Nuclear deal with Iran

[Peanut_Gallery]

@rsa

For people questioning the wisdom and worthiness of the Iran agreement, I hope you’ll take the time to watch the President’s press conference

Transcript

If anybody did not read/listen to the press conference, you really should. He pretty much covered it all. I came to SDMB to see if anybody could argue with his explanations, and the only posts I am seeing Against are not very persuasive in the face of the complete argument Obama made. In fact the only alternative ideas I see here are 1) “Continue the sanctions forever!” which is not actually an option. 2) “US-only sanctions forever!” which doesn’t seem like it would be as effective as you like, as well as not achieving the inspections/transparency/dismantling of the deal. And 3) “War! (forever?)” which is … yeah :smack:.

[QUOTE=Barack Obama]
Now, we’ll still have problems with Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism; . . . And my hope is that building on this deal we can continue to have conversations with Iran that incentivize them to behave differently . . . But we’re not counting on it. So this deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior. . . . It solves one particular problem, which is making sure they don’t have a bomb. And the point I’ve repeatedly made . . . is that it will be a lot easier for us to check Iran’s nefarious activities, . . . if they don’t have a bomb.

And in fact, having resolved the nuclear issue, we will be in a stronger position . . . to bring additional pressure to bear on Iran.
. . .
there are very good reasons why Israelis are nervous about Iran’s position . . . But what I’ve also said is that all those threats are compounded if Iran gets a nuclear weapon
. . .
**What I haven’t heard is, what is your preferred alternative? **
. . .
That argument [Iran gets cash windfall] is also premised on the notion that if there is no deal, if Congress votes down this deal, that we’re able to keep sanctions in place with the same vigor and effectiveness as we have right now. And that, I can promise you, . . . is absolutely not true. . . . This is Iran’s money that we were able to block from them having access to. That required the cooperation of countries all around the world, . . . The imposition of sanctions – their cooperation with us – has cost them billions of dollars, . . .

If they saw us walking away, . . . the sanctions system unravels. And so we could still maintain some of our unilateral sanctions, but it would be far less effective – as it was before we were able to put together these multilateral sanctions.

So maybe they don’t get $100 billion; maybe they get $60 billion or $70 billion instead. The price for that that we’ve paid is that now Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. We have no inspectors on the ground. We don’t know what’s going on. They’re still getting some cash windfall. We’ve lost credibility in the eyes of the world. We will have effectively united Iran and divided ourselves from our allies. A terrible position to be in.
. . .
Again, it is incumbent on the critics of this deal to explain how an American President is in a worse position 12, 13, 14, 15 years from now if, in fact, at that point Iran says we’re going to pull out of the NPT, kick out inspectors and go for a nuclear bomb. If that happens, that President will be in a better position than what happened if Iran, as a consequence of Congress rejecting this deal, decides that’s it, we’re done negotiating, we’re going after a bomb right now.

The choices would be tougher today than they would be for that President 15 years from now. And I have not yet heard logic that refutes that.
[/QUOTE]

And I’d take that last point a step further to say President ___ (R) in 2017 will still be better off (even if Iran begins cheating on day one of the deal) due to the dismantling of known infrastructure to take place in the next year.

[Steken]

@Malthus

That’s nonsense, though. No-one in Israel has any incentive, rational or otherwise, for nuking Iran.

Well now, there are certainly a non-zero number of irrational Israelis who at least claim to want to nuke Iran. I suppose there is a non-zero risk of such a person actually believing what they’re saying, as well as a non-zero risk of such a person being elected Prime Minister some day. Seems extremely unlikely, of course, but hey, non-zero risk and all that.

Anyway: In Israel as in the US, the smart money is on Iran being a rational actor. Radical, sure; aggressive, maybe; but rational nevertheless.

Mind you, even if they weren’t rational, “irrational” doesn’t necessarily mean pro-nukes. After all, Khomeini claimed to be against not just nukes, but indeed all weapons of mass destruction, for moral and religious reasons. The same is true for his successor. As always, there’s a non-zero chance of these guys just conceivably actually believing in what they say.

[Malthus]

@Steken

Well now, there are certainly a non-zero number of irrational Israelis who at least claim to want to nuke Iran. I suppose there is a non-zero risk of such a person actually believing what they’re saying, as well as a non-zero risk of such a person being elected Prime Minister some day. Seems extremely unlikely, of course, but hey, non-zero risk and all that.

Oh, please. Are you seriously claiming an op-ed piece by an otherwise obscure lunatic in one country is similar in risk to speeches given by the theocrats more or less in charge of another? That’s the lamest tu quoque argument I’ve ever read.

Anyway: In Israel as in the US, the smart money is on Iran being a rational actor. Radical, sure; aggressive, maybe; but rational nevertheless.

Yeah, that is more or less what I happen to think. Though not being Israeli, I have the luxury of not worrrying as much about being wrong.

Mind you, even if they weren’t rational, “irrational” doesn’t necessarily mean pro-nukes. After all, Khomeini claimed to be against not just nukes, but indeed all weapons of mass destruction, for moral and religious reasons. The same is true for his successor. As always, there’s a non-zero chance of these guys just conceivably actually believing in what they say.

If there is indeed a religious fatwa against Iran acquiring nukes, and the Iranians believe this to be true, just why is the latest deal at all necessary? Oh, what a humiliation for Obama’s negotiating team, if that was so. :dubious:

[Steken]

@Malthus

Oh, please. Are you seriously claiming an op-ed piece by an otherwise obscure lunatic in one country is similar in risk to speeches given by the theocrats more or less in charge of another? That’s the lamest tu quoque argument I’ve ever read.

“Similar in risk”? No, I never claimed that. I did however show that when you were claiming that “no-one in Israel has any incentive, rational or otherwise, for nuking Iran” (italics added), you were factually incorrect.

@Malthus

If there is indeed a religious fatwa against Iran acquiring nukes

“If”? The fatwa exists. Obama knows that it exists: He has mentioned it several times. The P5+1 (not just “Obama’s negotiating team”) presumably entered negotiations with the possibility in mind that Khamenei - or a future successor - might at some point abrogate the fatwa.

[Trinopus]

@Really_Not_All_That_Bright

“Strengthens the dictatorship”? That’s not really how these things work. If you are a dictator, you are either (1) in power, (2) seeking asylum in Libya (or presumably some other place nowadays), or (3) dead.

I think it makes some sense to grade dictatorships on relative power: some leaders only barely cling to power, surrounded by an enormous security apparatus, and have had to fight off numerous coup attempts. Others are more secure, and can expend their energy on outside adventures. There’s a spectrum.

There’s also a gradient of what the dictator can dictate. Some can give a command, and know it will be followed. Others have to send around a few squads of cheerful young men with heavy boots to kick in a few doors and ribs before the loyal followership obeys with joy.

Cuba is “less strong” today than it was in the Soviet era, when they were sending out military units to foreign countries.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@adaher

The embargo on Cuba has been very effective. They are one of the poorest nations in the hemisphere. Given their love of supporting revolutions abroad, it was a very effective policy at keeping the resources they could spend low.

Same goes for Iran and all the revolutions they support abroad, as well as their nuclear program. They came to the table because it was starting to hurt. Good. Hurt them more.

And these sanctions are not supposed to be about anything other than nuclear proliferation. I hear too many people trying to argue that we should keep these sanctions in place for all sorts of other reasons. Fact is we would never have gotten these sanctions in place if the objective included those other reasons.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@adaher

In the case of IRan, the whole point of sanctions is to deny them the resources to do bad things.

No, it was not. The goal was to prevent them from doing one specific bad thing. And it wasn’t to deny them the resources to do that one specific bad thing. They have more than enough resources to do that one specific bad thing. it was to inflict enough pain that they would stop trying to do the thing that was entirely within their power to achieve whether we imposed sanctions or not.

[adaher]

Actually, there are terror-related sanctions on Iran too, as well as human rights sanctions:

Can Obama lift Iran terrorism sanctions in nuclear deal? Column

On the contrary, since the talks were only about nukes, then sanctions for terror and human rights abuses should be off the table. Which will leave lots of sanctions still in place.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@adaher

Possibly. We’ll find out soon enough. The China model shows that economic prosperity and exposure to Western stuff can sometimes only strengthen a regime.

As for sanctions, yes, Iran would have less sanctions but US sanctions alone are pretty stiff if we apply the sanctions to companies that trade with Iran. Most companies prioritize the US market over Iran’s.

Without the cooperation of the rest of the world, extending sanctions to companies that do business with Iran basically means that we won’t do business with anyone, especially oil companies (and you think the oil crisis of the 1970s was bad). It would be retarded.

[adaher]

That’s not really true. We’ve used that policy for decades. Very few companies would rather deal with Iran than the US. We have money. They don’t.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@adaher

Actually, there are terror-related sanctions on Iran too, as well as human rights sanctions:

Can Obama lift Iran terrorism sanctions in nuclear deal? Column

And does the deal with Iran do anything with those sanctions?

On the contrary, since the talks were only about nukes, then sanctions for terror and human rights abuses should be off the table. Which will leave lots of sanctions still in place.

Are you saying that we lifted these sanctions too?

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@adaher

That’s not really true. We’ve used that policy for decades. Very few companies would rather deal with Iran than the US. We have money. They don’t.

So tell me what sanctions we have in place against Iran AND anyone doing business with Iran where we don’t have the cooperation of other nations?

[adaher]

That’s not totally clear. The media tends to lump all the sanctions together. But the terrorism and human rights sanctions are big deals, and Iran demanded total sanctions relief. It’s not clear if they got that or not.

[adaher]

International sanctions against Iran

Foreign firms dealing with Iran are sanctioned.

In 1995, the United States Congress passed the Iran–Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA). Under ILSA, all foreign companies that provide investments over $20 million for the development of petroleum resources in Iran will have imposed against them two out of seven possible penalties by the U.S.:[5]

denial of Export-Import Bank assistance;
denial of export licenses for exports to the violating company;
prohibition on loans or credits from U.S. financial institutions of over $10 million in any 12-month period;
prohibition on designation as a primary dealer for U.S. government debt instruments;
prohibition on serving as an agent of the United States or as a repository for U.S. government funds;
denial of U.S. government procurement opportunities (consistent with WTO obligations); and
a ban on all or some imports of the violating company.

ILSA is no longer in force, but this gives you an idea of how we do that type of sanctions.

[Ravenman]

Several former U.S. ambassadors to Israel have endorsed the deal. Link. Included as signatories are one of Reagan’s ambassadors to Israel, one of GHWB’s, and one of GWB’s.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@adaher

That’s not totally clear. The media tends to lump all the sanctions together. But the terrorism and human rights sanctions are big deals, and Iran demanded total sanctions relief. It’s not clear if they got that or not.

It sounds like you are ranting about the lifting of sanctions that you can’t prove have been lifted and you really just want us to keep these anti-nuclear sanctions in place so we can achieve OTHER policy goals.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@adaher

International sanctions against Iran - Wikipedia

Foreign firms dealing with Iran are sanctioned.

ILSA is no longer in force, but this gives you an idea of how we do that type of sanctions.

Iran and Libya Sanctions Act

“As of March 2008, ISA sanctions had not been enforced against any non-US company”

So in theory foreign firms can be sanctioned but they have never actually been sanctioned. Gee that’s effective.

“Despite the restrictions on American investment in Iran, FIPPA provisions apply to all foreign investors, and many Iranian expatriates based in the US continue to make substantial investments in Iran”

So how effective do you think this sort of sanction is? Every company not based in the US ignores this act and its been around since the Clinton Administration. It hasn’t been very effective. It is not until you get to a broad based sanction with widespread participation by all the large economies of the world that Iran starts to give a shit. In short, I don’t think we can unilaterally impose sanctions and expect Iran to give a shit.

[adaher]

Assuming we still have the terrorism and other sanctions in place, Iran sure gave enough of a shit about that to demand their removal. Which I’m hoping has been refused. We should all hope that the terrorism sanctions are still in place. And since Iran’s banking system is used to fund terrorism, that means Iran’s banking system should be cut off from the US banking system.

[BrainGlutton]

According to this article, the screaming against this deal is really about money:

It’s All About the Money

While diplomacy brought the United States and Iran to this point, cash is what will expand and sustain the relationship.

Iran, with the fourth-largest proven crude-oil reserves and the second-largest natural gas reserves on the planet, is ready to start selling on world markets as soon as sanctions lift. Its young people reportedly yearn for greater engagement with the West. The lifting of sanctions will allow Iranian businesses access to global capital and outside businesses access to starved Iranian commercial markets.

Since November 2014, the Chinese, for example, have already doubled their investment in Iran. European companies, including Shell and Peugeot, are now holding talks with Iranian officials. Apple is contacting Iranian distributors. Germany sent a trade delegation to Tehran. Ads for European cars and luxury goods are starting to reappear in the Iranian capital. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of foreign technology and expertise will need to be acquired if the country is to update its frayed oil and natural gas infrastructure. Many of its airliners are decades old and need replacement. Airlines in Dubai are fast adding new Iran routes to meet growing demand. The money will flow. After that, it will be very hard for the war hawks in Washington, Tel Aviv, or Riyadh to put the toothpaste back in the tube, which is why you hear such screaming and grinding of teeth now.

The Real Fears of the Israelis and the Saudis

Neither Israel nor the Saudis ever really expected to trade missile volleys with a nuclear-armed Iran, nor do their other primary objections to the accord hold much water. Critics have said the deal will last only 10 years. (The key provisions scale in over 10 years, then taper off.) Leaving aside that a decade is a lifetime in politics, this line of thinking also presumes that, as the calendar rolls over to 10 years and a day, Iran will bolt from the deal and go rogue. It’s a curious argument to make.

Similarly, any talk of the accord touching off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East is long out of date. Israel has long had the bomb, with no arms race triggered. Latent fears that Iran will create “the Islamic Bomb” ignore the fact that Pakistan, with its own hands dirty from abetting terror and plenty of Islamic extremists on hand, has been a nuclear power since at least 1998.

No, what fundamentally worries the Israelis and the Saudis is that Iran will rejoin the community of nations as a diplomatic and trading partner of the United States, Asia, and Europe. Embarking on a diplomatic offensive in the wake of its nuclear deal, Iranian officials assured fellow Muslim countries in the region that they hoped the accord would pave the way for greater cooperation. American policy in the Persian Gulf, once reliably focused only on its own security and energy needs, may (finally) start to line up with an increasingly multifaceted Eurasian reality. A powerful Iran is indeed a threat to the status quo—hence the upset in Tel Aviv and Riyadh—just not a military one. Real power in the 21st century, short of total war, rests with money.

[elucidator]

There’s nothing like corruption by material goods to bring a nation’s youth closer to a secular ideal.

(Cue The Clash - Rock the Casbah.)