# Nuclear deal with Iran **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 14, 2015, 11:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128 "2015-07-14T11:37:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 32
**Author:** ![Donald\_Rump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9fc29f/32.png) [@Donald\_Rump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Donald_Rump)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/621 "2015-08-14T14:57:02Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > True. Which again, is why we shouldn’t have done this in the first place. Europe had been negotiating with Iran on a seperate track for over a decade. We shouldn’t have joined the talks until Iran was prepared to concede what we wanted from them. Instead, we joined while the talks were making no progress, and made enough concessions so that the talks could make progress. Ah, yes. Cheney’s dead-end “We don’t talk to evil” policy. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/622 "2015-08-14T15:07:17Z")
[Senator Jon Tester](http://missoulian.com/news/local/u-s-sen-tester-to-support-iran-nuclear-deal/article_80f00692-3a43-5a7b-8e8e-7425f24ed7f2.html) has announced his support for the deal, bringing the deal-supporters and leaners [up to 30](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/14/whip-count-where-the-senate-stands-on-the-iran-deal/). Of the 13 still undecided, they need 4 more (assuming the leaners ultimately vote for the deal) to uphold a presidential veto, and 11 more for a successful filibuster. I think the 4 is almost certain, and the 11 is very possible, considering that nearly all of the 13 are Democrats. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/623 "2015-08-14T15:42:58Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > …THe McGovern/Carter/Obama Doctrine… This bit of drollery should be included in your “ **adaher** ’s Greatest Hits” compilation. It’s special. ---
**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:** [August 14, 2015, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/624 "2015-08-14T16:07:18Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Serious question, I’m not trying to criticize your post here: do you understand the concept of “breakout?” That’s, like, a surfing term dude. Right? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/625 "2015-08-14T20:39:30Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The President does not believe that anyone can oppose the deal in good faith. Of course, the PResident doesn’t think anyone can oppose him in good faith, period. You sure do say a lot of stuff without anything whatsoever to back it up. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 14, 2015, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/626 "2015-08-14T20:46:31Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > True. Which again, is why we shouldn’t have done this in the first place. Europe had been negotiating with Iran on a seperate track for over a decade. We shouldn’t have joined the talks until Iran was prepared to concede what we wanted from them. Instead, we joined while the talks were making no progress, and made enough concessions so that the talks could make progress. That’s nonsense. The Bush years pushed Iran much farther down the road to a bomb than it needed to be. Only Obama’s actual effort diplomatically made this possible. And the mewling stupidity pushed by the RW isn’t a solution, it’s a delusional tantrum. > [@](#): > > But yes, I’ve conceded that with the deal already made, there really are no better alternatives. And a deal is better than no deal. Which is what you were advocating above (by deciding to wait until Iran was ready to give us everything we wanted with no compromise on our part :rolleyes:). So in other words, you’re wrong. ---
**Author:** ![TonySinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/49beb7/32.png) [@TonySinclair](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TonySinclair)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/627 "2015-08-15T00:08:31Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > This bit of drollery should be included in your “ **adaher** ’s Greatest Hits” compilation. It’s special. OK, smart guy, name one thing the McGovern administration accomplished. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2015, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/628 "2015-08-15T02:39:08Z")
Damn! Now that you bring it up, I can’t remember anything _at all_ about it! Guess the shit finally caught up with me, brains turned to cheese… ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/629 "2015-08-19T18:11:36Z")
… and the latest revelation on the Iran deal: [AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-13-06-05) The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn’t differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he isn’t authorized to discuss the issue. … The document suggests that instead of carrying out their own probe, IAEA staff will be reduced to monitoring Iranian personnel as these inspect the Parchin site. Iran will provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, “taking into account military concerns.” That wording suggests that - beyond being barred from physically visiting the site - the agency won’t even get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance. IAEA experts would normally take environmental samples for evidence of any weapons development work, but the agreement stipulates that Iranian technicians will do the sampling. The sampling is also limited to only seven samples inside the building where the experiments allegedly took place. Additional ones will be allowed only outside of the Parchin site, in an area still to be determined. “Activities will be carried out using Iran’s authenticated equipment consistent with technical specifications provided by the agency,” the agreement says. While the document says that the IAEA “will ensure the technical authenticity” of Iran’s inspection, it does not say how. That’s just hilarious. When Obama claimed “unprecedented” level of inspections, apparently he meant unprecedentedly pathetic. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/630 "2015-08-19T20:21:51Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > … and the latest revelation on the Iran deal: > > [AP Exclusive: UN to let Iran inspect alleged nuke work site](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAN_NUCLEAR?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-19-13-06-05) > > The document seen by the AP is a draft that one official familiar with its contents said doesn’t differ substantially from the final version. He demanded anonymity because he isn’t authorized to discuss the issue. > … > The document suggests that instead of carrying out their own probe, IAEA staff will be reduced to monitoring Iranian personnel as these inspect the Parchin site. > > Iran will provide agency experts with photos and videos of locations the IAEA says are linked to the alleged weapons work, “taking into account military concerns.” > > That wording suggests that - beyond being barred from physically visiting the site - the agency won’t even get photo or video information from areas Iran says are off-limits because they have military significance. > > IAEA experts would normally take environmental samples for evidence of any weapons development work, but the agreement stipulates that Iranian technicians will do the sampling. > > The sampling is also limited to only seven samples inside the building where the experiments allegedly took place. Additional ones will be allowed only outside of the Parchin site, in an area still to be determined. > > “Activities will be carried out using Iran’s authenticated equipment consistent with technical specifications provided by the agency,” the agreement says. While the document says that the IAEA “will ensure the technical authenticity” of Iran’s inspection, it does not say how. > > That’s just hilarious. When Obama claimed “unprecedented” level of inspections, apparently he meant unprecedentedly pathetic. So… A draft of an unsigned document may have been seen by a reporter. Call me when an actual agreement by the IAEA is signed. Not exactly a revelation… More like a rumor. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/631 "2015-08-19T20:31:26Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > So… A draft of an unsigned document may have been seen by a reporter. Call me when an actual agreement by the IAEA is signed. > > Not exactly a revelation… More like a rumor. It has been signed. It is also secret - and will not be revealed to you or to the Congress. What AP got, according to its source, “does not differ substantially from the final version”. ---
**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:** [August 19, 2015, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/632 "2015-08-19T20:39:59Z")
So, if the IAEA suspects that Iran is fudging with something, they just report to the world that they think Iran is fudging with something. Problem solved. I think most of the criticism of the deal starts from the assumption that everyone else in the world is morons. IAEA? Man, those idiots must have no idea how to inspect nuclear reactors. Department of Energy? Man, those guys are idiots for thinking that 24 days isn’t enough time to hide microscopic radioactive particles. P5+1? Man, those countries are idiots for even talking to Iran. The only party to whom this rule of thumb doesn’t apply is Iran. In the eyes of critics, they are like evil supergeniuses… who just happen to do things like photoshop more missiles into pictures of military tests because some of the missiles didn’t launch correctly. Other than that, they are the Stephen Hawkings of violent fundamentalist supergeniuses. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/633 "2015-08-19T21:12:12Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It has been signed. It is also secret - and will not be revealed to you or to the Congress. What AP got, according to its source, “does not differ substantially from the final version”. Okay, so you trust the anonymous source. We’ll see, but I’m not just taking anonymous source’s word for it. Not that this would affect my support for the deal, even if this is true, _it’s still oodles better than rejecting the deal_. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/634 "2015-08-19T21:13:10Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Okay, so you trust the anonymous source. We’ll see, but I’m not just taking anonymous source’s word for it. It’s AP - a pretty reputable news organization. > [@](#): > > Not that this would affect my support for the deal, even if this is true, _it’s still oodles better than rejecting the deal_. I know. Absolutely nothing would affect your support for the deal. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/635 "2015-08-19T21:39:16Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I know. Absolutely nothing would affect your support for the deal. I’ll turn it back on you – what would make you support the deal? As for me, if I thought there was a good chance that rejecting the deal would provide a better outcome for the US and our allies than accepting the deal, I would oppose the deal. So far from what I’ve read, it’s not even close. I’m with Gary Samore on this one. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/636 "2015-08-19T21:41:25Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ll turn it back on you – what would make you support the deal? Dismantling of current Iranian nuclear program and actual “anytime, anywhere” inspections. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/637 "2015-08-19T21:42:06Z")
There are now [31 Democrats](http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/14/whip-count-where-the-senate-stands-on-the-iran-deal/) for (or leaning) supporting the deal (I think Joe Donnelly is the latest). It seems increasingly unlikely that this deal will not go through. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/638 "2015-08-19T21:52:39Z")
It’s worth noting that 75 experts, who understand this issue perhaps nearly as well as Terr, think the deal is good. > **[Nuclear experts fall in behind Obama](https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/nuclear-experts-fall-in-behind-obama-iran-121459)** > > The deal with Iran exceeds historical standards for arms control agreements, 75 experts say. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/639 "2015-08-19T21:53:08Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I’ll turn it back on you – what would make you support the deal? I’m going to take a wild guess here. He’ll either say something completely ridiculous, like Obama must resign if there’s even one terrorist bombing after the deal is signed, or he’ll pretend the question doesn’t make sense and refuse to answer it straight up. For me its pretty simple. I trust the administration that this is the best deal we could have gotten. That’s why I support it. Obama’s shown a deft expertise on foreign policy and is very intelligent. If he says its the best we can get, then its the best we can get. The only way I’ll not support this is if I don’t support the administration. And until the GOP shows it cares about America rather than its own elections, I don’t see that happening in the near and distant future. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2015, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/640 "2015-08-19T22:00:13Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Dismantling of current Iranian nuclear program and actual “anytime, anywhere” inspections. The deal seems to go along way to dismantle the nuclear weapons program. I’m pretty sure “anytime, anywhere” inspections have never happened ever anywhere – no country would allow inspectors access anywhere in the country with zero notice. Scientifically, the 24 days does not provide nearly enough time to actually eliminate the signs of violating the deal. Even if this deal is not perfect, I still don’t understand how rejecting it is better, unless one is more interested in keeping Iran from joining the international community than from actually preventing them from getting nuclear weapons. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128.md?page=31) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128.md?page=33)