# 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:** 62
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2018, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1221 "2018-05-11T21:41:28Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > What do you think would have been needed to be changed to get the iran deal through the senate? Is there anything at all that would have? It would have needed to be acceptable to both parties, of course, which probably means it would have needed to be a compromise. Which means that it probably wouldn’t be acceptable to the Iranian’s. But if that’s the case, then there wouldn’t be sufficient grounds for compromise for a treaty, so the status quo would continue (which basically meant Iran would continue to be ground under heavy sanctions until they could figure out a compromise position acceptable to the US). You seem to think that this is a bug in our system, but this is actually how the system is supposed to work. If Obama couldn’t rally enough support for his proposal in the Congress then it’s a failure politically. We have separation of powers specifically for this reason. > [@](#): > > Why deal with the US, when China can actually honor their agreements? That’s the lesson that the world is taking from this. China has certainly honored their agreements not to militarize the South China Sea region, right? China honors what agreements they choose to, and ignores what they choose to ignore. I don’t believe that this is the take away the world is getting, that they should deal with China and not the US. The take away from this particular incident should be that if there isn’t sufficient political will by the US to do something like this (i.e. you don’t have the president AND the Congress able to agree on a formal treaty) that you shouldn’t rely on the promises from one administration to the next. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2018, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1222 "2018-05-11T22:05:42Z")
> [@XT](#): > > While perhaps Iran doesn’t know our system that well Hold on. I imagine that Mohammad Javad Zarif, who has an B.A. and an M.A. in international relations from San Francisco State University, and a second M.A. in international relations as well as a Ph.D. in international law and policy from the Josef Korbel School of International Studies, University of Denver, has a - shall we say - _fairly decent_ understanding of how the American political system works overall, how American foreign policy works, how American law relates to international law, the difference between a treaty and a deal, etc. I imagine that he entered the deal knowing full well that, due to Republican resistance, it wouldn’t be ratified by the Senate, and could very well be ripped up by a future President, be it a Republican or a Democrat. But such is _Realpolitik_ - he, as well as the other parties involved, had to work with what they had, not what they wished they had. “Rather a three-legged donkey than a horse that doesn’t exist.” ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2018, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1223 "2018-05-11T22:07:48Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Thought I’d link to [this](https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/08/opinions/trump-is-exactly-right-about-irans-misdeeds-stanley/index.html) article from CNN with a slightly different perspective. Not sure I agree with this articles take, but found it interesting anyway: That article is fucking bonkers. Is there _anything_ in it you agree with, **XT**? And what about it did you find “interesting?” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2018, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1224 "2018-05-11T23:15:14Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > That article is fucking bonkers. > > Is there _anything_ in it you agree with, **XT**? And what about it did you find “interesting?” No, it isn’t ‘fucking bonkers’, or even the regular type of ‘bonkers’ that doesn’t copulate. It’s merely a different viewpoint. What I found interesting was the difference in perspective. As to agree with, I do agree that Iran has used the shift in politics and sanctions to become more involved regionally in the conflicts happening, especially in Syria but also with it’s covert support of terrorist/para-military groups like Hamas. Not that this is any great surprise, but the article is correct that this is what they have done. Where I think the article (and many posters in this thread) are off the rails is in thinking that Iran is some sort of monolith all in lockstep, either for good or evil. Instead, you have various factions of hardline conservative fundamentalist types who ARE pushing a militant agenda and pushing for more assertive Iranian involvement in the region, as well as further covert support for those terrorist/para-military groups while shifting their development posture from nukes to missile and asymmetric warfare, and various moderate factions who support some of those things but also support more contact, especially wrt trade, with the west (or, in fact, China, since China is one of their largest trading partners wrt purchasing their oil). So, there is enough complexity in this whole mess to see that there are two viable sides to this. What Trump has done, IMHO, was stupid…like so many of the things he has done or tried to do. He’s done what he’s done for all the wrong reasons, and I think the article is mistakenly giving him more credit than he is due. But that doesn’t mean it’s ‘fucking bonkers’ to see a different side. I always find things interesting that make me think about something more deeply, to do some searches and read a bit more, even if ultimately I don’t agree with them or even reject their theme. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2018, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1225 "2018-05-11T23:44:28Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > … > > What if President Trump makes a “non-binding political commitment”?.. Then Trump supporters would point to that as a monumental achievement by a master deal maker. Parades to follow. Believe me. MAGA. We already heve a thread about Trump’s supposed statesmanship with regard to North Korea. Trump supporters are notoriously easy to impress. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2018, 11:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1226 "2018-05-11T23:51:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Either the world deals with Iran now… How, exactly? The article doesn’t say. > [@](#): > > …or it deals with a nuclear Iran in the future. What? The deal was preventing “a nuclear Iran.” > [@](#): > > The problem is that Iran’s regime is not regular. How so? > [@](#): > > Look at what it’s been doing since the deal was signed. OK, let’s. > [@](#): > > Even if uranium enrichment has been stopped, Tehran has continued, quite openly, to invest in its missile program. That’s… Regular. Missiles are regular. Regular countries have armed forces, which have missiles. Iran is a country, and it has armed forces, and those armed forces have missiles. That’s all perfectly regular. > [@](#): > > It has harassed foreign citizens. Quite regular. Happens all the time. > [@](#): > > It has also hugely expanded its power within the region, establishing a presence in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon. Yeah, budding regional powers tend to get involved in the affairs of their neighbours and their neighbours’ neighbours. That’s par for the course. Might even call it regular. And even if building missiles, harassing foreign citizens and meddling in other countries was somehow “irregular,” so what? Pulling out of the deal won’t help with any of it. > [@](#): > > If the deal stands as it is, there is a risk that it actually enables the emergence of Iran as a hegemonic power on the brink of attaining the bomb. What? How might sticking to a deal which keeps Iran away from a nuclear bomb lead to an Iran “on the brink of attaining the bomb”? How? > [@](#): > > Second, with Trump’s decision, the center of gravity in policymaking shifts. The Europeans – principally Germany, France and Britain – staked everything on saving the deal. Their diplomatic failure was humiliating. Instead, momentum is now with the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Of these, the most unreliable partner is viewed as Saudi: the United States is allying with a religious dictatorship to contain a religious dictatorship. Life is full of surprises. Trump was elected, many thought, to get America out of the Middle East. Instead, he’s helped forge a new local coalition and backed it against Iran. I’m with **Ravenman** here. Truly bizarre. ---
**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:** [May 11, 2018, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1227 "2018-05-11T23:55:03Z")
Obama didn’t ignore congress; congress voted itself the power to review the deal, and then reviewed the deal. By the rules congress assigned itself, they could vote to disapprove the deal, at a risk of presidential veto. They voted to disapprove, but not enough to override a veto. So it’s absolutely false to say that Obama ignored congress. Congress voted itself the power to review, and did review, but didn’t meet their own standard to reject the deal. As far as Trump, he was well within his rights to do this. It was just colossally stupid, greatly weakens the US, strengthens hard liners in Iran, increases the chances of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, and angers our allies, with no benefit to America or Americans. Just massively stupid and harmful to America, and to the world. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2018, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1228 "2018-05-11T23:58:30Z")
It was/is considered “bonkers” by the rest of the western world because almost none of us considered Americans would select, let alone elect, a massively ignorant buffoon president. Sure republicans would huff and puff about weak kneed democrats but once in office would work within the post-war American crafted framework. A delayed nuclear program in Iran coupled with economic development could be used both push democratic reforms in Iran and make future sanctions more effective. Iranian efforts to expand their sphere of influence without a nuclear program could be opposed in other manners. Luckily we have a spineless GOP unable to see value in a tentatively rule based international order, willing to try to contain an Iran filled with people that no longer see the US as a potential ally, that has no economic reason to listen to the US and that could easily restart a nuclear program. I mean who wouldn’t want that? ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2018, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1229 "2018-05-12T00:13:42Z")
> [@XT](#): > > As to agree with, I do agree that Iran has used the shift in politics and sanctions to become more involved regionally in the conflicts happening, especially in Syria but also with it’s covert support of terrorist/para-military groups like Hamas. There is no way to ever know for certain, but…I kinda doubt it. In particular Iran has been cultivating a relationship with Syria since the 1979 Revolution. It’s had its hiccups, especially when Syria and Hezbollah came to blows in Lebanon. But it was a well-developed well before the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War - they had signed a military cooperation treaty as far back as 2006. IMHO they were _always_ going to intervene to prop up the Assads in Syria and I don’t think international sanctions would have made an iota of difference in that. Bashir al-Assad is simply far too valuable a regional ally to let him go down. Somewhat similarily in Yemen. I think the analysis that the Houthis are somehow Iranian proxies is foolish. But I think Iranian aid would have flowed regardless of the international situation. Again it is in Iran’s best interests to keep Sunni Islamists and Western/Saudi- backed interests out of power in the region. Terrorist groups? Iran has supported them since forever, again regardless of sanctions. It’s IMHO only and unprovable, but I just don’t think that idea of the nuclear deal giving them a freer hand regionally holds water. The reigning ideology of the state as well as realpolitik kinda compels them to act regardless. What the United States did do that _REALLY_ helped Iran quite a bit and tilted the local power balance was not this agreement, but rather overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Iran is considerably friendlier with the dominant political forces in post-Hussein Iraq than the United States is( and are playing a bigger military role in pushing back Daesh ). If anything has given rise to pretensions/possibilities of regional hegemon for Iran it was that little event. I have a sneaking suspicion that the Bush crew never envisioned that particular bit of fallout, but they really should have if they had been paying attention. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2018, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1230 "2018-05-12T00:22:13Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Obama didn’t ignore congress; congress voted itself the power to review the deal, and then reviewed the deal. By the rules congress assigned itself, they could vote to disapprove the deal, at a risk of presidential veto. They voted to disapprove, but not enough to override a veto. > > So it’s absolutely false to say that Obama ignored congress. Congress voted itself the power to review, and did review, but didn’t meet their own standard to reject the deal. > > As far as Trump, he was well within his rights to do this. It was just colossally stupid, greatly weakens the US, strengthens hard liners in Iran, increases the chances of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, and angers our allies, with no benefit to America or Americans. Just massively stupid and harmful to America, and to the world. You didn’t quote anyone, so it’s a bit of guesswork as to who this post might be directed at. When you say things like “So it’s absolutely false to say …”, it might be helpful to clarify who / where that was actually said. Personally, I don’t believe anyone claimed that Obama did ignore Congress. The closest anyone got (that I can find) was this post by me: > [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > The theory (or at least one theory) behind the super-majority Senate ratification requirement for treaties is that the USA should not commit itself to agreements with other countries that do not enjoy broad support within the country (because this lack of broad-based support is more likely to result in the USA abandoning the agreement as political winds shift). Obama decided to ignore this when he made a non-binding political commitment with the JCPOA over the opposition of the other major political party, and now we can see some of the limitations of that type of agreement. I’m pretty sure people warned him about this at the time. As I said before, finagling things so that it requires a super-majority to _cancel_ a non-binding political commitment by the president is not as lasting an arrangement as actually building a coalition capable of getting a super-majority in Congress to _approve_ a political commitment by the president that could then take the form of a treaty or legislation. “It was just colossally stupid” for the Iranians or Obama or the Europeans to expect that the non-binding political commitment they made with Obama would last much past the end of his administration. That’s one of the limitations of “pen and phone” diplomacy. ---
**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:** [May 12, 2018, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1231 "2018-05-12T00:35:32Z")
You have a different definition of “colossally stupid” when top members of Trump’s cabinet convinced him for over a year to stay in the deal, principally on the basis that a deal’s a deal. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2018, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1232 "2018-05-12T00:47:46Z")
In this case it’s more like a half-assed deal is a half-assed deal. If they wanted a real, lasting deal, there are ways to get that, but they require building something of a national consensus on the matter. ---
**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:** [May 12, 2018, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1233 "2018-05-12T00:51:08Z")
So we’ve gone from “colossally stupid” to “half assed” in two posts. Maybe “not half bad” is just around the corner. And I bet if Trump negotiates the same deal with North Korea, we’ll be hearing cheers for “Nobel Peace Prize!” ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2018, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1234 "2018-05-12T01:00:38Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > In this case it’s more like a half-assed deal is a half-assed deal. If they wanted a real, lasting deal, there are ways to get that, but they require building something of a national consensus on the matter. My money says that Americans armed with actual facts about the deal, not alternative bullshit facts, would form such a consensus. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2018, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1235 "2018-05-12T01:13:42Z")
There is no reasoning with the Iranian government. > **[Iranian cleric threatens destruction of Israeli cities](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/11/iran-israel-nuclear-destruction-584196)** > > Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami threatens to “raze Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground.“ ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2018, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1236 "2018-05-12T01:18:39Z")
Boy if only there was a reason for the Iranians to temper themselves. I suppose Id brings forth Id. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2018, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1237 "2018-05-12T01:49:57Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > If those other countries don’t understand how our political system works, and it not working they way they imagine affects them, perhaps they should spend more time learning about it. I suspect that most of the top-level diplomats in those countries do, in fact, understand the difference between a treaty (signed by the president and ratified by the Senate), a piece of legislation (passed by Congress and signed by the president), and a non-binding political commitment made by the president alone. And if they didn’t before, they almost certainly do now. > > If the agreement is between the state, following the procedure outlined in the state’s laws, then they should expect it will not be reneged on. If the agreement is the equivalent of a backroom deal with the person occupying the corner office at the time, and sealed with nothing more than a handshake, they they should not expect it to be a particularly lasting agreement once their man in the corner office is gone. > > Here’s the lesson **HD** thinks the rest of the world should learn from Obama’s “phone and pen” wheelings and dealings: If you want a lasting agreement with the USA, you should push for it to take the form of either a formal treaty, ratified by the Senate, or a piece of legislation enacted by Congress. If you don’t mind that the agreement might not last past the current president’s term, then go ahead and strike a “non-binding political commitment” with him, and you might luck out and the next guy will stick with it, or you might not. That’s the risk you take by pursuing those easier, but less-durable types of agreements. This sounds a great deal like “well, it may have been collusion, but even if it was it’s not illegal.” Color me utterly unsurprised you’re making excuses for Trump. ---
**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:** [May 12, 2018, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1238 "2018-05-12T01:56:15Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > There is no reasoning with the Iranian government. > > [https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/11/iran-israel-nuclear-destruction-584196](https://www.politico.com/story/2018/05/11/iran-israel-nuclear-destruction-584196) I didn’t click on the link. Did Iran tweet that their nuclear button is bigger and more powerful than someone else’s? It takes a real animal to say such reckless things. ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2018, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1239 "2018-05-12T02:10:41Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > This sounds a great deal like “well, it may have been collusion, but even if it was it’s not illegal.” Color me utterly unsurprised you’re making excuses for Trump. I’m truly mystified how you got anything related to “collusion” out of that. ---
**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:** [May 12, 2018, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128/1240 "2018-05-12T03:34:30Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So we’ve gone from “colossally stupid” to “half assed” in two posts. Maybe “not half bad” is just around the corner. > > And I bet if Trump negotiates the same deal with North Korea, we’ll be hearing cheers for “Nobel Peace Prize!” Considering how much the arguments in favor of Trump’s position seem to be “he was allowed to do this!”, I suspect that many of them recognize how truly stupid this move was, or at the very least how it doesn’t help the US at all and puts us in a weaker position. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128.md?page=61) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-deal-with-iran/725128.md?page=63)