Those who talk don’t know, etc.
“Any deal”? That’s interesting. Why?
We don’t know what the final deal will look like, but we know what’s not on the table:
-
Iran does not have to permanently dismantle their program. It’s a ten year deal. In other words, “decent interval” all over again.
-
Iran’s support for terrorism is not on the table either.
So I’m wondering, what exactly are we getting out of this if our reasons for putting sanctions on Iran aren’t subject to negotiation. The President says we’ll walk away if we can’t get a reasonable deal, and I believe him. I also think he won’t get a reasonable deal. I think this is just more in line with his philosophy that we should always be willing to talk. Maybe with enough jawboning, we can get something real in exchange for dropping sanctions.
I would’t take that literally. I assume they mean any deal that is within the bounds of what Iran is going to agree to.
The obvious alternative to de-escalating Iran’s nuclear activity for a decade is for there to be no limits on Iran’s nuclear activity for the foreseeable future. How is that a better outcome?
Your wording is strange here. Why would the President veto something he wants? If he doesn’t want it to pass, he simply refrains from submitting it to the Senate for their approval.
Do you mean there is a cloture-proof majority, so the matter can be filibustered?
The wording is from the link:
I still say the Republicans are shooting themselves in the foot over this one. By declaring they will vote against a treaty before it’s even been submitted to them it reinforces the idea that they are opposing the Obama administration just out of obstructionism rather than any real disagreement in policies. It was bad enough to be the party of just obstructionism when they were the minority; now that they’re the majority they need to show that they have their own ideas rather than just being against whatever Obama is for.
And this is a really dumb place to make a stand. They’re allowing the Democrats to claim the position of being against Iran having nuclear weapons. And guess what side the Republicans end up on by opposing the Democrats on this issue? Obviously, they’re going to try to put their position in a more nuanced context but when Iran explodes its first atomic bomb, the simple explanation is going to “this is the Republicans’ fault.”
I take it you didn’t actually read the article since that’s not what is being talked about (emphasis added).
So? Diplomacy is an art of the possible.
And let’s look at whom this deal is with. It’s not a bilateral deal. It’s a deal between Iran and the P5+1. Who are the P5+1? The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany.
All of the P5 have nukes; France has murdered to protect their nuclear program. Russia’s nuclear program was built in part via espionage on the USA.
The USA and Germany make a great deal of income on foreign arms sales, to you guessed it, terrorists. France has a long history of imperalism in Africa. China (and later the USA) backed the Khmer Rouge for crying out loud!
Will this deal get rid of the P5’s nukes? Will it get the French out of Africa, or get China and the USA to stop supporting their militants and terrorists? No?
Then this is the deal that can be made. Diplomacy is an art of the possible.
Is war with Iran, which Netanyahu is calling for, really preferable to a deal that lets Iran keep their dignity but stay in good graces with the NNPT? Why? By what measure?
And if the US imposes new sanctions on Iran, there is no reason to think that other countries are going to follow suit. I’m not sure that US sanctions, alone, amount to even a hill of beans.
Sanctions already ensure that Iran probably can’t make a nuke. If that falls short, there’s sabotage, which this administration has done really well(see: Stuxnet).
The real life alternative to the current policy is one where we lift the sanctions so Iran can make a nuke on the sly. The history of such agreements shows that we will be reluctant to press the issue when Iran starts violating the agreement.
Plus I’d imagine that right now low oil prices are doing more damage to petro-state economies than sanctions ever did. Which might be why Iran is so interested in coming to the table. But they do need the US. We are the largest consumer economy. If Iran wants to start producing Wal-mart goods to diversify their economy, it’s hard to make that viable without the US market.
But according to people like Netanyahu, with policies like that in place, Iran remains one year away from being able to make a nuclear weapon. It just doesn’t make sense: it’s a choice between rolling the dice and seeing if Iran would keep a 10-year agreement not to make a nuke, or be assured (according to some) that Iran is one year away from a bomb.
Part of this debate reminds me of something as banal as weight loss:
Doctor: “I’ve designed a plan for you to lose 50 pounds this year, through diet and exercise.”
Patient: “No, I want to lose it all now and never have to give up anything!”
D: “That’s not really how this works. You have to make some hard choices about what’s important, otherwise your current situation won’t change.”
P: “If you can’t deliver me my ultimate goal of a beach body right now and for perpetuity, then I’m going to not only keep doing what isn’t working for me right now, but I’m going to go the extra step and get lipo.”
D: “But if you get lipo and don’t change what you’re doing right now, we will be back in our current predicament within a couple years.”
P: “Then I’ll just keep getting lipo every few years forever!”
D: “You realize that lipo is a surgery that has unpredictable results, including infections that could spread throughout the region, right? Besides, do you really want to take this risk and pay those high costs every few years, perhaps forever? Look, just try the diet. At worst nothing changes. At best you can be successful while holding your nose and doing something you don’t really want to do, like eating broccoli.”
P: “Even if I agree to your plan, my word is worthless. My family back home is just going to veto it anyway. Let me show you this letter which explains to you, who is apparently a complete moron, how families make decisions together.”
D: “Now I’m just embarrassed for you.”
Iran has been supposedly close to a bomb for a long time. I’ve been hearing about this since the 90s. They were a year or two away during the Bush years. Stuxnet destroyed some of their infrastructure. I doubt they are that close now, and if they were, they probably wouldn’t be negotiating. If they want a ten year deal it’s probably because they are at least five away from a bomb, assuming no effective interference from us.
I understand the politics and rhetoric that requires that both sides argue that Iran is close and so we need a deal and Iran is close so we don’t need a deal. But they probably aren’t that close and we probably shouldn’t be helping them, which lifting sanctions and acknowledging a right to enrich, a right which does not exist, does.
But one has to assume that more intensive monitoring will be part of any agreement. At least, it is foolish to assume that there will not be better monitoring before negotiations are complete. It seems like the sort of issue that would be a dealbreaker for the P5+1: why would they all agree to settle on the same inspection regime that exists today?
If that is indeed the case, then the West would almost certainly have better insight on what capabilities Iran was trying to hide for the last several years. Maybe it would show they were closer to a bomb than we believed, maybe it would show that they are much further from a bomb than we feared. Either way, knowing more about Iran’s nuclear program under an agreement would seem like a huge plus for us.
Good news, guys. Letter wasn’t actually physically sent to Iran, so it really doesn’t count as a letter.
Seems legit.
Indeed, if the US imposes new sanctions causing a deal to collapse, or in the event of a US-caused collapse, in all likelihood other countries will lighten their sanctions. The net result will probably be more Iranian economic freedom, not less.
It seems that too many Americans think the US is the only country in the world capable of and responsible for shaping events in another country.
Regarding the question of whether or not the Iranian government understands our political process: the question is moot. This letter wasn’t written to the Iranian government. It was written to the American voter. See how we stand up to the President? Vote for me! Vote for me!