That’s not necessarily true. As I said, sanctions also apply to companies doing business with Iran.
For some people, it will never be enough that Iran allows sanctions. The US knows that and more importantly, the Iranians know that. Why bother trying to appease people who will always claim that a big fat nothing turned up during inspections just means that they are hiding the real bombs somewhere else.
We have inspections, the IAEA is conducting them, that’s good enough for me. If international monitors are allowed to do their jobs, which are are under this deal, then I’m willing to entrust the fate of a nuclear Iran in their hands. So should Israel, unless they are planning on starting a war.
Israel is already at war with Iran through its proxies and that was is about to intensify.
Maybe we have another Stuxnet attack in reserve just in case. That was a brilliant maneuver on the part of the US and Israel, if online reports can be believed as all governments involved are tight-lipped about the whole thing.
It’s hard to trust Iran if you’re the USA. There’s been so much built up mistrust over decades, some warranted, some not. Vice-versa is also true.
Still, some dialogue and some kind of deal is better than nothing, although I fear the IAEA is easily misled through shell game type inspections and not having the access they require as laid out in the deal over time going forward. This is nothing new. Iran in my mind is most certainly trying to “keep up with the Jones’s” in terms of keeping pace with Israel since both are bitter enemies and remain so. I can’t say that I blame Iran despite the fact that there’s bloody hands between them both and justifications to go around on both sides as well.
Sigh. The Middle East has been, continues to be, and will conceivably be into the near future a fucked up place in terms of governance and extremist religion.
It’s not nearly so simple as this. Which is better for Israel – an economically strengthened Iran with no nuclear weapons program, or an economically weak Iran with the bomb? In which scenario is there a greater possibility of Iran changing, however slowly, and becoming less belligerent to Israel and other countries?
I’m not saying this is an easy question, just that it’s a complicated issue and it’s possible that this deal makes Israel safer than a world without this deal.
Well, it didn’t work until the P5+1 got serious about sanctions, did it?
Once again, I can’t believe you’re arguing this point. Sanctions were hurting because many countries were and are enforcing them. The U.S. can’t expect to achieve the same results by, say, threatening a German company with fines for violating American foreign policy. We know this idea is a loser because we couldn’t compel the world to enforce strong sanctions in Iran before a couple years ago, nor could we compel them to embargo Cuba for the last sixty years.
You keep maintaining that Israel is not monolithic. That is true enough - but why do you seem to think that Iran is? For all I know about the country (I do not claim to be an expert) it has a sizeable minority of open minded, western oriented people. To me it does not seem to be a given that the best way to protect Israel from any future Iranian agression is to permanently subdue the country - particularly because, as others have pointed out before, contrary to what you believe the US do not have the economic influence to do that on their own.
To me it seems reasonable to try and get it into Iranian minds that they are better off, if they leave Israel (and everyone else) alone. There are people in Iran, who think that already. Give them a chance to show to their countrymen that they are right.
I agree, but if that’s truly to be our policy, the President needs to have a plan. When he had an opportunity to give moral support to the democracy protesters he instead cozied up to the mullahs. Some might say that this was actually intelligent, because given the way America is viewed, whichever side we took was going to be discredited, but that’s just outsmarting ourselves if that was his reasoning. The democracy protesters were out and proud about their desire for friendship with the USA. The mullahs already claimed they were our lackeys. We couldn’t have done them more harm by taking their side, if only in terms of moral support.
So okay, we want Iran’s people to assert themselves more and this agreement is the plan to do it. Fine. So if they take to the streets again, do we take their side or again cooperate with the mullahs?
I agree that it’s complicated, which is why I’m giving the PResident the benefit of the doubt until we see how all this plays out. But I’m not going to begrudge Israel their bitching because in the short term this is going to get more Israelis killed. And I hope that no one here begrudges them their efforts to put an end to it when Hezbollah or Hamas gets frisky as a result of being flush with arms and money.
I “begrudge” Netanyahu’s bitching because I think he’s been very dishonest at times, as well as using fear for political purposes.
Yeah, I’m seeing a lot of hope being used for political purposes too. I think the mechanism for “snapback” is sound. I just don’t think Obama will ever pull the trigger on that, and even if he does, our allies might decide to renege. In the face of cheating, it’s not unusual at all for us to go back to the negotiating table instead of taking punitive action, or to look the other way and just “give it a chance, we’re still getting 50% of what we wanted!” Especially when it’s your legacy on the line. the President has every incentive to insist that the deal is working. Snapback would be an admission of failure.
Hopefully I’m wrong. The deal is better than I thought it would be. But the President speaking as if this deal is airtight is not exactly truthful.
What does a policy supporting the protestors actually mean? Sketch it out for us, including how you know we didn’t do those things last time.
I suspect all you’re really talking about is symbolic support, and am unclear on why you think that’s helpful.
Back in the sixties West German politicians have coined a political philosophy called “Change through Approximation” (“Wandel durch Annäherung”) in their dealings with the East. The basic idea was that if you think your system is superior to the other, the best way to effect change on the other side is not to tear down all bridges but to do just the opposite. The closer the ties, economically, culturally, politically … whatever, the better the chance to achieve a long term change on the weaker system (in this case that of socialist dictatorship). We cannot know for sure how much that philosophy contributed, but we know what the end result was.
I would like to see some of that philosophy put in place in our dealings with Iran.
If we’d stayed out of it, then you’d be asking a good question. Since we did have a policy and it was most definitely not in favor of the protesters, it’s fairly obvious what we should have done instead: at minimum, nothing.
In Egypt, we did side with the protestors.
Again, not a terrible idea, but when the moment of truth comes we shouldn’t get all “realist” and assume the regime will prevail. YOu can’t wish for change but then get cold feet when change looks like it’s about to come. If our policy is to see regime change happen in Iran from within, then we can’t shore up the mullahs when the people hit the streets.
I don’t see that happening. Israel is bitching because Netanyahu has a hardon for Obama. Screw him. The entire world does not revolve around Israel’s fears, both real and imaginary.
It’s disappointing that the Republicans are reflexively apocalyptic about the agreement. If it was negotiated by Bush, they’d be nominating him for a Nobel Peace Prize. But since it came from Obama it MUST be opposed because, well because it came from Obama. So now they’re ginning up fear and anxiety as if this agreement will make it easier for the Iranians to get the bomb. What’s the word for organizations that use fear to further a political agenda? Oh yes… terrorists. The Republican Party is now a terrorist organization.
Will Bibi be invited to address Congress on what the US, UK, France, China and Russia, Germany and Iran got wrong?
I agree, but note that the agreement has been condemned by both sides of the Israeli political aisle. The main difference is that the right blames Obama, while the left blames Bibi.
Thanks. What’s your take?
The ‘take’ is the same as always, the only issue that really matters in Israeli politics is state ‘security’. That’s how you come to reelect de facto war criminals as Prime Minister.