Netanyahu address to Congress

[El Guapo]

Assessing the deal is heavily contingent on your views of the viability (and risks) of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, on how long the U.S. could maintain stringent international sanctions on Iran absent a deal, and on the skill of U.S. (and EU) negotiators.

I'm no expert, but my sense is that this is probably preferable to a military strike. Whether it's better than walking away from the table, maintaining (if possible) international sanctions, and then hoping Iran caves at a later date...I don't know.

Of course, it's not you, but those who find a military strike preferable to accepting ANY deal with Iran who need to be convinced .

If only they would come out and say it. Because simply saying that there should be no deal is a cop-out. Sanctions will not prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Period. If politicians are going to criticize this bill then they should be honest and say that nothing short of a military strike will guarantee Iran not getting the bomb.

Well, that or ongoing sanctions (which would oblige them to address whether those are likely to be maintained going forward).

[Defiant]

Hillary has come out for the deal, which will make it somewhat more awkward for Democrats to vote against it


Edit: Another thing that makes it difficult to vote against it even if they were to feel it is a bad deal is that the pressure is on them to agree or reject a deal that representatives of both sides have reached. Whereas if the US had been more conservative in it's concessions (like, say, the French argued) it would have put more pressure on the Iranians to compromise, or else leave the negotiations (which would have put the onus on them for the talks having failed).

[Defiant]

Assessing the deal is heavily contingent on your views of the viability (and risks) of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, on how long the U.S. could maintain stringent international sanctions on Iran absent a deal, and on the skill of U.S. (and EU) negotiators.

I'm no expert, but my sense is that this is probably preferable to a military strike. Whether it's better than walking away from the table, maintaining (if possible) international sanctions, and then hoping Iran caves at a later date...I don't know.

Of course, it's not you, but those who find a military strike preferable to accepting ANY deal with Iran who need to be convinced .

If only they would come out and say it. Because simply saying that there should be no deal is a cop-out. Sanctions will not prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Period. If politicians are going to criticize this bill then they should be honest and say that nothing short of a military strike will guarantee Iran not getting the bomb.

Are the politicians supporting the deal going to guarantee that this bill will guarantee Iran not getting the bomb?

No plan has a guarantee of Iran getting the bomb.

The question is what is the best alternative we have available. If Iran will get the bomb regardless of whether there is a deal or not, then perhaps keeping sanctions in place to better curtail Iran's activities in the region is a better alternative than lifting them, unless you believe that lifting them would lead to a more moderate Iran (which isn't guaranteed either).

[hepcat]

No plan has a guarantee of Iran getting the bomb.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any plan that guarantees Iran getting the bomb would be a bad plan in the opinion of many.

[Enough]

Well we can chart the Bush administration's get tough policy with N. Korea and see how N. Korea is now a nuclear state, so that approach clearly didn't work. On some level I wonder how much of a fantasy non-proliferation is in today's world with tech widely available to all. Maybe this is a "great filter" for the Fermi Paradox?

[El Guapo]

Assessing the deal is heavily contingent on your views of the viability (and risks) of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, on how long the U.S. could maintain stringent international sanctions on Iran absent a deal, and on the skill of U.S. (and EU) negotiators.

I'm no expert, but my sense is that this is probably preferable to a military strike. Whether it's better than walking away from the table, maintaining (if possible) international sanctions, and then hoping Iran caves at a later date...I don't know.

Of course, it's not you, but those who find a military strike preferable to accepting ANY deal with Iran who need to be convinced .

If only they would come out and say it. Because simply saying that there should be no deal is a cop-out. Sanctions will not prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Period. If politicians are going to criticize this bill then they should be honest and say that nothing short of a military strike will guarantee Iran not getting the bomb.

Are the politicians supporting the deal going to guarantee that this bill will guarantee Iran not getting the bomb?

No plan has a guarantee of Iran getting the bomb.

The question is what is the best alternative we have available. If Iran will get the bomb regardless of whether there is a deal or not, then perhaps keeping sanctions in place to better curtail Iran's activities in the region is a better alternative than lifting them, unless you believe that lifting them would lead to a more moderate Iran (which isn't guaranteed either).

The major problem with that alternative is that the United States cannot unilaterally maintain sufficiently meaningful sanctions with Iran - we necessarily need the EU, Russia, and China on board. So it's unclear whether / how long we could maintain adequate sanctions absent an agreement.

[Defiant]

No plan has a guarantee of Iran getting the bomb.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any plan that guarantees Iran getting the bomb would be a bad plan in the opinion of many.

Well, what kind of guarantee are we talking about here? Some sort of money back guarantee that needs to be placed within two weeks provided you hadn't actually implemented the agreement for more than two hours?

[hepcat]

Now that would be the bomb!

[raydude]

Assessing the deal is heavily contingent on your views of the viability (and risks) of bombing Iran's nuclear facilities, on how long the U.S. could maintain stringent international sanctions on Iran absent a deal, and on the skill of U.S. (and EU) negotiators.

I'm no expert, but my sense is that this is probably preferable to a military strike. Whether it's better than walking away from the table, maintaining (if possible) international sanctions, and then hoping Iran caves at a later date...I don't know.

Of course, it's not you, but those who find a military strike preferable to accepting ANY deal with Iran who need to be convinced .

If only they would come out and say it. Because simply saying that there should be no deal is a cop-out. Sanctions will not prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Period. If politicians are going to criticize this bill then they should be honest and say that nothing short of a military strike will guarantee Iran not getting the bomb.

Well, that or ongoing sanctions (which would oblige them to address whether those are likely to be maintained going forward).

Wait, I'm getting confused now. I thought I read that latest predictions were Iran is one month away from getting the bomb even with the current sanctions in place. So simply maintaining ongoing sanctions leads to Iran getting the bomb by Labor Day of this year.

[Pyperkub]

Just because:

In fact, the best predictor of how Americans will feel about the deal, announced Tuesday, is not their position on Iran or nuclear disarmament, but simply their opinion about President Obama.

[Rip]

President Barack Obama said that the means to verify the agreement are strong, but that is largely based on hoping Iran will cooperate. Iran has not agreed to robust "anytime, anywhere" nuclear inspections. They have not agreed to a heightened level of scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has already been frustrated by Iran's lack of cooperation. Snap inspections have been replaced by pre-approved "managed" inspections, with no guaranteed access to all Iranian nuclear sites, or to military facilities where secret research may be carried out. These are weaker verification provisions than under the 1990s Agreed Framework with North Korea under which Pyongyang still developed nuclear weapons. Last month, Mr. Obama said he would walk away from a deal with verification that amounted to "a few inspectors wandering around every once in a while," but that seems to be what he got.

President Obama says that the agreement is not based simply on trusting Iran. But can we trust the White House? Last week, German intelligence reported that Iran attempted to obtain illegal nuclear and missile technology, banned under previous agreements and the Joint Plan of Action that framed the current talks. The White House virtually ignored this report, not wanting to throw a monkey wrench into the talks with a deal so near. Will the administration vigorously respond when Iran cheats again? Don't bet on it. The White House has made it clear that the nuclear agreement with Iran is a deeply personal affair for Mr. Obama. It is being pitched to skeptical Democrats as a legacy issue for the Obama presidency, a deal too big to fail. If the proposed agreement goes into force, the standing order in the executive branch will be "don't rock the boat." So ironically, we can trust the regime in Tehran to cheat; we just can't trust the White House to notice.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /30077637/

[Pyperkub]

See - 538 was right

[Zarathud]

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!

[Zarathud]

And the whole argument "you can't trust the Obama administration to enforce an agreement with Iran" is a bullshit red herring. The NEXT administration will have to enforce it.

Just don't elect Bernie Sanders or Rand Paul as President because you can guarantee neither of them would do any enforcement.

[Pyperkub]

One of our faculty members shared an article that this actually began under the Bush administration

[Kraken]

Just because:

In fact, the best predictor of how Americans will feel about the deal, announced Tuesday, is not their position on Iran or nuclear disarmament, but simply their opinion about President Obama.

I generally favor agreement over confrontation. We really only know what our leaders and media are telling us, so it is indeed a matter of whom we trust. Even if I read the 100-page agreement in full -- which I certainly will not -- I wouldn't have the legalistic chops to understand it. Nor, I'll wager, would anybody else here.

Given my bias toward peace and my qualified support for Kerry and this administration, I'm ready to come out in favor of this pact (probably to no one's surprise).

I would like to point out that, for a supposed lame duck, Obama might be having the most consequential second term ever.

[Pyperkub]

One of our faculty members shared an article that this actually began under the Bush administration

Article:

As the Council on Foreign Relations' Micah Zenko points out, the Bush administration offered to negotiate directly with Iran over its nuclear program in 2006 — the first such American offer in about 25 years. That doesn't mean Bush would have necessarily taken the exact same deal as Obama, but it's a reminder that some of the political rhetoric around the deal is exactly that — political.

[Defiant]

The Case For And Against The Iranian Nuclear Deal

[raydude]

President Barack Obama said that the means to verify the agreement are strong, but that is largely based on hoping Iran will cooperate. Iran has not agreed to robust "anytime, anywhere" nuclear inspections. They have not agreed to a heightened level of scrutiny by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which has already been frustrated by Iran's lack of cooperation. Snap inspections have been replaced by pre-approved "managed" inspections, with no guaranteed access to all Iranian nuclear sites, or to military facilities where secret research may be carried out. These are weaker verification provisions than under the 1990s Agreed Framework with North Korea under which Pyongyang still developed nuclear weapons. Last month, Mr. Obama said he would walk away from a deal with verification that amounted to "a few inspectors wandering around every once in a while," but that seems to be what he got.

President Obama says that the agreement is not based simply on trusting Iran. But can we trust the White House? Last week, German intelligence reported that Iran attempted to obtain illegal nuclear and missile technology, banned under previous agreements and the Joint Plan of Action that framed the current talks. The White House virtually ignored this report, not wanting to throw a monkey wrench into the talks with a deal so near. Will the administration vigorously respond when Iran cheats again? Don't bet on it. The White House has made it clear that the nuclear agreement with Iran is a deeply personal affair for Mr. Obama. It is being pitched to skeptical Democrats as a legacy issue for the Obama presidency, a deal too big to fail. If the proposed agreement goes into force, the standing order in the executive branch will be "don't rock the boat." So ironically, we can trust the regime in Tehran to cheat; we just can't trust the White House to notice.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2 ... /30077637/

According to this timeline the very first check as a requirement for lifting economic sanctions will (or won't be) met in 5 months, depending on the IAEA's report. And last I checked the IAEA was not part of the Obama Administration. So by Christmas we'll see whether or not Iran is compliant and keep the cuffs on if not. At that point Obama will have less than a year in the White House. The Iran arms embargo gets lifted in 5 years, which is after the next Presidential election.

So really and truly it's all up to the following administration whether or not the US enforces it.

[Defiant]

Hillary has come out for the deal, which will make it somewhat more awkward for Democrats to vote against it


Edit: Another thing that makes it difficult to vote against it even if they were to feel it is a bad deal is that the pressure is on them to agree or reject a deal that representatives of both sides have reached. Whereas if the US had been more conservative in it's concessions (like, say, the French argued) it would have put more pressure on the Iranians to compromise, or else leave the negotiations (which would have put the onus on them for the talks having failed).

Then again...

Key Democrats skeptical of Iran deal

[Defiant]

According to this timeline[/url] the very first check as a requirement for lifting economic sanctions will (or won't be) met in 5 months, depending on the IAEA's report. And last I checked the IAEA was not part of the Obama Administration.

IIUC, in the past, when the IAEA uncovered that a country was doing secret work, it was usually based on intelligence received from the US and it's allies. (Not suggesting that the administration would hinder that, but it's not as independent as you make out.)

So by Christmas we'll see whether or not Iran is compliant and keep the cuffs on if not.

I'm not sure if we'll know that for sure unless Iran comes clean about all of it's past programs so that the IAEA can verify they're not still operating (It's not clear to me whether or not that's been included in the deal).

[hepcat]

Reading a few opinion pieces on the deal, I did find one thing that stuck out for me. It essentially lifts sanctions on the import of conventional weapons. I realize that it probably comes as no surprise to most. I just didn't consider that aspect of lifting sanctions. That bothers me. Especially in light of our renewed effort to supply arms to their admitted opponents. Granted, I haven't read the entire thing (nor am I likely to), so I may be missing a larger piece of the puzzle.

[El Guapo]

Reading a few opinion pieces on the deal, I did find one thing that stuck out for me. It essentially lifts sanctions on the import of conventional weapons. I realize that it probably comes as no surprise to most. I just didn't consider that aspect of lifting sanctions. That bothers me. Especially in light of our renewed effort to supply arms to their admitted opponents. Granted, I haven't read the entire thing (nor am I likely to), so I may be missing a larger piece of the puzzle.

A couple things. First, the core U.S. interest is in Iran not having nuclear weapons. Iran is going to have ample conventional weapons regardless, and Iran's conventional military is just not the danger that Iran with nukes is. It's fine with me to trade lifting those sanctions for progress on the nuclear side (if the agreement succeeds at that).

Second, I don't think that we are supplying weapons to admitted opponents of Iran at the moment. On the contrary, we are currently working (unofficially) with Iran's military to fight ISIS.

[Isgrimnur]

hepC, go watch Lord of War again.

[hepcat]

Do I have to? Can't I just watch the trailer? I think I've been exposed to about 90 minutes of Nic Cage this year in various venues, and I'm really not sure I can Cage it up much more than that.

[Defiant]

A couple things. First, the core U.S. interest is in Iran not having nuclear weapons. Iran is going to have ample conventional weapons regardless, and Iran's conventional military is just not the danger that Iran with nukes is. It's fine with me to trade lifting those sanctions for progress on the nuclear side (if the agreement succeeds at that).

I'm partially OK with this, provided the deal itself is a good one. But regardless of whether the deal happens or not, there is a very big risk in the foreseeable future of Iran increasing the conflicts in the region (via conventional/proxy war/terrorism) - be it because a deal increases their coffers and allows them to fund it more, or for national pride and ambitions in the region or because they do manage to develop nuclear weapons and no longer need fear the reaction of the international community.

So regardless of what ever else happens with the deal, we will need to prepare to deal with that and counter it.

Second, I don't think that we are supplying weapons to admitted opponents of Iran at the moment. On the contrary, we are currently working (unofficially) with Iran's military to fight ISIS.

*cough* Saudi Arabia *cough* Israel *cough*

[El Guapo]

A couple things. First, the core U.S. interest is in Iran not having nuclear weapons. Iran is going to have ample conventional weapons regardless, and Iran's conventional military is just not the danger that Iran with nukes is. It's fine with me to trade lifting those sanctions for progress on the nuclear side (if the agreement succeeds at that).

I'm partially OK with this, provided the deal itself is a good one. But regardless of whether the deal happens or not, there is a very big risk in the foreseeable future of Iran increasing the conflicts in the region (via conventional/proxy war/terrorism) - be it because a deal increases their coffers and allows them to fund it more, or for national pride and ambitions in the region or because they do manage to develop nuclear weapons and no longer need fear the reaction of the international community.

So regardless of what ever else happens with the deal, we will need to prepare to deal with that and counter it.

Second, I don't think that we are supplying weapons to admitted opponents of Iran at the moment. On the contrary, we are currently working (unofficially) with Iran's military to fight ISIS.

*cough* Saudi Arabia *cough* Israel *cough*

Yes, although the deal would also increase our ability to get Iran to curtail its proxy wars via offering them a deal. Like, we could strike a deal where they cut Hezbollah loose in exchange for a move towards normalized relations and increased help fighting ISIS, or what have you. I don't know if deals like that would ultimately materialize, but sanctions and open hostility do limit our tools of statecraft somewhat.

As for weapons supplies, I was thinking about supplies for people in active conflict with Iran. We supply weapons / aid to two hostile potentially warring sides all the time (we help both India and Pakistan, for example).

[hepcat]

Oh, I'm fully aware how the arms business works...at least from an ideological standpoint...but seeing it spelled out sometimes makes it stand out more.

[tru1cy]

On the face to me this is a bad deal and I close to calling Senator Cardin's office and letting them know

[Defiant]

There may be a loophole in the snapback issue:

In any event, there is one more rather large loophole. Paragraph 37 goes on to insulate contracts with Iran that have already been made from whatever “snapback” sanctions that are imposed:

…In such event, these provisions would not apply with retroactive effect to contracts signed between any party and Iran or Iranian individuals and entities prior to the date of application, provided that the activities contemplated under and execution of such contracts are consistent with this JCPOA and the previous and current UN Security Council resolutions.

Since there is likely to be a “gold rush” of business rushing to sign deals with Iran upon lifting of sanctions, this exception might prove a pretty big hole in the “snapped-back” sanctions. The expected Chinese and Russian deals with Iran for arms sales and oil purchases could survive any snapback, even if Iran was caught cheating.

link

[Isgrimnur]

Oh, I'm fully aware how the arms business works...at least from an ideological standpoint...but seeing it spelled out sometimes makes it stand out more.

Stop Freaking Out — Iran’s Military Is Weak Even Without Sanctions

[hepcat]

Great read, thanks!

...but I'm still freakin' out. The world's a scary place, man.

[Rip]

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

I will take October 13th, 2015.

[AWS260]

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

I will take October 13th, 2015.

I will take never.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, most likely ever. Almost certainly not in 2015. If it does happen, my guess would be something like March 2018.

[Isgrimnur]

My "guess" is that they're already doing it. Stuxnet was a joint Israeli project. I'm sure other efforts are ongoing, with or without US assistance.

[hepcat]

And with far more than just Iran. I would guess even the U.S.. They're just like any other nation on this planet.

[El Guapo]

My "guess" is that they're already doing it. Stuxnet was a joint Israeli project. I'm sure other efforts are ongoing, with or without US assistance.

I am assuming from you putting "guess" in quotes that you mean to say that you already know that they are, on account of you being a secret Mossad agent.

But anyway, I assume (or should I say, "assume" ) that they are going to continue sabotaging the program, but I doubt they'll strike it militarily (and "probably" not anytime "soon").

[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.

[El Guapo]

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.