Iranian Agreement goes through

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
They didnt have to threaten.. It could have been in the deal that we want our people released as part of this deal. Im pretty sure thats a small price to pay for getting nuclear power.

Could they have worked it into the deal? Sure.

Would it have complicated the process? Definitely. It could have even dragged the deal out so long that it would fail.

Unless Iran executes them tomorrow without warning, there's still a good chance of getting them back. If anything those chances are better than ever now that we have this deal and we have a working relationship with Iran.

Tell me exactly why you think this is a good deal, no political bullshit, because I don't see it.

Iran's been an ally to the US before and while it won't go back to the pre-revolution days, having them as a tentative ally is better than an enemy.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Tell me exactly why you think this is a good deal, no political bullshit, because I don't see it.

I think the deal is good because it at least places some restrictions on what Iran can do that weren't there before, holds Iran to some accountability, and opens the door for further engagement. If we'd pressed harder, taken a lot more risk, we might have gotten Iran to agree to somewhat better terms, but I think people who hold this view are underestimating Iran's sense of its own dignity. There's that old phrase that you can only bend a tree so far before it breaks, and that applies to Iran.

We have to remember, a long, long time ago Iranians controlled 40% of the world's population. They're very proud people and they don't like being humiliated. The very fact that through sanctions we got them to the table and got them to sign an agreement that limited their own capacity and opened them up to international inspections is a massive victory. If you were only going to accept complete capitulation from Iran as a good deal, then there was no way of your avoiding disappointment and there's not much for us to discuss.

I guess I will go along with you then as I am tired now, and just hope for the best.

Watching Obama's speech now, he says the same things every time. Can't he change his tune, its like a broken record.

"peace, freedom, strength, blah blah blah..."

Its the same speech just spun for a new topic.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Watching Obama's speech now, he says the same things every time. Can't he change his tune, its like a broken record.

"peace, freedom, strength, blah blah blah..."

Its the same speech just spun for a new topic.

Every time I see a speech by any president be they republican or Democrat it automatically translates in my head as

AMEEERICAAAAA! **** YEAH! COMIN' AGAIN TO SAVE THE MUTHAFUKIN' DAY YEAH!

😂

Other factors:

A lot of our leverage on the deal comes from other countries agreeing to sanctions. If it becomes clear we won't deal, then some of those are going to drop out, because they do want Iranian oil. So wait long enough and we'll lose a big chunk of our bargaining power, Iran will get *most* of what they get from the deal, for no gain on our part.

Iran has a good reason to be more open for a deal on the individuals held there once they have this deal demonstrating good faith.

Also, even if they change their mind down the road, with the deal the sanctions auto-snap back on, we don't need to reform the coalition, and we'll have had a look at their major facilities, giving us a better idea on how to deal with things if they come up at *that* point.

Like Obama said (and note how Time dismisses him completely, even though Obama specifically addressed most of this stuff), if you can think of a scenario where a US president would be better in 12 years without this deal than with, whether Iran sticks with it or not.

It's one thing to decry this deal, but the options appear to be,
1) Wait til our allies bug out on it and rather than it being a multinational deal, it'll be a just-us deal with a lot less leverage and the US having lost face.

2) Force. And if force was such a good idea, then why did no prior presidents go for it, why don't most of the other world powers think so, what's the game plan there, what do we hope to gain, is it at all worth the cost? Heck, right now, no deal, could they nuke-up before the war is done?

3) This deal.

And another point: North Korea has a nuke with, like, 1/30th the economy. Sanctions cannot stop someone from nuking up.

Another angle entirely:

Iranian hardliners are loudly complaining about this deal. The previous Iranian President, the blow-hard who loved saber-rattling? His supporters are against it.

The current President campaigned on rebuilding Iran, and this deal would be a big feather in his cap that'd boost his popularity and help keep the hardliners out.

The most aggressive Iranians are anti deal- which should say something, and this deal is likely to lock them out of power for a good while.

So, the deal is also a way to meddle in their politics a bit, in our favor.

Originally posted by Q99

And another point: North Korea has a nuke with, like, 1/30th the economy. Sanctions cannot stop someone from nuking up.

That said, North Korea also shows the need to be on guard against ambitious nations. Though tbh, I don't think even the craziest RGs in Iran would hack it in the insane-train that is North Korea's foreign policy.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Pretty much this. A country just has to want it enough, thus the only way we can guarantee that Iran doesn't get a bomb, assuming we even can, is to convince them that they'll be more prosperous if they don't pursue one.

That said, North Korea also shows the need to be on guard against ambitious nations. Though tbh, I don't think even the craziest RGs in Iran would hack it in the insane-train that is North Korea's foreign policy.

Yes.

North Korea is... fairly irrational. They'll shell an island for no discernable reason, and do stuff on impulse.

Iran is self-interested and proud, in a predictable way. They have a multi-part government with some checks and balances, with the President perhaps being the place policies start, but the greater power of the clerics serving as a break.

Heck, I think being on guard against other nations is a good reason to deal with Iran: If Iran has them, their their neighbors will say, "Iran has them, we need them too!"... and I do not trust their neighbors with nukes. Nuclear proliferation in the area is something I- and I don't think Iran- wants. And that may be one of the reasons Iran will stick to a deal, it'll help safeguard against their enemies getting them.

If their neighbors show interest, we can lean on them and say, "Hey, we didn't let Iran get nukes, so we're not going to let you get them either."

An article from ForeignPolice.com where an expert goes through the deal, and comes to the conclusion it's a damn good deal.

And saying how it'll probably be a cottage industry in DC for the next decade to manufacture crisises to break the deal.

An article on Saudi Arabia and how they factor in

Written pre-deal, btw.

Originally posted by Ken Pollack

Saudi Arabia
Especially in light of these assessments of likely Iranian and Israeli behavior after a nuclear deal, Saudi Arabia is the real wild card we must consider. The Saudis aren’t exactly fans of a nuclear deal with Iran. And certainly, Saudi Arabia is the most likely candidate to acquire nuclear weapons if Iran were to do so. [2] In private, Saudi officials have repeatedly warned American officials (including this author) that if Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, Saudi Arabia will follow suit—and nothing will stop them—because they will not live in a world where Iran has a nuclear weapon and they do not. Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former Saudi Intelligence Chief, has gone so far as to repeat that warning in public.[3] For instance, in 2011, Turki commented that, “It is in our interest that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, for its doing so would compel Saudi Arabia, whose foreign relations are now so fully measured and well assessed, to pursue policies that could lead to untold and possibly dramatic consequences.”[4]

Yet the Saudis are often far more subtle and creative than others give them credit for. Even if Iran were to acquire an actual weapon or a near-term breakout capability, the Saudis might not simply take the obvious path forward and buy a nuclear weapon itself. There are many ways that the Saudis could take actions that would create ambiguity and make Iran (and others) wonder whether the Saudis had acquired a nuclear capability without declaring that the Kingdom had joined the nuclear club. Riyadh could build a nuclear plant of its own and begin to enrich uranium, perhaps even hiring large numbers of Pakistanis and other foreigners to do so very quickly, in almost exactly the same manner that the Iranians have proceeded. A favorite Israeli scenario is that one day, satellite imagery of Saudi Arabia suddenly reveals the presence of a half-dozen nuclear-capable Pakistani F-16s at a Saudi air base. Pakistan has long contributed military support, equipment and even whole formations to Saudi defense, so this would not be anything extraordinary. Everyone would wonder whether the F-16s had brought nuclear weapons with them and the Saudis could studiously avoid answering the question. The Iranians, and the whole world, would not know. There would be no proof that the Kingdom had acquired a nuclear weapon and therefore no particular basis to impose sanctions on Riyadh. Yet overnight, the Iranians would have to calculate that the Kingdom had acquired a nuclear weapon, but it would be very difficult for anyone to punish the Saudis because there would be no evidence that they had.

But all of that lies in the realm of hypotheticals inappropriate to the current context. If Iran signs a nuclear agreement, it will be publicly pledging not to acquire a nuclear weapon—and it will have the entire international community (except Israel) giving them the benefit of the doubt. In that context, we should not expect the Saudis to acquire a nuclear weapon of their own in response.

The Saudis have had good reasons for not acquiring one all of these years (and the Paks good reasons for not giving it to them). More than that, the optics would be all wrong for the Saudis. Iran will have just signed a deal with the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Russia and China agreeing never to build a nuclear weapon and accepting limits on its enrichment program to reassure the world that it won’t/can’t get a nuclear weapon. In that context, if Saudi Arabia goes out and buys a bomb from the Pakistanis, suddenly both Riyadh and Islamabad will become the international pariahs. All of the sympathy will swing to Iran, which will be seen as having behaved well, whereas there will be worldwide demands to sanction the Saudis (and Paks) for doing exactly what Iran had agreed not to. None of this makes sense for the Saudis and probably explains at least part of why Islamabad is already distancing itself from Riyadh on military matters.

That said, the Saudis may react in other ways. First, we should expect that soon after a nuclear deal with Iran, the Saudis will announce that they are going to build-up a nuclear program of their own to whatever levels Iran is allowed. So if, for instance, Iran is allowed to keep 6,500 first-generation centrifuges and 150 kg of uranium enriched to 3.5 percent purity, then the Saudis are likely to announce that they will acquire 6,500 first-generation centrifuges and 150 kg of uranium enriched to 3.5 percent purity. Doing so would be an important warning both to the Iranians (that the Saudis will match their nuclear capabilities at every step) and to the West (that they will have further proliferation in the Middle East if they do not force Iran to live up to its new commitments).

Quick version:

If Iran gets nukes/breaks the deal, the Saudis will, without a doubt, go for them too. With the deal in place, Iran effectively keeps Saudi Arabia from going for nukes because it'd make them look like 'the bad guys'. Break the deal, that goes out the window, but Iran, obviously, does not want Saudi Arabia with nukes.

So Saudi Arabia provides a strong incentive for Iran to actually stick to the deal, namely, if they don't, they get a nuclear-balance-of-power situation with Saudi Arabia.

So this will stop the Irateians from selling one under the table to a terrorist org then?

Good to hear.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]So this will stop the Irateians from selling one under the table to a terrorist org then?

Good to hear. [/B]

You do know that the majority of the big terrorist organizations are Sunni, and hate Iran, right?

If you're in the slightest worried about Al Qaeda or the like getting a nuke, there's no chance of that.

And giving a nuke out to a terrorist organization is among the stupidest things someone could do. It's way too easy to trace back (especially considering groups with Iranian ties pretty much always have such ties openly, are immediately within their sphere of influence, and it'd effectively be using it themselves), and it'd be national suicide.

Regardless, yes, this lowers the odds of that, but the odds of that were almost zilch to begin with. Saudi Arabia getting and then 'losing' a nuke is more likely.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Yes and no.

Could they have worked it into the deal? Sure.

Would it have complicated the process? Definitely. It could have even dragged the deal out so long that it would fail.

Unless Iran executes them tomorrow without warning, there's still a good chance of getting them back. If anything those chances are better than ever now that we have this deal and we have a working relationship with Iran.

Some things.

First of all, I can see Obama's point of view on not putting that in the deal.

I don't agree with the 24 day time frame and no snap inspections.

I don't agree with the 5 and 8 year stips on weapons.

There is also the fact that Iran could possibly get a bomb within a year and that less and half ago, it was already stated that Iran prolly had a bomb or at minimum be able to build them.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial

There is also the fact that Iran could possibly get a bomb within a year and that less and half ago, it was already stated that Iran prolly had a bomb or at minimum be able to build them.

As pointed out, before this deal, there was nothing stopping Iran from building a nuke short of bombing their facilities and hoping you did enough damage.

If they renege on the deal and build a nuke, they can still be bombed and it would likely be legal, or at least accepted more.

Originally posted by Q99
You do know that the majority of the big terrorist organizations are Sunni, and hate Iran, right?

If you're in the slightest worried about Al Qaeda or the like getting a nuke, there's no chance of that.

And giving a nuke out to a terrorist organization is among the stupidest things someone could do. It's way too easy to trace back (especially considering groups with Iranian ties pretty much always have such ties openly, are immediately within their sphere of influence, and it'd effectively be using it themselves), and it'd be national suicide.

Regardless, yes, this lowers the odds of that, but the odds of that were almost zilch to begin with. Saudi Arabia getting and then 'losing' a nuke is more likely.

There's also the fact that Iran are one of the few Shia controlled countries and most terrorist organisations are Sunni. Simply put, Iran hate ISIS and Al Qaeda as much as western countries do and are far less likely to sell or give or "lose" a weapon to those organizations than Pakistan whom are supposed allies.

Make a military ally of Iran and allow them more access to Iraq and they will do a far better job of dealing with them than Iraq or Syria will. Support them with air power on a larger scale than currently (US have already aided Hezbollah fighting ISIS in Syria.) and it's a far more desirable solution than sending in US or other western troops.