GWB was all over the place on abortion, personally, but that didn’t stop him from flapping his gums in support of the anti-abortion position whenever needed.
I read a study that sanctions effects only last a few years…I think it was 5 years. After which the effected country makes the needed adjustments to function.
Here’s the funny thing about when rogue countries break a deal. rather than us simply re-imposing sanctions, there are calls for new negotiations, patience, yada yada, and the end result is that we cut them slack. Not only do we have more incentive to make a deal, we also have more incentive to act like the deal is working whether it is or isn’t.
Ultimately, Congress will decide when sanctions get reimposed. They have the votes to override a veto.
Maybe Iran will break the deal, but we don’t know that yet. I think it’s entirely possible that the main reason for their nuclear program was to have something to trade in order to end sanctions, and Iran might not be particularly interested in actually developing nuclear weapons. We shall see.
I doubt they have the votes to override a veto if the choice is “go along with a decent deal that is supported by most of Europe” or “reject a decent deal”.
Europe likes it. Guess who doesn’t? The Israelis AND the Arabs, who probably understand Iran a bit better than the West, where we have a history of delusion when making deals. But hey, we brought the Israelis and Arabs together, that’s something.
We know Netanyahu doesn’t like it – that doesn’t tell me much, considering his wild swings of opinion and irrational (and often factually false) statements over the last several months. As far as Arabs, I haven’t seen any negative responses that were close to as over-the-top as Netanyahu’s, but that doesn’t mean they’re not there.
If Iran sticks with the deal, then any of those concerns won’t bear out. If they don’t, then we’ll be in no worse position than we were yesterday. I think a military solution could only make things worse – there’s no way to prevent Iran getting nuclear weapons in the long run if they really want it unless we invade with hundreds of thousands of troops and occupy indefinitely.
Along with ongoing diplomacy and international trade, it could be a permanent solution. We shall see. I’m much more optimistic than without such a framework.
We tried to use sanctions with North Korea after President Bush walked away from negotiations and they had a bomb within 2 years. At least with this deal the IAEA will get to inspect all their sites and they will lose the majority of their stockpile.
The only other solution I see to this problem is that Israel bomb their facilities as they did in Syria and Iraq. I really do not think it is within the US national interest to undertake this act, but I can’t really judge if it is worth it for Israel. The only problem is that I think their facilities are hardened to the point that a strategic bombing would be ineffective.
All of that aside, it is really clear that the Republicans do not have a solution to this problem and just want to use it as a political football.
This pretty much reflects my own view. Iran is the real winner here. Obama was so desperate to gain some, any, foreign policy achievement that he’s allowed himself to be blindsided, chivvying his allies into the same.And of course the country that has the greatest amount at stake here (its very existence) was sidelined by Obama, as an obstacle to his ‘victory’.
Iran as a state remains committed to the total destruction of Israel. Obama has put them one step nearer to that goal.
That’s not “from the Washington Post”. That’s from “Michael Gerson”, a noted conservative commentator. He’s the conservative “point” on the PBS NewsHour’s Friday edition “Point counter Point”.