Since we’re now all pre-positioning who we will and will not listen to, I’ll just say that any poster whose ONLY objection to a critic’s analysis is that the critic is an unrepentant Iraq War supporter is someone I won’t pay much attention to.
Honestly, I the huge preponderance of the interest is going to remain on Iran carrying out the deal, as well as whether the Republican Congress is going to cancel the deal, as opposed to shifting attention to Saudi Arabia.
Saying attention is shifting to KSA right now is a bit like saying that attention shifted to Japan after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon test in 2006. Uh, really? That’s what people started paying attention to, Japan?
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?
I paid attention to the exact words you used, and I disagree. And I say that as someone who did not support the Iraq invasion. But then, I approach this whole thing a lot differently than a lot of people since I don’t see a nuclear Iran as something I would be willing to go to war over. Hence, whatever deal is reached is probably OK with me. I think Iran is potentially a better ally to us than is Saudi Arabia (if I had to choose between the two).
If you can’t beat 'em, join 'em! 
Are there people yelling “Death to America” in the streets of Iran? I’ve not seen any footage of this happening recently, but it’s a claim I heard mentioned this morning on Morning Joe. I think it was Nicole Wallace who said it.
I personally am happy that we’ve made the deal and I’m curious how this will affect our economy.
I’m cautiously optimistic. I don’t think Iran really wanted a bomb in the first place, why put a target on your back? Iran can be useful to the west, they could be a stabilizing force in taking down ISIS and when the sanctions are lifted, the price of oil could go down. It’s encouraging to see the administration patiently negotiating a deal rather than declare them to be part of an axis of evil.
Lets start a debate
Lets not invite people who might disagree with us
Lets declare ourselves ‘winners’
Textbook example of todays gotcha style of debate
He isnt the one trying to take the moral high ground. There is no high ground because no person of political persuasion is always right/wrong.
I pretty much agree. I’m a bit less sure about whether they wanted a bomb, as I think there is a reasonable case to be made that they would, but I also think there is reasonable case to be made that they wouldn’t. But yes, it’s very encouraging to see an administration realizing that we need to talk to our adversaries.
One last thought on the whole “not listening to so-and-so”… I really and honestly think that it’s much more important to listen to those you disagree with than with those you agree with. There are lots of intelligent and informed people who supported the Iraq war, and it’s best to test your ideas against people who are looking for ways to knock hole sin them rather than those who will instinctively agree with you.
Because I’m such a great guy, I vow that from now on for this discussion I will try my hardest to reasonably consider any argument regardless of the source (even gag Bill Kristol). Maybe I’ll succeed, and maybe I won’t, but I will at least try.
You’re welcome, America.
I would think they would want the bomb. If its true that the power of the USA is receding then the world becomes less stable. It makes sense to have a bomb. The unseen faultlines in the mideast are the one that separates the Islamic world from China, from the Russians and from India. Not to mention shia v sunni and Arabic v Persian. We are too Usa-centric to recognize the historical tensions between the other players in the region. Makes sense for the Iranians to buy more time to make their posession of nukes a fait accompli.
We should know by now that agreements arent worth any more than the paper they were written on. Did the anti-proliferation of bioweapons treaty stop countries from researching them? No. http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/russia/biological/ or do treaties really matter much at all? U.S.: Russia In Violation Of Two Arms-Control Treaties
If this treaty makes nations less vigilant in watching the progress of nuclear research in Iran then it is a win for the Iranians.
I don’t know guys. Credibility matters in things like this, though people can (and do) differ in terms of how much they think it matters.
I mean, I certainly wouldn’t listen to Lindsey Graham about the Iran agreement because that guy has been historically wrong on everything when it comes to foreign policy. Similarly, W and Cheney should keep their mouths shut, and folks like Paul Wolfowitz & Rummie should be equally ignored.
To me, no agreement makes it easier and more likely Iran gets the bomb. Further, it seems to me that the deal (from what I’ve heard so far, anyway) makes being “vigilant” a lot easier – if the IAEA is regularly inspecting Iran, and if they have the ability to look at Iranian military sites, then it seems like they’re going to know a lot more about Iran’s actual capability and nuclear-related activities then if they can’t.
Question: Does the US Congress have the authority to block this deal?
Its probably impossible to stop any moderately wealthy country from acquiring a bomb. While working on non-proliferation lets also sort out the other regional issues…if they are capable of being sorted out. I would add any agreement that doesnt try to alleviate causes of regional tension just puts a bandaid on the problem. For the moment lets hope for the best.
They would need a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate, which seems unlikely. They have 60 days to review it.
Im not sure treaties are subject to presidential veto