Your assessment of the risk of active Iranian compliance and ongoing AEIA monitoring and inspections is bogus. Explain how ‘risk’ is greater or the same during compliance than it is during non-compliance.
And then you should explain how the risk becomes higher after a period of compliance that ends than it was prior to the start of the same period.
What if the compliance does not end? What happens to the level of risk then?
Can U.S. Senators realistically and stubbornly ‘break a deal’ that most of the world’s nations are interested in making?
Um…it’s not (unless one believed the compliance was a smokescreen for secret non-compliance or something like that), and I didn’t say it was. The discussion was the reasonableness of a military-strikes-now position, the comparison of risk is thus between negotiated compliance, and the use of military strikes to degrade Iranian nuclear capability.
Personally, I’d say negotiation is less risky.
It doesn’t.
It stays at a low level.
Suffice it to say then that you ‘accept’ a nuclear-weapon-equipped Iran if that is truly Iran’s goal?
Is.
If the aim is to reach 90 per cent, getting to 3.5 per cent requires some 75 per cent of the work, and once 20 per cent is attained, nine-tenths of the job is done.
Yes.
Are you saying that you recognize some reasonableness in proposing a military-strikes-now action during a period of Iranian compliance when the risk of Iran developing a bomb is at level than is lower than it has been for some time.
How so? The USA cannot enforce sanctions against Iran alone. Stopping an international deal that allows Iran to enrich under certain conditions cannot be stopped by US Senators.
You asked if they could break the deal. They can choose not to approve it. Obama doesn’t get to make treaties without the approval of the Senate, and if the Senate decides to crank up the sanctions, Iran will break the deal. Obama doesn’t get to do whatever he wants.
I asked (see above) specifically about " a deal’ that most of the world’s nations are interested in making" . Think about it. US Senators could stop the US from participating in the global deal - but then there would be no alternative position the US could take such as strong sanctions if needed, and the rest of the world except one nation would back military action as long as Iran remained in compliance.
The Senators could stop the US from signing a deal but they cant stop the deal. And that is what I asked.
The Senate can ‘crank up the sanctions’ all it wants after the other nations of world decide to allow restricted and inspected enrichment - but the US would have little effect by imposing unilateral sanctions on Iran. The US Senate would be seen as a bunch of warmongering fools and I believe Obama knows that.
Iran would not back out if they get the US and Israel isolated on a final deal this year. That is nonsense.
I wouldn’t use military force to prevent it, no, but as long as Iran is signatory to the NPT, sanctions and the like are appropriate.
Yes. It’s not a position I agree with, but it’s no unreasonable. It just depends on how much risk one is willing to bear, and which process (diplomacy & inspection vs. firing missiles at nuclear facilities) one judges to be the least risky to reach the desired outcome.
Who the hell cares whether it’s “reasonable” or not? Most of us here think it’s bad policy.
If sanctions = warmongering then what does that make Obama? He signed the 2010 sanctions. He has not removed them all and still supports sanctions.
The whole point of sanctions is to make life difficult for Iran and encourage it’s fall from within. Given the fall of the Soviet Union and the Arab Spring in a variety of Islamic countries there’s no reason to think a Persian Spring is not far behind.
So, the US Senate is absolutely powerless to do anything, but at the same time they are so powerful that they can derail the whole process by just talking about additional sanctions.
Got it.
Originally Posted by NotfooledbyW: “Are you saying that you recognize some reasonableness in proposing a military-strikes-now action during a period of Iranian compliance…”
Ok, if you think that is ‘reasonable’ then reasonable cannot mean much to you as I suspected.
Hitting Iran with military strikes when they are complying with international inspectors about as crazy and reckless as it gets.
We have moved the discussion beyond the negotiation phase which the US Senate can recklessly and purposely disrupt to what happens when a final deal is struck that allows a specific level of enrichment.
Perhaps you need to follow the discussion a little more closely. And I did not say the Senate is powerless and can do nothing. You have made an error on that. I said the Senate is powerless after a certain point to disrupt a deal that the international community and Iran sign into a treaty or law. The US Senate has no leverage if Iran makes a deal and comply.
I dunno, maybe you should give up your dream of Iran falling from within. They are not the ideal country, but they are hardly a threat to anyone except Israel. If given the choice between status quo and unpredictable Mid East style “democracy” like Egypt or Iraq or Libya or Pakistan, then I’d say status quo is the best bet for peace.
You have so absolutely missed my point. Sanctions do not = warmongering. If Iran makes a final deal with all the other nations and the US is blocked by the Senate from participating then the US has no leverage to impose sanctions on its own. Sanctions are meaningless unless enough crucial nations participate.
If those Senators think the deal with Iran will allow Iran to build a bomb then two alternatives are eft; do nothing or do some bombing.
And it will be difficult to bomb Iran if the IAEA inspectors document Iran’s full and continued compliance.
No, the Senate needs to approve the deal. You are conveniently ignoring the power of the Senate when it suits your purpose and then over-inflating it when it suits another purpose.
I’m following along fine, even though you are dancing all over the map.