Now that’s a statement I can endorse. And I agree that many Republicans do not have specific ideas other than “being tough”. However, Iran is not a particularly developed country. I do believe that the current policy of sanctions and sabotage was more than enough to keep them from a bomb, and military force was on the table for a reason. Now we’ve basically taken everything off the table and conceded that Iran will have a bomb. Unless the President had intelligence that Iran was just about to break out, this deal makes little sense. And if Iran was about to break out, they wouldn’t be seeking a deal.
I’ve also read that this might be more about getting Iran to be a regional power that can help fight Sunni extremism, which is also a defensible reason to pursue a deal, but if that’s the case it shouldn’t be something the President feels the need to be silent on.
But yeah, I also hope that the debate over Iran policy in the election ends up getting past empty platitudes.
Republicans can’t convince a majority of Americans that an “inexperienced, maybe Muslim, maybe non-American, gun-grabbing socialist” doesn’t deserve to be President, and they expect to convince Iran, whom they threaten with bombings on a near-daily basis, they they shouldn’t seek a strategic deterrent? You guys might want to start with baby steps before you think you can start selling ice to Eskimos.
72nd in per capita income, pretty much zero ability to respond to natural disasters within their borders, a theocracy, the only reason they have an economy at all is because they have huge oil reserves. This is not a modern industrial state capable of manufacturing nuclear weapons without outside help. The real crime is that they got outside help. It’s time to do away with this foolishness that we should share nuclear technology. Share solar panels if they want alternatives to oil.
In terms of development, Iran is in the same league as Turkey, Mexico, and Brazil.
The current policy of sanctions and sabotage was not enough to keep them from a bomb. From AP (yesterday):
My guess is that Iran wants sanctions relief more than they want a nuclear weapon. But there is no evidence that the existing sanctions regime–which was always time-constrained anyway, and getting weaker every day–was preventing Iran from getting a bomb if it wanted to.
We have done no such thing. We have conceded that they can maintain a heavily regulated, heavily monitored enrichment program for 10 years. It remains US policy that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable. Why do you keep characterizing the framework agreement as conceding that Iran can have a bomb?
“What is a more relevant fear would be that in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero,” Obama said.
Now if US policy is that force is still on the table after the expiration of the agreement, that’s a different story. But the Okay Communicator needs to tell us these things.
Why am I not surprised that a tabloid rag from the UAE isn’t putting Obama’s statement in context?
Obama’s point is that given the limitations on Iranian enrichment activities for the next 10 years, the earliest they could have large quantities of weapons-grade uranium assuming no extension to the 10-year agreement would be a couple years, hence his concern about year 13, 14, etc.
And what then? Does Iran just “get a bomb?” No. From the full transcript at NPR:
There are two issues I need resolved. You just resolved one of them: the issue of what happens after the agreement.
The other is whether the US can act alone to punish Iran if they don’t completely fulfill their end of the agreement. No one has really addressed that yet. It’s precisely the point Duelfer has been bringing up. Enforcement relies on Putin’s reliability. Not exactly a good basis for an agreement.
That the US doesn’t have unilateral control over everything that happens in the world is an irreducible problem. The US undoubtedly can take unilateral military action if Iran cheats egregiously enough, and may even have the support of some allies. But if the US and its allies decide that sanctions should snap back into place, there’s no guarantee the Russians or Chinese will go along. But that was true even without an agreement. The sanctions were never going to last forever.
Duelfer’s point is sound as far as it goes. Novels could be written cataloguing all the myriad ways the proposed framework falls short of our dream scenario. But like other commentators whose critiques are focused on all the flaws of the deal, he never spells out what we should be doing instead. It’s like being in a group of people stranded on a desert island, and the only food there is to eat is one lousy can of sardines. And one faction of the group just keeps going on about this, that, or another thing that they dislike about sardines. “Ok, but what the fuck else do you propose we eat? Our own shit? Each other? No? Then shut the fuck up.”
When one doesn’t say what we should be doing instead, it should be assumed that they support the status quo. I find it hard to believe that Iran is three months away from a bomb after the damage Stuxnet did, ruining a whole bunch of their centrifuges. Someone has also been assassinating Iranian nuclear scientists, which aren’t exactly easy to replace.
So the status quo was quite valid as a response to their illicit program.
Do you believe that right now, or in the recent past, Iran is actually working on assembling a nuclear weapon? In other words, do you believe it to be fact that Iran has its own Manhattan Program underway at this moment, but they simply haven’t been able to achieve a nuclear weapon yet?
I think that’s exactly what’s going on. They want a bomb to make it impossible to retaliate against them for their terrorist attacks on other nations. Or at least they think it would be impossible.
This graphfrom IAEA illustrates trends in centrifuge installation over the past several years. I don’t think even Iran hawks would say that the status quo was effective in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Certainly not Netanyahu or any Republican critic of Obama’s diplomacy that I’m aware of. The debate is between the course Obama and our allies have pursued, versus some form of escalation via tougher sanctions or outright military action.
Do you understand that your conclusion is speculative, and that there does not seem to be a factual basis to conclude whether or not Iran has an active nuclear weapons program? Have you heard the term “breakout” and do you understand what it means?
My guess is no better than yours, but we don’t know this for sure. After all, we were certain that Saddam Hussein had an active WMD program. Why wouldn’t he just come out and show us that he didn’t have one, when he was under threat of imminent attack by the US? Well, as it turns out he didn’t have one.
OK, so they build a bomb, what do they do? Actually, they have to build at least two, because they have to test one. Any ideas out there on how they might plan to test an atomic bomb on the down-low, the QT? But lets say that, somehow, they manage to build and test an A-bomb without either A) anybody finding out or b) firmly resolving, for once and for all, the question of whether or not Israel possesses one. Or fifty.
Well, that’s all, then, right? Whole Middle East in peril, Iran’s got the Big One. Now they have to make the Big One small enough to deliver. Fed Ex won’t. And then test that one. Gonna make it small enough for a Iranian strategic bomber? Do they even have any? Wait, no, they make it even smaller, small enough to mount on a Al ShabbyAss missile! And test that one. Because you say I’ma gonna kill your ass, pull out your pistol and a flag comes out says “BANG!”: That’s embarrassing. Worse, that’s suicide. 'Course, starting a nuclear war you can’t win is suicide as well, but least not as embarrassing.
So, Iran develops enough bombs to deploy and test, then gets cracking on that whole size issue, then develops an accurate medium range missile that can carry an A-bomb.
Iran just made an impossible demand: removal of all sanctions as soon as a deal is signed:
This not only goes against what the President was willing to offer, which would require new concessions on our part, but it’s also something the President can’t deliver. The President has the power to relax some sanctions, but not all.
Extreme demands and disingenuous offers are not unusual features in complex negotiations. They’re data points along each individual negotiating party’s continuum of bargaining positions, and are only significant insofar as they indicate each negotiator’s relative approach to bargaining. Demands and counteroffers have only limited utility in predicting the eventual negotiated end*, and are practically useless (as discrete considerations) for determining each player’s situational advantages and preferences – whether perceived or real.
*And in this case, the acceptable outcomes for all parties are fairly broadly understood.
