I don’t really trust Benjamin Netanyahu or pay him much attention, that being said Iran is a country that is up to no good that will stab us in the back on a whim.
This country has never done anything positive for the region, and probably never will. A useless third work country ruled by a useless, repressive government.
I don’t see that in the article. I see “One issue critics are certain to focus on: Once the deal expired, Iran could theoretically ramp up enrichment to whatever level it wanted.”.
Can you point out the part of the article that would prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear weapon development after the sunset period?
Does this agreement have to be ratified by Congress? I can’t tell if it amounts to a “treaty” or not.
South Africa.
I find that very hard to believe. Obama knows very well how dangerous to all it would be for Israel to bomb Iran.
Haaretz exposes the absurd demagoguery of Netanyahu’s speech with much aplomb.
Come on, you are talking about a country with a long and splendid history of civilization.
Well, it appears that you only saw one sentence of it:
That’s basically the entire remainder of the article, where it discusses the issues I already mentioned in my previous post: e.g., the possibility of requiring Iran to dispose of enriched uranium instead of stockpiling it, the close monitoring of Iranian activities by the IAEA, and the extension of the “breakout period” for weapons development.
It’s naive to imagine that any deal that would allow Iran eventually to embark on enrichment activities would thereby automatically commit us (and the rest of the world) to just letting Iran “do whatever they want” and making “all restrictions on them go away” thereafter. You need to look at permissions and constraints in the context of the entire complex agreement, not just knee-jerk “OMG the enrichment prohibition would eventually end and that means Iran WOULD BE TOTALLY ENABLED TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT!!!”
A nuclear treaty isn’t like daybreak in a vampire colony, where you’re safe from attack temporarily but as soon as the sun goes down the baddies are off the leash again. Nuclear deals involve continuing constraints even as the specific conditions change.
This applies to the 10-year period. I don’t see any indication that this will apply after the sunset. Again - can you quote the part that says that?
You mean, you are looking for specific provisions of the initial agreement that would explicitly apply after the stated term of the initial agreement?
That is not how time and contracts work. The continuing constraints are achieved by continuing negotiations during the period of the agreement and new agreements after the expiration of that period. See, e.g., the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) between the US and USSR/Russia, first proposed by Ronald Reagan, signed during the GHW Bush administration, entered into force in Clinton’s first term and renewed as “New START” after its expiration in the first Obama administration.
Anybody who demands that any weapons limitation treaty be formally effective in perpetuity, or imagines that an official expiration date on such a treaty implies that all its limitations will simply vanish and be replaced by nothing at all thereafter, is, as I pointed out earlier, extremely naive.
Compared to a lot of countries in the region, Iran is both pretty stable and has a high standard of living. Are you really saying that they’re worse for the region than Iraq? Than Syria? Than Lebanon? Afghanistan? Pakistan? I never really got the virulant hatred of Iran that is seen in the U.S. in particular. They have a not particularly open political system and don’t particularly like the U.S., but the same could be said about a lot of countries.
I mean, I guess the whole taking the embassy staff hostage wasn’t very good for public relations, but that happened 35 years ago. I guess if we’re only now trying to normalize relations with Cuba it could still be a while, but it seems so irrational to me.
That’s quite a bit different from your original response where you offered to “correct” Terr’s interpretation.
I freely admit that I did not at first realize that Terr was being naive enough to try to infer the assertion that “all restrictions on them go away and they can do whatever they want” simply from the fact that the proposed agreement with Iran would necessarily have an official expiration date.
I thought his interpretation must mean that he (mistakenly) thought that the proposed agreement would stipulate that no post-expiration restrictions would be placed on any of Iran’s future nuclear activities. And, of course, it doesn’t stipulate any such thing: as I explained, there are lots of ways in which various restraints on Iran’s nuclear program could extend past the official “sunset” date of the agreement.
I now recognize that Terr actually believes (or, alternatively, is perhaps disingenuously pretending to believe in order to promote a strongly hawkish anti-Iranian stance) that a weapons limitation treaty that doesn’t explicitly and officially remain in force literally in perpetuity is automatically undesirable and no good.
Even though that is an extremely silly belief, I should not have jumped to the conclusion that it couldn’t have been what Terr meant. I apologize for my misunderstanding.
I agree with your analysis.
Well, all that came out of Iran resisting Anglo-Saxon imperialism, and presumably the foreign service and intelligence communities in the USA still believe in the maximum possible level of Anglo-Saxon imperialism.
No, actually, South Africa is a great example of the short-term success of sanctions, not their long-term efficacy. Sanctions on South Africa lasted five years before they relented. We are in year five of the stepped-up P5+1 sanctions against Iran right now. If anything, we’re already past the point of maximum efficacy of sanctions, as Iran begins to adjust and Iranians downgrade their economic expectations.
Anyone how has not seen Jon Stewarts take on Bibi’s visit is solemnly urged to do so. In Snark Signo Vinces…
The proposed agreement or memorandum of understanding (Obama administration will twist into pretzels not to call it a “treaty” so that they can bypass Congress on it) will remove sanctions in return for certain promises from Iran. Those promises do not, explicitly, include removal or destruction of any of the equipment that Iran built, and it all relies on Iran’s good will past the sunset period to not build a nuclear weapon.
This was nice. Is he going to pop over and address Congress whenever he needs to get something off his chest, or will it just be 2 weeks before elections?
Can’t get TDS online here, and we run about a week late on satellite - quick precis?