# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/61 "2015-07-14T18:22:12Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Since there will be thousands offering analysis, I think it’s reasonable to winnow the chaff, so to speak, unless one actually wants to read literally all of it. So I have to have some method of picking and choosing with analysis and criticism is worth reading – and using their record on the Iraq war seems like a reasonable place to start. As a filtering mechanism sure. When applied to off board criticism defintely people can choose their sources based on whatever criteria they see fit. But \*\*Ravenman’s \*\*original proclomation applied to both off board and on board criticism. Using one’s view of another’s credibility is a valid way to filter content, but it should not be mistaken for an actual argument. ---
**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/62 "2015-07-14T18:23:58Z")
The inspections aren’t toothless even if aspects can be avoided. It’s likely hard to play a shell game with operational centrifuges (that get drastically cut for the beginning of the agreement). Aside from on formal ground inspections we don’t suddenly lose the ability to observe other ways. We can still watch what happens between an announcement and inspectors showing up. For the first decade it looks like there’s good limitations on their ability to get a bomb quickly if they back out. That leaves time to escalate. I always thought there was a good chance Iran’s interests were motivated in part by the perception that they were pursuing the program and close than actually getting too close to fielding the first weapon. They could buy the influence and status of being close. In some ways that’s similar to Saddam’s Iraq after the first Gulf War. Especially after Desert Fox, non-cooperation with inspectors was a tactic to gain regional influence by raising the specter of WMD. He just lost his bet on whether someone would do something about it. While not ideal on first blush this seems better than no agreement for all parties involved. I prefer to apply a Libya test over an Iraq test. What lessons a commentator drew from Iraq are more telling IMO. It’s a test that requires showing full work though instead of just multiple choice. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/63 "2015-07-14T18:28:08Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > I ignore creationists on all issues related to science. When a creationist starts to talk about the science behind global warming, I just ignore them. They may very well have something to contribute but I feel like I can safely ignore them without creating an echo chamber for myself. > > Similarly, I feel like I can ignore anyone who was a neocon on anything (should I end the sentence right here?) having to do with foreign policy (or here) in the middle east. I see. That is where we disagree. As long as any creationist or neocon ist making an earnest attempt to have a rational and civil discussion I will be glad to point out to them where I find that they are wrong. Of course, if I feel that all they want to do is preach, I go elsewhere, but then its them, not me who evaded the discussion. ---
**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:** [July 14, 2015, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/64 "2015-07-14T18:31:15Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Using one’s view of another’s credibility is a valid way to filter content, but it should not be mistaken for an actual argument. Sounds reasonable. ---
**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:** [July 14, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/65 "2015-07-14T18:42:49Z")
The more hear about this deal (from both sides) the more I like it. I think this is a fantastic achievement for Obama, and one of the reasons I voted for him twice-- hoping he would think out of the box and not be just another typical president. Good on him for engaging constructively with Iran, which is the best way to get them to be more cooperative with The West in general. I think we have a better chance of nudging them towards becoming a true democracy and to better respect human rights if we are workig with them rather setting them up as The Evil Enemy. ---
**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/66 "2015-07-14T18:43:53Z")
Above all, I don’t want war. I don’t care what regional power we gain or lose because of that, I want to avoid war with Iran. I’m not willing to go to war with Iran whether they have or do not have a bomb. I’m willing to let them have a bomb to avoid war, and I’m willing to drop all support for Israel if they go to war with Iran. I don’t think a lot of conservatives realize how much their past adventures in the middle east have soured people on their warlike philosophy. ---
**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:** [July 14, 2015, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/67 "2015-07-14T18:47:41Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The more hear about this deal (from both sides) the more I like it. I think this is a fantastic achievement for Obama, and one of the reasons I voted for him twice-- hoping he would think out of the box and not be just another typical president. Good on him for engaging constructively with Iran, which is the best way to get them to be more cooperative with The West in general. I think we have a better chance of nudging them towards becoming a true democracy and to better respect human rights if we are workig with them rather setting them up as The Evil Enemy. I agree, based on what I’ve heard so far. But it’s kind of sad, in a way, that this isn’t what a “typical president” would go for. Aggression, bluster, and ‘tough talk’ has been the norm for so long. ---
**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:** [July 14, 2015, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/68 "2015-07-14T18:49:58Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > But \*\*Ravenman’s \*\*original proclomation applied to both off board and on board criticism. Using one’s view of another’s credibility is a valid way to filter content, but it should not be mistaken for an actual argument. To be clear, I intended my remark to be about off-board talking heads, along the lines of some of the politicians who have already been mentioned. Until you wrote this it never occurred to me that my comment could be construed to apply to posters here. As opposed to ignoring posters who say that this is a bad deal, I very much look forward to reading their arguments and debating with them. I think your comment of filtering, rather than an argument in and of itself, is a much better way to describe my comment. One cannot dismiss a well-reasoned argument against the deal on the basis that someone supported the Iraq invasion – however, if someone supported the Iraq war, their claims of “bad deal” should be more carefully picked apart on the basis that their judgment has been questionable (or disastrous, if you prefer) before on foreign policy matters. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/69 "2015-07-14T19:46:48Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > To be clear, I intended my remark to be about off-board talking heads, along the lines of some of the politicians who have already been mentioned. Until you wrote this it never occurred to me that my comment could be construed to apply to posters here. As opposed to ignoring posters who say that this is a bad deal, I very much look forward to reading their arguments and debating with them. > > I think your comment of filtering, rather than an argument in and of itself, is a much better way to describe my comment. One cannot dismiss a well-reasoned argument against the deal on the basis that someone supported the Iraq invasion – however, if someone supported the Iraq war, their claims of “bad deal” should be more carefully picked apart on the basis that their judgment has been questionable (or disastrous, if you prefer) before on foreign policy matters. So, given that Kerry voted in favor of the Iraq War, what conclusions are you suggesting we draw about his judgment in crafting the Iran deal? ---
**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:** [July 14, 2015, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/70 "2015-07-14T19:51:34Z")
While I admire his incredible perseverance in getting the P5+1 and Iran to come to an agreement, I have never been particularly fond of his foreign policy positions. I don’t find his explanations of the benefits of the deal to be particularly persuasive. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/71 "2015-07-14T20:01:41Z")
I think the filtering argument is fine. We already know what politicians like McCain and Graham and Cotton and everyone running for the Republican nomination will say. We know what pundits like Thiessen and Gerson and Rubin (just to name three I know will vomit all over the Washington Post) will say. If you already know the opinion, why bother paying attention to it? Especially when some have a record of always being wrong. Along with that, explain the following to me. The CIA overthrew an elected government and installed the Shah. Reagan had both the arms for hostages scandal and Iran-Contra, and somehow Obama is supposed to be bad about this deal with Iran? How is that even logically defensible? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/72 "2015-07-14T20:16:14Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > Along with that, explain the following to me. The CIA overthrew an elected government and installed the Shah. Reagan had both the arms for hostages scandal and Iran-Contra, and somehow Obama is supposed to be bad about this deal with Iran? How is that even logically defensible? I don’t see how what the CIA did or Reagan did affects if this is a good deal or not, or if Obama is bad or not. If the Iranians keep their word on this like they didn’t on the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, and like the North Koreans didn’t on the treaty Carter got them to sign, well and good. But we won’t know that until someone else is President. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/73 "2015-07-14T20:18:02Z")
Very few things more scary in this world than a ranting US fundamentalist _politician_. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/74 "2015-07-14T21:20:06Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > Along with that, explain the following to me. The CIA overthrew an elected government and installed the Shah. Reagan had both the arms for hostages scandal and Iran-Contra, and somehow Obama is supposed to be bad about this deal with Iran? How is that even logically defensible? Well, the argument would be that every administration thinks it can shape Iran the way it wants or find the right Iranians to deal with, and generally every administration is disappointed. Query whether there is reason to believe that this time will be different. ---
**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:** [July 14, 2015, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/75 "2015-07-14T21:46:56Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Well, the argument would be that every administration thinks it can shape Iran the way it wants or find the right Iranians to deal with, and generally every administration is disappointed. Query whether there is reason to believe that this time will be different. Whether there is or not, I still think there’s very good reason to believe that the future with this deal is better than a future without it. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/76 "2015-07-14T22:13:56Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > We should all keep one question in mind when the agreement comes under criticism: how did that critic view the 2003 invasion of Iraq? If they enthusiastically supported it, they probably are terrible at foreign policy. If they strenuously opposed the invasion and think this is a bad deal, that’s something to consider. But I haven’t heard a lot of criticism from such people, at least so far. > [@](#): > > This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I’ve ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but\*\* I cast it with conviction.\*\* [sez](http://www.womenspeecharchive.org/women/profile/speech/index.cfm?ProfileID=65&SpeechID=3296)Hillary Clinton on her vote for the Iraq war. So, according to your standards, Hillary Clinton is terrible at foreign policy. Clinton on Nuke deal: > [@](#): > > Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave a vigorous endorsement of President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran during a meeting Tuesday morning with House Democrats, multiple lawmakers said. [Link](http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-support-iran-deal-120088.html#ixzz3fuDJdUSa) Using your (horrid, by the way) logic, we ought to consider the deal a mistake as Clinton is for it. As far as the deal itself goes, the devil is in the details. What I have seen so far isn’t particularly good but that assessment may change when I can read the full details. I suspect that this agreement won’t mean much at all in 15 years or so. Slee ---
**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:** [July 14, 2015, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/77 "2015-07-14T22:27:31Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > So, according to your standards, Hillary Clinton is terrible at foreign policy. By this standard she’s still much, much better than most Republicans, who either refuse to admit that Iraq was a mistake or came to the realization much later than Hillary. Not that this is the only way to evaluate someone’s skill at foreign policy. ---
**Author:** ![up\_the\_junction](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f1d935/32.png) [@up\_the\_junction](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/up_the_junction)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/78 "2015-07-14T22:34:14Z")
> [@YogSosoth](#): > > I don’t think a lot of conservatives realize how much their past adventures in the middle east have soured people on their warlike philosophy. Amen. For “people” you can read pretty well the entire planet. Bunch of parochial, self-serving, ignorant, bribe taking, cynical careerists. It’s kind of like FIFA but with God and guns. ---
**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:** [July 14, 2015, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/79 "2015-07-14T23:01:29Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > So, according to your standards, Hillary Clinton is terrible at foreign policy. > > Clinton on Nuke deal: > > Using your (horrid, by the way) logic, we ought to consider the deal a mistake as Clinton is for it. I often find great humor in posts like this. I know it’s common to try to set up “gotcha” questions or conclusions during a debate. It’s a perfectly fine thing to do. But it’s really only effective if one uses the actual logic of one’s adversary against them. Using some of the same words of an argument, leaving out others, and then hollering “GOtchaya!” just isn’t effective. Is this just an Internet phenomenon, or do people do this in real life? Like at work? At a construction site: Boss: “Ok, newbie, here’s a hammer. Walk around the framing of this house and pound in any nails that are sticking out.” Worker: “Gotcha. Use the hammer to pound down and destroy all the framing.” B: “No, that isn’t what I said.” W: “You said hammer, framing, and pound. Gotchaya!” B: “No, that makes no sense. It isn’t what I said.” W: “You used those words! I win!” ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 14, 2015, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/80 "2015-07-14T23:26:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Fortunately I didn’t say that. > > May I suggest, that if one wants to stake a claim to being a better, more impartial, more informed analyst of current affairs, that strawmanning an opponents’ statements in a debate is not the way to achieve the moral high ground? There was no straw-manning done. Perhaps you should look the word up. While you’re at it, check “moral high ground”, as well. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128.md?page=5)