# 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:** 8
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/141 "2013-12-01T10:56:41Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > As you should already be aware the 6 month timeline is linked to the next agreement. So there are 2 possibilities, they continue the monitoring (which they were already doing anyway) and the flow of money continues or they don’t. I dispute those two possibilities. The major options seem to be either to reach a comprehensive agreement for the total dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear program - which is pretty much what Netanyahu wants - or a return to the pre-agreement status quo of Iran having no useful limits (other than political) on its nuclear program, and the crippling sanctions continue and are probably increased. I don’t see anyone suggesting that the six month agreement will simply be renewed like a library book. I’m certain that idea won’t fly among the P-5, and almost certain Iran wouldn’t want it either. > [@](#): > > They are either working on a weapon or they’re not. If they’re not we’re supporting their economy and Hezbollah. If they are we’re supporting an atomic weapon and Hezbollah. All available evidence suggests that they are working on the capacity to build a weapon, but not a weapon itself. If they were working on a weapon, they would be under the “breakout” scenario, which nobody - not even Israel - believes is currently the case. Once again, you’re asking the wrong questions in order to get the answers you like. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2013, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/142 "2013-12-01T16:10:49Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > As you should already be aware the 6 month timeline is linked to the next agreement. So there are 2 possibilities, they continue the monitoring (which they were already doing anyway) and the flow of money continues or they don’t. > > They are either working on a weapon or they’re not. If they’re not we’re supporting their economy and Hezbollah. If they are we’re supporting an atomic weapon and Hezbollah. What do you propose should be done? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/143 "2013-12-01T17:19:54Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, its not. Read the entire post: > > Also read this post from this thread: > Emphasis added. But your argument that Iran is throwing the West a bone has to mean the West is being snookered out of using force or stronger sanctions, and that is a neocon argument that shows where your sympathies lie. You claim to be a dove on Iran but you argue that Iran cannot be trusted to negotiate in earnest which the hawks use to maximize their argument for war. You seem to want to cover both sides on this issue. Your dove thing does not cancel out the position you have expressed that is so favorable to the neocon bomb thirsty hawks. Trust but verify seems to be a better way to go if you are serious about wanting a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions rather than bombing and forcing regime change. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2013, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/144 "2013-12-01T17:33:34Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > But your argument that Iran is throwing the West a bone has to mean the West is being snookered out of using force or stronger sanctions, and that is a neocon argument that shows where your sympathies lie. > > You claim to be a dove on Iran but you argue that Iran cannot be trusted to negotiate in earnest which the hawks use to maximize their argument for war. > > You seem to want to cover both sides on this issue. Your dove thing does not cancel out the position you have expressed that is so favorable to the neocon bomb thirsty hawks. > > Trust but verify seems to be a better way to go if you are serious about wanting a diplomatic solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions rather than bombing and forcing regime change. You’re completely wrong, and I have no interest in arguing with you. ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/145 "2013-12-01T17:41:04Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > You’re completely wrong, and I have no interest in arguing with you. That is because there is no argument that your throwing-the-west-a-bone argument is not a neocon hawkish on Iran argument. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2013, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/146 "2013-12-01T17:54:41Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > That is because there is no argument that your throwing-the-west-a-bone argument is not a neocon hawkish on Iran argument. It’s neither neocon nor hawkish. That is also something you made up. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/147 "2013-12-01T23:33:56Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > What do you propose should be done? The best scenario is to let Iran collapse from within. Sanctions cost us nothing and support that process. The other option, and it doesn’t matter what any agreement says, is the immediate destruction of any nuclear weapons facility upon discovery. ---
**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:** [December 1, 2013, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/148 "2013-12-01T23:50:25Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The best scenario is to let Iran collapse from within. Sanctions cost us nothing and support that process. Well, if you don’t care whether Iran gets nukes or not, that might be a good strategy. Do you not care? Frankly, I’m not terribly concerned. I prefer a nukeless Iran, but I’m more worried about nukes in Pakistan than I would be about nukes in Iran. Besides, they’re plenty rich enough that if they really want nukes, they will get them. I think our best strategy is to try and delay them as long as possible, while preparing for the inevitable. > [@](#): > > The other option, and it doesn’t matter what any agreement says, is the immediate destruction of any nuclear weapons facility upon discovery. How does one: a) Discover this (keep in mind that intelligence isn’t always very good) b) Destroy the facility safely, assuming it’s in a place where it can be destroyed (that is, not underground) ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2013, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/149 "2013-12-01T23:54:17Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > It’s neither neocon nor hawkish. That is also something you made up. Neocons and hawks say stuff like you wrote all the time. Such as this: > [@](#): > > Only the credible threat of force has ever worked in stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and after Obama’s feckless and spineless approach to a far weaker adversary (Syria), the Iranians have all the more reason to doubt any U.S. military threat — particularly if Obama can be stalled by a diplomatic process that seems to offer progress now that the Iranian wolf has been redressed as a sheep. While Obama likes to boast that his economic sanctions have brought Iran to the table, the only measure of success is whether Iran is closer to a nuclear weapons capability, and on that score Obama is a complete failure: Iran has been inching closer to nukes every day that Obama has been in office. > > Moreover, the dynamics of Obama’s diplomatic efforts reveal who’s actually winning: Obama asked Rouhani for a meeting at the UN, only to be rejected. So the U.S. looks like the eager party here, making it that much easier for Iran to manipulate any eventual talks in its favor. Indeed, the more the West appears desperate to welcome Rouhani’s new tune, the less Iran has to make any meaningful concessions. In this way, Ahmadinejad’s revolting persona and style made it that much easier for his successor to succeed at playing the “good cop” in any negotiations. And it is actually Iran’s hardline supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say on Iranian policy, so the Rouhani theatrics are ultimately meaningless anyway. While the country’s dictator recently said that Iran can show “heroic flexibility,” he’s not actually beholden to anyone, so he can easily change his mind after buying another 6-12 months of nuclear enrichment time by “negotiating” with the West through Rouhani. > Read more at [Iran Knows What the West Forgot: Charm is Cheap - Inquisitr News](http://www.inquisitr.com/985151/iran-knows-what-the-west-forgot-charm-is-cheap/#MTspsJq5hUcJZpxP.99) ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/150 "2013-12-02T00:09:46Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, if you don’t care whether Iran gets nukes or not, that might be a good strategy. Do you not care? > > Frankly, I’m not terribly concerned. I prefer a nukeless Iran, but I’m more worried about nukes in Pakistan than I would be about nukes in Iran. Besides, they’re plenty rich enough that if they really want nukes, they will get them. I think our best strategy is to try and delay them as long as possible, while preparing for the inevitable. Is that nukeless as in no peaceful use of nuclear power or is that no nuclear weapons capability? ---
**Author:** ![NotfooledbyW](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/f475e1/32.png) [@NotfooledbyW](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NotfooledbyW)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/151 "2013-12-02T00:33:23Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The best scenario is to let Iran collapse from within. Sanctions cost us nothing and support that process. > > The other option, and it doesn’t matter what any agreement says, is the immediate destruction of any nuclear weapons facility upon discovery. You are showing what the neocon-ish argument fails to deal with which is that most Iranians want nuclear power but not nuclear weapons. Regime change does not eliminate peaceful nuclear power plants in Iran. What makes neocons think a moderate regime forced on Iran by outside means will give up nuclear power? ---
**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:** [December 2, 2013, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/152 "2013-12-02T02:44:53Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > Neocons and hawks say stuff like you wrote all the time. Such as this: I never said anything like that. I’m firmly against any use of force against Iran. Put that in your “neocon” pipe and smoke it. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/153 "2013-12-02T03:17:46Z")
> [@NotfooledbyW](#): > > You are showing what the neocon-ish argument fails to deal with which is that most Iranians want nuclear power but not nuclear weapons. Regime change does not eliminate peaceful nuclear power plants in Iran. What makes neocons think a moderate regime forced on Iran by outside means will give up nuclear power? \*\*John Mace \*\* isn’t a neocon. That’s silly. Don’t look now, your grudge from months ago is showing. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/154 "2013-12-02T04:36:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, if you don’t care whether Iran gets nukes or not, that might be a good strategy. Do you not care? > > Frankly, I’m not terribly concerned. I prefer a nukeless Iran, but I’m more worried about nukes in Pakistan than I would be about nukes in Iran. Besides, they’re plenty rich enough that if they really want nukes, they will get them. I think our best strategy is to try and delay them as long as possible, while preparing for the inevitable. > How does one: > > a) Discover this (keep in mind that intelligence isn’t always very good) > b) Destroy the facility safely, assuming it’s in a place where it can be destroyed (that is, not underground) Well Pakistan isn’t constantly ranting about our destruction so I’m not sure why you’re more worried about them then Iran. Certainly Saudi Arabia and other countries near Iran fear them more than Pakistan. Not sure why you think I don’t care. We had inspectors there already. We gained additional inspections and Iran gained billions of dollars in the deal. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/155 "2013-12-02T05:17:44Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > The best scenario is to let Iran collapse from within. And what exactly do you expect to be the result of that? Outside of a lot of dead Iranians, that is. > [@](#): > > The other option, and it doesn’t matter what any agreement says, is the immediate destruction of any nuclear weapons facility upon discovery. Which will be an excellent example for the future of how no nation should ever trust America in any way. In return for no benefit that will deal yet another blow to America’s credibility. Agreements do matter. > [@Magiver](#): > > Well Pakistan isn’t constantly ranting about our destruction so I’m not sure why you’re more worried about them then Iran. Pakistan is much less stable. And probably has more people who hate America more intensely in it, given what we’ve been doing there. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/156 "2013-12-02T06:24:42Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And what exactly do you expect to be the result of that? Outside of a lot of dead Iranians, that is. People living in a free society. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/157 "2013-12-02T06:31:34Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > People living in a free society. As the result of the collapse of a nation? That’s ridiculous; you get something like Somalia from that, not a free society. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/158 "2013-12-02T07:01:03Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > given what we’ve been doing there. While saying anything to you is usually a lost cause, I don’t think the whipped up anti-American passion in Pakistan has much of anything to do with the facts of American behaviour. It’s religious fundamentalism and local geopolitics interacting with politicking that drives the anti-American hate. If you’d expand on what you think the US has ‘been doing there’, I’ll rebut with cites. It’s fine to be cynical about your own country, but does that equal being more trusting of others? Because what’s incredible to me is, given what _Pakistan_ has been doing, how the US manages to stay on relatively good terms with them. I mean Adm. Mullen, speaking to your lawmakers in official capacity, actually called a group that the US military is actively engaged in combat with a ‘veritable arm’ of the Pakistani intelligence service. And they actually have nukes, and have done most of the proliferation to so called ‘rogue countries’, yet relations with Pakistan are better than those with Iran. How does that work? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/159 "2013-12-02T07:45:42Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As the result of the collapse of a nation? That’s ridiculous; you get something like Somalia from that, not a free society. OK. What country do you live in again? ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 2, 2013, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300/160 "2013-12-02T07:46:43Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As the result of the collapse of a nation? That’s ridiculous; you get something like Somalia from that, not a free society. Lots of people in Poland, Hungary and Romania would disagree with you. Following the collapse of their communist governments they became democracies. I won’t say that should the Ayatollahs collapse Iran will make a completely smooth transition to a free democracy(and in fact there were such issues in Eastern Europe) but it’s vastly more likely then them becoming another Somalia. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/iran-more-sanctions-now-or-wait/674300.md?page=9)