I doubt it. Iran is still a huge problem to the U.S. even if the nuclear issue is set aside. I can’t see diplomatic relations being restored for a long time yet.
Didn’t you insist a few years ago that by this year Libya would be a prosperous, pro-Western democracy and haven’t you also insisted the Muslim Brotherhood was just a Muslim version of the Christian Democratic parties of Europe?
I don’t bring that up to attack you(and if I’m wrong please correct me) but merely to point out it’s not clear you’re in a position to evaluate others ability to analyze or explain the Middle East?
You know, then let them work together to actually do something about it, instead of goading the US into upping the ante and getting itself into another shooting war that benefits itself least of all.
What have Iran’s neighbors done to make the situation better?
The level of access has been agreed to, the specifics of how it is to be accomplished have not been.
It’s a really short document. The section title “Inspections and Transparency” is probably the one you’re most interested in. I’m not sure what you’re looking for as far as “military sites,” but if you’re thinking the agreement should include monitoring of Iran’s existing (conventional) military operations and equipment, I think you’ve failed to grasp what the negotiations are about.
The details are centered on monitoring and limiting Iran’s research and production activities to peaceful (i.e. energy) uses of nuclear technology, on reducing Iran’s stock of enriched uranium, on eliminating their ability to produce weapons grade plutonium, and on heavily monitoring the full supply chain including production of new centrifuges and other equipment required for weapons development.
Persia alias Iran will aquire nukes in the near future and quite possibly already have them.
You see having the capability of making your nukes isnt the only way to possess them.
Russia is already in the process of selling Iran ready made missles with the capability of launching as a ICBM.North Korea is also in cahoots with Russia to make Iran a member of the nuclear club.
Israel and their Mossad as well as Shin Bet are quite aware that Iran is not interested in enriching uranium to create nuclear devices when they can buy them ready made.
The news media will not broadcast this information as they are distracted by the uranium enrichment program and are unaware of Russias and north Koreas intent to arm Iran with limited nuclear devices intended for the U.S.A.and Israel.
OK. Can you point out what exactly the “level of access” is that has been agreed to? And why it is unprecedented?
Well, if Iran gets to designate a site as “military” and not allow inspectors there, wouldn’t you say that makes inspections kinda useless?
… and if all, or most, of that is going to happen at “military” sites - how exactly will that monitoring be accomplished?
Israel will be the catalyst that prevents Persias attempt to continue its crusade to make Islam the dominating organization of our world.The U.S.A. in all reality is out of the game and the ball is in Israels possession. Israel will do what it must to survive and will not wait for the world global powers
consent to strike their enemies.Obama by being indecisive and weak has indirectly set the clock in motion.Because Obama has weakened our resolve as a nation which has put Israel in a position with no choice but to take matters in its own hands.Israel will stun the world with its next move and put Islam in utter chaos, watch and wait because this event is coming sooner then we think.
What are you basing all this on?
What makes you think Iran is on any such crusade? ISTM all they want is regional hegemony, for ordinary, non-religious, geopolitical reasons.
What sort of move are you thinking of, and how would it put “Islam” (as distinct from Iran) in chaos?
I (and Bibliovore, the only Libyan Doper I know of) certainly hoped that would turn out better, yes. They now have all they need to be that. But democracy is complicated, especially in a country with no prior experience with it.
Yes, and I still pretty much think that.
Still in a better position than any neocon.
Honestly, if I thought it was worthwhile to break it down for you, I’d do that work. But as I said, it’s a short document. If you don’t want to read it, which would be the best and quickest way for you to find out what parameters have been agreed to for access, I don’t believe any summary I provide is going to cut it for you either. Nor do I feel either competent or inclined to review the historical precedents or to defend the opinions of the various “expert” commentaries available on the web.
If you’d like to discuss specific things from the document, I’d be delighted to do that once you bring them up, with the understanding that we’re discussing an agreement of principles between the parties involved in the negotiations and not hypothetical ways the yet-to-be-negotiated details might be lacking.
Appreciate it. Sadly my windows viewer says it can’t open it here, so I’ll do so when I get home.
You will meet a tall, dark stranger who will assist you in realizing your dream. But beware of the influence of another, who may interfere at the last moment. Ah, now the light goes out and all is hazy. That’ll be $35.
How, really? They can’t actually threaten us.
That was a close call. Iran was just a year away from the bomb. They’ve been a year away for like 15 years.
If you know so little about the Middle East and Islam that you can make such a moronic assertion that the Muslim Brotherhood is no different than the Christian Democrats of Europe then you really have no leg to stand on when it come to criticizing others.
I’d recommend picking up some actual books by people who know what they’re talking about on the Middle East.
Beyond that, it’s actually quite surprising that you’re still trying to defend you asinine prediction that Libya would within a few years turn into a prosperous, pro American democracy.
For your sake I hope you never ridiculed the those who predicted the Americans who invaded Iraq would be greeted with flowers because your predication was at least as dumb.
Um, Iraq and NOrth Korea? Here’s an op-ed today published by Charles Duelfer, a guy who knows a little bit about this subject:
Iraq constantly dodged accountability, and while force was occasionally used in rather insignificant ways, the Security Council treated Iraq’s flouting of the agreements they made as reasons to talk more, or just things to let slide.
As with Iran, we’ll probably get a lot less than what we agreed to, and we’ll say “good enough”.
Let’s test the good faith of posters here though. If Iran doesn’t meet its full commitments, is it proper, in your view, for the US to reimpose sanctions unilaterally, or must we do so only if we can get agreement from our allies?
Let’s remind you of what you posted: “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.”
Did we not impose sanctions on Iraq after 1998? When did we negotiate with Iraq and cut them slack?
Same for North Korea. After the Agreed Framework tanked, when did we relieve sanctions? When did we negotiate with them? What slack specifically was cut?
Dude, you’ve posted dozens of times over the years how war games of US bombing raids on Iran end up with Iran provoking a much wider conflict. You can’t have it both ways, that Iran ican set the world on fire if we bomb them but we can easily resume diplomatic relations because they aren’t a threat.
Let me rephrase then: when countries break these types of agreements, instead of simply going back to the pre-agreement status quo, we go to halfway measures and there are calls for more negotiations. The end result is that the nation that reneged gets something for nothing.
Iran will break the agreement, and SOME sanctions will be reimposed, by SOME countries(or maybe even just us). The proposed solution will be the same as the proposed solution for North Korea: new negotiations.