Yeah it's a lame way out. Fwiw I still don't think Iran was ever seriously pursuing a bomb. Maybe time will prove me wrong but they could have tried to get a bomb decades ago after the revolution but they didn't. Instead they have said they reject nuclear weapons and dismantled the nuclear weapons program after they overthrew the Shah (our "ally" who was trying to develop nukes). History and stuff....we should just ignore it and treat Iran as crazy Dr. Evil type warlords....
I think situation have changed since we announced to the world that they are an axis of evil and them witnessing Iraq falling in a few days. At least their hardcore component has more reasons to push for it. For ever move, there are consequences. Escalation doesn't stop until someone de-escalate or is wiped out.
Many of our enemies (Russia, Iran, Venezuela) have economies heavily dependent on the price of energy. Driving down energy prices should be POTUS/Congress' #1 priority.
It's pretty tortured reasoning. Not having the deal doesn't slow Iran down from having a nuke and no reason to stop their program other than war.
Well put. This is for short term political gain that will make it harder for future multi-lateral action against Iran.
Neither signing on to the agreement or not signing on the the agreement significantly slows Iran down from having a nuke, the only difference is that if we sign on to the deal, Iran profits more while they progress towards a nuke and they would have signed off on Iran maximizing their potential profit while creating a nuke. It's not hard to understand why someone wouldn't want to do that.
Yes, I think that's right. Which was why the 'compromise' deal in April was so important. It gave the Republicans an opportunity to allow the Iran deal to go through even while they were kicking and hollering. They can now all vote against it for political cover, knowing the deal will be safe anyway. The media made out in April like the compromise was a defeat for Obama, but I don't see it that way at all -- it was a way he could get de facto cooperation from congressional Republicans while protecting those Republicans from their constituencies. Now they can call Obama bad names in public and use opposition to the Iran deal in their stump speeches, all while secretly being glad for it when they go to bed at night.
And if they break the deal since Russia, China and other countries are signatories to the deal strengthens the US hand to take action. With no deal the US pretty much shoulders any action on their own. Action in the form of sanctions or military. As others have noted the current sanction regime is unsustainable because of Russia and China so even without the deal Iran could still develop a nuke and get out from some of the sanctions. With the deal though Russia and China are also tied to enforcement on Iran. Negotiations involve a give and take. With no deal there is no impetus for Iran to stop developing nukes at all. This deal gives them an impetus. Even if you don't trust Iran that this deal ties in other countries means that any future action will be easier to undertake.
If they get caught breaking the deal then it's the exact same as if no deal at all happened, only they get to recoup hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets and they get to profit off of the lifted sanctions for a while. Win-win for them. Also, like you noted, China and Russia really don't want to enforce the sanctions anymore and I wouldn't be shocked if they chose to ignore the deal and continued doing business with them even if Iran was caught violating the agreement. You say negotiations are "given and take" but in this deal Iran gave little to nothing, and are taking everything. Given that, I can understand why politicians wouldn't want their name attached to it because when Iran violates the agreement and tests their first functional nuke, it'll absolutely be used against them.
smh <blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">BREAKING: AP Exclusive: UN-Iran deal will let Tehran inspect its own alleged nuclear weapon site: <a href="http://t.co/OLqw57Cztz">http://t.co/OLqw57Cztz</a></p>— The Associated Press (@AP) <a href="https://twitter.com/AP/status/634050922553995264">August 19, 2015</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Well, except that in real life it's an open question whether Russia or China would support the US at all in taking action against Iran if there were a need to. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Putin were to help them build a nuclear capability, deny it in the press, and then accuse the Americans of not honoring the agreement when we object, using their own position as a signatory to undergird their credibility. I still support the deal, but I get antsy when policy allies say we should rest easy because Russia and China have got our backs.
And what happens if China or Russia were in violation of the agreement? We don't have the balls to stand up to Iran....do you really think we'd stand up to China or Russia? We didn't stand up to Russia in Crimea, we didn't stand up to Russia in Syria.
If the premise is international agreement and laws doesn't matter, than nothing matter in international affairs. Are you again arguing that? But we'll see if and when it comes to that. However, I think it would be safe to said that no one on the international stage would again want to work with China or Russia on any multi-national agreement.
The only agreements that matter are those that can be enforced.....and like I said, Russia has shown time and time again that they can do whatever they want and the US will back down and do nothing.
Except right there is not impetus for them not drop nukes. As you note there is at least an impetus if just to get their money and sanctions lifted. What I don't understand is why people would think that Iran would just drop the nuke program if the status quo maintains. In negotiations there has to be some sort of offer. To answer you and JV. This isn't just a deal with Iran but also with Russia and the PRC. So if Iran breaks the deal then Russia and China are on the line too. Now they could decide to do nothing but that is speculative and risks other repercussions to them. Iran is giving away the nuke program in the deal. You are speculating that Iran won't stop the nuke program which I agree is legitimate speculation. You continue to keep on ignoring that leaving the status quo virtually guarantees they will have a nuke while making it much harder for the US and the world community to address it.
I certainly don't think the status quo would stop Iran from trying to get a nuke, I just don't think this deal would stop them from getting a nuke either. IMO all this deal does is financially support Iran. At least before this Iran had 100 billion worth of assets held hostage to use as leverage, now there isn't even that.
Once again though without the deal how might this make Russia, PRC, or Iran more tractable? This is the biggest problem with the argument against the deal is that there is no other solution being proposed other than war. Do you think the Russians and Chinese will be any more interested in us bombing Iran?
