# Agreement for framework for Iran nuclear deal reached **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 2, 2015, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648 "2015-04-02T19:34:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/481 "2015-04-20T18:53:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > However, Kissinger does have a long track record of understanding foreign policy. No one bats 1.000. You don’t get it. When I talk about Kissinger’s record, I’m talking about **crimes,** not **blunders.** ---
**Author:** ![SirRay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cc9497/32.png) [@SirRay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirRay)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/482 "2015-04-20T19:29:21Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > But Allah has apparently advised that He will _not_ intervene unless the war is started with atomic weapons. (The ways of Allah are mysterious). Hey, Allah was [playing with nuclear fission reactors](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor) on Earth before the rise of multicellular organisms on land (there is also some evidence He was playing with nuclear fusion reactors before that, about 150 million km from us) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/483 "2015-04-21T18:36:44Z")
[Possible compromise on sanctions.](http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-nuclear-talks-possible-compromise-20150420-story.html) > [@](#): > > Signaling a potential key compromise in negotiations with Iran, the White House said Monday that it might be willing to start providing sanctions relief as soon as Tehran begins putting in place new curbs on its nuclear program. > > The Obama administration and Iran have been at odds over how quickly sanctions will begin to be lifted once Iran and six world powers, including the United States, complete the nuclear deal they have been negotiating for 19 months. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/484 "2015-04-21T18:40:41Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > You don’t get it. When I talk about Kissinger’s record, I’m talking about **crimes,** not **blunders.** [For instance:](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger) > [@](#): > > **The ugly** > > - One of the architects of the secret bombing campaign in Cambodia, which played an important role in bringing the Khmer Rouge to power as an unintended side-effect. After the US racked up an additional 40,000+ casualties in Cambodia, Kissinger entered into ceasefire negotiations with Le Duc Tho of North Vietnam. He was awarded the Nobel [del]Irony[/del] Peace Prize for this. It has since been widely considered a joke. > > - Maintained economic and military aid to Pakistan as it indiscriminately massacred over a million civilians during the Bangladesh Liberation War. Called Indira Gandhi a “bitch” while he did so.[6] > > - Dramatically increased aid and military funds into Indonesia in support of Suharto’s brutal dictatorship, which killed up between 90,000 and 200,000 unarmed civilians in East Timor. > > - In accordance with his policy of “Madman Theory,” on October 27th, 1969, as part of Operation “Giant Lance,” had Nixon send 18 B-52 bomber planes armed with nuclear warheads to the eastern soviet border, in the hopes that the soviets would panic and pressure North Vietnam to accept US peace demands at the treaty of Paris.[7] Whether this is truly “ugly” or not depends on one’s faith in game theory, but it at least deserves a spot on this list. > > - Supported Operation Condor, a campaign designed to synchronize the secret police of the fascist dictators in South America and support coups and drug dealing in the region. Kissinger was particularly fond of Chile’s glorious dictator Augusto Pinochet and Jorge Rafael Videla’s junta in Argentina. > > - Wanted to “smash Cuba” in 1976, because that worked well before.[8] > > - Was involved in Watergate.[9] Couldn’t even escape that. > > - Buddied up with Dubya to dispense advice on Iraq. He should hang for Chile alone, and that’s not the worst thing on the list. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/485 "2015-04-21T18:50:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > [Possible compromise on sanctions.](http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-iran-nuclear-talks-possible-compromise-20150420-story.html) [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18280978&postcount=283](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18280978&postcount=283) ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/486 "2015-04-21T19:10:49Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18280978&postcount=283](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=18280978&postcount=283) Why not just as easily frame it as the Iranians who’ve “folded,” as they’re now talking about putting curbs on their program prior to all sanctions being lifted? Or, perhaps, could it be that _each_ side is giving up some of what it wants in order to reach an equilibrium constrained by each side’s best alternative to an agreement, also known as a negotiation? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/487 "2015-04-21T19:15:34Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > Why not just as easily frame it as the Iranians who’ve “folded,” as they’re now talking about putting curbs on their program prior to all sanctions being lifted? Because there is no “prior”. [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/19/obama-suggests-possible-compromise-on-iran-sanctions/](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/19/obama-suggests-possible-compromise-on-iran-sanctions/) President Obama suggested on Friday that Iran could receive significant economic relief **immediately after concluding a deal** to curb its nuclear program, a gesture towards one of Tehran’s key demands. … Later, seeking to clarify the president’s comments, a White House official said Obama “will not accept a deal without phased sanctions” relief. So - is it “immediately” or is it “phased”? How much do you want to bet me that it will be "immediately? ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/488 "2015-04-21T19:22:09Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Because there is no “prior”. > > [http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/19/obama-suggests-possible-compromise-on-iran-sanctions/](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/19/obama-suggests-possible-compromise-on-iran-sanctions/) > > President Obama suggested on Friday that Iran could receive significant economic relief **immediately after concluding a deal** to curb its nuclear program, a gesture towards one of Tehran’s key demands. > … > Later, seeking to clarify the president’s comments, a White House official said Obama “will not accept a deal without phased sanctions” relief. > > So - is it “immediately” or is it “phased”? How much do you want to bet me that it will be "immediately? Unclear from the context, but I like my odds. Obama may have implicitly meant “immediately, conditional on Iran immediately curbing some of its activities.” The subsequent clarification from the White House suggests that, in fact, he did intend something to that effect. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/489 "2015-04-21T19:22:35Z")
Folding quicker than a tent in a hurricane… > **[Shovel-ready sanctions](https://nypost.com/2015/04/20/shovel-ready-sanctions/)** > > A joke from back when the Soviet Union’s economy was collapsing ends with the punch line, “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.” That’s the pending Iran nuclear deal: The Iranians will p… That’s the pending Iran nuclear deal: The Iranians will pretend they’re not building nukes, and President Obama will pretend he’s stopping them. One sign of this: The White House is now insisting that the truly vital part of the deal is the provision for “snapback sanctions.” The idea is that, should Tehran get caught cheating, US and UN sanctions would immediately “snap back” into place. Yet “snapback sanctions” are just like “shovel ready jobs”: figments of Professor Obama’s imagination. … Ask for details on “snap back,” and you get vague promises that they’re working out the procedures. Yet there’s no way to get anything “snapping” rapidly when the United Nations is involved. And why is the White House touting “snap back”? Because Obama’s already retreating on what he initially called the deal’s key provisions: 1) a slow, “phased” ending of sanctions as Iran proves it’s behaving; and 2) unprecedented go-anywhere-anytime access for arms inspectors. First, Obama is now talking about unlocking perhaps $50 billion of Iran’s now-frozen assets on Day One. That’s in the ballpark of what sanctions cost Tehran in a year — making “snap back” irrelevant even if it worked. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/490 "2015-04-21T19:41:20Z")
The unfreezing of assets is a sensible part of any deal, but there’s a Dealmaking 101 thing that our side needs to remember: never exchange anything concrete for mere promises. If they get something right now, we get something right now. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/491 "2015-04-21T19:42:03Z")
The final agreement should be evaluated based on whether it satisfies US interests better than the alternative. It’s silly to measure the final agreement against the yardstick of statements Obama or others on the US side may have made in the past. Negotiations don’t work if the other party feels like it’s given up a lot without getting any concessions in return. One way to create concessions to give away is by staking out untenably hardline positions in early rounds, and relaxing them later. There is no reason to think that an agreement in which no sanctions are released until Iran has complied 100% with all restrictions represents an equilibrium. It’s not a reasonable position for the US to take. Iran knows that. Iran knows the US won’t go to war in order to gain the necessary leverage to impose such an agreement. The equilibrium is we get something and they get something. The New York Post has not once put forth a realistic alternative to Obama’s Iran policy, which is why they resort to infantile taunts like calling him “Professor Obama.” ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/492 "2015-04-21T19:47:11Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > The final agreement should be evaluated based on whether it satisfies US interests better than the alternative. It’s silly to measure the final agreement against the yardstick of statements Obama or others on the US side may have made in the past. Negotiations don’t work if the other party feels like it’s given up a lot without getting any concessions in return. One way to create concessions to give away is by staking out untenably hardline positions in early rounds, and relaxing them later. Is Iran’s statement of what they will accept grounds for a reasonable deal? Immediate lifting of sanctions and no inspections of certain nuclear sites? Because even OUR version was at best plausible, not ideal. IF we’re not even getting what the President said we were getting, then we got taken. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/493 "2015-04-21T20:05:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Is Iran’s statement of what they will accept grounds for a reasonable deal? Immediate lifting of sanctions and no inspections of certain nuclear sites? Because even OUR version was at best plausible, not ideal. IF we’re not even getting what the President said we were getting, then we got taken. In my mind it depends on what the rest of the P5+1 and participants in the sanctions regime view as reasonable. A recurring theme among critics of this process is that they don’t seem to grasp that it’s a _multilateral_ one. The deal we can realistically achieve is constrained by how much China, Russia, and other countries like India and South Korea are willing to go along with the sanctions regime, which is our main source of leverage AFAICT. The best deal we can get is the one where if Iran asked for one more concession, China, Russia et al would be willing to return to sanctions. This may produce a final deal that’s worse than what Obama has advertized. That doesn’t make it a bad deal necessarily. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/494 "2015-04-21T20:12:11Z")
> [@Donald\_Rump](#): > > In my mind it depends on what the rest of the P5+1 and participants in the sanctions regime view as reasonable. A recurring theme among critics of this process is that they don’t seem to grasp that it’s a _multilateral_ one. The deal we can realistically achieve is constrained by how much China, Russia, and other countries like India and South Korea are willing to go along with the sanctions regime, which is our main source of leverage AFAICT. > > The best deal we can get is the one where if Iran asked for one more concession, China, Russia et al would be willing to return to sanctions. This may produce a final deal that’s worse than what Obama has advertized. That doesn’t make it a bad deal necessarily. I think this is one of the main disconnects of the R vs. L thing in America. The left wants the best deal that is practical. The right wants a symbol. They want their enemy on their knees groveling, sobbing, with snot bubbles and tears, mumbling about how wrong they were, how grand the US is, and what fools they were to stand in its way. Anything less than that is capitulation. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/495 "2015-04-21T20:23:47Z")
A deal involves us getting something in return for something. If we get nothing substantial in return for something(like $50 billion) then we got taken. Donald Rump’s rhetoric seems like groundwork for defending the worst possible outcome, frankly. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/496 "2015-04-21T20:30:30Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > A deal involves us getting something in return for something. If we get nothing substantial in return for something(like $50 billion) then we got taken. We get something baseline. We don’t have to go to war. Any agreement includes that outcome. Now, the trouble is, some of the dimmer bulbs on the GOP like war. Because, as I said, war is a symbol. It’s not planeloads of corpses and shattered men limping back into society. The GOP, and the Neocons in particular want this because they want the pageantry and glory, and are willing to pay for it with other men’s children. Us attacking Iran should be a method of last resort, because it will make them hate us. It will inflame passions around the Muslim world. And that is a negative thing. So be sure, in your detailed assessment of this negotiation, which I may add, you have next to no information about, and are second guessing regardless, put Avoid War in Iran in the agreement column. > [@](#): > > Donald Rump’s rhetoric seems like groundwork for defending the worst possible outcome, frankly. No, your and Terr’s rhetoric is a precursor to throwing up your hands and shouting, “What a weakling Obama is!” the second the deal is finalized, if ever. ---
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/497 "2015-04-21T20:40:08Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > A deal involves us getting something in return for something. If we get nothing substantial in return for something(like $50 billion) then we got taken. > > Donald Rump’s rhetoric seems like groundwork for defending the worst possible outcome, frankly. There will be no “deal” wherein we get nothing substantial in return. Obama has consistently said the odds of a deal being struck are only 50-50. He’s a realist. He knows there may not be a deal that is acceptable to both us and Iran. But here’s the thing. The alternatives to a deal–and correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe this list is exhaustive–are 1) war or 2) the status quo ante (pre-2010), where there is no robust international sanctions regime and the only obstacles to an Iranian nuclear weapon are unilateral US sanctions and the occasional cyberattack or murdered scientist. Those are both exceedingly crappy alternatives. That means the bar for a deal being “good” is actually pretty low. Our best alternatives to whatever deal Iran is willing to accept are both utter shit. In that light, the framework that Obama has extracted from the situation is unbelievably good. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/498 "2015-04-21T20:47:21Z")
“The bar” has to be whatever actually keeps Iran from getting a nuke during the entire timeframe of the deal. That means verification, which has almost always been nearly impossible with authoritarian regimes. That means getting rid of sanctions in stages, in return for such verification. It means a real mechanism for “snapback” should Iran simply renege or get caught cheating. No one wants war, but neither should anyone want ANYTHING but war, including an Iranian nuke. It has long been US policy that an Iranian nuclear capability is out of the question and that we will use any means to prevent it. If that policy is changing, the President could at least be honest about it. If he won’t be, I’d expect Dopers to at least be honest about it. So tell us now, is that policy changing? Will we accept an Iranian nuke now, as in we won’t use force to stop it? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/499 "2015-04-21T20:50:40Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > “The bar” has to be whatever actually keeps Iran from getting a nuke during the entire timeframe of the deal. That means verification, which has almost always been nearly impossible with authoritarian regimes. That means getting rid of sanctions in stages, in return for such verification. It means a real mechanism for “snapback” should Iran simply renege or get caught cheating. > > No one wants war, but neither should anyone want ANYTHING but war, including an Iranian nuke. It has long been US policy that an Iranian nuclear capability is out of the question and that we will use any means to prevent it. If that policy is changing, the President could at least be honest about it. If he won’t be, I’d expect Dopers to at least be honest about it. So tell us now, is that policy changing? Will we accept an Iranian nuke now, as in we won’t use force to stop it? I’m not saying it’s off the table. I said war should be a last resort. Which includes war as an option. You appear to be arguing that no possible deal will satisfy you. Even to the point of advocating adding in distracting nonsense like state recognition of Israel. Please argue against my actual position, and not the one that makes it easier for you to churn out gish-gallops. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [April 21, 2015, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648/500 "2015-04-21T20:56:12Z")
I’m not only arguing against your position. I won’t say that NO deal with Iran would ever be acceptable. Just that given the concessions the President has already made, a good deal seems unlikely. That being said, the original framework as spun by the administration sure looks good enough after the latest reporting. And I see that liberal Dopers aren’t standing by that spin as the basis of a minimally good deal. Apparently we can make even more concessions, with no corresponding concessions on the part of the Iranians. That’s known as negotiating from a position of weakness. Are we negotiating from a position of weakness? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648.md?page=24) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/agreement-for-framework-for-iran-nuclear-deal-reached/716648.md?page=26)