Why the Framework Nuclear Agreement With Iran Is Good For Both Sides 383
Lasrick writes: Ariane Tabatabai breaks down the details of the framework agreement between Iran and the P5+1 that was announced Thursday. It appears to be better than most analysts expected, with positive outcomes for both sides. It truly seems historic: "A number of these steps will, in effect, be irreversible. They will not just limit Iran's nuclear capability for 10 to 15 years, but will reshape it entirely and indefinitely. ... [B]oth sides stand to gain from the framework agreement, which should also be considered a victory for the global nonproliferation regime. Ahead of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference that begins in late April, where no major achievements in nonproliferation are likely to be announced, the framework agreement is a very important success."
Isreal (Score:2, Insightful)
Global humanity fucked up when we let Isreal have nuclear weapons and shit all over the NPT. This just kicks the can down the road. T2-style Judgement Day will be a few years later than expected is all.
Iran will mothball all its NES and Playstation-level cetrifuges, while keeping all its Xbone and PS4 centrifuges running full tilt. Wouldn't you, in the same situation?
Re:Isreal (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Most Islamic terrorism is of the Sunni variety. Only in Lebanon are there Shia terrorists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
We have also said we want to wipe Iran from the map. Ah, but some say we're not taking it seriously, it's just to gain votes and we don't mean it. But both sides say stupid things they don't mean. Meanwhile, Iran is not building illegal settlements just to gain some support from the hardliners in the elections.
Re:Isreal (Score:5, Insightful)
Self defense? Self defense is in protecting within your borders, not in expanding them and putting up more and more settlements on occupied land, and self defense is not about sabotaging ever single peace plan that comes along. Build a settlement, wait for the retaliation, then claim that the peace process is off because of the retaliation.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe Israel's nukes came from France, plus the spies they deployed to the US.
Israel cannot be trusted to uphold peace, but I'm surprised they haven't used their nukes on Iran yet.
Re:Isreal (Score:5, Informative)
FYI: Israel was never a signatory to the NPT.
Re:Isreal (Score:4, Interesting)
Global humanity fucked up when we let Isreal have nuclear weapons and shit all over the NPT.
I'm no Zionist but if there's one country in the world that needs the bomb it's Israel. They've had the technology for years and have never (to my knowledge) threatened their use. If I was in their position I'd sure as Hell want a deterrent from the ever-present threat of the crazed Muslims and their open hatred of the Jewish people.
I'm not saying they're saints or that they should be free from criticism, just that I believe that them maintaining nuclear strike capabilities does make a certain amount of sense.
Re:Isreal (Score:4, Informative)
If no deal, then Iran *will* get nukes (Score:4, Insightful)
From the second the GW Bush made his crazy ill-advised "Axis of Evil" speech and then proceeded to invade one of those Axis members, it was pretty much guaranteed that Iran and North Korea would pursue nukes (and NK has already succeeded). They're not stupid. They know nukes are the only way to assure you won't be invaded or overthrown by the U.S.
So if you don't suck up to Iran and give them a deal that says "We're not going to invade you if you'll just play ball," then it's really only a matter of time. Mossad can car-bomb all the scientists it wants. The U.S. can release a hundred Stuxnets. But eventually it WILL happen.
So if you don't give them a deal, you're really only assuring it. Now, maybe they'll still do it anyway. But at least this way there is a CHANCE they won't.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
They have not upheld a single item from past deals. Why should they start now?
Because they like money. We're actually lifting the sanctions this time, and they can go back in place if needed.
Re: (Score:2)
And MAD still applies....
It really doesn't. It's already going to be difficult enough for them to build one nuke. If they somehow manage to fire that one nuke at any ally, Iran will glow with the heat of a thousand suns before breakfast.
Re: (Score:2)
You really out-do yourself Kendall.
So, Iran is going to get from a device the size of semi truck (assuming that they ever do, that is now decades away) to a suitcase bomb in a year
Wow, oh wow
Set fear-mongering to overload, eh?
Re: (Score:3)
Even if Iran does not use weapons directly, they can provide small nuclear devices to terrorist groups.
They can but they won't. Fissile material has an isotopic signature that's as unique as your DNA. Any nuclear weapon detonated by a non-state actor would immediately be traced back to its source by the global community.
Question: how do we know the signature of the Iranian fissile material, since we don't have access to their fissile material in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
From the second the GW Bush made his crazy ill-advised "Axis of Evil" speech and then proceeded to invade one of those Axis members, it was pretty much guaranteed that Iran and North Korea would pursue nukes (and NK has already succeeded). They're not stupid. They know nukes are the only way to assure you won't be invaded or overthrown by the U.S.
North Korea has had a nuclear weapons program for decades. Literally, decades. North Korea joined, and then withdrew from, the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1993, followed by years of haggling, back and forths, industrial espionage (with Pakistan amongst others), and broken agreements. It's very disingenuous to claim that North Korea wanted and got nuclear weapons because of Bush.
Likewise, Iran has had a nuclear program for decades. US obsession with Iranian nukes goes back decades. See, e.g., Operation Merli [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Except the real hope was that at some point, the people in Iran would actually consider overthrowing the government, or moderate it in some manner. Much like the end of apartheid spelled the end of the South African nuclear program, the end of the extremist theocracy, or even a significant dialing back of it, would most likely remove Iran's need or desire for these sorts of weapons.
Realistically, the only thing that will stop Iran's theocracy from pursuing those weapons is for that theocracy to fundamental
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Iran has every motive in the world to develop nuclear weapons in a clandestine manner. It's the only way to have a balance of power vs the US and Israel.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty bad. But I'm pretty sure an insult to Republicans in Congress won't cause them to build nuclear weapons.
Iran is a sovereign nation (Score:5, Funny)
No matter how much that is being disliked, Iran is a sovereign nation and no other nation has a right to tell them what to do. Even if they wear funny dresses, hang criminals, and stone women suspected of adultery.
Yet, it seems, they have received an offer that they cannot refuse.
With the global powers playing reverse stick and carrot... Ukraine voluntarily gave nukes for guarantees and has been given a cold shoulder after 20% of the country was first raped then annexed. Israel has nukes and nobody dares to attack them, because they know that the response will be swift.
Speaking of Ukraine, Poland had guarantees in 1939 and back then Western Powers followed through and did declare war to Germany, when they invaded Poland. Ukraine had guarantees from 4 countries, yet were royally shafted.
Lesson learned by the governments: you never give up any rights.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Iran's leaders are threatening to destroy Israel and wipe it off the map. It is perfectly rational for Israel to bomb Iran's nuclear weapons programs back into the stone age, and they are itching to do so.
So, let Iran and Israel duke it out. Gas is just above $2.00 per gallon, so we don't need the middle east at this point.
Sure, we'd like to help Israel out. But they won't even sign on to the Non Proliferation Treaty. So I'm not really going to break a sweat over their whining.
Re: (Score:2)
However, even if we leave Iran alone, they won't leave us alone. To Iran's rulers, Israel is the "Little Satan". Guess who the "Great Satan" [wikipedia.org] is?
Re:Iran is a sovereign nation (Score:4, Insightful)
Saudi Arabia is also at war with Israel via proxies (and I'm not even sure who's sinking more money into it, them or Iran). But it doesn't stop US from sucking Saudi's royal dick.
Iran, friend to none? (Score:2, Interesting)
"no other nation has a right to tell them what to do."
Nobody is telling Iran what to do. Iran has violated multiple agreements, agreements that it signed. That said, I'm not sure why the Obama administration believes they will honor this agreement. Fifth time is a charm?
Re: (Score:2)
Iran is a sovereign nation and no other nation has a right to tell them what to do
There are no rights, just a bunch of nations all acting in their own interests. Often, these interests align, and that gives the impression of "rights".
Pakistan has nukes (Score:2)
Re:Pakistan has nukes (Score:5, Insightful)
If "third world" Pakistan can control itself while wielding nuclear weapons, I'm sure Iran can as well. The inescapable fact of the matter is this: The United States does not "militarily" mess with nation possessing nuclear weapons. This fact alone makes the weapons highly desirable.
Didn't stop us from covertly assassinating a high-valued target with a special-ops team.
Re: (Score:3)
why is this taking so long? (Score:2)
47 minutes after Iran announces that they have a nuclear weapon a large mushroom cloud over Tehran will announce the cancelation of said nuclear program.
Send that message.
anything past that is a waste of time.
Doesn't this analysis pretty much presuppose... (Score:2)
...that both sides adhere to it without cheating?
For example, I'd offer the 'historic' agreements with N Korea as an example of moronic pollyannas making agreements that actually allowed one partner to basically continue unhindered in any meaningful way, while the other got to 'claim' a successful negotiation.
Yeah, that's probably a good example.
Re:I lost my ability Toucan (Score:5, Informative)
nuclear weapons ARE tech. nerds of the geopolitical bent have interest in what's going on here, too. and if anything else, this is literally "stuff that matters".
but here's your refund for a free article, if you still don't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"You can keep your doctor if you like him."
Now you are trusting the same man to not allow a nuclear war to happen.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not sure that jab works here. It was an honest mistake.
There's nothing about The Affordable Care Act that mandated the insurance companies "reorganizing to meet federal standards" in a fashion that would deny you access to your favourite physician. Obamacare set new, higher standards for the minimum coverage, and the ensuing chaos of getting the most money out of the customer as possible was often achieved by reducing the "available doctors" to the smallest cheapest subset they could get away with.
It migh
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was an honest mistake.
No it wasn't. BHO isn't that stupid. He said what he needed (or thought he needed) to say to get his bill passed. Anybody who followed the issue at even a casual level immediately knew that he made a promise that he couldn't keep.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Insurance companies have been evil lying bastards since the first day they crawled out of the primordial swamp. I'm amazed any politician from any party would support them. But no, they felt that had position Obama's plan as the worst thing ever in American history but claiming things were just great under the old system. In reality Obamacare is not very good at all but it's a helluva lot better than what we had before it.
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:4, Funny)
If you like your uranium enrichment program, you can keep your uranium enrichment program.
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
This draws my attention back to the Cold War, when the 'imminent threat' of Mutual Assured Destruction was used by the leaders of the USSR and USA to justify the election of hawkish leaders and the spending of significant portions of the GDP of each country on military build ups
It was great for hawkish leaders and the people who sell weapons, but not so good for everybody else, with the USSR even being driven to financial bankruptcy
At what point do we say, "hey this isn't good for anybody but Likkud, the Mullahs and whoever is selling them weapons, maybe we should try a different approach?"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
MAD only worked because both sides of the conflict were rational and relatively sane. Iran has no such encumbrance.
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:4, Insightful)
MAD only worked because both sides of the conflict were rational and relatively sane. Iran has no such encumbrance.
There are no signs the Iranian leadership is irrational or insane; far from it. Considering the snake pit of the middle east, I would say that they have played the game about as well as they possibly could. That doesn't make them nice people, but being nice doesn't get you points in this game.
So yes, they know about MAD, and they are motivated by it. It is more their opponents I'm worried about.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
MAD only worked because both sides of the conflict were rational and relatively sane. Iran has no such encumbrance.
MAD worked against the likes of Joesph Stalin and Mao Zedong, the latter of whom actually believed that he could fight and win a nuclear war. The Iranians have nothing on that level of crazy paranoia. Nor do they possess the Soviet Union's technological skill or the Chinese demographic advantage. In the hierarchy of current and historical threats to Western Civilization they fall somewhere between "annoyance" and "existential". We can't casually dismiss them but we don't need to be kept awake all night
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually only one side was rational and relatively sane, the other side figured that God was on their side, that they could put nukes on the oppositions borders with no blow back and when the blow back happened (tit for tat, they put nukes close to the opposition as well) the crazies came very close to starting Armageddon.
The same crazies seem to think that they can bomb anyone they feel like it and no one else better even think about it unless their religious believes might lead to the rapture.
Re: (Score:2)
You know how I know you don't know any Iranians?
Know how I know that you cannot respond with facts but instead respond with angry little hysteria?
This is how... [slate.com] and then there's this... [memri.org] ...this... [ynetnews.com] ...and of course this [aftabnews.ir] (you may need Google Translate for that last one.)
Mind you, the people quoted are, I suspect, quite Iranian.
But you know, maybe you just forgot to check "Post Anonymously"? ;)
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Insightful)
They're going to get nuclear weapons if there ISN'T a deal. Rejecting the deal will only assure it. At lease this deal gives us a chance to stall it, or maybe make some headway on becoming finally more friendly. You know "friendly," as in they're one of only two allies who can help to really fight Isis (the other being the Assad regime in Syria). "Friendly" as in WE FUCKING NEED THEM.
The only other option is to go to war with them and overthrow the government. And we saw how wonderfully that turned out in Iraq, didn't we?
So, are you going to add another state to the caliphate or deal?
Rejecting assured it sooner (Score:3, Insightful)
Just what did you think Iran was going to do with all the money that floods into the country after sanctions are lifted? A fleet of Ice-Cream trucks? Infrastructure for the people that constantly demonstrate against the ruling regime?
No, that money is going to go into full scale nuclear weapon development. You'll see in a year or so.
Re: (Score:2)
If they're really that determined, they're going to get nukes anyway. At least this way they can use some of that money to fight Isis.
Re:Rejecting assured it sooner (Score:4, Informative)
"If they're really that determined, they're going to get nukes anyway. At least this way they can use some of that money to fund Isis." (for various values of militant Islamic nutjobs)
FTFY.
No, that's not fixed. Iran is spending a ton of resources right now fighting Isis. Iran is Shia, Isis is Sunni. They're going to be violently opposed to each other until this 1400+ year Islamic civil war ends (good luck with that). Iran and Isis aren't friends, and over there, unlike the US, they believe that "The enemy of my enemy... is still my enemy."
Re: (Score:3)
Why not just do a little bit of research... just a tiny fucking bit, before spewing shit like that? You understand that when people are as ill informed as you, they make perfect puppets for war-mongering profiteers, right? Or are you somehow also invested in that game?
Re: (Score:3)
I know, Iran has been two years away from a bomb for almost 20 years now!
Re: (Score:3)
You'll see in a year or so.
Israeli prime ministers have been making this claim for decades. The year keeps passing and still it hasn't happened. US intelligence agencies keep reaffirming their conclusion that Iran has no nuclear weapons program, please provide us a clarification of how you know better than them.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They're going to get nuclear weapons if there ISN'T a deal.
If Obama would stop warning the Israelis off of bombing the shit out Iranian enrichment plants (and actively denying them airspace travel through Iraq to do it), this whole question would have been settled long ago.
Re: (Score:2)
If Obama would stop warning the Israelis off of bombing the shit out Iranian enrichment plants (and actively denying them airspace travel through Iraq to do it), this whole question would have been settled long ago.
Only if the question is "How do we even further destabilize the middle east, and possibly start WWIII?"
Re:Not gonna happen (Score:5, Informative)
No kidding. BTW it's not just President Obama who has stopped war with Iran. During the Bush administration the US military prevented the Bush administration from doing it.
http://thinkprogress.org/secur... [thinkprogress.org]
"Admiral William Fallon, then President George W. Bush’s nominee to head the Central Command (CENTCOM), expressed strong opposition in February to an administration plan to increase the number of carrier strike groups in the Persian Gulf from two to three and vowed privately there would be no war against Iran as long as he was chief of CENTCOM.
Fallon’s resistance to the proposed deployment of a third aircraft carrier was followed by a shift in the Bush administration’s Iran policy in February and March away from increased military threats and toward diplomatic engagement with Iran. That shift, for which no credible explanation has been offered by administration officials, suggests that Fallon’s resistance to a crucial deployment was a major factor in the intra-administration struggle over policy toward Iran."
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly, but compare the two options from Israel's POV: destroy their nuke capability and risk a conventional war with that country, or let it continue unabated and get wiped out by the same country - incidentally the same country which has officially and loudly vowed to destroy you multiple times.
Re: (Score:3)
Risk a conventional war with *everyone* you mean. No one in the region is just going to sit back after Israel does a first strike act of war. The US isn't going to be backing up Israel either, the public support for their shennanigans is drying up.
Re:Good God... (Score:5, Insightful)
Neville Chamberlain's hands were tied by the unwillingness of his people to go to war for Czechoslovakia. Condemn the man all you want; as the leader of a democracy his policy choices were constrained by public opinion, just as BHO's are. Do you think you could have done better in Chamberlain's hands? British and French policymakers couldn't sell their peoples on a war in 1936, when Hitler first telegraphed his intentions [wikipedia.org], despite the fact that Germany had no army worthy of the name and would have been curb stomped by the Franco-British Alliance.
This may turn out to be a bad deal, I'm skeptical that Iran can be trusted, but the political reality of the situation is there's no appetite in the United States (let alone the rest of the West) to go to war over what the Iranians might do. Check back in 20 years to find out if BHO managed to thread the needle better than Chamberlain.
Didn't have to be a war (Score:2, Insightful)
All we had to do, was simply not lift the sanctions.
That was it. All we had to do was LITERALLY NOTHING, and they still fucked it eight ways from sideways.
The new agreement guarantees Iran will have plenty of money to finish up work on shine new nuclear weapons and improve the ICBMs they already have (oh, you thought any kind of nuclear agreement would be linked to getting rid of ICBMs with no other purpose than nuclear weapon delivery? HA HA HA HA HA).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Your strategy worked so well with North Korea -- orders of magnitude poorer than Iran so they clearly have no capability to build a bomb! Yes, a nuclear power persistently antagonizing a country without any willingness to negotiate is sure going to convince that country not to build the only sure defense and the only sure way to bring the world to the table.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Didn't have to be a war (Score:4, Informative)
Um in case you didn't notice, Ahmadinejad is not longer president of Iran
Re: (Score:3)
We just needed to have held out a few days longer... The whole thing with Cuba is 100% political. We have economic ties with Vietnam and we *lost* a war with them, so why treat Cuba as the pariah? It's because Florida can help with political wins, and Florida is chock full of anti-Cuba people (first generation anyway, most of the second generation aren't nearly so rabid). It's like here in California, the older generation of Vietnamese immigrants are quick to call anyone who uses their parking space a d
Re:Didn't have to be a war (Score:4, Interesting)
The Iranian people are literally dancing in the street right now. Celebrating. Does anyone think that's because now they won't be building a nuke?
I would assume that's because now their economy will be much better off because of the lifted sanctions, and they know it.
Also because they know that long-term, no agreement probably means war, and that will be a kind of war with many casualties (bombing of cities, that kind of thing) as Iran is not an easy target.
Re: (Score:3)
"I would assume that's because now their economy will be much better off because of the lifted sanctions, and they know it."
Lots of iranians I know in europe are dancing in the streets too - and it's mainly because they believe that with the lifted sanctions the religious govt will cease to exist in short order and they can go home without fear of persecution.
Maybe, just _maybe_, Iran will have its first really democratically elected govt since the 1950s before the end of this decade.
Re: (Score:3)
This administration is following the play book of every previous administration, which is to try and 'fix' whatever is going on in middle East in the last couple of years of the president's second term.
I have low expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
British and French policymakers couldn't sell their peoples on a war in 1936
It's hard to convince people to go back to war when many of them are still healing from the last one.
Re: (Score:3)
Neville Chamberlain's hands were tied by the unwillingness of his people to go to war for Czechoslovakia. Condemn the man all you want; as the leader of a democracy his policy choices were constrained by public opinion, just as BHO's are.
At this point, BHO is legally barred from running again. Public opinion cannot influence his fate over the next 2 years. He has nothing tying his hands other than trying to work with the Senate in getting his foreign policy agenda pushed through. The difference between BHO at this point and Chamberlain in 1938 is night and day...
Re: (Score:3)
Waiting until war was inevitable also gave the west the moral high ground rather then now a days where bombing people on the other side of the world seems ordinary and preemptive war is looked on favourably. We are fast becoming the bad guys, at least morally and we're also harvesting the results in the middle east and perhaps soon at home. Good for the fascists who are salivating at the increasing police state.
Re: (Score:2)
Which won't change the underlying fact that there's no appetite in the United States for sustained military conflict.
Re:Good God... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, you are just uninformed
Fear is the mind-killer, if you let it lead you then you are just an animal, barely human
Re: (Score:2)
but those same people now think its ok for Iran to have a nuke??
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is ok to negotiate Iran onto a path that delays them from getting a nuke for the next 15 years, as opposed to the current path where, according to Netanyahu, they will have a nuke in the next year or two
This also opens the doors to interaction with other countries, reduces the influence of their hardliners and makes way for a less antagonistic Iran
Re: (Score:3)
"according to Netanyahu"
Whose own statements have been repeatedly undermined by leaked MOSSAD reports stating that Iran has neither the capabilities or wish to build nuclear weapons. - and those same reports pointed out that had Iran wished to build any, it could have many years ago as they've had more than enough highly enriched uranium onhand for a couple of decades.
Iran needs to be brought in from the cold. They have good reason for distrusting the west, even before a certain coup against a democraticall
Re:Do not believe Iran (Score:5, Informative)
The lack of follow through with NK in the Bush administration should be part of your discussion
You may also want to consider the state of the Iraqi nuclear program as a result of IAEA and UN treaties and observation in the 90's
In this case we actually were able to dissect the country, and despite the horrible warnings coming from the war mongers on the right, the IAEA program was completely effective
Re:Do not believe Iran (Score:5, Informative)
Here is the timeline on NK, do you just make shit up or are you gonna claim that CNN is part of a vast left wing conspiracy to call out your bull?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/29/... [cnn.com]
1998
August 31 - North Korea fires a multistage rocket that flies over Japan and lands in the Pacific Ocean, proving the North Koreans can strike any part of Japan's territory.
November 17 - The U.S. and North Korea hold the first round of high-level talks in Pyongyang over North Korea's suspected construction of an underground nuclear facility. The United States demands inspections.
1999
February 27-March 16 - During a fourth round of talks, North Korea allows U.S. access to the site in exchange for U.S. aid in increasing North Korean potato yields. U.S. inspectors find no evidence of any nuclear activity during a visit to site in May.
September 13 - North Korea agrees to freeze testing of long-range missiles while negotiations with the U.S. continue.
September 17 - President Bill Clinton agrees to ease economic sanctions against North Korea.
December - A U.S.-led international consortium signs a $4.6 billion contract to build two nuclear reactors in North Korea.
2000
July - North Korea threatens to restart its nuclear program if the U.S. does not compensate it for the loss of electricity caused by delays in building nuclear power plants.
2001
June - North Korea warns it will drop its moratorium against testing missiles if the U.S. does not pursue normalized relations with North Korea. It also says it will restart its nuclear program if there is not more progress on two U.S.-sponsored nuclear power plants being built in North Korea.
2002
January 29 - President George W. Bush labels North Korea, Iran and Iraq an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address. "By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger," he says.
October 4 - U.S. officials, in closed talks, confront North Korea with evidence that they are operating a nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 nuclear agreement. Specifically, the U.S. has proof that they are operating an uranium enrichment facility. North Korea admits that is has been operating the facility in violation of the agreement. The information is NOT made public.
October 16 - The Bush Administration first reveals that North Korea has admitted operating a secret nuclear weapons program in violation of the 1994 agreement. They have NOT, apparently, admitted having any nuclear weapons.
December 22 - North Korea says it has begun removing IAEA monitoring equipment from nuclear facilities.
December 31 - North Korea expels IAEA inspectors.
2003
January 10 - North Korea withdraws from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm curious, because all the information I can find seems to show the entire thing went into a rapid "build a nuke quick" tailspin only after Bush called them part of the Axis of Evil (not that I'm in any way defending NK)
I'm not actually trying to assign any blame... but it appears you've been called out and shown evidence of your claims being bullshit, and entirely avoided responding to them. What *was* Clinton
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, I keep hearing the comparison of Germany in 1938 to Iran today
That leads me to ask a few questions
How is it that Iran is comparable to a country that had been a economic leader in Europe for the prior several hundred years?
Germany had been a colonial empire, with militarily help colonies across the globe, is there any comparison to Iran's status?
Germany had just waged a global war a couple of decades prior, and had waged wars against other global superpowers over the prior few hundred years going back
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, I keep hearing the comparison of Germany in 1938 to Iran today
That leads me to ask a few questions
I might be able to help. Mind you, the comparisons aren't exact, but IMO close enough...
How is it that Iran is comparable to a country that had been a economic leader in Europe for the prior several hundred years?
Iran is and was an economic leader in its own region since 1979 at the very least.
Germany had been a colonial empire, with militarily help colonies across the globe, is there any comparison to Iran's status?
Yes. Iran sponsors and funds numerous terror organizations and activities across the globe at this time.
Germany had just waged a global war a couple of decades prior, and had waged wars against other global superpowers over the prior few hundred years going back to the Ottoman Empire, is there any comparison to the capabilities of Iran?
Globally/superpower-like? No. However, it did endure an 8-year-long war with what was then Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Google for 'Shatt-Al-Arab' (I believe that's the proper spelling). It was pretty big from the POV of the butcher's bill.
That
Re: (Score:2)
has stated numerous times over (even as recently as last week) that their policy is to annihilate a certain other country in the region
Check the translation. It's redrawing the map, which means the two-state solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, no.
reason #1 [slate.com]
reason #2 [memri.org]
reason #3 [ynetnews.com]
reason #4 (which obviously wasn't a translation error) [aftabnews.ir]
Re:Good God... (Score:4, Insightful)
"[Iran] did endure an 8-year-long war with what was then Saddam Hussein's Iraq"
That America backed [amazon.co.uk] by providing military intelligence and allowing Iraq to fly the Stars and Stripes on its oil tankers (thus making any attempt by Iran to blockade Iraq an act of war against America). At the same time, America blew an Iranian civilian aircraft [wikipedia.org] out of the sky, lied about it not broadcasting on civilian frequencies and awarded medals [dailypress.com] to all sailors when the ship got back to port. Meanwhile, our erstwhile buddy, Saddam, was using chemical weapons [wikipedia.org] that we failed to condemn as he was fighting a country whose democratic government we had toppled in 1953 [google.co.uk] and who were "inexplicably" pissed with us. So, yeah, can't trust those Iranians.
"Iran sponsors and funds numerous terror organizations and activities"
And [wikipedia.org] America [wikipedia.org] doesn't? [wikipedia.org]
"Iran ... has stated numerous times ... that their policy is to annihilate a certain other country in the region, and do so by any means possible."
Aside from John McCain "joking" with his notorious "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" [youtube.com] song, everybody knows the "wipe Israel off the map" quote was a mistranslation that has been covered many times (see here [theguardian.com] for a reputable source). But don't take my word for it. If you still don't believe it, ask a Farsi speaker. There is not even an idiom in Farsi for "wipe off the map".
And before you call them biased and say that "they would say that", consider the political leanings of my Farsi speaking friends (and countless other Iranians who came to the West). Clue: they all left Iran in 1979.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that in 1938, Germany hadn't been an economic leader for about a generation. The Treaty of Versailles made sure of that.
Likewise, Germany hadn't had a colonial empire for a generation. Treaty of Versailles again.
Which made Germany in 1938 strictly a regional power (and not even much of one - France was still there, and the Polish Army was larger than the Wehrmacht). Which Iran is now. Different region, but a regional power nonetheless....
Re: (Score:2)
Cowardice. And groundless, too. There's no reason to believe that Iran would invite destruction by doing a first strike. That's completely delusional.
Re: (Score:2)
Thats pretty retarded. You seem to forgotten everyone else with nuclear weapons. What Iran could do with nuclear weapons is act in a way that would otherwise get them invaded. The weapon itself can't by used due to MAD.
Re:Iranian nuclear weapon in one year (Score:4, Insightful)
Kendall,
Sure, and will they use magical powers to prevent the retaliation from the hundred-odd nukes that Israel has?
Hardliners in Iran and Israel both use this issue to stay in power, the longer the status quo, the worse the jerks that get into office
No, they do not care (Score:2)
The people of Iran are innocent, and basically do not like the rulers of Iran. Why would Iron care if Israel nukes them back?
Besides, to start with at least it would be Hamas firing some Iranian nuclear weapons from Palestine. Do you know nothing about the middle east? So why would Israel have cause to attack Iran directly... and it's not like they can attack Palestine with a nuclear weapon.
It's sad how many have a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation.
Re:Iranian nuclear weapon in one year (Score:5, Informative)
Iran has been 6 months away from a bomb for the past 20 years.
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com... [blogspot.com]
Re:Iranian nuclear weapon in one year (Score:5, Insightful)
Attack with an Iranian weapon in 1.5 years.
Attack with an Iranian weapon Iran will admit to responsibility for, in four years (they want time to stockpile more than a few nukes before going on a full offensive).
Read it and weep. A thousand centrifuges in an un-killable under-mountain facility. Once sanctions are lifted they would take a long time to restart, so even IF you catch Iran cheating you can do nothing now to stop the inevitable.
If I lived in a coastal community I would move out immediately.
I hope Iron Dome can be switched to "reflect".
Nothing like some irrational fearmongering to brighten your day.
What on earth does your mental model of Iranians look like?! A nation of genocidal suicide bombers??
You know how many wars Iran has launched since 1979? Zero.
You know who does the suicide bombings? Not Shias, the dominant religion in Iran.
Yes their human rights record sucks, yes the probably want a Nuke or at least some practical Nuclear expertise to deter attacks from Israel or the US. But they're not cartoonish supervillians and I have no idea what evidence you're basing your predictions on. Healthy relations between the US and Iran is a good thing for everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
If McCain and whatever her name was, had been elected then then song would have been, 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran'
Thankfully the American voters did not see it that way, it is a real bummer that most do not vote on off-year electins and we got stuck with a bunch of regressive war-mongering gopers this last election
Re: (Score:3)
So ya, we claim that Iran has said they want to destroy us. However Iranians remember us singing that stupid song, they've heard the politicians asking to destroy Iran, and they've read all the boneheaded articles on Slashdot wanting to destroy Iran. So at the same time back in Iran they're trying to fan the flames of the hotheads there by saying "See, the US has said they want to eliminate us as a country!"
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone for a one-way ticket to Mars, now?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but anybody using images from Newsmax has pretty much admitted to being flamebait
Re: (Score:2)
Re:One sided, just a little? (Score:5, Informative)
Obama can't make treaties with other nations, the Constitution says so [wikipedia.org].
The president is authorized to negotiate treaties, they're just not binding until ratified by the Senate. A variety of presidents, both Republican and Democrat, have negotiated treaties that failed to be ratified by the Senate. What we have so far isn't even an unratified treaty, it's just a framework agreement of things that might go in a treaty that is still to be negotiated.
Existing sanctions weren't really keeping them from developing a bomb, so that really left us four choices:
1) Ignore the situation until they get around to having a bomb.
2) Attempt to increase sanctions, even though many international partners probably won't play ball, in the hope that they'll suffer an internal revolt.
3) Military action, either bombing or an invasion. The goal being to either destroy their facilities or overthrow their regime.
4) Negotiation, in order to delay their efforts, re-integrate them into the international community and influence their regime using soft power to change the attitudes of their citizens and leadership over time.
One is stupid, two probably won't work since everyone wants Iran's oil and several countries will ignore the sanctions while many more will refuse to increase them. Nearly 74% of Americans favor stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons however only 29% support direct military action in order to prevent it, at the same time 56% support easing of some sanctions in return for restrictions & inspections of Iran's nuclear program even if that doesn't end it completely. It seems to me that the president is following the will of the people quite accurately.
I'm pro-military and I served in Marines. I have no problem with military intervention if that becomes necessary but it's stupid to go that route without at least trying to negotiate our way out of the problem first. Sure, we could flatten them if we were willing to pay the price but that sort of action isn't free in dollars or lives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno what moron upmodded your post, but FYI, there are Christians in Iran. They're frequently persecuted, but they do exist, and are growing rapidly in numbers [wikipedia.org]