That’s close to my reading as well.
You have to remember that 20% of those polled were Arab citizens of Israel, quite a few of whom would heartily support anything detrimental to the state. So 10% is amazingly low.
This one sentence gives me pause.
Why not? Pretty standard operating procedure with polls, yes?
Yes. Quite so.
And he makes a very good point.
At this point in time, there is no reason to oppose the deal, because any successful opposition in the US will result in a worse outcome than going through with the deal. There is no way to turn back the clock and make a different deal. Buchanan makes a similar point and they are both, I think, right.
However, that would be true whether the deal is basically good or bad.
“All over the world?”
North America? South America? India, Burma, Laos? Australia and New Zealand? Austria and Hungary and Russia? And at sea, with a blue-water navy?
Don’t exaggerate; it ends up undermining your legitimate points.
Well, he isn’t that far off, unfortunately.
You might not want to be so incredulous, it ends up backfiring when my frequent debate opponent actually gets something totally wrong. 
There is certainly a risk of victorious Shi’ite militias massacring Sunni civilians.
However, that would be true even with Western armies involved, and what’s more: Increased Iranian involvement would most likely decrease the risk of that happening.
The country - which from Khomeini forward has urged Sunni-Shia unity - would have nothing to gain and everything to lose from such atrocities. Now more than ever, it would behoove Iran to act like - and be seen as - one of the region’s calm, cool-headed grown-ups. Pacifying Iraq’s rebellious Sunnis with as little bloodshed as possible would go a long way towards cementing such a reputation.
Then - arguably just as importantly - there are the theological underpinnings. See, while the ISIS types advocate a genocidal, eliminationist policy towards the world’s Shi’ites, not a single one of Iran’s religious leaders advocates a genocidal, eliminationist policy towards the world’s Sunnis - quite the opposite.
The same is, of course, true for Iraq’s - and the world’s - leading Shi’ite authority, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, himself an Iranian by birth.
In February of 2015, the Grand Ayatollah issued the following statement, going out of his way to remind the overwhelmingly Shi’ite volunteers to abide by the rules of war:
What’s more, the Grand Ayatollah made sure to remind the volunteers that Sunnis, too, are fellow Muslims, and - in sharp contrast to ISIS - to avoid “takfirization” at all costs:
The statement is worth reading in its entirety, by the way - it’s fascinating stuff. And as I’ve written before: If Sistani somehow manages to get his way, I’d say he fully deserves that Nobel Peace Prize that Tom Friedman called for back in 2005.
Is there some reason that we should care whether Israel likes the deal or not? I mean no disrespect to Israelis, but so fucking what if they don’t like it?
Writing in Foreign Policy ($$) in 2013, but quoted by Andrew Sullivan, Daniel Levy deconstructs Israeli opposition to a deal:
Whatever Israel’s reasons for opposing it, ISTM that trying to kill a deal that’s already been agreed by the world’s major powers is a dead-end that can only harm Israel’s interests from here.
From a “realpolitic” position, there is at least some reason to be concerned - as mentioned above, a perception* that the US is willing to ‘sell out’ its ‘friends’ to its ‘enemies’ in return for some advantage or other is bad for the US in the long term, both specifically vs. Israel (it makes unilateral Israeli actions more likely) and generally vs. other powers (a perception that the US ‘sold out’ its ‘friends’ = fewer willing to trust in US ‘friendship’ in the future).
*Note “perception”. Of course it is perfectly reasonable to argue that no actual “selling out” occurred; but perceptions are important.
[bolding mine]
I really struggle to think which other powers are likely to share Israel’s view that the US has sold Israel out.
I’m willing to risk it…
One can only truly “sell out” an equal. We’re the Americans, we don’t have any of those.
I’m not exaggerating. Hezbollah attacked a Jewish Community Center in Argentina.
Hezbollah operatives are far more numerous in the US than Al Qaeda operatives:
We already tried the “not respected by our friends, not feared by our enemies” foreign policy.
Sure. We Euros are already jockeying for position:
Unsurprisingly, the Germans made the first move: Its Vice Chancellor visited Iran this weekend, “becoming the first senior figure from a large Western government to visit the country since the deal.” Tellingly, he brought along the boss of the German Chambers of Commerce and Industry.
France’s Foreign Minister will visit Iran any day now, and Austria’s dito will do so in September, along with the country’s President. It seems that whatever business opportunities the Americans choose to neglect, we’d be happy to take.
Hopefully those business opportunities won’t include arms sales. Let them have Chinese and Russian crap. And please, let’s not repeat the mistakes we made with Saddam and his chemical weapons program.
From your own link:
Seems the FBI was right on the money. The article’s from way back in 2003, and since then, Hezbollah has performed exactly zero attacks on American soil. Accordingly, in February of 2015, “an annual report delivered […] to the US Senate by James Clapper, the director of National Intelligence, removed Iran and Hezbollah from its list of terrorism threats.”
Its in quotes? Who can we thank for this incredibly stupid aphorism? You might have enemies, but they may not necessarily feel the need to kill you. Unless they were afraid of you, like maybe you have a remarkable fondness for futile military adventures. Then, sure, you’re a threat!
What shit for brains came up with that crapola? Having enemies is bad enough, having them be afraid of you is worse, not better. That kind of thinking isn’t evolved past chimpanzee.
We did? I thought we already tried bombing our way to success.