I ahve to agree with iiandyiii. Obama meant “if we want to stop a nuclear Iran” then its either this or war. And if war is off the table, then this is the only way.
Please read the rest of the exchange he and I had before replying to something that was posted in the middle of the discussion.
Why not just a division and some non-genocidal ethnic cleansing?
Over the water cooler, a coworker who is extremely opposed to this deal expressed the view that Iran could have been forced into total capitulation (ie. dismantling of all nuclear facilities, or even the collapse of the regime) if sanctions had only been maintained longer. There were two prongs to this argument. 1) We’re probably looking at a couple years of continued cheap oil. 2) The sanctions imposed by Russia and China don’t matter that much; most of the pain of Iran sanctions comes from US and EU banking sanctions.
This view is so at odds with everything I’ve read on the subject that all I could muster was an incredulous stare. Can any posters (esp anti-deal posters) point me to any analysis backing up the idea that Iran was “this close” to collapsing and giving us 100% of what we want? I know this is essentially the line Netanyahu and domestic Iran hawks like Tom Cotton have been pushing, but is there any good analysis out there that actually supports their view?
In the first public criticism of the P5+Iran deal by a member of the Saudi Arabian royal family, Prince Bandar bin Sultan told Lebanon’s Daily Star the deal would allow Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb and would “wreak havoc in the region." Covered in The Times of London, the prince also told Daily Star, “Saudi Arabia and the Gulf powers are prepared to take military action without American support after the Iran nuclear deal”
…
Bandar says Obama is smart enough to understand this but that he is ideologically willing to accept collateral damage because he believes he is right.
(…)The Saudi prince says the new Iran deal and other developments in the region have led him to conclude that a phrase first used by Henry Kissinger – “America’s enemies should fear America, but America’s friends should fear America more" – is correct.
I wonder what Saudis are talking to Israel about…
"the prince also told Daily Star, “Saudi Arabia and the Gulf powers are prepared to take military action without American support after the Iran nuclear deal”
Knock yourselves out, Princie!! Knock yourseleves out.
Yeah, until the Gulf Arabs figure out how to get Fillipino slaves to fly fighter jets, they’ll be utterly useless militarily, no matter how many high-tech toys they buy. The Iranians would eat them for lunch.
Two of the clown car riders have raised the possibility of War with Iran in January 2017. Of course they differ on whether that would come on 1/20 or 1/21.
Thank you Don; I am sure you are right.
A bit disconcerting to find myself in that much agreement with Patrick Buchanan…
When it comes to stone cold realpolitik, he makes some very concise points. And its not that he disdains the human dimension in all this, its simply that he doesn’t find it particularly relevant.
Air power would not be an issue; the Gulf States (or Gulf Coordination Council - GCC) air forces probably are powerful enough to suppress the remaining aircraft the Iranians have (hard to say how the there defense missiles will do). Most of them have US equipment (F15/F16/F18) that is near top-of-the-line. So whatever the quality of pilots, they could handle it.
Problem would be that they all have (save Saudi) relatively small Armies due to population numbers, so trying to project force on the gorund is simply not probable IMHO. Meanwhile most of the GCC countries, especially the smaller ones like UAE, Bahrain, and Kuwait, have significant Iranian populations, which could cause…issues…
Yeah, they’ll talk tough, but no more without Big Brother to back them up…
The comments section of that article is at least as interesting as the article itself, if psycho-pathology is of interest.
Damuri Ajashi:
Once the G5+1 leaders decided they needed to broker a deal with Iran, no Israeli had a seat at the table no matter who the particular prime minister is. If Israel was in any way involved, the Iranians would have pretended the negotiatiors don’t exist.
Was Jordan “at the table”? Egypt? Lebanon? Of course Iran is there, its about Iran, after all. Is it equally about Israel because they say so?
Though in realpolitic terms, I think he’s looking at the question in a rather simple manner.
From the article:
From an Israeli (or Sunni/Saudi) perspective, the issue is two-fold:
(1) Deterrence only works on people who are operating rationally. From a rational perspective, Iran would never nuke Israel or anyone else even if they had a bomb, or many bombs (what could Iran as a country possibly gain, rationally, from that?). The concern Israelis have about an Iranian nuke is that of some religious nutter in the Iranian gov’t getting ahold of one. They, perhaps, may care nothing for Israel’s “hundreds of atom bombs”. The Israelis & others have a time horizon of concern that is longer than the deal will be effective.
(2) Much more immediately, the Israelis, Saudis etc. have to live with various Shi’ite militias such as Hezbollah. An Iran that is “once more hegemon” is an Iran more capable of supporting such militias. Assuming a more-or-less rational Iran, these militias are far more of a concern than a bomb the Iranians won’t be using anyway - from that perspective, an Iran wasting its money on bomb-making and subject to sanctions is less dangerous than an Iran not wasting its money on bomb-making and free of sanctions.
Which of course is the whole point: the West is convinced that the real problem is ISIS, and so is willing to convince itself that Iran won’t be a problem - but rather perhaps even an ISIS-busting asset. From that perspective, supporting the militias is exactly what the West wants Iran to do.
I hope the western leaders are right on this, and that it will not come back to bite us all in the ass like supporting Afgani rebels against the Soviets did.
You are missing his point - which is not that Israel should have a seat at the table, but rather, that it wouldn’t have one no matter who the Israeli PM happened to be.
It appears that not quite all Israelis are opposed to the deal, though virtually the entire political establishment seems to be.
You understand that in the history of Israel there has never been a time when “all Israelis” had the same opinion about something, right?
But 69% of Israelis oppose the deal. 10% are in favor of it. Now those numbers are amazing. It would be hard to find anything else on which Israelis are this united.
That’s not a whole-blooded indorsement of the deal though - what he’s saying, if I read it correctly, is that now that the deal is here Israel must support it, because if the US rejects it now, the sanctions will deteriorate and Iran will be free to pursue its nukes unhampered.
In particular, I agree with this fellow on this:
The part he’s not commenting on is that many in the West appear to be hoping that Iran’s trouble-making capacity will in fact prove quite useful - against ISIS. In short, it may be a feature and not a bug.
10% is higher than I thought, considering some of the earlier posts. Thanks for the link.