Why do people oppose a nuclear arrangement with Iran?

Why can’t we just hug and make peace with everyone…

Well, the arrangement is only good for 10 years, and it does not allow for inspection of all their facilities. Iran is funding Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as being linked to ISIS and Al Queda. In short, they are linked with funding terrorist activities. Russia will have decreased influence in the region making Putin even more desperate than he already is.

Worst case: Releasing sanctions will increase the money flow to a regime that is already funding terrorism, which will add fuel to the fire of the war that is already raging. In 10 years, the terms expire and they unveil the bomb they have been secretly building with their oil revenue.

Best case: Iran with their improved world standing enters the modern age of Western style diplomacy. They abandon their nuclear program, stop funding terrorist organizations, turn into a liberal democracy, and become a major tourist destination.

But seriously, does anybody see the best case ever happening?

Because it is a fact, and Iran has made it extremely clear, that they want to blow Israel and the United States off the map.

Because if you have an established treaty, it becomes harder to justify an unprovoked invasion.

I personally oppose allowing Iran any nuclear capability at all because it is a proclaimed fundamentalist theocracy. I can’t think of anything more dangerous than a government guided by psychos who may decide to destroy the infidel, even at the price of their own annihilation, in order to please their God and fast-track themselves to heaven. If an “arrangement” will slow this government down, I’m all for it and cannot understand why anyone in their right mind would be against it. But I’m in no way for accommodation. I can only hope that this isn’t another Munich, 1938 and John Kerry isn’t another Neville Chamberlain.

Like @ragingloli the only reason I can think of is that it makes the military option they prefer impossible.

The US doesn’t want to see Iran with a bomb is because Uncle Sam believes Iran will use it (just as Uncle Sam has) on Israel. Uncle Sam believing at least one part of scripture (since it certainly doesn’t believe any other parts) that those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse Israel will be cursed. The US will back no nukes for Iran because Israel doesn’t want it. Uncle Sam is not really concerned with getting hit by Iranian nukes, it is a convenient strawman that the parties of Twiddle Dee and Twiddle Dumb can use to justify some future airstrike (if they can do so without jacking prices up at the pump).

All the above comments are responsive. Thanks.
But I guess what I am getting at is, whatever you think about it, what are the alternatives to a deal with Iran that have a chance of any sort of good outcome.

Bomb the exposed facility? Accomplishes nothing.

Moving divisions through the ME or central Asia with nobody covering your rear or your flanks. No thanks.

What choice actually exists other than deal and hope for the best.

Just curious.

Those that are worried just need to spend a boat load on missle defense so if Iran decides to fire their nukes, the ICBMs will be swatted out of the air, and they will get slapped back with everyone else’s nukes. That is the solution, let them have them but make it very unprofitable to use them.

@Hypocrisy_Central
Putting the issue in terms of missile delivery is sort of (ho hum) 20th Century.
When it happens, it won’t be a missile.
9/11 proved that a spectacular event, without massive nuclear missile launches, can damage the routines and the economy of a seemingly invincible civilization.
The people that hate you learned this fact in an instant.
It isn’t missiles. It is the ability to build a nuke. Period.
So, my question stands.
What is the alternative with a nuclear ambitious country like Iran.

I am not following this issue that closely but from what I have heard in the news Iran claims it’s for electricity,whether the rest of the world believes them or not is another issue, but the countries that say NO!!!!
Can they not help, come up with another power source instead of nuclear at the same cost and say here use this instead????????????

As I mentioned above, for me it’s not the issue of a nuclear bomb, although that would be bad. For me it’s the issue that Iran is funding terrorist organizations and lifting sanctions gives them more money to fund them. You asked what should be done? Well, Iran needs to stop funding ISIS in Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas and renounce terrorism. Once they do that, then sanctions can be lifted.

If we want to talk about theocratic regimes that fund terrorism then we need to look at our BFFs, Saudi Arabia.

^ If we want to talk about theocratic regimes that fund terrorism then we need to look at our BFFs, Saudi Arabia.
Shhhhh shhhh….. That is a secret, the people of the US have forgotten that most of ther 9/11 attackers came from Saudi. We surely can’t piss them off or the prices go up at the pump or we will hacve to cow down to Iran for their{ oil.

“Diplomacy is the art of saying ‘nice doggie’ until you can find a rock.”—Will Rogers

I suppose it is possible that some who sincerely oppose this accord (as opposed to being mere obstructionists or having some other ulterior motive for opposing it) may fear that Iran is following Rogers’s advice.

As for me, I’m inclined to agree that there is no reasonable alternative to negotiation at this point.

@Darth_Algar Agree with you there.

@kritiper Israel wears big boy pants and can take care of themselves even if they like to pretend that they need the US to provide them with rocks and slingshots and play big brother. They also have a shit ton of nuclear warheads. Ask them if we can inspect their facilities and see how hard they laugh. They are not happy but, seriously, who gives a fuck.

And, can you really tell me with a straight face that Iran is a threat to the US??

I agree @josie, the choices are make a deal, even if it is only for a limited time; do nothing or annihilate them and we have neither the moral foundation nor moral fortitude to decimate an entire population because of the way their “leaders” act (at least I hope not). Look at where they are now and where they were during the Bush Admin. They have a shit pot more fissionable material, centrifuges, delivery systems and capabilities and all of our sanctions have not stopped this progress.

Perhaps being able to inspect, verify and respond might do a better job of stopping them from getting the bomb. Personally, I think doubtful but anything that delays them long enough to give possible regime change a chance is a good thing in my book. As I said, what we are doing now is not stopping them and the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Also, Iran is America’s ‘battle-buddy’ right now in an offensive in Iraq. Yes, folks, you heard right. Iran and the US military are currently cooperating in Iraq in fighting IS.

http://en.annahar.com/article/168155-irans-supreme-leader-backs-cooperation-wion-with-us-as-part-of-the-fight-against

All that hate pointed in all those different directions makes for some astonishing bed-fellows.

I agree with you @josie; I think it is our only option. I am not opposed to it.

The sanctions were having an impact and I don’t see any advantage to cutting a deal that merely validates their nuclear program. No body wants to go to war, that is not a viable option. Hell, it won’t be a viable option even if Iran detonates a nuclear bomb (in Israel most likely). Frankly even the idea of Regime change isn’t very appealing given the history in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Yemen. Things only deteriorate when that happens.

The likely scenario for us is that Iran gives one of the various terrorist groups a bomb and they bring it to NY or some such place and detonate it. Iran claims ignorance the terrorists claim success, and we scream and yell and wave our hands violently in the air while cleaning up the mess.

I would rather continue the sanctions until Iran abandons it’s nuclear ambitions. Maybe they will and maybe they won’t but at least they will be operating with less money in the mean time. Negotiations are fine but we need to get some relief or there’s no point in cutting a deal.

@Jaxk Given that Iran will NEVER give up their nuclear ambitions I think the best we can do (other than just getting the F out of Dodge and letting the Middle East take care of it themselves) is at least get an inspection deal going and try to put the brakes on and slow down development.
With the working sanctions Iran went from 100 centrifuges to 10,000 at their Natanz plant Source. With the new arrangement they will cut this number back to 5000. I would say that, while not perfect, it at least reduces the number of operable centrifuges, something the sanctions have not done evidently even with the supposed lack of funds.

@rojo – Given your baseline that Iran will NEVER give up the nuclear program, there is nothing that can be done. I’m not sure that is a good baseline to start with. Once the deal is cut, there is little chance of ever reinstating the sanctions. We had a deal for inspections with Iraq as well. Saddam merely threw the inspectors out. There is no question that the whole situation is fraught will danger but I would hate to see another 9/11 with nuclear weapons. It looks like Obama will take what ever he can get. It sounds like you agree. I wish I had more faith in Obama’s judgment but maybe we’ll get lucky and the Middle East will blow themselves up.

Kind of my way of thinking @Jaxk. The way I see it, like it or not Iran will/does have the bomb. Israel has a bunch of them. Saudi Arabia is next, they have the cash and the US will support them to “balance” Iran. If Saudi A gets one then Turkey will have to have one and probably every other Arab state. In fact according to one Article , “Now, roughly a dozen are doing so and drawing up atomic plans. The newly interested states include Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, Yemen and the seven sheikdoms of the United Arab Emirates — Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Al Fujayrah, Ras al Khaymah, Sharjah, and Umm al Qaywayn. ‘They generally ask what they need to do for the introduction of power,’ said R. Ian Facer, a nuclear power engineer who works for the I.A.E.A. at its Vienna headquarters.”

So it is not a matter of if we are looking at a future radioactive wasteland where the Middle East used to be, but when.

But hey, it is not all gloom and doom. M.A,D. worked for the US and USSR.

@rojo – Sounds like paradise. Remember that MAD only works if the countries involved don’t want the destruction. I don’t think that applies in this case.

It isn’t that anyone is opposed to a settlement with Iran. It is clear that the country is determined to acquire the bomb, even at the price of economic ruin. The truth is that Iran is desperate to get the sanctions lifted. There is great pressure on the government from the civilian population and business sectors, both strangling under sanctions. The authoritarian government calculates (correctly) that the repressive machinery refined over the past 40 years is more than adequate to smother the possibility of civil uprising against the regime.

This being said, it is a mistake to conclude that Obama is “giving away the store.” It is far more accurate to state that he is “buying time”. And it is frankly rather refreshing, that we have someone at the wheel who can think on his feet There’s an AWFUL lot to think about when it comes to Iran. First of all, if the country is indeed determined to acquire the bomb NO MATTER WHAT, the question arises: What are the consequences if we proceed to drive Iraq to economic implosion. What happens to all of that “research” stuff and the technicians wielding it? Since the current turmoil in the region is undeniably the result of the stupid decision to invade Iraq, how does a weak or disintegrating Iran improve things in the region? Who else is is left to sit on ISIS (the creature of our creation)?

@Jaxk I am not clear why you think my baseline comment is incorrect. Have the Iranians done a single thing to make you think they would be willing to give up their stated aim of having a nuclear program? If so, what do you think they are actually angling for; using the threat of it to gain what?
And, I think your claim that the inspections in Iraq might be a little tainted by patriotic fervor. Yes, he threw the inspectors out after we embedded spys in with the inspectors (another source) And there are sources that contend that the inspections were working but that the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush Cabal chose to ignore them or downplay them in order to further their aim of regime change. I know it has been a while but recall that Hussein was our patsy for a long time and we were fine with allowing him to be dictator for life, jailing, torturing and gassing the Iraqi people, until he sought to impose his own agenda and not that of the US. Then, and only then, did we become concerned about the abuse of human rights. Iraq was the US proxy army charged with containing Iran and the seemingly never-ending war drained the resources, both financial, materialistic and human, of both countries.
The US record in the Middle East is one of repeated attempts and failures all based on the use of or threatened use of force. This has not worked in any lasting fashion. Can you point to a single way that what we have done in the Middle East over the last twenty years has made it safer here in the US? I can not. I think we have made it worse for ourselves both in terms of possible terrorist actions on US soil and in the loss of personal liberties we have allowed the government to take from us in order to give us the impression that they are doing something along those lines.

Perhaps it is time to try a different approach.

Here is an interesting Time article by David Kiser that discusses our present Middle East policy and is pertinent to the original question.

Quote from the article regarding the effectiveness of sanctions such as those being applied to Iran :

“The Obama doctrine seems to represent an explicit, although vaguely stated, return to a policy of containment and deterrence, in the tradition of Kennedy and Nixon. It repudiates not only preventive war, but also the fantasy that economic sanctions can bring down or fundamentally alter hostile regimes. Our sanctions against Castro have lasted the whole of Barack Obama’s natural life, without result.” (Italics mine)

@rojo – If we are entering the discussion with Iran with the idea that we can’t stop the nuclear proliferation, why are we even doing it? You want to present the argument that Bush and Cheney are responsible for all this with their aim of Regime change but Obama has produced more regime change than anyone in history. He actively took out Gaddafi, He politically took out Mubarak, and he has tried to depose Assad. Meanwhile with his policy of ‘containment’ Yemen has also fallen. We’ve seen the rise of ISIS, Al-Qaeda-Arabian-Peninsula, Al-Shabaab, and a plethora of splitter groups. According to your own statements we can expect the entire region to be armed with nuclear weapons and likely they will be used. What exactly is Obama containing? The only country I can think of that he is even trying to contain is Israel.

“We’ve seen the rise of ISIS, Al-Qaeda-Arabian-Peninsula, Al-Shabaab, and a plethora of splitter groups.”

Yup, that sort of thing tends to happen when you go into a region, remove the stabilizing elements and create power vacuums.

Different points of view of the same facts I suppose @Jaxk. Obama is entering a discussion because it is better to be a part of the discussion and have some say rather than be completely left out with none. And, if we can talk our way through rather than fight then even better.

My argument with Cheney/Bush was that they came into office with that (regime change) in mind, not who did more or less of it. And, I agree, that Obama has pursued the same course of action regarding our way of dealing with Arab nations as we have for the last umpteen years and, as you said, look what it has gotten us. My opinion is that it matters not who is at the helm if the policies remained the same. A Republican president would have followed the same course of action.

Yemen was not a containment issue as you indicate. We were once again supporting a repressive regime; providing weapons and intelligence to them and using them as proxy warriors in fight with militant groups of our own making. You cannot actively lob drone missiles at someone and call it containment. ISIS is a result of our past policies just as the Houthi are and the Taliban were and, in many respects just as Hamas and Hezbolla are. Hell, we even provide the weaponry for them either by giving it to “our allies” who drop it and run leaving it the enemy or by providing it to the corrupt regimes made up of those whose sole purpose is to increase their personal wealth and power and are not above selling those weapons to the enemy and many times by providing it, or the funding, directly.

Yes I believe that you will see much more nuclear capabilities in the Mid-East over the next decade spread over the entire region (if it survives that long) and yes, I don’t think there is a damn thing we can do to stop it but that doesn’t mean I would not rather have some kind of dialog going on and some kind of input no matter how limited.

As for Obama or the US containing Israel, that is laughable. Israel does what Israel want to do and damn the consequences to all other parties. They are like leeches; parasites sucking all they can from their host, the US, without providing any kind of benefit. Unless of course you consider bleeding and blood letting legitimate medical procedures; but most who entertained such fanciful thoughts died out a couple of centuries ago.

@rojo – I suppose you are right in that we’re looking at the same facts from different points of view but I can’t help but wonder if nuclear winter is what we can expect from being part of the discussion, how is that better? And better than what?

Your linked article says Obama is pursuing a strategy of containment and he has been using the drones. I’m not the one saying that, it’s your guy. If the drones prove it’s not containment, I don’t disagree since I don’t think Obama is pursuing any definable strategy at all, let alone anything previous president have done.

The Iranians are not stupid, they’re not suicidal and they’re not interested in kicking off World War III. They want nuclear weapons for the same reason any other nation does – protection. You don’t fuck with another nation that has nuclear arms. Since the late 1970s there’s bee a certain segment within the US government that’s had a hard-on for Iran. We’ve already waged one proxy war against them, and there are folks (my Representative in the US Congress is one of them) currently salivating at the idea of taking military action in Iran. I certainly don’t blame the Iranians for looking to take whatever steps they can to ensure that doesn’t happen.

@Jaxk You keep saying that Obama is my guy, I don’t know where you are getting that from. He is not my guy. Is he better than a Republican, any republican? Yes. Is he someone I am happy with as President? No. Did I vote for him? No. Why is he my guy any more than he is your guy. The Lesser of two Evils at best.

And, if Nuclear Winter is the best we can do with discussion, what is the best we can do without discussion. Talking costs us little. I don’t see what we have lost by trying. Unless you are willing to go ahead and make a radioactive glass slip-n-slide out of Iran now just as a warning to anyone else who is thinking of getting the bomb.

Besides, we can always offset any nuclear winter just by drilling, processing and using more oil.

@rojo – I think we’re missing each other again. When I said ‘your guy’ was referring to David Kaiser, the guy that wrote the NY Times article you posted a link to. The basic premise of his article was that the Obama doctrine was a policy of ‘containment’ and mirrored that of Kennedy and Nixon. I don’t see it that way but since you linked the article I assumed you agreed with the basic premise of the article. Ergo, your guy.

As for what we have lost by trying, we started talking with Iran to keep them from developing nuclear weapons, a noble goal. What we have now after months of int4ensive negotiations is the likelihood of most or all of the Middle Eastern countries with nuclear weapons. That seems to me to be a deterioration of the situation rather than improvement. I don’t see anyway that the situation could get worse but if Obama keeps trying I’m sure he’ll find a way.

@Darth_Algar – I don’t really agree that Iran won’t kick-off WWIII but let’s say your right and they really are responsible citizens of the Middle East. Are we equally sure of Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, Yemen? How about the Palestinians, we know they can be trusted to use restraint. How about the various terrorist groups? Seems to me that ISIS is doing everything possible to Kick-off WWIII. It’s what they want. Can we expect that once everyone has nukes that no one will give it to those guys. It looks to me like we are on the road insuring nuclear WWIII. I hope I’m wrong.

While I agree that sooner or later a mushroom cloud is in someone’s future ( and therefore everyone’s) the fact remains that the most rational, stable and promising nation in the region (excluding Israel & perhaps Turkey) is Iran. And here it is worth mentioning that Iran is MUCH more successful in recognizing and pursuing its interests than we have been when it comes to our own. To assert that Iran is seeking nukes to pass around is just plain silly on its face. If you are looking toward an upcoming nukefest, then I suggest a glance at Pakistan. Ask yourself: What is it about Iran, and Iran alone that compels the Israelis’ to declare it such a dire threat to their nation? Then ask yourself, how are the Israelis going to prevent Iran’s acquisition of a nuke? They have openly declared that they WILL NOT allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon. Even the Israeli tail can’t wag the stupid American dog into invading the place. Thanks to GW that particular stupidity is no longer viable politically. There is only ONE solution to Israel’s problem & it’s too horrible to contemplate. But you can bet THEY are thinking about it.

The idea that suddenly everyone and their brother is going to have nuclear weapons is, frankly, asinine. It’s good fear mongering though, and makes for good justification of continuing/amping up America’s aggressive military and foreign policy.

@stanleybmanly

” Ask yourself: What is it about Iran, and Iran alone that compels the Israelis’ to declare it such a dire threat to their nation?”

The Ayatollah Khamenei said “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated. 7/23/14. They have continually called for the annihilation of Israel. I think that may play some part in their concern about Iran having a nuclear bomb. They have also stated that the Palestinians should be armed as well as Israel. It’s not hard to piece together these statements to paint a fairly dire picture for the future of Israel.

It seems pretty significant that the Saudi’s are putting together a coalition to oppose Iran. The entire region is worried and it seems fairly clear that Iran wants to dominate them all. Pretend it’s not happening if you like. I can’t do that.

Saudi Arabia has been the biggest exporter of Islamic terrorism the world has seen. Should we really give a fuck about what they say to deflect attention away from themselves?

Pakistan, run by islamists, was harbouring Bin Laden (until he was murdered). They have nukes. Have not used them.

@Jaxk Everyone in the region has hateful things to say about Israel. It’s the ONE and only thing every regime in the neighborhood has in common, and certainly despite the clear hostility of the Saudis regarding Iran, you will never catch them countering any bad mouthing of anything Israeli. Vitriol against Israel is a guaranteed crowd pleaser anywhere Islamic.

Your faulting of Obama for failing to put the cat back into the box just won’t fly. You’re correct in stating that Iran alone is left to dominate the region. Iran is the undisputed winner in our war with Iraq. It wouldn’t make a nickle’s worth of difference who followed Bush. The truth of this was established well before Obama was elected, just as the unraveling of the region was assured well before GW announced to those gullible enough to believe it the infamous “mission accomplished”.

@stanleybmanly – You’re right in that Muslims hate Jews. So much so that any support of Israel no matter how slight would cause a revolt in most Muslim nations. There is nothing Israel could do to change that.

As for Obama we’ll have to disagree. The Middle East was fairly stable when Bush left office. Iraq was quiet and Al Qaeda in Iraq had pretty much thrown in the towel. Libya had given up on it’s nuclear program and the Iranians were unsettled. It wasn’t until Obama declared victory and pulled everyone out of Iraq and then proceeded to try and depose leaders of Libya, Egypt, and Syria that everything went to hell. Now the hounds of hell have been unleased and the left wants to blame it all on Bush. Bush is no hero in any of this but to suggest that Obama is clean simply doesn’t wash.

I suppose the fact that the withdrawl from Iraq was agreed to before Obama was in office is irrelevant?

@Jaxk Stop that! The characterization that Muslims hate Jews has about the same validity as the accusation that White folks are racist. Israel would like to frame the issue as one of antisemitism, but you’d be a fool to believe it. The resentment against Israel isn’t about race or religion, any more than the Sioux or Navajo feel aggrieved that the people claiming to own their land happen to be white.

It really is peculiar that you and I lived through these events, and yet differ so severely on FACTS. Obama deposed no one! And if you believed that Obama unleashed the hounds of hell by leaving, it might be prudent to question just who it was that deposited the dogs.

@stanleybmanly
Where did you get the idea that Muslims don’t generally hate Jews. In fact they do. If you don’t believe it, read the written and spoken words of prominent Muslim clerics in just about every country in the ME. You can start with our new negotiating buddie Iran (not really Middle East, but Muslim never the less).

@stanleybmanly
Well, let’s see. The coalition of Arab States attacked Israel the day after they declared independence. It hardly seems like enough time to build up much hatred. I suspect it was there before Israel. Also you may want to consider that the Jews didn’t exactly sneak in and capture the Arab lands, it was their homeland as well. I see very little in common with the American Indian issue. I will agree however that it is interesting that we see the same situation from severely different perspectives. BTW, the hounds of hell were not put there by Bush. They’ve been there for a very long time.

@Darth_Algar – The terms of our withdrawal were entirely Obama’s. I suppose we could speculate that if we had left a small residual force in place, the same thing may have transpired. But unfortunately we could also speculate that it would not have. However you wish to speculate, the actual events are entirely on Obama’s watch and his doing. I expect you to argue that Obama could not negotiate a ‘Status of Forces Agreement’ and that’s why we pulled everyone. If you do just remember that this whole thread is questioning Obama’s negotiating skills. His failure in Iraq hardly provides much confidence for Iran.

Okay. Let me state this as clearly as I can. It is WRONG to confuse opposition to Israel with hatred of Jews. They are NOT the same thing. Plenty of Jews are vehemently opposed to Israeli policies. If you fall for the nonsense that Palestinians are upset because Israelis are Jewish, if you believe THIS is what 60 years of conflict and resentment is about, then we’re too far apart for rational discussion.

@Jaxk

No, the withdrawal agreement, including deadline, was signed by Bush before Obama took office. If you wish to ignore the facts of the matter then I’m not sure what point there is in further discussion.

I would agree with both of you that there is no longer any rational discussion here. I will bow out of this and let everyone decide for themselves.

( I think that was the equivalent of sticking fingers in the ears and going ‘tra la la la la tralllla’ very loudly)

It is the conservative way.