# Iran: More sanctions now or wait? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2013, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300 "2013-11-19T22:23:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 48
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/941 "2014-01-26T16:25:04Z")
Whether something is “reasonable” or not is an opinion. I have no interest in debating opinions. Find somebody who does. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/942 "2014-01-26T17:02:15Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Whether something is “reasonable” or not is an opinion. I have no interest in debating opinions. Find somebody who does. I am not debating opinions. I am questioning why you are arguing that two diametrically opposed views on averting a war or preemptively striking Iran are both reasonable in your mind. It is not simply my opinion that you are doing that - it is a fact that you are doing that. The question is why are you doing that? Why are you defending Bolton who hates the idea that the UNSC should back a strike if necessary? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/943 "2014-01-26T17:46:53Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I am not debating opinions. Yes, you are. > [@](#): > > I am questioning why you are arguing that two diametrically opposed views on averting a war or preemptively striking Iran are both reasonable in your mind. It is not simply my opinion that you are doing that - it is a fact that you are doing that. Diametrically opposed? To me, they look pretty similar, differing by a few months as to whether or not to use military force. > [@](#): > > The question is why are you doing that? Why are you defending Bolton who hates the idea that the UNSC should back a strike if necessary? I’m not defending Bolton. I just disagree with him in a different way than you do. You should be used to that by now-- most of us here, even when the agree with you, do so in different ways. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/944 "2014-01-26T20:48:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes, you are. > Diametrically opposed? To me, they look pretty similar, differing by a few months as to whether or not to use military force. That is silly. They don’t differ by a few months as to whether to use military force or not. Bolton’s been wanting to use military force for at least a decade. Obama prefers never use military force and now he has gotten the world closer to never having to use it. That is a major difference and only one man is being reasonable. And fortunately the one that is being reasonable is the one that matters most. War has been avoided for five years - because a reasonable policy has been in place by the White House. Lets keep nut jobs like Bolton out of the White House and rebuked when he tries to influence the public and politicians with his sabre rattling bs. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 26, 2014, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/945 "2014-01-26T21:59:35Z")
We don’t need Obama to get us closer to never having to use military force. We just need to decide not to use it. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/946 "2014-01-27T00:55:01Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > We don’t need Obama to get us closer to never having to use military force. We just need to decide not to use it. You try to sound so anti-war dot com but you are certainly contradicting yourself the more you write. Had Romney won the election then Your reasonable Bolton could be Secretary of State, > [@](#): > > John Bolton: Romney Advisor, Foolish War-Monger > Jul 10th, 2012 @ 01:13 pm › John Glaser > One of Mitt Romney’s top campaign advisors (and potential Secretary of State if Obama loses) has such inadequate understanding of the Iranian issue, and is so belligerently wrong on the fundamentals, that it should frighten any observer of the 2012 race. In his latest piece at the Weekly Standard, John Bolton says that negotiations are “delusional” and that our only option at this point is to launch a war against Iran. And he’s not kidding. > > Bolton claims the mix of sanctions and negotiations rests “on the erroneous premise that Iran could be talked out of its decades-long effort to build deliverable nuclear weapons.” He quotes “Obama’s director of national intelligence, Lt. General James Clapper, [who] testified in January, ‘the sanctions as imposed so far have not caused [the Iranians] to change their behavior or their policy.’ > > If Bolton had bothered to listen to Clapper, he would have also mentioned that Clapper explicitly said ”we don’t believe [the Iranians] have actually made the decision to go ahead with a nuclear weapon.” Bolton’s claim that Iran has a “decades-long effort to build deliverable nuclear weapons” directly contradicts the estimates of the entire US military and intelligence community. But facts are powerless for people like Bolton, who are preconditioned to disregard any information that marginalizes their war aims. > > Bolton then asks “what would a negotiated deal look like? Our goal is to deny Iran nuclear weapons; Tehran manifestly wants the opposite. What is the compromise? Iran gets to keep a small nuclear weapons program?” Again, Iran does not have a weapons program, so clearly it wouldn’t be part of any negotiated deal for Iran to “keep a small nuclear weapons program.” As far as what a deal would look like, Bolton must not be paying attention. In Moscow last month, the Iranians offered a proposal that included agreeing to halt uranium enrichment to 20 percent and to more fully cooperate with international inspections (that is, beyond the 24-hour video surveillance and frequent international inspections to all of Iran’s declared nuclear facilities). > > Bolton’s most revealing quip in this tabloid-quality column is when he makes clear that US policy towards Iran should be nothing less than regime change. > > But such belligerence could never pacify the situation. Just as a posture, this approach fails immediately. As former CIA analyst Paul Pillar explains, a “nothing-but-pressure” approach would leave the Iranians “to believe that heavy pressure, including sanctions, will continue no matter what they do at the negotiating table, and that means no incentive to make more concessions.” More importantly, and as is widely recognized even in officialdom, nothing is surer to facilitate an Iranian bomb than to attack Iran. > All content Copyright [Antiwar.com](http://Antiwar.com) Blog > Powered by WordPress + WPtouch 1.9.39 Read it all: > **[John Bolton: Romney Advisor, Foolish War-Monger - Antiwar.com Blog](https://www.antiwar.com/blog/2012/07/10/john-bolton-romney-advisor-foolish-war-monger/)** > > One of Mitt Romney's top campaign advisors (and potential Secretary of State if Obama loses) has such inadequate understanding of the Iranian issue, and is so belligerently wrong on the fundamentals, that it should frighten any observer of the... We needed Obama to stop that and man from bring Secretary of State. Stop kidding yourself. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/947 "2014-01-27T03:55:50Z")
“Reasonable” is your word, not mine. You’re the one obsessed with a powerless man like Bolton, not me. I’m more interested in people who can actually make things happen. Obama and Menendez, not Bolton. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/948 "2014-01-27T07:18:09Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > “Reasonable” is your word, not mine. You’re the one obsessed with a powerless man like Bolton, not me. I’m more interested in people who can actually make things happen. Obama and Menendez, not Bolton. Actually I was responding to H.Action’s use of that word and then you chimed in with this; “No, I’m not arrogant enough to think that my position is the only “reasonable” one.” whiich has to mean you think Bolton is reasonable to want and push for war as you are reasonable on the side of ‘no war ever’. Your position is to let them have nuclear bombs if they want them I believe you have stated as much. If that is correct then your reasonable position is even more diametrically opposed to Bolton’s than just about anyone’s. So when you tell me that Bolton’s views are reasonable, that tells me that you don’t have much conviction that your very own dovish position is all that reasonable either. I just wish you would take a strong position and defend it. Bolton has some influence being on Fox News all the time. - so the more folks who see him as the unreasonable nutjobs that he is … The more chance is that Obama or the next President won’t have to make a choice that military action would be necessary. I thought that is what you want too. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/949 "2014-01-27T17:14:00Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > So when you tell me that Bolton’s views are reasonable, that tells me that you don’t have much conviction that your very own dovish position is all that reasonable either. I just wish you would take a strong position and defend it. What you’re butting your head against here is an entirely different way of looking at the world. One way is to assume, unless there’s evidence to the contrary, that other people have reasons for believing what they believe and acting in the way that they act. This means one can disagree with someone’s opinion or policy stance, while still considering it reasonable and worthy of debate, because it’s the product of a reasoned thought process. For example, one could conclude that, given the precepts: a) Iran has violated its treaty obligations before, b) a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, to the point where military force is justified in preventing it if that’s what it takes; that further sanctions and treaties cannot be relied upon to prevent Iran from breaking its word and completing a nuclear weapon, and that the risk of this outcome is intolerable, and justifies military action as soon as possible. I disagree with that stance, but it’s perfectly reasonable. Relying on Iranian compliance with a treaty, instead of physically removing their ability to violate a treaty, does entail taking a risk. The other way is to assume that people with beliefs that differ from you own are some combination of liar, charlatan, lunatic, and pure evil. You seem to have thrown your hat in this particular ring, which will bring you into conflict with those who haven’t. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2014, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/950 "2014-01-27T23:46:36Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That’s easy. Resume the sanctions that were lifted. Pass tougher sanctions. And if looks as if they are getting close to building a bomb. Give the wink and nod to Netanyahu to notify the Supreme Leader via bunker busting airmail that he should not have kicked the inspecters out. newsflash. They’re already at the stage where they’re close to building a bomb. 20% is good but 3.5% is still a substantial level of refinement. The agreement is a reduction to 5%. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/951 "2014-01-28T06:53:38Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > newsflash. They’re already at the stage where they’re close to building a bomb. 20% is good but 3.5% is still a substantial level of refinement. The agreement is a reduction to 5%. That’s not what experts say. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 8:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/952 "2014-01-28T08:20:51Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > For example, one could conclude that, given the precepts: a) Iran has violated its treaty obligations before, b) a nuclear Iran is unacceptable, to the point where military force is justified in preventing it if that’s what it takes; that further sanctions and treaties cannot be relied upon to prevent Iran from breaking its word and completing a nuclear weapon, and that the risk of this outcome is intolerable, and justifies military action as soon as possible. You have derfined a conclusion made by a perfectly obnoxious warmonger. You have in essence sanctioned executing a man or woman before a crime is committed. You have your dissagreement with Bolton but you express no concern or apprehension about the reality that Bolton is calling for use of deadly force based upon his suspicions not his evidence. Bolton has determined that Iran cannot have peaceful use of nuclear energy and that is where all reason begins to leave his mind. Peaceful use of nuclear energy is not a crime. So what is a reasonable way to make sure the ‘crime’ of building a bomb is not being pursued? Yes it’s thise pesky Weapons inspectors popping up again. I see you only mentioned ‘further sanctions and treaties’ as powerless in stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. It is Bolton’s lack of respect for weapons inspectors and the international consortium of nations working together to support them that should rile everyone to oppose that warmongering buffoon and hope he goes away soon. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/953 "2014-01-28T13:46:52Z")
Obama’s policy also calls for military action before Iran gets nuclear weapons. Bolton assumes, right now, that negotiations won’t work. Obama has said that he thinks negotiations have less than 50% chance of succeeding. If they don’t, it’s bombs away-- before, as you put it, a “crime” is committed. And, most Americans also think negotiations won’t work, although they are worth trying. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/954 "2014-01-28T14:21:53Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You have derfined a conclusion made by a perfectly obnoxious warmonger. You have in essence sanctioned executing a man or woman before a crime is committed. :smack: Except for the part where I said I disagreed with that stance. I reject precept (b), a nuclear Iran isn’t unacceptable to me, and it doesn’t alone justify military force. It does seem unacceptable to you, Obama, and Bolton, you just differ on how to go about preventing it. [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] You have your dissagreement with Bolton but you express no concern or apprehension about the reality that Bolton is calling for use of deadly force based upon his suspicions not his evidence. [/quote] Bolton isn’t a Senator, Representative, or the President. Those 76 Senators you were so steamed at were advocating more sanctions, not a military strike. I’m not typically apprehensive about things (in this case, a military strike instead of further diplomacy and/or sanctions) that aren’t going to happen. [QUOTE=NotfooledbyW] Bolton has determined that Iran cannot have peaceful use of nuclear energy and that is where all reason begins to leave his mind. Peaceful use of nuclear energy is not a crime. So what is a reasonable way to make sure the ‘crime’ of building a bomb is not being pursued? Yes it’s thise pesky Weapons inspectors popping up again. [/quote] Well, for Iran, it [sort of is at the moment](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1696), but not categorically so. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > I see you only mentioned ‘further sanctions and treaties’ as powerless in stopping Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. > > It is Bolton’s lack of respect for weapons inspectors and the international consortium of nations working together to support them that should rile everyone to oppose that warmongering buffoon and hope he goes away soon. I believe it’s Iranian compliance he has a problem with, not the inspectors themselves. But, in either case, relying on inspection and diplomacy does entail a risk, which was my point. I see my broader point about reasonable disagreement was utterly lost on you. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/955 "2014-01-28T22:20:19Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I believe it’s Iranian compliance he has a problem with, not the inspectors themselves. But, in either case, relying on inspection and diplomacy does entail a risk, which was my point. As you must know the IAEA inspectors have made it clear that Iran is complying with the current agreement. So at present and into the months ahead, Bolton cannot reasonably have ‘a problem’ with compliance from Iran unless you mean that Bolton sees Iranian compliance to be the problem. If that is the case then Bolton surely is as unreasonable and crazy as it gets. Perhaps Bolton thinks these inspectors are fools or bribed or something but in that case it means that Bolton has a problem right now with the inspectors - not compliance. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/956 "2014-01-28T22:31:46Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > I reject precept (b), a nuclear Iran isn’t unacceptable to me, and it doesn’t alone justify military force. It does seem unacceptable to you, Obama, and Bolton, you just differ on how to go about preventing it. A nuclear Iran is acceptable to Obama and me. It is not acceptable to Bolton. The Iranians can continue their compliance with the IAEA inspectors and they can pursue nuclear power generation the their hearts content. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 28, 2014, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/957 "2014-01-28T22:47:45Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > A nuclear Iran is acceptable to Obama and me. It is not acceptable to Bolton. The Iranians can continue their compliance with the IAEA inspectors and they can pursue nuclear power generation the their hearts content. Define “nuclear Iran”. If your definition includes enrichment, then it’s unclear that Obama agrees with that. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/958 "2014-01-29T00:09:12Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Define “nuclear Iran”. If your definition includes enrichment, then it’s unclear that Obama agrees with that. Obama agreed to the current deal. Continued enrichment is in the current deal and Obama is the first US President to open that door: > [@](#): > > “We are prepared to negotiate a strictly limited enrichment program in the end state, but only because the Iranians have indicated for the first time in a public document that they are prepared to accept rigorous monitoring and limits on level, scope, capacity, and stockpiles,” Bernadette Meehan, the National Security Council spokeswoman, said in a statement Tuesday to JTA in response to a query arising from a story first reported by the Washington Free Beacon. > > Read more: [http://www.jta.org/2013/12/03/news-opinion/politics/white-house-final-deal-could-include-enrichment#ixzz2rk13kfzt](http://www.jta.org/2013/12/03/news-opinion/politics/white-house-final-deal-could-include-enrichment#ixzz2rk13kfzt) ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/959 "2014-01-29T00:30:39Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > As you must know the IAEA inspectors have made it clear that Iran is complying with the current agreement. So at present and into the months ahead, Bolton cannot reasonably have ‘a problem’ with compliance from Iran unless you mean that Bolton sees Iranian compliance to be the problem. If that is the case then Bolton surely is as unreasonable and crazy as it gets. Perhaps Bolton thinks these inspectors are fools or bribed or something but in that case it means that Bolton has a problem right now with the inspectors - not compliance. The thing about compliance is that a) it can stop at any time and b) Iran is a big country to hide things in. Hence, relying on it is a risk. > [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > A nuclear Iran is acceptable to Obama and me. It is not acceptable to Bolton. The Iranians can continue their compliance with the IAEA inspectors and they can pursue nuclear power generation the their hearts content. I actually meant a nuclear-weapon-equipped Iran, but **John Mace** ’s point about enrichment is well-taken. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2014, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/960 "2014-01-29T01:09:21Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Obama agreed to the current deal. Continued enrichment is in the current deal and Obama is the first US President to open that door: I hadn’t seen that before. That could be a deal breaker for many Senators, so I’m not sure why Obama would concede that point before negotiations begin in ernest. Seems very unwise to me, but we’ll see… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300.md?page=47) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300.md?page=49)