No, you’re saying that NO realistic deal with Iran is acceptable. We need to deal with the universe we live in. Not the comic book simplistic universe where strutting like a cock is better than intelligent negotiation.
I don’t know. And neither do you. You have no idea what the final deal with hold. You have no idea what is being leaked to manipulate opinion on both sides. You’re declaring a movie a bomb based on a teaser trailer.
That’s absurd.
I’m declaring it a bomb based on what we’ve already conceded and based on what Iran has said the framework actually is. The original position of the pro-side in this thread was that those were maximalist demands. Since then, your positions have softened on that point. Why? Why would demands regarded as nonsense at first now be considered the basis for a deal?
Have my positions softened?
It’s time we update that 2008 cliche, “This is great news for the McCain campaign!” to something more 2015, like “This is great news for Iran’s nuclear weapons program!” Because no matter what happens – good, bad, indifferent; rain or shine; whatever or none ever; every single thing that happens is fodder for conservatives to say that Obama is giving Iran the bomb.
Conceding is a more accurate term. Any deal we make must guaran-damn-tee that Iran won’t get a bomb during the duration of the agreement. If not, then yes, we conceded a bomb.
Except that Obama is not saying that. You’re saying that. The Administration has said repeatedly that it is willing to use force against Iran if it comes to that.
You may be right. It could actually be that force is going to happen if the Iranians don’t accept a decent deal. The President might just be laying the groundwork to be able to go to his base and say he tried really hard to avoid war. In hindsight, I’d credit him with brilliance if that’s where his head is at. A last ditch attempt at negotiation makes sense in that scenario.
From my perspective, preventing Iran from getting a nuke is not worth going to war with Iran. I don’t know how many Dopers who have been defending Obama’s Iran diplomacy are like-minded, but that’s my position on it. AFAICT there has been no change to the president’s policy, but I do wonder if the whole threat of force been a bluff from the beginning. I don’t really see Obama taking the country to war with Iran even with his back against a wall.
I think going to war with Iran just guarantees that they will get a nuclear weapon in the long run. In the long run, any country dedicated enough to getting a nuclear weapon will get one. War with Iran would just ensure that they are dedicated enough.
That assumes they want one bad enough that they are willing to fight for it. Iraq and Syria did not want it that bad. Israel’s use of force deterred them. It’s possible that Iran would not be deterred by US use of force. But the historical evidence is that nations do not in fact fight against stronger powers for the ability to gain a nuclear capability.
It wouldn’t matter – we could defeat them easily (relatively speaking – such a war would still cost thousands of lives or more), but unless we are willing to stay en masse for generations, they can get one once we leave if they want.
You “wonder”? It is pretty clear that to determine whether Obama is lying is to check if his lips are moving. And that definitely includes his administration’s “We will not let nuclear-armed Iran happen” and “We will not let Iran acquire a nuclear weapon” statements.
With duly low expectations, I ask: what basis do you have for saying that?
It doesn’t take an invasion. Israel is not occupying Syria or Iraq.
When we see what the final deal says, we’ll know exactly what he told the truth about and what he didn’t.
Syria and Iraq are not Iran (Iran is much more stable and homogenous), and even if Syria and Iraq really really wanted nukes, they’d get one in the long run. That’s how the world works. I think war with Iran would push them towards more resolve, not less.
A more plausible scenario is that Israel/the US bombs whatever facilities it can, and then Iran intensifies investment in the program and takes it further underground where it can’t be reached. Meanwhile, Iran greatly escalates their sponsorship of terrorism and becomes an even greater nuisance to US interests than they already are. What is our next move then? Either trying to negotiate with them (but from a much weaker position) or invasion. Your alternative and the associated range of outcomes is worse than the one being pursued.
You think yourself that Obama was lying when saying this. Or “bluffing” as you put it.
I said “wonder,” you said “definitely.” So I was just wondering if you knew something that I don’t.
Or, perhaps, he genuinely and sincerely wants a resolution that does not involve the deaths of thousands of innocent people. Maybe he realizes that if this effort fails, it gives extra energy to the war goblins here in America, as well as the ones in Iran.
You “credit” him with cynicism. Or you will be willing to do so if he measures up to your standards.