Let me try to understand the logic here. So let’s say Congress somehow stops the deal (or at least this version of the deal). “Everyone on Planet Earth is blaming the United States for the deal not moving forward.” Stipulated.
Does that mean that all those countries that are (supposedly) worried enough about Iran getting a nuclear weapon to impose sanctions on it to prevent it are now going to say “Oh well, US is to blame, we don’t care if Iran has nuclear weapons now”?
Yeah, I don’t get it either. Iranian nukes should be as much if not even more of a concern to them than to America.
Each country has its own procedures. Some view treaties and agreements as the sole domain of the executive - the UK is actually pretty close to this approach. Others have legislative procedures, but since very often the head of government also controls the legislature, meaning it is more of a formality. The US tends to be toward the end of the spectrum with a higher bar to ratification.
Here is a very general guide:
There is no question that the Supreme Leader in Iran has total control over international affairs. The agreement simply wouldn’t have been agreed to if he personally had any qualms about the terms.
I don’t see why. We only care because of Israel, and do Russia, China, etc., care that much about Israel?
OK, thanks.
Yeah, I doubt they would go public with something that didn’t have his blessing. No pun intended.
They are probably in the position of thinking that they did as much as they could to get an agreement, and there’s no sense to cooperating with the US to attempt to reach a deal that is impossible to achieve. They may or may not reimpose sanctions, but in the end, with the exception of Russia, they probably aren’t as terrified of Iran having a nuclear weapon as the U.S. is.
Let’s face it, the major reason the US doesn’t want Iran to have a nuke is so they don’t attack Israel. That’s why so many people are saying, “Hey, Tel Aviv has a lot to lose here, let’s hear what Netanyahu has to say!” Nobody is saying that we have to listen to what other leaders have to say, because London, Paris and Berlin are threatened.
So if we don’t care that London, Paris and Berlin think this is a good deal, why would they just follow Washington when the opponents of this deal literally have no clue what to do next?
So let’s see - other countries don’t care about Israel, right? Why did they join in the sanctions against Iran?
They don’t care as much as we do about Israel. They joined the sanctions because they perhaps care some and because the prospect of a nuclear Iran is scary to them in general what-could-go-wrong terms – but not as scary as it is to the U.S.
We don’t care about London, Paris or Berlin. Why did we ask them to join the negotiations?
It is amazing that you think Congress’ saying this deal is not good enough leads to other countries thinking that nuclear-bomb-possessing Iran is not scary anymore.
Because it is in London’s, Paris’s and Berlin’s interests to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions. And I really don’t understand under what kind of twisted logic those interests somehow disappear if Congress says this deal is not good enough.
If Iran’s nuclear program is a big threat to London, Paris and Berlin, why aren’t you listening to Cameron, Hollande, and Merkel’s support of the deal? You’re on one hand saying they should be very concerned, but you’re also ignoring their opinions on the matter.
And don’t make me laugh by saying that someone like Tom Cotton knows what’s better for those countries than the presidents and prime ministers of our allies. Tom Cotton probably can’t locate half those countries on a map.
I am saying that the level of threat that nuclear-bomb-possessing Iran presents to London, Paris and Berlin does not diminish because of Congress deciding this present deal is not good enough. Do you disagree?
This agreement lowers the risk to those capitals. A decent percentage of those who want to sink the deal would be happy if we ended up having a war with Iran. The leaders of the UK, France, and Germany are responsible people with far better knowledge of foreign affairs than the likes of Tom Cotton and Lindsey Graham, so they probably think that listening to the advice of people such as that is just paving the way to conflict, and greater risk to their countries. Why would any leader in their right mind sign up for that?
Let’s not forget that a great many people who are criticizing this agreement are also those who thought that war with Iraq would be a great thing. Responsible leaders of grown up countries don’t follow the advice of discredited political philosophies that glamorize how wonderful wars can turn out. These leaders aren’t lemmings who are ready to follow John McCain off a cliff, you know.
A bunch of words that is absolutely irrelevant to the question I asked.
So - once again. The level of threat that nuclear-bomb-possessing Iran presents to London, Paris and Berlin does not diminish because of Congress deciding this present deal is not good enough. Do you disagree?
Compared to having a deal, the threat rises to the status quo ante. Yes, Congress rejecting the deal will make things worse for those countries. Which is exactly why those countries may not follow the lead of congressional leaders who want the deal scuttled: those politicians are making things worse for NATO allies.
Why would you want to fall in behind politicians who are making things worse for your country? Especially when they have a record of being spectacularly wrong, like voting for the war in Iraq? It is literally insane to hitch your wagon to those horses.
. . . is nonsense. An Iranian bomb is a threat to Tel Aviv and Riyadh, end of list.
Again, this is an example of particularly twisted logic. So, in your opinion, the level of threat from Iran for these countries increases if Congress stops the deal because it considers it not good enough. So with this increased threat these countries then will stop the sanctions to make Iran develop the nuclear bomb faster?
The logic only seems twisted if you assume that there’s some sort of consensus that stronger sanctions after the collapse of the deal will somehow lead to a better deal. You’re ignoring at least two things:
Every country that’s party to the sanctions has a preference of some sort for a non-nuclear Iran, but that preference is in conflict with other interests, especially commercial ones. At some point, countries like South Korea and India and China and Japan start to see the sanctions as a bad tradeoff for themselves–especially if their fear of a nuclear Iran was tepid to begin with and especially if they see the US as having blown up a reasonable compromise.
If the US walks away from a deal, Rouhani looks naive for having tried to bargain reasonably with the US. Hardliners in Iran who didn’t want the negotiations to happen at all are vindicated. (Just like how John McCain and Lindsey Graham would have been vindicated if Iran had pulled out of the talks or rejected the framework agreement.) Those hardliners are the last people who are going to respond to “tougher sanctions” by making concessions. I guess your idea is that in the long run, the regime theoretically collapses. But if Iran is supposedly just 2-3 months away from a bomb, presumably the bomb gets built much sooner than the regime collapses.
So, the logic is not twisted at all. The P5+1 and Iran struck a reasonably good deal, where each side gives up some things and gets some other things. If hardliners in the US succeed in blowing up the deal, there’s no reason to expect our allies to follow them in their pursuit of this mythical “better deal.” a) Because most of them don’t care as much as we do; and b) because they may not believe that tougher sanctions can produce a better deal, and such sanctions would thus by definition be counterproductive.
Decide - does the level of threat from Iran to those countries increase if no deal (as Ravenman claimed) or is the level “tepid” and the countries don’t really care? Or maybe it increases to “tepid” level (but then what was it before - close to zero?)