Netanyahu address to Congress

[Defiant]

, Help them develop a bomb

I just don't see Israel doing this (Pakistan, on the other hand...)

But one thing I could see happening is the US putting nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia (to deter Iran and to dissuade the Saudi's from pursuing nuclear weapons.

[El Guapo]

, Help them develop a bomb

I just don't see Israel doing this (Pakistan, on the other hand...)

But one thing I could see happening is the US putting nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia (to deter Iran and to dissuade the Saudi's from pursuing nuclear weapons.

What would be the point of that, when we can already hit Iran with nuclear weapons as it is?

[Defiant]

magical anti-nuclear unicorns.

Given the relative success we've seen in missile defense (eg, Arrow) I'm not as skeptical of magical anti-nuclear unicorns as I once was.

[Defiant]

, Help them develop a bomb

I just don't see Israel doing this (Pakistan, on the other hand...)

But one thing I could see happening is the US putting nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia (to deter Iran and to dissuade the Saudi's from pursuing nuclear weapons.

What would be the point of that, when we can already hit Iran with nuclear weapons as it is?

1. To dissuade the Saudi's from building their own.

2. To set a clear red line of Iran attacking Saudi Arabia (rather than, say, the continental US).

[El Guapo]

, Help them develop a bomb

I just don't see Israel doing this (Pakistan, on the other hand...)

But one thing I could see happening is the US putting nuclear weapons in Saudi Arabia (to deter Iran and to dissuade the Saudi's from pursuing nuclear weapons.

What would be the point of that, when we can already hit Iran with nuclear weapons as it is?

1. To dissuade the Saudi's from building their own.

2. To set a clear red line of Iran attacking Saudi Arabia (rather than, say, the continental US).

1. The Saudis would still have reason to build a bomb, since they would not control the nukes on their territory.

2. We could do that by putting conventional troops in Saudi Arabia.

[AWS260]

OK, time to predict when Israel will attack Iran's nuclear capabilities.

I will take October 13th, 2015.

I will take never.

So they will just hang out and watch as Iran develops a weapon hoping they won't ever use it?

The agreement greatly degrades (for a time) Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon. If Israel hasn't attacked by now, they're not going to any time soon.

I expect them to team up with Saudi Arabia, Help them develop a bomb as well

Why on Earth would Israel do this? If Israel truly, deeply believes that Saudi Arabia needs a nuclear deterrent -- and I have no idea why Israel would think that -- then they could simply sign a mutual defense treaty that would put Saudi under the Israeli nuclear umbrella.

and give them control over ceded Arab lands.

I 100% guarantee you that the House of Saud has no interest whatsoever in taking over the mess that is Gaza and the West Bank.

In return Israel will get intel, flyover, etc. to enable strikes on Iran.

Talk about your bad deals -- you're proposing that Israel give their nuclear technology and Palestine to Saudi Arabia, just to secure some basic military and intelligence cooperation.

I just don't see Israel or Saudi sitting on their hands hoping for Iran to actually dial it back.

This agreement is literally Iran dialing it back. Dialing it back is actually a great description of what Iran will do: dialing back on the number of centrifuges, dialing back on stockpiles, while allowing inspections to verify that it is actually dialing it back.

Look for Egypt, Saudi, and Israel to become closer than they have ever been. I guess that is the bright side of this deal if there is one.

There's some truth to this, but I wouldn't get carried away.

[Rip]

OK, time to predict when Israel will attack Iran's nuclear capabilities.

I will take October 13th, 2015.

I will take never.

So they will just hang out and watch as Iran develops a weapon hoping they won't ever use it?

I expect them to team up with Saudi Arabia, Help them develop a bomb as well and give them control over ceded Arab lands. In return Israel will get intel, flyover, etc. to enable strikes on Iran.

I just don't see Israel of Saudi sitting on their hands hoping for Iran to actually dial it back.

Look for Egypt, Saudi, and Israel to become closer than they have ever been. I guess that is the bright side of this deal if there is one.

Cede which Arab lands to whom? Do you mean that they would give Gaza and/or the West Bank to Saudi Arabia?

I don't see why they would do that rather than just deploy their magical anti-nuclear unicorns.

Israel appears to be the only reliable and promising ally for Saudi Arabia in its right against Iranian nuclear proliferation, and Riyadh would undoubtedly agree to help Israel bomb Iran's nuclear facilities by allowing Israeli bombers to fly over its territory. But it is also clear that Israel has lost this offensive military option, mainly because of the objections of the international community.

An Israeli bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities could perhaps delay the development of a bomb by two-three years, but will energize Iran into redoubling its efforts – without having to deal with significant international objections. Iran and Hezbollah would likely also respond by firing off tens of thousands of missiles at Israel, resulting in numerous fatalities.

The most reasonable option for Israel and Saudi Arabia is to establish a regional Sunni-Israeli strategic alignment, tasked with blocking Iran's political and economic influence and creating a credible military deterrence against it. But the main condition for establishing such a daring alignment is solving the Palestinian problem, using the 2002 Saudi peace initiative, backed by all the Arab and Muslim states. Such a solution could pave the way to Israel's integration in the Muslim-Sunni sphere in order to confront a nuclearizing Iran and its allies.

It could, for example, act to neutralize Iranian influence in the Gulf states, and to help the Sunni opposition in Syria, bring down the pro-Iranian Assad regime and install, instead, a pragmatic government representing the Sunni majority. It could also strengthen the Sunni and Christian forces in Lebanon, who oppose the expansion of Shiite Hezbollah.

And finally, the new Sunni alliance, especially Turkey and Qatar, could motivate Hamas to cut itself off from Iran and to join the PLO in a comprehensive agreement with Israel.

http://www.i24news.tv/en/opinion/78391- ... di-options

By Saudi I mean support a Sunni led deal, that would ideally disrupt Shia efforts in the area.

[Rip]

OK, time to predict when Israel will attack Iran's nuclear capabilities.

I will take October 13th, 2015.

I will take never.

So they will just hang out and watch as Iran develops a weapon hoping they won't ever use it?

The agreement greatly degrades (for a time) Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon. If Israel hasn't attacked by now, they're not going to any time soon.

They would have already if we hadn't got in the way and told them we would deal with it. Now it is apparent we won't. They must or accept a nuclear Iran in at most eight years, likely less because no one with any sense thinks they will adhere to the restrictions.

I expect them to team up with Saudi Arabia, Help them develop a bomb as well

Why on Earth would Israel do this? If Israel truly, deeply believes that Saudi Arabia needs a nuclear deterrent -- and I have no idea why Israel would think that -- then they could simply sign a mutual defense treaty that would put Saudi under the Israeli nuclear umbrella.

Because Saudi wouldn't do that. They don't like Israel but they want the bomb now, wisely so I would say. If I were the King of Saud it would be at the top of my xmas list.

and give them control over ceded Arab lands.

I 100% guarantee you that the House of Saud has no interest whatsoever in taking over the mess that is Gaza and the West Bank.

In return Israel will get intel, flyover, etc. to enable strikes on Iran.

Talk about your bad deals -- you're proposing that Israel give their nuclear technology and Palestine to Saudi Arabia, just to secure some basic military and intelligence cooperation.

If Israel wants to attack Iran they need either the US or Saudi to allow it. The US obviously won't, the Saudis could be persuaded at this point.

I just don't see Israel or Saudi sitting on their hands hoping for Iran to actually dial it back.

This agreement is literally Iran dialing it back. Dialing it back is actually a great description of what Iran will do: dialing back on the number of centrifuges, dialing back on stockpiles, while allowing inspections to verify that it is actually dialing it back.

At best it dials back nuclear weapon work (if you are gullible enough to expect them to honor it). It does nothing to dial back their other evils, in fact it gives them tons of money to easily dial up their other efforts.

Look for Egypt, Saudi, and Israel to become closer than they have ever been. I guess that is the bright side of this deal if there is one.

There's some truth to this, but I wouldn't get carried away.

Oh I am not. It could even take till after the elections or longer. But certainly by the time the next POTUS leaves office the cat will be out of the bag and many will be scrambling to respond.

[Defiant]

If Israel hasn't attacked by now, they're not going to any time soon.

Or it could have been waiting to see whether the diplomatic process produced an acceptable result. Or it might be waiting for Iran to be off guard. Or it could be waiting for intelligence that might be gathered by inspections. Or....

[Grifman]

So says a USA Today editor whose only real accomplishment appears to be writing a book glorifying Custer. You have a heck of a lot of insight there, Rippie!

That's ad hominem, and doesn't really address the arguments made in the opinion piece.

[Grifman]

magical anti-nuclear unicorns.

Given the relative success we've seen in missile defense (eg, Arrow) I'm not as skeptical of magical anti-nuclear unicorns as I once was.

Missile defense against nukes is fruitless. Any defense can always be overwhelmed with sheer numbers and it only take a few to get through.

[Rip]

Agree. Nuclear Missile Defense is a delusion at best or more likely a con-job.

http://www.crazedfanboy.com/roth/missiledefense.html

[Defiant]

magical anti-nuclear unicorns.

Given the relative success we've seen in missile defense (eg, Arrow) I'm not as skeptical of magical anti-nuclear unicorns as I once was.

Missile defense against nukes is fruitless. Any defense can always be overwhelmed with sheer numbers and it only take a few to get through.

Did you miss the part about magic? And unicorns?

But in all seriousness, missile defense is a lot newer than missile technology and has seen remarkable improvements in it's effectiveness in recent years, to the extent that I wouldn't be surprised if down the line (say 20-30 years) it wasn't easy to just overwhelm it with numbers (eg, as the percentage that can get through get smaller and smaller).

Add in that nuclear weapons aren't cheap (presumably, more expensive than the missile defense missiles) and it becomes a costly proposition for a rogue nation to use.

(of course, missile technology will no doubt be modified to try to counteract missile defense, but I would imagine a rogue nation wouldn't have the latest in technology)

[El Guapo]

In any event, if I were Israel I would be less worried about missile-delivered nukes and more about "suitcase nukes". Iran is unlikely to nuke Israel via missile because Israel would literally crater Iran with nukes in response. It's a little tougher for Israel if the nuke is delivered by some Hezbollah guy while Iran denies any involvement (though I suppose the suspects for that would not be huge).

[Defiant]

In any event, if I were Israel I would be less worried about missile-delivered nukes and more about "suitcase nukes". Iran is unlikely to nuke Israel via missile because Israel would literally crater Iran with nukes in response. It's a little tougher for Israel if the nuke is delivered by some Hezbollah guy while Iran denies any involvement (though I suppose the suspects for that would not be huge).

IIUC, scientists can identify which country developed the nuclear weapon.

(Though I would imagine, in such a scenario where it was just nuked, the missiles would go flying to Iran before they were sure it was Iran)

[Grifman]

But in all seriousness, missile defense is a lot newer than missile technology and has seen remarkable improvements in it's effectiveness in recent years, to the extent that I wouldn't be surprised if down the line (say 20-30 years) it wasn't easy to just overwhelm it with numbers (eg, as the percentage that can get through get smaller and smaller).

It doesn't matter, we're dealing with nuclear weapons. At the height of the cold war the USSR had over 10,000 warheads. Let's just half of them were on missiles (I haven't been able to find that number). If you had a system which is 99% effective (which is far more effective than any system I have read about), then 50 warhead are going to get through. Do you think that is acceptable percentage to get through to American cities?

[El Guapo]

But in all seriousness, missile defense is a lot newer than missile technology and has seen remarkable improvements in it's effectiveness in recent years, to the extent that I wouldn't be surprised if down the line (say 20-30 years) it wasn't easy to just overwhelm it with numbers (eg, as the percentage that can get through get smaller and smaller).

It doesn't matter, we're dealing with nuclear weapons. At the height of the cold war the USSR had over 10,000 warheads. Let's just half of them were on missiles (I haven't been able to find that number). If you had a system which is 99% effective (which is far more effective than any system I have read about), then 50 warhead are going to get through. Do you think that is acceptable percentage to get through to American cities?

There is no way that Iran could maintain that kind of nuclear stockpile.

[Defiant]

If you had a system which is 99% effective (which is far more effective than any system I have read about)

That is because I was talking about 20 or 30 years in the future.

Also this:

There is no way that Iran could maintain that kind of nuclear stockpile.

[Defiant]

Among the big winners in the agreement to curtail Iran’s nuclear program, count a notorious and shadowy Iranian general who helped Shiite militias in Iraq kill American soldiers and who has come to the rescue of Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad.

You’ll find his name, Qasem Soleimani, buried in an annex (PDF) of the unremittingly dense Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, along with some of his colleagues from the senior ranks of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, as well as its various divisions and corporate fronts. They’ll all be granted some sanctions relief as part of the U.S.-brokered deal to curtail Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon.

That Soleimani—who runs Iran’s elite paramilitary and covert operations group, the Quds Force—was even on the list appeared to catch some U.S. officials by surprise

And apparently, he's not alone.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... hands.html

[Grifman]

There is no way that Iran could maintain that kind of nuclear stockpile.

Did I mention Iran in my post? No, I was talking about nuclear weapons in general, not Iran.

[GreenGoo]

There is no way that Iran could maintain that kind of nuclear stockpile.

Did I mention Iran in my post? No, I was talking about nuclear weapons in general, not Iran.

But no one is talking about Russia launching nukes. I don't think I'm alone in thinking the context of these nuclear discussions is the middle east, and Iran specifically.

[Grifman]

If you had a system which is 99% effective (which is far more effective than any system I have read about)

That is because I was talking about 20 or 30 years in the future.

Irrelevant. No anti-missile system, now or in the future is leak proof/perfect and 20 or 30 years also gives the offense time to develop further abilities to spoof the defense. Time and technology works for the offense also.

Also this:

There is no way that Iran could maintain that kind of nuclear stockpile.

Also this - I wasn't talking about Iran but nuclear missiles in general. Your original post to which I was responding didn't mention Iran but missile defense in general.

[Grifman]

There is no way that Iran could maintain that kind of nuclear stockpile.

Did I mention Iran in my post? No, I was talking about nuclear weapons in general, not Iran.

But no one is talking about Russia launching nukes. I don't think I'm alone in thinking the context of these nuclear discussions is the middle east, and Iran specifically.

The post to which I responded made a general comment about missile defense. I made a general comment about missile offense.

[El Guapo]

There is no way that Iran could maintain that kind of nuclear stockpile.

Did I mention Iran in my post? No, I was talking about nuclear weapons in general, not Iran.

But no one is talking about Russia launching nukes. I don't think I'm alone in thinking the context of these nuclear discussions is the middle east, and Iran specifically.

The post to which I responded made a general comment about missile defense. I made a general comment about missile offense.

ok then. To be clear, then, even if Iran gets nuclear weapons, they will not be able to maintain a large enough stockpile to overwhelm missile defenses with sheer numbers, like Russia could.

[Defiant]

OK, just so we're all in agreement, Saudi Arabia and Israel cannot defend against an overwhelming nuclear attack by the Soviet Union.

[GreenGoo]

OK, just so we're all in agreement, Saudi Arabia and Israel cannot defend against an overwhelming nuclear attack by the Soviet Union or the US!

FTFY.

[tru1cy]

OK, just so we're all in agreement, Saudi Arabia and Israel cannot defend against an overwhelming nuclear attack by the Soviet Union Russia.

FTFY

For some reason I thought Israel was a part of NATO, but a quick wiki search proved me wrong. Wonder why they never joined or was invited


Edit- Another Google search confirms that Turkey is basically blocking Israel from any form of participation and membership

[El Guapo]

OK, just so we're all in agreement, Saudi Arabia and Israel cannot defend against an overwhelming nuclear attack by the Soviet Union Russia.

FTFY

For some reason I thought Israel was a part of NATO, but a quick wiki search proved me wrong. Wonder why they never joined or was invited

They were never invited. NATO was created as a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union and its Eastern European vassal states, which is why its membership was just the United States and Western European democracies.

In addition, NATO's charter requires the member states to defend any member who comes under military attack, and NATO countries would not want to be required to get involved in Israel's military conflicts.

[Rip]

I can't believe they are freeing all that money up so easily.

$100B

That is 25% of the way to enough to build an F-35 program.

Perhaps we should have made the deal so that we give them that, take their $100B and they pay us another $300B?

[gbasden]

I can't believe they are freeing all that money up so easily.

$100B

That is 25% of the way to enough to build an F-35 program.

Perhaps we should have made the deal so that we give them that, take their $100B and they pay us another $300B?

Now that would be a proper punishment!

[GreenGoo]

OK, just so we're all in agreement, Saudi Arabia and Israel cannot defend against an overwhelming nuclear attack by the Soviet Union Russia.

FTFY

I was too lazy to do it. But I'm not too lazy to *say* I thought about doing it.

[Defiant]

You guys do realize it was intentional, right?

[GreenGoo]

You guys do realize it was intentional, right?

Not really. It crossed my mind briefly.

I am now though.

[Defiant]

Apparently, the Obama administration has submitted the deal to the UN:

President Barack Obama has a new hurdle to selling his Iran deal on Capitol Hill: Bipartisan opposition to his decision to submit the nuclear accord to the United Nations before Congress votes on the agreement.

Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Ben Cardin (D-Md.) said on Thursday afternoon that they disagreed with the U.S. pushing the agreement through the UN before Congress votes this September to approve or reject it, a troubling development for an administration still trying to win over both men.

Cardin, the top Democrat on the committee, questioned Vice President Joe Biden about the matter during a closed door meeting with committee Democrats on Thursday. He said Biden responded with an explanation of the “differences between the executive and legislative branches.” That didn’t satisfy Cardin, who said Obama should put the brakes on UN consideration until Congress has 60 days to review the bill, a period that technically hasn’t even started yet because the agreement has not been formally submitted to Capitol Hill.

[noxiousdog]

Is it typical for the president to do treaties/agreements without Congressional approval?

[Isgrimnur]

There's precedent.

Treaty Clause

Presidents have regarded the Article II treaty process as necessary where an international accord would bind a future president. For example, Theodore Roosevelt explained:

The Constitution did not explicitly give me power to bring about the necessary agreement with Santo Domingo. But the Constitution did not forbid my doing what I did. I put the agreement into effect, and I continued its execution for two years before the Senate acted; and I would have continued it until the end of my term, if necessary, without any action by Congress. But it was far preferable that there should be action by Congress, so that we might be proceeding under a treaty which was the law of the land and not merely by a direction of the Chief Executive which would lapse when that particular executive left office. I therefore did my best to get the Senate to ratify what I had done.

[Defiant]

If it were a binding treaty, it would require congressional approval (though the process congress put into place wouldn't be sufficent for that, I think)

(1) The deal is an executive agreement, done on the President’s independent authority. Historically presidents have made (and the Supreme Court has approved) some international agreements made on independent presidential authority. There is a textual basis for this practice. Article I, Section 10, addressing the powers of the states, distinguishes between “Treaties” and “Agreements or Compacts.” States cannot make the former, but they can make the latter with approval from Congress. One implication of this section is that the framers recognized a category of “agreements” other than treaties – and thus outside the treatymaking clause of Article II, Section 2. Perhaps the President’s diplomatic power includes these “non-treaty” agreements. In my view, the originalist case for such a power is quite strong.

The problem for the administration here is that the agreements made by prior Presidents under this power have been minor and typically limited to settlements of claims, arrangement of military affairs, diplomatic recognition, and other matters within the President’s military and recognition powers. No President has ever made a long-term arms control agreement on his own authority. If Presidents could make major long-term agreements on their own authority, simply by calling them agreements instead of treaties, that would wholly undermine the Article II, Section 2 process and make a mockery of the framers’ assumption that the Senate supermajority would check ill-advised presidential treatymaking.

(2) The deal is a nonbinding “political commitment” rather than a treaty. The essential feature of a treaty is that it is a binding commitment under international law. Historically presidents have also made nonbinding arrangements without Senate approval – and, in my view, these are within the President’s constitutional power. Suppose President Obama tells Iran that if Iran takes certain actions or makes certain promises, he will use his statutory authority to suspend sanctions on Iran. He would be free to change his mind (as would Iran), but assuming he wanted an amicable relationship with Iran, he presumably wouldn’t. Proposing or undertaking this sort of reciprocal action does not require Senate approval because no treaty has been made. And it is likely within the President’s executive diplomatic power, because it has been accomplished simply through an exercise of diplomacy. (See prior discussion here [from Jack Goldsmith and Marty Lederman] and here; see also this post from Julian Ku assuming that yesterday’s deal is nonbinding).

The problem with this defense is twofold. First, a nonbinding agreement – being nonbinding – does not limit future Presidents (at least legally, although there may be political and diplomatic constraints). This was the central point of Senator Tom Cotton’s famous (or infamous) open letter to the Iranian leaders in March. Cotton was right on the essentials: a nonbinding agreement is just an undertaking by President Obama as to his own conduct. The President cannot use a nonbinding agreement to bind successors.

Second, the Iran deal doesn’t look like a nonbinding agreement. Iran appears to understand it as a binding agreement. And at least some of its terms appear to (purportedly) constrain U.S. action in the future, beyond the end of President Obama’s term. It’s likely that a vocal defense of the agreement as nonbinding would substantially undermine the deal.

link

[Defiant]

However, going to the UN first to seal the deal without having congress review it first seems to conflict with the compromise he came with congress about their reviewing the deal (if the UN actually makes any concrete steps from this, rather than waiting to see if Congress will approve it as well before taking concrete steps).

[AWS260]

I don't understand why Congress is upset about the timing of the UN vote. It has no bearing on their ability to affect the deal. They still get to review it and vote on it, and if they successfully scuttle it, the deal is dead, regardless of what happens in the UN.

[Defiant]

I don't understand why Congress is upset about the timing of the UN vote. It has no bearing on their ability to affect the deal. They still get to review it and vote on it, and if they successfully scuttle it, the deal is dead, regardless of what happens in the UN.

I'm not sure that's correct. IANAL, but suppose that the UN issues a new resolution that lifts the sanctions contingent on Iran following the terms laid out in the agreement. Then regardless of congress's actions, if Iran followed those terms (for the first six months or whatever it requires) those sanctions would be dropped. If Congress wanted to scuttle it, the most they could do is prevent US sanctions from going away, rather than prevent sanctions from being lifted in the UN.