What is wrong with the Iran nuclear deal?

It makes it harder for the warmongers to start a new war in the middle east.

Many people don’t trust the Iranians to do their part of the bargain.

It sounds good to me. I agree with @ragingloli that the warmongerers and Obama-haters just don’t want to see it succeed.

According to the nuclear experts in the US, the deal is very good. The devil in the details will be the monitoring and compliance. And as janbb said, the warmongers that haven’t learned anything from the other things we’ve done in the Middle East and the Obama-haters want it to get shot down. What a bunch of idiots. War with Iran would make Iraq look like a cakewalk.

Let’s see, the only opposition to this deal is from ‘War Mongers and Obama Haters’. Consequently there is no argument against it because anyone that does present a case is obviously an evil person with evil intentions. Certainly makes me want to jump in a present a case. I always love it when everyone is so open minded.

@Jaxk – I specifically asked this question in a way to encourage people to criticize it or provide a reason why I shouldn’t like it. Ignore the above posts and just provide some reasons why I should be concerned about this deal? Do you support the deal?

@Aster
And I am sure the Iranians feel the same way about the ‘Americans’.

The primary thing wrong with the “deal” is that Obama’s mark is on it. And as we were all told 7 years ago, NOTHING the man says or does is to be tolerated or accepted. If the man says “Good morning”, accuse him of lying to the American people. (after all, it’s afternoon somewhere).

Iran will not abide by it but, then again it doesn’t matter what agreement was reached or by whom that is what would occur. They will pursue and eventually have nuclear weapons.

@DoNotKnow – Fair enough. I am concerned but neither in favor nor opposed at this point. The truth is I don’t trust either Iran nor Obama, on this issue. If everything goes as planned, Iran will have a nuclear capability within 10 years with our blessing. I expect other countries in the Middle East, to justifiably ask for the same deal which will create a nuclear arms race in the most dangerous neighborhood on earth. Saudi Arabia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Yemen would all like to have the same nuclear capability. Of course some may not have the financial strength to do so but it wasn’t very long ago that Libya gave up their nuclear ambitions. So what could be worse than Iran having nuclear weapons? My first thought is ISIS. I would worry about the Palestinians but they don’t have the financial capability for even conventional weapons. So that’s the first concern.

Second would be that once Iran has their assets back, that becomes another $100 billion to fund their nuclear program or more terror wherever they want. They could quickly break the deal and do whatever they want. The snapback sanctions are a joke and would be almost impossible to reinstate, let alone reinstate quickly. With an additional $100 billion to finance their nuclear program they could be nuclear ready in a year, maybe less.

Finally, I don’t see Iran using a nuclear weapon on us or even Israel in the near term. I can see them giving a weapon to either Hamas, or maybe Hezbollah to use. That makes any retaliation much more difficult.

Obama tells us that this is the best deal he could get. That maybe true but I’m skeptical that it is the best deal possible. The whole deal is fraught with danger at a time when the whole region is tearing itself apart. I do wish we had held the sanctions in place a bit longer and tried for a dismantling of the entire program. Maybe that is a fools errand but I can’t see how it could have been worse.

@Jaxk I think you miss the point that the nuclear arms race has been a reality in the region ever since Israel STOLE the thing from its ally without so much as an “excuse me” from the the chumps who tolerated it. Now exactly what sort of signal does that send to Israel’s neighbors on the credibility of the United States? When you add the disgraceful spectacle of Pakistan openly playing this country for the fool that it is, there can be little mistake in the notion that if you want leverage with the first world, the most reliable method of approach is to secure a nuke. The thing that frustrates me most about the shortsighted dummies in the congress is that they have nothing better to offer than squeeze Iran economically til they break. No one bothers to ask “Then what?” Do you want another reason why the Bush decision to invade Iraq is the single greatest strategic blunder in this country’s history? It leaves Iran as the one stable country DOMINATING the region. The United States has no choice but to reach some accommodation with Iran if it is to have any determination on outcomes it deems favorable. There is of course the other route of leading the West in driving Iran to economic ruin, but just how beneficial would that be to the stability of the already seething region?

@Jaxk Nice post. Thank you.

It’s probably the best deal possible because we are no longer the dominant economic powerhouse that we were in the last century. We have no choice but to negotiate and compromise with the Russians and Chinese. There’s no way we can get everything we want; those days are over.

If Congress nixes the deal, Russian and China will not participate in sanctions again. There’s no way that sanctions by the U.S. and a few European countries will be able to put the hurt on Iran again.

@Jaxk: “If everything goes as planned, Iran will have a nuclear capability within 10 years with our blessing.”

Could you elaborate on why you can make this statement? What leads you to this conclusion – a conclusion that contradicts the “experts”? Is there something all of the inspectors and nuclear experts are overlooking?

I honestly haven’t read much about this deal, but from what I am reading, it appears to be amazing, but has angered the right in both Iran and the U.S. I’m looking for specifics in the deal that don’t deal with “trust” issues and personalities.

@Jaxk: “I do wish we had held the sanctions in place a bit longer and tried for a dismantling of the entire program.”

When you say “the entire program”, do you refer to the nuclear energy overall? Does this also mean that you believe the sanctions would eventually accomplish this, or you wish that the sanctions were held in place long enough to prepare for a military invasion of Iran?

@DoNotKnow – The deal is only for ten years. At the end of ten years the restrictions are lifted so that Iran can do whatever it pleases. During those ten years Iran is still enriching but to a lesser degree. They are also developing missile technology as well buying arms and missiles from Russia. If they do everything according to plan, at the end of ten years they only have to spin up their additional centrifuges gain enough fissile material for the bomb. Basically it’s a ten year development agreement.

Yes it means the entire nuclear program. Iran has it’s own domestic problems and if the sanctions remain their problems only get worse. I believe that if the sanctions remained long enough, their internal problems would create enough pressure to bring them back to the table with a whole new attitude. Nothing is certain but that’s what I think.

@stanleybmanly – I know you all want to blame everything on Bush but you still have to look at Libya, Egypt, and Syria as problems he did not create. Your guy did that. We invested a lot more into Iraq but also had a much better outcome as far as it went. Those other countries we gained nothing but trouble. The Middle East is in turmoil and we have to deal with what we’ve got. The finger pointing exercise won’t solve anything.

@bossob – I think you underestimate us. We are still the dominate country in the world today, both economically and militarily. When Obama took military action off the table, we lost a major bargaining chip. It doesn’t matter whether we would have ever used it or not, if Iran thought we might, that gives us more leverage for a better deal. IMHO

@Jaxk We have a better outcome in Iraq? What planet are you from. ISIS the people killed and injured? Yeah, frigging excellent.

@Jaxk You’re correct. The one time when Iran ran quickly from its nuclear aspirations was when they feared military intervention on the part of the United States. When it was clear that the U.S was ramping up to invade Iraq, the Iranian government was pretty much in panic that they might be next. What the debacle in Iraq provided the Iranians was the realization that there would no longer be a viable military threat to Iran from the United States barring some appallingly stupid action on the part of Iran. And the acquisition of a nuke is just not perceived as enough to restore the political credibility necessary to render military action a believable threat. GW rendered the threat meaningless in the face of domestic politics, from a distrusting and thoroughly disillusioned electorate. The bigmouths in the congress can bluster all they want, but that single fkup in Iraq was probably enough to keep the white house elephant free for 20 years, and Iran knows that Obama is aware of it

@Jaxk: “The deal is only for ten years.”

So, do you feel that no deal would have been better? Haven’t we been working on trying to get a deal for more than a decade, all the while more centrifuges have been built? It’s my understanding that the sanctions haven’t slowed the nuclear development. Rather, it’s hurt the Iranian economy and helped really cement the idea that Iran is isolated and does need nuclear weapons. I could be wrong.

@Jaxk: “I believe that if the sanctions remained long enough, their internal problems would create enough pressure to bring them back to the table with a whole new attitude.”

My understanding is that there is no evidence for this. I haven’t read anyone that has claimed that the sanctions worked to slow nuclear development in any way. Why are you so optimistic about the outcome if the sanctions continued? It sounds like you are proposing that we should have done nothing, and just let it continue. In the meantime, we’d be guaranteeing yet more instability in the area.

[Naive question time…] Do you feel that Iran is a lost cause? Is it possible for Iran to be integrated into the world in such a way that progress is possible? If so, is continuing to cripple its economy through economic sanctions the best path here?

Anyway, thanks for your responses. It’s great to hear your perspective.

Frankly put, given the history I’d say Iran has more reason to be leery of us than we do of them. And yes, this deal is oppose by the war mongers because it makes it harder to for them to start a war with Iran. Sorry this upsets some, but it’s the truth. I know my own Congressman has been practically salivating at the thought of war with Iran. He’s been pounding that drum for months.

Why shouldn’t Iran trust us? We’ve only overthrown their government once. Don’t we get a second chance?

@DoNotKnow – Yes they have been busy building centrifuges but the sanctions are what brought them to the table. Between the expense of their nuclear program and the crippling economic sanctions they needed some relief. I still think that at some point they would have to make a choice between the two, they couldn’t tolerate both. As for their isolation, the Mullah’s did that themselves. Gaining nukes won’t solve that for them any more than it did for N.Korea.

I don’t think that the current regime in Iran can be brought into any peaceful cooperative. Their whole existence is based on creating turmoil and fostering hate and discontent. If they remain in power, there will be a showdown with Israel. If they have nuclear weapons, there is no way to tell how far they’ll go. I suppose we could blame FDR for authorizing development of Nuclear weapons but others were already trying it as well. We live in a dangerous world and the monsters just keep getting larger.

So the question isn’t really about nukes, it’s about the regime which we assume will wield them. Now when we recall that this is a regime for which (once again) we are directly and irrefutably responsible, it might be worthwhile to consider a more workable and pragmatic solution to unseating a very clever theocratic government sitting on an educated resentful highly secularized population which dreams of nothing more fervently than the artificial American lifestyle disseminated throughout the world. Should we threaten the place with economic or military destruction? How’s it working so far?

@stanleybmanly – I’d like to take all the credit for installing the Shah in Iran but I can’t. It was the British that were concerned about losing the oil revenue and it was the British that decided to replace Dr. Mosaddeq with the Shah of Iran. For our part, we helped significantly. Our involvement was to insure that communism, specifically the Soviet Union, did not gain power and influence. All that was more than 60 years ago and it is difficult to say how much affect it has on current affairs.

@Jaxk

Well the Shah was an immensely unpopular ruler in Iran, which led to the uprising against him in which the current regime came into power. So yeah, it’s had a not insignificant affect on our current situation.

And what @stanleybmanly says is correct. I use to chat quite a bit with a guy who lived in Iran. The majority of Iran’s population is 40 and under and do not share the same views and values as the older generations do. They’re enamored with American culture, American entertainment and American lifestyles. They could be a potential ally down the road, but harsh sanctions (which will only hurt them, not Iran’s rulers) or military actions will surely turn them into an enemy.

Since Iranians are already chanting ‘Death to America’, I think we already have an enemy. I don’t see how there is something worse they could be chanting.

You think the occasional clip you see truly represents a nation of 78,000,000?

You seem to be arguing both sides of the coin here. They hate us because of the Shah and they love us for our western culture. I haven’t seen the love fest yet. If they can hold 320 million Americans responsible for what a few did 60 years ago then, yes I can take them at their word when they say ‘Death to America’.

No, I said the overthrow of their government and the installation of the Shah directly led to the revolution and the current regime gaining power. I also said that the younger generations don’t share the same ideas as the older ones (ie: those who were involved in the Islamic revolution) do. But go ahead and keep thinking that 78 million Iranians are all some collective hive mind.

@Jaxk Even you don’t seriously believe that the average or even a significant number of Iranians walk the streets chanting “death to America”. There is surprisingly little resentment among the people of Iran towards the United States, and certainly less than we deserve. And though the threat of communism may have been the flimsy excuse thrown up to ignorant Americans, the truth is that Iran under Mosadeq was the first and only true representative democracy in the region. There was no threat of communism in ANY Muslim country and the British KNEW it. But when Mosadeq nationalized the oil fields and deprived the British of all that practically free oil, Her Majesty’s government told its ignorant (yes it was true even then) and eternally gullible ally that Iran was enamored with communism and red as a stop sign. Once again, we who should have known better were duped into betraying our own interests. it was the CIA (with the British offering little other than applause) which utilized the very principles of his democratic society to topple Mosadeq and install the Shah.

And unlike we in the United States, the average Iranian has the sense to realize that the actions of a government may be at odds with those being governed.

We had our chance to gain support from the younger generation back in 2009 when they were protesting. We chose to ignore the popular uprising, that was begging for our support and instead support Ahmadinejad. Whether some segment of the populace likes us or not is irrelevant but what the government says is very relevant. We cut a deal with them to give them back $100 billion and they scream ‘Death to America’ and that doesn’t worry you just a little? It’s somehow OK because you spoke to an Iranian that said not all Iranians feel that way? I don’t know but I’m feeling just a little uneasy about it.

@Jaxk

It isn’t one segment of the population, it’s the majority. The folks who staged the revolution are getting old. They’re not going to be in power too much longer. The younger generations will be coming into power soon enough. We have the chance now to establish friendly relations or to make another couple of generations worth of enemies.

I’ve spoken to many Iranians and have known several of them for better than 40 years.

“I don’t see how there is something worse they could be chanting”.

They could be chanting “Let us Gay Marry America!” Would that not be worse?

And a sixty year timeframe is nothing, in the Middle East they are still fighting and killing over things that happened several hundred years ago.

—and lets not even mention the Irish who are still bickering over shit that happened in the 16–1700’s, or Southerners in the US who are still bitter at having to surrender in the War of Northern Aggression ca: 1861 – 1865—

One thing to keep in mind is that the deal is binding on both sides for ten years. After that the Iranians could start building weapons, but the rest of the world could reimpose sanctions.

Iran represents a potentially lucrative market. A funny thing happens when nations trade with one another. The enmity on both sides tends to diminish. One reason that the U.S. is getting along better with China than Russia is that trade with Russia is insignificant while trade with China is quite extensive.