Nuclear deal with Iran

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Not so:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/07/14/whip-count-where-the-senate-stands-on-the-iran-deal/

Current whip count is 27-58. Opponents only need to get 9 out of the 15 undecideds.

There’s only 8 pure undecideds. They need to hold onto all of the leaning-no votes, and they need all of those pure undecideds (including Booker and my Senator, Warner, whom I have been calling multiple times to urge him to support the deal) plus additional votes from the “unknown” category (or elsewhere).

My feeling on the 8 pure undecideds:

Bennett – very unlikely to oppose the deal
Booker – same
Cardin – unlikely to oppose the deal
Coons – 50/50 (meaning I’m not sure)
Donnelly – 50/50
Flake – 50/50
Heitkamp – unlikely to oppose
Warner – unlikely to oppose

The 7 unknowns:

Cantwell – unlikely to oppose
McCaskill – unlikely to oppose
Klobuchar – very unlikely to oppose
Mikulski – very unlikely to oppose
Murray – very unlikely to oppose
Stabenow – unlikely to oppose
Tester – 50/50.

To me, the oppose votes only have a decent shot at 4 of these 15, meaning they’ll need 5 extreme longshots plus holding onto all of the lean-opposers, plus 2/3rds of the House.

I think all of that together is extremely unlikely, but we’ll see.

[adaher]

Of the three you have as unlikely to oppose, three are in red states, and one wants to be President(Booker). He’s undecided because this vote is going to be as important to his future candidacy as the decision to invade Iraq was for Clinton’s.

Also keep in mind that any Senator can just choose to be somewhere else. You need two thirds of Senators present, not 67. Plus we don’t know if Schumer is just voting his conscience or will be actively lobbying his fellow Democrats to oppose the deal.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Of the three you have as unlikely to oppose, three are in red states, and one wants to be President(Booker). He’s undecided because this vote is going to be as important to his future candidacy as the decision to invade Iraq was for Clinton’s.

Also keep in mind that any Senator can just choose to be somewhere else. You need two thirds of Senators present, not 67. Plus we don’t know if Schumer is just voting his conscience or will be actively lobbying his fellow Democrats to oppose the deal.

I don’t think Schumer is doing either one; I think his choice is entirely political. But we’ll see.

[adaher]

He’s in no danger of being defeated for election, but he can lose his bid to become Senate leader. This decision was not in his political interest.

[Lobohan]

@adaher

He’s in no danger of being defeated for election, but he can lose his bid to become Senate leader. This decision was not in his political interest.

You don’t think his branding as friend of Israel has anything to do with it?

Of course it does.

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

He’s in no danger of being defeated for election, but he can lose his bid to become Senate leader. This decision was not in his political interest.

Bullshit, considering the political his brand.

[iiandyiiii]

@iiandyiiii

Bullshit, considering the political his brand.

Oops, his political brand.

[Steken]

… And while all that is going on in the world of politics, American businesses are eagerly fighting for access to the Iranian market.

Apple, which has been wanting to flood Iran’s growing middle class with iPhones, iPads and Macbooks since basically forever, might finally be about to get its way.

Boeing dare not comment “until the U.S. government gives further direction,” but it’s clear that they, too, are desperate to get in on the action.

I imagine that much the same is true for the large number of American businesses (not to mention universities, museums, etc.) which fought for - and got - “waivers” already way back in 2014, gaining an early foothold in Iran, despite the sanctions.

Next step: A McDonald’s in Tehran, right under the nose of the Ayatollah? Never say never.

[adaher]

That’s the other thing that we didn’t get: actual access to Iran’s markets and their population. These are all things that MIGHT happen, but the religious authorities will be very careful about what they allow their people access to. We didn’t even win anything in that regard.

As for Boeing, they are waiting to see if the Ex-im Bank will come back. The answer to that is “no”.

[Steken]

We, the Europeans, have indeed gotten lots and lots of business opportunities out of this.

If you, the Americans, haven’t, the authorities to blame are the ones in Washington rather than the ones in Tehran.

From the article I linked to above, which I’m sure you read:

“As a general rule of thumb, any U.S.-based business and any U.S. person, unless specifically authorized, will be precluded from doing any business in Iran,” he says.

That includes U.S. oil companies, banks and consumer-goods firms. A senior Obama administration official put it this way in a briefing with reporters: “We are not removing our trade embargo on Iran.”

“U.S. persons and banks will still be generally prohibited from all dealings with Iranian companies,” he continued, “including investing in Iran or facilitating third-country trade with Iran.”

[…]

It’s a different story for European companies.

“I think the practical reality is the Europeans will be there first,” says Vanessa Sciarra, vice president at the Emergency Committee for American Trade.

Sciarra points out that Europe’s sanctions, which are far less extensive and longstanding than U.S. sanctions, will be lifted quickly. European oil producers have said they’re eager to return to doing business with Iran’s oil industry. French automakers are also anxious to return to Iran.

Despite the frustration at seeing their European competitors get a head start, Sciarra says many U.S. businesses are still hopeful. “Cautiously optimistic,” she says.

[adaher]

Given how unhinged the administration is starting to sound, I think they think they are in danger of losing.

[Hiker]

I have been wondering what the American opposition to the deal is hoping to achieve. Will a continuation of American sanctions really have a serious impact on the Iranian economy? How?
At this point it looks a lot like a rejection of the deal will do little more than give the hardliners in the US a triumph over the Obama administration and the hardliners in Iran a reason to feel confirmed in their stance that there is no point in negotiating with the US. What is it that brings a democrat to side with the opposition here?

[adaher]

America’s embargo against Cuba is blamed for their poverty. yet an American embargo would be ineffective against Iran? Especially if we also sanctioned foreign companies doing business with Iran?

If it was just about messing with Obama, then there’d be no question of this deal going forward. Republicans can’t stop it by themselves. Do you think half the Democratic Party is now against Obama?

[Hiker]

@adaher

America’s embargo against Cuba is blamed for their poverty. yet an American embargo would be ineffective against Iran?

What makes you think that an American embargo would have the same effects on Iran as it apparently did on Cuba? For all I know Iran’s trade relations with the US have always been minor (at least after the Iranian revolution). To me it seems reasonable to assume that Iran could do very well without a trade relationship with the US, as long as trade with Europe and especially China is back to normal.

@adaher

Especially if we also sanctioned foreign companies doing business with Iran?

Sanctioning European and Chinese companies can be a slippery slope - especially when these companies are not doing anything that is frowned upon in their own countries. Are you really willing to risk a trade war with Europe and China over Iran?

@adaher

If it was just about messing with Obama, then there’d be no question of this deal going forward. Republicans can’t stop it by themselves. Do you think half the Democratic Party is now against Obama?

No, I do not. That is why I was wondering what drives their position. Maybe they are making the same mistake that (I believe) you are making, i.e. overestimating the importance of American trade for Iran. More likely they do not really care but really need to appease their own voter or donor base. But that is only speculation. The most honest answer I can give you is: I do not know - I am puzzled.

[adaher]

The answer is that this deal makes it easier for Iran to develop nukes, and a heck of a lot easier to increase their campaign of global terrorism.

[Hiker]

The second part of that I have heard before. The argument goes that the deal will improve Iran’s finances and Iran will use that to in turn increase their support for Hezbollah et al. Personally I have my doubts about that, but it is not an unreasonable assumption to make.

As to how that deal makes it easier for them to develop the bomb, I do not follow. The deal establishes a regime of controls, something that we currently do not have. Why does that make it easier for them to secretly develop nukes?

[Donald_Rump]

@adaher

The answer is that this deal makes it easier for Iran to develop nukes, and a heck of a lot easier to increase their campaign of global terrorism.

Can I just ask what a better deal would have looked like, in your view? Let’s say we somehow got Iran to agree to total dismantling of their program, rather than allowing them a token peaceful program mostly as a face-saving measure (and to which they are entitled as a signatory to the NNPT). How do you know they won’t cheat?how do you know they won’t spring some totally underground weapons program no one knows about? How would the deal I just described be radically better than the one actually being considered?

[iiandyiiii]

@adaher

Given how unhinged the administration is starting to sound, I think they think they are in danger of losing.

???

@adaher

The answer is that this deal makes it easier for Iran to develop nukes, and a heck of a lot easier to increase their campaign of global terrorism.

How? With no deal they could have nukes in a much shorter time than with the deal.

[Steken]

@adaher

The answer is that this deal makes it easier for Iran to develop nukes, and a heck of a lot easier to increase their campaign of global terrorism.

Not at all. A far stronger IAEA presence will, of course, makes it harder rather than easier for Iran to develop nukes anytime soon, and their funding of their friends and allies is unlikely to increase in any meaningful kind of way.

As I’ve pointed out before, “as for Iran-affiliated non-state actors such as Hezbollah, they’ll most likely receive millions rather than billions”:

… Those familiar with Iran’s ravaged economy say it’s unlikely Tehran will go on a foreign policy spending spree. For starters, says Anthony Cordesman at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Hamas and Hezbollah couldn’t absorb billions of dollars in cash and weaponry.

“We’re probably talking at most about several million, over time,” he says. “You’re not going to turn the Hezbollah into a major conventional force; you’re not going to turn Hamas into a major force because you can’t get to them, you can’t supply them. So I just think we really do need to keep this in careful perspective.”

Your Secretary of State had a good point, I think, in his interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg:

Goldberg: But does it bother you that money will be going to [Syrian President Bashar] Assad and Hezbollah?

Kerry: Yes, but it’s not dispositive. It’s not money that’s going to make a difference ultimately in what is happening. We have huge mechanisms by which we can push back and make the counter-difference. And the biggest, most important thing this is doing is that it is galvanizing a stronger, more defined security relationship between us and the Gulf states, and it will with Israel. We have countless ways to push back against those activities.

[Ravenman]

@adaher

The answer is that this deal makes it easier for Iran to develop nukes…

Seriously, how does one even conclude this? It is as nonsensical as saying that climate change doesn’t exist, or that domestic abuse goes up during Super Bowls, that morning-after pills cause abortion, or that thermite took down the WTC. It’s just factually untrue, and a rediculous thing to assert. If you want to say it doesn’t do enough to stop Iran’s nuclear program, well, that’s a matter of opinion and we can disagree. But you and others are saying that the deal makes it “easier” for Iran to become a nuclear weapons power, and while I can’t guarantee that they will not someday develop the bomb, it’s just a fact that this agreement makes it harder. Here’s why:

With the deal, most of their LEU is eliminated. Most of their enrichment capability is removed. This is basically making them start over on nuclear fuel. Does this make a bomb impossible? No, but starting over does not equal “easier.”

Under the deal, Arak is converted so it can’t produce plutonium. Again, doesn’t guarantee no bomb, but makes it harder, not easier.

The entire uranium process, from mine to wherever, is put under monitoring. You simply can’t sneak hundreds to thousands of tons of dirt somewhere for enrichment without someone noticing. Harder, not easier.

On covert facilities, Iran signs the Additional Protocol which is a permanent obligation to allow IAEA inspectors to investigate possible military dimentions of suspected covert activities. Harder, not easier.

If there were no deal, it would be easier for Iran to work on a weapon. No IAEA inspections, no reductions to LEU or enrichment capability, Arak remains in operation, no monitoring of the total fuel cycle, no permanent commitment to allow international investigation of PMD.

Some have said that the deal leaves Iran as a nuclear threshold state some years down the road. This is totally ludicrous. Not because they are wrong, but because Iran is a nuclear threshold state today. Absent an agreement, they are a nuclear threshold state. It’s just a nonsensical criticism. Sure, if there were an agreement to totally eliminate Iran’s nuclear capability, that would be better, but the U.S. would likely have to provide 14 flying unicorns and a whole thriving village of Smurfs (and they’d have to be Shiite Smurfs!) to achieve this. Besides, it’s silly to say that an existing deal makes something easier than in an imaginary situation.

So please, adaher, explain why each of my points is wrong and how each of those aspects of the deal make it easier for Iran to get a weapon.