having fuel for nuclear weapons. The body of the letter praises the technical features of the Iran accord and offers tacit rebuttals to recent criticisms on such issues as verification and provisions for investigating what specialists see as evidence of Iran’s past research on nuclear arms. It also focuses on whether Iran could use the accord as diplomatic cover to pursue nuclear weapons in secret. The deal’s plan for resolving disputes, the letter says, greatly mitigates “concerns about clandestine activities.” It hails the 24-day cap on Iranian delays to site investigations as “unprecedented,” adding that the agreement “will allow effective challenge inspection for the suspected activities of greatest concern.” It also welcomes as without precedent the deal’s explicit banning of research on nuclear weapons “rather than only their manufacture,” as established in the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty, the top arms-control agreement of the nuclear age. The letter notes criticism that the Iran accord, after 10 years, will let Tehran potentially develop nuclear arms without constraint. “In contrast,” it says, “we find that the deal includes important long-term verification procedures that last until 2040, and others that last indefinitely.” https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/na...etter-obama/b81yzutpyvdY9G1u4oon0I/story.html
I don't want to wade into this debate but this: would be a really cool title to have (with or without the "Emeritus"). I would include that line as much as possible in my daily life if I had it.
Now dozens of retired generals back the deal. Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran deal https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...26f6ae-4045-11e5-bfe3-ff1d8549bfd2_story.html Three dozen retired generals and admirals Tuesday released an open letter supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same. Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.” The release followed a similar letter sent last weekend to President Obama by 29 of the nation’s leading scientists, who called the Iran deal “technically sound, stringent and innovative,” and said it would “provide the necessary assurance in the coming decade and more that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.” The letters provide the White House with additional backing as it wages an increasingly uphill fight to protect the agreement from congressional destruction. Lawmakers will decide next month whether to “disapprove” the deal, a vote that currently appears sure to win near universal Republican support and a significant number of Democratic defections. If the U.S. walks away from the nuclear deal struck with Iran and demands that its allies comply with U.S. sanctions, the dollar may soon cease to be the world's reserve currency, Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday. The administration’s fight now is to persuade enough Democrats to vote to sustain an Obama veto of the disapproval. Some Democratic lawmakers have already said they favor the deal while others, including Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), in line to be the next Democratic leader in the Senate, have voiced opposition. Signers of the military letter include retired general and flag officers from every branch of service. They include four-star Marine Gens. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Joseph P. Hoar, former head of the U.S. Central Command; and Gens. Merrill McPeak and Lloyd W. Newton of the Air Force. Retired Navy Rear Adm. Harold L. Robinson, a Jewish rabbi and former naval chaplain who currently chairs the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces, also signed. “There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon,” the letter said. “Military action would be less effective than the deal, assuming it is fully implemented. If the Iranians cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and the inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military options remain on the table.” “And if the deal is rejected by America,” it said, “the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark.” The Israeli government is adamantly opposed to the agreement, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee has been in the forefront of a campaign to build public opposition in this country. Robinson said he decided to speak out to demonstrate that “those of us who love Israel in the United States are not of one mind and one voice on this matter. I thought it was important to represent some of the diversity within the American Jewish community.” “As a lifelong Zionist, devoted to Israel, and a retired general officer and a rabbi for over 40 years, and operating without institutional encumbrances, I have a unique perspective,” he said in an interview.
"Top nuclear scientists back Iran deal in letter" "Dozens of retired generals, admirals back Iran deal" So basically anyone who knows what they are talking about backs the deal. And then we have internet warriors like bobby opposing the deal. hum....who to believe????
Bobby. He's smarter than anyone else. He doesn't even have to know the facts or read anything to have superior sense than all those stupid generals and scientists.
3 years isn't even enough time for the ink to dry. China and Russia are backing this deal, so the Iranians are breaking their word to them as well. 7 years would be a surprise, but could be easier for their allies to accept. Does that mean the Iranians wouldn't try to think of a way to start something? Probably not, but whether they can while the bulk of the deal lasts is a different matter.
The highlighted part above is one of the key points. After a debacle in Iraq the importance of having a broad based international support is key. This agreement isn't without consequence to Iran and if they do proceed with developing a nuke the US is in a much stronger position to take harsher action with this agreement in place than without.
And now 340 US Rabbis In the latest round of endorsements for President Obama’s historic nuclear accord with the Islamic Republic of Iran, over 340 American rabbis from “all streams of Judaism” have signed a letter announcing their support of deal. “We commend the U.S. and the other negotiating teams for their dedication to reaching an agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. This deal is good for the United States and our allies in the region, and is the best arrangement possible given current international realities” states Rabbi Steven Bob. “If Congress ultimately rejects the deal, the consequences for the United States, Israel, the Jewish community and the world will be significant. We fear that the outcome will be the collapse of the international sanctions regime, an Iranian race for nuclear weapons and an associated arms race in the Middle East and isolation of Israel and the United States from international partners,” warns Rabbi Samuel Gordon.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">.<a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorMenendez">@SenatorMenendez</a>: A 'No' Vote on Iran deal: "If Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it" <a href="http://t.co/wdzSULvxkl">http://t.co/wdzSULvxkl</a></p>— Adam Kredo (@Kredo0) <a href="https://twitter.com/Kredo0/status/633685787477979136">August 18, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Odd logic. If they were to manage to kill the deal and then Iran subsequently gets a nuclear bomb (which most people agree would be likely), then it would absolutely have his name on it.
Let's see what else he had to say. Sounds pretty well reasoned....but it doesn't really matter, the deal is done with the other nations so even if the US manages to shut their part of the deal down, Iran has already won.
I see it this way. If the deal doesn't fall through it IS expected that Iran continue to pursuit a bomb and so no one is really to be blamed when they do. If the deal does get through, there absolutely is a chance Iran still pursuit to a bomb and if they do get one, those that inked the deal would be blamed. Politically, the safer course is a no vote. It's a chicken ***** move that put their own politic above nation.
