Okay, so an Iranian bomb is better than war, even though an Iranian bomb will certainly lead to war. Got it.
You are literally the only person in the world saying this. :smack:
I realize the goal here is to let IRan have a bomb while blaming someone else for it happening. Sorry I’m not going along with the charade.
Who, exactly, has this as their secret goal?
The entire P5+1? All of NATO? The U.N.? Everyone in the world who supports this deal?
Oh, I know that the hope is there that it won’t happen, but there’s no determination to prevent it. There is, however, determination to not be responsible for it. The deal does at least absolve Obama of the responsibility to prevent Iran from getting a bomb and makes it his successor’s problem.
This deal is literally the best real-world chance for Iran to not get a nuclear bomb. Better than doing nothing, and better than war. The only country that can really ensure Iran doesn’t get a bomb is Iran, even if we went to war with them. You’re not getting that war could make it more likely, not less likely, that Iran got a nuclear weapon. This is the best chance we’ve got.
You might be right. This might also be kicking the can down the road, which is irresponsible and not the change we voted for. Time will tell.
I’m going to make another prediction. Iran will cheat. A lot. No action will be taken other than stern warnings and more talks. We will be told the whole time, “Give the agreement a chance to work.” The IAEA will be helpful to Iran by complaining about technical violations but never outright saying Iran is in violation, which leaves us with no smoking gun.
I won’t predict an actual nuclear weapon because I don’t know that Iran actually has ever been capable of accomplishing the feat, especially since Israel will continue to make life difficult for their program, and hopefully we will do as well.
“Making it his successor’s problem” is a very apt description of what Obama’s predecessor did to him with respect to this issue, by insisting on the same ineffective dead-end policies that you advocated upthread.
Remind us how Obama’s betting his legacy on Iran not getting a bomb is an effort to evade responsibility?
I’m not getting into the prediction game, but if you held a gun to my head I would bet that Iran will not cheat. At all. The negatives of cheating, including the near-certainty of being discovered, hit with sanctions, and/or getting bombed by Israel or the US, outweigh the benefits to Iran. In fact, I think it’s very likely that Iran decided long ago that obtaining a nuke was not worth it. This deal simply provided a face-saving off-ramp to them and other parties involved in the crisis over their program.
“Kicking the can down the road”?
Well then let’s hear your suggestion for a permanent - as in eternal - solution.
Surely it’s not just “let’s murder a bunch of Iranian scientists!” - those people can be replaced. Surely it’s not “let’s bomb their facilities!”, either - those facilities, too, can be replaced. Even if you murdered every Iranian scientist and every Iranian engineer and every Iranian with a high school education - those people could be replaced. That, too, would be “kicking the can down the road.” So, short of eradicating every trace of the Iranian civilisation and the world’s 80+ million Iranians, I don’t see how you could possibly hope for an eternal solution here.
But hey, by all means: Let’s hear your suggestion.
Nuclear physicists can be replaced? Interesting claim there.
What is your plan to permanently prevent Iran from getting the bomb? Quit criticizing everything, and give us your plan.
You keep up sanctions pressure, keep on sabotaging their program, keep up all the covert actions, and if they get close to a bomb anyway, you bomb the living hell out of them.
That is the stated policy of the US, or was until Obama’s bluff got called. Hopefully Russia doesn’t see Syria and Iran’s calling Obama’s bluff as license to take over the Baltics.
My plan right now is just to give the deal a chance to work, assuming Congress lets it go through. If Iran cheats, we snap back the sanctions. If the international community reneges on snapback, we attack Iran.
“Kicking the can down the road” is by far the most responsible option – the real-world alternative is “Iran has the capability to get nukes any time it so chooses”.
This presumes that Iran values nukes over being accepted and integrated into the world community, and I’m not certain that they do. But accepting this deal and having Iran cheat is better for America than turning down this deal, because if we turn it down, we will be blamed if Iran gets a nuclear weapon – if we accept the deal and Iran cheats, then the world will be on our side.
For all these real-world possibilities, the outcome accepting the deal is better than not accepting the deal.
If Iran wasn’t going to cheat, they wouldn’t have demanded 24 day notice of inspections.
So Iran gets nukes much quicker ,since they’re so worried about getting bombed and have no possibility to engage economically with the rest of the world anyway.
Bullshit. Iran was going to ask for everything they could no matter their intentions. Whether or not they actually plan to get a nuclear bomb, it was in their interests for us to believe they want one. I’m still not convinced they actually want one – I think it’s very possible they just want the influence and leverage from seeming like they want one.
But we’ll see – whether they want one or not, accepting this deal offers the best potential outcomes.
Then we go with Plan B, since the deal is made. Enforce the deal. Can we all at least agree on that? And if the deal goes totally tits up, we’ve done all we can, we take military action.
My view is that they want one but can’t actually get one, but it is in their interest to make us think they are close. Which means that like Iraq, they made decide to cheat even though they aren’t close, because they figure we’ll just make more concessions.
“You” keep up sanctions? Who is the “you” of whom you speak? No other country besides us wants to keep up sanctions, and we can’t do much by ourselves. And if your plan is to bomb them anyway, much better that we have access to all sorts of sites all over the country rather than not.
Obama’s plan + bomb them if they get nukes is a MUCH better plan than yours.
n.b.: Not an endorsement on my part to bomb Iran. It isn’t. I’m just comparing two deals with each other.