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.
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.
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.
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)
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?
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.
And what exactly do you expect to be the result of that? Outside of a lot of dead Iranians, that is.
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.
Pakistan is much less stable. And probably has more people who hate America more intensely in it, 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?
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.